3G1718 LABREL Golangco Case Doctrines

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DOCTRINES
San Beda College of Law / Atty. Golangco

3G 2017-2018
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
1. Francisco v. NLRC August 21, 2006

Brief facts: Petitioner was hired by Kasei Corporation as Accountant, Corporate Secretary, Liaison
Officer, and Acting Manager. Eventually, she was no longer paid her salary. Thus, petitioner did not report
for work and filed an action for constructive dismissal before the labor arbiter. Private respondents
averred that petitioner is not an employee of Kasei Corporation.
Doctrine: There are instances when, aside from the employer’s power to control the employee with
respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished, economic realities of the
employment relations help provide a comprehensive analysis of the true classification of the individual,
whether as employee, independent contractor, corporate officer or some other capacity.
Thus, the determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends upon the
circumstances of the whole economic activity, such as: (1) the extent to which the services performed are
an integral part of the employer’s business; (2) the extent of the worker’s investment in equipment and
facilities; (3) the nature and degree of control exercised by the employer; (4) the worker’s opportunity for
profit and loss; (5) the amount of initiative, skill, judgment or foresight required for the success of the
claimed independent enterprise; (6) the permanency and duration of the relationship between the worker
and the employer; and (7) the degree of dependency of the worker upon the employer for his continued
employment in that line of business.
2. Sonza v. ABS CBN, June 10, 2004

Brief facts: In May 1994, respondent ABS-CBN signed an Agreement with the Mel and Jay Management
and Development Corporation (MJMDC). ABS-CBN agreed to pay for SONZAs services a monthly talent
fee of P310,000 for the first year and P317,000 for the second and third year of the Agreement. ABS-CBN
would pay the talent fees on the 10th and 25th days of the month. On 30 April 1996, SONZA filed a
complaint against ABS-CBN before the DOLE. SONZA complained that ABS-CBN did not pay his
salaries, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, signing bonus, travel allowance
and amounts due under the Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP). ABS-CBN filed a Motion to Dismiss
on the ground that no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.
Doctrine: There is no employer-employee relationship beween petitioner and ABS-CBN. Applying the
control test to the present case, we find that SONZA is not an employee but an independent contractor.
This test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the supervision
and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The converse holds
true as well the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is considered an independent
contractor. ABS-CBN did not assign any other work to SONZA. How SONZA delivered his lines,
appeared on television, and sounded on radio were outside ABS-CBNs control. SONZA did not have to
render eight hours of work per day. The clear implication is that SONZA had a free hand on what to say or
discuss in his shows provided he did not attack ABS-CBN or its interests.
3. Javier v. Flyace Corp. Feb 15, 2012

Brief Facts: Javier filed a complaint before the NLRC for underpayment of salaries and other labor
standard benefits. Fly Ace denied that Javier is its employee and averred that it was engaged in the
business of importation and sales of groceries. Javier was contracted by its employee, Mr. Ong, as extra
helper on a pakyaw basis.
Doctrine: Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right
thereto. Hence, a person who claims to be an employee must establish such claim.
4. SMCEU v. Judge Bersamira (in Azucena)
1
3G 2017-2018
Brief Facts: Petitioner San Miguel Corporation Employees Union – PTWGO herein referred to as Union
entered into a CBA with private respondent San Miguel Corp. During the negotiations, petitioner Union
insisted that the bargaining unit of San Miguel Corp. should still include employees of the spun-off
corporations: Magnolia and San Miguel Foods Inc. (SMFI) and that the renegotiated terms of CBA shall
be effective only for the remaining period of two years. SMC, on the other hand, contended that the
members/employees who had moved to magnolia and SMFI automatically ceased to be part of the
bargaining unit at the SMC and that the CBA should be effective for 3 years in accordance with Art. 253-A
of the Labor Code. Unable to settle their differences, private respondents SMC, Magnolia and SMFI filed
a petition with the Sec. of Labor praying that the latter assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
Doctrine: Terms and conditions of employment cannot be questioned by the employers and employees
during the period of effectivity of the CBA. The framers of the law did not give the fixed term as to the
effectivity of the terms and conditions of employment. It can be gleaned from their discussions that it was
left to the parties to fix the period.
5. Locsin et. al. v. PLDT, October 2, 2009

Brief Facts: Petitioners remained at their post under the instructions of respondent even after the
termination of their Security Service Agreement. This, to our mind and under the circumstances, is
sufficient to establish the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Doctrine: The power of control, in this case, has been explained as the “right to control not only the end
to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end.” With the conclusion that respondent
directed petitioners to remain at their posts and continue with their duties, it is clear that respondent
exercised the power of control over them; thus, the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
6. People’s Broadcasting Service v. Sec of Labor, March 6, 2012
Brief Facts: Juezan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Bombo Radyo before DOLE Regional
Office. RD found that Juezan was an employee of Bombo and entitled to money claims. SC found that
there was no Er-Ee relationshop between Bombo and Juezan.
Doctrine: Under Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730, the DOLE is fully empowered
to make a determination as to the existence of an employer-employee relationship in the exercise of its
visitorial and enforcement power, subject to judicial review, not review by the NLRC.
If a complaint is brought before the DOLE to give effect to the labor standards provisions of the Labor
Code or other labor legislation, and there is a finding by the DOLE that there is an existing
employer-employee relationship, the DOLE exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of the NLRC. If the
DOLE finds that there is no employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is properly with the NLRC. If
a complaint is filed with the DOLE, and it is accompanied by a claim for reinstatement, the jurisdiction is
properly with the Labor Arbiter, under Art. 217(3) of the Labor Code. If a complaint is filed with the NLRC,
and there is still an existing employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is properly with the DOLE.
The findings of the DOLE, however, may still be questioned through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court.
7. Ymbong v. ABS-CBN, March 7, 2012

Brief Facts: Ernesto G. Ymbong worked for ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN at its
regional station in Cebu as a television talent which extended to radio when ABS-CBN Cebu launched its
AM station DYAB where he worked as drama and voice talent, spinner, scriptwriter and public affairs
program anchor. Leandro Patalinghug also worked for ABS-CBN Cebu as talent, director and scriptwriter
for various radio programs aired over DYAB. ABS-CBN head office issued Policy No. HR-ER- 016 (Policy
on Employees Seeking Public Office) requiring an employee (1) to resign if he intends to run for a public
position (2) to file a leave of absence if he intends to join a political group/party or even with no political
affiliation but who intends to openly and aggressively campaign for a candidate or group of candidates
(e.g. publicly speaking/endorsing candidate, recruiting campaign workers, etc.) Dante Luzon, Assistant
2
3G 2017-2018
Station Manager of DYAB issued a memorandum stating that those who intend to run shall file a leave of
absent not consonance with the Policy. Ymbong then file a leave of absence although he ran for a public
office. Patalinghug filed a resignation. Unfortunately both lost in the election. They then tried to go back to
work with the ABS. However, they were only allowed to wind up their programs. After such, they were
informed of their automatic termination because of the policy. Ymbong filed complaint for illegal dismissal,
in contrast contended that after the expiration of his leave of absence, he reported back to work as a
regular talent and in fact continued to receive his salary; the ground cited by ABS-CBN for his dismissal
was not among those enumerated in the Labor Code, as amended; and the company policy violates his
constitutional right to suffrage. In their defense, complaints arguing that there is no employer-employee
relationship between the company and Ymbong and Patalinghug. ABS-CBN contended that they are not
employees but talents as evidenced by their talent contracts.
Doctrine: A company is estopped from denying the existence of employer- employee relationship after
applying a company policy to all its employees including those under talent contracts.
8. Professional Services v. CA, February 11, 2008

Brief Facts: Agana was admitted at Medical City because of difficulty of bowel movement and bloody
anal discharge. Dr. Ampil diagnosed her to be suffering from "cancer of the sigmoid." Operation was
flawed.
Doctrine: In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor-physician.
There is, however, an exception to this principle. The hospital may be liable if the physician is the
"ostensible" agent of the hospital.
9. South East International Rattan Inc. v. Coming, March 12, 2014
Brief Facts: Jesus Coming was hired as a Sizing Machine Operator by respondent. His work schedule
was from 8am to 5pm and he was paid weekly. Sometime in 1990, he was terminated because the
company was not doing well financially. He filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal against herein
petitioner. Petitioner denies the existence of Er-Ee relationship, stating that respondent was not included
in the list of employees submitted to the SSS.
Doctrine: Payroll not conclusive proof of existence or absence of Employer-Employee relationship.
10. Tenazas et. al. v. R. Villegas Taxi Transport, April 2, 2014.
Brief Facts: Tenazas et al. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents and alleged that
they were hired on a boundary system but was later on fired by respondents. Tenazas alleged that the
taxi unit assigned to him was sideswiped by another vehicle causing a dent on the same near the driver’s
seat. When he reported the incident to respondents, he was scolded instead and was told that he is
already fired. Despite the warning, Tenazas reported for work on the following day but was told that he
can no longer drive any of the company’s units as he is already fired.
Doctrine: In determining the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court has
consistently looked for the following incidents, to wit: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to control the
employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The last element, the so-called
control test, is the most important element.
11. Begino v. Abs-cbn, April 20, 2015.

Bried Facts: ABS-CBN employed Begino and Del Valle sometime in 1996 as Cameramen/Editors for TV
Broadcasting. Sumayao Avila-Llorin were similarly engaged as reporters sometime in 1996 and 2002,
respectively. [hereinafter referred to as petitioners] Petitioner were engaged through Talent Contracts
which, though regularly renewed over the years, provided terms ranging from three (3) months to one (1)
year. Petitioners were given Project Assignment Forms which detailed, among other matters, the duration
of a particular project as well as the budget and the daily technical requirements thereof. In the aforesaid
3
3G 2017-2018
capacities, petitioners were tasked with coverage of news items for subsequent daily airings in
respondents’ TV Patrol Bicol Program.The Talent Contract specified the absence of employer-employee
relationship between the parties and mandated compliance with the professional standards of ABS-CBN
and its policies and guidelines as well as the rules of KBP. It also prohibited the petitioners from engaging
in similar work for persons or entities in direct or indirect competition with ABS-CBN. Petitioners’
compensation were termed as Talent Fee’s and were results oriented in nature, thus petitioners were not
required to observe normal working hours.Claiming that they were regular employees, petitioners filed a
complaint against ABS-CBN before the NLRC S- RAB Naga City.
Doctrine:Exclusivity Clause and Prohibitions in talent contracts are indicative of control by the employer if
it does not concern well-known television and radio personality who can legitimately be considered as
talent and compensated as such.
12. David v. Macasio, July 4, 2014

Brief Facts: Macasio worked for petitioner David on a “pakyaw” basis. The former filed a complaint for
non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave against petitioner.
David said Macasio is not entitled because he is not his employee.
SC: Macasio’s relationship with David satisfies the four-fold test, therefore, he is an employee.
Doctrine: Engagement in a “pakyaw” or task basis does not negate the existence of employer-employee
relationship.
13. Chevron Phils. v. Galit, October 7, 2015

Brief Facts:Ymbong worked for ABS-CBN as drama and voice talent, spinner, scriptwriter and public
affairs program anchor. Ymbong then file a leave of absence although he ran for a public office.
Patalinghug filed a resignation. Unfortunately both lost in the election. They then tried to go back to work
with the ABS. However, they were only allowed to wind up their programs. After such, they were informed
of their automatic termination because of the policy.
Doctrine: There exists employer-employee relationship based on the appointment letters/talent contracts
imposed conditions in the performance of their work, specifically on attendance and punctuality, which
effectively placed them under the control of ABS-CBN. A company is estopped from denying the
existence of employer- employee relationship after applying a company policy to all its employees
including those under talent contracts.
14. Manila Memorial Park v. Lluz, (2016 case)

Brief Facts: Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. entered into a Contract of Services with Ward Trading
and Services as an independent contractor. Respondents sought regularization and other benefits.
Petitioner argue that the respondents were the employees of Ward Trading as the latter has sufficient
capitalization to be qualified as legitimate independent contractor.
Doctrine: The Principal shall be deemed an employee where there is labor-only contracting. There is
"labor-only" contracting where the person supplying workers to an employer does not have substantial
capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the
workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the
principal business of such employer.
15. Diamond Farms v. Southern Federation of Labor Workers, January 13, 2016 (also applicable to
Certification Elections)
Brief Facts: DFI owns 800 hectare banana plantation which was covered by CARL. DAR granted DFI a
deferment privilege to continue agricultural operations. Due to marketing problems and observance of lay
follow, DFI closed some areas of operation and laid off its employees. These employees petitioned DAR
for cancellation of deferment. DAR Regional Director recalled the said privilege. DFI then offered to give
its rights and interest in favour of the government which the DAR accepted but only as to
4
3G 2017-2018
689.88hectares.the area is subject to the outcome of appeal on cancellation of deferment privilege. It was
then turned over to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries who are the same farmers who were working in
the original plantation. They subsequently organized themselves as DARPMUPCO. They agreed to grow
and cultivate only high grade quality exportable bananas to be exclusively sold to DPI. DFI engaged the
services of respondent-contractors, who in turn recruited the respondent workers. SPFL filed a petition for
certification of election in the office of Med-Arbiter.
Doctrine:The existence of an employer-employees relation is a question of law and being such, it cannot
be made the subject of agreement.
16. Lu v. Enopia et al., March 6, 2017

Brief Facts: Respondents were hired as fishing mother boat owned by petitioner. They have an
income-sharing agreement and also share in the expenses for the maintenance of the boat. Lu then
presented to the respondents a Joint Venture Agreement but the latter refused to sign the same. They
were later on dismissed from employment prompting them to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. Lu
opposed the action alledging that employer employee relationship does not exist on the gorund that they
were not hired by him but by the master fisherman.
Doctrine: The date of the SSS remitted contributions coincided with the date of respondents' employment
with petitioner. Thus, the fact that petitioner had registered the respondents with SSS is proof that they
were indeed his employees. The coverage of the Social Security Law is predicated on the existence of an
employer-employee relationship.
17. Weslayan University Phil v. Maglaya Sr. Jan. 23, 2017 (also related to Article 229, new
numbering)
Brief Facts: Maglaya, the president of WUP was terminated as such to give way to the new appointee of
the Bishops. He filed an illegal dismissal and contended that he was merely an employee and not a
corporate officer despite his title.
Doctrine: The alleged "appointment" of officer instead of "election" as provided by the by-laws neither
convert the president of university as a mere employee, nor amend its nature as a corporate officer.
18. Nestle Phil. v. Pineda et al., Jan. 30, 2017
Brief facts: Respondents alleged that on various dates, ODSI (Otcho de Septiembre, Inc.) and NPI hired
them to sell various NPI products in the assigned covered area. After some time, respondents demanded
that they be considered regular employees of NPI, but they were directed to sign contracts of employment
with ODSI instead.
Doctrine: A closer examination of the Distributorship Agreement reveals that the relationship of NPI and
ODSI is not that of a principal and a contractor (regardless of whether labor-only or independent), but that
of a seller and a buyer/re-seller, hence respondents cannot be deemed employees of NPI.
19. Fallarma et al. v. San Juan De Dios, Sept. 14. 2016
Brief Facts: Despite having served as a faculty member since SY 2003-2004, they were asked to sign
and submit to a written contract specifying their status as probationary faculty members. After the
expiration of the contract, respondent college informed them that it would not be renewed. When they
asked on what basis their contract would not be renewed, they were informed that it was the school's
"administrative prerogative.”
Doctrine: Respondents were clearly remiss in their duty under the Labor Code to inform petitioners of the
standards for the latter's regularization. Consequently, petitioners ought to be considered as regular
employees of respondent college right from the start.
5
3G 2017-2018
ART. 212: DEFINITION OF LABOR DISPUTE
1. Citibank v. CA, November 27, 1998

Brief facts: Citibank hired security guards of El Toro who were then replaced by guards of the Golden
Pyramid Security Agency. El Toro considered the non-renewal of El Toro's service agreement with
Citibank as constituting a lockout and/or a mass dismissal.
Doctrine: Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over a claim filed where no employer-employee relationship
existed between a company and the security guards assigned to it by a security service contractor.
2. PAL v. NLRC, March 20, 1998

Brief Facts:Private respondents Pineda and Cabling are flight stewards of the petitioner. They were
instructed to attend an investigation by the Security and Fraud Prevention Sub-Department regarding an
April 3, 1993 incident in Hongkong at which Joseph Abaca, PAL’s Avionics Mechanic in Hongkong was
intercepted by the Hongkong Airport Police at the Kai Tak International Airport carrying a bag said to
contain some 2.5 million pesos in Philippine Currencies. Private respondents were administratively
charged. However, Mr. Joseph Abaca finally gave exculpating statements to the board in that he cleared
petitioners from any participation or from being the owners of the currencies. Nevertheless, both were
dismissed from the service for their alleged involvement in the April 3, 1993 currency smuggling in Hong
Kong. Aggrieved by said dismissal, private respondents filed with the NLRC a petition for injunction.
Doctrine: The NLRC shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by labor arbiters
as provided in Article 217(b) of the Labor Code. In short, the jurisdiction of the NLRC in illegal dismissal
cases is appellate in nature and, therefore, it cannot entertain the private respondents' petition for
injunction which challenges the dismissal orders of petitioner. Article 218(e) of the Labor Code does not
provide blanket authority to the NLRC or any of its divisions to issue writs of injunction, considering that
Section 1 of Rule XI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC makes injunction only an ancillary
remedy in ordinary labor disputes.
ARTICLE 212: MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE
1. Penaranda v. Bagong Plywood Corp, May 3, 2006

Brief facts: Peñaranda was hired as an employee of Baganga Plywood Corporation (BPC) to take
charge of the operations and maintenance of its steam plant boiler. Subsequently, Peñaranda filed a
Complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims.
Doctrine: Members of the managerial staff are those who customarily and regularly exercise discretion
and independent judgment. Members of the managerial staff are exempted from the provisions of the
Labor Code on labor standards. The Court disagrees with the NLRC’s finding that petitioner was a
managerial employee. However, petitioner was a member of the managerial staff, which also takes him
out of the coverage of labor standards. Like managerial employees, officers and members of the
managerial staff are not entitled to the provisions of law on labor standards.
2. SMCC v. Charter Chemical and Coating Corp., March 16, 2011
Brief Facts: SMCC filed a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file employees of
Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation with the Mediation Arbitration Unit of DOLE, NCR.
Respondent company filed an Answer with Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the petitioner union is
not a legitimate labor organization because of 1) failure to comply with the documentation requirements
set by law, and 2) the inclusion of supervisory employees within petitioner union.
Doctrine: After a labor organization has been registered, it may exercise all the rights and privileges of a
legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its
membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not among the grounds for cancellation of its
6
3G 2017-2018
registration, unless such mingling was brought about by misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under
Article 239 of the Labor Code.
3. Jumuad v. Hi-Flyer Food Inc., September 7, 2011

Brief facts: Jumuad, Area Manager of KFC was terminated for neglect of duty and breach of trust and
confidence. To be a ground for removal, the neglect of duty must be both gross and habitual. On the other
hand, breach of trust and confidence, as a just cause for termination of employment, is premised on the
fact that the employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence, where greater trust is placed
by management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly expected. The betrayal of this
trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.
Doctrine: As long as there is some basis for loss of confidence, such as when the employer has
reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct,
and the nature of his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of
his position, a managerial employee may be dismissed.
ARTICLE 224 (217): JURISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITER
1. People’s Broadcasting Service v. Sec of Labor, March 6, 2012 (DOLE can determine existence of
EE Rel and summary on 128, 129 and 217)
Brief facts: Private respondent Jandeleon Juezan filed a complaint against petitioner with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for illegal deduction and other monetary claims. The
DOLE RD found that private respondent was an employee of petitioner, and was entitled to his money
claims. The Court found that there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and private
respondent. It was held that while the DOLE may make a determination of the existence of an
employer-employee relationship, this function could not be co-extensive with the visitorial and
enforcement power provided in Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code
Doctrine: Under Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730, the DOLE is fully empowered
to make a determination as to the existence of an employer-employee relationship in the exercise of its
visitorial and enforcement power, subject to judicial review, not review by the NLRC.
If a complaint is brought before the DOLE to give effect to the labor standards provisions of the Labor
Code or other labor legislation, and there is a finding by the DOLE that there is an existing
employer-employee relationship, the DOLE exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of the NLRC. If the
DOLE finds that there is no employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is properly with the NLRC. If
a complaint is filed with the DOLE, and it is accompanied by a claim for reinstatement, the jurisdiction is
properly with the Labor Arbiter, under Art. 217(3) of the Labor Code, which provides that the Labor Arbiter
has original and exclusive jurisdiction over those cases involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and
other terms and conditions of employment, if accompanied by a claim for reinstatement. If a complaint is
filed with the NLRC, and there is still an existing employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is
properly with the DOLE. The findings of the DOLE, however, may still be questioned through a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
2. Ex-Bataan Veterans Security Agency v. Sec. Laguesma, November 20, 2007
Brief Facts: Private respondents are EBVSAI's employees who instituted a complaint for underpayment
of wages against EBVSAI before the Regional Office (RO) of DOLE. Consequently, RO conducted a
complaint inspection of EBVSAI’s Plant where several labor law violations were noted. On the same day,
the RO issued a notice of hearing requiring EBVSAI and private respondents to attend. After the hearing,
the Regional Director (RD) ordered EBVSAI to pay Php 763,927.85 to the affected employees.
7
3G 2017-2018
Doctrine: While it is true that under Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code, the LA has jurisdiction to
hear and decide cases where the aggregate money claims of each employee exceeds P5,000.00, said
provisions of law do not contemplate nor cover the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of
Labor or his duly authorized representatives. Rather, said powers are defined and set forth in Article 128
of the Labor Code.
3. Locsin v. Nissan Lease Philippines October 20, 2010 (Intracorporate dispute)
Brief Facts: Locsin was elected Executive Vice President and Treasurer (EVP/Treasurer) of NCLPI.
Locsin held this position for 13 years until he was nominated and elected Chairman. A few months
thereafter, an election was held and Locsin was neither re-elected Chairman nor reinstated to his
previous position as EVP/Treasurer.
Doctrine: The power of control, in this case, has been explained as the “right to control not only the end
to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end.” With the conclusion that respondent
directed petitioners to remain at their posts and continue with their duties, it is clear that respondent
exercised the power of control over them; thus, the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
4. Reyes v. RTC Makati Branch 42, August 11, 2008
Brief Facts: petitioner contends that the dispute involved is a mere nuisance or harassment suit which
lies outside the jurisdiction of the special commercial courts.
Doctrine: it is not the mere existence of an intra-corporate relationship that gives rise to an
intra-corporate controversy; to rely on the relationship test alone will divest the regular courts of their
jurisdiction. If the relationship and its incidents are merely incidental to the controversy or if there will still
be conflict even if the relationship does not exist, then no intra-corporate controversy exists.
5. Okol v. Slimmers World December 11, 2009

Brief facts: Slimmers World employed petitioner Leslie Okol (Okol) as a management trainee. Okol was
promoted as Head Office Manager and then Director and Vice President. She preventively suspended
which arose from the seizure by the Bureau of Customs of machines and treadmills to or consigned to
Slimmers World but the shipment of the equipment was placed under the name of Okol.
Doctrine: SC held that a corporate officer’s dismissal is always a corporate act, or an intra-corporate
controversy which arises between a stockholder and a corporation. The question of remuneration
involving a stockholder and officer, not a mere employee, is not a simple labor problem but a matter that
comes within the area of corporate affairs and management and is a corporate controversy in
contemplation of the Corporation Code.
6. Rural Bank of Coron v. Cortes, December 6, 2006
Brief Facts: Cortes was the VP of CDI and also the Financial Assistant, Personnel Officer and Corporate
Secretary of Rural Bank of Coron. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries and
other benefits against petitioner.
Doctrine: 1. While respondent was the Corporate Secretary of the Rural Bank of Coron, she was also its
Financial Assistant and the Personnel Officer of the two other petitioner corporations. A corporation can
engage its corporate officers to perform services under a circumstance which would make them
employees. The Labor Arbiter has thus jurisdiction over respondent’s complaint.
2. All that is required to perfect the appeal is the posting of a bond to ensure that the award is
eventually paid should the appeal be dismissed. Petitioners should thus have posted a bond, even if it
were only partial, but they did not.
7. Halguena v. PAL October 2, 2009
8
3G 2017-2018
Brief Facts: Petitioners were employed as female flight attendants of PAL. They are members of the
Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP), the exclusive exclusive
bargaining representative of the flight attendants. Section 144, Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA, provides
that: “3. Compulsory Retirement. Subject to the grooming standards provisions of this Agreement,
compulsory retirement shall be fifty-five (55) for females and sixty (60) for males. x x x.” petitioners and
several female cabin crews manifested that the aforementioned CBA provision on compulsory retirement
is discriminatory, and demanded for an equal treatment with their male counterparts. This demand was
reiterated in a letter. On July 12, 2004, Robert D. Anduiza, President of FASAP submitted their 2004-2005
CBA proposals and manifested their willingness to commence the collective bargaining negotiations
between the management and the association, at the soonest possible time. In 2004, petitioners filed a
Special Civil Action for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for the Issuance of TRO and Writ of Preliminary
Injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City against respondent for the invalidity of
Section 144, Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA. The RTC issued an Order upholding its jurisdiction over the
present case. The RTC reasoned that: The allegations in the Petition do not make out a labor dispute
arising from employer-employee relationship as none is shown to exist. This case is not directed
specifically against respondent arising from any act of the latter, nor does it involve a claim against the
respondent. Rather, this case seeks a declaration of the nullity of the questioned provision of the CBA,
which is within the Court's competence, with the allegations in the Petition constituting the bases for such
relief sought.
Doctrine: Not every controversy or money claim by an employee against the employer or vice-versa is
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. Actions between employees and employer where the
employer-employee relationship is merely incidental and the cause of action precedes from a different
source of obligation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular court.
8. Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew Management , July 10, 2007
Brief Facts: Santiago was not allowed to board vessel because if allowed to depart, according to wife, he
will jump ship in Canada like his brother Christopher Santiago, O/S who jumped ship from the C.S.
Doctrine:The jurisdiction of labor arbiters is not limited to claims arising from employer-employee
relationships as provided under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers Act).
9. Atlas Farms Inc. v. NLRC November 18, 2002

Brief Facts: Jaime O. dela Pea was employed as a feedmill operator by petitioner. He was allegedly
caught urinating and defecating on company premises not intended for the purpose. The farm manager of
petitioner issued a formal notice directing him to explain within 24 hours why disciplinary action should not
be taken against him. He allegedly refused, however, to receive the formal notice. Thus, a notice of
termination with payment of his monetary benefits was sent to him.
Doctrine: Where the dispute is just in the interpretation, implementation or enforcement stage, it may be
referred to the grievance machinery set up in the CBA, or brought to voluntary arbitration. But, where
there was already actual termination, with alleged violation of the employees’ rights, it is already
cognizable by the labor arbiter.
10. Perpetual Help Credit Cooperative Inc. v. Faburada, October 8, 2001
Brief Facts: Faburada et al. filed a complaint, among others, for illegal dismissal, payment of holidays
and rest days, separation pay, and wage differential against petitioner PHCCI. Petitioners contend,
however, private respondents have not exhausted the remedies provided in the cooperative by-laws;
wherein under Article 121 of R.A. No. 6939, otherwise known as the Cooperative Development Authority
Law which took effect on March 26, 1990, it requires conciliation or mediation within the cooperative
before a resort to judicial proceeding.
9
3G 2017-2018
Doctrine: Where the dispute is about payment of wages, overtime pay, rest day and termination of
employment, it is within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter under Art. 217 of the
LC.
11. Austria v. NLRC, August 16, 1999 (priest)

Brief Facts: Private Respondent Central Philippine Union Mission Corporation of the Seventh-Day
Adventists (SDA) is a religious corporation. Petitioner, on the other hand, was a Pastor of the SDA until
31 October 1991, when his services were terminated.petitioner received several communications from Mr.
Eufronio Ibesate, the treasurer of the Negros Mission asking him to admit accountability and responsibility
for the church tithes and offerings collected by his wife, Mrs. Thelma Austria, in his district which
amounted to P15,078.10, and to remit the same to the Negros Mission. Petitioner reasoned out that he
should not be made accountable since it was private respondents Pastor Gideon Buhat and Mr. Eufronio
Ibesate who authorized his wife to collect the tithes and offerings since he was very sick to do the
collecting at that time
Doctrine:Under the Labor Code, the provision which governs the dismissal of employees, is
comprehensive enough to include religious corporations, such as the SDA, in its coverage.The active
participation of a party against whom the action was brought, coupled with his failure to object to the
jurisdiction of the court or quasi-judicial body where the action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation
of that jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from later
on impugning the court or body’s jurisdiction.
12. Department of Foreign Affairs v. NLRC September 18, 1996
Brief Facts: Private respondent Magnayi filed an illegal dismissal case against the Asian Development
Bank. The ADB and the DFA notified Magnayi that the ADB is covered by an immunity from suit, being
an accredited international organization.
SC: Being an international organization that has been extended diplomatic status, the ADB is
independent of the municipal law, hence, covered by immunity from suit.
Doctrine: An international organization, such as the ADB, is covered with immunity from local jurisdiction.
13. PNB v. Cabansag , June 21, 2005 (differentiate it with Manila Hotel v. NLRC, October 13, 2000
Brief Facts: Florence Cabansag] arrived in Singapore as a tourist. She applied for employment and got
an Employment pass. Cabansag submitted to Ruben C. Tobias, her initial Performance Report. Ruben C.
Tobias was so impressed with the Report that he made a notation and, on said Report: GOOD WORK.
However, he was asked to resigned and eventually his employment was terminated.
Doctrine: Philippine government requires non-Filipinos working in the country to first obtain a local work
permit in order to be legally employed here. That permit, however, does not automatically mean that the
non-citizen is thereby bound by local laws only, as averred by petitioner. It does not at all imply a waiver
of ones national laws on labor. Absent any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, such permit
simply means that its holder has a legal status as a worker in the issuing country.
All Filipino workers, whether employed locally or overseas, enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor
and social legislations. Our labor statutes may not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments
promulgated, or stipulations agreed upon, in a foreign country.
14. Banez v. Valdevilla, May 9, 2000 (claims of employers)
Brief Facts: Baez alleged a modus operandi used by Oro Marketing. That accordingly plaintiffs sales
decreased and reduced to a considerable extent the profits which it would have earned.
Doctrine: By the designating clause "arising from the employer-employee relations" Article 217 should
apply with equal force to the claim of an employer for actual damages against its dismissed employee,
10
3G 2017-2018
where the basis for the claim arises from or is necessarily connected with the fact of termination, and
should be entered as a counterclaim in the illegal dismissal case.
15. Santos v. Servier Philippines Inc. November 28, 2008 (Tax deduction)
Brief Facts:
Petitioner fell into coma for 21 days and later stayed in ICU for 52 days. During the time that petitioner
was confined at the hospital, her husband and son stayed with her in Paris. Petitioner’s hospitalization
expenses, as well as those of her husband and son, were paid by respondent. Upon returning to
Philippines, respondent continued to pay the former’s salaries; and to assist her in paying her hospital
bills. Petitioner’s physician concluded that the former had not fully recovered mentally and physically.
Hence, respondent was constrained to terminate petitioner’s services.
Of the promised retirement benefits amounting to P1,063,841.76, only P701,454.89 was released to
petitioner’s husband, the balance thereof was withheld allegedly for taxation purposes.
Doctrine:For the retirement benefits to be exempt from the withholding tax, the taxpayer is burdened to
prove the concurrence of the following elements: (1) a reasonable private benefit plan is maintained by
the employer; (2) the retiring official or employee has been in the service of the same employer for at
least ten (10) years; (3) the retiring official or employee is not less than fifty (50) years of age at the time
of his retirement; and (4) the benefit had been availed of only once.
16. Pepsi Cola Distributor Phils v. Galang, September 24, 1991
Brief Facts: The private respondents were employees of the Pepsi who were suspected of complicity in
the irregular disposition of empty Pepsi Cola bottles. Pepsi filed a criminal complaint for theft against the
complaint was dismissed. They later on filed a criminal case against pepsi and filed a separate civil case
for damages. Pepsi moved to dismiss the civil complaint on the ground that the trial court had no
jurisdiction over the case because it involved employee-employer relations.
Doctrine: Not every controversy involving workers and their employers can be resolved only by the labor
arbiters. This will be so only if there is a "reasonable causal connection" between the claim asserted and
employee-employer relations to put the case under the provisions of Article 217. Absent such a link, the
complaint will be cognizable by the regular courts of justice in the exercise of their civil and criminal
jurisdiction.
17. 7K Corpr. V. Albarico, June 26, 2013

Brief Facts: Albarico was the acting team field supervisor of 7K, company selling water purifier. 7K
terminated Albarico for alleged poor sales performance. The parties went to NCMB seeking to resolve
Albarico’s money claims with the help of a voluntary arbitrator (VA).
Doctrine: As a general rule, the jurisdiction of VA is strictly limited to the issues that the parties agreed to
submit (separation pay and sales commission) to it. However, VA has jurisdiction to rule on labor disputes
not raised in the submission agreement (illegal dismissal) that is connected to the main issue, in order to
resolve the latter.
In the case at bar, the determination that Albarico was illegally dismissed became the basis for the award
of backwages and separation pay.
18. Kawachi et. al. v. Del Quero, March 27, 2007 (reasonable causal connection)
Brief Facts: Del Quero charged Kawachi and A/J Raymundo Pawnshop, Inc., before the NLRC with
illegal dismissal, etc. A few months after, Del Quero filed an action for damages against Kawachi before
the MeTC of Quezon City.
Doctrine: For a single cause of action, the dismissed employee cannot be allowed to sue in two forums:
one, before the labor arbiter for reinstatement and recovery of back wages; and two, before a court of
11
3G 2017-2018
justice for recovery of damages. Suing in the manner described is known as splitting a cause of action, a
practice engendering multiplicity of actions.
19. Lunzaga v. Albar Shipping April 18, 2012.

Brief Facts: Romeo Lunzaga was a seaman working for Albar Shipping. On June 11, 2008, Romeo was
assigned as Chief Engineer on board Albar's Philippine vessel MV Lake Aru. One month later, Romeo
suffered a heart attack and was repatriated to the Philippines only to die on September 5, 2008.
Sometime in early 2009, Gilda, claiming to be the surviving spouse of Romeo, filed with the NLRC a
complaint against Albar Shipping for payment of death benefits, damages and attorney's fees.
Doctrine: Considering that the issue on whether the heirs of Romeo are entitled to receive his death
benefits from Albar Shipping properly falls under the jurisdiction of the LA, the NLRC and the CA should
have had relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully
ventilate their cases on the merits.
21. World’s Best Gas Inc. v. Vital, September 9, 2015 (applicable to EE rel).
Brief Facts: Vital was an incorporator and was subsequently appointed as internal auditor and personnel
manager for for years of WGBI. He filed a claim for reinstatement with LA but it was dismised on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Doctrine: RTC has no subject matter jurisdiction to resolve claims arising from employer-employee
relations, the RTC's ruling on Vital's claim of unpaid salaries and separation pay is, thus, null and void.
The case does not involve claims arising from intra corporate dispute but one which is rooted from a
employee-employer relationship.
22. Continental Micronesia v. Basco, September 23, 2015.

Facts: Joseph Basso, a US Citizen, accepted the offer for the position of General Manager of the
Philippine Branch of Continental, a foreign corporation doing business in the Phils. Basso filed a
Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Moral and Exemplary Damages against CMI when he was informed
that Basso allegedly has agreed to work in CMI as a consultant on an "as needed basis" and that will not
receive any monetary compensation.
Doctrine: The Labor Code, under Article 217, clearly vests original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide cases involving termination disputes to the Labor Arbiter. Hence, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
As regards jurisdiction over the parties, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the Labor Arbiter
acquired jurisdiction over the person of Basso, notwithstanding his citizenship, when he filed his complaint
against CMI. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the person of CMI was acquired through the coercive
process of service of summons. We note that CMI never denied that it was served with summons. CMI
has, in fact, voluntarily appeared and participated in the proceedings before the courts.
23. Mendoza v. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union, January 25, 2016.
Brief Facts: Petitioner was a member of MWEU, a registered labor organization consisting of
rank-and-file employees within Maila Water Company. MWEU through Cometa, informed petitioner that
the union was unable to fully deduct the increased 200 PHP union dues from his salary due to lack of
authorization from him. Matter was referred to the MWUE grievance committee for investigation.
Petitioner was thrice charged of non payment of dues and was suspended after due hearing. MWUE
scheduled an election and the petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for Vice president but he was
disqualified for not being a member of good standing on account of his suspension.
Doctrine: Petitioner's charge of unfair labor practices falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiters, pursuant to Article 217 of the Labor Code. In addition, Article 247 of the same Code
12
3G 2017-2018
provides that "the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices, which may include claims for
actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages, attorney's fees and other affirmative relief, shall be
under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters.
24. Hijo Resources v. Mejares, January 13, 2016

Brief Facts: Union filed a certification election in DOLE and subsequently they were terminated, which
led to the dismissal of the petition for Certification election due to lack of ee-er relationship.
Petitioners filed a case for illegal dismissal in NLRC. The contention is whether or not the ruling of
Med-Arbiter in Certification election case is res judicata on the finding of lack of ee-er relationship. No, the
Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over illegal dismissal cases.
Doctrine: The decision in a certification election case, by the very nature of that proceeding, does not
foreclose all further dispute between the parties as to the existence or non-existence of an
employer-employee relationship between them.
25. Milan v. NLRC, February 4, 2015

Brief facts: As Solid Mills’ employees, petitioners and their families were allowed to occupy SMI Village,
a property owned by Solid Mills. Solid Mills ceased its operations due to serious business losses. Solid
Mills sent to petitioners individual notices to vacate SMI Village. Employees were required to sign a
memorandum of agreement and those who signed it were considered to have agreed to vacate SMI
Village, and to the demolition of the constructed houses inside as condition for the release of their
termination benefits and separation pay. Petitioners refused to sign the documents and demanded to be
paid their benefits and separation pay.
Doctrine: The National Labor Relations Commission has jurisdiction to determine, preliminarily, the
parties’ rights over a property, when it is necessary to determine an issue related to rights or claims
arising from an employer-employee relationship. Claims arising from an employer-employee relationship
are not limited to claims by an employee. Employers may also have claims against the employee, which
arise from the same relationship. As a general rule, therefore, a claim only needs to be sufficiently
connected to the labor issue raised and must arise from an employer-employee relationship for the labor
tribunals to have jurisdiction.
26. Saudia Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio, January 14, 2015

Brief Facts: Saudia Arabian Airlines demanded the resignation of female cabin attendants under their
“Unified Employment Contract for Female Cabin Attendants, under which the employment of a Flight
Attendant who becomes pregnant is rendered void.Upon complaint, Saudia assailed the jurisdiction of the
LA. it claimed that all the determining points of contact referred to foreign law and insisted that the
complaint ought to be dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Doctrine: A plain application of Section 3(d) of the Foreign Investments Act leads to no other conclusion
than that Saudia is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines. As such, Saudia may be sued
in the Philippines and is subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine tribunals.
27. LRTA v. Alvarez, Nov. 28, 2016

Brief Facts: METRO and LRTA entered into an agreement called "Agreement for the Management and
Operation of the Light Rail Transit System" (AMO-LRTS) for the operation and management of the light
rail transit system. LRTA shouldered and provided for all the operating expenses of METRO. Also,
METRO signed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with its employees.
Doctrine: LRTA, for having conducted business through a private corporation, must submit itself to the
provisions governing private corporations, including the Labor Code, falls under the jurisdiction of LA and
13
3G 2017-2018
NLRC. Hence, LRTA can be made liable by the labor tribunals for private respondents' money claims
despite absence of ER-EE relationship.
ARTICLE 225 (218): POWER OF THE NLRC
1. PAL v. NLRC, March 20, 1998

Brief facts: Private respondents were dismissed from the service for their alleged involvement in the April
3, 1993 currency smuggling in Hong Kong. Aggrieved by said dismissal, private respondents filed with the
NLRC a petition for injunction.
Doctrine: The power of the NLRC to issue an injunctive writ originates from "any labor dispute" upon
application by a party thereof, which application if not granted "may cause grave or irreparable damage to
any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party."
2. Landbank of the Phils. v. Listana, August 5, 2008
Brief Facts: Respondent Listana offered to sell a land to the government, through the DAR, under Sec.
20 of RA 6657 (CARL). The DAR valued the property at P5,871,689.03, which was however rejected by
respondent. In it decision DARAB of Sorsogon set aside the prior valuation made by Land Bank and
made a new valuation. A writ of execution was issued by the PARAD directing Land Bank to pay the
respondent. Due to the failure to comply, respondent moved that Land Bank be cited for contempt by
DARAB.
Doctrine: Evidently, quasi-judicial agencies that have the power to cite persons for indirect contempt
pursuant to Rule 71 of the Rules of Court can only do so by initiating them in the proper Regional Trial
Court. It is not within their jurisdiction and competence to decide the indirect contempt cases. These
matters are still within the province of the Regional Trial Courts.
3. Robosa v. NLRC, February 8, 2012

Brief Facts: Private respondent De Luzuriaga argued that they were charged with indirect contempt
which may be initiated only in the appropriate regional trial court, pursuant to Section 12, Rule 71 of the
Rules of Court. He posits that the NLRC has no jurisdiction over an indirect contempt charge. He thus
argues that the petitioners improperly brought the contempt charge before the NLRC.
Doctrine: Under Article 218(d) of the Labor Code, the labor arbiter or the Commission is empowered or
has jurisdiction to hold the offending party or parties in direct or indirect contempt.
ARTICLE 227 (221):TECHNICAL RULES
1. Meralco v. Gala, March 7, 2012

Brief facts:Gala was dismissed for alleged complicity in pilferages of Meralco’s electrical supplies,
particularly, for the incident which took place when Gala and other Meralco workers were instructed to
replace a worn-out electrical pole at the Pacheco Subdivision in Valenzuela City.
Doctrine: The application of technical rules of procedure in labor cases may be relaxed to serve the
demands of substantial justice.
2. Nationwide Security and Allied Services v. CA, July 14, 2008
Brief facts: The LA found Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc., a security agency, not liable for
illegal dismissal but directed them to pay the security guards separation pay, unpaid salaries, and
attorneys fees. Their appeal was filed three days after the reglementary period.
14
3G 2017-2018
Doctrine: The rules, as a general, particularly the requirements for perfecting an appeal within the
reglementary period specified in the law, must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable
interdictions against needless delays and for the orderly discharge of judicial business.
3. Diamond Taxi v. Llamas, March 12, 2014

Brief Facts: Llamas, taxi driver of Diamond Taxi, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner.
NLRC dismissed Llamas’ reconsideration as Llamas failed to attach the certification of non-forum
shopping.
Doctrine: Employee’s appeal must not be dismissed on purely technical grounds. The dismissal of an
employee’s appeal on purely technical ground is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate on
protection to labor. Under the Constitution and the Labor Code, the State is bound to protect labor and
assure the rights of workers to security of tenure – tenurial security being a preferred constitutional right
that, under these fundamental guidelines, technical infirmities in labor pleadings cannot defeat.
4. Sara Lee v. Macatlang, January 14, 2015

Brief Facts: On Oct. 9, 1995, Aris Philippines, Inc. permanently ceased operations displacing 5,984
rank-and- file employees. On Oct. 26, 1996, Fashion Accessories Phils., Inc. (FAPI) was incorporated
prompting former Aris employees to file a case for illegal dismissal alleging that FAPI was a continuing
business of Aris. Sara Lee Corporation (SLC), Sara Lee Philippines (SLP), and Atty. Cesar C. Cruz were
impleaded as defendants being major stockholders of FAPI and officers of Aris, respectively. On Oct. 30,
2004, the LA found the dismissal of 5,984 Aris employees illegal and awarded them monetary benefits
amounting to P3,453,664,710.86 as separation pay, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and
attorney’s fees.The Corporations filed a Notice of Appeal with Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond posting a
P4.5 million bond. The NLRC granted the reduction of the appeal bond and ordered the Corporations to
post an additional P4.5 million bond. The Aris employees, represented by Emilinda Macatlang, filed a
petition for review before the CA insisting that the appeal was not perfected due to failure of the
Corporations to post the correct amount of the bond which is equivalent to the judgment award.
Nonetheless, the NLRC prematurely issued an order setting aside the LA’s decision for being
procedurally infirmed. On March 26, 2007, the CA ordered the Corporations to post an additional appeal
bond of P1 billion. On June 4, 2014, the SC ordered the Corporations to post P725 million, in case or
surety bond and vacated the NLRC decision for being premature and directed the same to act with
dispatch to resolve the merits of the case upon perfection of the appeal. Hence, Corporation filed an MR
relying on McBurnie v. Ganzon, argued that only 10% of the monetary award is required to be posted as
bond.Furthermore, the Corporations filed a Motion to Admit Confession of Judgment claiming that the
Corporations entered into as compromise with some of the former Aris employees.
Doctrine: The NLRC retains its authority and duty to resolve the motion and determine the final amount
of bond that shall be posted by the appellant, still in accordance with the standards of "meritorious
grounds" and "reasonable amount." Should the NLRC, after considering the motion’s
merit, determine that a greater amount or the full amount of the bond needs to be posted by the appellant,
then the party shall comply accordingly. The appellant shall be given a period of 10 days from notice of
the NLRC order within which to perfect the appeal by posting the required appeal bond.
5. Dela Rosa Liner v. Borela, July 29, 2015

Brief Facts: Borela, bus driver, and Estelo Amarille, conductor, filed separate complaints (later
consolidated) against petitioners for underpayment/non-payment of salaries, holiday pay, overtime pay,
service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, sick leave and vacation leave, night shift differential, illegal
deductions, and violation of Wage Order Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16. In a motion dated October 26, 2011, the
petitioners asked the labor arbiter to dismiss the case for forum shopping. They alleged that on
September 28, 2011, the CA 13th Division disposed of a similar case between the parties (CA-G.R. SP
No. 118038) after they entered into a compromise agreement which covered all claims and causes of
15
3G 2017-2018
action they had against each other in relation to the respondents' employment.
Doctrine: The elements of forum shopping are: (1) identity of parties; (2) identity of rights asserted and
relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity of the two preceding
particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is
successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.
ARTICLE 229 (223): APPEAL
1. Islriz Trading v. Capade et. al. January 31, 2011
Brief Facts: Despite the affirmation by the NLRC of the LA’s Decision to reinstate respondents, petitioner
still refused to reinstate them.
Doctrines: Employees are entitled to their accrued salaries during the period between the Labor Arbiter's
order of reinstatement pending appeal and the resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) overturning that of the Labor Arbiter. Otherwise stated, even if the order of reinstatement of the
Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, the employer is still obliged to reinstate and pay the wages of the
employee during the period of appeal until reversal by a higher court or tribunal. After the Labor Arbiter's
decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the employee may be barred from collecting the accrued wages,
if it is shown that the delay in enforcing the reinstatement pending appeal was without fault on the part of
the employer.
2. Garcia et. al v. KJ Commerical, February 29, 2012
Brief Facts: In 2006, the Petitioners demanded for a ₱40 daily salary increase. To pressure KJ
Commercial, the Petitioners stopped working. Later, the Petitioners filed with the Labor Arbiter (“LA”) a
complaint for illegal dismissal, and non-payment of monetary benefits. The LA held that KJ Commercial
illegally dismissed the Petitioners, disbelieving the former’s defense that the latter abandoned their work.
The LA awarded ₱2,612,930.00 to the Petitioners. KJ Commercial appealed to the NLRC simultaneously
filing its Appeal Memorandum with a Motion to Reduce Bond and posting a ₱50,000 cash bond.
Doctrine: Under the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC (which governed this case), the filing of a
motion to reduce bond is subject to two conditions: 1. there is a meritorious ground, and 2. a bond in a
reasonable amount is posted. Failure to comply with these conditions will not stop the running of the
period to perfect an appeal. The NLRC has full discretion to grant or deny the motion to reduce bond and
it may rule on the motion beyond the 10-day period within which to perfect an appeal.
3. Ong v. CA, September 22, 2004

Brief Facts: Petitioner is the sole proprietor of Milestone Metal Manufacturing (Milestone), which
manufactures, among others, wearing apparels, belts, and umbrellas. Sometime in May 1998, the
business suffered very low sales and productivity because of the economic crisis in the country. Hence, it
adopted a rotation scheme by reducing the workdays of its employees to three days a week or less for an
indefinite period.
Doctrine: Time and again it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due
process, it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance
with the provisions of law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of
the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.
4. Rosewood Processing Inc v. NLRC, et.al (1998 case)

Brief Facts: A complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and for nonpayment of overtime
pay, was filed against Veterans Security Agency, which impleaded petitioner Rosewood. The NLRC
dismissed petitioner’s appeal, because it was allegedly not perfected within the reglementary ten-day
period.
16
3G 2017-2018
SC: The Court has relaxed this requirement in order to bring about the immediate and appropriate
resolution of controversies on the merits. Petitioner’s motion to reduce the bond is a substantial
compliance with the Labor Code. This holding is consistent with the norm that letter-perfect rules must
yield to the broader interest of substantial justice.
Doctrine: The Court may relax the Appeal requirement in order to bring about the immediate and
appropriate resolution of controversies on the merits. Letter-perfect rules must yield to the broader
interest of substantial justice. Where a decision may be made to rest on informed judgment rather than
rigid rules, the equities of the case must be accorded their due weight because labor law determinations
are not only secundum rationem (according to reason) but also secundum caritatem (according to a
charitable heart).
5. FSFI v. NLRC, December 11, 2003

Brief Facts: Submission of an appeal bond seven (7) days beyond the ten (10)-day reglementary period
in perfecting an appeal
Doctrine: We have consistently ruled that payment of the appeal bond is a jurisdictional requisite for the
perfection of an appeal to the NLRC.It is only in rare instances that the court relaxes the rule upon a
showing of substantial compliance with it and to prevent patent injustice.
6. Buenaobra v. Lim King Guan, January 20, 2004

Brief Facts: Petitioners filed a petition in the Court of Appeals imputing grave abuse of discretion to the
NLRC, Third Division when it allowed private respondents to post the mandated cash or surety bond four
months after the filing of their memorandum on appeal.
Doctrine: It is true that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law
is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of making the
judgment final and executory. However, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably
and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties
7. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corporation v. Icao, January 15, 2014.
Brief Facts:Private respondent essentially alleged in his complaint that he was an employee of the
petitioner LCMC assigned as a lead miner in its underground mine, Benguet. He was then charged with
highgrading or the act of concealing, processing or unauthorized extraction of highgrade material/ore
without proper authority. He denied the charge but was consequently dismissed from his work. LA held
LCMC liable for illegal dismissal. Petitioner and CEO filed an Appearance with Memorandum of Appeal
before NLRC. instead of posting the required appeal bond in form of cash bond or surety bond, they filed
a Consolidated MOtion for the Release of Cash Bond and to Apply Bond Subject for Release as Payment
for Appeal Bond. they requested that NLRC release the cash bond which they posted in a separate case
and apply the same to their present appeal bond liability. NLRC dismissed the appeal for non perfection,
for failure to post the required appeal bond.
Doctrine: In appeals from any decision of the Labor Arbiter, the posting of an appeal bond is required
under Article 223 of the Labor Code. Under Rule VI, Section 6 of the 2005 NLRC Rules, “[a] cash or
surety bond shall be valid and effective from the date of deposit or posting, until the case is finally
decided, resolved or terminated, or the award satisfied. Hence, it is clear that a bond is encumbered and
bound to a case only for as long as 1) the case has not been finally decided, resolved or terminated; 2)
the award has not been satisfied. therefore , once the appeal is finally decided and no award needs to be
satisfied, the bond is automatically released. Since the money is now unencumbered, the employer who
posted it should now have unrestricted access to the cash which he may now use as he pleases- as
appeal bond in another case, for instance.
17
3G 2017-2018
8. Bergonio v. SEAIR, April 21, 2014.
Brief Facts: LA held that the petitioners were illegally dismissed and must be reinstated. However, CA
reversed such decision. SC held that delay in the reinstatement pending appeal was due to the
respondent’s fault. Hence, SEAIR should pay the accrued wages of the petitioners during the time that LA
ordered the reinstatement up until such order was reversed by CA.
Doctrine: After the LA’s decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the employee may be barred from
collecting the accrued wages, if it is shown that the delay in enforcing the reinstatement pending appeal
was without fault on the part of the employer.
Two-Fold Test
1. There must be actual delay of the fact that the order of reinstatement pending appeal was not
executed prior to its reversal; and
2. The delay must not be due to the employer’s unjustified act or omission. If the delay is due to the
employer’s unjustified refusal, the employer may still be required to pay the salaries
nothwithstanding the reversal of the LA’s decision
9. Loon v. Power Master , December 11, 2013.

Brief Facts: Petitioners filed a complaint for money claims against the respondents. The respondents
filed a surety bond issued by Security Pacific. However, the NLRC revoked its accreditation on February
16, 2003. Nonetheless, this subsequent revocation should not prejudice the respondents who relied on its
then subsisting accreditation in good faith.
Doctrine: The issue of the appeal bond’s validity may be raised for the first time on appeal since its
proper filing is a jurisdictional requirement. The requirement that the appeal bond should be issued by an
accredited bonding company is mandatory and jurisdictional. The rationale of requiring an appeal bond is
to discourage the employers from using an appeal to delay or evade the employees' just and lawful
claims. It is intended to assure the workers that they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon
the dismissal of the employer’s appeal.
10. Mcburnie v. Ganzon, October 17, 2013.

Brief Facts: McBurnie, an Australian national, instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal and other
monetary claims against the respondents. McBurnie claimed that he signed an employment agreement
with the company EGI as an Executive Vice-President. On the other hand, the respondents opposed the
complaint, contending that their agreement with McBurnie was to jointly invest in and establish a company
for the management of hotels and did not intend to create an employer-employee relationship.
The respondents appealed the LA’s Decision to the NLRC. They filed their Memorandum of Appeal and
Motion to Reduce Bond, and posted an appeal bond in the amount of P100,000.00. The respondents
contended in their Motion to Reduce Bond, inter alia, that the monetary awards of the LA were null and
excessive, allegedly with the intention of rendering them incapable of posting the necessary appeal bond.
Doctrine: On the matter of the filing and acceptance of motions to reduce appeal bond, as provided in
Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, the following guidelines shall be observed:
(a) The filing of a motion to reduce appeal bond shall be entertained by the NLRC subject to the
following conditions: (1) there is meritorious ground; and (2) a bond in a reasonable amount is posted;
(b) For purposes of compliance with condition no. (2), a motion shall be accompanied by the
posting of a provisional cash or surety bond equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the monetary
award subject of the appeal, exclusive of damages and attorney's fees;
(c) Compliance with the foregoing conditions shall suffice to suspend the running of the 10-day
reglementary period to perfect an appeal from the labor arbiter's decision to the NLRC;
(d) The NLRC retains its authority and duty to resolve the motion to reduce bond and determine
the final amount of bond that shall be posted by the appellant, still in accordance with the
18
3G 2017-2018
standards of meritorious grounds and reasonable amount; and (e) In the event
that the NLRC denies the motion to reduce bond, or requires a bond that exceeds the amount of
the provisional bond, the appellant shall be given a fresh period of ten 10 days from notice of the
NLRC order within which to perfect the appeal by posting the required appeal bond.
11. Waterfront Cebu City Casino v. Ledesma, March 25, 2015.
Brief Facts: Ledesma was employed as a House Detective at Waterfront located at Salinas Drive, Cebu
City. Ledesma was dismissed from employment due to the complaints filed by Christe Mandal. Allegedly,
the respondent kissed and mashed the breasts of Christe Mandal inside the hotel’s elevator, and
exhibited his penis and asked Rosanna Lofranco to masturbate him at the conference room of the hotel.
Ledesma filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Doctrine: As the Rule now stands, petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice
of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration.
Notice to counsel is an effective notice to the client, while notice to the client and not his counsel is not
notice in law. Receipt of notice by the counsel of record is the reckoning point of the reglementary period.
The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of
procedural technique. The exception to this rule is when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless
and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court. The failure of a party’s counsel to notify him
on time of the adverse judgment, to enable him to appeal therefrom, is negligence that is not excusable.
12. IBM Nestle v. Nestle Phils, September 23, 2015

Brief Facts: Petitioner union staged a strike against respondent company’s ice Cream and Chilled
Products Division, alleging as grounds the violation of the collective bargaining agreement, dismissal
of union officers and members, discrimination and other unfair labor practice acts.
Doctrine: A compromise agreement is entered as a determination of a controversy has the force and
effect of a judgment. It is immediately executor and not appealable, except for vices of consent or forgery.
The non-fulfillment of its terms and conditions justifies the issuance of a writ of execution; in such an
instance, execution becomes a ministerial duty of the court.
13. Manila Mining Co v. Amor, April 20, 2015
14. IBM v. Ilaw Buklod Mangagagawa ng Nestle Phils. Chapter V., Nestle Phils., September 23,
2015 (also applicable for Approval of Compromise agreement)
Brief Facts:
Doctrine:
15. Balite v. SSS Ventures, February 4, 2015

Brief facts: A case of illegal termination where the employer, on appeal filed a Motion to Reduce
Bond. However, instead of filing the required appeal bond equivalent to the total amount of the monetary
award which is P490,308.00, respondents filed a Motion to Reduce the Appeal Bond to P100,000.00
and appended therein a manager’s check bearing the said amount. Ca relaxed the ruling on the posting
of the bond and held that there was a substantial compliance with the appeal bond.
Doctrine: With the employer’s demonstrated good faith in filing the motion to reduce the bond on
demonstrable grounds coupled with the posting of the appeal bond in the requested amount, as well as
the filing of the memorandum of appeal, the right of the employer to appeal must be upheld. This is in
recognition of the importance of the remedy of appeal, which is an essential part of our judicial system
and the need to ensure that every party litigant is given the amplest opportunity for the proper and just
disposition of his cause freed from the constraints of technicalities.
19
3G 2017-2018
16. Dutch Movers Inc. v. Loquin et al., April 25, 2017
Brief facts: Respondents filed a complaint with the NLRC and argued that they were illegally dismissed
as their termination was without cause and only on the pretext of closure. The LA dismissed it for lack of
cause of action. The NLRC reversed and set aside the same. The NLRC Decision became final and
executory. It issued an Entry of Judgment on the case. Consequently, respondents filed a Motion for Writ
of Execution. It was discovered that DMI no longer operates. Petitioners, nonetheless, continue to work at
Toyota Alabang, which they also own and operate. A writ of execution was issued.
Doctrine: The principle of immutability of judgment, or the rule that once a judgment has become final
and executory, the same can no longer be altered or modified and the court's duty is only to order its
execution, is not absolute. One of its exceptions is when there is a supervening event occurring after the
judgment becomes final and executory, which renders the decision unenforceable.
17. Tolentino-Prieto v. Elvas, Nov. 9, 2015

Brief Facts: Innsbruck International Trading (Innsbruck), owned by Maria Victoria Toletino-Prieto
(Tolentino) [collectively, respondents], is engaged in the sanitation and fumigation of garbage dump
trucks. Tolentino allegedly discovered, based on the station logbook report and the report made by the
Wash Bay Station Municipal Supervisor, that there were discrepancies between the number of dump
trucks recorded and the amount of payment remitted by Elvas and the other employees. LA ruled in favor
of Elvas and declared that he was illegally terminated from his employment. Respondents appealed.
Elvas filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Issuance of Writ of Execution on the ground that the appeal
bond posted by respondents was fake.
Doctrine: While posting of an appeal bond is mandatory and jurisdictional, we sanction the relaxation of
the rule in certain meritorious cases. These cases include instances in which (1) there was substantial
compliance with the Rules, (2) surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to
reduce the bond, (3) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the desired
objective of resolving controversies on the merits, or (4) the appellants, at the very least, exhibited their
willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period. The first and
second instances are present in this case.
18. Manila Doctors College v. Olores, October 3, 2016

Brief Facts: Respondent was a faculty member of petitioner and was dismissed. LA rendered a Decision
declaring respondent to have been illegally dismissed.The NLRC, in a decision reinstated and granted the
appeal and, accordingly, reversed the December 8, 2010 Decision of LA Amansec and dismissed the
complaint a quo for lack of merit. While the case was pending appeal, respondent filed a Motion for
Issuance of Writ of Execution seeking to collect (a) the service incentive leave pay ordered in the
September 30, 2011 Decision of the NLRC, and (b) the equivalent wages from the issuance of the
December 8, 2010 Decision of LA Amansec ordering reinstatement until the finality of the September 30,
2011 Decision of the NLRC reversing the LA, or on November 5, 2011, as per Entry of Judgment dated
December 5, 2011.
Doctrine: Notwithstanding the reversal of the finding of illegal dismissal, an employer, who, despite the
LA's order of reinstatement, did not reinstate the employee during the pendency of the appeal up to the
reversal by a higher tribunal may still be held liable for the accrued wages of the employee, i.e., the
unpaid salary accruing up to the time of the reversal.
19. Lozada v. Mendoza, October 12, 2016

Brief facts: the petitioner was advised by the respondent company's Executive Officer, Angeline Aguilar,
not to report for work and just wait for a call from the respondent company regarding his work schedule.
The petitioner patiently waited for the respondent company's call regarding his work schedule. However,
he did not receive any call from it. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a case against respondent with the LA.
20
3G 2017-2018
Doctrine: A writ of execution must conform to the decision which gave rise to it. To insist on the
validity of a writ exceeding the parameters of the judgment upon which it is based would be defying the
constitutional guarantee against depriving any person of his property without due process of law.
20. Turks Shawarma Co. v. Pajaron, January 16, 2017

Brief facts: Zeñarosa filed a Motion for Reconsideration (with plea to give due course to the appeal)
averring that the outright dismissal of their appeal was harsh and oppressive considering that they had
substantially complied with the Rules through the posting of a partial bond and their willingness to post
additional bond if necessary. Besides the appeal was filed by Zeñarosa without the assistance of a
counsel. Petitioners thus implored for a more liberal application of the Rules and prayed that their appeal
be given due course.
Doctrine: The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere
statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the
law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to
do so the right to appeal is lost. The liberal interpretation of the rules applies only to justifiable causes and
meritorious circumstances.
21. CJCM Mission Seminaries v. Perez, January 18, 2017

Brief Facts: Illegal dismissal case was filed by Perez against CICM. Decision became final and executor.
Respondent filed for issuance of writ of execution. Petitioner opposed as it has been satisfied by the cash
bond. Respondent contends that the cash bond was insufficient because the respondent was entitled to
backwages and separation pay until the finality of the Decision.
Doctrine: In the event the aspect of reinstatement is disputed, backwages, including separation pay, shall
be computed from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering the separation pay.
22. Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management v. UE Monthly Association, September 5, 2016
Brief Facts: It stemmed from the execution sale made by the Sheriff. The subject of execution were
certain
machinery, equipment and tools owned by UE Automotive Manufacturing. The levy was made pursuant to
a final judgement against UE Automotive in an illegal dismissal case in which it ordered to pay P53 729
534 to
complainants UEAMI MONTHLY ASSOCIATES and UE Automotive Workers. Thereafter, Metrobank filed
an affidavit of third party claim with LA saying that the machines and equipment levied upon were covered
by 3 mortgages executed in favor of the bank by UEAMI. LA denies the third party claim ruling that it
failed to establish proof of actual ownership of the contested properties owned by respondent UE
Automotive Manufacturing.
Doctrine: In execution proceedings, third party claimants have the burden of proving their right or title to
the
properties if they want to defeat the judgement lien. Third party claims may be resolved even without a full
blown hearing provided claimants are given an opportunity to be heard.
23. Fontana Development Corp. v Vukasinovic, Sept. 21, 2016

Brief Facts: Vukasinovic was hired by petitioner as its Director for Business Development for one year.
His employment was renewed for another year at the end of his first contract. Later, he allegedly received
a text message from one Mallari informing him that Dischoso and Chief Hotel Engineer Villareal, both
officers of petitioner FDC, were receiving commissions from company transactions.
Doctrine: There is forum shopping when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different
courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same
21
3G 2017-2018
essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or
already resolved adversely by some other court.
24. Sagun v. ANZ Global Services, August 22, 2016

Brief Facts: In his Letter of Confirmation of Offer, it was provided that petitioner’s initial and ongoing
employment is conditional on ANZ being satisfied of the results of his background checks. His
background check was rendered unsatisfactory. Hence, the offer was retracted.
Doctrines: An employment contract, like any other contract, is perfected at the moment the parties come
to agree upon its terms and conditions, and thereafter, concur in the essential elements thereof. In a
contract with suspensive condition, if the condition does not happen, the obligation does not come into
effect.
25. Hsy Marketing Ltd. v. Villastique, August 17, 2016

Brief Facts: Villastique, the field driver of petitioner was allegedly required to sign a resignation letter,
which he refused to do. Thus, Villastique filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against
petitioner. The LA ruled that since the Petitioner did not officially terminate Villastique, the employment
relationship between the parties was not really severed. However, because of the now the strained
relations between them, the LA just ordered the Petitioner to pay Villastique separation pay instead of
reinstatement as well asservice incentive leave pay.
Doctrine: An award of separation pay is inconsistent with a finding that there was no illegal dismissal
since liability for separation pay is but a legal consequence of illegal dismissal where reinstatement is no
longer viable or feasible. The lower tribunals were unanimous in concluding that Villastique had not been
dismissed at all. Villastique had failed to substantiate his allegation of having been verbally terminated
from his work, while the Petitioner failed to prove that Villastique had resigned or abandoned his work. An
employee who had not been dismissed, much less illegally dismissed, cannot be reinstated. Instead, the
“reinstatement” ordered here should not be construed as a relief proceeding from illegal dismissal. It
should be considered as a declaration or affirmation that the employee may return to work because he
was not dismissed in the first place. Thus, Villastique should just be allowed to return to work without
payment of backwages.
REINSTATEMENT ASPECT OF LA’S DECISION

1. Pioneer Texturizing Corporation v. NLRC, 1997 case
Brief Facts: Private respondent Lourdes A. de Jesus is reviser/trimmer since 1980. As reviser/trimmer,
de Jesus based her assigned work on a paper note posted by petitioners. The petitioners terminated her
employment for dishonesty and tampering of official records and documents with the intention of cheating.
De Jesus maintained that she merely committed a mistake.
Doctrine: An award or order for reinstatement is self-executory, and does not require a writ of execution,
much less a motion for its issuance.
2. Roquero v. PAL, 2 April 2004

Brief Facts: Roquero was dismissed by PAL for allegedly possessing and using shabu. He filed an
illegal dismissal case against PAL. While the case was on appeal, PAL refused to execute the order to
reinstate petitioner.
SC: Unless there is a restraining order issued, it is ministerial upon the Labor Arbiter to implement the
order of reinstatement. In the case at bar, no restraining order was granted. Thus, it was mandatory on
PAL to actually reinstate Roquero or reinstate him in the payroll.
Doctrine: An order of reinstatement by the Labor Arbiter is immediately executory even pending appeal,
unless there is a restraining order issued.
3. Air Phil Corp. v. Zamora, August 7, 2004

22
3G 2017-2018
Brief Facts: Enrico Zamora (Zamora) was employed with Air Philippines Corporation (APC) as a B-737
Flight Deck Crew. He applied for promotion to the position of airplane captain and underwent the requisite
training program. After completing training, he inquired about his promotion but APC did not act on it;
instead, it continued to give him assignments as flight deck crew. Thus, Zamora filed a Complaint with the
Labor Arbiter. He argued that the act of APC of withholding his promotion rendered his continued
employment with it oppressive and unjust. He therefore asked that APC be held liable for constructive
dismissal. Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failure of petitioner to attach copies of all pleadings
(such complaint, answer, position paper) and other material portions of the record as would support the
allegations therein.
Doctrine: Only those pleadings, parts of case records and documents which are material and pertinent,
in that they may provide the basis for a determination of a prima facie case of abuse of discretion, are
required to be attached to a petition for certiorari. A petition lacking such documents contravenes
paragraph 2, Section 1, Rule 65 and may be dismissed outright under Section 3, Rule 46. However, if it is
shown that the omission has been rectified by the subsequent submission of the documents required, the
petition must be given due course or reinstated, if it had been previously dismissed. Other pleadings and
portions of case records need not accompany the petition, unless the court will require them in order to
aid it in its review of the case. Omission of these documents from the petition will not warrant its
dismissal.
4. Lansangan v. Amkor Technology Philippines, January 30, 2009

Brief Facts: Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against it. Labor Arbiter dismissed the
complaint. Having found them guilty of swiping another employees ID card or requesting another
employee to swipe ones ID to gain personal advantage and in the interest of cheating.
Doctrine: Article 223 concerns itself with an interim relief, granted to a dismissed or separated employee
while the case for illegal dismissal is pending appeal, as what happened in Roquero case. It does not
apply where there is no finding of illegal dismissal, as in the present case. The Arbiter found petitioners
dismissal to be valid. Such finding became final as petitioners failed to appeal the decision. Petitioners
are not entitled to full backwages as their dismissal was not found to be illegal. Payment of backwages
and other benefits is justified only if the employee was unjustly dismissed.
5. Genuino v. NLRC, December 4, 2007

Brief Facts:Genuino is a Treasury Sales Division Head with a rank of Assistant Vice President. She was
charged with knowledge and/or involvement in transactions which were irregular or even fraudulent. She
did not attend the administrative investigation. The result of such found that Genuino with Santos used
“facilities of Genuino’s family corporation, namely, Global Pacific, personally and actively participated in
the diversion of bank client’s funds to products of other companies that yielded interests higher than what
Citibank products offered. Her employment was then terminated in the grounds of (1) serious misconduct,
(2) willful breach of the trust reposed upon her by the bank, and (3) commission of a crime against the
bank. Shen then filed with the LA a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages on which the LA ordered
for her reinstatement.
Doctrine: Where the decision of the Labor Arbiter is for the reinstatement of the employee, the employee
shall either be admitted back to work or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll,
and if the decision of the Labor Arbiter is later reversed on appeal upon finding that the ground for the
dismissal is valid, then the employer has the right to require the dismissed employee on payroll
reinstatement to refund the salaries she received while the case was pending appeal, or it can be
deducted from the accrued benefits that the dismissed employee may be entitled to received from his/her
employer under existing laws, collective bargaining agreement provisions, and company practices.
6. Garcia et al. v. PAL, January 20, 2009

23
3G 2017-2018
Brief Facts: Petitioners were dismissed, they were allegedly caught in the act of sniffing Shabu in PAL’s
premises. When reinstatement was ordered it cannot be executed because PAL was under corporate
rehabilitation.
Doctrine: Obligation to pay the employee’s salaries upon the employer’s failure to exercise the
alternative options under Article 223 of the Labor Code is not a hard and fast rule, considering the
inherent constraints of corporate rehabilitation. It is settled that upon appointment by the SEC of a
rehabilitation receiver, all actions for claims before any court, tribunal or board against the corporation
shall ipso jure be suspended.
7. Mt. Carmel College v. REsuena October 10, 2007

Brief Facts: Respondents, together with several faculty members, non-academic personnel, and other
students, participated in a protest action against petitioner. Because of this, respondents were terminated
Doctrine: An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages and reinstatement. The
two reliefs provided are separate and distinct. In instances where reinstatement is no longer feasible
because of strained relations between the employee and the employer, separation pay is granted. In
effect, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if
reinstatement is no longer viable, and backwages.
8. Buenviaje v. CA, November 12, 2002

Brief Facts: Petitioners were former employees of Cottonway Marketing Corp. (Cottonway), hired as
promo girls for their garment products. In October, 1994, after their services were terminated as the
company was allegedly suffering business losses, petitioners filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal
dismissal, underpayment of salary, and non-payment of premium pay for rest day, service incentive leave
pay and thirteenth month pay against Cottonway Marketing Corp. and Network Fashion Inc./JCT
International Trading.
Doctrine: Under R.A. 6715, employees who are illegally dismissed are entitled to full back wages,
inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time their
actual compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement. If reinstatement
is no longer possible, the back wages shall be computed from the time of their illegal termination up to the
finality of the decision.
9. Pfizer Inc. v. Velasco, March 9, 2011 (new rule)
Brief Facts: Geraldine L. Velasco was an employee of PFIZER, INC. Due to her high risk pregnancy, she
was advised to bed rest which resulted in her extending her leave of absence. She was served a “Show
Cause Notice” for an investigation on her possible violations of company work rules. Velasco filed a
complaint for illegal suspension. She was later terminated from employment.
Doctrine: Reinstatement pending appeal necessitates that it must be immediately self-executory without
need for a writ of execution during the pendency of the appeal, if the law is to serve its noble purpose,
and any attempt on the part of the employer to evade or delay its execution should not be allowed. An
order for reinstatement entitles an employee to receive his accrued backwages from the moment the
reinstatement order was issued up to the date when the same was reversed by a higher court without fear
of refunding what he had received. Thus, the payment of such wages cannot be deemed as unjust
enrichment on respondent’s part.
10. Wenphil Corp. v. Abing, April 7, 2014

Doctrine: The decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the
reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, even pending appeal. The employee
shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his
24
3G 2017-2018
dismissal or separation, or at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a
bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement.
11. Smart Communications v. Solidum, April 15, 2015

Brief Facts: Smart hired respondent Solidum as Department Head for Smart Buddy Activation. Smart
Buddy Activation is under the Product Marketing Group which is headed by Isla. Isla gave Solidum a
memorandum informing him of alleged acts of dishonesty, directing him to explain why his employment
should not be terminated, and placing him under preventive suspension without pay for 30 days.
Doctrine: The NLRC’s May 29, 2009 Decision became final and executory on August 10, 2009 as shown
on the entry of judgement. Moreover the certification issued by the NLRC states that the NLRC’s May
29, 2009 Decision became final and executory on the same date. Since it became final and executory on
August 10, 2009, Solidum is entitled to P2,881,335.86, representing his accrued salaries, allowances,
benefits, incentives and bonuses for the period of January 21 to July 20, 2009.
Additional: In the case of Bago v. NLRC, the Court held that employees are entitled to their accrued
salaries, allowances, benefits, incentives and bonuses until the NLRC’s reversal of the labor arbiter’s
order of reinstatement becomes final and executory, as shown on the entry of judgment.
ARTICLE 230 (224): EXECUTION

1. Sy et. al., v. Fairland Knitcraft Co., December 12, 2011
Brief facts:Complaining workers are sewers, trimmers, helpers, a guard, and a secretary who were hired
by Weesan. They filed a complaint with the NLRC or underpayment and/or non0payment of wages,
overtime pay, premium pay for holidays, 13th month pay and other monetary benefits against
Susan/Weesan. Weesan filed before DOLE a report on its temporary closure for a period of not less than
6 months. As workers were not allowed to work on that same day, they filed an amended Complaint and
another pleading entitled Amended Complaints and Position Paper for Complaints, to include the charge
of illegal dismissal.
LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Workers appealed and was granted by the NLRC. Fairland
and Susan filed separate petitions for Certiorari before the CA which affirmed the decision of the NLRC
that the workers were illegally dismissed and Weesan and Fairland are solidarily liable to them as
labor-only contractor and principal respectively.
Doctrine: Labor Code allows mode of termination of employment the closure or termination of business.
“Closure or cessation of business is the complete or partial cessation of the operations and/or shut-down
of the establishment of the employer.” The decision to close the business is a management prerogative
exclusive to the employer, the exercise of which no court or tribunal can meddle with, except only when
the employer fails to prove compliance with the requirements of Art. 283. It bears stressing that the
burden of proving that a temporary suspension is bona fide falls upon the employer. Clearly,
Susan/Weesan was not able to discharge the burden.
2. Yupangco Cotton Mills v. CA, January 16, 2002

Brief facts: Petitioner contended that a sheriff of the NLRC “erroneously and unlawfully levied” certain
properties which it claims as its own. It filed a 3rd party claim with the Labor Arbiter and recovery of
property and damages with the RTC.
Doctrine: A third party whose property has been levied upon by a sheriff to enforce a decision against a
judgment debtor is afforded with several alternative remedies to protect its interests. The third party may
avail himself of alternative remedies cumulatively, and one will not preclude the third party from availing
himself of the other alternative remedies in the event he failed in the remedy first availed of.
3. Ando v. Campo, February 16, 2011

Brief Facts: Respondents were dismissed from employment. They filed a case for illegal dismissal and
some money claims with the NLRC. The LA ruled in respondents’ favor. The NLRC affirmed the Labor
25
3G 2017-2018
Arbiter’s decision with modification. Upon finality of the decision, respondents moved for its execution.
NLRC Acting Sheriff issued a Notice of Sale on Execution of Personal Property over the property in the
name of Paquito V. Ando who is married to Erlinda S. Ando. Petitioner filed an action for prohibition and
damages with prayer for the issuance of a TRO with the RTC.
Doctrine: No temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order in any case involving or growing out
of labor disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity, except as otherwise provided in Articles 218
and 264 of this Code. The power of the NLRC, or the courts, to execute its judgment extends only to
properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor alone. While petitioner availed himself of the
wrong remedy to vindicate his rights, nonetheless, justice demands that this Court look beyond his
procedural missteps and grant the petition.
4. PAL v. Bischara, September 2, 2015

Brief Facts:PAL hired Bichara as a flight attendant. Sometime in 1971, PAL implemented a retrenchment
program. By April of that year, Bichara voluntarily resigned. On May 15, 1975, he was rehired. In August
1993, Bichara was included in PAL's Purser Upgrading Program in which he graduated on December 13,
1993. However, Bichara failed in the two (2) check rides with ratings of 83.46% and 80.63%.
Consequently, on March 21, 1994, Bichara was demoted to the position of flight steward.
Doctrine: A judgment should be implemented according to the terms of its dispositive portion is a long
and well-established rule. As such, where the writ of execution is not in harmony with and exceeds the
judgment which gives it life, the writ has pro tanto no validity. A companion to this rule is the principle of
immutability of final judgments, which states that a final judgment may no longer be altered, amended or
modified, even if the alteration, amendment or modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an
erroneous conclusion of fact or law and regardless of what court renders it.
5. Guillermo v. Uson, March 7, 2016

Brief Facts: On March 11, 1996, respondent Crisanto P. Uson (Uson) began his employment with Royal
Class Venture Phils., Inc. (Royal Class Venture) as an accounting clerk. Eventually, he was promoted to
the position of accounting supervisor, with a salary of Php13,000.00 a month, until he was allegedly
dismissed from employment.
Doctrine: Not all conflicts between a stockholder and the corporation are intra-corporate; an examination
of the complaint must be made on whether the complainant is involved in his capacity as a stockholder or
director, or as an employee. If the latter is found and the dispute does not meet the test of what qualities
as an intra-corporate controversy, then the case is a labor case cognizable by the NLRC and is not within
the jurisdiction of any other tribunal.
ARTICLE 232 (226): BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS
1. Employees Union of Bayer Phils. v. Bayer Phils, Dec. 6, 2010
Brief Facts: Aggrieved by the said development, EUBP lodged a complaint against Remigio’s group
before the Industrial Relations Division of the DOLE praying for their expulsion from EUBP for
commission of acts that threaten the life of the union. petitioners filed a second ULP complaint against
herein respondents. Three days later, petitioners amended the complaint charging the respondents with
unfair labor practice committed by organizing a company union, gross violation of the CBA and violation
of their duty to bargain.
Doctrine:An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and among union members, including
grievances arising from any violation of the rights and conditions of membership, violation of or
disagreement over any provision of the union’s constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from
chartering or disaffiliation of the union.
26
3G 2017-2018
2. Montano v. Verceles, July 26, 2010

Brief facts: Despite strong opposition and FFW COMELEC’s stand that Atty Montano is not qualified for
the position because it violates their Constitution and By-Laws, he emerged victorious and was
proclaimed as the National Vice-President.
Doctrine: Section 226 of the Labor Code clearly provides that the BLR and the Regional Directors of
DOLE have concurrent jurisdiction over inter-union and intra-union disputes. Such disputes include the
conduct or nullification of election of union and workers’ association officers. There is, thus, no doubt as
to the BLR’s jurisdiction over the instant dispute involving member-unions of a federation arising from
disagreement over the provisions of the federation’s constitution and by-laws.
3. Diokno et al., v. Cacdac, July 4, 2007

Brief Facts: Petitioner and respondents are members of the supervisory union of Meralco. Daya et al and
Ong et al filed with the med-arbitration unit of DOLE a petition to nullify the order of disqualification,
election proceedings and counting of votes. Jimenez group filed a petition to nullify the election on the
ground that it was not free, orderly and peaceful.
Doctrine: BLR has original jurisdiction on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts. Since Art. 226 declared
the BLR shall have original and exclusive authority to act on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, there
should be no doubt as to its jurisdiction. Intra-union conflict refers to a conflict within or inside a labor
union.
ARTICLE 233 (227): COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
1. Magbuana v. Uy, May 6, 2005

Brief Facts: In the case of Uy vs. NLRC the SC awarded PHP 1, 487, 312.69 to the 8 complainants
therein as the amount of wage differentials due them. Respondent Uy filed a manifestation requesting the
case to be terminated stating that the judgement award has been complied with to the satisfaction of
petitioners. The manifestation was signed by the 8 petitioners and was accompanied by a joint affidavit
attesting to the receipt of payment and waiving all other benefits due them in connection with their
complaint. Subsequently, petitioners filed an urgent motion for issuance of writ of execution alleging that
they received only partial payments of the judgement award. Respondent claimed that the award was fully
satisfied. 6 of the 8 petitioners attested that they have no more collectible amount from respondents and if
there is any they are abandoning and waiving it.
Doctrine: The presence or absence of counsel when a waiver is executed does not determine its validity.
The test is whether it was executed voluntarily, freely and intelligently and whether the consideration for it
was credible and reasonable.
2. Solomon et . al. v. Powertech Corp., January 22, 2008
Brief Facts: A complaint for illegal dismissal was filed by Nagkakaisang Manggagawa Ng Powertech
Corporation in behalf of its 52 individual members and non-union members against their employer,
Powertech. The LArendered a decision in favor of the employees awarding monetary claims in the total
amount of P2,538,728.84. Powertech appealed to the NLRC. During its pendency, Carlos Gestiada, for
himself and on behalf of other petitioners, executed a quitclaim, release and waiver in favor of Powertech
in consideration of the amount of P150,000.00.
Doctrine: Collusion is a species of fraud. Article 227, LC empowers the NLRC to void a compromise
agreement for fraud.
3. Philippine Journalists Inc., v. NLRC, September 5, 2006

27
3G 2017-2018
Brief Facts: The NLRC declared that the complainants were illegally dismissed and that there was no
basis for the implementation of petitioner’s retrenchment program. Thereafter, the parties executed a
Compromise Agreement dated July 9, 2001, where PJI undertook to reinstate the 31
complainant-employees declared to be illegally dismissed.
Doctrine: A judgment rendered in accordance with a compromise agreement is not appealable, and is
immediately executory unless a motion is filed to set aside the agreement on the ground of fraud,
mistake, or duress, in which case an appeal may be taken against the order denying the motion.
ARTICLE 238 (232) PROHIBITION ON CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION
1. Colegio De San Juan De Letran v. Association of Employees and Faculty of Letran et. al,
September 18, 2000
Brief facts: The Respondent Union thereafter elected new officers wherein Eleanor Ambas emerged as
the new President. In 1996, the Respondent Union filed a notice to strike because the Petitioner allegedly
refused to bargain for a new CBA, prompting the parties to restart negotiations. The union submitted its
proposals to the Petitioner, but took the latter more than a month to make counter-proposals.
Doctrine: Noteworthy in the definition of the “duty to bargain collectively” under Art. 252 [263, as
renumbered] is the requirement on both parties of the performance of the mutual obligation to meet and
convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement.
ART 234 AMENDED BY RA 9481 (MAY 25, 2007)
1. Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. v. Sec of Labor, December 21, 2009
Brief facts: Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc was issued a Certificate of
Registration as a legitimate labor organization. Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. filed a Petition for
Cancellation of Union Registration against respondent, claiming that the latter violated Article 234 of the
Labor Code for not complying with the 20% requirement, and that it committed massive fraud and
misrepresentation in violation of Article 239. The petitioner insists that respondent failed to comply with
the 20% union membership requirement for its registration as a legitimate labor organization because of
the disaffiliation from the total number of union members of 102 employees who executed affidavits
recanting their union membership. Respondent asserts that it had a total of 173 union members at the
time it applied for registration.
Doctrine: In case the applicant is an independent union, the names of all its members comprising at least
twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate is one of the
requirements of registration of a labor organization.
2. Electromat Manufacturing and Recording Corporation v. Lagunzad et. al., July 27, 2011 (only
related to Art. 234)
Brief Facts: Private respondent Union applied for registration with the BLR. Petitioner company filed a
petition for cancellation of the union’s registration certificate, for the union’s failure to comply with Article
234 of the Labor Code.
SC: The petitioner has no factual basis for questioning the union’s registration, as even the requirements
for registration as an independent local have been substantially complied with. The intent of the law in
imposing lesser requirements in the case of a branch or local of a registered federation or national union
is to encourage the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union in order to increase the
local union’s bargaining powers respecting terms and conditions of labor.
28
3G 2017-2018
Doctrine: Requirements for Registration of a labor organization, association or group of unions or
workers.-The intent of the law in imposing lesser requirements in the case of a branch or local of a
registered federation or national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local union with a federation or
national union in order to increase the local union’s bargaining powers respecting terms and conditions of
labor.
3. Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club v. CA, March 18, 2010 (old law)
Brief Facts: At least 20% of Eagle Ridges rank-and-file employee had a meeting where they organized
themselves into an independent labor union. The EREU filed a petition for certification election in Eagle
Ridge Gold and Country Club. Eagle Ridge opposed this petition followed by filing its petition for
cancellation of Registration Certificate. Eagle Ridges petition ascribed misrepresentation, false statement,
or fraud to EREU in connection with the adoption of its constitution and by-laws, the numerical
composition of the Union, and the election of its officers.
Doctrine: The members of the EREU totaled 30 employees when it applied on December 19, 2005 for
registration. The Union thereby complied with the mandatory minimum 20% membership requirement
under Art. 234(c). Of note is the undisputed number of 112 rank-and-file employees in Eagle Ridge, as
shown in the Sworn Statement of the Union president and secretary and confirmed by Eagle Ridge in its
petition for cancellation. The Court ruled that Any seeming infirmity in the application and admission of
union membership, most especially in cases of independent labor unions, must be viewed in favor of valid
membership.
CERT OF REGISTRATION LABOR ORGANIZATION
4. Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union
PGTWO,
January 22, 2003
Brief facts: Respondent, a legitimate labor organization said to represent majority of the rank-and-file
employees of THIGCI, filed a petition for certification election before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit.
THIGCI opposed the petition on the ground that the list of union members submitted by it was defective
and fatally flawed as it included the names and signatures of supervisors resigned, terminated and absent
without leave (AWOL) employees, as well as employees of The Country Club, Inc, a corporation distinct
and separate from THIGC
Doctrine: After a certificate of registration is issued to a union, the legal personality cannot be subject to
collateral attack. It may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with
Section 5 of Rule V of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code.
5. SS Ventures International Inc. v. SS Ventures Labor Union, July 23, 2008
Brief Facts: SS Ventures filed a Petition to cancel the Union’s certificate of registration, the Union denied
committing the imputed acts of fraud or forgery in obtaining signatures and membership to become a
legitimate labor union.
Doctrine: For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union registration under
Article 239, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate
the consent of a majority of union members.
ART 245-248 (238-239): CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION

1. Heritage Hotel Manila v. NUWHRAIN-HHMSC, January 12, 2011
Brief facts: On October 11, 1995, respondent filed with the DOLE-NCR a petition for certification
election. The Med-Arbiter granted the petition and ordered the holding of a certification election. On
appeal, the DOLE Secretary affirmed the Med-Arbiters order and remanded the case to the Med-Arbiter
for the holding of a preelection conference. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.
29
3G 2017-2018
Doctrine: The union members and, in fact, all the employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit
should not be deprived of a bargaining agent, merely because of the negligence of the union officers who
were responsible for the submission of the documents to the BLR.
Labor authorities should, indeed, act with circumspection in treating petitions for cancellation of union
registration, lest they be accused of interfering with union activities. In resolving the petition, consideration
must be taken of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution, i.e., the
rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities. Labor authorities should bear in mind that registration confers upon a union the status of
legitimacy and the concomitant right and privileges granted by law to a legitimate labor organization,
particularly the right to participate in or ask for certification election in a bargaining unit. Thus, the
cancellation of a certificate of registration is the equivalent of snuffing out the life of a labor organization.
For without such registration, it loses - as a rule - its rights under the Labor Code
2. Republic of the Phils. v. Kawashima Textile Manufacturing, July 23, 2008
Brief Facts:Kawashima Free Workers Union filed with DOLE a Petition for Certification Election to be
conducted in the bargaining unit composed of 145 rank-and-file employees of respondent. Respondent
filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition on the ground that KFWU did not acquire any legal personality
because its membership of mixed rank-and-file and supervisory employees violated Article 245 of the
Labor Code, and its failure to submit its books of account.
Doctrine: The law and rules in force at the time of the filing by KFWU is R.A. No. 6715 which restored
the prohibition against the questioned mingling in one labor organization.
In the case at bar, as respondent union’s membership list contains the names of at least twenty-seven
(27) supervisory employees in Level Five positions, the union could not, prior to purging itself of its
supervisory employee members, attain the status of a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, it
cannot possess the requisite personality to file a petition for certification election.
1989 Amended Omnibus Rules was further amended by Department Order No. 9, series of 1997– that
the petition for certification election indicate that the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees has not
been mingled with supervisory employees – was removed.
Consequently, the Court reverses the ruling of the CA and reinstates that of the DOLE granting the
petition for certification election of KFWU.
3. De Ocampo Memorial School v. Bigkis Manggagawa sa De Ocampo Memorial School, March 5,

2017
Brief Facts: De Ocampo filed a petition for cancellation of the certificate of registration of BMDOMS on
the ground of no mutuality of interests.
Doctrine: While the CA may have ruled that there is no mutuality or commonality of interests among the
members of BMDOMSI, this is not enough reason to cancel its registration. The only grounds on which
the cancellation of a union's registration may be sought are those found in Article 247 of the Labor Code
which are as follows: misrepresentation, fraud and false statement.
ARTICLE 250 (241): RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORG
1. Del Pilar Academy et. al. v. Del Pilar Academy’s Employee’s Union , April 30, 2008
Brief facts: A CBA was entered into by the petitoner and the respondent union whereby a grant of salary
increase and of vacation leave with pay and other benefits was extended to its members. Petitioner did
30
3G 2017-2018
not deduct agency fees from the salaries of non-union employees but the latter nevertheless received
benefits under the CBA. In justifying the failure to deduct the agency fees from the salaries of the
non-union employees, petitioner argued that the latters’ written consent was not obtained.
Doctrine: Article 248(e) makes it explicit that Article 241, paragraph (o), requiring written authorization is
inapplicable to non-union members, especially in this case where the non-union employees receive
several benefits under the CBA.
2. Edgardo Marino Jr. et. al. v. Gamilia, July 7, 2009
Brief facts: Under the MOA entered into by the UST and UST Faculty Union, and pursuant to a CBA
between them, economic benefits were granted to the USTFU members in the amount of P42M to be
derived from the incremental proceeds of the tuition fees . Said amount was received by USTFU.
Petitioners, as officers of the USTFU, deducted, by way of check-off, 10% of the P42M representing as
negotiation fees. The SC finds that the P42M Economic Package does not constitute union dues. Thus,
the 10% check-off was invalid.
Doctrine: General rule is that attorney’s fees, negotiation fees, and other similar charges may only be
collected from union funds, not from the amounts that pertain to individual union members.
ARTICLE 251 (242): RIGHTS OF LEGITIMATE LABOR ORG
1. Heritage Hotel Manila v. NUWHRAIN-HHMSC, January 12, 2011

Brief facts: Respondent union filed with the DOLE-NCR Regional Office a petition for certification
election. Med-Arb ordered the holding of the certification election. Subsequently, petitioner discovered
that respondent union failed to submit to the BLR its annual Financial Reports. Thus, petitioner sought the
cancellation of the respondent union’s registration on this ground.
Doctrine: Non-filing of reportorial requirements is not a ground for cancellation of union registration.
2. Abaria v. NLRC, December 7, 2011 (in relation to 263 and 264)
Brief facts: This is a case of consolidated petitions involving the legality of mass termination of hospital
employees who participated in strike and picketing activities. The National Federation of Labor (NFL) is
the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees of Metro Cebu Community
Hospital, Inc (MCCHI). Nava through NAMA-MCCH-NFL wrote Rev. Iyoy (Hospital admin) expressing the
union’s desire to renew the CBA, attaching to her letter a statement of proposals signed/endorsed by 153
union members. Nava subsequently requested that some employees to be allowed to avail of one-day
union leave with pay. However, MCCHI returned the CBA proposal for Nava to secure first the
endorsement of the legal counsel of NFL as the official bargaining representative of MCCHI employees.
Meanwhile, Atty. Alforque informed MCCHI that NFL has not authorized any person for collective
bargaining negotiations. By January 1996, the collection of union fees (check-off) was temporarily
suspended by MCCHI in view of the existing conflict between the federation and its local affiliate. In his
letter dated February 24, 1996 addressed to Nava, Ernesto Canen, Jr., Jesusa Gerona, Hannah
Bongcaras, Emma Remocaldo, Catalina Alsado and Albina Baez, Atty. Alforque suspended their union
membership for serious violation of the Constitution and By-Laws.
Doctrine: Not being a legitimate labor organization, NAMA-MCCH-NFL is not entitled to those rights
granted to a legitimate labor organization under Art. 242, specifically: (a) To act as the representative of
its members for the purpose of collective bargaining; (b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of
all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
NAMA-MCCH-NFL is not the labor organization certified or designated by the majority of the rank- and-file
hospital employees to represent them in the CBA negotiations but the NFL, as evidenced by CBAs
concluded in 1987, 1991 and 1994. While it is true that a local union has the right to disaffiliate from the
31
3G 2017-2018
national federation, NAMA-MCCH-NFL has not done so as there was no any effort on its part to comply
with the legal requisites for a valid disaffiliation, Nava and her group simply demanded that MCCHI
directly negotiate with the local union which has not even registered as one. In any case,
NAMA-MCCH-NFL at the time of submission of said proposals was not a duly registered labor
organization; hence it cannot legally represent MCCHI’s rank-and-file employees for purposes of
collective bargaining. Hence, NAMA-MCCH-NFL cannot demand from MCCHI the right to bargain
collectively in their behalf. Hence, MCCHI’s refusal to bargain then with NAMA-MCCH-NFL cannot be
considered an unfair labor practice to justify the staging of the strike.
NATURE OF CBA
Weslayan University Phils. v. Weslayan University Philippines Faculty and Staff Association,
March 12, 2014
Brief facts: Wesleyan University-PH, and the Wesleyan University Faculty and Staff Association signed a
5-year CBA effective 2003 until 2008. In 2005, Wesleyan through Atty. Maglaya, issued a memorandum
providing for guidelines on the implementation of vacation and sick leave credits as well as vacation leave
commutation. Respondent’s President then informed Atty. Maglaya that respondent is not amenable to
the unilateral changes made by the petitioner. De lara questioned the guidelines for ciolative of existing
practices and the CBA.
Doctrine: A Collective Bargaining Agreement is a contract entered into by an employer and a legitimate
labor organization concerning the terms and conditions of employment. Like any other contract, it has the
force of law between the parties and, thus, should be complied with in good faith. Unilateral changes or
suspensions in the implementation of the provisions of the CBA, therefore, cannot be allowed without
consent of both parties.
ARTICLE 253 (243): COVERAGE AND EMPLOYEE’S RIGHT TO SELF ORGANIZATION
1. Samahan ng Mangagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard v. BLR, October 14, 2015
Brief facts: Samahan, filed an application for registration of its name "Samahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa
Hanjin Shipyard" with the DOLE. Respondent Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd.
Philippines (Hanjin), with offices at Subic Bay Freeport Zone, filed a petition with DOLE-Pampanga
praying for the cancellation of registration of Samahan's association on the ground that its members did
not fall under any of the types of workers enumerated in the second sentence of Article 243 (now 253).
Hanjin opined that only ambulant, intermittent, itinerant, rural workers, self-employed, and those without
definite employers may form a workers' association. It further posited that one third (1/3) of the members
of the association had definite employers and the continued existence and registration of the association
would prejudice the company's goodwill.
Doctrine: The right to self-organization is not limited to unionism. Workers may also form or join an
association for mutual aid and protection and for other legitimate purposes
Article 243. Coverage and employees' right to self-organization. All persons employed in commercial,
industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational institutions,
whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor
organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and
itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form
labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 70, May
1, 1980)
ARTICLE 255 (245): MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE AND INCLUSION OF MEMBERS OUTSIDE
BARGAINING UNIT
32
3G 2017-2018
1. SMCC v. Charter Chemical and Coating Corp., March 16, 2011
Brief facts: Petitioner union filed a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file
employees of respondent company. The respondent company moved to dismiss on the ground of
inclusion of supervisory employees within petitioner union.
Doctrine: Any mingling between supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its membership cannot
affect its legitimacy for that is not among the grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless such
mingling was brought about by misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239 (now Article
247) of the Labor Code.
2. Cathay Pacific Steel Corp. V. CA, August 30, 2003
Brief Facts: In this case Tamandong who was the personel superintendent of CAPASCO actively
organized a union. As a result of which, he was sacked by CAPASCO. On the complaint filed by
Tamandong, CAPASCO claims that Tamandong is a managerial employeed therefore, he is not entitled
to the protection against illegal dismissal provided for by the Labor Code.
Doctrine: Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend
such managerial actions, if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment; whereas managerial employees are those who are vested with
powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or hire, transfer, suspend, lay
off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees.
In this case, being a supervisory employee of CAPASCO, Tamondong cannot be prohibited from joining
or participating in the union activities.
3. AIM v. AIM Faculty Association, January 23, 2017

Brief Facts: Respondent filed a petition for certification election seeking to represent a bargaining unit
in AIM consisting of forty (40) faculty members. Petitioner opposed the petition, claiming that respondent's
members are neither rank-and-file nor supervisory, but rather, managerial employees. Also, petitioner
filed a petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration on the grounds of
misrepresentation in registration and that respondent is composed of managerial employees who are
prohibited from organizing as a union.
Doctrine: Managerial employees are now of two categories: (1) those who 'lay down policies', such as
the members of the Board of Trustees, and those who 'execute management policies (etc.)', such as
AIM's tenure-track faculty.
ART 258-260 (247-249): UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE

1. General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union Tupas v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phils. Inc.,
February 13, 2009
Brief facts: Faced with the "freeze hiring" directive, CCBPI Gen San engaged the services of JLBP
Services Corporation (JLBP), a company in the business of providing labor and manpower services,
including janitorial services, messengers, and office workers to various private and government offices to
replace the workers previously employed by the petitioner. Thus, petitioner filed with the NCMB.
Doctrine: Unfair labor practice refers to "acts that violate the workers' right to organize." The prohibited
acts are related to the workers' right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Without that
element, the acts, even if unfair, are not unfair labor practices.
2. UST Faculty Union v. UST April 7, 2009

Brief Facts: An election was conducted without the participation of the UST administration and other
USTFU members (Mario Group). CBA was entered into by the new officers (Gamilia group) and UST.
33
3G 2017-2018
Doctrine: It shall be unlawful for an employer to violate the duty to bargain collectively. The acts of UST
in support of the USTFU as the legitimate representative of the bargaining unit, albeit through the Gamilla
Group, cannot be considered as ULP. Having been shown evidence to support the legitimacy of the
Gamilla Group with no counter-evidence from the Mario Group, UST had to recognize the Gamilla Group
and negotiate with it
3. Phil. Skylanders Inc. v. NLRC Jan 31, 2002

Brief facts: PSEA sent PAFLU a notice of disaffiliation. Then PSEA affiliated itself with the National
Congress of Workers (NCW). PSEA-NCW entered into a collective bargaining agreement with PSI.
PAFLU filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against PSI. PAFLU alleged that aside from PSIs refusal
to bargain collectively with its workers, the company through its president and personnel manager, was
also liable for interfering with its employees' union activities.
Doctrines:
1. We upheld the right of local unions to separate from their mother federation on the ground that as
separate and voluntary associations, local unions do not owe their creation and existence to the national
federation to which they are affiliated but, instead, to the will of their members. The sole essence of
affiliation is to increase, by collective action, the common bargaining power of local unions for the
effective enhancement and protection of their interests.
2. The complaint then for unfair labor practice lodged by PAFLU against PSI, PSEA and their
respective officers, having been filed by a party which has no legal personality to institute the complaint,
should have been dismissed at the first instance for failure to state a cause of action.
4. Tropical Hut Employee’s Union v. Tropical Hunt Foot Market Inc. January 20, 1990
5. Purefoods Corp. v. Nagkakaisang Samahang Mangagawa ng Purefoods Rank and File, August
28, 2008
Brief Facts: NAGSAMA-Purefoods manifested to petitioner corporation its desire to re-negotiate the
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) then due to expire on the 28th of theBrief Facts: The rank and file
workers of the Tropical Hut Food Market, referred herein as respondent company, organized a union
called Tropical Hut Employees Union known as THEU sought affiliation with the National Association of
Trade Unions (NATU). NATU then accepted THEU application for application. It appears however that
NATU as a labor federation was not registered with the DOLE. After several negotiations were conducted
between THEU and Tropical Hut Food Market, a Collective Bargaining Agreement was concluded. Later
on NATU received a letter that THEU was disaffiliating from the NATU Federation. Thereafter several
complaints for unfair labor practices were filed by petitioner THEU members against respondent Tropical
Hut Food Market in view of alleged illegal dismissals of its members on account of an invalid disaffiliation
because according to NATU, THEU violated NATU’s Constitution which provides that withdrawal from the
organization shall be valid provided three months’ notice of intention to withdraw is served upon the
National Executive Council.
Doctrine: The act of non-compliance with the procedure on withdrawal is premised on purely technical
grounds which cannot rise above the fundamental right of self-organization. If a union or a federation was
not even a legitimate labor organization which mean it was not registered with the DOLE therefore did not
possess and said month acquire the legal personality to enforce its constitution and laws, much less the
right and privilege under the Labor Code to organize and affiliate chapters or locals within its group.
6. De la Salle University v. DLSUEA-NAFTEU, April 7, 2009
Brief Facts: A CBA was executed between the University and the Union. Due to respondent’s
non-compliance with the DOLE-NCR requirements for Conduct of Elections, and as requested by the
Aliazas Group, the University put on escrow all collected union dues and agency fees until elections had
been held, claiming that a void in the Union leadership exists. It also discontinued normal relations with
any group within the union. Thus, respondents filed a Complaint for ULP against petitioner, claiming that
the latter unduly interfered with its internal affairs and discriminated against its members.
34
3G 2017-2018
Doctrine: It is axiomatic in labor relations that a CBA entered into by a legitimate labor organization and
an employer becomes the law between the parties, compliance with which is mandated by express policy
of the law.
7. MSMG_UWP v. Ramos, February 28, 2000

Brief Facts: Petitioners filed their own Notice of Strike against M. Greenfield, Inc. and the actual strike
that followed was attended with violence, force and intimidation on both sides resulting to physical injuries
to several employees, both striking and non-striking, and damage to company properties. M. Greenfield,
Inc. sent return-to-work notices to the striking employees and terminated those who failed to respond to
the notices, considering them to have abandoned their jobs.
Doctrine: Union security clauses in CBAs are valid and binding and dismissals pursuant thereto are valid
and legal subject only to the requirement of due process, that is, notice and hearing prior to dismissal.
Thus, the dismissal of an employee pursuant to a labor union's demand in accordance with a union
security agreement does not constitute ULP. However, the dismissal was invalidated in this case because
(1) the company failed to accord petitioners with due process and (2) the reason relied upon by the
federation was not valid. Nonetheless, the dismissal still does not constitute ULP.
8. Alabang Country Club v. Nlrc, February 14, 2008

Brief Facts: The Club and the Union entered into CBA, which provided for a Union shop and
maintenance of membership shop. The CBA includes that upon written demand of the UNION and after
observing due process, the Club shall dismiss a regular rank-and-file employee when the latter committed
Malversation of union funds. Respondents Christopher Pizarro, Michael Braza, and Nolasco Castueras
were the Union President, Vice- President, and Treasurer, respectively. Subsequently, an election was
held and a new set of officers was elected. Soon thereafter, the new officers conducted an audit of the
Union funds. They discovered some irregularly recorded entries, unaccounted expenses and
disbursements, and uncollected loans from the Union funds. The Union notified respondents Pizarro,
Braza, and Castueras of the audit results and asked them to explain the discrepancies in writing.
Doctrine: In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the union security clause, the
employer needs only to determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable; (2) the union
is requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA; and (3) there is sufficient
evidence to support the union's decision to expel the employee from the union. These requisites
constitute just cause for terminating an employee based on the CBA's union security provision.
9. Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union v. Confesor, June 16, 2004
Brief Facts: The Bank and the Union signed a five-year collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with a
provision to renegotiate the terms thereof on the third year. The Bank attached its counter-proposal to the
provisions proposed by the Union. The Bank posited that it would be in a better position to present its
counter-proposals on the economic items after the Union had presented its justifications for the economic
proposals. The Bank, likewise, listed the members of its negotiating panel.
SC: In order to show that the employer committed ULP under the Labor Code, substantial evidence is
required to support the claim. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Union was not able to do so.
Doctrine: If an employer interferes in the selection of its negotiators or coerces the Union to exclude from
its panel of negotiators a representative of the Union, and if it can be inferred that the employer adopted
the said act to yield adverse effects on the free exercise to right to self-organization or on the right to
collective bargaining of the employees, ULP under Article 248(a) in connection with Article 243 of the
Labor Code is committed.
35
3G 2017-2018
10. GMC v. CA, February 11, 2004
Brief Facts: A day before the expiration of the CBA, the union sent GMC a proposed CBA, with a request
that a counter-proposal be submitted within ten (10) days. Believing that the union no longer had standing
to negotiate a CBA, GMC did not send any counter-proposal.
Doctrine: The procedure in collective bargaining prescribed by the Code is mandatory because of the
basic interest of the state in ensuring lasting industrial peace. GMCs failure to make a timely reply to the
proposals presented by the union is indicative of its utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union. We
hold that GMCs refusal to make a counter-proposal to the unions proposal for CBA negotiation is an
indication of its bad faith. Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to the bargaining
proposals of the union, there is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively. Failing to comply with
the mandatory obligation to submit a reply to the unions proposals, GMC violated its duty to bargain
collectively, making it liable for unfair labor practice.
11. Hacienda Fatima v. NFSW Food and General Trade, January 28, 2003
Brief Facts: Contrary to the findings of the LA that complainants (respondents) refused to work and/or
were choosy in the kind of jobs they wanted to perform, the records is replete with complainants’
persistence and dogged determination in going back to work. Respondents did not look with favour
workers having organized themselves into a union. When complainant union was certified as collective
bargaining representative in the certification elections, respondents refused to sit down with the union for
the purpose of entering into a CBA. Moreover, workers including complainants were not given work for
more than 1 month. In protest, complainants staged a strike which was settled upon signing of MOA
which was subsequently followed by signing another MOA.
Doctrine: The primary standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the
employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business
of the employer. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of the work performed and
its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. Also if the employee has been
performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent,
the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if
not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but only
with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.
12. St. John Colleges Inc. v. John Academy Faculty and Employees union October 27, 2006
Brief Facts: Upon expiry of the CBA between the petitioner and the respondent union, negotiations
ensued. These series of talks continued but to no avail resulting to bargaining deadlock and eventually to
a holding of valid strike. Pending resolution of the matter, petitioner caused the closure of the high school.
This prompted the respondent union to file a complaint for ULP, imputing bad faith on the part of the
petitioner due to the closure by it of the high school.
Doctrine: : Under Article 283 of the Labor Code, the following requisites must concur for a valid closure
of the business: (1) serving a written notice on the workers at least one (1) month before the intended
date thereof; (2) serving a notice with the DOLE one month before the taking effect of the closure; (3)
payment of separation pay equivalent to one (1) month or at least one half (1/2) month pay for every year
of service, whichever is higher, with a fraction of at least six (6) months to be considered as a whole year;
and (4) cessation of the operation must be bona fide.
13. Central Azucarera De Bais Employees Union NFL v. Central Azucarera De Bais Inc. Nov 17,
2010
Brief Facts: CABEU-NFL, the certified bargaining agent of CAB, alleged that CAB committed ULP when
it entered into CBA with CABELA, the newly established union which is not the certified bargaining agent
of Central employees.
36
3G 2017-2018
Doctrine: For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that CAB was motivated by ill
will, bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs, or public policy, and, of course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings or grave anxiety
resulted in suspending negotiations with CABEU-NFL.
14. UFE-DFA-KMU v. Nestle Phils. Inc. March 3, 2008

Brief Facts: The Presidents of the Alabang and Cabuyao Divisions of UFE-DFA-KMU informed Nestle of
their intent to open a new CBA negotiations for the year 2001-2004. Nestle on its part informed them it
was preparing its own counter-proposal and proposed ground rules to govern the impending conduct of
CBA negotiations. Nestlé reiterated its stance in a letter to UFE-DFA-KMU that "unilateral grants,
one-time company grants, company-initiated policies and programs, which include, but are not limited to
the Retirement Plan, Incidental Straight Duty Pay and Calling Pay Premium, are by their very nature not
proper subjects of CBA negotiations and therefore shall be excluded therefrom.
Doctrine: The duty to bargain collectively is mandated by Articles 252 and 253 of the Labor Code, as
amended. The purpose of collective bargaining is the reaching of an agreement resulting in a contract
binding on the parties; but the failure to reach an agreement after negotiations have continued for a
reasonable period does not establish a lack of good faith. The statutes invite and contemplate a collective
bargaining contract, but they do not compel one. There is no per se test of good faith in bargaining. Good
faith or bad faith is an inference to be drawn from the facts.
15. Malatyang Mangagawa ng Stayfast v. NLRC, August 28, 2014.
Brief Facts: Petitioner’s members staged a "sit-down strike" to dramatize their demand for a fair and
equal treatment as respondent company allegedly continued to discriminate against them. Respondent
company claimed that petitioner lacked legal authority to go on strike since it is a minority union.
Doctrine: While a union may file a notice of strike on behalf of its members, petitioner failed to cite any
instance of discrimination or harassment when it filed its notice of strike and the incidents mentioned as
discriminatory occurred after the filing if the said notice.
16. Holy Child Catholic School v. Sec of Labor, July 23, 2013.
Brief Facts: A petition for certification election was filed by private respondent HCCS-TELUPIGLAS,
assailed by Petitioner school for not being accord with Art. 245 of Labor Code, since itsmembers include
high ranking employees, other non-teaching personnel along with regular teaching staff thus, it is an
illegitimate labor organization lacking in personality to file a petition for certification election
Doctrine: A bargaining unit has been defined as a "group of employees of a given employer, comprised
of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interests of all the employees,
consistent with equity to the employer, indicated to be best suited to serve reciprocal rights and duties of
the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law
The teaching and non-teaching personnel of petitioner school must form separate bargaining
units. Thus, the order for the conduct of two separate certification elections, one involving teaching
personnel and the other involving non-teaching personnel. It should be stressed that in the subject
petition, private respondent union sought the conduct of a certification election among all the rank-and-file
personnel of petitioner school.
17. Employee of Bayer Phils. v Bayer Phils.

Brief Facts: EUBP is the exclusive bargaining agent of all rank-and-file employees of Bayer Philippines
(Bayer). Remigios splinter group wrote Facundo, FFW and Bayer informing them of the decision of the
37
3G 2017-2018
majority of the union members to disaffiliate from FFW. This was followed by another letter informing
Facundo, FFW and Bayer that an interim set of REUBP executive officers and board of directors had
been appointed, and demanding the remittance of all union dues to REUBP. REUBP and Bayer agreed to
sign a new CBA.
Doctrine: An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and among union members, including
grievances arising from any violation of the rights and conditions of membership, violation of or
disagreement over any provision of the unions constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from
chartering or disaffiliation of the union.
18. SWOFLU v. Universal Robina October 5, 2016

Brief Facts: URC-SONEDCO consistently refused to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement
with SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union, despite several demands from SONEDCO Workers Free
Labor Union, allegedly due to the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement, which it signed with
PACIWU-TUCP
Doctrine: An employer who refuses to bargain with the union and tries to restrict its bargaining power is
guilty of unfair labor practice. In determining whether an employer has not bargained in good faith, the
totality of all the acts of the employer at the time of negotiations must be taken into account.
19. PEU v. Esquivel, December 1, 2016

Brief facts: PEU’s Board of Directors Passed Resolution No. 12 authorizing a) the affiliation of PEU with
NUHRAIN, and the direct membership of its individual members thereto; b) the compliance with all the
requiremements therefor; and c) the Local President to sign the affiliation agreement with NUWHRAIN
upon acceptance of such affiliation. It was then ratified. PEU-NUWHRAIN sought to increase the union
dues/agency fees from 1% to 2% of the rank-and-file employees’ monthly salary as brought about by
PEU’s affiliation with NUWHRAIN.
Doctrine: No individual check-off authorizations can proceed herefrom, and the submission of the check
off authorizations becomes inconsequential. Jurisprudence states that the express consent of the
employee to any deduction in his compensation is required to be obtained in accordance with the steps
outlined by the law, which must be followed to the letter. It is evident that the implementation of 2% dues
was taken up during the General Membership Meeting but there was no showing that the ame had been
duly deliberated and approved.
ARTICLE 263 (252): DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY

1. UFE-DFA-KMU v. Nestle Phils. Inc. March 3, 2008
Brief facts:
Doctrine:
2. UST Faculty Union v. UST April 7, 2009

Brief facts: Gil Gamilla and other faculty members (Gamilla Group) were elected as the president and
officers, respectively, of the union. There were two (2) groups claiming to be the USTFU: the Gamilla
Group and the group led by Atty. Mario, Jr. (Mario Group). The Mario Group filed a complaint for ULP
against the UST with the NLRC. It also filed a complaint with DOLE praying for the nullification of the
election of the Gamilla Group as officers of the USTFU. A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was
entered into by the Gamilla Group and the UST.
Doctrine: It shall be unlawful for an employer to violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by
this Code as the same constitutes unfair labor practice. Having been shown evidence to support the
legitimacy of the Gamilla Group with no counter-evidence from the Mario Group, UST had to recognize
the Gamilla Group and negotiate with it. Thus, the acts of UST in support of the USTFU as the legitimate
representative of the bargaining unit, albeit through the Gamilla Group, cannot be considered as ULP.
38
3G 2017-2018
3. General Milling Corporation v. CA, February 2004

Brief Facts: A day before the expiration of the CBA, the union sent GMC a proposed CBA, with a request
that a counter-proposal be submitted within ten (10) days.
Upon reports that the labor union no longer represents or had standing to negotiate, GMC did not send a
counter proposal.
Doctrine: The law mandates that the representation provision of a CBA should last for five years. The
relation between labor and management should be undisturbed until the last 60 days of the fifth year.
For refusing to send a counter-proposal to the union and to bargain anew on the economic terms of the
CBA, the company committed an unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code
4. Kiok loy v. NLRC, January 22, 1986)

Brief Facts: Pambansang Kilusang Paggawa won and was subsequently certified in a resolution by the
BLR in a certification election as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees
of Sweden Ice Cream Plant. The Company with two copies of its proposed collective bargaining
agreement. At the same time, it requested the Company for its counter proposals. Eliciting no response to
the aforesaid request, the Union again wrote the Company reiterating its request for collective bargaining
negotiations and for the Company to furnish them with its counter proposals. Both requests were ignored
and remained unacted upon by the Company.
Doctrine: While it is a mutual obligation of the parties to bargain, the employer, however, is not under any
legal duty to initiate contract negotiation. The mechanics of collective bargaining is set in motion only
when the following jurisdictional preconditions are present, namely, (1) possession of the status of
majority representation of the employees' representative in accordance with any of the means of selection
or designation provided for by the Labor Code; (2) proof of majority representation; and (3) a demand to
bargain under Article 251, par. (a) of the New Labor Code all of which preconditions are undisputedly
present in the instant case.
5. Colegio de San Juan de Letran Case (September 18, 2000)
Brief facts: Salvador Abtria, then President of respondent union, Association of Employees and Faculty
of Letran, initiated the renegotiation of its Collective Bargaining Agreement with petitioner Colegio de San
Juan de Letran for the last two (2) years of the CBA's five (5) year lifetime from 1989-1994. On the same
year, the union elected a new set of officers wherein private respondent Eleanor Ambas emerged as the
newly elected President.
Ambas wanted to continue the renegotiation of the CBA but petitioner, through Fr. Edwin Lao, claimed
that the CBA was already prepared for signing by the parties. The parties submitted the disputed CBA to
a referendum by the union members, who eventually rejected the said CBA. Petitioner accused the union
officers of bargaining in bad faith before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Labor Arbiter
Edgardo M. Madriaga decided in favor of petitioner. However, the Labor Arbiter's decision was reversed
on appeal before the NLRC.
Doctrine: Noteworthy is the requirement on both parties of the performance of the mutual obligation to
meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement.
6. PAL v. PALEA, March 12, 2008

Brief Facts: PAL informed respondent PALEA that rank and file employees who were regularized after
30 April 1988 were not entitled to the 13th month pay as they were already given their Christmas bonuses
Doctrine:The benefits of a CBA extend to the laborers and employees in the collective bargaining unit,
including those who do not belong to the chosen bargaining labor organization. Otherwise, it would be a
clear case of discrimination. The 13th month pay, guaranteed by Presidential Decree No. 851, is explicitly
39
3G 2017-2018
covered or provided for as the mid-year bonus in the CBA, while the Christmas bonus is evidently and
distinctly a separate benefit.
ARTICLE 265 (253-A): TERMS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

1. FVC Labor Union- Phil. Transport and General Workers Association v. SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO,
November 27, 2009
Brief facts: At the end of the 3rd year of the five-year CBA term, the parties extended the life of the CBA
for another 4 months. Nine days before the expiration of the original five-year CBA,
SANAMA-FVC_SIGLO filed a petition for certification election for the same rank-and-file unit.
Doctrine: While the parties may agree to extend the CBAs original five-year term together with all other
CBA provisions, any such amendment or term in excess of five years will not carry with it a change in the
union’s exclusive collective bargaining status. By express provision of Article 253-A, the exclusive
bargaining status cannot go beyond five years and the representation status is a legal matter not for the
workplace parties to agree upon. In other words, despite an agreement for a CBA with a life of more than
five years, either as an original provision or by amendment, the bargaining unions exclusive bargaining
status is effective only for five years and can be challenged within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of
the CBAs first five years.
2. SMCEU-PTGWO v. Confesor, September 19, 1996

Brief Facts:
Doctrine: The renegotiated terms of the CBA at SMC should run for a period of 3 years. Article 253-A of
the Labor Code provides that any collective bargaining agreement that the parties may enter into shall
insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of 5 years…. All other provisions of the
collective bargaining agreement shall be renegotiated not later than 3 years after its execution
ARTICLE 266 (254): INJUNCTION PROHIBITED

1. Ando v. Campo
Brief facts:
Doctrine:
ART. 267 (255) EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATION AND WORKER’S PARTICIPATION
1. International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing, June 1, 2000
Brief Facts: The School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty. Foreign-hires
are paid a salary rate twenty-five percent (25%) more than local-hires.
Doctrines:
· Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, under similar
conditions, should be paid similar salaries. (Equal pay for equal work)
· The factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are
(1) the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine);
(2) affinity and unity of the employees' interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or
similarity of compensation and working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule);
(3) prior collective bargaining history; and
(4) similarity of employment status.
40
3G 2017-2018
2. National Association of Free Trade Unions v. Mainit Lumber Development Company Workers
Union, December 21, 1990
Brief Facts:
Petitioner alleges that the employer MALDECO was composed of two bargaining units, the Sawmill
Division in Butuan City and the Logging Division in Agusan del Norte had then two separate CBA's, one
for the Sawmill Division and another for the Logging Division, both the petition and decision referred only
to one bargaining unit. That in 1985, the Ministry of Labor and Employment recognized the existence of
two (2) separate bargaining units at MALDECO, one for its Logging Division and another for its Sawmill
Division.
Doctrine:
While the existence of a bargaining history is a factor that may be reckoned with in determining the
appropriate bargaining unit, the same is not decisive or conclusive. Other factors must be considered.
The test of grouping is community or mutuality of interests. This is so because "the basic test of an
asserted bargaining unit's acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will
best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights.
ART. 268 (256) REPRESENTATION ISSUE IN ORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENTS
1. Picop Resources Inc. v. Dequilla et al. December 7, 2011
Brief Facts:
Respondents were terminated from employment based on the alleged acts of disloyalty they committed
when they signed an authorization for the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) to file a Petition for
Certification Election among all rank-and-file employees. It contends that the acts of respondents are a
violation of the Union Security Clause, as provided in their Collective Bargaining Agreement. Such acts of
disloyalty were construed to be a valid cause for termination under the terms and conditions of the CBA.
LA rendered a decision declaring as illegal the termination of the private respondents and ordering
reinstatement. PICOP elevated the LA decision to the NLRC but its appeal was dismissed.
Doctrine: Union security" is a generic term, which is applied to and comprehends "closed shop," "union
shop," "maintenance of membership," or any other form of agreement which imposes upon employees
the obligation to acquire or retain union membership as a condition affecting employment. There is union
shop when all new regular employees are required to join the union within a certain period as a condition
for their continued employment. There is maintenance of membership shop when employees, who are
union members as of the effective date of the agreement, or who thereafter become members, must
maintain union membership as a condition for continued employment until they are promoted or
transferred out of the bargaining unit, or the agreement is terminated. A closed shop, on the other hand,
may be defined as an enterprise in which, by agreement between the employer and his employees or
their representatives, no person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise
unless he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, remains a member in good standing
of a union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part.
2. National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries- Manila Pavillon Hotel
Chapter v. Sec of Labor, July 31, 2009
Brief Facts: A certification election was conducted among the rank-and-file employees of respondent
Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel. In view of the significant number of segregated votes, contending
unions, petitioner, NUHWHRAIN-MPHC, and respondent Holiday Inn Manila Pavillion Hotel Labor Union
(HIMPHLU), referred the case back to Med-Arbiter to decide which among those votes would be opened
and tallied.
Doctrine: The union obtaining the majority of the valid votes cast by the eligible voters shall be certified
as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the appropriate bargaining unit. Having
41
3G 2017-2018
declared that no choice in the certification election conducted obtained the required majority, it follows
that a run-off election must be held to determine which between HIMPHLU and petitioner should
represent the rank-and-file employees. A run-off election refers to an election between the labor unions
receiving the two (2) highest number of votes in a certification or consent election with three (3) or more
choices, where such a certified or consent election results in none of the three (3) or more choices
receiving the majority of the valid votes cast; provided that the total number of votes for all contending
unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast.
3. Coca Cola Bottlers v. Ilocos Professional and Technical Employees Union, September 9, 2015
Brief Facts: IPTEU filed a verified Petition for Cetification Election seeking to represent a bargaining unit
consisting of approximately twenty-two (22) rank-and-file professional and technical employees of CCBPI
Ilocos Norte Plant. CCBPI prayed for dismissal arguing that some of its members were confidential
employees and that there is already existing bargaining representative of the rank and file professional.
Doctrine: As proven by the certification of the IMU President as well as the CBAs executed between IMU
and CCBPI, the 22 employees sought to be represented by IPTEU are not IMU members and are not
included in the CBAs due to reclassification of their positions. Further, An employee must assist or act in
a confidential capacity and obtain confidential information relating to labor relations policies in order to be
classified as confidential employees thereby excluding them in the bargaining unit. Exposure to internal
business operations of the company is not per se a ground for the exclusion in the bargaining unit.
ART. 273-273 (260-261): GRIEVANCE MACHINERY AND VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION

1. Santuyo et. al. v. Remerco Garmets Manufacturing Inc. March 22, 2010 (in relation to 217)
Brief Facts:
Doctrine:
2. Teng v. Pahagac, Nov. 17, 2010

Brief Facts: Teng is engaged in deep-sea fishing and usually enters into a joint venture agreement with
other fishermen. Respondent workers filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Teng. The latter
opposed the complaint on the ground that there is no employer-employee relationship between them. The
VA ruled in Teng’s favor. Respondents filed an MR but was denied by VA as Section 6, Rule VII of the
1989 Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings (1989 Procedural
Guidelines) does not provide the remedy of a motion for reconsideration to the party adversely affected by
the VA’s order or decision.
Doctrine:By allowing a 10-day period, the obvious intent of Congress in amending Article 263 to Article
262-A is to provide an opportunity for the party adversely affected by the VA’s decision to seek recourse
via a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court filed with the
CA. Indeed, a motion for reconsideration is the more appropriate remedy in line with the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies.
3. Samahan ng mga Mangagawa sa Hyatt (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN) v. Magsalin, June 6, 2011
Brief Facts: Carandang was dismissed by Hyatt Hotel based on 3 grounds: he was suspended for
violating the hotel policy on bag inspection and body frisking; he was likewise suspended for threatening
and intimidating a superior while the latter was counseling his staff; and he was again suspended for
leaving his work assignment without permission. Caragdag’s acts constitute serious misconduct
disqualified him from receiving the financial assistance awarded by VA.
Doctrine:Appeal from VA’s decision should be via Petition for Review to CA under Rule 43 of the Rules
of Court and not via Petition for Certiorari (under Rule 65). Also, financial assistance or any for of
separation pay should not be awarded to an employee who was dismissed due to serious misconduct.
42
3G 2017-2018
4. Baronda v. CA, October 14, 2015
Brief Facts: Baronda was dismissed by Hideco. Va ordered Baronda’s reinstatement on Jan. 19, 1999,
but Hideco reinstated him only on Jan. 16, 2001.
Doctrine: The reinstatement aspect of the Voluntary Arbitrator's award or decision is immediately
executory from its receipt by the parties.
5. Coca cola v. Bacolod Sales Force Union Congress, September 21, 2016
Brief Facts:
Doctrine:
ARTICLE 278-279 (263-264): STRIKES, LOCKOUTS, AND PROHIBITED ACTS

1. Abaria v. NLRC, December 7, 2011 (in relation to 263 and 264)
Not being a legitimate labor organization, NAMA-MCCH-NFL is not entitled to those rights granted to a
legitimate labor organization under Art. 242.
Aside from the registration requirement, it is only the labor organization designated or selected by the
majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit which is the exclusive
representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining, as provided in Art.
255.
2. YSS Employees Union v. YSS Laboratories Inc., December 4, 2009
3. NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter v. CA, November 11, 2008
4. Jackbilt Industries Inc., v. Jackbilt Employees Workers Union-NAFLU-KMU, March 20, 2009
5. NCMB primer on strikes and lockouts
6. APAP v. PAL, June 6, 2011
7. Olisa et. al. v. Escario Et. al. (Art. 264 in rel to 279)
Brief facts: The LA ruled that that the March 13, 1993 incident was an illegal walkout constituting ULP;
and that all the Union’s officers, except Caete, had thereby lost their employment. The Union filed a notice
of strike, claiming that PINA was guilty of union busting through the constructive dismissal of its officers.
The Union held a strike. PINA retaliated by charging the petitioners with ULP and abandonment of work,
stating that they had violated provisions on strike of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The LA
ruled that the strike was illegal. NLRC and CA affirmed.
Doctrine: Conformably with the long honored principle of a fair days wage for a fair days labor,
employees dismissed for joining an illegal strike are not entitled to backwages for the period of the strike
even if they are reinstated by virtue of their being merely members of the striking union who did not
commit any illegal act during the strike.
8. VCMC v. Yballe, January 15, 2014

9. Tavangao Shell Refinery Employees Association v. Pilipinas Shell, April 7, 2014.
Doctrine: While the purpose of collective bargaining is the reaching of an agreement between the
employer and the employee’s union resulting in a binding contract between the parties, the failure to
reach an agreement after negotiations continued for a reasonable period does not mean lack of good faith
10. Asia Brewery Inc. v. TPMA, September 18m, 2013

11. Operation Guidelines of DO 40-G-3 Series of 2010
12. Escario Et. al. v NLRC 2010 case (Art. 264 in rel to 279)
43
3G 2017-2018
Brief Facts: LA ruled that March 13, 1993 incident was an illegal walkout constituting ULP; and that all
the Unions officers thereby lost their employment. The Union filed a notice of strike, claiming that PINA
was guilty of union busting through the constructive dismissal of its officers. The strike was held in the
afternoon of June 15, 1993. PINA retaliated by charging the petitioners with ULP and abandonment of
work. LA ruled again that the strike was illegal.
Doctrine: Conformably with the long honored principle of a fair days wage for a fair days labor,
employees dismissed for joining an illegal strike are not entitled to backwages for the period of the strike
even if they are reinstated by virtue of their being merely members of the striking union who did not
commit any illegal act during the strike.
13. University of San Augustin Employees Union v. CA, (2006 cases)
Brief Facts:
The CBA contained a "no strike, no lockout" clause and a grievance machinery procedure to resolve
management-labor disputes, including a voluntary arbitration mechanism should the grievance committee
fail to satisfactorily settle such disputes.
The University and Union was not able to agree on the computation of tuition incremental proceeds (TIP)
which shall be the basis for the increase of salaries. Unresolved, the Union declared a bargaining
deadlock and thereafter filed a Notice of Strike at the NCMB, which was opposed by the University. The
SOLE assumed jurisdiction, and with such assumption of jurisdiction, any strike or lockout was strictly
enjoined.
Case Doctrines:
When the SOLE assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an industry indispensable to national interest
or certifies the same to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, such assumption or certification shall have
the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout. Moreover, if one had
already taken place, all striking workers shall immediately return to work and the employer shall
immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing
before the strike or lockout.
14. Phil Diamond Hotel and Resort Inc. v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union, 494 SCRA 336
Doctrine: Only the labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an
appropriate collective bargaining unit is the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining.
15. Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant v. CA, 495 SCRA 336
Brief facts: In the conciliation conference, the representatives of the petitioner agreed and guaranteed
that there will be no termination of the services of private respondents during the pendency of the case,
with the reservation of the management prerogative to issue memos to erring employees for the
infraction, or violation of company policies. On the following day a Strike Vote was conducted and
supervised by NCMB personnel. On January 21, 1999, the petitioner and the Union entered into a
Submission Agreement, thereby agreeing to submit the issue of unfair labor practice the subject matter of
the foregoing Notice of Strike and the Strike Vote for voluntary arbitration with a view to prevent the strike.
During the pendency of the voluntary arbitration proceedings, the petitioner, through its president, Ernesto
Garcia, dismissed Eugene Lucente, a union member, due to an alleged petty quarrel with a co-employee
in February 1999.
Doctrine:
1. This Court has held that strikes staged in violation of agreements providing for arbitration are
illegal, since these agreements must be strictly adhered to and respected if their ends are to be
achieved.
44
3G 2017-2018
2. In case of alleged union busting, the three remaining requirements notice, strike vote, and
seven-day report period cannot be dispensed with.
3. Well-settled is the rule that even if the strike were to be declared valid because its objective or
purpose is lawful, the strike may still be declared invalid where the means employed are illegal.
16. Biflex Phils. Inc. Labor Unions v. Filflex Industrial Manufacturing Corporation, 511 SCRA 247
Brief facts: The labor sector staged a welga ng bayan to protest the accelerating prices of oil. On even
date, petitioner-unions, led by their officers, herein petitioners, staged a work stoppage which lasted for
several days, prompting respondents to file on October 31, 1990 a petition to declare the work stoppage
illegal for failure to comply with procedural requirements
Doctrine: Employees who have no labor dispute with their employer but who, on a day they are
scheduled to work, refuse to work and instead join a welga ng bayan commit an illegal work stoppage.
17. Sta. Rosa Coca Cola Plant Employee’s Union v. Coca-cola Bottlers Phils. Inc., 512 SCRA 437
18. Manila Hotel Employee’ Association v. Manila Hotel Corporation 517 SCRA 349
19. G&S Transport Corporation v. Infante, 533 SCRA 289
Brief Facts: Petitioner was the exclusive coupon taxi concessionaire at the NAIA for 5 years. Under such
contract the taxi units were given a garage located at the Duty Free compound just opposite NAIA. NAIA
sent a letter to the NAIA Service Taxi Employees Union (Union) demanding the dismissal from
employment Ricardo Gonzales and Ephraim Alzaga (both drivers of herein petitioner) on the grounds of
disloyalty and unbecoming of a union member inimical to the interests of the Union.
Doctrine: A strike is any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of
an industrial or labor dispute. A valid strike therefore presupposes the existence of a labor dispute.
20. Steel Corporation of the Phils. v. SCP Employees Union National Federation of Labor Unions,
551 SCRA 595
Brief Facts:
Respondent filed a Notice of Strike against petitioner, citing as grounds, among others, non-recognition
as a certified union, union-busting and refusal to bargain. The labor dispute was certified to the NLRC for
compulsory arbitration. The Labor Secretary, then, certified the dispute to the NLRC and directed the
employees to return to work. Despite the certification and directive, respondents filed another Notice of
Strike and eventually struck.
Doctrines:
● The moment the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an industry
indispensable to national interest, such assumption shall have the effect of automatically
enjoining the intended or impending strike.
● A worker merely participating in an illegal strike may not be terminated from employment. It is
only when he commits illegal acts during a strike that he may be declared to have lost
employment status. For knowingly participating in an illegal strike or participating in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike, the law provides that a union officer may be terminated
from employment.
45
3G 2017-2018
21. Chris Garments Case (January 2009)
Brief Facts:
In 2002, respondent Chris Garments Workers Union-PTGWO filed a petition for certification election with
the Med-Arbiter. Petitioner moved to dismiss the petition and argued that it has an existing CBA from July
1, 1999 to June 30, 2004 with SMCGC-SUPER which bars any petition for certification election prior to
the 60-day freedom period. On the other hand, the union countered that while there is an existing CBA
between petitioner and SMCGC-SUPER, there are other rank-and-file employees not covered by the CBA
who seek representation for collective bargaining purposes. It also contended that the contract bar rule
does not apply.
Doctrine:
The filing of a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to the filing of a special civil action for
certiorari to give the lower court the opportunity to correct itself. This rule, however, admits of exceptions,
such as when a motion for reconsideration would be useless under the circumstances. Under Department
Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, the decision of the Secretary of Labor and Employment shall be final
and executory after ten days from receipt thereof by the parties and that it shall not be subject of a motion
for reconsideration.
The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters
determined in the former suit.
The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2)
the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as
between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Res judicata
has a dual aspect: first, bar by prior judgment which is provided in Rule 39, Section 47(b) of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure and second, conclusiveness of judgment which is provided in Section 47(c) of
the same Rule.
As to the second aspect or the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment provides that issues
actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same
parties involving a different cause of action.
22. University of Immaculate Concepcion v. Sec of Labor, September 14, 2006.
23. Ramirez v. Polyson Industries Inc. October 19, 2016

DOCTRINE: A strike, as the most preeminent economic weapon of the workers to force management to
agree to an equitable sharing of the joint product of labor and capital, exert some disquieting effects not
only on the relationship between labor and management, but also on the general peace and progress of
society and economic well-being of the State. This weapon is so critical that the law imposes the supreme
penalty of dismissal on union officers who irresponsibly participate in an illegal strike and union members
who commit unlawful acts during a strike.
ARTICLE 292 (277(b)): MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

1. St. Lukes Medical Center Inc. v. Notario, October 20, 2010
Brief Facts: Justin Tibon reported to the petitioner the loss of his travelling bag. Acting on the complaint,
the hospital conducted an investigation, when the CCTV was reviewed the cameras failed to record any
theft at the room. Petitioner issued memorandum to the respondent directing him to explain why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him for violating the normal rotation/sequencing process of the
CCTV and consequently failed to capture the theft of Tibon’s bag. Finding that the explanation of
respondent to be unsatisfactory, petitioner served on respondent a copy of the Notice of Termination.
Doctrine: To effectuate a valid dismissal from employment by the employer, the Labor Code has set twin
requirements, namely: (1) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided in Article 282 of the Labor
Code; and (2) the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and defend himself. Where the
dismissal was without just cause and there was no due process, Article 279 of the Labor Code, as
46
3G 2017-2018
amended, mandates that the employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and
other privileges and full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time the compensation was not paid up to the time of actual reinstatement.
2. Aliling v. World Express Corp., April 25, 2012

3. Perez v. PT&T April 9, 2009
Brief facts: Petitioners were employed by respondent PT&T as shipping clerk and supervisor, in PT&Ts
Shipping Section, Materials Management Group. Shipping documents under their care was later on
discovered to be tampered and altered. They were suspended for 15 days, twice. Later on they were
dismissed on the same day they’ve received the memorandum of their dismissal.
Doctrine: We note a marked difference in the standards of due process to be followed as prescribed in
the Labor Code and its implementing rules. The Labor Code, on one hand, provides that an employer
must provide the employee ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his
representative if he so desires. The omnibus rules implementing the Labor Code, on the other hand,
require a hearing and conference during which the employee concerned is given the opportunity to
respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him.
In case of conflict, the law prevails over the administrative regulations implementing it.
ARTICLE 294 (279): SECURITY OF TENURE

1. Agabon v. NLRC, November 17, 2004
Brief Facts: Virgilio Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers when they were
dismissed for abandonment of work. Their dismissal was for a just cause but it lacks due process.
Doctrine: Where the dismissal is for a just cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the
dismissal but the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights. The
indemnity should be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent practice of “dismiss now, pay later” which we
sought to deter in Serrano ruling. The violation of employees’ rights warrants the payment of nominal
damages.
2. Jaka Food Processing Corp. v. Pacot, March 28, 2005
Brief Facts: Respondents were earlier hired by petitioner JAKA until the latter terminated their
employment on August 29, 1997 because the corporation was in dire financial straits. It is not disputed,
however, that the termination was effected without JAKA complying with the requirement under Article
283 of the Labor Code regarding the service of a written notice upon the employees and the Department
of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date of termination.
Doctrine: A dismissal for an authorized cause under Article 283 does not necessarily imply delinquency
or culpability on the part of the employee. Instead, the dismissal process is initiated by the employers
exercise of his management prerogative, i.e. when the employer opts to install labor saving devices, when
he decides to cease business operations or when, as in this case, he undertakes to implement a
retrenchment program. If the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 283 but the
employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because the
dismissal process was initiated by the employers exercise of his management prerogative.
3. Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Phils. Feb 9, 2011
4. Serrano v. Gallant Maritime March 24, 2009)

Section 1, Article III of the Constitution guarantees:
47
3G 2017-2018
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the law.
Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII accord all members of the labor sector, without distinction
as to place of deployment, full protection of their rights and welfare.
To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the foregoing constitutional provisions translate to
economic security and parity: all monetary benefits should be equally enjoyed by workers of similar
category, while all monetary obligations should be borne by them in equal degree; none should be denied
the protection of the laws which is enjoyed by, or spared the burden imposed on, others in like
circumstances.
The violation by the employer of the notice requirement in termination for just or authorized causes was
not a denial of due process that will nullify the termination. However, the dismissal is ineffectual and
the employer must pay full backwages from the time of termination until it is judicially declared
that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause.
5. Yap v. Thenamaris Ship’s Management May 30, 2011(for OFW re RA 8042 as amended by RA
10022
6. Bank of Lucbao v. Manabat, Feb 1, 2012
7. St. Mary’s Academy v. Palacio et. al. September 8, 2010 (Eg./ Limited backwages)
8. Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers Association v. NLRC, October 19, 2007
Doctrine :
Separation should not be awarded to the Union members who participated in the illegal strikes.
GR: When just causes for terminating the services of an employee under Art. 282 of the Labor Code
exist, the employee is not entitled to separation pay.
EXCEPTION: When the court finds justification in applying the principle of social justice well entrenched
in the 1987 Constitution (the cause of the dismissal is other than serious misconduct or that which reflects
adversely on the employees’ moral character)
9. Bristol Myers Squibb Inc. v. Haban, December 17, 2008
Brief facts: Petitioner Bristol Myers Squibb Philippines, Inc. hired respondent Richard Nixon A. Baban as
district manager of the company. His duties included the promotion of nutritional products of petitioner to
medical practitioners, sale to drug outlets and the supervision of territory managers detailed in his district.
Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with a claim for moral and exemplary damages plus
attorney's fees against petitioner.
Doctrine: The first requisite for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is that the
employee concerned must be one holding a position of trust and confidence. The second requisite is that
there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. The basis for the dismissal must
be clearly and convincingly established but proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary.
10. Yrasuegui v. PAL, October 17, 2008

11. Dreamland Hotel Resort v. Johnson, March 12, 2014 (separation pay and strained relations)
Doctrine: Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay is considered an
acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. On one
hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment.
48
3G 2017-2018
On the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its
employ a worker it could no longer trust.
12. Manila Water v. Del Rosario, January 29, 2014 (separation pay)
DOCTRINE: In exceptional cases, however, the Court has granted separation pay to a legally dismissed
employee as an act of "social justice" or on "equitable grounds." In both instances, it is required that the
dismissal (1) was not for serious misconduct; and (2) did not reflect on the moral character of the
employee.
13. Nacar v. Gallery Frames, August 13, 2013 ( interest rate)
Brief Facts: Petitioner was illegally dismissed and was awarded backwages and separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement in the amount of ₱158,919.92.
Doctrine:
1.) By the nature of an illegal dismissal case, the reliefs continue to add up until full satisfaction, as
expressed under Article 279 of the Labor Code. The recomputation of the consequences of illegal
dismissal upon execution of the decision does not constitute an alteration or amendment of the final
decision being implemented. The illegal dismissal ruling stands; only the computation of monetary
consequences of this dismissal is affected, and this is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final
judgments.
2.) in the absence of an express stipulation as to the rate of interest that would govern the parties, the
rate of legal interest for loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in
judgments shall now be 6% per annum, effective July 1, 2013
14. Bani Rural Bank Inc. v. De Guzman et. al., November 13, 2013 ( computation)
Brief Facts:
Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners. The NLRC ordered the petitioners
to reinstate the two complainants to their former positions, without loss of seniority rights and other
benefits and privileges, with backwages from the time of their dismissal (constructive) until their actual
reinstatement, less earnings elsewhere. The resolution of the NLRC became final and executory and the
computation of the awards was remanded to the labor arbiter for execution purposes.
Case Doctrines:
The computation of backwages depends on the final awards adjudged as a consequence of illegal
dismissal, in that:
First, when reinstatement is ordered, the general concept under Article 279 of the Labor Code, as
amended, computes the backwages from the time of dismissal until the employee’s reinstatement. The
computation of backwages (and similar benefits considered part of the backwages) can even continue
beyond the decision of the labor arbiter or NLRC and ends only when the employee is actually reinstated.
Second, when separation pay is ordered in lieu of reinstatement (in the event that this aspect of the case
is disputed) or reinstatement is waived by the employee (in the event that the payment of separation pay,
in lieu, is not disputed), backwages is computed from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision
ordering separation pay.
Third, when separation pay is ordered after the finality of the decision ordering the reinstatement by
reason of a supervening event that makes the award of reinstatement no longer possible (as in the case),
backwages is computed from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering separation
pay.
15. Universal Robina Corp. v. Castillo, July 10, 2013.
49
3G 2017-2018
Doctrine: As the rule now stands, the award of separation pay is authorized in the situations dealt with in
Article 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, but not in terminations of employment based on instances
enumerated in Article 282.
16. Baptista v. Villanueva, July 31, 2013.
Brief Facts: On suspicion of union mismanagement, petitioners filed a complaint for impeachment of their
union president, Reynato Siozon, before the executive board of RPN, which was eventually abandoned.
They later re-lodged the impeachment complaint, this time, against all the union officers and members of
RPNEU before the DOLE and likewise filed various petitions for audit covering the period from 2000 to
2004.
Doctrine: In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the
person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due
process.
The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an

opportunity to explain one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. Mere absence of a one-on-one confrontation between the petitioners and their
complainants does not automatically affect the validity of the proceedings before the Committee. Not all
cases necessitate a trial-type hearing.
17. BPI Employees Union Davao City v. BPI , July 24, 2013.
Brief Facts
A service agreement between BPI and BOMC was initially implemented in BPI’s Metro Manila branches,
and later on in its Davao branches. In this agreement, BOMC undertook to provide services such as
check clearing, delivery of bank statements, fund transfers, card production, operations accounting and
control, and cash servicing, conformably with the BSP Circular. The union filed a complaint for ULP
against BPI for contracting out services/functions performed by the union members.
Doctrine
It is management prerogative to farm out any of its activities, regardless of whether such activity is
peripheral or core in nature. What is of primordial importance is that the service agreement does not
violate the employee’s right to security of tenure and payment of benefits to which he is entitled under the
law.
18. Integrated Microelectronics v. Pionelles, August 28, 2013.

Brief Facts:
Pionilla was hired by IMI as its production worker. On May 5, 2005, Pionilla received a notice from IMI
requiring him to explain the incident which occurred the day before where he was seen escorting a lady to
board the company shuttle bus at the Alabang Terminal. It was reported by the bus marshall that the lady
was wearing a company ID – which serves as a free pass for shuttle bus passengers – even if she was
just a job applicant at IMI. IMI, through its Conscience Committee, found Pionilla guilty of violating Article
6.12 of the Company Rules and Regulations (CRR) which prohibits the lending of one’s ID
Doctrine:
An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if
reinstatement is no longer viable, and backwages. In certain cases, however, the Court has ordered the
reinstatement of the employee without backwages considering the fact that (1) the dismissal of the
employee would be too harsh a penalty; and (2) the employer was in good faith in terminating the
employee.
50
3G 2017-2018
19. Golden Ace Builders v. Talde, May 5, 2010.
20. Metroguards Security Agency Corp. v. Hilongo, March 9, 2015.
DOCTRINE: The re-computation of the consequences of illegal dismissal upon execution of the
decision does not constitute an alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented.
The illegal dismissal ruling stands; only the computation of monetary consequences of this
dismissal is affected, and this is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments.
21. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing Inc. v. Avestruz, February 18, 2015 (OFW)
Doctrine: Captain Woodward summoned and required Avestruz to state in writing what transpired in the
galley that morning. Avestruz complied and submitted his written statement on that same day. On the
very same day, Captain Woodward informed Avestruz that he would be dismissed from service and be
disembarked in India.
Brief Facts: An erring seaman is given a written notice of the charge against him and is afforded an
opportunity to explain or defend himself. Should sanctions be imposed, then a written notice of penalty
and the reasons for it shall be furnished the erring seafarer. It is only in the exceptional case of clear and
existing danger to the safety of the crew or vessel that the required notices are dispensed with; but just
the same, a complete report should be sent to the manning agency, supported by substantial evidence of
the findings.
22. Villena v. Batangas II Electric, February 4, 2015.

23. Sangwoo Phils. v. SangWoo Philippines Employees Union, December 9, 2013
ARTICLE 295 (280): REGULAR AND CASUAL EMPLOYMENT

1. Lynvil Fishing Enterprises Inc. v. Ariola, February 1, 2012
Brief Facts: Respondents were working on Lynvil’s vessel Analyn VIII on a “por viaje”basis as stipulated
in their contract. When someone witnessed that they stole fishes from the vessel they were terminated by
Lynvil.
Doctrine: Although employment as stipulated in the contract may be on a fixed-term basis, a perusal and
careful consideration of facts may be indicative of the employment being regular, and not as purported in
the contract.
2. Sonza v. ABS CBN Broadcasting corp, June 10, 2004
Brief Facts: ABS-CBN signed an Agreement with Mel and Jay Management and Development
Corporation (MJMDC), as “AGENT” of Sonza. MJMDC agreed to provide Sonza’s services exclusively to
ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television.
Doctrine: INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

Being an exclusive talent does not by itself mean that one is an employee. In the broadcast industry,
exclusivity is not necessarily the same as control.
3. Consolidated Broadcasting Systems Inc. v. Oberio June 8, 2007
4. Orozco v. CA, August 13, 2008
The type of control being argued by Orozco is not the type of control contemplated under the four fold test
principle in labor law. The Supreme Court emphasized: The main determinant to test control is whether
51
3G 2017-2018
the rules set by the employer are meant to control not just the results of the work but also the means and
method to be used by the hired party in order to achieve such results.
5. William Uy Construction Corp. v. Trinidad, March 10, 2010
6. DM Consunji Inc. v. Jamin April 18, 2012
7. Aro et. al. v. NLRC March 7, 2012
8. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp v. Acibo et. al, January 15, 2014 (R. Seasonal Employees).
DOCTRINE:
The nature of the employment does not depend solely on the will or the word of the employer or on the
procedure for hiring and the manner of designating the employee. Rather, the nature of the employment
depends on the nature of the activities to be performed by the employee, considering the nature of the
employer’s business, the duration and scope to be done, and, in some cases, even the length of time of
the performance and its continued existence.
9. GMA Network Inc. v. Pabriga, November 27, 2013.

Brief facts: Due to the miserable working conditions private respondents were forced to file a complaint
against petitioner before the National Labor Relations Commission. Private respondents filed an amended
complaint raising the following additional issues: 1) Unfair Labor Practice; 2) Illegal dismissal; and 3)
Damages and Attorney’s fees.
Doctrine: The principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly characterized as
"project employees" as distinguished from "regular employees," is whether or not the "project employees"
were assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking," the duration (and scope) of which were
specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project.
10. Pasas v. PNCC, July 3, 2013.
11. Gapayao v. Fulo, June 13, 2013

Doctrine: Jurisprudence has identified the three types of employees mentioned in the provision: (1)
regular employees or those who have been engaged to perform activities that are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; (2) project employees or those whose
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which
has been determined at the time of their engagement, or those whose work or service is seasonal in
nature and is performed for the duration of the season; and (3) casual employees or those who are
neither regular nor project employees.
12. Millennium Erectors Corp. v. Magallanes, November 15, 2010

Brief facts: Respondent Virgilio Magallanes started working in 1988 as a utility man for the petitioners.
He was assigned to different construction projects undertaken by petitioner in Metro Manila. In July of
2004 he was told not to report for work anymore allegedly due to old age, prompting him to file on an
illegal dismissal complaint. Respondents claimed that he is merely a project employee and that
respondent’s services were terminated as the project was nearing completion.
Doctrine: Respondent is a regular employee. The service of project employees are co-terminus with the
project and may be terminated upon the end or completion of that project or project phase for which they
were hired. Regular employees, in contrast, enjoy security of tenure and are entitled to hold on to their
work or position until their services are terminated by any of the modes recognized under the Labor Code.
Assuming arguendo that petitioner hired respondent initially on a per project basis, his continued rehiring
for 16 yrs converted his status to that of a regular employee.
52
3G 2017-2018
13. Caparoso et. al. v. CA, February 15, 2007

Brief facts: Petitioners were hired on 11 May 1999 as deliverymen, initially for three months. After the
expiration of their contracts, petitioners were hired on a month-to-month basis. Their contracts of
employment ended on 8 October 1999. Hence, they were employed for a total of five months.
Doctrine:
1. Under Article 280 of the Labor Code, a regular employee is (1) one who is engaged to perform
activities that are necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer, or (2) a
casual employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken,
with respect to the activity in which he is employed. However, even if an employee is engaged to
perform activities that are necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer, it
does not preclude the fixing of employment for a definite period. Their employment did not even
exceed six months to entitle them to become regular employees.
2. The Court thus laid down the criteria under which fixed-term employment could not be said to be
in circumvention of the law on security of tenure, thus:
a. The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the
parties without any force, duress, or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the
employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or
b. It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on
more or less equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by the former or the latter.
14. Spouses Lim v. Legaspi Hope Christian School et. al., March 31, 2009
Brief Facts:
Petitioners Alwyn Ong Lim and Evelyn Lukang Lim were hired as professors in Legazpi Hope Christian
School. Helen Sia, head teacher of the schools Chinese department, verbally informed them that their
employment were to be terminated, without giving reasons therefor. Spouses Lim filed for illegal dismissal
and monetary claims against the school. Petitioners claim that they are full-time, not part-time, teaching
personnel. According to respondents, since petitioners have a teaching load that is less than 15 hours a
week then they are only part time instructors and do not enjoy security of tenure.
Case Doctrines:
For a private school teacher to acquire permanent status in employment, the following requisites must
concur:
(1) the teacher is a full-time teacher;
(2) the teacher must have rendered three consecutive years of service; and
(3) such service must have been satisfactory.
15. DM Consunji v. Gobres et. al, August 8, 2010
Doctrine: In cases of project employment or employment covered by legitimate contracting or
sub-contracting arrangements, no employee shall be dismissed prior to the completion of the project or
phase thereof for which the employee was engaged, or prior to the expiration of the contract between the
principal and contractor, unless the dismissal is for just or authorized cause subject to the requirements of
due process or prior notice, or is brought about by the completion of the phase of the project or contract
for which the employee was engaged.
16. Mercado et. al. v. Ama Computer College, April 13, 2010
Brief Facts: AMACC implemented a new faculty screening guidelines for the school year 2000-2001. The
performance standards under the new screening guidelines were also used to determine the present
53
3G 2017-2018
members’ entitlement to salary increase. AMACC did not give the petitioners any salary increase because
they failed to obtain a passing rating based on the performance standards.
Doctrine: Article 281 should assume primacy and the fixed-period character of the contract must give
way.
17. Brent School v. Zamora

Brief Facts
Alegre’s contract fixed a specific term for its existence, five (5) years, i.e., from July 18, 1971, the date of
execution of the agreement, to July 17, 1976. Alegre protested the announced termination of his
employment. He argued that although his contract did stipulate that the same would terminate on July 17,
1976, since his services were necessary and desirable in the usual business of his employer, and his
employment had lasted for five years, he had acquired the status of a regular employee and could not be
removed except for valid cause
Doctrine
The entire purpose behind the development of legislation culminating in the present Article 280 of the
Labor Code clearly appears to have been, as already observed, to prevent circumvention of the
employee's right to be secure in his tenure. The clause in said article indiscriminately and completely
ruling out all written or oral agreements conflicting with the concept of regular employment as defined
therein should be construed to refer to the substantive evil that the Code itself has singled out:
agreements entered into precisely to circumvent security of tenure. It should have no application to
instances where a fixed period of employment was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties.
18. Pure Foods Corporation v. NLRC December 12, 1997

Doctrine:
Although employment as stipulated in the contract may be on a fixed-term basis, a perusal and careful
consideration of facts may be indicative of the employment being regular, and not as purported in the
contract.
19. Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union v. PNOC, March 30, 2011
20. Salazar v. NLRC (1996 CASE)

DOCTRINE: As project employee, petitioner’s services are deemed co-terminous with the project, that is,
petitioner’s services may be terminated as soon as the project for which he was hired is completed.
21. Fonterra Brands Phil v. Lagardo, March 18, 2015 (project employee/resignation/labor
contractor)
Brief Facts: Fonterra then entered into an agreement for manpower supply with A.C. Sicat Marketing and
Promotional Services (A.C. Sicat). Desirous of continuing their work as TMRs, respondents submitted
their job applications with A.C. Sicat. When respondents’ 5-month contracts with A.C. Sicat were about to
expire, they allegedly sought renewal thereof, but were allegedly refused.
Doctrine: Fixed-term employment contracts are not limited, as they are under the present Labor Code, to
those by nature seasonal or for specific projects with predetermined dates of completion; they also
include those to which the parties by free choice have assigned a specific date of termination. The
determining factor of such contracts is not the duty of the employee but the day certain agreed upon by
the parties for the commencement and termination of the employment relationship.
22. Basan v. Coca Cola Bottles, February 4, 2015.

54
3G 2017-2018
23. Convoy Marketing Corp. v. Albia, October 7, 2015.
24. Jamias v. NLRC, March 9, 2016
Brief Facts: The contracts of the petitioners indicated the one-year duration of their engagement as well
as their respective project assignments (i.e., Jamias being assigned to the CD-ROM project; Cruz and
Matuguinas to the TSET project). When their contract ended they filed for an illegal dismissal case
alledging that they are regular employees.
Doctrine: The petitioners are project employees. Art 280 does not prohibit fixed period in a contract of
employment provided that fixed period of employment must be knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by
the parties and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or it must satisfactorily appear that
the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance
whatsoever being exercised by the former on the latter.
25. Gadia v. Sykes Asia, January 28, 2015

Brief facts:
Alitel Communications Inc., a US-based telecommunications company hired Sykes Asia, a corporation
engaged in Business Process Outsourcing (BPO), to handle its (Alitel) clients‟ needs and demands for its
prepaid and postpaid services. Thus, on different dates, Sykes Asia hired the petitioners herein, who
commenced work until the services of Sykes Asia were terminated by Alitel sometime in 2009. In view of
this development, Sykes Asia sent end-of-life notices to the petitioners, informing them of their dismissal
due to the termination of the Alitel project.
Doctrine:
Verily, for an employee to be considered project-based, the employer must show compliance with two (2)
requisites, namely that: (a) the employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking; and
(b) the duration and scope of which were specified at the time they were engaged for such project.
26. Herma Shipyard Inc. v. Oliveros, April 17, 2017
27. UST v. Samahan ng Mangagawa ng UST, April 24, 2017
The primary standard, therefore, of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the
employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
of the employer. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of work performed and its
relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. Also, if the emplovee has been
performing the iob for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent,
the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessitv if
not indispensability of that activity to the business.
28. Quebral v. Angbus Construction Inc. Nov 7, 2016

29. A Nate Casket Maker case, October 5, 2016
30. Marina Creations Enterprises v. Ancheta, December 7, 2016
31. Risonar v. Cor JESU College, September 14, 2016
MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE
1. Zuellig Freight and Cargo System v. NLRC, July 22, 2013.
Brief facts: Ronaldo V. San Miguel brought a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal,
non-payment of salaries and moral damages against petitioner, formerly known as Zeta Brokerage
Corporation (Zeta). He was terminated due to the cessation of the operations of petitioner. Petitioner
contended that it had no obligation to employ San Miguel in the exercise of its valid management
prerogative.
55
3G 2017-2018
Doctrine: The mere change in the corporate name is not considered under the law as the creation of a
new corporation; hence, the renamed corporation remains liable for the illegal dismissal of its employee
separated under that guise.
2. Peckson v. Robinsons Supermarket Corp. , July 3, 2013.
3. Gatbonton v. NLRC (preventive suspension), January 23, 2006
Doctrine: Preventive suspension is a disciplinary measure for the protection of the company’s property
pending investigation of any alleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed by the employee. The
employer may place the worker concerned under preventive suspension if his continued employment
poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of his co-workers. However,
when it is determined that there is no sufficient basis to justify an employee’s preventive suspension; the
latter is entitled to the payment of salaries during the time of preventive suspension.
ARTICLE 296 (281): PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT

1. Tamson’s Enterprises Inc.et. al. v. CA, March 16, 2011
Brief Facts:
Sy was hired by Tamsons as Assistant to the President. Barely 4 days prior to her completion of the
six-month probationary period, she was informed that her services would be terminated due to
inefficiency. Sy to file a case for illegal dismissal with claims for back wages, unpaid salary, service
incentive leave, overtime pay, 13th month pay, and moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Case Doctrines:
Labor, for its part, is given the protection during the probationary period of knowing the company
standards the new hires have to meet during the probationary period, and to be judged on the basis of
these standards, aside from the usual standards applicable to employees after they achieve permanent
status. Under the terms of the Labor Code, these standards should be made known to the [employees] on
probationary status at the start of their probationary period, or xxx during which the probationary
standards are to be applied. Of critical importance in invoking a failure to meet the probationary
standards, is that the [employer] should show as a matter of due process how these standards have been
applied. This is effectively the second notice in a dismissal situation that the law requires as a due
process guarantee supporting the security of tenure provision, and is in furtherance, too, of the basic rule
in employee dismissal that the employer carries the burden of justifying a dismissal. These rules ensure
compliance with the limited security of tenure guarantee the law extends to probationary employees.
Indeed, the Court recognizes the employer’s power to terminate as an exercise of management
prerogative. The petitioners, however, must be reminded that such right is not without limitations. As
Article 281 clearly states, a probationary employee can be legally terminated either: (1) for a just cause;
or (2) when the employee fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable
standards made known to him by the employer at the start of the employment. Nonetheless, the power of
the employer to terminate an employee on probation is not without limitations. First, this power must be
exercised in accordance with the specific requirements of the contract. Second, the dissatisfaction on the
part of the employer must be real and in good faith, not feigned so as to circumvent the contract or the
law; and third, there must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal. In termination cases, the burden
of proving just or valid cause for dismissing an employee rests on the employer.
The law is clear that in all cases of probationary employment, the employer shall make known to the
employee the standards under which he will qualify as a regular employee at the time of his engagement.
Where no standards are made known to the employee at that time, he shall be deemed a regular
employee.
2. Hacienda Primera Development Corporation v. Villegas, April 11, 2011
56
3G 2017-2018
Brief facts: Respondent started working for petitioner on January 1, 2007. On March 14, 2007, he
received a call from Paramount Consultancy and Management telling him to report back to Manila. There,
he learned that his services were terminated. Petitioner Hacienda, on the other hand, stated that
respondent was hired as probationary employee. It explained that respondents services were terminated
because he failed to qualify for regular employment.
Doctrine: Two grounds to legally terminate a probationary employee. It may be done either: a) for a just
cause; or b) when the employee fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable
standards made known by the employer to the employee at the start of the employment.In this case,
petitioner Hacienda fails to specify the reasonable standards by which respondents alleged poor
performance was evaluated, much less to prove that such standards were made known to him at the start
of his employment. Thus, he is deemed to have been hired from day one as a regular employee
3. Universidad De Sta. Isabel v. Sambajon, April 2, 2014
Brief Facts:
Universidad de Sta. Isabel is a non-stock, non-profit religious educational. Petitioner hired Marvin-Julian
L. Sambajon, Jr. as a full-time college faculty member with the rank of Assistant Professor on
probationary status. Subsequently, respondent’s salary was increased in October 2004. In a letter,
respondent vigorously argued that his salary increase should be made effective as of June 2003 and
demanded the payment of his salary differential.
The school replied that a permanent teacher is not entitled to re-ranking oftener than once every two
years. From this it should be obvious that, with all the more reason, a probationary teacher would not be
entitled to "evaluation," which could result in re-ranking or "adjustment in salary" oftener than once every
two years. Thereafter, respondent received his letter of termination. Thus, he filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal.
Case Doctrines:
Notwithstanding the limited engagement of probationary employees, they are entitled to constitutional
protection of security of tenure during and before the end of the probationary period. The services of an
employee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated for any of the following: (a) a
just or (b) an authorized cause; and (c) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.
Thus, while no vested right to a permanent appointment had as yet accrued in favor of respondent since
he had not completed the prerequisite three-year period (six consecutive semesters) necessary for the
acquisition of permanent status as required by the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools -- which has
the force of law -- he enjoys a limited tenure. During the said probationary period, he cannot be
terminated except for just or authorized causes, or if he fails to qualify in accordance with reasonable
standards prescribed by petitioner for the acquisition of permanent status of its teaching personnel.
4. Univac Development v. Soriano, June 19, 2013.

Doctrine: It is primordial that at the start of the probationary period, the standards for regularization be
made known to the probationary employee.
5. Abbott Laboratories v. Alcaraz, July 23, 2013.
Brief Facts: (Abbott) caused the publication in a major broadsheet newspaper of its need for a Medical
and Regulatory Affairs Manager (Regulatory Affairs Manager) who would: (a) be responsible for drug
safety surveillance operations, staffing, and budget; (b) lead the development and implementation of
standard operating procedures/policies for drug safety surveillance and vigilance; and (c) act as the
primary interface with internal and external customers regarding safety operations and queries.4 Alcaraz -
57
3G 2017-2018
who was then a Regulatory Affairs and Information Manager at Aventis Pasteur Philippines, Incorporated
(another pharmaceutical company like Abbott) – showed interest and submitted her application on
October 4, 2004.
Doctrine: The employer is made to comply with two (2) requirements when dealing with a probationary
employee: first, the employer must communicate the regularization standards to the probationary
employee; and second, the employer must make such communication at the time of the probationary
employee’s engagement. If the employer fails to comply with either, the employee is deemed as a regular
and not a probationary employee.
6. Colegio de Santisimo Rosario v. Rojo, September 4, 2013.
Brief Facts
Petitioner Colegio del Santisimo Rosario (CSR) hired respondent as a high school teacher on
probationary basis for the school years 1992-1993, 1993-1994 and 1994-1995.
On April 5, 1995, CSR, through petitioner Sr. Zenaida S. Mofada, OP (Mofada), decided not to renew
respondent’s services. Thus, on July 13, 1995, respondent filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal. He
alleged that since he had served three consecutive school years which is the maximum number of terms
allowed for probationary employment, he should be extended permanent employment.
Doctrine
For teachers on probationary employment, in which case a fixed term contract is not specifically used for
the fixed term it offers, it is incumbent upon the school to have not only set reasonable standards to
be followed by said teachers in determining qualification for regular employment, the same must
have also been communicated to the teachers at the start of the probationary period, or at the
very least, at the start of the period when they were to be applied.
7. Phil. Daily Inquirer v. Magtibay, July 24, 2007

Brief Facts:
PDI hired Magtibay, Jr on contractual basis, to assist, for a period of five months from February 17, 1995,
the regular phone operator. Before the expiration of Magtibay’s contractual employment, he and PDI
agreed to a fifteen-day contract extension, or from July 17, 1995 up to July 31, 1995. After the expiration
of Magtibay’s contractual employment, PDI announced the creation and availability of a new position for a
second telephone operator who would undergo probationary employment.
Doctrine:
Within the limited legal six-month probationary period, probationary employees are still entitled to security
of tenure as they may be terminated only on two grounds:
(a) for just cause, or
(b) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known
by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement
8. Alcira v. NLRC, June 9, 2004
9. Mercado v. Ama Computer College (Probi status of fixed term employees)
DOCTRINE: In a situation where the probationary status overlaps with a fixed-term
contract not specifically used for the fixed term it offers, Article 281 should assume
primacy and the fixed-period character of the contract must give way.
10. Oyster Plaza Hotel v. Melivo, October 5, 2016
58
3G 2017-2018
Brief Facts: In November 2008, Oyster Plaza hired him as a probationary room boy and he was made to
sign an employment contract but he was not furnished a copy, that the said contract expired in March
2009 and his work ended; that on April 7, 2009, Oyster Plaza hired him again as a room boy, but without
any employment contract or document; and that in September 2009, his supervisor Ampel verbally told
him that his contract was expiring, thus, he must stop reporting for work.
Doctrine: Probation is the period during which the employer may determine if the employee is qualified
for possible inclusion in the regular force. The employer has the right or is at liberty to choose who will be
hired and who will be denied employment. In that sense, it is within the exercise of the right to select his
employees that the employer may set or fix a probationary period within which the latter may test and
observe the conduct of the former before hiring him permanently. In this case, Melivo was first hired as a
trainee in August 2008. His training lasted for three (3) months. As a room boy, his performance was
certainly under observation. When he was re-hired as room boy after his training period sometime in
November 2008 he attained regular employment status.
ARTICLE 297 (282): TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER

1. Concepcion v. Minex Import Corporation, January 24, 2012
2. Dreamland Hotel and Resort v. Johnson, March 12, 2014
3. Grand Asian Shipping Lines Inc., v. Galvez, January 29, 2014
Brief Facts: The respondents are crewmembers of M/T Dorothy Uno, they allegedly engaged in pilferage
and a case of qualified theft was filed against them. Galvez and Gruta being the ship captain and chief
engineer, respectively, are considered managerial employees, hence, they were validly dismissed for
mere existence of a basis for believing that they have breached the trust reposed on them by GASLI. On
the other hand, the other respondents were considered rank-and file employees and since there is no
sufficient evidence to support their dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, hence, they
were considered illegally dismissed.
Doctrine: The employer has broader discretion in dismissing managerial employees on the ground of
loss of trust and confidence than those occupying ordinary ranks. While plain accusations are not
sufficient to justify the dismissal of rank and file employees, the mere existence of a basis for believing
that managerial employees have breached the trust reposed on them by their employer would suffice to
justify their dismissal.
4. Mirant Phil. Corp. v. Caro, April 23, 2014

Brief facts:
Petitioner Corporation conducted a random drug test where Caro was randomly chosen among its
employees who would be tested for illegal drug use. The same day, he received a phone call from his
wife’s colleague who informed him that a bombing incident occurred near his wife’s work station in Tel
Aviv, Israel where his wife was then working as a caregiver. He proceeded to the Israeli Embassy to
confirm the news on the alleged bombing incident.
The Investigating Panel issued an Investigating Report finding respondent guilty of "unjustified refusal to
submit to random drug testing" and recommended a penalty of four working weeks suspension without
pay, instead of termination, due to the presence of mitigating circumstances.
Doctrine:
TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER: Reasonableness of Termination
The [petitioner corporation’s] Anti-Drug Policy is excessive in terminating an employee for his "unjustified
59
3G 2017-2018
refusal" to subject himself to the random drug test on first offense, without clearly defining what amounts
to an "unjustified refusal and that for the ten-year period that respondent had been employed by petitioner
corporation, he did not have any record of a violation of its company policies.
5. Bluer than blue Joint Ventures Co. v. Esteban, April 7, 2014.
6. Manila Jockey Club v. Trajano, June 26, 2013.
The loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid ground for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of
trust and confidence founded on clearly established facts. "A breach is willful, if it is done intentionally,
knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly,
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer’s
arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy
of the employer."30 An ordinary breach is not enough.
7. Hormillosa v. Coca Cola, October 9, 2013.

8. Chuanico v. Legacy Consolidated Plans, October 9, 2013.
9. Duncan Association of Detailman-PGTWO v. Glaxo Welcome Phils, September 17, 2004
10. Star Paper Corporation et al. v. Simbol, April 12, 2006
11. Ace Promotion and Marketing Corp. v. Ursabia, September 22, 2006
Brief facts: Petitioner Ace Promotion and Marketing Corporation hired respondent Reynaldo Ursabia as
a company driver assigned to pick up the products of Nestle Philippines, Inc., for promotion and
marketing. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of other monetary benefits.
Doctrine: Where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the instant case, the lack of statutory due process
should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the employer should
indemnify the employee for violation of his statutory rights.
12. Concepcion v. Minex Import Corporation, January 24, 2012

13. St. Lukes Medical Center Inc. v Notario October 20, 2010
Doctrine: Where the dismissal was without just cause and there was no due process, Article 279 of the
Labor Code, as amended, mandates that the employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, or
their monetary equivalent computed from the time the compensation was not paid up to the time of actual
reinstatement.
14. The Coca-Cola Export Corporation v. Gacayan, December 15, 2010
Doctrine:
The guidelines for the application of the doctrine of loss of confidence are:
(a) Loss of confidence should not be simulated;
(b) It should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified;
(c) It may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; and
(d) It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith.
15. Domingo v. Rayala, February 18, 2008

Brief facts: Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo (Domingo), then Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC, filed a
Complaint for sexual harassment against Rayala before Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma of DOLE. To
support the Complaint, Domingo executed an Affidavit narrating the incidences of sexual harassment
complained of, which includes holding and squeezing Domingos shoulders, running his fingers across her
neck and tickling her ear, having inappropriate conversations with her, giving her money allegedly for
school expenses with a promise of future privileges, and making statements with sexual overtones.
60
3G 2017-2018
Doctrine:
1. Sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced superiority which is enough to dampen an
employees spirit and her capacity for advancement. It affects her sense of judgment; it changes
her life. it is not essential that the demand, request or requirement be made as a condition for
continued employment or for promotion to a higher position. It is enough that the respondents
acts result in creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee.That the
acts of Rayala generated an intimidating and hostile environment for Domingo is clearly shown by
the common factual finding of the Investigating Committee, the OP and the CA that Domingo
reported the matter to an officemate and, after the last incident, filed for a leave of absence and
requested transfer to another unit.
2. The imposable penalty for the first offense of either the administrative offense of sexual
harassment or for disgraceful and immoral conduct is suspension of six (6) months and one (1)
day to one (1) year.
16. Phil. Aeolus Auto Motive United Corp. v. NLRC, April 28, 2000
Brief Facts:
PAAUC dismissed Private Respondent, a company nurse, from service on the ground of serious
misconduct, gross habitual neglect and fraud or willful breach of trust. Among the acts she allegedly
committed is throwing a stapler at Plant Manager William Chua, her superior and uttering invectives
against him.
Case Doctrines:
For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal
(a) it must be serious;
(b) must relate to the performance of the employees duties; and,
(c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.
In order to consider the throwing of a stapler and uttering abusive language upon the manager a serious
misconduct that would justify dismissal under the law, it must have been done in relation to the
performance of her duties as would show her to be unfit to continue working for her employer.
17. Pharmacia and Upjohn Inc. v. Albayda Jr., August 23, 2010
Doctrine: Court has long stated that the objection to the transfer being grounded solely upon the
personal inconvenience or hardship that will be caused to the employee by reason of the transfer is not a
valid reason to disobey an order of transfer. Such being the case, respondent cannot adamantly refuse to
abide by the order of transfer without exposing himself to the risk of being dismissed. Hence, his
dismissal was for just cause in accordance with Article 282(a) of the Labor Code.
18. Jerusalem v. Hock et. al., April 6, 2011
Brief Facts: James Ben L. Jerusalem was employed by Keppel Monte Bank as Assistant Vice-President.
He was assigned as Head of the newly created VISA Credit Card Department. The bank subsequently
reorganized the VISA Credit Card Department and reduced it to a mere unit.
Doctrine: For breach of trust and confidence to become a valid ground for the dismissal of an employee,
the cause of loss of trust and confidence must be related to the performance of the employee’s duties.
19. Reno Foods Inc. v. NLM-Katipunan, March 15, 2010

Brief Facts
61
3G 2017-2018
The guard found Reno canned good inside Capor’s bag. The latter was given se eral opportunities to air
her side. However, petitioner decided to terminate her employment. Subsequently, an Information for
Qualified Theft was filed against Capor. Capor, on the other hand, filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal.
Eventually, Capor was caquitted of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Doctrine
An employee's acquittal in a criminal case, especially one that is grounded on the existence of reasonable
doubt, will not preclude a determination in a labor case that he is guilty of acts inimical to the employer's
interests.
20. La Rosa et. al. v. Ambassador Hotel, March 13, 2009
Brief Facts:
Complaints for violation of labor standards laws were filed by the employees (“the Petitioners”) against
Ambassador Hotel (“the Hotel”), with the DOLE-NCR. After investigation, the Hotel was found to have
violated several labor standards laws, and was ordered to settle its obligations under the law. This
purportedly angered respondents management which retaliated by suspending and/or constructively
dismissing them by drastically reducing their work days through the adoption of a work reduction/rotation
scheme.
Doctrine:
Constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or
both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the
employee. The Hotel’s sudden, arbitrary and unfounded adoption of the two-day work scheme which
greatly reduced the petitioners’ salaries renders it liable for constructive dismissal.
Absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee simply does
not want to work anymore. And the burden of proof to show that there was unjustified refusal to go back
to work rests on the employer.
21. Maribago Resort v. Dual, July 20, 2010 (Serious M)
22. Century Canning Corp. v. Ramil, August 8, 2010 (Loss of trust and Confidence)
DOCTRINE: Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay has been considered
an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. On the
one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work
environment. On the other hand, the payment releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable
obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.
23. Tongko v. The Manufacturer’s Life Insurance Co. Inc., November 7, 2008 (willful disobedience)
Brief Facts: Manulife instituted manpower development programs in the regional sales management
level. However, Tongko received a letter stating that the region of Tongko is the lowest performer in terms
of recruiting and provided for measures to address such issue. Subsequently, Tongko received another
letter from De Dios terminating his Agent’s Contract for his failure to align his directions with the
Management’s avowed agency growth policy. Tongko, in a bid to establish an employer-employee
relationship, alleged that De Dios gave him specific directives on how to manage his area of responsibility
Doctrine: When there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for the termination of employment,
the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to prove that
62
3G 2017-2018
the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. This burden of proof appropriately lies on the
shoulders of the employer and not on the employee because a worker's job has some of the
characteristics of property rights and is therefore within the constitutional mantle of protection. No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws. The law mandates that the burden of proving the validity of the termination of
employment rests with the employer. Failure to discharge this evidentiary burden would necessarily mean
that the dismissal was not justified, and, therefore, illegal.
24. School of Holy Spirit of Quezon City v. Taguiam, July 14, 2008 (gross and habitual neglect)
25. Yrasuegui v. PAL, October 17, 2008 (Analogous Causes)
26. John Hancock Life Insurance Co. v. Davis, September 3, 2008 (Analogous Causes)
Brief Facts: Davis was caught in a security camera using the stolen credit card of an officemate. She
was placed under preventive suspension. She filed for illegal dismissal.
Doctrine: Since the theft was not committed against petitioner company itself but against one of its
employees, respondent’s misconduct was not work-related and therefore, she could not be dismissed for
serious misconduct. However, a cause analogous to serious misconduct which is voluntary and/or willful
act or omission attesting to an employee's moral depravity. Theft committed by an employee against a
person other than his employer, if proven by substantial evidence, is a cause analogous to serious
misconduct.
27. Hocgeng Phil v. Farrales, March 18, 2015
Brief facts:
A report reached HPC management that a motorcycle helmet of an employee, Reymar Solas, was stolen
at the parking lot within its premises. Security Officer Francisco Paragas III confirmed a video sequence
recorded on CCTV showing Farrales taking the missing helmet from a parked motorcycle. Later that day,
HPC sent Farrales a notice to explain his involvement in the alleged theft. Farrales sent an explanation.
After a hearing was conducted, the HPC issued a Notice of Termination to Farrales dismissing him for
violation of HPC Code.
Doctrine:
The Court held that “to be lawful, the cause for termination must be a serious and grave malfeasance to
justify the deprivation of a means of livelihood. The penalty imposed on the erring employee ought to be
proportionate to the offense, taking into account its nature and surrounding circumstances.
28. Benitez v. Santa Fe Moving and Relocation Services April 20, 2015.
29. St. Luke’s Medical Center v. Sanchez, March 11, 2015.
Employers have the right to regulate all aspect of employment. This ‘management prerogative’, includes
the right to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary or proper for conduct of its business or
concern, to provide certain disciplinary measures to implement said rules, and to assure that the same
would be complied with. Employees, in turn, have the corollary duty to obey all reasonable rules, orders,
and instructions of the employer; and willfull or intentional disobedience thereto justifies termination of the
contract of service and dismissal of employee. Hence, Sanchez’ willfull disobedience is just cause for her
termination.
63
3G 2017-2018
30. Maersk-Filipinas Corp v. Vestruz, February 18, 2015
31. Waterfront Cebu City Casino Hotel v. Ledesma, March 25, 2015
32. Mallo v. Southeast Asian College, October 14, 2015
33. Naguit v. San Miguel, June 22, 2015
34. Villapando v. Cocoplans, May 30, 2016
Brief facts: Villapando's employment was terminated by Cocoplans on the alleged ground that she was
deliberately influencing people to transfer to another company thereby breaching the trust and losing the
confidence given to her by Cocoplans. Consequently, Villapando filed an action for illegal dismissal
alleging that she was dismissed without the just cause mandated by law.
Doctrine: Settled is the rule that to constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two (2) requisites must
concur, viz.: (a) the employee must be afforded due process, i.e., he must be given an opportunity to be
heard and defend himself; and (b) the dismissal must be for a valid cause. When there is doubt between
the evidence submitted by the employer and that submitted by the employee, the scales of justice must
be tilted in favor of the employee.
35. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp v. Albay, March 16, 2016
36. Cebu People’s Multi Purpose Coop. v. Carbonilla, January 27, 2016
37. Visayan Electric Co. Employees v. VECO, July 22, 2015
Brief Facts: Union members marched on the streets of Cebu City to protest VECO's refusal to comply
with the political and economic provisions of the CBA. Mahilum and other union officers were interviewed
by the media, and they handed out a document containing their grievances against VECO, the gist of
which came out in local newspapers. Following said incident, Mahilum was allegedly demoted as
warehouse staff to isolate him and restrict his movements. Other union officers were transferred to
positions that will keep them away from the general union membership.
Doctrine: Refusal of VECO to follow the grievance machinery procedure under Section 4, Article XVII of
the CBA in the suspension and termination from employment of the other union officers and members
does not necessarily constitute unfair labor practice if the petitioner-union failed to satisfactorily prove the
same. When the general and specific provisions of the CBA are in conflict, the specific provision shall
govern.
38. Manarpiis v. Texan Phils, January 28, 2015

Brief facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the respondents. Respondents denied
the charge of illegal dismissal and explained that TPI’s closure was averted by insurmountable losses.
They asserted that the requisite notices of business closure to government authorities and to their
employees were complied with, and notwithstanding that TPI has in fact continued its operations,
petitioner was found to have committed infractions resulting in loss of confidence which was the ground
for the termination of her employment. They likewise averred that respondent Rialubin-Tan gave specific
instructions to petitioner for her to continue reporting for work even after August 31, 2000 but she instead
went AWOL and subsequently abandoned her job, to the utmost prejudice of the company.
Doctrine:
1. Closure of business as an authorized cause for termination of employment is governed by Article
283 of the Labor Code. The ultimate test of the validity of closure or cessation of establishment or
undertaking is that it must be bona fide in character. And the burden of proving such falls upon
the employer. petitioner was dismissed without just or authorized cause, and that the announced
cessation of business operations was a subterfuge for getting rid of petitioner. The subsequent
investigation and termination of petitioner on grounds of dishonesty, loss of confidence and
abandonment of work, clearly appears as an afterthought as it was done only after petitioner had
filed an illegal dismissal case.
64
3G 2017-2018
2. Two elements which must concur for a valid abandonment, viz: (1) the failure to report to work or
absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the
employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor being
manifested by some overt acts. Abandonment as a just ground for dismissal requires the
deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to perform his employment responsibilities. Mere
absence or failure to work, even after notice to return, is not tantamount to abandonment.
39. Leus v. St. Scholastica College, January 28, 2015
Brief Facts:
Cheryll Santos Leus was hired by St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove, a Catholic educational institution,
as a non-teaching personnel, engaged in pre-marital sexual relations, got pregnant out of wedlock,
married the father of her child, and was dismissed by SSCW, in that order. The question that has to be
resolved is whether the petitioner’s conduct constitutes a ground for her dismissal.
Case Doctrines:
It bears stressing that the right of an employee to security of tenure is protected by the Constitution.
Perfunctorily, a regular employee may not be dismissed unless for cause provided under the Labor Code
and other relevant laws, in this case, the 1992 MRPS. As stated above, when the law refers to morality, it
necessarily pertains to public and secular morality and not religious morality. Thus, the proscription
against “disgraceful or immoral conduct” must necessarily refer to public and secular morality.
Accordingly, in order for a conduct to be considered as disgraceful or immoral, it must be “‘detrimental (or
dangerous) to those conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society’ and not
because the conduct is proscribed by the beliefs of one religion or the other.”
To stress, pre-marital sexual relations between two consenting adults who have no impediment to marry
each other, and, consequently, conceiving a child out of wedlock, gauged from a purely public and
secular view of morality, does not amount to a disgraceful or immoral conduct.
40. Cadiz v. Brent Hosptial, February 24, 2016

Doctrine: Only the labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an
appropriate collective bargaining unit is the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining.
41. Venzon v. ZAMECO II Electric Cooperative, Nov. 9, 2015
Brief Facts: Petitioner Jose M. Gutierrez, Jr. was the Manager of Administrative and Personnel
Department of ZAMECO II and was hired on June 1, 2003. Petitioner Mary Ann Venzon was the Manager
of Member Service Department and had been with ZAMECO II since January 21, 1996. Petitioner Eddie
Gutierrez was a member of the Operation and Disconnection Team and was hired on April 29, 2002.
Petitioner Monaliza L. Cabal was an accounting staff and started working at ZAMECO II on August 1,
2001.
Doctrine: Misconduct is defined as an improper or wrong conduct. It is a transgression of some

established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and
implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. To constitute a valid cause for the dismissal within
the text and meaning of Article 282 of the Labor Code, the employee s misconduct must be serious i.e., of
such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.
65
3G 2017-2018
Additionally, the misconduct must be related to the performance of the employees duties showing him to
be unfit to continue working for the employer. Further, and equally important and required, the act or
conduct must have been performed with wrongful intent.
42. Maula v. Ximex Delivery Express, January 25, 2017

Brief Facts
A series of events led to the suspension of petitioner for alleged “serious misconduct and willful
disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with
his work.” He filed a case with the NCMB. Thereafter, he was refused entry and was served a dismissal
letter.
Doctrine
Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of the employer do not provide legal
justification for dismissing the employee.
ARTICLE 298 (283): CLOSURE OF ESTABLISHMENT AND REDUCTION OF PERSONNEL
1. SPI Technologies Inc. v. Mapua, April 7, 2014
Brief Facts:
Mapua was hired in 2003 by SPI as Corporate Development Manager. Sometime in October 2006, the
hard disk on Mapua’s laptop crashed, causing her to lose files and data that she needed to meet work
deadlines. She was only able to recover the lost data about a month later but at that time, Mapua’s
supervisor informed her that due to missing her work deadlines, they were realigning her position to
become a subordinate of co-manager.
This caused a rift to develop between Mapua and the rest of her department and allegedly resulted in
about 95% of her work projects and job responsibilities being given to other employees.
Doctrine:
For a valid implementation of a redundancy program, the employer must comply with the following
requisites:
(1) written notice served on both the employee and the DOLE at least one month prior to the
intended date of termination;
(2) payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for
every year of service, whichever is higher;
(3) good faith in abolishing the redundant position; and
(4) fair and real
2. Arabit v. Jardine Pacific Finance Inc., April 2, 2014.
3. Phil. Carpet Manufacturing Corp. b. Tagyamon et. al, December 11, 2013.
DOCTRINE: Retrenchment is an authorized cause for the termination of employment under Article 283 of
the Labor Code. The prerogative of an employer to retrench its employees must be exercised only as a
last resort, considering that it will lead to the loss of the employee’s livelihood. It is justified only when all
other less drastic means have been tried and found insufficient or inadequate.
4. Sanoh Fulton Phil. v. Bernard, August 14, 2013.

Brief Facts: Sanoh is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of automotive parts and wire
condensers for home appliances. Its Wire Condenser Department employed 61 employees. Respondents
belonged to this department. In view of job order cancellations relating to the manufacture of wire
condensers by Matsushita, Sanyo and National Panasonic, Sanoh decided to phase out the Wire
66
3G 2017-2018
Condenser Department. Two succeeding conciliation conferences were likewise held but the parties failed
to reach an amicable settlement.
Doctrine: Losses in the operation of the enterprise, lack of work, or considerable reduction on the volume
of business may justify an employer to reduce the work force. But a lull caused by lack of orders or
shortage of materials must be of such nature as would severely affect the continued business operations
of the employer to the detriment of all and sundry if not properly addressed.
5. Andrada et. al. v. NLRC December 28, 2007
6. Culili v. Eastern Telecommunication Philippines, February 9, 2011
7. Asufrin v. San Miguel Corporation, March 10, 2004

Brief Facts: When Sum-ag Sales Office was closed employees were given a choice between early
retirement package or being absorbed at the Brewery or other sales office. Asufrin chose to be absorbed
in Sta. Fe Brewery but his boss claimed that he was on the list of those employees who will avail early
retirement. SC ruled that he was illegally dismissed
Doctrine: Although it is upon the judgment of the employer to determine whether an employee’s services
are sustainable and properly terminable, the employer should declare redundancy with a just cause and
in good faith.
8. Ocean East Agency Corp v. Lopez, October 14, 2015
Brief Facts: On March 7, 1988, respondent Allan I. Lopez was employed as Documentation Officer
assigned to Ocean East’s Operations Department. In a letter dated February 5, 2001, Ocean East served
notice to Lopez that effective 30 days later, or on March 6, 2001, his services will be terminated on the
ground of redundancy, as his position as Documentation Officer is but a duplication of those occupied by
its two other personnel who were also exercising similar duties and functions.
Doctrine: For the implementation of a redundancy program to be valid, the employer must comply with
these requisites; 1) written notice served on both the employee and the Department of Labor and
Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment, 2) payment of separation pay
equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of service, whichever is
higher, 3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions and 4) fair and reasonable criteria in
ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished.
9. Blue Eagle v. Naval, April 19, 2016

10. PNCC Skyway v. Sec of Labor, April 19, 2016
Procedurally, Article 298 (formerly, Article 283) of the Labor Code, as amended provides for three (3)
requirements to properly effectuate termination on the ground of closure or cessation of business
operations. These are: (a) service of a written notice to the employees and to the DOLE at least one (1)
month before the intended date of termination; (b) the cessation of business must be bona fide in
character; and (c) payment to the employees of termination pay amounting to one (1) month pay or at
least one-half month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.
11. GJT Rebuiders Machine Shop v. Ambos, January 28, 2015
12. Manggagawa Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. PLDT, April 19, 2017
13. PNCC Skyway Corp. v. Sec of Labor, February 6, 2016
ARTICLE 299 (284): DISEASE AS A GROUND FOR TERMINATION

1. Sy et. al. v. CA, February 27, 2003
2. Union Motors Corp v. NLRC, December 9, 2004
67
3G 2017-2018
Brief facts: The respondent made a phone call to Rosita dela Cruz, the company nurse, and informed
her that he had to take a sick leave as he had a painful and unbearable toothache. The petitioner issued
an Inter Office Memorandum terminating the services of the respondent for having incurred more than five
(5) consecutive absences without proper notification.
Doctrine: While it is true that the petitioner had objected to the veracity of the medical certificates
because of lack of notarization, it has been said that verification of documents is not necessary in order
that the said documents could be considered as substantial evidence. The medical certificates were
properly signed by the physicians; hence, they bear all the earmarks of regularity in their issuance and
are entitled to full probative weight.
3. Villaruel v. Yeo Han Guan, June 1, 2011
ARTICLE 300 (285): TERMINATION BY EMPLOYEE

1. Malig-on v. Equitable General Services Inc. June 29, 2010
2. Chang Kai Shek College v. Torres, April 2, 2014.
Brief Facts
Rosalinda Torres was accused of leaking a copy of a special quiz given to Grade 5 students of HEKASI
(HEKASI 5). She initially denied leaking the test paper but later on admitted that she gave the test paper
to Mrs. Teresita Anduyan (Mrs. Anduyan), her co-teacher and the mother of her student Aileen. Petitioner
actually decided to terminate respondent but the latter pleaded for a lesser penalty, stating that she will
resign at the end of the school year. Thus, she was suspended. Respondent continued her employment
until the end of the school year.
Thereafter, respondent filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and illegal suspension with the Labor
Arbiter. She also sought payment of unpaid salary, backwages, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay,
13th month pay, separation pay, retirement benefits, damages and attorney’s fees.
Doctrine
Constructive dismissal may exist if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer
becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to
forego his continued employment.
3. Opinaldo v. Ravina, October 16, 2013.

Brief facts: PAIJR sent to Ravina (the General Manager and sole proprietor of the agency)
letter-complaint to relieve Opinaldo (security guard) because he is no longer physically fit to perform his
duties and responsibilities as a company guard because of his health condition. This led to Opinaldo’s
reassignment to work for Engr. Gomez. Upon his failure to continue working for Engr. Gomez due to his
refusal to obtain a medical certificate, Opinaldo filed the complaint for money claims but this was however
settled when Opinaldo and Ravina signed a quitclaim. Still, Opinaldo did not obtain the medical certificate
required by Ravina. However, after almost 4 weeks, petitioner claims that when he asked respondent to
sign an SSS Sickness Notification which he was going to use in order to avail of the discounted fees for a
medical check-up, respondent allegedly refused and informed him that he was no longer an employee of
the Agency. Hence, petitioner filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal.
Doctrine: The due process requirement in the deprivation of one employment is transcendental that it
limits the exercise of the management prerogative of the employer to control and regulate the affairs of
the business.
4. Willi Hahn Enterprises v. Maghuyop, December 17, 2004

68
3G 2017-2018
Brief Facts:
Maghuyop was the Store Manager of SM Cebu Branch. Petitioner conducted an Inventory Report and
discovered that its SM Cebu branch incurred stock shortages and non-remittances. Petitioner decided to
terminate the services of respondent, however, before he could do so, the latter tendered her resignation.
Believing the good faith of respondent in resigning, petitioner decided not to file charges against her
anymore. Respondent, however, contends that the resignation was involuntarily made.
Case Doctrines:
The letter is simple, candid and direct to the point. We find no merit in respondents claim that being a
mere clerk, she did not realize the consequences of her resignation.
The failure of petitioner to pursue the termination proceedings against respondent and to make her pay
for the shortage incurred did not cast doubt on the voluntary nature of her resignation. A decision to give a
graceful exit to an employee rather than to file an action for redress is perfectly within the discretion of an
employer. It is not uncommon that an employee is permitted to resign to save face after the exposure of
her malfeasance. Under the circumstances, the failure of petitioner to file action against the respondent
should be considered as an act of compassion for one who used to be a trusted employee and a close
member of the household.
5. Skippers United Pacific et. al. v. Doza et. al., February 8, 2012
Doctrine: Article 285 of the Labor Code recognizes termination by the employee of the employment
contract by serving written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance. Given that provision,
the law contemplates the requirement of a written notice of resignation. In the absence of a written
resignation, it is safe to presume that the employer terminated the seafarers.
6. Morales v. Harbour Centre Port Terminal Inc., January 25, 2012
Brief Facts: Morales was hired by respondent HCPTI as an Accountant and Acting Finance Officer. He
was regularized and later on promoted to Division Manager of the Accounting Department. Subsequent to
HCPTI’s transfer to its new offices at Vitas, Tondo, Manila, Morales received an inter-office memorandum,
reassigning him to Operations Cost Accounting, tasked with the duty of "monitoring and evaluating all
consumables requests, gears and equipment" related to the corporation’s operations and of interacting
with its sub-contractor, Bulk Fleet Marine Corporation.
Doctrine: In cases of a transfer of an employee, the rule is settled that the employer is charged with the
burden of proving that its conduct and action are for valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine
business necessity and that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee.
If the employer cannot overcome this burden of proof, the employee’s transfer shall be tantamount to
unlawful constructive dismissal.
7. SHS Perforated Material Inc. v. Diaz, October 13, 2010
Brief Facts
Petitioner was dissatisfied with respondent’s performance. Hence, the latter’s salary was withheld.
Respondent sent a Demand Letter and Resignation Letter. Thereafter, he filed a Complaint for Illegal
Dismissal.
Doctrine
· Although management prerogative refers to "the right to regulate all aspects of employment," it cannot
be understood to include the right to temporarily withhold salary/wages without the consent of the
employee.
69
3G 2017-2018
· The unlawful withholding of an employee's salary amounts to constructive dismissal.
8. San Miguel Properties Phils. v. Gucaban, July 18, 2011
Brief Facts:
Respondent Gucaban a licensed civil engineer, joined the workforce of petitioner SMPI in 1991 as a
construction management specialist. By her satisfactory performance on the job, Gucaban was promoted
twice, first to the position of technical services manager, and then of project development manager.
In early 1998, she was informed by SMPIs CEO, Gonzalez, that the company was planning to reorganize
its manpower in order to cut on costs, and that she must file for resignation or otherwise face termination.
Thereafter, she was furnished a blank resignation form but she refused to sign the same. Due to her
refusal, Gucaban was alienated in the workplace and kept off from all meetings, and that Gonzalez would
even give negative performance reports
Doctrine:
Resignation, the formal relinquishment of a position or office, is a voluntary act of an employee who
believes that he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from employment. The intent to relinquish
must concur with the overt act of relinquishment; hence, the acts of the employee before and after the
alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether he in fact intended to terminate his
employment.
In illegal dismissal cases, fundamental is the rule that when an employer interposes the defense of
resignation, on him necessarily rests the burden to prove that the employee indeed voluntarily resigned.
9. BMG Records Phils. Inc. v. Aparecio, September 5, 2007
10. Tatel v. JLFP Investigations, February 25, 2015 (constructive dismissal)
DOCTRINE: Constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain, on
the part of the employer has become so unbearable as to leave an employee with no choice but to forego
continued employment or when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered
impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.
11. Paredes v. Feed the Children Phils., September 9, 2015
Brief Facts: FTCP employees signed a petition letter addressed to the Board expressing their complaints
against alleged detestable practices of petitioner, to wit: seeking exemption from policies which she
herself had approved; withholding organization funds despite approval of its release; procuring health
insurance for herself without paying her share of the premium; and receiving additional fees contrary to
the terms of her contract. Petitioner filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that she was forced to
resign, thus, was constructively dismissed.
Doctrine: Case law holds that constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because
continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank
or diminution in pay or both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer
becomes unbearable to the employee. The test is whether a reasonable person in the employee's
position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances. The 30-day notice
requirement for an employee's resignation is actually for the benefit of the employer who has the
discretion to waive such period. Its purpose is to afford the employer enough time to hire another
employee if needed and to see to it that there is proper turn-over of the tasks which the resigning
employee may be handling. Such rule requiring an employee to stay or complete the 30-day period prior
70
3G 2017-2018
to the effectivity of his resignation becomes discretionary on the part of management as an employee who
intends to resign may be allowed a shorter period before his resignation becomes effective.
12. Silvertex Weaving Corp. v. Campo, Mach 16, 2016

13. Divine World College of Laoag v. Mina, April 13, 2016
14. Sumifru Phil Corp. v. Baya, April 17, 2017

Brief Facts: Baya was a supervisory employee of AMSFC and was transferred to DFC a sister company.
When he refused to join a pro-company union, SAFFPAI, he returned to AMSFC but was demoted to a
rank-and-file position. He was constructively dismissed.
Doctrine: In case of a constructive dismissal, the employer has the burden of proving that the transfer
and demotion of an employee are for valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity.
Particularly, for a transfer not to be considered a constructive dismissal, the employer must be able to
show that such transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it
involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Failure of the
employer to overcome this burden of proof, the employee's demotion shall no doubt be tantamount to
unlawful constructive dismissal.
15. Rodriguez v. Park and Ride, March 20, 2017

Brief facts: Rodriguez resgined because of not being comfotable anymore with the respondent.
Doctrine: There is constructive dismissal when an employer's act of clear discrimination,

insensibility or disdain becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee so as to foreclose
any choice on his part except to resign from such employment. It exists where there is
involuntary resignation because of the harsh, hostile and unfavorable conditions set by the
employer. We have held that the standard for constructive dismissal is "whether a reasonable
person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his employment under
the circumstances.
16. Grande v. Phil. Nautical Training College, March 1, 2017
ARTICLE 301 (286): WHEN EMPLOYMENT NOT DEEMED TERMINATED

1. SKM Art Craft Corporation v. Bauca, November 27, 2013
Under Article 286 of the Labor Code, the employment will not be deemed terminated if the bona fide
suspension of operations does not exceed six months. But if the suspension of operations exceeds six
months, the employment will be considered terminated.
By the same token and applying said rule by analogy, if the employee was forced to remain without work
or assignment for a period exceeding six months, then he is in effect constructively dismissed.
2.Emeritus Security and Maintenance Systems Inv. v. Dailig, April 2, 2014.
3.Nippon Housing Phil. Inc. et. al v. Leynes, August 3, 2011
4.Mayon Hotel and Restaurant et. al. v. Adana et. al. May 16, 2005
5.ICT Marketing v. Sales, September 9, 2015
6.Carique v. Phil. Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency, September 16, 2015
(Rotation)
Brief facts: Petitioner was relieved from his post at the National Bookstore – Rosario, Pasig Branch and
was replaced by Security Guard Roel Juan pursuant to a rotation policy being implemented by
respondent agency. Petitioner filed an illegal dismissal case against respondents before the Labor Arbiter.
71
3G 2017-2018
Doctrine: The implementation of the rotation policy by respondent agency is within the ambit of
management prerogative. The employer has the inherent right to regulate all aspects of employment,
according to his own discretion and judgment, including the right to transfer an employee as long as the
transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, prejudicial and does not involve a demotion in rank or a
diminution of the employee’s salaries, benefits, and other privileges.
ARTICLE 302 (287): RETIREMENT

1. (retirement benefits) Daaboy v. Coca-Cola , August 19, 2013.
2. Pinero v. NLRC, August 20, 2004
Doctrine: An employee who is dismissed for cause is generally not entitled to any financial assistance.
Equity considerations, however, provide an exception such as the long years of service (24 years in this
case and 2 years short for Piero to retire).
3. Sta. Catalina College v. NLRC, November 19, 2003

Brief Facts:
Hilaria was hired as an elementary school teacher at the SCC in San Antonio, Biñan, Laguna. She
worked in SCC until 1970, she applied for and was granted a one year leave of absence on account of
the illness of her mother, but she did not return after the one-year period.
Later, she was employed as a teacher at the San Pedro Parochial School during school year 1980-1981
and Liceo de San Pedro, during school year 1981-1982
In 1982, she returned to and was rehired by SCC, working there until her compulsory retirement in 1997,
when she was given an award for her 30 years of service. A dispute arose when, in the computation of
Hilaria’s retirement benefits, SCC only counted her years of service from 1982 to 1997, thereby excluding
her tenure from 1955 to 1970
Doctrine:
For a valid finding of abandonment, two factors must be present:
(1) the failure to report for work, or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and
(2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the
more determinative factor, being manifested by some overt acts.
To prove abandonment, the employer must show that the employee deliberately and unjustifiably refused
to resume his employment without any intention of returning.
4. Pantranco North Express Inc. v. NLRC, July 24, 1996
Brief facts: Private respondent was hired by petitioner in 1964 as a bus conductor. He retired at the age
of fifty-two (52) after having rendered twenty five years' service. The basis of his retirement was the
compulsory retirement provision of the collective bargaining agreement between the petitioner and the
aforenamed union.
Doctrine: CBA stipulation on compulsory retirement after twenty-five years of service is legal and
enforceable. Art. 287 of the Labor Code as worded permits employers and employees to fix the applicable
retirement age at below 60 years. Moreover, providing for early retirement does not constitute diminution
of benefits. In almost all countries today, early retirement, i.e., before age 60, is considered a reward for
services rendered since it enables an employee to reap the fruits of his labor particularly retirement
benefits.
5. R and E Transport v. Latag, February 13, 2004
Brief Facts: Latag filed a case for payment of his retirement pay. In 1999, he died and was substituted by
his wife. Mrs. Latag was invited to the office of R&E’s counsel and was offered the amount of P38,500.00,
which she accepted. Mrs. Latag was also asked to sign an already prepared quitclaim and release and a
joint motion to dismiss the case, which were later on filed with the LA.
72
3G 2017-2018
Doctrines: Courts have stepped in to annul questionable transactions, especially where there is clear
proof that a waiver, for instance, was wangled from an unsuspecting or a gullible person; or where the
agreement or settlement was "unconscionable on its face." A quitclaim is ineffective in barring recovery of
the full measure of a worker’s rights, and the acceptance of benefits therefrom does not amount to
estoppel. Moreover, a quitclaim in which the consideration is "scandalously low and inequitable" cannot
be an obstacle to the pursuit of a worker’s legitimate claim.
6. Serrano v. Severino Santos Transit, August 9, 2010

Doctrine: As a rule, the Retirement Pay Law, which amended Article 287 of the Labor Code shall apply to
all employees in the private sector, regardless of their position, designation or status and irrespective of
the method by which their wages are paid.
Exceptions:
1) Employees of the National Government and its political subdivisions, including Government owned
and/or controlled corporations, if they are covered by the Civil Service Law and its regulations.
2) Domestic helpers and persons in the personal service of another.
3) Employees of retail, service and agricultural establishment or operations regularly employing not more
than ten (10) employees. As used in this sub-section
SECTION 5 Retirement Benefits.

5.1 In the absence of an applicable agreement or retirement plan, an employee who retires pursuant to
the Act shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one-half (―) month salary for every year
of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year.
5.2 Components of One-half (―) Month Salary. — For the purpose of determining the minimum
retirement pay due an employee under this Rule, the term "one-half month salary" shall include all of the
following: (a) Fifteen (15) days salary of the employee based on his latest salary rate. As used herein, the
term "salary" includes all remunerations paid by an employer to his employees for services rendered
during normal working days and hours, whether such payments are fixed or ascertained on a time, task,
piece of commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, and includes the fair and reasonable
value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, of food, lodging or other facilities
customarily furnished by the employer to his employees. The term does not include cost of living
allowances, profit- sharing payments and other monetary benefits which are not considered as part of or
integrated into the regular salary of the employees.
(b) The cash equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leave;
(c) One-twelfth of the 13th month pay due the employee.
(d) All other benefits that the employer and employee may agree upon that should be included in the
computation of the employee’s retirement pay.
7. Obusan v. PNB, July 26, 2010
Brief Facts: Obusan was hired by PNB in 1979 when the bank was still a government owned and
controlled corporation whose retirement program for employees was under the GSIS. When PNB was
privatized in 1996, Obusan was deemed retired from government service and paid her retirement gratuity.
Obusan continued her employment at PNB, now a privately organized bank. PNB, through a Board
Resolution approved the PNB Regular Retirement Plan (PNB-RRP) duly recognized by the Philnabank
Employees Association, the union of PNB rank and-file employees in the CBA with PNB.
Doctrine: Retirement plans allowing employers to retire employees who have not yet reached the
compulsory retirement age of 65 years are not per se repugnant to the constitutional guaranty of security
of tenure
8. Kimberly Clark Phils. v. Dimayuga, September 18, 2009

Brief Facts
73
3G 2017-2018
Respondents were employees of petitioner. After they resigned from the company, several offers were
made, such as an Early Retirement package, Economic Assistance and a lump-sum retirement package.
They sought entitlement to the aforementioned.
Doctrine
The entitlement of employees to retirement benefits must specifically be granted under existing laws, a
collective bargaining agreement or employment contract, or an established employer policy.
9. Magdadaro v. PNB, July 17, 2009.

Brief Facts:
Magdadaro was employed by Philippine National Bank (PNB) since 1968. On 21 September 1998,
Magdadaro applied for early retirement under PNB’s Special Separation Incentive Program (“SSIP”),
stating 31 December 1999 as his preferred effective date of retirement.
PNB approved Magdadaro’s application but made it effective on 31 December 1998 instead. Magdadaro
received, under protest, his retirement and separation benefits and thereafter filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal.
Doctrine:
Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of the parties, a voluntary agreement between the employer and
the employee whereby the latter, after reaching a certain age, agrees to sever his or her employment with
the former
10. Perez v. Comparts Industries, October 5, 2016
11. Dela Salle Araneta University v. Bernardo, February 13, 2017
DOCTRINE: A part-time employee with fixed-term employment is entitled to retirement
benefits.
12. Galang v. Boie Takeda Chemicals, July 20, 2016
Brief Facts: Petitioners argue that the retirement package given to them is lower compared to others who
were holding the similar position at the time of their retirement. As to the payment of retirement benefits,
BTCI insists that petitioners have been paid according to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
between BTCI and BTCI Supervisory Union. Although petitioners are managers (and are not covered by
the CBA), BTCI by practice grants the same retirement benefits to managers.
Doctrine: The entitlement of employees to retirement benefits must specifically be granted under existing
laws, a collective bargaining agreement or employment contract, or an established employer policy. To be
considered as a regular company practice the employee must prove by substantial evidence that the
giving of the benefit is done over a long period of time, and that it has been made consistently and
deliberately. It requires an indubitable showing that the employer agreed to continue giving the
benefit knowing fully well that the employees are not covered by any provision of the law or
agreement requiring payment thereof. In sum, the benefit must be characterized by regularity,
voluntary and deliberate intent of the employer to grant the benefit over a considerable period of time.
ARTICLE 306 (291): MONEY CLAIMS

1. PLDT v. Pingol, September 10, 2008
2. Serrano v. CA, August 15, 2001
74
3G 2017-2018
3. IBC v. Panganiban, February 6, 2007
Brief Facts: Panganiban was the Assistant General Manager of IBC until Sept. 2, 1988. He was claiming
for his commission worth ₱2,521,769.77 but such already prescribed on Sept 2, 1991 or 3 years from his
resignation. However, he filed his claim with the LA on July 24, 1996. Hence, the action clearly
prescribed.
Doctrine: Article 291 of the Labor Code which provides that "all money claims arising from
employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3)
years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred." The term
"money claims" covers all money claims arising from an employer-employee relation.
4. Accessories Specialist v. Albanza July 23, 2008

Brief Facts:
ASI contended that Jones voluntarily resigned on October 31, 1997. Thus, Erlinda’s cause of action has
already prescribed and is forever barred on the ground that under Article 291 of the Labor Code, all
money claims arising from an employer-employee relationship shall be filed within three (3) years from
the time the cause of action accrues. Since the complaint was filed only on September 27, 2002, or
almost five (5) years from the date of the alleged illegal dismissal of her husband Jones, Erlinda’s
complaint is now barred.
Doctrine: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AS AN EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 291 OF LC
The principle of promissory estoppel is a recognized exception to the three- year prescriptive
period enunciated in Article 291 of the Labor Code. In order to make out a claim of promissory
estoppel, a party bears the burden of establishing the following elements: (1) a promise was
reasonably expected to induce action or forbearance; (2) such promise did, in fact, induce such
action or forbearance; and (3) the party suffered detriment as a result.
5. Autobus Transport System v. Bautista May 16, 2007

6. Montero v. Times Transport, March 16, 2015
In like manner, while the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal before the LA interrupted the running
of the prescriptive period, its voluntary withdrawal left the petitioners in exactly the same position as
though no complaint had been filed at all. The withdrawal of their complaint effectively erased the tolling
of the reglementary period.
Hence, while the filing of the said case could have interrupted the running of the four-year prescriptive
period, the voluntary withdrawal of the petitioners effectively cancelled the tolling of the prescriptive period
within which to file their illegal dismissal case, leaving them in exactly the same position as though no
labor case had been filed at all.
EFFECT OF CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OF A BUSINESS

Penafrancia Tours and Travel Transport v. Sarmiento October 20, 2010
LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS

Carag v. NLRC, April 2, 2007
EFFECT OF COMPANY MERGER ON UNION SHOP CLAUSE

BPI v. BPI Employees Union Davao Chapter, August 10, 2010
75
3G 2017-2018
EFFECT OF MERGER
The Phil. Geothermal Inc. v. Unocal Phil, September 28, 2016
CORPORATE LIABILITIES
Fernandez et. al. v. NewfieldStaff Solution, July 10, 2013.
CHANGE OF EQUITY COMPOSITION OF CORP.

SME Bank v. Peregrin, October 8, 2013
Brief facts: SME Bank experienced financial difficulties. To remedy the situation, the bank officials
proposed its sale to Abelardo Samson (Samson). Samson demanded the following as preconditions for
the sale of SME Bank’s shares of stock:
4. You shall guarantee the peaceful turn over of all assets as well as the peaceful transition of
management of the bank and shall terminate/retire the employees we mutually agree upon, upon transfer
of shares in favor of our group’s nominees;
x x x x
7. All retirement benefits, if any of the above officers/stockholders/board of directors are hereby waived
upon consummation [sic] of the above sale. The retirement benefits of the rank and file employees
including the managers shall be honored by the new management in accordance with B.R. No. 10, S.
1997.
Agustin and De Guzman accepted the terms and conditions proposed by Samson and signed the
conforme portion of the Letter Agreements.
Doctrine: Security of tenure is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Employees may not be terminated from
their regular employment except for just or authorized causes under the Labor Code and other pertinent
laws. A mere change in the equity composition of a corporation is neither a just nor an authorized cause
that would legally permit the dismissal of the corporation’s employees en masse.
76

3G1718 LABREL Golangco Case Doctrines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3G1718 LABREL Golangco Case Doctrines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LABOR​ ​RELATIONS​ ​CASE​ ​DOCTRINES

​ ​San​ ​Beda​ ​College​ ​of​ ​Law​ ​/​ ​Atty.​ ​Golangco

1.​ ​Francisco​ ​v.​ ​NLRC​ ​August​ ​21,​ ​2006

2.​ ​Sonza​ ​v.​ ​ABS​ ​CBN,​ ​June​ ​10,​ ​2004

3.​ ​Javier​ ​v.​ ​Flyace​ ​Corp.​ ​Feb​ ​15,​ ​2012

4.​ ​SMCEU​ ​v.​ ​Judge​ ​Bersamira​ ​(in​ ​Azucena)

5.​ ​Locsin​ ​et.​ ​al.​ ​v.​ ​PLDT,​ ​October​ ​2,​ ​2009

7.​ ​Ymbong​ ​v.​ ​ABS-CBN,​ ​March​ ​7,​ ​2012

8.​ ​Professional​ ​Services​ ​v.​ ​CA,​ ​February​ ​11,​ ​2008

11.​ ​Begino​ ​v.​ ​Abs-cbn,​ ​April​ ​20,​ ​2015.

12.​ ​David​ ​v.​ ​Macasio,​ ​July​ ​4,​ ​2014

13.​ ​Chevron​ ​Phils.​ ​v.​ ​Galit,​ ​October​ ​7,​ ​2015

14.​ ​Manila​ ​Memorial​ ​Park​ ​v.​ ​Lluz,​ ​(2016​ ​case)

16.​ ​Lu​ ​v.​ ​Enopia​ ​et​ ​al.,​ ​March​ ​6,​ ​2017

1.​ ​Citibank​ ​v.​ ​CA,​ ​November​ ​27,​ ​1998

2.​ ​PAL​ ​v.​ ​NLRC,​ ​March​ ​20,​ ​1998

ARTICLE​ ​212:​ ​MANAGERIAL​ ​EMPLOYEE

1.​ ​Penaranda​ ​v.​ ​Bagong​ ​Plywood​ ​Corp,​ ​May​ ​3,​ ​2006

3.​ ​Jumuad​ ​v.​ ​Hi-Flyer​ ​Food​ ​Inc.,​ ​September​ ​7,​ ​2011

ARTICLE​ ​ ​224​ ​(217):​ ​JURISDICTION​ ​OF​ ​LABOR​ ​ARBITER

5.​ ​Okol​ ​v.​ ​Slimmers​ ​World​ ​December​ ​11,​ ​2009

7.​ ​Halguena​ ​v.​ ​PAL​ ​October​ ​2,​ ​2009

9.​ ​Atlas​ ​Farms​ ​Inc.​ ​v.​ ​NLRC​ ​November​ ​18,​ ​2002

11.​ ​Austria​ ​v.​ ​NLRC,​ ​August​ ​16,​ ​1999​ ​(priest)

17.​ ​7K​ ​Corpr.​ ​V.​ ​Albarico,​ ​June​ ​26,​ ​2013

19.​ ​Lunzaga​ ​v.​ ​Albar​ ​Shipping​ ​April​ ​18,​ ​2012.

22.​ ​Continental​ ​Micronesia​ ​v.​ ​Basco,​ ​September​ ​23,​ ​2015.

24.​ ​Hijo​ ​Resources​ ​v.​ ​Mejares,​ ​January​ ​13,​ ​2016

25.​ ​Milan​ ​v.​ ​NLRC,​ ​February​ ​4,​ ​2015

26.​ ​Saudia​ ​Arabian​ ​Airlines​ ​v.​ ​Rebesencio,​ ​January​ ​14,​ ​2015

27.​ ​LRTA​ ​v.​ ​Alvarez,​ ​Nov.​ ​28,​ ​2016

ARTICLE​ ​225​ ​(218):​ ​POWER​ ​OF​ ​THE​ ​NLRC

1.​ ​PAL​ ​v.​ ​NLRC,​ ​March​ ​20,​ ​1998

3.​ ​Robosa​ ​v.​ ​NLRC,​ ​February​ ​8,​ ​2012

ARTICLE​ ​227​ ​(221):TECHNICAL​ ​RULES

1.​ ​Meralco​ ​v.​ ​Gala,​ ​March​ ​7,​ ​2012

3.​ ​Diamond​ ​Taxi​ ​v.​ ​Llamas,​ ​March​ ​12,​ ​2014

4.​ ​Sara​ ​Lee​ ​v.​ ​Macatlang,​ ​January​ ​14,​ ​2015

5.​ ​Dela​ ​Rosa​ ​Liner​ ​v.​ ​Borela,​ ​July​ ​29,​ ​2015

ARTICLE​ ​229​ ​(223):​ ​APPEAL

3.​ ​Ong​ ​v.​ ​CA,​ ​September​ ​22,​ ​2004

4.​ ​Rosewood​ ​Processing​ ​Inc​ ​v.​ ​NLRC,​ ​et.al​ ​(1998​ ​case)

5.​ ​FSFI​ ​v.​ ​NLRC,​ ​December​ ​11,​ ​2003

6.​ ​Buenaobra​ ​v.​ ​Lim​ ​King​ ​Guan,​ ​January​ ​20,​ ​2004

9.​ ​Loon​ ​v.​ ​Power​ ​Master​ ​,​ ​December​ ​11,​ ​2013.

10.​ ​Mcburnie​ ​v.​ ​Ganzon,​ ​October​ ​17,​ ​2013.

12.​ ​IBM​ ​Nestle​ ​v.​ ​Nestle​ ​Phils,​ ​September​ ​23,​ ​2015

13.​ ​Manila​ ​Mining​ ​Co​ ​v.​ ​Amor,​ ​April​ ​20,​ ​2015

15.​ ​Balite​ ​v.​ ​SSS​ ​Ventures,​ ​February​ ​4,​ ​2015

17.​ ​Tolentino-Prieto​ ​v.​ ​Elvas,​ ​Nov.​ ​9,​ ​2015

18.​ ​Manila​ ​Doctors​ ​College​ ​v.​ ​Olores,​ ​October​ ​3,​ ​2016

19.​ ​Lozada​ ​v.​ ​Mendoza,​ ​October​ ​12,​ ​2016

20.​ ​Turks​ ​Shawarma​ ​Co.​ ​v.​ ​Pajaron,​ ​January​ ​16,​ ​2017

21.​ ​CJCM​ ​Mission​ ​Seminaries​ ​v.​ ​Perez,​ ​January​ ​18,​ ​2017

23.​ ​Fontana​ ​Development​ ​Corp.​ ​v​ ​Vukasinovic,​ ​Sept.​ ​21,​ ​2016

24.​ ​Sagun​ ​v.​ ​ANZ​ ​Global​ ​Services,​ ​August​ ​22,​ ​2016

25.​ ​Hsy​ ​Marketing​ ​Ltd.​ ​v.​ ​Villastique,​ ​August​ ​17,​ ​2016

REINSTATEMENT​ ​ASPECT​ ​OF​ ​LA’S​ ​DECISION

2.​ ​Roquero​ ​v.​ ​PAL,​ ​2​ ​April​ ​2004

3.​ ​Air​ ​Phil​ ​Corp.​ ​v.​ ​Zamora,​ ​August​ ​7,​ ​2004

4.​ ​Lansangan​ ​v.​ ​Amkor​ ​Technology​ ​Philippines,​ ​January​ ​30,​ ​2009

5.​ ​Genuino​ ​v.​ ​NLRC,​ ​December​ ​4,​ ​2007

6.​ ​Garcia​ ​et​ ​al.​ ​v.​ ​PAL,​ ​January​ ​20,​ ​2009

7.​ ​Mt.​ ​Carmel​ ​College​ ​v.​ ​REsuena​ ​October​ ​10,​ ​2007

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DOCTRINES

San Beda College of Law / Atty. Golangco

1. Francisco v. NLRC August 21, 2006

2. Sonza v. ABS CBN, June 10, 2004

3. Javier v. Flyace Corp. Feb 15, 2012

4. SMCEU v. Judge Bersamira (in Azucena)

5. Locsin et. al. v. PLDT, October 2, 2009

7. Ymbong v. ABS-CBN, March 7, 2012

8. Professional Services v. CA, February 11, 2008

11. Begino v. Abs-cbn, April 20, 2015.

12. David v. Macasio, July 4, 2014

13. Chevron Phils. v. Galit, October 7, 2015

14. Manila Memorial Park v. Lluz, (2016 case)

16. Lu v. Enopia et al., March 6, 2017

1. Citibank v. CA, November 27, 1998

2. PAL v. NLRC, March 20, 1998

ARTICLE 212: MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE

1. Penaranda v. Bagong Plywood Corp, May 3, 2006

3. Jumuad v. Hi-Flyer Food Inc., September 7, 2011

ARTICLE 224 (217): JURISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITER

5. Okol v. Slimmers World December 11, 2009

7. Halguena v. PAL October 2, 2009

9. Atlas Farms Inc. v. NLRC November 18, 2002

11. Austria v. NLRC, August 16, 1999 (priest)

17. 7K Corpr. V. Albarico, June 26, 2013

19. Lunzaga v. Albar Shipping April 18, 2012.

22. Continental Micronesia v. Basco, September 23, 2015.

24. Hijo Resources v. Mejares, January 13, 2016

25. Milan v. NLRC, February 4, 2015

26. Saudia Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio, January 14, 2015

27. LRTA v. Alvarez, Nov. 28, 2016

ARTICLE 225 (218): POWER OF THE NLRC

1. PAL v. NLRC, March 20, 1998

3. Robosa v. NLRC, February 8, 2012

ARTICLE 227 (221):TECHNICAL RULES

1. Meralco v. Gala, March 7, 2012

3. Diamond Taxi v. Llamas, March 12, 2014

4. Sara Lee v. Macatlang, January 14, 2015

5. Dela Rosa Liner v. Borela, July 29, 2015

ARTICLE 229 (223): APPEAL

3. Ong v. CA, September 22, 2004

4. Rosewood Processing Inc v. NLRC, et.al (1998 case)

5. FSFI v. NLRC, December 11, 2003

6. Buenaobra v. Lim King Guan, January 20, 2004

9. Loon v. Power Master , December 11, 2013.

10. Mcburnie v. Ganzon, October 17, 2013.

12. IBM Nestle v. Nestle Phils, September 23, 2015

13. Manila Mining Co v. Amor, April 20, 2015

15. Balite v. SSS Ventures, February 4, 2015

17. Tolentino-Prieto v. Elvas, Nov. 9, 2015

18. Manila Doctors College v. Olores, October 3, 2016

19. Lozada v. Mendoza, October 12, 2016

20. Turks Shawarma Co. v. Pajaron, January 16, 2017

21. CJCM Mission Seminaries v. Perez, January 18, 2017

23. Fontana Development Corp. v Vukasinovic, Sept. 21, 2016

24. Sagun v. ANZ Global Services, August 22, 2016

25. Hsy Marketing Ltd. v. Villastique, August 17, 2016

REINSTATEMENT ASPECT OF LA’S DECISION

2. Roquero v. PAL, 2 April 2004

3. Air Phil Corp. v. Zamora, August 7, 2004

4. Lansangan v. Amkor Technology Philippines, January 30, 2009

5. Genuino v. NLRC, December 4, 2007

6. Garcia et al. v. PAL, January 20, 2009

7. Mt. Carmel College v. REsuena October 10, 2007

8. Buenviaje v. CA, November 12, 2002

10. Wenphil Corp. v. Abing, April 7, 2014

11. Smart Communications v. Solidum, April 15, 2015

ARTICLE 230 (224): EXECUTION

2. Yupangco Cotton Mills v. CA, January 16, 2002

3. Ando v. Campo, February 16, 2011

4. PAL v. Bischara, September 2, 2015

5. Guillermo v. Uson, March 7, 2016

ARTICLE 232 (226): BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

2. Montano v. Verceles, July 26, 2010

3. Diokno et al., v. Cacdac, July 4, 2007

ARTICLE 233 (227): COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

1. Magbuana v. Uy, May 6, 2005

3. Philippine Journalists Inc., v. NLRC, September 5, 2006

ARTICLE 238 (232) PROHIBITION ON CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION

ART 234 AMENDED BY RA 9481 (MAY 25, 2007)