Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022 Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.

-
nature. Subject to the requirements of
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN (June 10, 2004)
due process, the technicalities of law
Exclusivity Clause and the rules obtaining in the courts of
law do not strictly apply in proceedings
- Being an exclusive talent does not by before a Labor Arbiter.
itself mean that SONZA is an employee
of ABS-CBN. Even an independent Talents as Independent Contractors
contractor can validly provide his
- Individuals with special skills, expertise
services exclusively to the hiring party.
or talent enjoy the freedom to offer
In the broadcast industry, exclusivity is
their services as independent
not necessarily the same as control.
contractors. The right to life and
- The hiring of exclusive talents is a
livelihood guarantees this freedom to
widespread and accepted practice in
contract as independent contractors.
the entertainment industry. This
The right of labor to security of tenure
practice is not designed to control the
cannot operate to deprive an
means and methods of work of the
individual, possessed with special
talent, but simply to protect the
skills, expertise and talent, of his right
investment of the broadcast station.
to contract as an independent
The broadcast station normally spends
contractor.
substantial amounts of money, time
- An individual like an artist or talent has
and effort "in building up its talents as
a right to render his services without
well as the programs they appear in
any one controlling the means and
and thus expects that said talents
methods by which he performs his art
remain exclusive with the station for a
or craft. This Court will not interpret the
commensurate period of time."
right of labor to security of tenure to
Normally, a much higher fee is paid to
compel artists and talents to render
talents who agree to work exclusively
their services only as employees. If
for a particular radio or television
radio and television program hosts can
station. In short, the huge talent fees
render their services only as
partially compensate for exclusivity, as
employees, the station owners and
in the present case.
managers can dictate to the radio and
Right to cross-examination television hosts what they say in their
shows. This is not conducive to
- Not a process of an administrative freedom of the press.
investigation.
- The Labor Arbiter can decide a case Tiangco vs. ABS-CBN (December 6,
based solely on the position papers and 2021)
the supporting documents without a
- There is nothing in the Agreement that
formal trial. The holding of a formal
allows ABS-CBN to suspend petitioner
hearing or trial is something that the
for violating its rules. Its remedy
parties cannot demand as a matter of
should have been to terminate the
right. If the Labor Arbiter is confident
Agreement as stipulated. In any case,
that he can rely on the documents
the petitioner's improper suspension
before him, he cannot be faulted for not
had been rectified with the Partial
conducting a formal trial, unless under
Settlement Agreement wherein one of
the particular circumstances of the
the monetary claims paid by ABS-CBN
case, the documents alone are
was petitioner's salaries during the
insufficient. The proceedings before a
period of her suspension.
Labor Arbiter are non-litigious in
Page 1 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022
- The Court did not ask for a refund from
Tiangco from the PSA because the
parties agreed to enter into settlement.
- The settlement cannot be a subject for
review, except if it is entered with
vitiation of consent.
Cases that include positions in TV
Networks
1. ABS-CBN vs. Nazareno
- Respondents cannot be considered
"talents" because they are not actors or
actresses or radio specialists or mere
clerks or utility employees.
Additionally, respondents cannot be
considered as project or program
employees. The principal test is
whether or not the project employees
were assigned to carry out a specific
project or undertaking, the duration
and scope of which were specified at
the time the employees were engaged
for that project. In this case, it is
undisputed that respondents had
continuously performed the same
activities for an average of five years.
Their assigned tasks are necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade
of the petitioner.
- Yes, respondents are regular
employees. Citing Article 280 of the
Labor Code, the Supreme Court stated
that any employee who has rendered at
least one year of service, whether
continuous or intermittent, is deemed
regular with respect to the activity
performed and while such activity
actually exists.
- What determines whether a certain
employment is regular or otherwise is
the character of the activities
performed in relation to the particular
trade or business taking into account
all the circumstances, and in some
cases the length of time of its
performance and its continued
existence. It is obvious that one year
Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.
-
after they were employed by petitioner,
respondents became regular
employees by operation of law.
2. Dumpit-Murillo vs. CA
- An employer-employee relationship
was created when the private
respondents started to merely renew
the contracts repeatedly 15 times for 4
consecutive years.
- Petitioner was a regular employee
under contemplation of law. The
practice of having fixed-term contracts
in the industry does not automatically
make all talent contracts valid and
compliant with labor law. The assertion
that a talent contract exists does not
necessarily prevent a regular
employment status.
- The primary standard of determining
regular employment is the reasonable
connection between the particular
activity performed by the employee
vis-a-vis the usual trade or business of
the employer. This connection can be
determined by considering the nature
of the work performed and its relation
to the scheme of the particular
business or trade in its entirety. If the
employee has been performing the job
for at least a year, even if the
performance is not continuous and
merely intermittent, the law deems
repeated and continuing need for its
performance as sufficient evidence of
the necessity if not indispensability of
that activity to the business.
3. Begino vs. ABS-CBN
- Of the criteria to determine whether
there is an employer-employee
relationship, the so-called "control
test" is generally regarded as the most
crucial and determinative indicator of
the said relationship.
- Under this test, an employer-employee
relationship is said to exist where the
Page 2 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022
- -
person for whom the services are
performed reserves the right to control
not only the end result but also the
manner and means utilized to achieve
the same.
- Notwithstanding the nomenclature of
their Talent Contracts and/or Project
Assignment Forms and the terms and
condition embodied therein, petitioners
are regular employees of ABS-CBN.
- As cameramen, editors and reporters,
it appears that Petitioners were subject
to the control and supervision of
Respondents which provided them with
the equipment essential for the
discharge of their functions. The
exclusivity clause and prohibitions in
their Talent Contract were likewise
indicative of Respondents' control over
them, however obliquely worded.
- Also, the presumption is that when the
work done is an integral part of the
regular business of the employer and
when the worker does not furnish an
independent business or professional
service, such work is a regular
employment of such employee and not
an independent contractor.
4. Del Rosario vs. ABS-CBN (En Banc)
- The workers are employees of ABS-
CBN. In ascertaining the existence of
an employer-employee relationship,
the Court has invariably adhered to the
four-fold test, which pertains to: (i) the
selection and engagement of the
employee; (ii) the payment of wages;
(iii) the power of dismissal; and (iv) the
power of control over the employee's
conduct, or the so-called "control test.”
In the case of Begino, the Court has
ruled that cameramen/editors and
reporters are employees of ABS-CBN
following the four-fold test. The Begino
ruling is applicable here.
- The workers are regular employees.
The Labor Code classifies four (4) kinds
of employees, as follows: (i) regular
employees, or those who have been
Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.
engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the
employer; (ii) project employees, or
those whose employment has been
fixed for a specific project or
undertaking, the completion or
termination of which has been
determined at the time of the
employees' engagement; (iii) seasonal
employees, or those who perform
services which are seasonal in nature,
and whose employment lasts during
the duration of the season; and (iv)
casual employees, or those who are not
regular, project, or seasonal
employees. Jurisprudence added a fifth
kind — fixed-term employees, or those
hired only for a definite period of time.
- The principal test is whether or not the
project employees were assigned to
carry out a specific project or
undertaking, the duration and scope of
which were specified at the time the
employees were engaged for that
project.
- The workers are not program/project
employees of ABS-CBN. The business
of creating and producing television
shows is heavily dependent on viewer
preference and advancements in
modern technology. Given the
numerous television programs aired in
a network, it is not surprising to find
one that would last for many years, and
one that is terminated in a short span
of months. Indeed, it is economical for
the broadcasting networks to maintain
shows which earn, and to end those
which do not. More so, it is nearly
impossible to predict beforehand the
success and 'the lifespan of each
program.
- The IJM System of ABS-CBN is a work
pool of regular employees. The Court
finds that a work pool indeed existed,
but its members, consistent with the
rulings in Begino and Nazareno, were
-
Page 3 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022
- -
regular employees, and not
independent contractors.
- The workers in the regularization cases
are entitled to all the benefits under the
CBA. In Fulache v. ABS-CBN
Broadcasting Corp. and Nazareno, the
Court categorically declared that the
workers, who were production
assistants, cameramen, assistant
editor/teleprompter operators, video
editors, and VTR operators, being
regular employees of ABS-CBN, are
part of the bargaining unit of ABS-
CBN's rank-and-file employees. As
such, they are entitled to the CBA
benefits as a matter of law and
contract.
- The workers in the illegal dismissal
cases are entitled to reinstatement and
backwages and other benefits. The
necessary consequence of a produces, records and airs television
declaration that the workers are
regular employees is the correlative
rule that the employer shall not dismiss
them except for a just or authorized
cause provided in the Labor Code. This
is the essence of the tenurial security
guaranteed by the law: "An employee
who is unjustly dismissed from work
shall be entitled to reinstatement
without loss of seniority rights and
other privileges, and to his full back
wages, inclusive of allowances, and to
his other benefits or their monetary
Equivalent computed from the time his
compensation was withheld from him
6. ABS-CBN vs. Tajanlangit
up to the time of his actual
reinstatement."
5. Paragele vs. GMA Network
- From the plain language of the second
paragraph of Article 295 of the Labor
Code, it is clear that the requirement of
rendering “at least one year of service,”
before an employee is deemed to have
attained regular status, only applies to
casual employees. An employee is
regarded as a casual employee if he or
she was engaged to perform functions
Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.
which are not necessary and desirable
to the usual business and trade of the
employer. Thus, when one is engaged
to perform functions which are
necessary and desirable to the usual
business and trade of the employer,
engagement for a year-long duration is
not a controlling consideration.
- In this case, “GMA repeatedly engaged
petitioners as camera operators for its
television programs. As camera
operators, petitioners performed
activities which are: (1) within the
regular and usual business of GMA; and
(2) not identifiably distinct or separate
from the other undertakings of GMA. It
would be absurd to consider the nature
of their work of operating cameras as
distinct or separate from the business
of GMA, a broadcasting company that
programs. From this alone, the
petitioners cannot be considered
project employees for there is no
distinctive “project” to even speak of.
- GMA is primarily engaged in the
business of broadcasting, which
encompasses the production of
television programs. Following the
nature of its business, GMA is naturally
and logically expected to engage the
service of camera operators such as
petitioners, in case it ceases business
by failing to shoot and record any
television program.
- Citing the fact that the cameramen
worked in a short span of time on
multiple events of varying genres
(sports events, telenovelas, news
programs, talk shows, and game
shows), the SC found that their
engagements were “devoted to
routinary and mundane work, rather
than specific work that required
unique, creative and artistic talents,
skills, training and expertise.”
Page 4 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022 Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.

- In the cameramen’s case, they were Bernarte vs. PBA et.al (September 14,
not chosen for any particular or unique 2011)
skill or celebrity status, unlike on-
- The determining factor is a simple act
camera personalities like Sonza. The
– the blowing of the whistle of the
cameramen were merely hired through
referee.
the Human Resources Department like
- The very nature of petitioner’s job of
any ordinary employee.
officiating a professional basketball
- The cameramen received wages
game undoubtedly calls for freedom of
directly from ABS-CBN, which withheld
control by respondents. Once in the
the taxes and other deductions
playing court, the referees exercise
required by law. They did not have the
their own independent judgment,
power to bargain huge talent fees,
based on the rules of the game, as to
belying ABS-CBN’s claim of an
when and how a call or decision is to be
independent contractual relationship.
made. The referees decided whether an
- They were also found to be highly
infraction was committed, and the PBA
dependent on ABS-CBN for continued
cannot overrule them once the decision
work, especially as the network could
is made on the playing court. The
and actually did prevent them from
referees are the only, absolute, and
entering the company premises.
final authority on the playing court.
- The cameramen were subject to the
Respondents or any of the PBA officers
power of discipline through written
cannot and do not determine which
memoranda, and the power of control
calls to make or not to make and
through production supervisors,
cannot control the referee when he
executive producers, and program
blows the whistle because such
directors, as well as the supply of
authority exclusively belongs to the
materials and equipment within the
referees.
studio premises.
- Applicable foreign case law also
- In denying its employer-employee
declares that a referee is an
relationship with its workers, ABS-CBN
independent contractor, whose special
adopted since 2002 the Internal Job
skills and independent judgment are
Market (IJM) System, a database of so-
required specifically for such position
called “talents” who wanted to offer
and cannot possibly be controlled by
their services for a fee computed by the
the hiring party.
hour and determined by their shows to
which they were assigned. Semblante et.al. vs. CA (August 15,
- But, the SC stressed that members of 2011)
a work pool could be regular employees
if they were continuously rehired for - Petitioners are not employees of
the same or similar tasks, and if the respondents, since their relationship
tasks they perform are vital, necessary fails to pass the four-fold test of
and indispensable to the usual business employment. The Court have
or trade of the employer. In this case, repeatedly mentioned in countless
“cameramen are indispensable in the decisions: (1) the selection and
production and reproduction of shows engagement of the employee; (2) the
as part of petitioner’s business.” payment of wages; (3) the power of
dismissal; and (4) the power to control
the employee's conduct, which is the
most important element.
-
Page 5 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022
- -
- As found by both the NLRC and the CA,
respondents had no part in petitioners'
selection and management;
petitioners' compensation was paid out
of the arriba (which is a percentage
deducted from the total bets), not by
petitioners; and petitioners performed
their functions as masiador and
sentenciador free from the direction
and control of respondents. In the
conduct of their work, petitioners relied
mainly on their "expertise that is
characteristic of the cockfight
gambling," and were never given by
respondents any tool needed for the
performance of their work.
- Respondents, not being petitioners'
employers, could never have
dismissed, legally or illegally,
petitioners, since respondents were
without power or prerogative to do so
in the first place. The rule on the
posting of an appeal bond cannot
defeat the substantive rights of
respondents to be free from an
unwarranted burden of answering for
an illegal dismissal for which they were
never responsible.
Question: Are resident physicians in a
hospital considered an employee?
Answer:
GR: They are employees of the hospital.
XPN: They are not employees if they are
covered by a training agreement, provided
that such agreement was approved by the
DOH and accredited with the PRC. (D.O. No.
182, s. 2017 - Guidelines Governing the
Employment and Working Conditions of
Health Personnel in the Private Healthcare
Industry)
Calamba Medical Center Inc. vs. NLRC
(November 25, 2008)
- Under the ―control test, an
employment relationship exists
between a physician and a hospital if
Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.
the hospital controls both the means
and the details of the process by which
the physician is to accomplish his task.
- Where a person who works for another
does so more or less at his own
pleasure and is not subject to definite
hours or conditions of work, and is
compensated according to the result of
his efforts and not the amount thereof,
the element of control is absent.
- The spouses-doctors maintained
specific work-schedules, as determined
by petitioner through its medical
director, which consisted of 24-hour
shifts totaling forty-eight hours each
week and which were strictly observed
under pain of administrative sanctions.
- That CMC exercised control over
spouses-doctors gains light from the
undisputed fact that in the emergency
room, the operating room, or any
department or ward for that matter,
spouses-doctors’ work is monitored
through its nursing supervisors, charge
nurses and orderlies. Without the
approval or consent of CMC or its
medical director, no operations can be
undertaken in those areas. For control
test to apply, it is not essential for the
employer to actually supervise the
performance of duties of the employee,
it being enough that it has the right to
wield the power.
- With respect to spouses-doctors
sharing in some hospital fees, this
scheme does not sever the
employment tie between them and
CMC as this merely mirrors additional
form or another form of compensation
or incentive similar to what
commission-based employees receive
as contemplated in Article 97 (f) of the
Labor Code.
- The spouses-doctors were in fact made
subject to petitioner-hospital’s Code of
Ethics, the provisions of which cover
administrative and disciplinary
measures on negligence of duties,
personnel conduct and behavior, and
Page 6 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022
-
offenses against persons, property and
the hospital’s interest.
- More importantly, the CMC itself
provided incontrovertible proof of the
employment status of respondents,
namely, the identification cards it
issued them, the payslips and BIR W-2
(now 2316) Forms which reflect their
status as employees, and the
classification as ―salary of their
remuneration. Moreover, it enrolled
respondents in the SSS and Medicare
(Philhealth) program. It bears noting at
this juncture that mandatory coverage
under the SSS Law is premised on the
existence of an employer-employee
relationship, except in cases of
compulsory coverage of the self-
employed. It would be preposterous for
an employer to report certain persons
as employees and pay their SSS
premiums as well as their wages if they
are not its employees.
- Finally, under Section 15, Rule X of
Book III of the Implementing Rules of
the Labor Code, an employer-employee
relationship exists between the
resident physicians and the training
hospitals, unless there is a training
agreement between them, and the
training program is duly accredited or
approved by the appropriate
government agency. In the spouses-
doctors’ case, they were not
undergoing any specialization training.
They were considered non-training
general practitioners, assigned at the
emergency rooms and ward sections.
Dr. Loreche-Amit vs. Cagayan De Oro
Medical Center et.al. (June 8, 2019)
- Dr. Loreche-Amit was appointed as
Pathologist by the CDMC’s Board of
Directors.
- To be considered as a corporate officer,
the designation must be either
provided by the Corporation Code or
the by-laws of the corporation, to wit:
Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.
Corporate officers are given such
character either by the Corporation
Code or by the corporation’s by-laws.
Under Section 25 of the Corporation
Code (now Sec. 24 under RCC), the
corporate officers are the president,
secretary, treasurer and such other
officers as may be provided in the by-
laws. Other officers are sometimes
created by the charter or by-laws of a
corporation, or the board of directors
may be empowered under the by-laws
of a corporation to create additional
offices as may be necessary.
- In this case, nowhere in the records
could the by-laws of CDMC be found.
An appointment through the issuance
of a resolution by the Board of
Directors does not make the appointee
a corporate officer. It is necessary that
the position is provided in the
Corporation Code or in the by-laws. In
the absence of the by-laws of CDMC,
there is no reason to conclude that
petitioner, as Pathologist, is considered
as a corporate officer.
- Relevant is the economic reality test
which this Court has adopted in
determining the existence of employer-
employee relationship. Under this test,
the economic realities prevailing within
the activity or between the parties are
examined, taking into consideration
the totality of circumstances
surrounding the true nature of the
relationship between the parties, to
wit:
x x x. In our jurisdiction, the
benchmark of economic reality in
analyzing possible employment
relationships for purposes of applying
the Labor Code ought to be the
economic dependence of the worker on
his employer.
- The rule is that where a person who
works for another performs his job
more or less at his own pleasure, in the
manner he sees fit, not subject to
definite hours or conditions of work,
Page 7 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022
- -
and is compensated according to the
result of his efforts and not the amount
thereof, no employer-employee
relationship exists.
- The fact that petitioner continued to
work for other hospitals strengthens
the proposition that petitioner was not
wholly dependent on CDMC.
David vs. Macasio (July 2, 2014)
- Employer-employee relationship is not
raised before the court.
- The Court motu proprio ruled on the
issue of er-ee relationship.
- “Pakyaw” or task basis does not
characterize the relationship that may
exist between the parties.
- “Pakyaw” is a mode of compensation –
does not determine the existence of er-
ee relationship.
- Art. 82 – excludes pakyaw workers or
those paid by results from enjoying
benefits from Title 1, however the
Court stated that Art. 82 is the general
provision, if specific benefits such as
holiday pay and SIL, it was concluded
that pakyaw workers are not entitled to
holiday pay or SIL if they are pakyaw
workers and at the same time, field
personnel.
- Art. 82 of the Labor Code – inclusionary
or exclusionary rule.
- Inclusionary – such provision
enumerates employees covered Title 1
of Book 3 and the excluded employees.
- Art. 94 – Payment of Holiday Pay
- Art. 95 – Service Incentive Leave Pay
- Under these provisions, the general
rule is that holiday and SIL pay
provisions cover all employees. To be
excluded from their coverage, an
employee must be one of those that
these provisions expressly exempt,
strictly in accordance with the
exemption.
- Under the IRR, exemption from the
coverage of holiday and SIL pay refer
to “field personnel and other
employees whose time and
Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.
performance is unsupervised by the
employer including those who are
engaged on task or contract basis.”
Note that unlike Article 82 of the Labor
Code, the IRR on holiday and SIL pay
do not exclude employees “engaged on
task basis” as a separate and distinct
category from employees classified as
“field personnel.” Rather, these
employees are altogether merged into
one classification of exempted
employees.
- Because of this difference, it may be
argued that the Labor Code may be
interpreted to mean that those who are
engaged on task basis, per se, are
excluded from the SIL and holiday
payment since this is what the Labor
Code provisions, in contrast with the
IRR, strongly suggest. The arguable
interpretation of this rule may be
conceded to be within the discretion
granted to the LA and NLRC as the
quasi-judicial bodies with expertise on
labor matters.
- In short, the payment of an employee
on task or pakyaw basis alone is
insufficient to exclude one from the
coverage of SIL and holiday pay. They
are exempted from the coverage of
Title I (including the holiday and SIL
pay) only if they qualify as “field
personnel.” The IRR therefore validly
qualifies and limits the general
exclusion of “workers paid by results”
found in Article 82 from the coverage
of holiday and SIL pay. This is the only
reasonable interpretation since the
determination of excluded workers who
are paid by results from the coverage
of
- Title I is “determined by the Secretary
of Labor in appropriate regulations.”
- In short, in determining whether
workers engaged on “pakyaw” or task
basis” is entitled to holiday and SIL
pay, the presence (or absence) of
employer supervision as regards the
worker’s time and performance
Page 8 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022
is the key: if the worker is simply
engaged on pakyaw or task basis, then
the general rule is that he is entitled to
a holiday pay and SIL pay unless
exempted from the exceptions
specifically provided under Article 94
(holiday pay) and Article 95 (SIL pay)
of the Labor Code. However, if the
worker engaged on pakyaw or task
basis also falls within the meaning of
“field personnel” under the law, then he
is not entitled to these monetary
benefits.
- The governing law on 13th month pay
is PD No. 851. As with holiday and SIL
pay, 13th month pay benefits generally
cover all employees; an employee
must be one of those expressly
enumerated to be exempted. Section
3 of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing P.D. No. 851
enumerates the exemptions from the
coverage of 13th month pay benefits.
Under Section 3(e), “employers of
those who are paid on xxx task basis,
and those who are paid a fixed amount
for performing a specific work,
irrespective of the time consumed in
the performance thereof”
exempted.
- Note that unlike the IRR of the Labor
Code on holiday and SIL pay, Section
3(e) of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing PD No. 851 exempts
employees “paid on task basis” without
any reference to “field personnel.” This
could only mean that insofar as
payment of the 13th month pay is
concerned, the law did not intend to
qualify the exemption from its
coverage with the requirement that the
task worker be a “field personnel” at
the same time.
NOTE: Pakyaw worker not a field personnel
and supervised field personnel are entitled to
benefits under Title 1, Book 3 of the Labor
Code.
Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.
NOTE: All rank-and-file employees are
entitled to 13th month pay. Piece-rate workers
are entitled to 13th month pay.
Art. 82 of the Labor Code:
"Field personnel" shall refer to non-
agricultural employees who regularly
perform their duties away from the
principal place of business or branch office
of the employer and whose actual hours of
work in the field cannot be determined
with reasonable certainty.
Cebu Institute of Technology v. Ople
- The phrase “those who are engaged on
task or contract basis” should however,
be related with "field personnel"
applying the rule on ejusdem generis
that general and unlimited terms are
restrained and limited by the particular
terms that they follow xxx Clearly,
petitioner's teaching personnel cannot
be deemed field personnel which refers
"to non-agricultural employees who
regularly perform their duties away
from the principal place of business or
are
branch office of the employer and
whose actual hours of work in the field
cannot be determined with reasonable
certainty. [Par. 3, Article 82, Labor
Code of the Philippines]. Petitioner's
claim that private respondents are not
entitled to the service incentive leave
benefit cannot therefore be sustained.
Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc., v.
Bautista
- A careful perusal of said provisions of
law will result in the conclusion that the
grant of service incentive leave has
been delimited by the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of the Labor
Code to apply only to those employees
not explicitly excluded by Section 1 of
Rule V. According to the Implementing
Rules, Service Incentive Leave shall not
Page 9 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022
-
apply to employees classified as “field
Fernandez vs. Kalookan Slaughterhouse
personnel.” The phrase “other
(June 19, 2019)
employees whose performance is
unsupervised by the employer” must
not be understood as a separate
classification of employees to which
service incentive leave shall not be
granted. Rather, it serves as an
amplification of the interpretation of
the definition of field personnel under
the Labor Code as those “whose actual
hours of work in the field cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty.”
- The same is true with respect to the
phrase “those who are engaged on task
or contract basis, purely commission
basis.” Said phrase should be related
with “field personnel,” applying the rule
on ejusdem generis that general and
unlimited terms are restrained and
limited by the particular terms that
they follow.
Serrano v. Santos Transit
- In Serrano, the Court, applying the rule
on ejusdem generis declared that
“employees engaged on task or
contract basis xxx are not
automatically exempted from the grant
of service incentive leave, unless, they
fall under the classification of field
personnel.” The Court explained that
the phrase “including those who are
engaged on task or contract basis,
purely commission basis” found in
Section 1(d), Rule V of Book III of the
IRR should not be understood as a
separate classification of employees to
which SIL shall not be granted. Rather,
as with its preceding phrase - “other
employees whose performance is
unsupervised by the employer” - the
phrase “including those who are
engaged on task or contract basis”
serves to amplify the interpretation of
the Labor Code definition of “field
personnel” as those “whose actual
hours of work in the field cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty.”
Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.
- Defense invoked by respondent was
independent contractor of one of the
supervisors.
- Here, the totality of petitioner's
evidence and the admissions of
Kalookan Slaughterhouse convinces
the Court that petitioner was indeed an
employee of Kalookan Slaughterhouse.
Petitioner was able to present an LD.,
gate passes, log sheets, and a trip
ticket. Kalookan Slaughterhouse even
admitted through De Guzman that
uniforms were given to all personnel,
including petitioner.
- From the foregoing, it is undisputed
that petitioner rendered butchering
services at Kalookan
Slaughterhouse.1âшphi1 The LA found
that petitioner was engaged by
Kalookan Slaughterhouse itself since
petitioner submitted log sheets and
gate passes. The NLRC and the CA,
however, ruled that petitioner was only
engaged by Tablit, Kalookan
Slaughterhouse's Operation
Supervisor, and he was Tablit's own
employee. This was supported by
Tablit's Sinumpaang Salaysay.
- Even worse for Kalookan
Slaughterhouse, while Tablit claimed to
be petitioner's employer, he also
admitted that he did not exercise any
control over the means and methods of
petitioner in rendering butchering
services. If he was indeed petitioner's
employer, he should have control over
petitioner's means and methods for
doing his job.
Page 10 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022 Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.

Worker’s Rights Art. 294 of the Labor Code:

1. Security of Tenure “In cases of regular employment, the

2. Right to Self-Organization
employer shall not terminate the services
3. Living Wage
of an employee except for a just cause or
4. Share in the Fruits of Production
5. Just and Humane Working Conditions when authorized by this Title. An
6. Full Employment employee who is unjustly dismissed from
7. Right to Participate in Policy/Decision work shall be entitled to reinstatement
Making without loss of seniority rights and other
Security of Tenure privileges and to his full backwages,
inclusive of allowances, and to his other
Basic Premise: benefits or their monetary equivalent
1. It is available to all employees, computed from the time his compensation
regardless of their status. was withheld from him up to the time of
2. It does not mean perpetual his actual reinstatement.”
employment. It can be taken away
from the employee if there are just, Sec. 2, Rule 1, Book VI:
authorized, analogous causes or when
there is a violation of the company SECTION 2. Security of Tenure. – (a) In cases of
rules and regulations or CBA. regular employment, the employer shall not terminate
3. There must be observance of due the services of an employee except for just or
process. authorized causes as provided by law, and subject to
the requirements of due process.
Section 3, Art. 13 of the 1987
Constitution: The foregoing shall also apply in cases of probationary
employment; Provided, however, That in such cases,
"It shall guarantee the rights of all workers termination of employment due to failure of the
to self-organization, collective bargaining employee to qualify in accordance with the standards
and negotiations, and peaceful concerted of the employer made known to the former at the
activities, including the right to strike in time of engagement may also be a ground for
accordance with law. They shall be entitled termination of employment.
to security of tenure, humane conditions In cases of employment covered by contracting or
of work, and a living wage. They shall also subcontracting arrangement, no employee shall be
participate in policy and decision-making dismissed prior to the expiration of the contract
processes affecting their rights and between the principal and contractor or subcontractor
benefits as may be provided by law.” as defined in Rule VIII-A, Book III of these Rules,
unless the dismissal is for just or authorized cause, or
is brought about by the completion of the phase of
the contract for which the employee was engaged,
but in any case, subject to the requirements of due
process or prior notice.

In all cases of termination of employment, the

following standards of due process shall be
substantially observed:

Page 11 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022
For termination of employment based on just causes
as defined in Article [288] of the Labor Code:
(i) A written notice served on the employee specifying
the ground or grounds for termination, and giving said
employee reasonable opportunity within which to
explain his side.
(ii) A hearing or conference during which the
employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if
he so desires is given opportunity to respond to the
charge, present his evidence, or rebut the evidence
presented against him.
(iii) A written notice of termination served on the
employee, indicating that upon due consideration of
all the circumstances, grounds have been established
to justify his termination.
For termination of employment as defined in Article
[289] of the Labor Code, the requirement of due
process shall be deemed complied with upon service
of a written notice to the employee and the
appropriate Regional Office of the Department of
Labor and Employment at least thirty days before
effectivity of the termination, specifying the ground or
grounds for termination.
If the termination is brought about by the completion
of a contract or phase thereof, or by failure of an
employee to meet the standards of the employer in
the case of probationary employment, it shall be
sufficient that a written notice is served the employee
within a reasonable time from the effective date of
termination.
NOTE: Read D.O. No. 147, s. 2015 –
Amending the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Book VI of the Labor Code of
the Philippines, as amended. (requirement of
2 written notices, opportunity to be heard)
Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.
Right to Self-Organization
 Negotiations
 Collective Bargaining
 Right to Strike and Engage in Peaceful
Concerted Activities
Art. 253 of the Labor Code:
"All persons employed in commercial,
industrial and agricultural enterprises and
in religious, charitable, medical, or
educational institutions, whether
operating for profit or not, shall have the
right to self-organization and to form, join,
or assist labor organizations of their own
choosing for purposes of collective
bargaining.
Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant
workers, self-employed people, rural
workers and those without any definite
employers may form labor organizations
for their mutual aid and protection.”
Art. 254 of the Labor Code:
"Employees of government corporations
established under the Corporation Code
shall have the right to organize and to
bargain collectively with their respective
employers. All other employees in the civil
service shall have the right to form
associations for purposes not contrary to
law.”
Other Pertinent Provisions on Right to
Self-Organization:
 Art. 259, Art. 260
 Art. 261 to Art. 265
 Art. 278, Art. 279
Page 12 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022 Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.

Basic Premise: Full Employment

1. All employees, regardless of status or - It is a situation where an employee can

designation, are entitled to the right to find a job which suits his/her training,
self-organization. skills and will be compensated
2. Unionism is only a component of such accordingly.
right.
Right to Participate in Policy/Decision
Making

Living Wage - Also known as principle of co-

determination or participatory
- It cannot be equated to Minimum
democracy.
wage.
- Shall not be tied up with right to self-
- Minimum wage is based on the poverty
organization.
threshold.
- Even if there is a union, workers can
- Living wage means minimum income
still participate in policy/decision
necessary for a worker to meet his
making.
personal and family needs. Living wage
- Labor-management councils – it is a
is the benchmark wage level that
concrete manifestation on the exercise
allows the family basic needs, food,
of right in participation and it is not
shelter, education, leisure and other
necessary for workers to be unionized.
necessities.
- Not synonymous with co-management.
- The right to job must be accompanied
- Operative word is participation – not
by the right to earn living wage.
necessary on whatever you share is
- RA 6727 – Wage Rationalization Act
adopted by the management. What is
ECOP vs. NWPC important is the participation that will
affect terms and conditions of
- RA 6727 gave statutory standards for employment. It does not include
fixing the minimum wage. matters that will affect profitability,
- Regional wage fixing expansion and growth of the company.
- Basic needs of the family
- Right to job must remain intacked and
linked to living wage
Management Prerogatives
Shared in the Fruits of Production
- Spawned by jurisprudence, except
- Profit-sharing right to terminate through just,
- Right to expansion and right to authorized and analogous causes.
profitability and growth (management (Art. 297 to 299 of the Labor Code)
prerogative) - Answer to worker’s rights (Security of
Tenure = Right to Terminate)

Major Components of Management

Just and Humane Working Conditions
Prerogative:
- Book 3 (Conditions of Employment)
1. Right to regulate all faces of
and Book 4 (Health, Safety and Social
employment;
Welfare Benefits) of the Labor Code
2. Right to conduct their own affairs;
3. Promulgate rules and regulations
(hiring, selection, work assignments,

Page 13 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022
working methods, transfer, discipline,
dismissal, etc.)
Limitations of Management Prerogative
and Worker’s Rights:
1. Ethical considerations;
2. Morals, customs, traditions;
3. Legal limitations;
4. Employment contracts;
5. Collective Bargaining Agreements
Right to Discipline
- Condonation - management can opt to
condone (express or implied)
- Implied condonation – for example, an
employee has always been tardy, but
the employer did not call his attention
with that matter
- Condonation of one act does not mean
subsequent acts are condoned.
- Warning – administrative penalty
- Demotion
- Suspension (Two Kinds)
o As a penalty
o Preventive suspension (part of
administrative investigation)
Question: Will a preventive suspension be
legal if due process was not met?
Answer: Yes, there is no need to go into the
two notice rule (procedural due process
requirements in suspension as a penalty),
provided that such preventive suspension is
done when the presence in the workplace is
hazardous to the interest of co-employees.
- No suspension shall be indefinite in
nature since it is tantamount to
constructive dismissal.
- Termination/Dismissal – must comply
with substantive and procedural due
process.
Reasonable Proportionality Rule
- All offenses must be punished with
penalties commensurate with the
gravity or seriousness of the offense.
Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.
Sagales vs. Rustan
- Truly, while the employer has the
inherent right to discipline, including
that of dismissing its employees, this
prerogative is subject to the regulation
by the State in the exercise of its police
power.
- In this regard, it is a hornbook doctrine
that infractions committed by an
employee should merit only the
corresponding penalty demanded by
the circumstance. The penalty must be
commensurate with the act, conduct or
omission imputed to the employee and
must be imposed in connection with the
disciplinary authority of the employer.
- In the case at bar, the penalty handed
out by the petitioners was the ultimate
penalty of dismissal. There was no
warning or admonition for respondent’s
violation of team rules, only outright
termination of his services for an act
which could have been punished
appropriately with a severe reprimand
or suspension.
Philippine Span Asia Carriers vs. Pelayo
- It is an employer's right to investigate
acts of wrongdoing by employees.
Employees involved in such
investigations cannot ipso facto claim
that employers are out to get them.
Their involvement in investigations will
naturally entail some inconvenience,
stress, and difficulty. However, even if
they might be burdened - and, in some
cases, rather heavily so - it does not
necessarily mean that an employer has
embarked on their constructive
dismissal.
- Bringing in of NBI agents to investigate
is a valid exercise of management
prerogative.
- Not tantamount to custodial
investigation (only admin
investigation).
Page 14 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022
Stanford Microsystems vs. NLRC
- Exception to the Reasonable
Proportionality Rule
- Public respondent would minimize the
gravity of Trinio's acts, by pointing out
that the latter was only seen to be
kissing his lady friend while embracing
her tightly, and that there was no clear
showing that he had been drinking to
excess, and hence, the commensurate
penalty for such "first offense" is not
separation from employment but
suspension and forfeiture of
backwages. The public respondent
theorizes that while it was in truth
morality wrong for Trinio to have done
what he did, it was not sufficient cause
for the company to lose trust and
confidence in him. Implicit in the
argument is the acknowledgment that
if the facts were really as described by
the employer's proofs and as found by
the Labor Arbiter the penalty of
dismissal from the service would be
otherwise appropriate.
- The offenses cannot be excused upon a
plea of their being "first offenses," or
have not resulted in prejudice to the
company in any way. No employer may
rationally be expected to continue in
employment a person whose lack of
morals, respect and loyalty to his
employer, regard for his employer's
rules, and appreciation of the dignity
and responsibility of his office, has so
plainly and completely been bared.
Past Infraction Rule or the Totality of
Infraction Rule
1. Past Infraction + Subsequent Infraction
(similar infractions) = Aggravation in the
situation and graver penalty (e.g. habitual
absenteeism)
2. Past Infractions + Subsequent Infractions
(not similar infractions) = Badges of negative
work attitude
Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.
3. Past infraction with explanation of
employee + Employer has no sanction = The
conduct has been condoned (implied
condonation)
Note: If warning was given, the conduct is not
condoned
4. Past infractions have been administratively
dealt with + New Infractions = Employer shall
not bring out or resurrect the past infractions
(no double jeopardy)
5. Employee was advised to submit an
explanation + No response from the
management = Infraction in an accumulative
way
6. Past Infraction but employee was not asked
to explain = Employee is not condoned,
employer is waiting only to impose penalty
Right to Dismiss
- It is a self-preservation strategy on the
part of the employer
- It is not absolute since it is subject to
police power
- Police power is the reason why there is
just, authorized, and analogous causes
for the employee’s dismissal
- Observance of procedural due process
in line with the police power to dismiss
Right to Prescribe Work Quota
- It is the measure of productivity to
ensure profitability.
Question: Are employers allowed to
unilaterally set work quota?
Answer: No, the setting of quota is not
exclusive prerogative of management. There
must be a time and motion study conducted
by the Regional Tripartite Wages and
Productivity Boards (RTWPB) to determine a
reasonable quota.
Page 15 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022
East Cam Tech Corp. vs. Fernandez
- East Cam Tech failed to prove that it
acted in good faith when it did not
adduce any evidence that its TMS were
attainable based on the quantity it
wanted to produce for a given time,
quality of the product to be produced,
the machines they have and the skills
set of their employees.
- The Court only uphold management
prerogative as long as it is exercised in
good faith for the advancement of the
employer’s interest and not for the
purpose of defeating or circumventing
the employee’s rights under special
laws and valid agreements.
- Setting of quota = quota is reasonable,
working premises is conducive in the
attainment of quota, the quota should
Dela Cruz-Cagampan vs One Network
not be discriminatory.
Bank
NOTE: The result of the time and motion
study can be appealed by the employer
through filing an appeal to the National Wages
Productivity Commission (NWPC).
Setting quota to sales agent is not subject to
time and motion study, since it is not based
on result.
Exception to the rule of TMS: The AHT set by
the BPO company to be competitive and for
the company’s efficiency. (Telephilippines vs.
Jacolbe)
Yrasuegi vs. PAL
- The dismissal of petitioner can be
predicated on the bona fide
occupational qualification defense.
Employment in particular jobs may not
be limited to persons of a particular
sex, religion, or national origin unless
the employer can show that sex,
religion, or national origin is an actual
qualification for performing the job.
The qualification is called a bona fide
occupational qualification (BFOQ).
Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.
-
- In short, the test of reasonableness of
the company policy is used because it
is parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid
“provided it reflects an inherent quality
reasonably necessary for satisfactory
job performance.”
- The business of PAL is air
transportation. As such, it has
committed itself to safely transport its
passengers. In order to achieve this, it
must necessarily rely on its employees,
most particularly the cabin flight deck
crew who are on board the aircraft. The
weight standards of PAL should be
viewed as imposing strict norms of
discipline upon its employees.
- The primary objective of PAL in the
imposition of the weight standards for
cabin crew is flight safety.
- Apart from the couple’s supposed
transgression when they married,
respondents did not state any other
reason why they dismissed petitioner.
Further, respondents consistently
argued that the couple willingly
violated the company policy despite
their knowledge of it. While
respondents maintain the petitioner
and her husband both knowingly
transgressed the rule, nothing in the
records show why respondents
dismissed petitioner in particular. To
stress, they opted to terminate
petitioner’s employment sans any
reason why she must leave, in lieu of
her husband. An employer’s dismissal
of a female employee solely because of
her marriage is precisely the
discrimination that the Labor Code
expressly prohibits. This Court cannot
countenance respondent’s unlawful
act.
- One Network Bank, Inc.’s prohibition
on retaining employees who marry a
co-worker is unreasonable.
Page 16 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022
- -
- Hence, not considered as bona fide
occupational qualification. A bona fide
occupational qualification requires the
concurrence of two elements: “(1) that
the employment qualification is
reasonably related to the essential
operation of the job involved; and (2)
that there is a factual basis for
believing that all or substantially all
persons meeting the qualification
would be unable to properly perform
the duties of the job.”
Star Paper Corp. v. Simbol
- There are 2 types of employment
policies involving spouses: policies
banning only spouses from working in
the same company (no-spouse
employment policies), and those
banning all immediate family
members, including spouses, from
working in the same company (anti-
nepotism employment policies).
- In challenging the anti-nepotism
employment policies in the United
States, complainants utilize two
theories of employment discrimination:
the disparate treatment and the
disparate impact. Under the disparate
treatment analysis, the plaintiff must
prove that an employment policy is
discriminatory on its face. No-spouse
employment policies requiring an
employee of a particular sex to either
quit, transfer, or be fired are facially
discriminatory. On the other hand, to
establish disparate impact, the
complainants must prove that a facially
neutral policy has a disproportionate
effect on a particular class.
- To justify a bona fide occupational
qualification, the employer must prove
two factors: (1) that the employment
qualification is reasonably related to
the essential operation of the job
involved; and, (2) that there is a
factual basis for believing that all or
substantially all persons meeting the
-
Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.
qualification would be unable to
properly perform the duties of the job.
- The Court did not find a reasonable
business necessity in the case at bar.
Petitioners’ sole contention that “the
company did not just want to have 2 or
more of its employees related between
the third degree by affinity and/or
consanguinity” is lame. That the
second paragraph was meant to give
teeth to the first paragraph of the
questioned rule is evidently not the
valid reasonable business necessity
required by the law.
- In the case at bar, respondents were
hired after they were found fit for the
job, but were asked to resign when
they married a co-employee. The policy
is premised on the mere fear that
employees married to each other will
be less efficient. If the questioned rule
is upheld without valid justification, the
employer can create policies based on
an unproven presumption of a
perceived danger at the expense of an
employee’s right to security of tenure.
Duncan Association v. Glaxo Welcome
Philippines
- Glaxo’s policy prohibiting an employee
from having a relationship with an
employee of a competitor company is a
valid exercise of management
prerogative. Glaxo has a right to guard
its trade secrets, manufacturing
formulas, marketing strategies and
other confidential programs and
information from competitors,
especially so that it and Astra are rival
companies in the highly competitive
pharmaceutical industry.
- The prohibition against personal or
marital relationships with employees of
competitor companies upon Glaxo’s
employees is reasonable under the
circumstances because relationships of
that nature might compromise the
Page 17 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022 Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.

-
interests of the company. In laying
2. Employees have no vested rights to
down the assailed company policy,
their positions;
Glaxo only aims to protect its interests
3. Employees can be transferred validly
against the possibility that a competitor
pending investigation for
company will gain access to its secrets
administrative proceedings;
and procedures.
4. Employees can be transferred to avoid
- From the wordings of the contractual
familiarity to reduce incident of
provision and the policy in its employee
conspiracy (e.g., security guards, bank
handbook, it is clear that Glaxo does
officers)
not impose an absolute prohibition
against relationships between its
employees and those of competitor
companies. Its employees are free to Illegal Transfer:
cultivate relationships with and marry 1. Frequent transfer of short duration
persons of their own choosing. What (tantamount to constructive
the company merely seeks to avoid is dismissal);
a conflict of interest between the 2. Transfer is occasion by motive of
employee and the company that may employer to compel employee to
arise out of such relationships. resign;
- The policy being questioned is not a 3. Highly prejudicial, grossly
policy against marriage. An employee disadvantageous transfer;
of the company remains free to marry 4. Transfer as a result of promotion but
anyone of his or her choosing. The refused and charged with
policy is not aimed at restricting a insubordination;
personal prerogative that belongs only
to the individual. However, an
employee’s personal decision does not Right to Impose Post-Employment
detract the employer from exercising Prohibition
management prerogatives to ensure
maximum profit and business success. - Non-compete clause
- Non-disclosure clause
- No competition clause
Right to Transfer - Garden Leave clause

GR. – It is management prerogative and its NOTE: A violation of post-employment

defiance is tantamount to insubordination. prohibition does not fall within the jurisdiction
of the Labor Tribunal. Meanwhile, violation of
XPN: a during employment non-complete clause
1. If unfair labor practice is disguised falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor
2. On account of promotion Tribunal.
3. Highly prejudicial and highly
inconvenient
4. Amounts to constructive dismissal Burden of Proof

Right to Transfer Covers: 1. Money Claims

1. Employees doing well can be a) Normal course of business – the burden

transferred in order to open new of proof lies with the employer (e.g.,
branches or territories; claim for 13th month pay, SIL, etc.)

Page 18 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022
b) Not incurred in the normal course of
business – the burden of proof lies with
the employee (e.g., holiday pay,
overtime pay, rest day pay, night
differential)
Wilgen Loon et.al vs. Power Master Inc.
- The general rule is that the burden
rests on the employer to prove
payment rather on the plaintiff to prove
nonpayment of these money claims.
The rationale for this rule is that the
pertinent personnel files, payrolls,
records, remittances and other similar
documents — which will show that
differentials, service incentive leave
and other claims of workers have been
paid — are not in the possession of the
worker but are in the custody and
control of the employer.
- However, the Court ruled that
petitioners are not entitled to overtime
and premium pays. The CA was correct
in its finding that the petitioners failed
to provide sufficient factual basis for
the award of overtime, and premium
pays for holidays and rest days. The
burden of proving entitlement to
overtime pay and premium pay for
holidays and rest days rests on the
employee because these are not
incurred in the normal course of
business. In the present case, the
petitioners failed to adduce any
evidence that would show that they
actually rendered service in excess of
the regular eight working hours a day,
and that they in fact worked on
holidays and rest days.
- In the present case, the respondents
filed a surety bond issued by Security
Pacific Assurance Corporation (Security
Pacific) on June 28, 2002. At that time,
Security Pacific was still an accredited
bonding company. However, the NLRC
revoked its accreditation on February
16, 2003. Nonetheless, this
subsequent revocation should not
Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.
-
prejudice the respondents who relied
on its then subsisting accreditation in
good faith. In Del Rosario v. Philippine
Journalists, Inc., we ruled that a
bonding company’s revocation of
authority is prospective in application.
- However, the respondents should post
a new bond issued by an accredited
bonding company in compliance with
paragraph 4, Section 6, Rule 6 of the
NLRC Rules of Procedure. This
provision states that "[a] cash or surety
bond shall be valid and effective from
the date of deposit or posting, until the
case is finally decided, resolved or
terminated or the award satisfied."
NOTE: Claims arising from ordinary course of
business, lies with the employer. The
employee must state with particularity his
claims (when it was not paid, the period
covered, the computation).
NOTE: The parties can submit evidence on
appeal, provided that there is reasonable
explanation for the belated submission of
evidence and such will prove the defense.
Isidro Quebral vs. Angbus Construction
Inc.
- Section 11, Rule X, Book III of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code (Rules) requires the
employer to keep all employment
records in the main or branch office
where the employees are assigned. It
also prohibits the keeping of
employees' records elsewhere. In the
present case, Angbus has consistently
declared in its pleadings, in its General
Information Sheet, and the DOLE
Reports that its main office is located at
16 Pratt Street, Filinvest 2, Batasan
Hills, Quezon City. As aptly ruled by the
NLRC, the extension office in the
project site in Brgy. Rosario, Pasig City
is not a branch office contemplated by
the Rules where employees' records
may be kept but merely a temporary
Page 19 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022
- -
office. Hence, the Brgy. Rosario
Certification, stating that petitioners'
employment records were destroyed
by flood, does not justify the non-
presentation of the employment
contracts. Besides, Angbus could still
have presented other evidence to
prove project employment but it did
not do so, relying on the convenient
excuse that the documents were
destroyed by flood.
2. Illegal Dismissal
a) When employer issued notice of
dismissal and employee assailed its
validity – the employer has the burden
of proof
b) When the fact of dismissal is denied –
the burden of proof is shifted to the
employee, the latter must prove the
fact of dismissal, if the fact of dismissal
was proved, the burden is shifted again
to the employer.
c) When the employer interposes the
defense of voluntary resignation –
employer has the burden of proof
d) When the employee interposes an
affirmative allegation that he was
forced to resign – burden of proof is
with the employee
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company
vs. Mamaril
- In dismissal cases, the burden of proof
is on the employer to show that the
employee was dismissed for a valid and
just cause. Here, Lepanto dismissed
Mamaril based on loss of trust and
confidence. To be a valid ground for
dismissal, the loss of trust and
confidence must be based on a willful
breach and founded on clearly
established facts. A breach is willful if it
is done intentionally, knowingly and
purposely, without justifiable excuse,
as distinguished from an act done
carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or
Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.
inadvertently. Loss of trust and
confidence must rest on substantial
grounds and not on the employer's
arbitrariness, whims, caprices or
suspicion; otherwise, the employee
would eternally remain at the mercy of
the employer. The employer, thus,
carries the burden of clearly and
convincingly establishing the facts
upon which loss of confidence in the
employee may be made to rest.
- This Court has repeatedly ruled that
any doubt arising from the evaluation
of evidence as between the employer
and the employee must be resolved in
favor of the latter. As an employer, it is
incumbent upon Lepanto to prove
payment. In G & M (Phils.), Inc. v.
Cruz, we held that the burden of
proving payment of monetary claims
rests on the employer since the
pertinent personnel files, payrolls,
records, remittances and other similar
documents - which will show that
overtime, differentials, service
incentive leave, and other claims of
workers have been paid - are not in the
possession of the worker but in the
custody and absolute control of the
employer. Thus, the burden of showing
with legal certainty that the obligation
has been discharged with payment falls
on the debtor, in accordance with the
rule that one who pleads payment has
the burden of proving it.
Panasonic Manufacturing vs. Peckson
- Peckson failed to show any substantial
evidence that he was treated unfairly
and, thus, he was forced to resign. As
supposed proof, Peckson only produced
his affidavits and the PNP Crime
Laboratory Report. He failed to show
any tangible acts of harassment,
insults, and any abuse that would
warrant a possible finding of
constructive dismissal. Even Peckson's
belated filing of a complaint highlight
-
Page 20 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022
- -
the lack of merit to his accusations,
especially as he was unable to give any
valid reason why he hesitated in filing
the same.
Machica vs. Roosevelt
- The rule is that one who alleges a fact
has the burden of proving it; thus,
petitioners were burdened to prove
their allegation that respondents
dismissed them from their
employment. It must be stressed that
the evidence to prove this fact must be
clear, positive and convincing. The rule
that the employer bears the burden of
proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no
application here because the
respondents deny having dismissed the
petitioners.
- We have reviewed the Memorandum of
respondent Dizon and find nothing
therein to indicate that any of the
employees of respondent corporation,
including the petitioners, would be
considered terminated from
employment if they refused to share in
the P23,997.58 loss. Petitioners and
other employees of respondent
corporation were merely required to
affix their signatures in the
Memorandum on the space opposite
their respective names, to confirm that
they had read and understood the
same. As elucidated by the NLRC in the
assailed Resolution:
- Read in its entirety, the Memorandum
reflects the GOOD FAITH of the
employer in resolving a discovered
anomaly. First, it is a declaration of
AMNESTY and FORGIVENESS; it did not
name names; it did not state that the
guilty ones will be pursued and
punished. Second, it asked for
SHARING among the employees for the
loss due to the discovered anomaly.
Third, it indicated a POSITIVE
BUSINESS DIRECTION as it exhorted
the employees from participating in
similar anomalies henceforward.
Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.
- Thus, given the true import of the
subject Memorandum, it is easy to
uphold the respondents position that
there is no illegal dismissal.
Baron vs. EPE Transport
- Exception to the rule that burden of
proof is shifted to employee. The Court
stated that whether dismissal is
admitted or denied, burden of proof
belongs to employer.
- In a catena of cases, the Court has held
that the onus of proving that an
employee was not dismissed or, if
dismissed, his dismissal was not illegal
fully rests on the employer; the failure
to discharge such onus would mean
that the dismissal was not justified and,
therefore, illegal.
- Case law states that the employer must
not rely on the weakness of the
employees' evidence but must stand on
the merits of their own defense.
- In this case, no proof was adduced by
respondents to prove their theory of
abandonment. Nothing on record
would show that petitioners' absence
from work was deliberate and
unjustified, with a clear intent to sever
the employment relationship. On the
contrary, such intention is belied by 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. Indeed, it would be
illogical for petitioners to have left their
job and thereafter seek redress by
filing a complaint against their
employer.
Page 21 of 22
Labor Law Review Lecture Notes – October 4, 2022 Prepared by: JOSE, Lovella Anne J.

3. Unfair Labor Practice

- Whoever alleges ULP must prove.

Quantum of Evidence Required:

Substantial Evidence

- defined as such amount of relevant

evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion.
- depends on the quality of evidence and
not on the quantity of evidence
presented.

Page 22 of 22