This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION V CA (and COMMANDO SECURITY SERVICE AGENCY, INC.) GONZAGA-REYES; January 31, 2000
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari of the decision of the CA which affirmed the decision of the RTC. FACTS - In June 1986 private respondent and plaintiff entered into a Guard Service Contract. Respondent provided security guards in defendant's banana plantation. The contract called for the payment to a guard of P754.28 on a daily 8-hour basis and an additional P565.72 for a four hour overtime while the shift-incharge was to be paid P811.40 on a daily 8-hour basis and P808.60 for the 4-hour overtime. - Wage Orders increasing the minimum wage in 1983 were complied with by the defendant. On June 16, 1984, Wage Order No. 5 was promulgated directing an increase of P3.00 per day on the minimum wage of workers in the private sector and a P5.00 increase on the ECOLA. This was followed on November 1, 1984 by Wage Order No. 6 which further increased said minimum wage by P3.00 on the ECOLA. Both Wage Orders contain the following provision: "In the case of contract for construction projects and for security, janitorial and similar services, the increase in the minimum wage and allowances rates of the workers shall be borne by the principal or client of the construction/service contractor and the contracts shall be deemed amended accordingly, subject to the provisions of Sec. 3 (b) of this order" (Sec. 6 and Sec. 9, Wage Orders No. 5 and 6, respectively). - Respondent demanded that its Guard Service Contract with defendant be upgraded in compliance with Wage Order Nos. 5 and 6. Plaintiff refused. Their Contract expired on June 6, 1986 without the rate adjustment called for Wage Order Nos. 5 and 6 being implemented. By the time of the filing of respondent's Complaint, the rate adjustment payable by defendant amounted to P462,346.25. Plaintiff opposed the Complaint. - The trial court decided in favor of the respondent. Plaintiff’s MOR was denied, hence this petition. ISSUES 1. WON RTC has jurisdiction over the case 2. WON petitioner is liable to the private respondent for the wage adjustments provided under Wage Order Nos. 5 and 6 and for attorney's fees HELD 1. YES - The enforcement of the written contract does not fall under the jurisdiction of the NLRC because the money claims involved therein did not arise from employer-employee relations between the parties and is intrinsically a civil dispute. Thus, jurisdiction lies with the regular courts. The RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present case. It is well settled in law and jurisprudence that where no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties and no issue is involved which may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes or any collective bargaining agreement, it is the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction. In its complaint, private respondent is not seeking any relief under the Labor Code but seeks payment of a sum of money and damages on account of petitioner's alleged breach of its obligation under their Guard Service Contract. The action is within the realm of civil law hence jurisdiction over the case belongs to the regular courts. While the resolution of the issue involves the application of labor laws, reference to the labor code was only for the determination of the solidary liability of the petitioner to the respondent where no employer-employee relation exists. Article 217 of the Labor Code
as amended vests upon the labor arbiters exclusive original jurisdiction only over the following: 1. Unfair labor practices; 2. Termination disputes; 3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; 4. Claims for actual, moral exemplary and other form of damages arising from employer-employee relations; 5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving legality of strikes and lockouts; and 6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. - In all these cases, an employer-employee relationship is an indispensable jurisdictional requisite; and there is none in this case. 2. Private respondent admits that there is no employeremployee relationship between it and the petitioner. The private respondent is an independent/job contractor1 who assigned security guards at the petitioner's premises for a stipulated amount per guard per month. The Contract of Security Services expressly stipulated that the security guards are employees of the Agency and not of the petitioner. Articles 106 and 107 of the Labor Code provides the rule governing the payment of wages of employees in the event that the contractor fails to pay such wages1. - It will be seen from the above provisions that the principal (petitioner) and the contractor (respondent) are jointly and severally liable to the employees for their wages. This Court held in Eagle Security, Inc. vs. NLRC and Spartan Security and Detective Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC that the joint and several liability of the contractor and the principal is mandated by the Labor Code to assure compliance with the provisions therein including the minimum wage. The contractor is made liable by virtue of his status as direct employer. The principal, on the other hand, is made the indirect employer of the contractor's employees to secure payment of their wages should the contractor be unable to pay them. Even in the absence of an employer-employee relationship, the law itself establishes one between the principal and the employees of the agency for a limited purpose i.e. in order to ensure that the employees are paid the wages due them. In the above-mentioned cases, the solidary liability of the principal and contractor was held to apply to the aforementioned Wage Order Nos. 5 and 6. In ruling that under the Wage Orders, existing security guard services contracts are amended to allow adjustment of the consideration in order to cover payment of mandated increases, and that the principal is ultimately liable for the said increases. - It is clear that it is only when contractor pays the increases mandated that it can claim an adjustment from the principal to cover the increases payable to the security guards. The conclusion that the right of the contractor (as principal debtor) to recover from the principal as solidary co-debtor) arises only if he
Art. 106. Contractor or sub contractor. — Whenever an employer enters into a contract with another person for the performance of the former's work, the employees of the contractor and of the latter's subcontractor, if any, shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code. In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the work performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by him. Art. 107. Indirect employer. — The provisions of the immediately preceding Article shall likewise apply to any person, partnership, association or corporation which, not being an employer, contracts with an independent contractor for the performance of any work, task, job or project.
in defiance of Labor Code Art. and (d) the alleged losses. Complainants Anino. Needless to stress. the contentions of HMC are accepted at face value. Reasoning ANINO V NLRC PANGANIBAN. supervisors and managerial staffs and was done with due notice to take effect 30 days from receipt thereof.NLRC reversed Legaspi’s ruling. it alleged that the reduction of excise taxes on mining from 5% to 1% on a graduated basis.Complainants had accepted separation pay equivalent to 1 month pay for every year of service plus other monetary benefits. . is hereby DISMISSED. . Navarro. It also took judicial notice of the economic difficulties suffered by the mining industry. as provided under RA. . (c) the retrenchment must be reasonably necessary and likely to effectively prevent the expected losses.Labor Arbiter Legaspi held that the services of petitioners were illegally terminated.Union filed an unfair labor practice case against HMC on 13 May 1994. rejected all petitioners’ claims and questioned complainants’ actuations considering that they 2 Art.Retrenchment was a management prerogative implemented in order to prevent further losses. in any other manner. (b) ordered to reinstate complainants to their former positions with backwages and to pay complainants jointly and severally the amount of P150k. the contractor would be unduly enriching itself by recovering wage increases. Reasoning . while complainants Baladja and Ceredon were active members of the union. was a clear recognition by the government itself of the industry's worsening economic difficulties. . . These bare statements miserably fall short of the requirements to show the validity of a retrenchment . considering that the private respondent has no cause of action against the petitioner. and the dismissal of employees. YES Ratio The acceptance of termination pay does not divest a laborer of the right to prosecute his employer for unfair labor practice acts. whose services have already been terminated by the contractor. FACTS . reasonably necessary and likely to be effective in preventing the expected losses. Additionally. It informed the company of its desire for a collective bargaining agreement and submitted its proposals under letter dated 16 November 1993. 5 and 6. respectively. Otherwise. 1217. Disposition Petition GRANTED.Labor Law 1 has paid the amounts for which both of them are jointly and severally liable is in line with Article 12172 of the Civil Code. He who made payment may claim from his codebtors only the share which corresponds to each. which again was addressed to Zamora. . Payment made by one of the solidary debtors extinguishes the obligation.Even if.It is not disputed that the private respondent has not actually paid the security guards the wage increases granted under the Wage Orders in question. the following requisites must be complied with: (a) the losses expected should be substantial and not merely de minimis in extent. Respondent’s Comments . private respondent is not entitled to attorney's fees. (b) the substantial losses apprehended must be reasonably imminent. that there was no positive showing that petitioners were retrenched purposely to weaken or destroy their union. The liability of the petitioner to reimburse the respondent only arises if and when respondent actually pays its employees the increases granted by Wage Order Nos. of the obligation. Complainants pray that respondents be: (a) declared guilty of unfair labor practices. 7729. WON the NLRC abused its discretion when it ordered the dismissal of the instant complaint and totally disregarded the labor arbiter’s findings of facts and petitioners’ motion for execution HELD 1. the company ignored these proposals. the increases in wages are intended for the benefit of the laborers and the contractor may not assert a claim against the principal for salary wage adjustments that it has not actually paid.HMC dismissed the complainants under letter dated 16 June 1994.Complainants are supervisors of Hinatuan Mining Corporation (HMC) who planned the formation of a supervisors union. If two or more solidary debtors offer to pay.In termination cases. . . Neither is it alleged that there is an extant claim for such wage adjustments from the security guards concerned. Accordingly. . It affected rank-and-file. If the payment is made before the debt is due. as moral damages and litigation and attorney's fees. arguendo. The complaint of private respondent COMMANDO SECURITY SERVICE AGENCY. HIMSU formally notified the company of its legal existence through a letter addressed to HMC President Zamora.HMC merely claimed that retrenchment was undertaken to prevent losses due to the continuing decline of nickel prices and export volume in the mining industry. for its own benefit. the creditor may choose which offer to accept. However. if already incurred. . . May 21. Payment. . as manifested by complainants’ counsel declaration in open court that they were still filing a new complaint for unfair labor practice (this case) ISSUES 1. hence. . 2. claim of unfair labor practice was dismissed.Dismissal was done with malicious intent to cause them and the union damage for their exercise of the right to selforganization. A2010 -2- Disini only challenged 2 months after dismissal and after receiving separation pay. WON the NLRC exceeded its jurisdiction in recognizing the waivers/quitclaims executed by petitioners as an effective bar to this complaint 3. with interest for the payment already made. Likewise. Daug-daug and Filoteo were elected officers. . VP-Operation Ganigan and VP-Finance Nacorda. 1998 NATURE Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. which means not only the delivery of money but also the performance. private respondent has no cause of action against petitioner to recover the wage increases. claim for damages was denied since no fraud or bad faith was committed by private respondents in dismissing them.The right of reimbursement from a co-debtor is recognized in favor of the one who paid. as correctly put by the respondent. Certiorari. no interest for the intervening period may be demanded. they still fail to satisfy the jurisprudential requirements that further or expected losses must be substantial and reasonably imminent.On 3 November 1993. INC. WON the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it absolved respondents from their duty to prove losses as a just ground for retrenchment 2. 248. .Complaint was an afterthought in order to give semblance of credence to their position/opposition to conduct a certification election. the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a valid or authorized cause rests upon the employer. and complainants executed a waiver and quitclaim for value received. The HINATUAN MINING SUPERVISORY UNION was formally organized and registered with the DOLE. and the expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence. ordered their reinstatement and the grant of back wages and attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of monetary award. YES Ratio To justify retrenchment.Finally. The decision of the CA REVERSED and SET ASIDE.is the operative fact which will entitle either of the solidary debtors to seek reimbursement for the share which corresponds to each of the debtors. Petitioner’s Claim .
Inc. illegal dismissal and payment for allowances. not of choice. as a general rule.W sent a notice reprimanding G for the late submission of weekly expense report > July 5." . other monetary benefits.His employment records show that on various dates. separation pay.NLRC. he cannot be held financially liable for the illegal dismissal of employees. Separation pay shall be equivalent to at least 1 month salary or 1 month salary for every year of service. upon the recommendation of a review panel. October 4. 14. Disposition Petition granted. . ISSUE WON GUSTILO is entitled to his separation pay HELD NO. It shall be computed from the date the petitioners were employed by private respondent until this Decision becomes final and executory.reversed NLRC’s decision and dismissed G’s complaint for illegal dismissal (as G was terminated based on A282 of the LCgross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties) but awarded him separation pay considering the “mitigating factors” of length of service.) Reasoning . preparing and submitting his predated itinerary. His.Wyeth put Gustilo in charge of promoting 4 Lederle (W’s sister company) pharmaceutical products.CA. the employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee separation pay. 6 in Bacolod City a complaint against W for illegal suspension.On reinstatement: If reinstatement to former position.." . Wyeth reprimanded and suspended him for habitually neglecting to submit his periodic reports.W’s MR was denied so they filed with the CA a petition for Certiorari and TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction. . > Nov. .The Labor Arbiter found that G was illegally dismissed from employment and ordered W and Verzano to pay G jointly and severally Php 991. (No decision shall be rendered by any court [or quasi-judicial body] without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts of the case and the law on which it is based. A2010 -3- Disini . the mining industry suffered economic difficulties. (all 1995). 23-27. 1994. and instructions of the employer. The latter must have to get hold of money.G then filed with the Regional Arbiter Br.The rule embodied in the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code is that a person dismissed for cause as defined therein is not entitled to separation pay. . 2004 FACTS . is a case of adherence.90 representing backwages.late submission of his daily call reports > Nov 20-24. the employees are entitled to the grant of separation pay and full back wages. challenged NLRC Decision set aside. damages and atty’s fees. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ. or one substantially equivalent thereto. Because. NOTES . it is one of the fundamental duties of the employee to yield obedience to all reasonable rules. x x x an offense involving moral turpitude x x x. he had to face the harsh necessities of life. Nov 6-10. Reasoning . Where the reason for the valid dismissal is.Family Planning Org of the Phils Inc v NLRC – SC held that “it is the employer’s prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary or proper for the conduct of its business or concern to provide certain disciplinary measures to implement said rules and to assure that the same be complied with.a series of irregularities when put together may constitute serious misconduct. HMC ordered to pay separation benefits.Phil Journalists Inc v Mosqueda. G then submitted to W a plan of action where G committed to make an ave of 18 daily calls to physicians.Gustilo failed to achieve his objectives so W sent him 2 notices charging him with willful violation of company rules and regulations and directed him to submit a written explanation. . is a just cause for dismissal.W appealed to the NLRC in Cebu City . .Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW v Court of Appeals- GUSTILO V WYETH PHILIPPINES INC. . or in lieu of reinstatement. YES Ratio A decision should faithfully comply with Sec.PLDT v NLRC and Abucay. is not feasible anymore. 1995.Labor Law 1 . At the same time.Piedad v Lanao del Norte Electric Cooperative.G filed an MR but was denied. . then. "x x x henceforth. or financial assistance. loyalty awards G received and Verzano’s grudge against G.SC ruled that the findings of the CA are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court . submit promptly all periodic reports. justifies rescission of the contract of service and the preemptory dismissal of the employee. . 3. damages and atty’s fees.He was in-charge of the various branches in Metro Bacolod City and Negros Occidental. . VIII of the Constitution. whichever is higher. orders. and willful or intentional disobedience thereof. He thus found himself in no position to resist money proffered. It merely raised a doubt on the motive of the complaining employees and took "judicial notice that in one area of Mindanao. and submitting periodic reports of his daily call visits.157. 1995. . The employer drove the employee to the wall. out of job. . .The factual and legal bases of public respondent's conclusions were bereft of substantial evidence — the quantum of proof in labor cases — its disposition is manifestly a violation of the constitutional mandate and an exercise of grave abuse of discretion.G explained that he was overworked and an object of reprisal by his immediate supervisor. null and void. . as a pharmaceutical territory manager.Gustilo was employed by Wyeth Phils Inc. 13-17. terminated Gustilo’s services.The NLRC was definitely wanting in the observance of the constitutional requirement. car reimbursement. therefore.Employer and employee do not stand on the same footing. which under A282 of the LC. a fraction of 6 months being considered as 1 whole year. . Art. Absent any proof of the extent of the participation of the VP in the formulation and the implementation of management policies and programs. Gustilo isn’t entitled to his SP OR to reinstatement as there was a just cause for dismissal. .Wyeth. as amended." . on the ground of social justice. and ensure 95% territory program performance for every cycle.On liability of Vice President: While the president of the erring company may be held jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the latter to its dismissed employees.didn’t submit his daily call reports so W suspended him for 15 days. No. 28.Among his tasks were visiting hospitals. monthly itinerary and weekly locator and incurred expenses. or whatever other name it is called.Quitclaims and/or complete releases are against public policy and. pharmacies. Decision of Legaspi is reinstated except that Ganigan is not liable for petitioners’ monetary claims. Such decision is a nullity.affirmed but modified the Labor Arbiter’s decisionordered reinstatement of G. such solidary liability does not extend to the vice president of the company. pay his separation benefits. separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. drugstores and physicians. Filemon Verzano Jr.late submission of same report so W suspended him for 5 days > Oct 16 to 20. .
illegal dismissal backwages. Subsequently. In simple term. A notice of hearing/investigation was sent to the petitioner. 234 SCRA 689). with a starting salary of P2.Philippine Long Distance Telephone vs. petitioner failed to measure up to such requirement. Petitioner was ordered to prepare a media blitz of this victory but the petitioner did not comply with the order on the ground that such a press release would only worsen the aggravated situation and strained relations between WNC management and the union officials. However. Even as the . Inc. as reflected in the summary of tardiness and absences report. Petitioner duly filed a Motion for Reconsideration.800 per month. He reported back to office after serving the suspension but was another adverse report on tardiness and absences was made against the petitioner. 1993. He falsified his employment application form by not stating therein that he is the nephew of Mr. A notice of termination was then sent to petitioner informing him of his termination from the service for serious misconduct and gross and habitual neglect of duty. . respondent Wyeth’s Nutritional Territory Manager. So it has to comply with the CA’s decision to grant G his SP. Hence. he was relieved from his post and transferred to the College of Liberal Arts as Records Evaluator. there is NO exceptional circumstances to warrant the grant of financial assistance or separation pay to petitioner. petitioner was again absent from work without permission or notice to his immediate superior. The Labor Arbiter held that frequent absenteeism and tardiness of the petitioner constituted not only willful disobedience but also gross and habitual neglect of duties. . The petitioner was appointed as Information Assistant effective immediately. Subsequently. the Labor Arbiter found the dismissal of the petitioner to be valid due to absenteeism and tardiness and after he was accorded the procedural due process aspect of the law as reflected in the records showing that petitioner was formally investigated and given the opportunity to refute the alleged findings by the management of WNC. G did not only violate company disciplinary rules and regulations.G manifested his slack of moral principle through his infractions. 2004 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals FACTS . no affirmative relief can be extended to it.So irresponsible an employee like petitioner does not deserve a place in the workplace.Labor Law 1 “We are of course aware that financial assistance may be allowed as a measure of social justice in exceptional circumstances and as an equitable concession. he wrote to the president of WNC explaining his side and asking for due process. .In the case at bar. salary differential for salary increases and other benefits granted after his dismissal as well as for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Petitioner sent a letter of appeal and explained his side to the new college president who gave petitioner another chance. National Labor Relations Commission. along with memoranda requiring him to explain but his explanations were either unacceptable or unsatisfactory. petitioner did not promptly assume his post. the latter affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.Petitioner was asked to explain within 24 hours why he should not be terminated as a result of the raid and charged against him for violation of RA No. It turned out that he went to Bacolod City and on January 28.Petitioner Valiao was appointed by private respondent West Negros College (WNC) as Student Affairs Office (SAO) Director. He received a suspension order without pay for fifteen days because of dishonesty in reporting his actual attendance. and made its own findings of the apprehension of the petitioner for possession of prohibited drugs. He was transferred to staff position and designated as Records Chief at the Registrar’s Office but was again re-assigned as a typist. Petitioner was dismissed for failure to answer said memorandum." Here." . 6425 as amended. A2010 -4- Disini VALIAO V CA QUISUMBING. reports also showed that he did not change his habits resulting in tardiness and absences. . x x x.[T]hose who invoke social justice may do so only if their hands are clean and their motives blameless x x x. the investigation committee recommended the dismissal of petitioner. However. .Subsequently. The latest reassignment was due to his tardiness and absences. he was assigned as Acting Director. Disposition Petition is DENIED ***Wyeth did not interpose an appeal to this Court. which showed him to have been absent or late for work from a minimum of seven to maximum of 75 minutes for the period March to October 31. and it is within the management’s prerogative of WNC to terminate his employment. Danao. the Dean of the Liberal Arts sent a letter to the Human Resources Manager complaining about the petitioner’s poor performance and habitual absenteeism as shown in the daily absence reports. Subsequently. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA but this was dismissed for lack of merit. sustained the latter’s findings of facts. NLRC and Abucay. The petitioner was notified through a memorandum about the grant of his request and that a hearing would be conducted. with proceedings duly recorded. prompting the president to call his attention. He stressed that petitioner’s frequent absences without proper leave of absence was not only unfair to WNC and the petitioner’s co-employees but also set an undesirable example to the employees under his supervision. WNC won a case against the official of the union before the NLRC. which are valid grounds for termination of employment. 1993.After the investigation attended by the petitioner and his counsel.Petitioner filed a complaint against WNC for illegal suspension. Not for long. . We are likewise mindful that financial assistance is allowed only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character (Zenco Sales.On appeal to the NLRC. After due proceedings. the petitioner was one of those arrested during a raid in the house of “Toto Ruiz.Copies of his tardiness/absences reports were furnished petitioner. The petitioner received the notice but did not file a grievance concerning the notice of termination. prompting WNC to send him another memorandum with an attached tardiness and absences report. which was denied by the CA. ISSUE WON petitioner was validly dismissed from employment on the ground of serious misconduct and gross habitual neglect of duties. including habitual tardiness and absenteeism HELD YES . . When petitioner reported for work on the first day of January 1993. considering that the petitioner was not a mere rank-and-file employee but one who owed more than the usual fealty to the organization. . he is dishonest. vs. thus necessitating another memorandum to him asking him to explain his dishonest actuations in accomplishing the daily attendance logbook and in using the bundy clock. The petitioner and other suspects were then charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. He was even caught one time manipulating the bundy clock.On January 18. the Labor Arbiter found no justifiable reason to place the petitioner under preventive suspension as there was no serious or imminent threat to the life or property of his coworkers. July 30. 1991 and to have reported late almost every day for the period November to December 1991. Alumni Affairs Offfice. .” a suspected drug pusher and was brought to the Bacolod Police Station along with four other suspects. He was then placed under preventive suspension and an investigation committee was organized to conduct the probe.
INC. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily.42 "by way of implementing the balance of the judgment amount" due from the private respondent. almost nine years later. such exercise will be upheld.The original decision called for her reinstatement within ten days from receipt thereof following its affirmance by the NLRC on August 29.On November 10. however. 2000. having been filed beyond the fiveyear period prescribed by both the Rules of Court and the Labor Code. SR.R. (Facts relating to quitclaims italicized in reasoning) .Periquet insists it was the private respondent that delayed and prevented the execution of the judgment in her favor. the corresponding writ of execution of June 26. it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind.Sec. representing the balance of her back pay for three years at P654. June 27 2006 NATURE Petition for Review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the ROC of the CA Decision in CA-G.207. SP No. 1989.Said amount was garnished by the NLRC sheriff. 30. CALLEJO.. or the Voluntary Arbitrator may. Inc. 2000. and Demaco United Ltd. who ordered her reinstatement within ten days "without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and with full back wages to be computed from the date of her actual dismissal up to date of her actual reinstatement. Corazon Periquet. order or award. and before it is barred by the statute of limitations.00. the petitioner filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution of the decision. was dismissed as toll collector by the Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP).On March 11. the petitioner accepted this additional amount and signed another Quitclaim and Release . 00 per month . As long as the company’s exercise of those rights and prerogatives is in good faith to advance its interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under the laws or valid agreements.On September 11. which affirmed the February 19. or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face. that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction.On June 27. 1990 NATURE Petition to review the decision of the NLRC FACTS . 84883. or on motion of any interested party. he was examined and found to have neuromyositis with the waist and diabetes. . provides: A judgment may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final and executory. be recognized because the waiver she had signed was invalid . 1980. she wrote the new management of the CDCP and asked that the rights granted her by the decision dated August 29.While the vessel was navigating to China. orders. 1989. ART. but that is not the way the SC sees it. 1989. and the notice of garnishment. A2010 -5- Disini PERIQUET V NLRC CRUZ. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement. she applied for re-employment with the CDCP and was on March 16. 1988. AND DEMACO UNITED LTD. but there is no evidence that she demanded her reinstatement or that she complained when her demand was rejected.15. private respondent herein.Labor Law 1 law is solicitous of the welfare of employees.000. 224 of the Labor Code. 1988.The petitioner. 6. FACTS . for a twelve-month contract as “bosun” on board M/V Despina. 2004 and April 27. awards. — (a) The Secretary of Labor and Employment or any Regional Director. On Nov. for willful breach of trust and unauthorized possession of accountable toll tickets allegedly found in her purse during a surprise inspection. 1988. the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. requiring a sheriff or a duly deputized officer to execute or enforce a final decision. as amended by RA 6715.544.In its decision.A similar provision is found in Art.In her petition she is now disowning both acknowledgments . . requiring payment to the petitioner of the sum of P205. Execution of decision.000. the order was affirmed by the NLRC on August 29. .1987. 1980. and ruled as valid the two quitclaims petitioner had signed HELD NO On prescription . motu propio. .She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal claiming that she was framed .On June 27. What appears is that she entered into a compromise agreement with CDCP where she waived her right to reinstatement and received from the CDCP the sum of P14. .. . The examining physician prescribed medicine and recommended the signing off and hospitalization of petitioner. .The petitioner contends that this decision is tainted with grave abuse of discretion and asks for its reversal. given the position of xerox machine operator. petitioner suffered lumbar sprain when he accidentally fell from a ladder. . it must also protect the rights of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. a judgment may be enforced by action. .After accepting the sum of P14. 1989. which was granted by the executive labor arbiter in an order dated June 26. 2000 petitioner Benjamin L. His employers agreed to repatriate him on Nov. the Commission or any Labor Arbiter or Med-Arbiter. issue a writ of execution on a judgment within five (5) years from the date it becomes final and executory. viz. Sarocam was hired by Interorient Maritime Ent. and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable.Said complaint was sustained by the labor arbiter. the Corporate Legal Counsel of the private respondent recommended the payment to the petitioner of the additional sum of P9.00 representing her back wages from the date of her dismissal to the date of the agreement On validity of quitclaims .. . Disposition Petition denied SAROCAM V INTERORIENT MARITIME ENT. After the lapse of such time. . the public respondent held that the motion for execution was time-barred. Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. June 22. ISSUE WON the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it held that the motion for execution was time-barred. 1980. 1989. . 224. the NLRC sustained the appeal of the CDCP and set aside the order dated June 20. with full understanding of what he was doing.00 from the private respondent and waiving her right to reinstatement in the compromise agreement.On September 19.Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy.On appeal. Disposition Assailed decision and resolution affirmed with modification. 2004 Resolutions of the NLRC.It also rejected the petitioner's claim that she had not been reinstated on time and ruled as valid the two quitclaims she had signed waiving her right to reinstatement and acknowledging settlement in full of her back wages and other benefits. . It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person.
. Pidlaoan. illness allowance/reimbursement of medical expenses. not awarded on the Labor Arbiter’s ruling that there was no evidence of bad faith and malice on the part of the employers. Petitioner was given Alaxan tablet for his back pain and Euglocon for his elevated blood sugar. recommending a Grade VIII disability under the POEA schedule of disability grading. Petitioner was then declared “fit for duty” effective on that day.In the instant case. through the union. made a formal notice of the deductions to PAL through the Manager for Catering. damages and attorney’s fees. Disposition Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. the assessment of the three other personal doctors of petitioner could not have been that reliable considering that they based their conclusions on the prior findings of Dr. petitioner thus impliedly admitted the correctness of the assessment of the company-designated physician. and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable. and acknowledged that he could no longer claim for disability benefits. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. bin and make an inventory of Commissary supplies and equipment. Petitioner also appears to have fully understood the contents of the document he was signing. 2001. that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. He was also advised to return for follow-up evaluation. YES . he presented medical certificates issued by his 3 personal doctors. YES . executed a release and quitclaim in favor of respondents. the element of voluntariness in its execution is evident. 2000. 5. ISSUES 1. 1993 NATURE Petition for certiorari assailng the NLRC decision in favor of the private respondents (holding that there was illegal suspension. with a full understanding thereof. . .350. holding that petitioner was not entitled to disability benefits because he was declared “fit for duty” and had previously executed a release and quitclaim in favor of his employers and already received his sickness allowance. petitioner executed a release and quitclaim in favor of his employers where he acknowledged the receipt of US$405. petitioner wrote the release and quitclaim with his own hand. The Decision and Resolution of the CA are AFFIRMED. To support his claim. deductions were made from their salaries allegedly representing losses of inventoried items charged to them for mishandling of company properties. On Dec. likewise. . roughly 11 months after petitioner was examined by the doctor. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily. likewise. . recognized legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of a worker’s claim which should be respected as the law between the parties. petitioner. However. as the important provision thereof had been relayed to him in Filipino. it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. no action was taken by PAL. or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face. 2000. Dr. . instead of questioning the assessment of the company-designated doctor.Petitioner did not question the findings of Dr. long after he had been examined by the company-designated physician.Upon petitioner’s appeal. 2. V SANTOS REGALADO. WON the respondents’ company-designated doctor be considered competent and reliable enough to declare petitioner as fit to work contrary to the declarations of three (3) independent physicians similarly finding him otherwise 2.However. He went on to argue that quitclaims are frowned upon by this Court as they are contrary to public policy.Additionally. petitioner filed a complaint with the NLRC for disability benefit. February 4.00 or its peso equivalent. As in the German Marine case. the transaction must be recognized as being a valid and binding undertaking. and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC.On July 11.Petitioner avers that the quitclaim he executed is invalid. Indeed. Pidlaoan and his assessment when the latter declared him as fit for duty or fit to work. the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking.Furthermore and most importantly. He questioned the doctor’s competency and the correctness of his findings only when he filed the complaint against respondents before the Labor Arbiter.Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. the extensive medical attention extended by Dr. Reynaldo Abad. .On March 20. . let it be emphasized that the constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to oppress employers. . with full understanding of what he was doing. he returned to the clinic with no more complaints of back pains and his sugar examination revealed normal results. Pidlaoan to arrive at a much more accurate appraisal of petitioner’s condition. petitioner was referred to the companydesignated physician. Pidlaoan enabled the latter to acquire familiarity. if not detailed knowledge. INC. 27. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person. From the document itself. around three months after the assessment. petitioner did not question the competency of Dr. No doubt such specialized knowledge enabled Dr. 2003. WON the execution by petitioner of a release and quitclaim estop him from claiming disability benefits under the POEA standard employment contract HELD 1. that the respondents be paid their salaries corresponding to the suspension period. . Petitioner’s MFR was denied by the CA.The private respondents are all Port Stewards in the Catering Sub-Department of the Passenger Services Department of PAL whose jobs were to prepare meal orders and checklists. .August 21. 13. set up standard equipment in accordance with the requirements of the type of service for each flight. to ski. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement. Petitioner’s claim for moral damages and attorney’s fees were.Labor Law 1 . and that disciplinary action from the respondents’ service records be deleted) FACTS . The Petition for Certiorari filed with the CA was dismissed. of petitioner’s medical condition. The commitment of this Court to the cause of labor does not prevent us from sustaining the employer when it is in the right. 2001. representing his salary for three (3) months. Pidlaoan. In executing the said document. as compared to another physician not privy to petitioner’s case from the very beginning.On several occasions. Petitioner consulted his personal doctors only in July and August 2001. Pidlaoan examined and treated petitioner from the time he was repatriated up to his recovery and subsequent assessment as fit for duty on December 13. . on Nov. . 2000. Where the person making the waiver has done so voluntarily. moreover. they examined petitioner 7 or 8 months after he was assessed as fit to work and treated him A2010 -6- Disini for only one day.On Dec. the NLRC issued a Resolution affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter.While petitioner may be correct in stating that quitclaims are frowned upon for being contrary to public policy. . Pidlaoan and his recommendation.Dr. Mr. as the amount he received as consideration therefor was much lower than what he should have received under the POEA Standard Employment Contract.As a final note. 1984: The respondents. the Court has.00 as his sickwages and freed his employers from further liability. with the modification that petitioner was entitled to US$1. Labor Arbiter Macam dismissed the complaint.
Labor Law 1 . The respondents argued that since their grievance in accordance with the grievance machinery step 1 of their CBA was not resolved within the 5-day period. should NOT be narrowly interpreted. Mr. If the division head fails to act within the five (5)-day regl(e)mentary period. Abad was on leave). .Respondents appealed to NLRC. hence this case Petitioner’s claims (PAL) . NLRC ruled in favor of respondents . Abad (finally) returned and scheduled a meeting on December 12 .The CBA provision on grievance machinery was established both for the union and the management (PAL). Under the policy of social justice. WON Section 2.m.the respondents filed a complaint for ILLEGAL SUSPENSION before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. The constitutional mandate for the promotion of labor is as explicit as it is demanding. much less the benevolent policy underlying our labor laws. This judgment is immediately executory. The division head shall answer the grievance within five (5) days from the date of presentation by inserting his decision on the grievance form. Mr. that Rosario Street and Rizal Avenue be closed to traffic of animal-drawn vehicles. and signed shall then be presented to and discussed by the shop steward with the division head. it is to be expected that someone has to be left to attend to Abad's duties.The grievance of employees is not a matter which requires the personal act of Mr. can’t preempt that the decision is resolved in their favor).the union filed another grievance asking for the lifting of the suspension.the respondents refused to conduct their inventory works thereafter . If the shop steward feels there is justification for taking the matter up with the Company.December 12: Mr. WON NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in setting aside the Arbitration Branch’s decision in favor of PAL 2.December 5: Mr. Mr. but PAL denied the said lifting. Ratio The sympathy of the Court is on the side of the laboring classes. the grievance must be resolved in favor of the aggrieved party. Abad and thus could not be delegated. thus suffering a great injustice. signing and dating same. the management should be given chance to present their side since before the 5 day prescriptive period begins to run.when the respondents first presented their complaint on August 21. adopting the position that it was the inventory of goods was the respondents’ duty and that the deductions in their salaries were due to the losses in the mishandling of goods . Disposition petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission is AFFIRMED. rule in favor of PAL . that as a consequence of such enforcement. The purpose is to place the workingman on an equal plane with management — with all its power and influence — in negotiating for the advancement of his interests and the defense of his rights.November 21: The said grievance was submitted to the office of Mr. Abad (PAL) was supposed to resolve the grievance within 5 days.m. NO . Article IV of the PAL-PALEA CBA3 should be narrowly interpreted. 1984: Pursuant to the grievance machinery Step 1 of the CBA between PAL and the union. Abad who was on leave.Commonwealth Act No. Two (2) copies of the grievance form properly filled. accepted. Petitioner could at least have assigned an officer-in-charge to look into the grievance and possibly make his recommendation to Mr.PAL’s petition for reconsideration denied. there should first be the presentment of grievance and its discussion ISSUES 1. only reducing the suspension period for respondent Ramos. and shall not be eligible for further appeal. Abad and the union had the meeting where the former denied the petition of the respondents.It has not been shown that respondent NLRC has unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically 3 Sec. Abad immediately looked into the grievance upon returning to work. CALALANG V WILLIAMS LAUREL. Abad found this reasoning unsatisfactory. but because of the one-sided relation between labor and capital. Abad issued an inter-office memo asking them to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against them. To be sure.. with the approval of the Secretary of the Public Works and Communications the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on national roads. December 2. YES . to 11 p. Abad’s office expressing their belief that the grievance was deemed resolved in their favor . That could not have been the intendment of the pertinent provision of the CBA. which was favorably indorsed by the Director of Public Works (PW). (in short. It is of no moment that Mr.November 4. 2 — Processing of Grievances xxx xxx xxx STEP 1 — Any employee who believes that he has a justifiable grievance shall take the matter up with his shop steward. therefore. . . If the division head's decision is not appealed to Step II. 548 gives the Director of Public Works.The Secretary of Public Works and Communications (PWC) approved with modification the recommendation that originated from the National Traffic Commission (NTC). . .Due to the respondents refusal to conduct inventory works in early December. the respondents thru the shop steward wrote a letter addressed to Mr. Abad was still on leave. and returning one copy to the shop steward. Abad) failed to act on it . for a period of one year from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic. Complaint dismissed. interpretation should be made in favor of the laborers) Reasoning . but is limited to issues of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion 2.Even if Mr. A2010 -7- Disini enjoins it to perform as a duty or has otherwise unlawfully excluded petitioner from the exercise of a right to which it is entitled. 1940 FACTS . the petitioner (through Mr. and since in the CBA. all animal drawn vehicles are not allowed to pass and pick up passengers in the places abovementioned to the detriment not only of their owners but of the riding public as well. the CBA would still apply since it is hard to believe that everything under Abad's authority would have to stand still during his absence from office.if the provision would be interpreted as to allow the management to act on their laborer’s complaints after the acting officer returned from a “leave” then the causes of the workingmen would be delayed. respondents filed a formal grievance. the grievance shall be considered settled on the basis of the decision made. he shall record the grievance on the grievance form heretofore agreed upon by the parties. . Abad was on leave when the grievance was filed (and even if the union and respondents knew that Mr. Ratio Judicial review by this Court in labor cases does not go so far as to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the labor officer or office based his or its determination.December 7: Mr. .the union demanded for the reimbursement of the salaries of individual respondents during the suspension but PAL denied their demand. between the points and during the hours from 7 a. Abad. for it must be remembered that the grievants are workingmen who suffered salary deductions and who rely so much on their meager income for their daily subsistence and survival. THEREFORE favoring the respondents (the prescriptive period runs after the filing of the grievance) HELD 1. not only because the Constitution imposes such sympathy. it is the employee’s duty to observe status quo (therefore. the law bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane justification that those with less privileges in life should have more privileges in law. they believed that the grievance was resolved in their favor. that the Mayor of Manila and the Acting Chief of Police of Manila have enforced and caused to be enforced the rules and regulations thus adopted. . THUS suspending the said respondents.
2001 NATURE Review seeking reversal of the decision and resolution of CA reversing the resolution of the NLRC. but only with concrete and substantial evidence. NO . promote full employment opportunities for all and guarantee the right to security of tenure. Acting Secretary of PWC.the Director of Public Works. 1987 but 439 overseas calls had been made through it from May to Nov.Maximo Calang.It was further found that among the 235 telephone operators who handled those calls (averaging 1. July 23.Paradox . FACTS . 1987. Wayman vs. In 1981. 1997 NATURE Petition for certiorari to revoke NLRC’s Nov. PLDT’s rank-and-file employees went on strike. . Mayor of Manila and Acting Chielf of Police of Manila. Labor Arbiter Jose De Vera rendered a decision ordering the reinstatement of private respondent.8% calls each). . Disposition instant petition is DISMISSED and the decision dated Nov.Labor Law 1 . Southard – it was held here that discretion may be delegated to executive departments or subordinate officials the execution of certain acts. CBTC was eventually absorbed by the Bank of the Philippine Islands. NO . . with the approval of the Secretary of the Public Works and Communications. 1978 until her dismissal on June 17.The state may enact laws that may interfere with personal liberty. Pomar) . Los Angeles & People vs. yielded unusually long operator call durations. Based on these finding. WON Commonwealth Act No.textual interpretation of Commonwealth Act No. . Dobbins vs.Petitioner Rogelio C.Art. She was tasked with facilitating requests for incoming and outgoing international calls using a digital switchboard. WON the rules and regulations promulgated constitute an unlawful interference with legitimate business or trade and abridge the right to personal liberty and freedom of locomotion 3. but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes. However. On grounds of misconduct and breach of trust. . 2 supervisors received 2 overseas calls bound for the Middle East. Reasoning . thus denying private respondent her right to due process. the petitioner failed to establish valid bases of the alleged misconduct. 548 The provision that “…. Director of PW. filed a petition for a writ of prohibition against the Chairman of NTC. not only in the execution of the laws.The apparent curtailment of liberty is precisely the very means of insuring its preservation . Although it is quite certain that there were certain PLDT personnel who tampered with the line. Social justice is promoted if the greatest good is brought about to the greatest number. Private respondent also used said number to make several personal calls. prompting MITD to discharge the former’s duties to DAYAN V BPI VITUG. with property. respondent requested a formal investigation to confront and rebut the witnesses’ allegations. . A2010 -8- Disini prevent a shutdown of its operations. In the course of their assignments. though registered as partly unavailable or busy. 4 of the Labor Code states that “all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor”. final on questions of fact. It was shown that the number had been permanently disconnected on Sept. and the increased difficulty in administering the law give rise to the adoption.Assistant Manager of Internal Operations in 1983.8% of the total calls. and with business and occupation if the said laws are intended to promote the welfare of the public. The Constitution furthers that the State shall afford full protection to labor. MITD Manager Erlinda Kabigting directed respondent to explain these allegations. private respondent had handled 12.practicality The complexities of modern governments. ISSUE WON the NLRC erred in ordering the reinstatement of private respondent HELD NO. 1987. ISSUES 1. 1992 decision affirming the resolution of Labor Arbiter Jose De Vera and denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration FACTS . 1989. 1992 is AFFIRMED. the ultimate blame cannot be set solely on private respondent based on mere suspicion.instead of complying.adherence to precedent Rubi vs. Some calls. or intends to make. (police power of the State) Reasoning . PLDT V NLRC ROMERO. shall promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on national roads…”.The Legislature cannot delegate power to make law. WON the rules and regulations complained of infringe the upon the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being of all the people HELD 1. within certain limits. but also in the promulgation of certain rules and regulations. is an administrative function which cannot be directly discharged by the National Assembly. He held several positions thereafter . the delegation of greater powers by the legislative and vesting a larger amount of discretion in administrative and executive officials. 16. the worker’s welfare is of paramount importance. its own action depend. 16. records show that these calls were neither unusual nor made in connivance with certain subscribers as other operators shared similar experiences. November 20. Gomez.Private respondent Lettie Corpuz was employed as traffic operator at the Manila International Traffic Division (MITD) by PLDT for 10 years 9 months from Sept. 19. both callers reporting the same calling number (98-68-16). . 2.In the instant case. . Dayan (Dayan) started his employment on 30 June 1956 with the Commercial Bank and Trust Company (CBTC). in his capacity as private citizen and as a taxpayer of Manila. that is.Sometime in Dec. Assistant Manager of Correspondent . Although the power to dismiss is a normal prerogative of the employer.In a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by respondent. Dayan was promoted Administrative Assistant by respondent bank in its centralized accounting office.Petitioner insists that respondent was guilty of defrauding them by taking several calls through the disconnected number.precedents (US vs. . the right to discharge employees is regulated by the State’s police power in line with its duty to preserve its citizen’s rights. later affirmed by NLRC. the multiplication of the subjects of govt’l regulations. Provincial Board of Mindoro. (BPI) where Dayan was maintained as employee. 548 is unconstitutional because it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power 2. The requirement of notice and hearing affords the worker ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself. respondent was terminated.No.
etc.On appeal. a hearing is necessary to thresh out any doubt. he must be granted separation pay. After which. then by RA 1052 or Termination Pay Law. due to the insistence of his superiors. being essentially imbued with public interest. an appropriate sanction should be imposed depending on the fact and gravity of the situation.The Termination Pay Law is a regulatory measure to give opportunity for the employer to look for a replacement or substitute and for the employee to look for another job. The report signed ad noted by Rololfo Bernejo (Mgr) and Victor Guillermo (Sr Mgr) contained alleged misconduct such as asking for 5% commission on purchase orders. His job involves much exercise of independent judgment and discretion. which gave either party to the employer-employee relationship the right to terminate their relationship by giving notice to the other a month in advance. the Labor Arbiter upheld the validity of the dismissal of petitioner based on loss of trust and confidence and denied his claim for retirement benefits and damages. The second notice informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him.Dayan is not a rank and file employee.Art 283 originated from the Spanish Code of Commerece of 1882. The report also made negative findings and observations about his work performance. Where the employee denies charges against him. NO Ratio The CA was convinced that Dayan’s guilty of malfeasance and that the petitioner's dismissal had been justified under Article 282 of the Labor Code. and finally by RA1787 providing for the advance notice or payment of compensation at the rate of ½ month for every year of service.BPI filed with SC. . Asst VP Gerlanda E.December 1991. NO Ratio The law requires the employer with 2 written notices before termination can be legally affected as well as a hearing where the employee can explain his side. at the same time. . placed petitioner under suspension. . He. the failure to observe procedural requirements does not invalidate the dismissal of the employee.In the case at bench.00 financial assistance from the bank and thereby releasing and discharging it from any action or claim arising from his employment with the bank and membership in the retirement plan. NO Ratio The 2 notice and hearing rule is indispensable for a dismissal to be validly effected. and then Senior Assistant Manager of the Supplies Inventory in 19911992. WON there sufficient compliance of notice and hearing 3. In a letter of confession. before the Labor Arbiter. he should be paid backwages if he has been laid off without written notice 30 days in advance.14 June 1993. Instead. Dayan was called to a meeting June 10 where he denied all charges against him. A consultation or conference with the employee is not a substitute for the actual observance of notice and hearing. petitioner wrote a memorandum to the bank narrating what had transpired in his meeting with the bank on 10 June 1993 where he denied all the accusations against him and contested his preventive suspension. For the omission. . Obiter . petitioner was dismissed by respondent bank via a notice of termination. in a memorandum. dated 28 October 1993.CA did not commit error in holding to be justifiable the dismissal of Dayan from BPI as evidence of malpactice is too numerous to be ignored. Reasoning . . otherwise. “donations totaling 5K” for medical bills.In its petition for review before the SC. would have access by virtue of his position. petitioner ultimately admitted his infractions and instead asked for financial assistance. dated 25 October 1993. Reasoning . His denials and plea for compassion notwithstanding. . After investigation. petitioner claimed that the letter and the quitclaim were signed by him under duress. overpricing BPI Family Bank’s passbook.It appears that BPI conducted earlier interviews regarding supposed malpractices committed by Dayan during his term as Purchasing Officer. On 14 February 1994. he later accepted on a temporary basis in February 1993. . executed an undated "Release Waiver and Quitclaim" acknowledging receipt of P400. ISSUES 1. the NLRC reversed the decision of the labor arbiter and declared the dismissal to be illegal on the ground that petitioner was denied due process ratiocinating that a hearing should have been afforded petitioner for a chance to confront the witnesses against him. WON CA committed an error in granting Dayan’s dismissal 2. A bank. . WON he should be reinstated in BPI 4. 3. Dayan was the recipient of various commendations. but if it is for a just and valid cause. It was only after an exhaustive investigation that respondent bank finally decided to terminate the services of petitioner on 25 October 1993. . 2. The notice was not required if the dismissal is for just cause.' .Labor Law 1 Bank in 1988. . cannot be compelled to continue in its employ a person whom it has lost trust and confidence. a petition for certiorari questioning the NLRC decision. . he was issued a notice of preventive suspension. signed by AVP Gerlanda de Castro. De Castro of the bank. the purpose of the notice and hearing requirement is not to comply with due process. with a prayer for an award of retirement benefits. Petitioner believes that the factual conclusions of the NLRC which has acquired expertise on the matters entrusted to it should have instead been respected by the appellate court. This was repealed by Art. . petitioner argues that the CA has wrongly relied on unsworn statements taken by the bank from its contractual employees.Dayan is placed under suspension due to matters presented to him in a meeting on the same morning of the suspension memo. Contrary to Dayan’s claim. 2270 of the Civil Code. he was given notice of dismissal.000. the post of Purchasing Officer became vacant. An employee under his supervision even narrated other incidents of malpractices. Whether reinstated or given separation pay.10 June 1993.Subsequently. however. The 4 "`(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative. The Court referred the petition to CA. . The preliminary meeting is not sufficient compliance rather it was merely exploratory. These charges were even backed up by the audit report of the bank’s audit team.In the case at hand. Assistant Manager of the Supplies Inventory in 1991. he filed a case for Illegal Dismissal and Illegal Suspension. In addition to the series of promotions. The vacated position was offered to Dayan which he initially declined but. . the suppliers who complained executed affidavits as part of the records of the case.4 Reasoning .In his decision of 30 June 1995. Assistant Manager of Branch Operations in 1990.The policy of preventively suspending an employee under investigation for charges involving dishonesty is an acceptable precautionary measure in order to preserve the integrity of vital papers and documents that may be material and relevant to the case and to which he. There was failure on the part of BPI to conform to the notice and hearing requirement. WON the letter and quitclaim were obtained through deception and coercion A2010 -9- Disini HELD 1.The first notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which the dismissal is sought. The appellate court reversed the judgment of the NLRC.
or that the right of the third party would be diluted unless the party in court is allowed to espouse the third party’s constitutional rights. INC. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY V CA CALLEJO.The Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter. it is binding on the parties and may not be disowned unless there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting gullible person. investigate. 1995 a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 0f the Rules of Court with the RTC of Quezon City to declare as unconstitutional portions of RA 8042. 3. has filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration of the respondent National Labor Union. With regard the portion relating to discrimination against unskilled workers. Inc. Disposition decision of the Court of Appeals reinstating the decision of the Labor Arbiter and setting aside the NLRC's decision is AFFIRMED. The SC ruled that the respondents have locus standi citing it earlier ruling in Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines vs Commission of Elections. . the SC. LAUREL. May 25. The SC cited various cases it had earlier decided on apply RA 8042. This higher standard reflects judicial deference towards legislation or regulations developed through presumptively reasoned democratic process. The Court however dismissed the petition. The possible unconstitutionality of a statue.CIR created by Commonwealth Act No.The employer cannot be expected to be an entirely impartial judge of his own cause. The petitioner. To be entitled to a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of a law assailed to be unconstitutional. WON the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed ANG TIBAY. on its face.Labor Law 1 notice requirement is only implemented by BP130 amending the Labor Code. He cannot be willing to compromise his future by agreeing to execute a document highly prejudicial to his interest. 103. The order and the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the trial court is a grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. matter. penalties for illegal recruitment. . . ISSUES 1. and on the venue of criminal action for illegal recruitment. 2. February 27.On August 1. However. WON the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court’s order and the writ it issued HELD 1.000..Hence. The SC also held that the assailed order and writ of preliminary injunction is mooted by case law. Hence the enforcement of the provisions cannot be enjoined unless the SC.Petitioners filed a petition with the court of Appeals assailing the order and the writ with the court of Appeals on the grounds that respondent. otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 with a plea for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the government from enforcing the said portions of the law. ARCO-Phil. . not passive > active: not just judicial/quasi-judicial in disputes. It subsequently dismissed petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. . if the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement. but also has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to consider. 2004 NATURE Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals FACTS . 1995. affirmed the validity of the assailed provisions. The questioned portions of the said RA deal with illegal recruitment. the party must establish that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief and must demonstrate that it is likely to succeed on the merits. and/or affecting employers and . settle any question. Reasoning .. Complainant was well aware of the consequences of his acts.Nature of the CIR: > more administrative than part of judicial system > not a mere receptive organ of Govt. WON private respondents have standing to file suit 2. A2010 . . by final judgment declares the provisions to be unconstitutional.ARCO-Phil was joined in the petition by eleven other corporations which were allegedly members of the organization when it filed an amended petition.The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction on August 21. in effect. 4. It was held in that case that standing jus tertii would be recognized if it can be shown that the party suing has some substantial relation to the third party. unless there is showing of bad faith. The amended petition also questioned other sections of the law which dealt with the overseas deployment only of skilled Filipino workers alleging discrimination against unskilled workers. the trial court issued a temporary restraining order on the implementation or effectivity of the questioned provisions based on the allegations of the private respondents that they will suffer grave or irreparable damage or injury if the law is implemented. Inc.Dayan is a managerial employee with vast experience. This is so because suspension of the operation of the law is an interference with the official acts of the duly elected representatives of the people and also of the highest magistrate of the land. the SC ruled that respondents have no standing as they failed to implead any unskilled worker in their petition. decide. AND NATIONAL WORKERS BROTHERHOOD V CIR. is not the real party-in-interest and that it has not shown any convincing proof that in fact damage or injury would result in the implementation of the questioned statute. Its functions are specifically stated therein . the petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court. SR. prays for the vacation of the judgment rendered by the majority of this Court and the remanding of the case to the Court of the Industrial Relations for a new trial. or that there are sufficiently serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tips decidedly in its favor. In this case. harassment. does not of itself justify an injunction against good faith attempts to enforce it. FACTS . NO Ratio Quitclaims executed by employees are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of a worker’s legal rights.10 - Disini order and the writ of preliminary injunction on a bond of only Pesos 50. By these rulings. Inc. controversy or dispute arising between. Ang Tibay.000 3. or any other unusual circumstances that would call for equitable relief. (ARCOPhil) filed on July 17. or the terms are unconscionable on its face. The SC citing jurisprudence ruled that a law is presumed constitutional until the same is declared unconstitutional by judicial interpretation. 1940 NATURE The respondent National Labor Union. 1995 upon a bond of Pesos 50. none were shown. AND NATIONAL LABOR UNION.
report and recommendation.The SC found no substantial evidence that the exclusion of the 89 laborers here was due to their union affiliation or activity. is vain.Labor Law 1 employees or laborers. but their report and decision are only advisory. therefore." (Edwards vs.. and unjustly favoring the National Workers' Brotherhood. 213. Commonwealth Act No.Primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character: (1) the right to a hearing. U. and there may be more evidence to be heard. (re supposed delay of leather soles from the States) was but a scheme to systematically prevent the forfeiture of this bond despite the breach of his CONTRACT with the Philippine Army. (4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding but the evidence must be "substantial. Edwards vs. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it. and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. Such right is conspicuously futile if the person or persons to whom the evidence is presented can thrust it aside without notice or consideration. a justice of the peace or any public official in any part of the Philippines for investigation. must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy. and may delegate to such board or public official such powers and functions as the said Court of Industrial Relations may deem necessary. but such delegation shall not affect the exercise of the Court itself of any of its powers. That Toribio Teodoro's letter to the Philippine Army dated September 29. is entirely false and unsupported by the records of the Bureau of Customs and the Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather. and regulate the relations between them. 103. That the National Worker's Brotherhood of ANG TIBAY is a company or employer union dominated by Toribio Teodoro. ." The statute provides that "the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling. one of which is that its decision must be based on substantial evidence. the existence and functions of which are illegal. and for that purpose. majority rule and elective representation are highly essential and indispensable.S "the liberty and property of the citizen shall be protected by the rudimentary requirements of fair play. 1938. Reasoning . or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. 25. (281 U.S. It should not. in all controversial questions.) Law is both a grant and a limitation upon power. McCoy. (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges. but in our case there is no such statutory authority. Boards of inquiry may be appointed for the purpose of investigating and determining the facts in any given case. to use the authorized legal methods of securing evidence and informing itself of facts material and relevant to the controversy. 2. with the right to appeal to board or commission.. however. In the United States the difficulty is solved with the enactment of statutory authority authorizing examiners or other subordinates A2010 . 4. 1938. Commonwealth Act No. (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing.' The obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is to free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent inn judicial proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order. It may be that the volume of work is such that it is literally Relations personally to decide all controversies coming before them. Although the CIR is a court with special nature. McCoy. That the employer Toribio Teodoro was guilty of unfair labor practice for discriminating against the National Labor Union.11 - Disini to render final decision. and the reasons for the decision rendered." -such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The interest of justice would be better served if the movant is given opportunity to present at the hearing the documents referred to in his motion and such other evidence as may be . there was shortage of leather soles in ANG TIBAY making it necessary for him to temporarily lay off the members of the National Labor Union Inc. > mingling of executive and judicial functions (a departure from the rigid doctrine of the separation of governmental powers) > not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure: it’s required to act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case. "the right to adduce evidence.in that it may be said to be free from technical rules of procedure.) 6. That the attached documents and exhibits are of such farreaching importance and effect that their admission would necessarily mean the modification and reversal of the judgment rendered herein. petitioner's printed memorandum. p. without the corresponding duty on the part of the board to consider it. 9.) The Court of Industrial Relations may refer any industrial or agricultural dispute or any matter under its consideration or advisement to a local board of inquiry. That the exhibits hereto attached are so inaccessible to the respondents that even with the exercise of due diligence they could not be expected to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the Court of Industrial Relations. -Protect parties in their right to know and meet the case against them. that of having something to support it is a nullity.The record of the proceedings had before the CIR in this particular case had no substantial evidence that the exclusion of the 89 laborers was due to their union affiliation.these statements have no evidentiary value Respondents' Comments 1. namely. with sporadic conclusion drawn to suit their own views . 3." (3) "While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right. 8. . That the century provisions of the Civil Code which had been (the) principal source of dissensions and continuous civil war in Spain cannot and should not be made applicable in interpreting and applying the salutary provisions of a modern labor legislation of American origin where the industrial peace has always been the rule. That the supposed lack of leather materials claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme to systematically prevent the forfeiture of this bond despite the breach of his CONTRACT with the Philippine Army. 7. Commonwealth Act No. Inc. without regard to technicalities or legal forms…” (Section 20.it must still respect certain primary rights.. render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved. That Toribio Teodoro's claim that on September 26. (Sections 2 and 5. (Section 9. Morgan v. supra. 548.The whole transcript of the hearing is just a record of contradictory statements of opposing counsel. (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should.) 5. 103) > The fact that the CIR may be said to be free from certain procedural requirements doe not mean that it can entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental requirements of due process in trials. . a new trial shall be granted. ISSUE WON a new trial in the CIR should be granted HELD YES Ratio When a hearing before the CIR is conducted and a ruling is arrived at without any substantial evidence. But this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative force. which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. a place when directly attached. detract from their duty actively to see that the law is enforced. (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. a provincial fiscal. That in the exercise by the laborers of their rights to collective bargaining. it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded.
The legislation which created the Court of Industrial Relations and under which it acts is new. and the entire record of this case shall be remanded to the Court of Industrial Relations. So ordered. A2010 . receive all such evidence as may be relevant and otherwise proceed in accordance with the requirements set forth hereinabove. with instruction that it reopen the case.12 - Disini .Labor Law 1 relevant to the main issue involved. The failure to grasp the fundamental issue involved is not entirely attributable to the parties adversely affected by the result. Disposition The motion for a new trial should be and the same is hereby granted.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.