I.

Introduction/ Overview

A. Definitions/Classification

1. Labor Law

A branch of law that governs and regulates the relationship between employers
and employees

2. Labor Standards

Branch of labor law that prescribes the minimum requirements for hours of work,
wages, monetary benefits, welfare benefits and occupational health and safety

3. Labor Relations

Branch of labor law that regulates the activities of labor organizations and
prescribes modes and machinery for the settlement of labor disputes, including collective
bargaining and the modes and procedure for terminating an employment

4. Welfare Legislation

Intended to provide protection to the employee and his beneficiaries in case of

disability, sickness, old age, death and other contingencies that result in loss of income or
financial burden

B. 1. Justification: Social Justice-

Social justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy," but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in
its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the
promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to
insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a
proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community,
constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through
the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of
salus populi est suprema lex. Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the
necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that
should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic
life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health,
comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest number."
(MAXIMO CALALANG, Petitioner, v. A. D. WILLIAMS, ET AL., Respondents.)

Const. Art II, Section 10;

SECTION 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.

Article XIII, Secs. 1-3;

SECTION 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect
and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political
inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for
the common good.

To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property
and its increments.

SECTION 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic
opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.

Labor

SECTION 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with
law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage.
They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law.

The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers
and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall
enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of
labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns
on investments, and to expansion and growth.

2. Foundation or basis: Police Power of the State

police power as the power to promote the general welfare and public interest;  to enact such laws in
relation to persons and property as may promote public health, public morals, public safety and the
general welfare of each inhabitant;  to preserve public order and to prevent offenses against the state and
to establish for the intercourse of citizen with citizen those rules of good manners and good neighborhood
calculated to prevent conflict of rights.

3. Ultimate Goal: Industrial Peace- Const., Art XIII, Sec. 3, par. 3

The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the
preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their
mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

C. 7 Cardinal Rights of Workers. Guaranteed by the Constitution – 1987 Const., Art XIII, Sec.3,
pars. 1,2
SECTION 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with
law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage.
They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law.

D. Management Prerogative- Rule- 1987 Const., Art XIII, Sec 3., pars. 3,4

The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers
and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall
enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of
labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns
on investments, and to expansion and growth.

1. Private sector; plays an indispensable role- 1987 Const. Art II, Sec 20

University of Immaculate Conception Inc. v Sec of Labor, UIC Employees Union, Lelian Cocon &
11 others, G.R. 151379, January 14, 2005

FACTS:

the collective bargaining negotiations between petitioner University of Immaculate Concepcion, Inc.
(UNIVERSITY) and respondent The UIC Teaching and Non-Teaching Personnel and Employees Union
(UNION). The UNION, as the certified bargaining agent of all rank and file employees of the
UNIVERSITY, submitted its collective bargaining proposals to the latter on February 16, 1994. However,
one item was left unresolved and this was the inclusion or exclusion of the following positions in the
scope of the bargaining unit: a. Secretaries; b. Registrars; c. Accounting Personnel; d. Guidance
Counselors

the panel of voluntary arbitrators rendered a decision excluding the secretaries, registrars, chief of the
accounting department, cashiers and guidance counselors from the coverage of the bargaining unit.

The UNION moved for the reconsideration. While it was pending, it filed a notice of strike with the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) of Davao City, on the grounds of bargaining
deadlock and unfair labor practice. During the thirty (30) day cooling-off period, two union members
were dismissed by petitioner. Consequently, the UNION went on strike.

then Secretary of Labor, Ma. Nieves R. Confessor, issued an Order assuming jurisdiction over the labor
dispute pursuant to Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code. Accordingly, all workers are directed to return to
work within twenty-four (24) hours upon receipt of this Order and for Management to accept them back
under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike. Parties are further directed to cease and
desist from committing any or all acts that might exacerbate the situation..
, the panel of voluntary arbitrators denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the UNION.

Thereafter, the UNIVERSITY relayed to the individual respondents that they could not remain as
confidential employees and at the same time as members or officers of the Union so they need to choose
one. However, the individual respondents claimed that they could still retain their confidential positions
while being members or officers of the Union. Hence, the UNIVERSITY sent notices of termination to
the individual respondents. The UNION filed another notice of strike, citing the UNIVERSITY’s
termination of the individual respondents alleging that the termination is in violation of the Order of the
Secretary of Labor.

the Secretary of Labor issued another Order reiterating the directives on her previous order and directed
the UNIVERSITY to reinstate the individual respondents under the same terms and conditions prevailing
prior to the labor dispute.

The UNIVERSITY, thereafter, moved to reconsider the aforesaid Order but the same was denied even on
its second motion for reconsideration. On its third motion, the acting secretary denied the motion but
added that since the superseding circumstances would not warrant the physical reinstatement of the
twelve (12) the individual respondents, they are to be placed under payroll reinstatement until the validity
of their termination is finally resolved.

the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision, affirming the questioned Orders of the Secretary of Labor.

ISSUE: whether or not the Secretary of Labor, after assuming jurisdiction over a labor dispute involving
an employer and the certified bargaining agent of a group of employees in the workplace, may legally
order said employer to reinstate employees terminated by the employer even if those terminated
employees are not part of the bargaining unit

HELD: YES. The Secretary of Labor may legally order said employer to reinstate employees terminated
by the employer even if those terminated employees are not part of the bargaining unit

The Court stated that the exercise of management prerogatives, as held in PAL v. National Labor
Relations Commission, is not absolute, but subject to exceptions. One of these exceptions is when the
Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over labor disputes involving industries indispensable to the
national interest under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code.

(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume
jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory
arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended
or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already
taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees 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. x x x

When the Secretary of Labor ordered the UNIVERSITY to suspend the effect of the termination of the
individual respondents, the Secretary did not exceed her jurisdiction, nor did the Secretary gravely abuse
the same.
the main reason or rationale for the exercise of the Secretary of Labor and Employment’s power under
Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, as amended, is the maintenance and upholding of the status quo while
the dispute is being adjudicated. the directive to the parties to refrain from performing acts that will
exacerbate the situation is intended to ensure that the dispute does not get out of hand, thereby negating
the direct intervention of this office

The University’s act of suspending and terminating union members and the Union’s act of filing another
Notice of Strike after this Office has assumed jurisdiction are certainly in conflict with the status quo
ante. By any standards[,] these acts will not in any way help in the early resolution of the labor dispute. It
is clear that the actions of both parties merely served to complicate and aggravate the already strained
labor-management relations.

Any act committed during the pendency of the dispute that tends to give rise to further contentious issues
or increase the tensions between the parties should be considered an act of exacerbation and should not be
allowed.

With respect to the Secretary’s Order allowing payroll reinstatement instead of actual reinstatement is
usually not allowed. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code states that all workers must immediately return to
work and all employers must readmit all of them under the same terms and conditions prevailing before
the strike or lockout. The phrase "under the same terms and conditions" makes it clear that the norm is
actual reinstatement.

As an exception to the rule, payroll reinstatement must rest on special circumstances that render actual
reinstatement impracticable or otherwise not conducive to attaining the purposes of the law. The
"superseding circumstances" mentioned by the Acting Secretary of Labor no doubt refer to the final
decision of the panel of arbitrators as to the confidential nature of the positions of the twelve private
respondents, thereby rendering their actual and physical reinstatement impracticable and more likely to
exacerbate the situation. The payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement ordered in these cases,
therefore, appears justified as an exception to the rule until the validity of their termination is finally
resolved.

E. Balancing of Interests- 1987 Constitution, Art XIII, Sec 3, par.4

The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of
labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns
on investments, and to expansion and growth. (regulate to balance)

RULE: “When the conflicting interests of labor and capital are weighed on the scales of social justice, the
heavier influence of the latter must be counterbalanced by the sympathy and compassion; the law must
accord the underprivileged woker x x x if he is to be given the opportunity- and the right- to assert and
defend his cause x x x with which he can negotiate on an even plane.” (equal footing)

REASON: Labor is not a mere employee of Capital but its active and equal partner.

Fortunato R. Baron plus 2 others v EPE Transport, Inc., G.R. 202645; Aug. 5, 2015
FACTS:

Petitioners were employed as EPE’s taxi drivers and were paid on boundary system. They were members
of the EPE Transport, Inc. Drivers’ Union-Filipinong Samahang Manggagawa (FSM), the exclusive
bargaining agent of the taxi drivers in EPE.

Bersabal inquired from the company regarding the boundary rates imposed, claiming that the same were
not in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Instead of clarifying the matter, Bersabal
was purportedly told that he was free to go if he did not want to follow company policy. As a result,
Bersabal, together with the other EPE’s taxi drivers, filed a complaint for violation of the CBA, unfair
labor practice, refund of overcharged boundary, and money claims against EPE, and its President
(respondents)

Later, Baron and Melendres equally questioned the company about the overcharging of boundary, for
which they supposedly got the same response. Thus, they filed a complaint for unfair labor practice,
refund of overcharged boundary, and attorney’s fees against respondents,

Days after Baron, Melendres and Bersabal claimed that they were no longer allowed to use their taxi unit
and prevented from entering EPE’s premises. Consequently, petitioners filed another complaint, this time
for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, separation pay, and attorney’s fees, against respondents

Meanwhile, the complaint in the unfair labor practice case was dismissed without prejudice, and the case
was recommended to be resolved before the grievance machinery.

In response to the complaint in the illegal dismissal case, respondents denied that petitioners were
dismissed as the latter themselves failed to return to work. That after they filed separate complaints for
violation of the CBA and unfair labor practice, petitioners suddenly went on absence without official
leave (AWOL) and subsequently filed the instant suit.

the LA dismissed petitioners’ illegal dismissal case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and
lack of cause of action. The LA gave more credence to respondents’ claim that it was petitioners who
failed to return to work after they filed their respective complaints, noting that the latter had even invoked
the use of the CBA’s grievance machinery for the resolution of their dispute, hence, could not have been
dismissed.

the NLRC reversed and set aside the LA’s Decision and found petitioners to have been illegally
dismissed. In so ruling, the NLRC rejected respondents’ defense that petitioners went on AWOL or had
abandoned their work, holding that no evidence was presented to show that the latter were directed to
report back for work.

the CA set aside the NLRC Decision and reinstated the LA’s Decision. The CA concurred with the LA
that petitioners’ complaint in the illegal dismissal case failed to sufficiently establish the fact of their
dismissal.

ISSUES: whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding
petitioners to have been illegally dismissed.
HELD: YES. the Court finds that the CA committed reversible error in granting respondents’ certiorari
petition since the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding petitioners to have been illegally
dismissed.

the Court finds that the CA committed reversible error in granting respondents’ certiorari petition since
the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding petitioners to have been illegally dismissed.

In the case of Sevillana v. I.T. (International) Corp., the Court later elucidated that Article 277(b) of the
Labor Code — which places upon the employer the burden of proving that the dismissal of an employee
was for a valid or authorized cause — does not distinguish whether the employer admits or does not
admit the dismissal

In the present case, petitioners asserted that they were unceremoniously dismissed after they charged
respondents of violating the CBA before the NLRC. Notably, respondents did not refute such absence
from work but averred that it was petitioners that went on AWOL and abandoned their jobs after they
filed their unfair labor practice complaint.

Abandonment connotes a deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to resume his
employment. “Abandonment of work does not per se sever the employer-employee relationship. It is
merely a form of neglect of duty, which is, in turn, a just cause for termination of employment. The
operative act that will ultimately put an end to this relationship is the dismissal of the employee after
complying with the procedure prescribed by law.”

For a valid finding of abandonment, two (2) elements must concur, namely: (a) the failure to report for
work or absence without valid or justifiable cause; and (b) clear intention to sever the employer-employee
relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some
overt acts.

In this case, no proof was adduced by respondents to prove their theory of abandonment. On the contrary,
the fact that shortly after petitioners ceased from working, they immediately instituted the complaint for
illegal dismissal. An employee who forthwith takes steps to protest his layoff cannot, as a general rule, be
said to have abandoned his work, for it is well-settled that the filing by an employee of a complaint for
illegal dismissal is proof enough of his desire to return to work, thus negating any suggestion of
abandonment.

Moreover, petitioners, prior to the filing of the illegal dismissal case, filed cases against respondents to
correct what they perceived as errors in the administration of the CBA, This bolsters the supposition that
they actually desired to continue with their employment as they were enforcing their rights under the
CBA.

Finally, it is apt to clarify that petitioners’ submission to the company’s grievance machinery does not
disprove illegal dismissal. What was referred to the grievance machinery was the unfair labor practice
case filed by the petitioners before they were terminated, which contains issues that are different and
distinct from their cause of action for illegal dismissal.

Since petitioners’ abandonment was not proven by respondents in this case, the NLRC correctly ruled that
the former were illegally dismissed.