1 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY.

GUTTIEREZ
1.. Case Digest_De La Salle University v De La Salle University Employees Association GR No. 109002 April 12, 2000 Facts: On December 1986, De La Salle University and De La Salle University Employees Association entered into a collective bargaining agreement with a life span of 3 years, that is, from December 23, 1986-December 22, 1989. During the freedom period, or 60 days before the expiration of the said collective bargaining agreement, the Union initiated negotiations with the University for a new collective bargaining agreement, which however, turned out to be unsuccessful, hence the Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, National Capital Region. After several conciliation-mediation meetings, 5 out of the 11 issues raised in the Notice of Strike were resolved by the parties. A partial collective bargaining agreement was executed by the parties. On March 18, 1991, the parties entered into a Submission Agreement identifying the 6 unresolved issues. The parties appointed Buenaventura Magsalin as voluntary arbitrator. The Voluntary Arbitrator is constrained to respect the original intention of the parties, the same being not contrary to law, morals or public policy. Subsequently, both parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration which, however, were not entertained by the voluntary arbitrator. On March 5, 1993, the University filed with the Second Division of this Court a petition for certiorari with temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction assailing the decision of the voluntary arbitrator, as having been rendered “in excess of jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion.” Likewise, the Union also filed a petition for certiorari with the First Division. Upon motion by the Solicitor General, both petitions were consolidated and transferred to the Second Division. The Solicitor General came to the conclusion sufficient evidence to justify the Union‟s proposal to consider the University and the CSB as only one entity because the latter is but a mere integral part of the university. Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether or not the voluntary arbitrator committed grave abuse of discretion with respect to (1) computer operators assigned at the University‟s Computer Services Center and the University‟s discipline officers may be considered as confidential employees and should therefore be excluded from the bargaining unit; (2) a union shop clause should be included in the parties‟ collective bargaining agreement; (3) the denial of the Union‟s proposed method of laying-off employees is proper; (4) the ruling that on the basis of the University‟s

CHARM

proposed budget, the University can no longer be required to grant a second round of wage increases for the school years 1991-92; (5) the denial of the Union‟s proposals on the deloading of the union president is proper; (6) the finding that the mulit-sectoral committee is the legitimate group which determines the annual salary increases; and (7) the ruling that 70% share in the incremental tuition proceeds is the only source of salary increases and fringe benefits of the employees is proper. Held: The petitions in the consolidated cases are partially granted. On the first issue, the Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the express exclusion of the computer operators and discipline officers from the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees in the 1986 collective bargaining agreement does not bar any renegotiation for the future inclusion of the said employees in the bargaining unit. On the second issue, the right to join a labor organization should carry with it the corollary right not to join the same. On the third issue, the Supreme Court affirms the ruling of the voluntary arbitrator for the inclusion of a union shop provision in addition to the existing maintenance of membership clause in the collective bargaining agreement. The right to refrain from joining labor organizations recognized by Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act is however limited. The legal protection granted to such right to refrain from joining is withdrawn by operation of law, where a labor union and an employer have agreed on a closed shop, by virtue of which the employer may employ only members of the collective bargaining union, and the employees must continue to be members of the union for the duration of the contract in order to keep their jobs. On the fourth issue, the university can no longer be required to grant a second round of wage increases for the school years 1991-9222 and 1992-93 and charge the same to the incremental proceeds. The voluntary arbitrator committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction. On the fifth issue, the Supreme Court agrees with the voluntary arbitrator‟s rejection of the said demands, there being no justifiable reason for the granting of the same. On the sixth issue, the Court finds that the voluntary arbitrator did not gravely abuse his discretion on the matter. It appears that during the parties‟ negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, the Union demanded for a 25% and 40% salary increase for the 2nd and 3rd years. Assuming for the sake of argument that the said committee is the group responsible for determining wage increases and fringe benefits, as ruled by the voluntary arbitrator, the committee‟s determination must still be based on duly audited financial statements. On the secventh issue, the Court deems that any determination of this alleged error is unnecessary and irrelevant, in view of the rulings on the fourth and

2 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. GUTTIEREZ
preceding issues and there being no evidence presented before the voluntary arbitrator that the University held incremental tuition fee proceeds from which any wage increase or fringe benefit may be satisfied.

CHARM

2. A.C. No. 4763 March 20, 2003 DR. GIL Y. GAMILLA, NORMA S. CALAGUAS, IRMA E. POTENCIANO, EDITHA OCAMPO, LUZ DE GUZMAN, GLICERIA BALDRES, FERDINAND LIMOS, MA. LOURDES C. MEDINA, HIDELITA GABO, CORAZON CUI, REMEDIOS T. GARCIA, RENE ARNEJO, RENE LUIS TADLE, LAURA ABARA, PHILIP AGUINALDO, BENEDICTA ALAVA, LEONCIO CASAL, CARMELITA ESPINA, ZENAIDA FAMORCA, CELSO NIERA, CESAR REYES, NATIVIDAD SANTOS and MAFEL YSRAEL, complainants, vs. ATTY. EDUARDO J. MARIÑO JR., respondent. FACTS: Sometime in 1986 respondent Atty. Mariño Jr. as president of the UST Faculty Union and other union officers entered into a CBA with the management of UST for the provision of economic benefits amounting to P35 million. The 1986 CBA expired in 1988 but efforts to forge a new one unfortunately failed. In 1989 the faculty members of UST went on strike and as a countermeasure UST terminated the employment of 16 officers and directors of the UST Faculty Union including respondent. The administration of UST and the UST Faculty Union entered into a compromise agreement for the payment of P7M from which P5M was intended to settle the back wages and other claims of the dismissed employees who were earlier ordered reinstated by the Court, and the sum of P2M to satisfy the remaining obligations of UST under the 1986 CBA. In 1992 UST and the UST Faculty Union executed a memorandum of agreement to settle the salary increases and other benefits under the CBA effective 1988 for a total of P42M. It was agreed that the benefits accruing from 1 June 1991 to 31 October 1992 were to be taken from the sum of P42M which UST would release directly to the faculty members, while the remainder of the P42M package would be ceded by UST to the UST Faculty Union which would then disburse the balance to cover the benefits from 1 November 1992 to 31 May 1993. The memorandum of agreement also charged the amount of P2M agreed upon in the 1990 compromise agreement as well as the attorney's fees of Atty. Mariño worth P4.2M against the P42M outlay. Complainants as members of the UST Faculty Union questioned the alleged lack of transparency among the officers and directors of the union in the management and disbursement of the

monetary benefits for the faculty members. Complainants filed the instant complaint for disbarment against Atty. Mariño accusing him of (a) compromising their entitlements under the 1986 CBA without the knowledge, consent or ratification of the union members, and worse, for only P2,000,000.00 when they could have received more than P9,000,000.00; (b) failing to account for the P7,000,000.00 received by him and other officers and directors in the UST Faculty Union under the 1990 compromise agreement; (c) lack of transparency in the administration and distribution of the remaining balance of the P42,000,000.00 package under the 1992 memorandum of agreement; (d) refusal to remit and account for the P4,200,000.00 in favor of the faculty members although the amount was denominated as attorney's fees. ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent must be reprimanded from practice of law due to misconduct? HELD: There are ethical lapses on the part of respondent Atty. Eduardo J. Mariño Jr. in the manner by which he secured the P7M by virtue of the compromise agreement and the P4.2 attorney's fees under the memorandum of agreement. Although the record shows that the Bureau of Labor Relations found respondent as having adequately accounted for the disbursement of the funds which the UST Faculty Union received through the series of agreements with the management of UST, the Court believes that Atty. Mariño failed to avoid conflict of interests, first, when he negotiated for the compromise agreement wherein he played the diverse roles of union president, union attorney and interested party being one of the dismissed employees seeking his own restitution, and thereafter, when he obtained the attorney's fees of P4,200,000.00 without full prior disclosure of the circumstances justifying such claim to the members of the UST Faculty Union. As one of the sixteen (16) union officers and directors seeking compensation from the University of Santo Tomas for their illegal dismissal, respondent was involved in obvious conflict of interests when in addition he chose to act as concurrent lawyer and president of the UST Faculty Union in forging the compromise agreement. The test of conflict of interest among lawyers is "whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance thereof."15 In the same manner, it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an attorney to put himself in a position where self-interest tempts, or worse, actually impels him to do less than his best for his client. Thus it has been held that an attorney or any other person occupying fiduciary relations respecting property or persons is utterly disabled from acquiring for his own

3 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. GUTTIEREZ
benefit the property committed to his custody for management.16 This rule is entirely independent of whether fraud has intervened as in fact no fraud need be shown; no excuse will be heard from an attorney because the rule stands on the moral obligation to refrain from placing oneself in positions that ordinarily excite conflict between self-interest and integrity. Necessarily, a lawyer cannot continue representing a client in an action or any proceeding against a party even with the client's consent after the lawyer brings suit in his own behalf against the same defendant if it is uncertain whether the defendant will be able to satisfy both judgments. No doubt, a lawyer is not authorized to have financial stakes in the subject matter of the suit brought in behalf of his client. 3. STA. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORP., petitioner, vs. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and STA. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORP. WORKERS ASSOCIATION, respondent. FACTS: Confederated Labor Union of the Philippines (CLUP), in behalf of its chartered local, instituted a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file employees of Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corp. and its Affiliates. Med-Arbiter Bactin ordered the dismissal of the petition due to inappropriateness of the bargaining unit. CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union then reorganized itself and re-registered as CLUPSta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation Workers Association (CLUP-SLECCWA), limiting its membership to the rank-and-file employees of Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation. CLUP-SLECCWA then filed the instant petition. It alleged that SLECC employs about 115 employees and that more than 20% of employees belonging to the rank-and-file category are its members. CLUP-SLECCWA claimed that no certification election has been held among them within the last 12 months prior to the filing of the petition, and while there is another union registered covering the same employees, namely SMSLEC, it has not been recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent of SLECC‟s employees. Subsequently, SLECC filed a motion to dismiss the petition. It averred that it has voluntarily recognized SMSLEC as the exclusive bargaining agent of its regular rank-and-file employees, and that collective bargaining negotiations already commenced between them. Then a CBA between SMSLEC and SLECC was ratified by its rank-and-file employees and registered with DOLE. ISSUE: Whether or not certification election must be conducted in the SLECC?

CHARM

HELD: Article 212(g) of the Labor Code defines a labor organization as “any union or association of employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment.” Upon compliance with all the documentary requirements, the Regional Office or Bureau shall issue in favor of the applicant labor organization a certificate indicating that it is included in the roster of legitimate labor organizations. Any applicant labor organization shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration. The concepts of a union and of a legitimate labor organization are different from, but related to, the concept of a bargaining unit. A bargaining unit is a “group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicated to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.” However, employees in two corporations cannot be treated as a single bargaining unit even if the businesses of the two corporations are related. The inclusion in the union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation of registration, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) to (c) of Article 239 of the Labor Code.蜉 [10] Thus, CLUP-SLECC and its affiliates workers union, having been validly issued a certificate of registration, should be considered as having acquired juridical personality which may not be attacked collaterally. The proper procedure for SLECC is to file a petition for cancellation of certificate of registration of CLUP-SLECC and its affiliates‟ workers union and not to immediately commence voluntary recognition proceedings with SMSLEC. WHEREFORE, petition is denied. 3. FVC Labor Union-PTGWO vs SANAMA-FVCSIGLO G.R. No. 176249, November 27, 2009 Facts: On December 22, 1997, the petitioner FVCLU-PTGWO – the recognized bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of the FVC Philippines, Incorporated – signed a five-year collective bargaining agreement with the company. The five-year CBA period was from February 1, 1998 to January 30, 2003. At the end of the 3rd year of the five-year term and pursuant to the CBA, FVCLUPTGWO and the company entered into the renegotiation of the CBA and modified, among other provisions, the

4 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. GUTTIEREZ
CBA‟s duration. Article XXV, Section 2 of the renegotiated CBA provides that “this re-negotiation agreement shall take effect beginning February 1, 2001 and until May 31, 2003” thus extending the original fiveyear period of the CBA by four (4) months. On January 21, 2003, nine (9) days before the January 30, 2003 expiration of the originally-agreed five-year CBA term (and four [4] months and nine [9] days away from the expiration of the amended CBA period), the respondent Sama-Samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa FVCSolidarity of Independent and General Labor Organizations (SANAMA-SIGLO) filed before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a petition for certification election for the same rank-andfile unit covered by the FVCLU-PTGWO CBA. FVCLUPTGWO moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the certification election petition was filed outside the freedom period or outside of the sixty (60) days before the expiration of the CBA on May 31, 2003. Issue: Was the certification election filed within the freedom period? Ruling: Yes. While the parties may agree to extend the CBA‟s original five-year term together with all other CBA provisions, any such amendment or term in excess of five years will not carry with it a change in the union‟s exclusive collective bargaining status. By express provision of Article 253-A, the exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond five years and the representation status is a legal matter not for the workplace parties to agree upon. In other words, despite an agreement for a CBA with a life of more than five years, either as an original provision or by amendment, the bargaining union‟s exclusive bargaining status is effective only for five years and can be challenged within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the CBA‟s first five years. In the present case, the CBA was originally signed for a period of five years, i.e., from February 1, 1998 to January 30, 2003, with a provision for the renegotiation of the CBA‟s other provisions at the end of the 3rd year of the five-year CBA term. Thus, prior to January 30, 2001 the workplace parties sat down for renegotiation but instead of confining themselves to the economic and non-economic CBA provisions, also extended the life of the CBA for another four months, i.e., from the original expiry date on January 30, 2003 to May 30, 2003. This negotiated extension of the CBA term has no legal effect on the FVCLU-PTGWO‟s exclusive bargaining

CHARM

representation status which remained effective only for five years ending on the original expiry date of January 30, 2003. Thus, sixty days prior to this date, or starting December 2, 2002, SANAMA-SIGLO could properly file a petition for certification election. Its petition, filed on January 21, 2003 or nine (9) days before the expiration of the CBA and of FVCLU-PTGWO‟s exclusive bargaining status, was seasonably filed. 4. Mariwasa Siam Ceramics vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment, et. al. G.R. No. 183317 December 21, 2009 Facts: On May 2005, private respondent Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-Independent) was issued a Certificate of Registration as a legitimate labor organization by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Region IV-A.On June 2005, petitioner Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. filed a Petition for Cancellation of Union Registration against private respondent, claiming that the latter violated Article 234 of the Labor Code for not complying with the 20% requirement and that it committed massive fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Article 239 of the same code. The Regional Director of DOLE IV-A issued an Order granting the petition, revoking the registration of respondent, and delisting it from the roster of active labor unions. SMMSC-Independent appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations. BLR ruled in favor of the respondent, thus, they remain in the roster of legitimate labor organizations. The petitioner appealed and insisted that private respondent failed to comply with the 20% union membership requirement for its registration as a legitimate labor organization because of the disaffiliation from the total number of union members of 102 employees who executed affidavits recanting their union membership. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Issues: 1) Was there failure to comply with the 20% union membership requirement? 2) Did the withdrawal of 31 union members affect the petition for certification election insofar as the 30% requirement is concerned? Ruling: No.While it is true that the withdrawal of support may be considered as a resignation from the union, the fact remains that at the time of the union‟s application for

5 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. GUTTIEREZ
registration, the affiants were members of respondent and they comprised more than the required 20% membership for purposes of registration as a labor union. Article 234 of the Labor Code merely requires a 20% minimum membership during the application for union registration. It does not mandate that a union must maintain the 20% minimum membership requirement all throughout its existence. On the second issue, it appears undisputedly that the 31 union members had withdrawn their support to the petition before the filing of said petition. The distinction must be that withdrawals made before the filing of the petition are presumed voluntary unless there is convincing proof to the contrary, whereas withdrawals made after the filing of the petition are deemed involuntary. Therefore, following jurisprudence, the employees were not totally free from the employer‟s pressure and so the voluntariness of the employees‟ execution of the affidavits becomes suspect. The cancellation of a union‟s registration doubtless has an impairing dimension on the right of labor to selforganization. For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union registration under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union members. 5. HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (HEPI), owner of Hyatt Regency Manila, Petitioner - versus - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT-NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN), NACHURA, J.: The Constitution affords full protection to labor, but the policy is not to be blindly followed at the expense of capital. Always, the interests of both sides must be balanced in light of the evidence adduced and the peculiar circumstances surrounding each case. FACTS: Respondent Union is the certified collective bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Hyatt Regency Manila, a hotel owned by petitioner Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc. (HEPI). In 2001, HEPIs hotel business suffered a slump due to the local and international economic slowdown, aggravated by the events of September 11, 2001 in the United States. An audited financial report made by Sycip

CHARM

Gorres Velayo (SGV) & Co. on January 28, 2002 indicated that the hotel suffered a gross operating loss amounting to P16,137,217.00 in 2001,[5] a staggering decline compared to its P48,608,612.00 gross operating profit[6] in year 2000.[7] According to petitioner, the management initially decided to cost-cut by implementing energy-saving schemes: prioritizing acquisitions/purchases; reducing work weeks in some of the hotels departments; directing the employees to avail of their vacation leaves; and imposing a moratorium on hiring employees for the year 2001 whenever practicable.[8] Meanwhile, on August 31, 2001, the Union filed a notice of strike due to a bargaining deadlock before the National Conciliation Mediation Board (NCMB), docketed as NCMB-NCR-NS 08-253-01.[9] In the course of the proceedings, HEPI submitted its economic proposals for the rank-and-file employees covering the years 2001, 2002, and 2003. The proposal included manning and staffing standards for the 248 regular rank-and-file employees. The Union accepted the economic proposals. Hence, a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was signed on November 21, 2001, adopting the manning standards for the 248 rank-andfile employees.[10] Then, on December 21, 2001, HEPI issued a memorandum offering a Special Limited Voluntary Resignation/Retirement Program (SLVRRP) to its regular employees. Employees who were qualified to resign or retire were given separation packages based on the number of years of service.[11] The vacant positions, as well as the regular positions vacated, were later filled up with contractual personnel and agency employees.[12] Subsequently, on January 21, 2002, petitioner decided to implement a downsizing scheme after studying the operating costs of its different divisions to determine the areas where it could obtain significant savings. It found that the hotel could save on costs if certain jobs, such as engineering services, messengerial/courier services, janitorial and laundry services, and operation of the employees cafeteria, which by their nature were contractable pursuant to existing laws and jurisprudence, were abolished and contracted out to independent job contractors On April 12, 2002, the Union filed a notice of strike based on unfair labor practice (ULP) against HEPI.

[53] Otherwise. industrial depression. whichever is higher.[54] 6. backwages and strike duration pay). the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service. the validity of the strike. whichever is higher. the propriety of petitioners act of hiring contractual employees from employment agencies. redundancy. 2009 Facts: Due to the adverse effects of the Asian economics crisis on the construction industry beginning 1997 petitioner decided to temporarily stop its business.[49] Retrenchment and redundancy are valid management prerogatives.[52] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary It is the employer who bears the onus of proving compliance with these requirements. by serving a written notice on the worker and the [Department] of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service. retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title. compelling most of its employees to go on leave for 6 months. 171618-19 March 20. or seasonal fluctuations. The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices. shortage of materials.[46] Hence.Case Digest_Jackbilt Industries Inc v Jackbilt Employees Workers Union-NAFLU-KMU GR No. The CA also ordered the reinstatement of the 48 terminated employees on account of the hotel managements illegal redundancy and retrenchment scheme and the payment of their backwages from the time they were illegally dismissed until their actual reinstatement. respondent claimed that petition halted . the employer must prove that: (1) a written notice was served on both the employees and the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment. provided they are done in good faith and the employer faithfully complies with the substantive and procedural requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence. has been paid. 2004. Respondent immediately protested the temporary shutdown.e.[45] HEPI moved for reconsideration but the same was denied for lack of merit. whichever is higher. or introduction of new methods or more efficient machinery or automation. The issue boils down to whether the CAs decision.[50] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary For a valid retrenchment. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year.[51] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary In case of redundancy.[44] reversing the resolution of the NLRC and reinstating the October 30. the following requisites must be complied with: (1) the retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and such losses are proven. (2) written notice to the employees and to the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment. Because its collective bargaining agreement with petition was expiring during the period of the shutdown. Retrenchment is the reduction of work personnel usually due to poor financial returns. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses. and the entitlement of Union officers and terminated employees to reinstatement. In case of termination due to the installation of labor saving devices or redundancy. exists where the number of employees is in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. ISSUE: To resolve the correlative issues (i. 283. aimed to cut down costs for operation particularly on salaries and wages. and during lulls in production occasioned by lack of orders. conversion of the plant for a new production program. We answer in the negative. and (4) adoption of fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining which positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished. reversing the NLRC ruling. the dismissal is not justified..[48] Both are forms of downsizing and are often resorted to by the employer during periods of business recession. is in accordance with law and established facts. this petition. 2002 decision of the Labor Arbiter which declared the strike valid. and (3) payment of separation pay equivalent to one-month pay or at least one-half month pay for every year of service. the charges of ULP against petitioner. GUTTIEREZ On July 20.6 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. on the other hand. the CA promulgated the assailed Decision. (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions. (2) separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of service. whichever is higher. retrenchment and redundancy being in the nature of affirmative defenses. we answer first the most basic question: Was petitioners downsizing scheme valid? HELD: ART.[47] CHARM Redundancy.

is a non-stock. Petitioners. and efforts taken to resolve the dispute amicably. In a decision. On April 14. because petitioner did not file a petition to declare the strike illegal. compliance with the . illegal dismissal and attorney‟s fees. Both petitioner and respondent moved for reconsideration but they were both denied for lack of merit. The NLRC ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. the union made several demands for negotiation. petitioner sent individual memoranda to the officers and members of respondent who participated in the strike ordering them to explain why they should not be dismissed for committing illegal acts in the course of a strike. Prior to the expiration of the CBA and within the freedom period. 2001 on the ground of a CBA bargaining deadlock. Roberto F. Thus. as far as practicable. INC. the union sent the company its improved proposal. the union filed a notice of strike on April 6. Respondents Ronnie Sualog. 1998. The union then filed a notice of strike on the grounds of bargaining deadlock and failure to bargain. it took the company another 3 weeks to complete it by submitting on May 11. The petitioner assailed the decision of the NLRC via a petition for certiorari. on May 4. 2009 CLUB FILIPINO. vs. were former officers and members of the Club Filipino Employees Association. BENJAMIN BAUTISTA. with petitioner Atty. 2001. 7.7 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. However. CHARM FACTS: Petitioner Club Filipino. de Leon as its president. The company formally responded to the demands of the union when it submitted the first part of its economic counter-proposal. Inc. Since respondent was found by the NLRC to have prevented the free entry into and exit vehicles from petitioner‟s compound. Aggrieved. JOHNNY ARINTO AND ROBERTO DE GUZMAN. attaching the counter-proposal of the company to the notice of strike of the union was not practicable. organized and existing under Philippine laws. Meanwhile. 2001 when the company formally responded to the union by submitting the first part of its counter-proposal. In the instant case. it was found guilty of illegal dismissal. as far as practicable. the notice shall. It sought to enjoin respondb ent from obstructing free entry to and exit from its production facility. 2001.G. GUTTIEREZ production to avoid its duty to bargain collectively.R. Respondent went on strike. and ATTY. 168406 July 13. Johnny Arinto and Roberto de Guzman. RONIE SUALOG. On appeal. 2001 the second part of its counter-proposal. Petitioner filed a petition for injunction with a prayer for the issuance of a TRO in the NLRC. Respondents." In this case. but the CA dismissed the petition. The union and the company had a CBA which expired on May 31. the union cannot be faulted for its omission of not attaching the counterproposal of the company in the notice of strike it submitted to the NCMB as there was no such counterproposal. however. non profit corporation duly formed. ISSUE: whether or not the strike staged by respondents was legal? HELD: Rule XXII. No. state the acts complained of. but the company refused to improve on its offer. In response to the company‟s counterproposal. Article 264(e) of the Labor Code prohibits any person engaged in picketing from obstructing the free ingress to and egress from the employer‟s premises. this recourse. 1998 strike. DE LEON. We uphold the legality of the dismissal of respondent‟s officers and employees. 2001 after several requests to start negotiations but it was only on April 22. In cases of unfair labor practices. the NLRC issued a TRO directing the respondents to refrain from preventing access to petitioner‟s property. respondent‟s officers and employees clearly committed illegal acts in the course of the March 9. it modified the decision of the labor arbiter. the counter-proposals of the employer and the proof of a request for conference to settle differences. unfair labor practice. runaway shop and damages. the second part was submitted on May 11. among them the illness of the chairman of the management panel. Issue: Whether or not the filing of a petition with the labor arbiter to declare a strike illegal is a condition sine qua non for the valid termination of employees who commit an illegal act in the course of such strike Held: The petition is granted. The company then filed a petition to declare the strike illegal. To recall. ROBERTO F. and refusal to bargain on behalf of its officers and members against petitioner and its corporate officers. Worse. took place for various reasons proffered by the company. on the other hand. Indeed. No negotiations. respondent filed complaints for illegal lockout. the union conducted a strike vote under the supervision of the DOLE. This prompted the union to stage a strike on May 26. Section 4 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code states: In cases of bargaining deadlocks. Joel Calida. 2000. the notice shall. Article 264 of the Labor Code further provides that an employer may terminate employees found to have committed illegal acts in the course of a strike. the labor arbiter dismissed the complaints for illegal lockout and unfair labor practice for lack of merit. Meanwhile. JOEL CALIDA. The Implementing Rules use the words "as far as practicable. further state the unresolved issues in the bargaining negotiations and be accompanied by the written proposals of the union.

PINAG-ISANG GALING AT LAKAS NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HERITAGE MANILA (PIGLAS-HERITAGE). The Med-Arbiter granted the HHE union‟s petition for certification election.8 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. Petitioner company appealed it and filed a motion for reconsideration which was both CHARM denied respectively. when it was. effective until the petition for cancellation of that union‟s registration shall have been resolved with finality. The law does not exact compliance with the impossible. The Department of Labor and Employment-National Capital Region (DOLENCR) later issued a certificate of registration to this union. the employees involved formed the PIGLAS union to circumvent the Court of Appeals‟ injunction against the holding of the certification election sought by the former union. The law is clear: Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status. Here. 2003 organizational meeting that only 90 employees responded to the roll call at the beginning. The provision is worded in such a way as to make it very difficult for employers to circumvent the law by arbitrarily dismissing employees in the guise of exercising management prerogative. Subsequently. The decision of the Court of Appeals became final when the HHE union withdrew the petition for review that it filed with this Court. There is also nothing essentially mysterious or irregular about the fact that only 127 members ratified the union‟s . Two months later. certain rank and file employees of petitioner Heritage Hotel Manila (petitioner company) formed the "Heritage Hotel Employees Union" (the HHE union). prompting it to file a petitioin for certiorari with the CA. vs. it cannot be assumed that such number could not grow to 128 as reflected on the signature sheet for attendance. This is but one aspect of the State‟s constitutional and statutory mandate to protect the rights of employees to self-organization. it is hornbook doctrine that a mere finding of the illegality of the strike should not be automatically followed by the wholesale dismissal of the strikers from employment. Once such charge is proved. the discrepancies in the number of union members or employees stated in the various supporting documents that respondent PIGLAS union submitted to labor authorities can be explained. adopted a resolution for its dissolution. Nemo tenetur ad impossibile. the members of the first union. 2001 the Court of Appeals issued a writ of injunction against the holding of the HHE union‟s certification election. a local chapter of the National Union of Workers in Hotel and Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN) and the company also filed a petition for the cancellation of the HHE union‟s registration certificate. The HHE union then filed a petition for cancellation of its union registration. According to the company. While it appears in the minutes of the December 10. 2003 certain rank and file employees of petitioner company held a meeting and formed another union. 2004. FACTS: Sometime in 2000. the HHE union filed a petition for certification election that petitioner company opposed alleging that the HHE union misrepresented itself to be an independent union. On December 6. This union applied for registration with the DOLE-NCR and got its registration certificate on February 9. the MedArbiter granted the petition for certification election. 2004." This reflects the intent of the legislature to require "knowledge" as a condition sine qua non before a union officer can be dismissed from employment for participating in an illegal strike. Moreover. Respondent This case is about a company‟s objections to the registration of its rank and file union for non-compliance with the requirements of its registration. Despite the company‟s opposition.On October 12. in truth. GUTTIEREZ requirement was impossible because no counterproposal existed at the time the union filed a notice of strike. the HHE union. 8. the labor union acquires none of the rights accorded to registered organizations. On September 4. alleging that the new union‟s officers and members were also those who comprised the old union. Note that the verb "participates" is preceded by the adverb "knowingly. the respondent Pinag-Isang Galing at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila (the PIGLAS union). petitioner Company filed a petition to cancel the union registration of respondent PIGLAS union. 2004 respondent PIGLAS union filed a petition for certification election that petitioner company also opposed. however. THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA (OWNED AND OPERATED BY GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION) Petitioner. ISSUE: Whether or not the new Union can have a valid certification election? RULING: The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. On December 10. The company claimed that the union made fatal misrepresentation in its application for union registration and committed “dual unionism" which is a ground for canceling a union‟s registration.

Region XI. The right of any person to join an organization also includes the right to leave that organization and join another one. as agreed upon in the MOA. Here. or other employee benefits being enjoyed at the time of the promulgation of this Code. And last. respondent Waterfront Insular Hotel Davao (respondent) sent the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). the names found in the subject list are also in the attendance and signature sheets. A comparison of the documents shows that. the prohibition against elimination or diminution of benefits set out in Article 100 of the Labor Code is specifically concerned with benefits already enjoyed at the time of the promulgation of the Labor Code. Domy R.R. 2010 INSULAR HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION-NFL. is not a ground for canceling the new union‟s registration. For as long as the documents and signatures are shown to be genuine and regular and the constitution and by-laws democratically ratified. and VicePresidents. 9. Only 20 percent of this number or 50 employees were required to unionize. the fact that some of respondent PIGLAS union‟s members were also members of the old rank and file union. But. the bargaining unit that respondent PIGLAS union sought to represent consisted of 250 employees. the HHE union. Notably. Petitioner company claims that respondent PIGLAS union was required to submit the names of all its members comprising at least 20 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit. Respondent. Any member had the right to hold out and refrain from ratifying those documents or to simply ignore the process.9 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. Jr. Accordingly. Davao City. represented by its President. this Court ruled that the right to . In said notice. This omission. a Notice of Suspension of Operations5cralaw notifying the same that it will suspend its operations for a period of six months due to severe and serious business losses. 2000. Article 100 does not.. Moreover. respondent downsized its manpower structure to 100 rank-and-file employees as set forth in the terms of the MOA. Issue: whether or not a union is prohibited from offering and agreeing to reduce wages and benefits of the employees? Held: Article 100 of the Labor Code provides: PROHIBITION AGAINST ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS. the President of Davao Insular Hotel Free Employees Union (DIHFEU-NFL). purport to apply to situations arising after the promulgation date of the Labor Code x x Even assuming arguendo that Article 100 applies to the case at bar. Clearly. It cannot be assumed that all those who attended approved of the constitution and by-laws. Espiritu. On June 15. as the labor authorities held. the company would pay the affected employees all the benefits legally due to them. The retained employees individually signed a "Reconfirmation of Employment"15cralaw which embodied the new terms and conditions of their continued employment.: FACTS: On November 6. 2001. the recognized labor organization in Waterfront Davao. WATERFRONT INSULAR HOTEL DAVAO. Petitioner. sent respondent a number of letters asking management to reconsider its decision. Nos. signed a Memorandum of Agreement14cralaw (MOA) wherein respondent agreed to re-open the hotel subject to certain concessions offered by DIHFEU-NFL in its Manifesto. this discrepancy is immaterial. respondent and DIHFEUNFL. Varela Jr. a new pay scale was also prepared by respondent. the union more than complied with such requirement. except for six members.Nothing in this Book shall be construed to eliminate or in any way diminish supplements. Rojas. Rojas (Rojas). this Court agrees with respondent that the same does not prohibit a union from offering and agreeing to reduce wages and benefits of the employees. Bation. said the company. the Labor Code and its implementing rules do not require that the number of members appearing on the documents in question should completely dovetail. Each employee was assisted by Rojas who also signed the document. CHARM During the period of the suspension. GUTTIEREZ constitution and by-laws when 128 signed the attendance sheet. vs. in other words. respondent assured the DOLE that if the company could not resume its operations within the six-month period. G. After series of negotiations. 174040-41 : September 22. PERALTA. J. At any rate. Yet the list it submitted named only 100 members notwithstanding that the signature and attendance sheets reflected a membership of 127 or 128 employees. respondent resumed its business operations. amounted to material misrepresentation that warranted the cancellation of the union‟s registration. the union is deemed to have complied with registration requirements. Exequiel J. and Avelino C. In Rivera v.

R. causing inestimable damage to the nationwide network of automated teller machines. Facts: Sometime in October 1999.”[3] Was private respondents‟ act of massing in front of the DOLE Building calculated by them to cause work stoppage. ELENA R. Moreover. CHARM Petitioners argued that the CA erred in holding that the mass action of April 3. DE GUZMAN. thus: A CBA is "a contract executed upon request of either the employer or the exclusive bargaining representative incorporating the agreement reached after negotiations with respect to wages. Petitioner. the Union declared a deadlock on December 22.10 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. Waiver and Quitclaim executed by twenty-one (21) individual . Respondents. considering that this was not an issue raised in the petition for certiorari before the appellate court. the courts must be practical and realistic and give due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and the purpose which it is intended to serve. Lastly. GAMIER. In view of the illegal strike conducted in violation of the Secretary‟s assumption order. considering further that the Secretary‟s Order dated January 18. In view of the impending actual strike. a mass action of this nature is considered a strike and not an exercise of one‟s freedom of expression. as amended. including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement. Over-the-counter transactions were greatly undermined. In construing a CBA. Checks for clearing were significantly delayed. 1999 but seeing that an agreement was unlikely. No. 2000 infront of the Office of the Secretary of Labor was not a strike considering that it had all the elements of a strike and the respondents judicially admitted that it was a strike. Condevillamar. 2003. 2010 SOLIDBANK CORPORATION (now known as FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORPORATION). the CA also erred in disregarding the Release.[2] During the collective bargaining negotiations. 159460 : November 15. Petitioners assail the CA in not considering the damage and prejudice caused to the bank and its clients by respondents‟ illegal acts. The assumption order dated January 18. includes the right to suspend it. 1999. What was raised by petitioners was only the propriety of the award of separation pay by the NLRC which in fact declared their dismissal to be valid and legal." The primary purpose of a CBA is the stabilization of labor-management relations in order to create a climate of a sound and stable industrial peace. ERNESTO U. x x x[37] On April 2. hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment. the CA erred in ordering the reinstatement of respondents and holding that Solidbank. Respondent Union‟s actions clearly belie its allegation that its mass action was merely intended to protest and express their dissatisfaction with the Secretary‟s Order dated March 24. 2000 directed the parties “to cease and desist from committing any and all acts that might exacerbate the situation. 2000. Negotiations commenced on November 17. after all. Arriola and De Guzman was illegal. Laguesma assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute. the courts must lean towards that which gives meaning and vitality to the Bill of Rights. 2003. The CA deemed the mass action as an exercise of the respondents‟ freedom of expression but such constitutional right is not absolute and subject to certain well-defined exceptions. CONDEVILLAMAR. petitioner Solidbank and respondent Solidbank Employees‟ Union (Union) were set to renegotiate the economic provisions of their 1997-2001 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to cover the remaining two years thereof. 2000 is a valid exercise of police power. Respondents‟ mass actions crippled banking operations. or were they merely airing their grievance over the ruling of the Labor Secretary in exercise of their civil liberties? Who can divine the motives of their hearts? But when two different interpretations are possible. petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied by the CA in its Resolution[38] dated August 7. the CA erred in not finding that respondents were guilty of forum shopping as respondents‟ claim that they did not know the Union had filed a complaint was unbelievable under the circumstances. v. petitioners maintain that the dismissal of respondents was not illegal. G. then Secretary of Labor and Employment Bienvenido E. JANICE L. pursuant to Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code. GUTTIEREZ free collective bargaining. ARRIOLA and OPHELIA C. 10. Petitioners maintain that respondents are not entitled to separation pay even if the dismissal was valid because they committed serious misconduct and/or illegal act in defying the Secretary‟s assumption order. Moreover. some Union members staged a series of mass actions.[39] Petitioners contend that the CA erred in ruling that the dismissal of respondents Gamier. 1999 and filed a Notice of Strike on December 29. On-line transactions were greatly hampered. Even granting arguendo that their termination was illegal. FMIC and Metrobank are solidarily liable to the respondents. as consistently ruled by this Court in many cases.

the fact that the conventional term “strike” was not used by the striking employees to describe their common course of action is inconsequential. Considering that these mass actions stemmed from a bargaining deadlock and an order of assumption of jurisdiction had already been issued by the Secretary of Labor to avert an impending strike. INC. an electronics and semi-conductor firm situated inside the Laguna Technopark. Prior to the 3rd year of the CBA. defines strike as any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.[42] Thus. 2009. respondent would comply. CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNIONFEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS. including those in the provincial branches. Inc. The officers were eventually dismissed from employment. 2000. alleging that the remaining officers signed the MOA under respondent‟s assurance that should the Secretary order a higher award of wage increase.00 per day effective January 1. boycotted and absented themselves from work in a concerted fashion for three continuous days that virtually paralyzed the employer‟s banking operations. had an existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers (petitioner) for the period January 1. sitdowns. It must be stressed that the concerted action of the respondents was not limited to the protest rally infront of the DOLE Office on April 3. About 712 employees. 2004 and P9. 2005.11 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. (respondent). respondent placed seven union officers including the President.[41] The term “strike” shall comprise not only concerted work stoppages.: FACTS: Cirtek Electronics. but also slowdowns. Before the Secretary of Labor could rule on the controversy. While the conciliation proceedings were ongoing. 2004.[43] After a thorough review of the records. No.00 per day effective January 1. mass leaves. . filed a Notice of Lockout on June 16. changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment. attempts to damage. 2010 CARPIO MORALES. a Vice President. The dismissal of the officers was later found to be legal. 2001 up to December 31. the appellate court ruled in favor of . 2000 of the Secretary of Labor. and not its appearance. destroy or sabotage plant equipment and facilities and similar activities. and (3) whether the respondents are entitled to separation pay or financial assistance Our Ruling Article 212 of the Labor Code.versus CIRTEK ELECTRONICS.. A labor dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating. as amended. Petitioner thereupon declared a bargaining deadlock and filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board-Regional Office No. hence. regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employers and employees. prompting petitioner to file another Notice of Strike which was. will be deemed to be controlling. since the substance of the situation. 2005. 190515 November 15. fixing.[40] Issues The fundamental issues to be resolved in this controversy are: (1) whether the protest rally and concerted work abandonment/boycott staged by the respondents violated the Order dated January 18. after conciliation meetings. we hold that the CA patently erred in concluding that the concerted mass actions staged by respondents cannot be considered a strike but a legitimate exercise of the respondents‟ right to express their dissatisfaction with the Secretary‟s resolution of the economic issues in the deadlocked CBA negotiations with petitioners. maintaining. By Decision[7] of September 24. particularly on the issue of wage increases. 11. petitioner went on strike on June 20. upon the other hand. IV (NCMB-RO IV) on April 26. J. 2004. GUTTIEREZ respondents who entered into a compromise agreement with Solidbank. as amicable settlement of the CBA was deadlocked. the parties renegotiated its economic provisions but failed to reach a settlement.R. Respondent. petitioner appealed. 2005. G. the Secretary and the Chairman of the Board of Directors under preventive suspension for allegedly spearheading a boycott of overtime work. Petitioner submitted the MOA via Motion and Manifestation[3] to the Secretary of Labor. converted to a voluntary arbitration case. In the meantime. respondent created a Labor Management Council (LMC) through which it concluded with the remaining officers of petitioner a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)[2] providing for daily wage increases of P6. 2005. (2) whether the respondents were validly terminated. Respondent Union had also picketed the Head Office and Paseo de Roxas Branch. the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the controversy and issued a Return to Work Order which was complied with. CHARM there is no doubt that the concerted work abandonment/boycott was the result of a labor dispute. By Order[1] dated June 23.

ISSUES: The relevant issues for resolution are 1) whether the Secretary of Labor is authorized to give an award higher than that agreed upon in the MOA. hence. 263 (g)[11] of the Labor Code. (ABI) is engaged in the manufacture. On October 3. the exclusive bargaining representative of ABI's rank-and-file employees. it has the force and effect of a valid contract obligation. the petition is GRANTED. shandy. Full Goods Department of the Brewery Division and Packaging Division. it must be construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically. 2006 and Resolution dated August 12. bottled water and glass products. this is so in the present case with respect to the CBA. is not merely contractual in nature but impressed with public interest. it must yield to the common good. a dispute arose when ABI's management stopped deducting union dues from eighty-one (81) employees. since it is imbued with public interest. ASIA BREWERY. Twenty (20) checkers are assigned at the Materials Department of the Administration Division. Respondent. It is well-settled that the Secretary of Labor.7cra1aw BLMA-INDEPENDENT claimed that ABI's actions restrained the employees' right to self-organization and brought the matter to the grievance machinery. As the parties failed to amicably settle the controversy.. Petitioner.R. the arbitral award can be considered an approximation of a collective bargaining agreement which would otherwise have been entered into by the parties. A CBA.[17] (emphasis and underscoring supplied) WHEREFORE. 2009 and the Resolution dated December 2. and the courts must place a practical and realistic construction CHARM upon it. thus. may resolve all issues involved in the controversy including the award of wage increases and benefits. and 2) whether the MOA was entered into and ratified by the remaining officers of petitioner under the condition. 2009 of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the Order dated March 16. 162025 : August 3.12 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. that respondent would honor the Secretary of Labor‟s award in the event that it is higher. 1997 to July 31. not to the MOA in which even the union‟s signatories had expressed reservations thereto. giving due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and purpose which it is intended to serve. 2010 TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA SA ASIA BREWERY. an ordinary contract to which is applied the principles of law governing ordinary contracts. ABI entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). But even assuming arguendo that the MOA is treated as a new CBA. The parties eventually agreed to submit the case for arbitration to resolve the issue of "[w]hether or not there is restraint to employees in the exercise of their right to selforganization. 12. Eighteen (18) of these affected employees are QA Sampling Inspectors/Inspectresses and Machine Gauge Technician who formed part of the Quality Control Staff. nor to the “Paliwanag”[9] submitted by respondent union members explaining why they signed the MOA as it was not notarized. it must be construed liberally and yield to the common good. it is not. 2008 of the Secretary of Labor are REINSTATED. sale and distribution of beer. in the exercise of his power to assume jurisdiction under Art. 2000 to 31 July 2003.4cra1aw effective for five (5) years from August 1."8cra1aw . vs. G. It did not give credence to the minutes of the meeting[8] that attended the forging of the MOA as it was not verified. No. 2002. ABI and BLMAINDEPENDENT signed a renegotiated CBA effective from August 1. FACTS: Respondent Asia Brewery. The Decision dated September 24. HELD: The Court resolves both issues in the affirmative. While the terms and conditions of a CBA constitute the law between the parties. as a labor contract within the contemplation of Article 1700 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which governs the relations between labor and capital. The rest are secretaries/clerks directly under their respective division managers. however.[13] While a contract constitutes the law between the parties. As such.[12] While an arbitral award cannot per se be categorized as an agreement voluntarily entered into by the parties because it requires the intervention and imposing power of the State thru the Secretary of Labor when he assumes jurisdiction. GUTTIEREZ respondent and accordingly set aside the Decision of the Secretary of Labor. . It held that the Secretary of Labor gravely abused his discretion in not respecting the MOA. INC. which was not incorporated in the MOA. BLMAINDEPENDENT lodged a complaint before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). 2000. with Bisig at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa AsiaIndependent (BLMA-INDEPENDENT). believing that their membership in BLMAINDEPENDENT violated the CBA. Inc.

or fraud. WHEREFORE. or was CHARM oppressive to labor." The prohibited acts are related to the workers' right to self organization and to the observance of a CBA. and. SP No. Loreto Uriarte. Accordingly. 2000. Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL). GUTTIEREZ In his Decision. Wilbur T.16cra1aw Unfair labor practice refers to "acts that violate the workers' right to organize. Tañeca.[6] (in his capacity as National President of SPFL). 13. ARTICLE 1 OF THE CBA[. or done in a manner contrary to morals.] HELD: Although Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join. the subject employees were declared eligible for inclusion within the bargaining unit represented by BLMAINDEPENDENT. 160828. No.SPFL [NAMAPRI-SPFL]) and Atty. Pascasio Trugillo (in his capacity as Local President of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa PICOP Resources. 1995 until May 22. wounded feelings or grave anxiety resulted x x x"28cra1aw from ABI's act in discontinuing the union dues deduction from those employees it believed were excluded by the CBA. that social humiliation. Respondents were regular rank-and-file employees of PRI and bona fide members of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa PRI Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (NAMAPRI-SPFL). Picop Resources Incorporated (PRI) v. With respect to QA Sampling Inspectors/Inspectresses and Machine Gauge Technician. Atty. nor have thereby demonstrated an anti-union stance. On October 16. 55578 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Jr. PRI served notices of termination for causes to the 31 out of the 46 employees whom . The Decision dated November 22. or public policy. Manuel Abucay and fourteen (14) others filed a Complaint for unfair labor practice. Voluntary Arbitrator Bienvenido Devera sustained the BLMA-INDEPENDENT after finding that the records submitted by ABI showed that the positions of the subject employees qualify under the rank-and-file category because their functions are merely routinary and clerical.R. Fuentes (in his capacity as Secretary General of SPFL). Martiniano Magayon.15cra1aw Having access to confidential information. the latter might not be assured of their loyalty in view of evident conflict of interests and the Union can also become company-denominated with the presence of managerial employees in the Union membership. illegal dismissal and money claims against petitioner PICOP Resources. jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence. The rationale for their separate category and disqualification to join any labor organization is similar to the inhibition for managerial employees because if allowed to be affiliated with a Union. form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees. it must be shown that ABI was motivated by ill will. August 9. For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper. 2000. The checkers and secretaries/clerks of respondent company are hereby declared rank-and-file employees who are eligible to join the Union of the rank-and-file employees. PRI has a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with NAMAPRI-SPFL for a period of five (5) years from May 22. He noted that the positions occupied by the checkers and secretaries/clerks in the different divisions are not managerial or supervisory. Joseph Balgoa. Wilfredo Fuentes (in his capacity as PRI's Vice President/Resident Manager). Jaime Campos. Geremias Tato. respondent cannot be said to have committed unfair labor practice that restrained its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. Considering that the herein dispute arose from a simple disagreement in the interpretation of the CBA provision on excluded employees from the bargaining unit. as evident from the duties and responsibilities assigned to them. Proculo Fuentes. 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. 2001. are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records. the petition is GRANTED. "bad faith. Said employees may act as a spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement. respondents Anacleto Tañeca. which is the collective bargaining agent for the rank-and-file employees of petitioner PRI. of course. Incorporated (PRI).R. he ruled that ABI failed to establish with sufficient clarity their basic functions as to consider them Quality Control Staff who were excluded from the coverage of the CBA. Romero Boniel (in his capacity as PRI's Manager of Legal/Labor).14cra1aw Confidential employees are thus excluded from the rankand-file bargaining unit. 2010 FACTS: On February 13.9cra1aw On appeal. confidential employees may also become the source of undue advantage. G. the CA reversed the Voluntary Arbitrator ISSUE: THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE 81 EMPLOYEES ARE EXCLUDED FROM AND ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN THE BARGAINING UNIT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2. Atty. 2002 and Resolution dated January 28. good customs. Inc.13 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY.

EVEN BEYOND THE 5-YEAR PERIOD WHEN NO NEW CBA HAS YET BEEN ENTERED INTO. in terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the union security clause. specifically.? HELD: 1. 7902[10] (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. 129 as amended. There is maintenance of membership shop when employees. or the agreement is terminated. as amended by Republic Act No. There is union shop when all new regular employees are required to join the union within a certain period as a condition for their continued employment.[11] This Court held that the proper vehicle for such review was a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. (c). it is likewise undisputed that NAMAPRI-SPFL. there is no question that the CBA between PRI and respondents included a union security clause. and that this action should be filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts. to resolve factual issues. Following the same provision. REVISED RULES OF COURT. A closed shop. in their letters dated May 16 and 23.14 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. Secondly. CHARM 2. 2000.[16] As to the first requisite." "maintenance of membership. “Union security" is a generic term. Martin Funeral Home v. Fuentes and Wilbur T. PRI. A Notice dated October 21.[12] Moreover. may be defined as an enterprise in which. if and when necessary. in two (2) occasions demanded from PRI. National Labor Relations Commission. no person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless he or she is. a maintenance of membership as stipulated in Sections 6 of Article II. the employer needs to determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable. on the other hand. Caraga Region." or any other form of agreement which imposes upon employees the obligation to acquire or retain union membership as a condition affecting employment. Union Security and Check-Off. (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA. the Court of Appeals – pursuant to the exercise of its original jurisdiction over Petitions for Certiorari – is specifically given the power to pass upon the evidence. it is already settled that under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. becomes. Respondents then accused PRI of Unfair Labor Practice punishable under Article 248 (a). can indeed terminate the employment of the employee who failed to maintain its good standing as a union member. We now come to the main issue of whether there was just cause to terminate the employment of respondents. Fuentes and Pascasio Trujillo were accused of violating Article 248 (a) and (b) of the Labor Code. [13] . or who thereafter become members. GUTTIEREZ NAMAPRIL-SPFL sought to be terminated on the ground of “acts of disloyalty” committed against it when respondents allegedly supported and signed the Petition for Certification Election of FFW before the “freedom period” during the effectivity of the CBA.[15] However. remains a member in good standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part. Petitioner's argument is untenable. Petitioner is mistaken. upon written request from the Union. for the duration of the agreement. must maintain union membership as a condition for continued employment until they are promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit. 2000 was also served on the Department of Labor and Employment Office (DOLE). (d) and (e) of the Labor Code. and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of the union to expel the employee from the union." “union shop. which is applied to and comprehends "closed shop. who are union members as of the effective date of the agreement. II WHETHER OR NOT AN HONEST ERROR IN THE INTERPRETATION AND/OR CONCLUSION OF LAW FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY OF CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65. known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980). (b). These requisites constitute just cause for terminating an employee based on the union security provision of the CBA. to terminate the The power of the Court of Appeals to review NLRC decisions via Rule 65 or Petition for Certiorari has been settled as early as in our decision in St. 129. and. by agreement between the employer and his employees or their representatives. while Atty. ISSUES: I WHETHER AN EXISTING COLLECTIVELY (sic) BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) CAN BE GIVEN ITS FULL FORCE AND EFFECT IN ALL ITS TERMS AND CONDITION INCLUDING ITS UNION SECURITY CLAUSE. amending for the purpose of Section Nine of Batas Pambansa Blg.

The same could not be said with regard to those holding Job Grade Level 2 positions since they remained rank-and-file employees. the petition is DENIED. FACTS: Respondent SCA Hygiene Products Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture. promotion increase as well as retroactive salary increase from the time the job evaluation was completed on the ground that their positions had been converted into a higher job grade level which amounted to a promotion. We will emphasize anew that the power to dismiss is a normal prerogative of the employer. which represent the monthly and daily paid rank-and-file employees. computed from the time their actual compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement. The employer is bound to exercise caution in terminating the services of his employees especially so when it is made upon the request of a labor union pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.15 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. respectively. It was not designed to provide any conversion or adjustment to the salaries of the employees. we find that there is no sufficient evidence to support the decision of PRI to terminate the employment of the respondents. But if reinstatement is no longer possible. 182877. it held that the job evaluation was conducted as a reorganization process to standardize the company‟s organizational setup. In this case. Second. Third. however. As a result. GUTTIEREZ employment of respondents due to their acts of disloyalty to the Union. respondents. the Daily Employees Union asked for the adjustment of said employees‟ compensation since the conversion warranted their entitlement to the benefits. First. SCA Hygiene Products Corporation Employees Association-FFW vs. 6715. However. It has existing Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) with SCA Hygiene Products Corporation Monthly Employees Union-FSM (Monthly Employees Union) and petitioner SCA Hygiene Products Corporation Employees Association-FFW (Daily CHARM Employees Union). the appellate court noted that those employees converted to Job Grade Level 3 positions were given salary and benefits increase since they became managerial employees after the job evaluation. the amount to be awarded shall be equivalent to one month salary for every year of service. having been compelled to litigate in order to seek redress for their illegal dismissal. Dismissals must not be arbitrary and capricious. The CBAs merely provided the procedure for the implementation of the job evaluation. respect and protect the rights of their employees.[26] WHEREFORE. both unions submitted their grievances for mediation. On appeal. Moreover. SCA Hygiene Products Corporation. Employers should. G. in lieu of reinstatement. In awarding separation pay to an illegally dismissed employee. As respondent failed to respond. are entitled to the award of attorney‟s fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award. employees who are illegally dismissed are entitled to full backwages. sale and distribution of industrial paper. the Monthly Employees Union demanded that the 22 daily paid rank-and-file employees be given conversion increase. tissue and allied products. WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CONVERTED INTO OR PROMOTED TO JOB LEVEL 2 POSITIONS .R. inclusive of allowances and other benefits. If reinstatement is not viable. 2010. which include the right to labor. It did not specifically state that the covered employees are entitled to any salary adjustment after the job evaluation. the grant of such increase should have been done over a long period of time and must be shown to be consistent and deliberate.[25] An employee who is illegally dismissed is entitled to the twin reliefs of full backwages and reinstatement. because it affects not only his position but also his means of livelihood. This. therefore. they submitted the case for voluntary arbitration. the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondent. August 9. separation pay is awarded to the employee. Hence. Under Republic Act No. as to the third requisite. the appellate court did not give credence to the unions‟ claim that the grant of conversion/promotion increase was respondent‟s longstanding practice. there was no evidence that respondent agreed to continue giving the benefits knowing fully well that its employees are not covered by the law requiring payment thereof. the backwages shall be computed from the time of their illegal termination up to the finality of the decision. or their monetary equivalent. WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY OCCUPYING JOB LEVEL I POSITIONS. To be considered a regular practice. in the absence of any law or agreement between the parties. When the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement. is not without limitations. ISSUE: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GROSSLY ERRED WHEN IT DECIDED THE CASE IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE SUBSTANTIATED FACTS THAT A PROMOTION TOOK PLACE WHEN THE TWENTY-TWO (22) DAILY PAID EMPLOYEES. Likewise. any conversion much less promotion is left entirely to respondent‟s sound discretion. No. 14. status and privileges of a monthly paid rank-and-file employee. Due process must be observed in dismissing an employee.

and FEBTC. Respondent BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter . 2000 by and between BPI.” The Voluntary Arbitrator concluded that the former FEBTC employees could not be compelled to join the Union. On the other hand.Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank (hereinafter the “Union. The employees continued to occupy the same positions they were occupying prior to the job evaluation. herein petitioner. better situation than the existing BPI employees. but the nature of his functions. August 10.” for brevity) is the exclusive bargaining agent of BPI‟s rank and file employees in Davao City. What transpired in this case was only a promotion in nomenclature. 15. 2000. or on March 31. ISSUES: I WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE FORMER FEBTC EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED „NEW‟ EMPLOYEES OF BPI FOR PURPOSES OF APPLYING THE UNION SHOP CLAUSE OF THE CBA II . Moreover. in a Decision[12] dated November 23. ruled in favor of petitioner BPI‟s interpretation that the former FEBTC employees were not covered by the Union Security Clause of the CBA between the Union and the Bank on the ground that the said employees were not new employees who were hired and subsequently regularized. the issue remained unresolved at CHARM this level and so it was subsequently submitted for voluntary arbitration by the parties. However. their job titles remained the same and they were not given additional duties and responsibilities. The Court of Appeals pertinently ruled in its Decision: A union-shop clause has been defined as a form of union security provision wherein non-members may be hired.This Article and Plan of Merger was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 7. were hired by petitioner as its own employees. 2010 FACTS: On March 23.16 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY.[11] Voluntary Arbitrator Rosalina Letrondo-Montejo. BPI v. Pursuant to the Article and Plan of Merger. respondent Union informed petitioner BPI of its decision to refer the issue of the implementation of the Union Shop Clause of the CBA to the Grievance Committee. To rule otherwise would definitely result to a very awkward and unfair situation wherein the “absorbed” employees shall be in a different if not. G. respondent Union invited said FEBTC employees to a meeting regarding the Union Shop Clause (Article II. There is no question as to the existence of the unionshop clause in the CBA between the petitioner-union and the company.R. including those in its different branches across the country. remain as members in good standing of the union otherwise. 2004. but were absorbed employees “by operation of law” because the “former employees of FEBTC can be considered assets and liabilities of the absorbed corporation. evaluation and promotion. 2000. all the assets and liabilities of FEBTC were transferred to and absorbed by BPI as the surviving corporation. The existing BPI employees by virtue of the “union-shop” clause are required to pay the monthly union dues. GUTTIEREZ AFTER THE RESULT OF THE JOB EVALUATION ON FEBRUARY 24. 164301. Certainly. Section 2) of the existing CBA between petitioner BPI and respondent Union. BPI Employees Union-Davao ChapterFederation of Unions in BPI Unibank. with their status and tenure recognized and salaries and benefits maintained. The fact that employees were re-classified from Job Grade Level 1 to Job Grade Level 2 as a result of a job evaluation program does not automatically entail a promotion or grant them an increase in salary. 2000. FEBTC employees. Of primordial consideration is not the nomenclature or title given to the employee. HELD: Employee. No. the “absorbed” employees shall enjoy the “fruits of labor” of the petitioner-union and its members for nothing in exchange. but to retain employment must become union members after a certain period. and other unionrelated obligations. the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas approved the Articles of Merger executed on January 20. as it was their constitutional right to join or not to join any organization. this would disturb industrial peace in the company which is the paramount reason for the existence of the CBA and the union. they shall be terminated from the company. The controversy lies in its application to the “absorbed” employees. Prior to the effectivity of the merger. 2001. The former FEBTC rank-and-file employees in Davao City did not belong to any labor union at the time of the merger.[7] After two months of management inaction on the request.

Article II of the CBA is silent as to how one becomes a “regular employee” of the BPI for the first time. are allegedly automatically deemed regular employees of BPI. there is nothing in the Corporation Law and the merger agreement mandating the automatic employment as regular employees by the surviving corporation in the merger. However. the CBA does not make a distinction as to how a regular employee attains such a status. remains a member in good standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part. Not the least of these changes is the fact that prior to the merger FEBTC employees were employees of an unorganized establishment and after the merger they became employees of a unionized company that had an existing CBA with the certified union. and. join the Union as a condition of their continued employment. becomes. There is maintenance of membership shop when employees.) CHARM Section 2. Once an FEBTC employee is absorbed. no person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless he or she is. It is understood that membership in good standing in the Union is a condition of their continued employment with the Bank. That BPI is the same entity as FEBTC after the merger is but a legal fiction intended as a tool to adjudicate rights and obligations between and among the merged corporations and the persons that deal with them. by agreement between the employer and his employees or their representatives. Petitioner is of the position that the former FEBTC employees are not new employees of BPI for purposes of applying the Union Shop Clause of the CBA. on the other hand. Although in a merger it is as if there is no change in the personality of the employer. BPI‟s employment of these absorbed employees will not be under exactly the same terms and conditions as stated in the latter‟s employment contracts with FEBTC In essence. there is in reality a change in the situation of the employee. which provides: New employees falling within the bargaining unit as defined in Article I of this Agreement. within thirty (30) days after they become regular employees. who are union members as of the effective date of the agreement. Article II of the CBA. To reiterate. refers only to employees hired by BPI asnon-regular employees who later qualify for regular employment and become regular employees. There is union shop when all new regular employees are required to join the union within a certain period for their continued employment. may be defined as an enterprise in which.17 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. on this note. the purpose of a union shop or other union security arrangement is to guarantee the continued existence of the union through enforced membership for the benefit of the workers. Moreover. GUTTIEREZ WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR‟S INTERPRETATION OF THE COVERAGE OF THE UNION SHOP CLAUSE IS “AT WAR WITH THE SPIRIT AND THE RATIONALE WHY THE LABOR CODE ITSELF ALLOWS THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH PROVISION”[16] HELD: Merger. although in a sense BPI is continuing FEBTC‟s employment of these absorbed employees. there are presumably changes in his condition of employment even if his previous tenure and salary rate is recognized by BPI. and not those who. for the duration of the agreement. “Union security” is a generic term which is applied to and comprehends “closed shop.” “union shop.” as the same is used in the Union Shop Clause of the CBA at issue. there is even greater reason for the union to request their . as a legal consequence of a merger.” “maintenance of membership” or any other form of agreement which imposes upon employees the obligation to acquire or retain union membership as a condition affecting employment. petitioner points to Section 2. the sole issue in this case is whether or not the former FEBTC employees that were absorbed by petitioner upon the merger between FEBTC and BPI should be covered by the Union Shop Clause found in the existing CBA between petitioner and respondent Union. who may hereafter be regularly employed by the Bank shall. employee terms and conditions. In the case of former FEBTC employees who initially joined the union but later withdrew their membership. petitioner insists that the term “new employees. There is nothing in the said provision which requires that a “new” regular employee first undergo a temporary or probationary status before being deemed as such under the union shop clause of the CBA. It is reasonable to assume that BPI would have different rules and regulations and company practices than FEBTC and it is incumbent upon the former FEBTC employees to obey these new.[19] In other words. must maintain union membership as a condition for continued employment until they are promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit or the agreement is terminated. or who thereafter become members. Thus. A closed-shop.[17] (Emphases supplied.

unless compelling reasons exist. have lost their employment status. on the other hand. Sta. the applicable retirement plan. were supported by substantial evidence. PILA officers and members. 1995. versus PHIMCO INDUSTRIES LABOR ASSOCIATION (PILA). THE ISSUE Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case? In this light. Manila. the core issue in the present case is whether the CA correctly ruled that the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the union‟s strike was legal. it is a weapon that can either breathe life to or destroy the union and its members. PILA filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal (illegal dismissal case) with the NLRC. the company has not shown any such compelling reason as the picket was peaceful and uneventful. THE NLRC RULING The NLRC decided the appeal on December 29. and relied instead on the respondents‟ evidence showing that the union conducted a peaceful moving picket. 170830 FACTS: PHIMCO is a corporation engaged in the production of matches. GUTTIEREZ dismissal from the employer since the CBA also contained a Maintenance of Membership Clause. The negotiation resulted in a deadlock on economic issues.[6] The NLRC did not give weight to PHIMCO‟s evidence.[5] and found the strike illegal.. On March 9. effective for a period of twenty (20) days. as the case may be. mainly due to disagreements on salary increases and benefits.18 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. Former FEBTC employees who opt not to become union members but who qualify for retirement shall receive their retirement benefits in accordance with law. INC. On May 15. THE CA RULING In a Decision[10] promulgated on February 10. and raffled to Labor Arbiter (LA) Pablo C. Jr. Thus. When the last collective bargaining agreement was about to expire on December 31.R. OUR RULING We find the petition partly meritorious. The case was docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. On March 5. with principal address at Phimco Compound. 1998. Because it is premised on the concept of economic war between labor and management. 1994. On May 3. 16. 1995. He observed that it was not enough that the picket of the strikers was a moving picket. submit that the issues raised in this case are factual in nature that we cannot generally touch in a petition for review. No. subject to the thirty (30) day notice requirement imposed herein. PILA and its officers and members appealed LA Mayor‟s decision to the NLRC. Felix Manalo St. 1995. intimidation and coercion – the ingress and egress of non-striking employees into and from the company premises. and the Decision dated September 30. 1995. and no human barricade blocked the company premises. Requisites of a valid strike A strike is the most powerful weapon of workers in their struggle with management in the course of setting their terms and conditions of employment. PHIMCO and PILA negotiated for its renewal. Respondent Phimco Industries Labor Association (PILA) is the duly authorized bargaining representative of PHIMCO‟s daily-paid workers. or the CBA. or until June 5. PILA filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a Notice of Strike on the ground of the bargaining deadlock. the NLRC issued an ex-parte TRO. the respondents committed prohibited acts during the strike by blocking the ingress to and egress from PHIMCO‟s premises and preventing CHARM the non-striking employees from reporting for work. The 47 individually named respondents are PILA officers and members. 1998. and one . 2003 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. that the picket was peaceful and that PHIMCO‟s evidence failed to show that the picket constituted an illegal blockade or that it obstructed the points of entry to and exit from the company premises. LA Mayor decided the case on February 4. Espiritu. 1995. to enjoin the strikers from preventing – through force. The CA noted that the NLRC findings. and set aside LA Mayor‟s decision. LA Mayor declared that the respondent employees. 00-07-04705-95. the CA dismissed PHIMCO‟s petition for certiorari. THE CASE FOR THE RESPONDENTS The respondents. 2004. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES. PHIMCO filed with the NLRC a petition for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (TRO). On July 6. WHEREFORE. Ana. the petition is hereby DENIED. G. since the strikers should allow the free passage to the entrance and exit points of the company premises. 1998.

they were paid a uniform daily wage in the amount of P140. G.[15] Since strikes affect not only the relationship between labor and management but also the general peace and progress of the community. In their Position Paper. and ending at 6:00 p. These requirements are mandatory. non-payment of service incentive leave pay. Lee confronted Calipay and Mission regarding their alleged participation and assistance in Dimalanta‟s claim for disability benefits with the Social Security System. 1998. 1998. rest day. the Labor Arbiter handling the case rendered a Decision[4] dismissing the Complaint for lack of merit. they performed various kinds of work imposed upon them by Lee. private respondents countered that the termination of Calipay and the other complainants was for a valid or just cause and that due process was observed.R. The right to strike as a means of attaining social justice is never meant to oppress or destroy anyone. the decision to declare a strike must be exercised responsibly and must always rest on rational basis. for failure to explain his side. .[14] In light of these effects. in receiving their wages. GUTTIEREZ that must also necessarily affect management and its members.[17] The 15 to 30-day cooling-off period is designed to afford the parties the opportunity to amicably resolve the dispute with the assistance of the NCMB conciliator/mediator. was sent by mail but he refused to receive the same. or 15 days in case of unfair labor practice.[5] ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT ISSUED ITS DECISION DATED 24 AUGUST . Procedurally. and must be pursued within legal bounds. for work performed on Sundays. 166411 Facts: On July 16. because the company does not operate at night. ELPIDIO CALIPAY . least of all. they were not given any duly accomplished payslips. obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. No. another memorandum dated December 11. among others.m. it must focus on legitimate union interests. 1998 up to November 17. in discharging their functions. and (c) a notice be given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike. instead.00 even during holidays. a strike should not be antithetical to public welfare. 1999. a Complaint[3] for illegal dismissal. a memorandum dated November 17. the employer. night shift allowances and separation pay was filed by herein petitioner Elpidio Calipay. Calipay and the other complainants filed an appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). TRIANGLE ACE CORPORATION and JOSE LEE. It was further alleged that in May 1998. together with Alfredo Mission and Ernesto Dimalanta against herein private respondents Triangle Ace Corporation (Triangle) and Jose Lee. which requires that: (a) a notice of strike be filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) 30 days before the intended date thereof. it must comply with Article 263[16] of the Labor Code. Lee scolded Calipay and Mission. premium pay for holiday. they were also required to report from Monday to Sunday. the law has provided limitations on the right to strike.[18] 17. they were not given any specific work assignment. for a strike to be valid. there is full compliance with the law regarding payment of wages and other benefits due to their employees.versus NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. there is no unfair labor practice because there is no union. requiring him to explain why his services should not be terminated. free from emotionalism.19 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. while the seven-day strike ban is intended to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries the imprimatur of the majority of the union members. They claimed. On July 10. they were required by Lee to work for nine (9) hours a day. with a break of one hour at 12:00 noon. and unswayed by the tempers and tantrums of hot heads. unfair labor practice. this incident later led to their dismissal in the same month. non-payment of nightshift premium is true. that Calipay was on absence without leave (AWOL) status from November 2. and the union‟s failure to comply renders the strike illegal. beginning from 7:00 a. 1998 was issued terminating Calipay‟s employment on the ground of abandonment of work. underpayment of wages and 13th month pay. they were not paid any wage due to the policy of Lee that his workers must provide work without pay at least a day in the week under his so-called “bayanihan system”. To be legitimate. CHARM Calipay and the other complainants alleged in their Position Paper that in the course of their employment. despite their denials. (b) a strike vote be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned. they were forced to sign a blank form of their daily time records and salary vouchers. for work rendered from Mondays to Saturdays beyond the normal eight (8) working hours in a day. overtime pay. 2000.m.

(BCPI) is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of biaxially oriented polypropylene and related products. G. x x x In the instant case. Failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory. Alex Gurango vs.[27] In the present case.20 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. CHARM with the NLRC. petitioner Calipay had failed to report for work for unknown reasons x x x His continued absences without the private respondents‟ approval constituted gross and habitual neglect which is a just cause for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. more so if the same is accompanied by a prayer for reinstatement. the Court arrives at the conclusion that the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal appears only as a convenient afterthought on the part of petitioner and the other complainants after they were dismissed in accordance with law. petitioner and the other complainants‟ inconsistency in their stand is also shown by the fact that in the complaint form which they personally filled up and filed . petitioner filed his complaint more than one year after his alleged termination from employment. Gurango (Gurango) and Romeo S. Respondent Moon Pyo Hong (Hong) is the president and chief executive officer of BCPI. by guard Albao when he tried to get the complainant‟s camera for no valid reason. Erring employees would be suspended for six days. 174593. In fact. In a memorandum7 dated 2 May 2003. August 25. parties who seek to avail themselves of such privilege must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it.[24] On the basis of the foregoing. however. We agree with the Labor Arbiter‟s finding that petitioner Calipay had abandoned his work. They did not ask for reinstatement. Furthermore. The NLRC‟s Ruling In its 17 October 2005 Resolution. Jurisprudence has held time and again that abandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal. Petitioner Alex R. 18. It is only in their Position Paper later prepared by their counsel that they asked for reinstatement. Best Chemicals and Plastic. This is an indication that petitioner and the other complainants never had the intention or desire to return to their jobs. The NLRC held that: Although fighting within company premises constitute serious misconduct. especially when affirmed by the CA. the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from this rule. Hence. instead. the petition is DENIED. WHICH RESOLUTIONS DISMISSED PETITIONER‟S COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL BY REVERSING RESPONDENT NLRC‟S PREVIOUS RESOLUTION DATED 01 FEBRUARY 2002. It is doctrinally entrenched that an appeal is not a constitutional right. Procedural rules setting the period for perfecting an appeal or filing a petition for review are generally inviolable.. Complainant did not start nor provoke the fight. The settled rule is that the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. but a mere statutory privilege. it bears to point out that the Decision of the Labor Arbiter was affirmed by the NLRC and the CA.. the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory. Inc. et al. does not apply in this case. 2010. FACTS: Respondent Best Chemicals and Plastics.R. Inc. Albao (Albao) worked as boiler operator and security guard. this however. Finally. are accorded not only great respect but also finality. The statement of Albao that complainant tried to snatch his HELD: Procedural rules. the NLRC affirmed in toto the Labor Arbiter‟s 6 July 2004 Decision. in BCPI. GUTTIEREZ 2004 AND RESOLUTION DATED 10 DECEMBER 2004 DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND AFFIRMING THE RESOLUTIONS OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC DATED 30 JUNE 2003 AND 24 SEPTEMBER 2002. strict application. Moreover. WHEREFORE. so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision. It was precipitated. but also jurisdictional. they only asked for payment of separation pay and other monetary claims. Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period. there is no evidence to prove that petitioner and his former co-employees ever attempted to return to work after they were dismissed from employment.[28] In the present case. respectively. No. BCPI prohibited its empoyees from bringing personal items to their work area.

Suspecting him to have committed forgery. Century Canning Corporation. respondent was asked to explain in writing the events surrounding the incident. Jr. Hence. did not have the complete details[3] and some required signatures. his job included. 2002. Also. 1999. Subsequently. et al. FACTS: Petitioner Century Canning Corporation. Consequently.. The CA. as well as the coordination with the purchasing department regarding technical inquiries on needed products and services of petitioner's different departments. He vehemently denied any participation in the alleged forgery. thereafter. As a general rule. The camera is undisputably owned by complainant. The Issue Gurango raises as issue that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that he was legally dismissed. dated August 26. The Court of Appeals‟ Ruling In its 20 July 2006 Decision. March 4. only questions of law may be raised in petitions for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 1999. Po. on May 24. 171630. Respondent was. The Labor Arbiter is correct and we concur in his finding that the complainant was not foolish enough to try to snatch the gun of Albao. which the Court of Appeals denied in its 11 September 2006 Resolution. vs. In the present case. respondent prepared a CAPEX form for external fax modems and terminal server. No. the request for the equipment was put on hold due to Po's forged signature. due to the urgency of purchasing badly needed equipment. GUTTIEREZ service firearm is not only unbelievable but is also exaggerated. and endorsed it to Marivic Villanueva. 2005. the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals conflict with the findings of fact of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter. BCPI failed to prove that he engaged in a fistfight and that there was just cause for his dismissal. Prior to his dismissal on May 20. She also doubted the genuineness of the signature of Po. Ronquillo. Vicente Randy R.21 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. Among the exceptions are when the findings of fact are conflicting and when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based.[4] The following day. CHARM 1993 as technical specialist. On March 3. moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against petitioner and its officers before the Labor Arbiter (LA) Frustrated by this turn of events.R. 19. Paz processed the paper and found that some details in the CAPEX form were left blank. non-payment of overtime pay. for loss of trust and confidence. August 8. Due to the foregoing. ISSUE: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE UNANIMOUS FINDINGS OF THE LABOR ARBITER AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION SUSTAINING THE LEGALITY OF Rule 45. 1999. with the form apparently signed by Po. respondent. rendered judgment in favor of respondent and reinstated the earlier decision of the NLRC. the Court of Appeals set aside the 17 October 2005 and 24 January 2006 Resolutions of the NLRC. employed respondent Vicente Randy Ramil in August . Secretary of Executive Vice-President Ricardo T. as appearing in the form. filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal. however. respondent transmitted it to Purchasing Officer Lorena Paz in Taguig Main Office. 1999. on May 20. suspended on April 21. the present petition. However. The CAPEX form. 2010. Gurango filed a motion24 for reconsideration. a company engaged in canned food manufacturing. for the latter's signature. among others. which was immediately transmitted to the Purchasing Department. respondent was ordered to make another CAPEX form. 1999. the preparation of the purchase requisition (PR) forms and capital expenditure (CAPEX) forms. 1999. in its Decision dated December 1. separation pay. respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. G. Paz then transmitted the CAPEX form to Purchasing Manager Virgie Garcia and informed her of the questionable signature of Po. The Court of Appeals held that “private respondent engaged himself in a fistfight with the security guard”23 and that engaging in a fistfight constituted serious misconduct. Jr. The Court‟s Ruling The petition is meritorious. he received a Notice of Termination from Armando C. Po. there are recognized exceptions to the rule. review of factual findings. Ramil. However. per order of Technical Operations Manager Jaime Garcia. the finding of the Court of Appeals that Gurango engaged in a fistfight is a conclusion without citation of specific evidence on which it is based. Ricardo T.

During the period of his assignment. questioning his transfer from District XI to District XII. On August 14. pursuant to the social justice policy of labor laws and the Constitution. HELD: Dismissal. Wensha Spa Center. Inc. Yung (Loreta) was its administrative manager at the time of her termination from employment. such cases should be resolved in favor of labor. therefore.[3] respondent Loreta T. G. Garcia (Garcia). 20 Pharmacia and Upjohn. The law mandates that the burden of proving the validity of the termination of employment rests with the employer. 1999. Respondent concluded that his transfer might be a way for his managers to dismiss him from employment. respondent received a Memorandum[4] announcing the sales force structure for the year 2000. No. August 23. On July 12. Albayda. Inc. and (2) the second informs the employee of the employer‟s decision to dismiss him. Unsubstantiated suspicions. burden of proof. due process. Dismissal. In December 1999.. his eleven. Jr. a district meeting was held in Makati City wherein one of the topics discussed was the district territorial configuration for the new marketing and sales direction for the year 2000. FACTS: Wensha Spa Center. respondent wrote a letter[5] dated December 27. The requirement of a hearing is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard. No. 2000.R. Regional Arbitration Branch No. Also included in the complaint was Ashley Morris. Pobby Co (Xu) is its president. (Wensha) in Quezon City is in the business of sauna bath and massage services. and his two-year-old son is under his and his wife‟s direct care. G. Sometime on August 9. respondent was reassigned as District Sales Manager to District XII in the Northern Mindanao area. In response to the memorandum. Pharmacia‟s President. procedural due process consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing.1999 to Felicito M.. illegal. and/or Xu Zhi Jie .22 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. Xu Zhi Jie a. Pharmacia‟s Vice-President for Sales and Marketing. his wife runs an established business in Bacolod City. In case of doubt. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought. After the merger. and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted 21 . Failure to discharge this evidentiary burden would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and. accusations. (Upjohn) in 1978 and continued working there until 1996 when a merger between Pharmacia and Upjohn was created. 185122. inc. 2002. and conclusions of employers do not provide for legal justification for dismissing employees. Ricardo P. VI. respondent settled in Bacolod City. Inc. both sides were directed to submit their position papers.a. respondent was designated by petitioner Pharmacia and Upjohn (Pharmacia) as District Sales Manager assigned to District XI in the Western Visayas area. Jr. GUTTIEREZ PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S TERMINATION FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT. Albayda. Respondent added that he could not possibly accept his new CHARM assignment in Cagayan de Oro City because he will be dislocated from his family. Yung. Bacolod City against Pharmacia. 2010. FACTS: Respondent Ricardo P. One of the key areas covered in District XII is Cagayan de Oro City.k. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS (CEBU CITY) CAN REVERSE OR SET ASIDE THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL FINDINGS OF THE NLRC WHICH WAS BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHEN THERE IS NO SHOWING OF PALPABLE ERROR OR THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACTS OF THE LABOR ARBITER IS CONTRARY TO THAT OF THE NLRC. Montilla and Garcia for constructive dismissal. the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision[23] dismissing the case. August 16. In termination proceedings of employees.R. Since mandatory conciliation failed between the parties. 2010. 172724. .year-old daughter is studying in Bacolod City.vs. Loreta T. Chu.[31] HELD: The petition is meritorious. (respondent) was an employee of Upjohn. In the said memorandum. Respondent said that he has always been assigned to the Western Visayas area and that he felt that he could not improve the sales of products if he was assigned to an unfamiliar territory. vs. respondent filed a Complaint[22] with the NLRC. et al.

Region V (Legazpi branch). and purposely. That same afternoon. he convinced Loreta to transfer and work at Wensha.R. GUTTIEREZ In her position paper. August 16. Loreta introduced positive changes to Wensha which resulted in increased business. In June 2005. petitioner became the Personal Banking Manager (PBM) of the Legazpi branch. No. petitioner became Branch Head and in September 2003. She did so and returned on September 10. knowingly. her aura did not match that of Xu. 2004 as Xu‟s personal assistant and interpreter at a monthly salary of P12. Xu was apparently impressed by Loreta‟s performance. 2004 letter to Loreta asking her to come back to personally clarify CHARM some matters. Later that day. G. Loreta went to the NLRC and filed a case for illegal dismissal against Xu and Wensha. she was asked to leave her office because Xu and a Feng Shui master were exploring the premises.000.[4] Loreta stated that she used to be employed by Manmen Services Co. FACTS: In February 1997. This pleased Xu so that on May 18. respondent‟s pleadings and evidence suffer from several inconsistencies and the affidavits presented by respondents only pertain to petty matters that are not sufficient to support respondent‟s alleged loss of trust and confidence. Loreta then went to the CA on a petition for certiorari. Rene Bunaventura and Siles Samalea. He found it more probable that Loreta was dismissed from her employment due to Wensha‟s loss of trust and confidence in her. Based on the results of the investigation. she was promoted to the position of Administrative Manager.23 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. petitioner was hired by respondent bank as Assistant Manager and/or OIC Branch Head of its Legazpi City Branch. Ltd. This ruling was affirmed by the NLRC in its December 29. 188271. Xu asked Loreta to go on leave with pay for one month. the act or acts constituting breach of trust must have been done intentionally. Wensha and Xu denied illegally terminating Loreta‟s employment. This is not a just and valid cause for an employee‟s dismissal. Loreta moved for a reconsideration of the NLRC‟s ruling but her motion was denied. Equitable PCI Bank (now Banco de Oro). 2010. breach of trust and confidence. and they must be founded on clearly established facts 22 Jesus E. ISSUE: W/N The Honorable COURT OF APPEALS committed grave abuse of discretion and serious errors when it held that petitioner XU ZHI JIE to be solidarily liable with WENSHA. 2006 Resolution. several clients of the Legazpi branch filed complaints for alleged unauthorized abstractions of various trust funds. (Manmen) where Xu was a client..00. Loreta refused but was informed that she could no longer continue working at Wensha. 2004.vs. they terminated Loreta‟s employment on August 31. assuming that respondent was illegally dismissed? HELD: Dismissal. The CA reversed the ruling of the NLRC on the ground that it gravely abused its discretion in appreciating the factual bases that led to Loreta‟s dismissal. The Court finds that the complainant‟s allegations are more credible and that she was dismissed from her employment because the Feng Shui master found that complainant‟s Chinese Zodiac Sign was a mismatch to that of respondents.[9] citing its observation that Wensha was still considering the proper action to take on the day Loreta left Wensha and filed her complaint. They claimed that two months after Loreta was hired. Jr. 2004. To be a valid cause for termination of employment. “show cause” letters were . they advised her to take a leave of absence for one month while they conducted an investigation on the matter. Xu and his wife asked her to resign from Wensha because. Dycoco. The NLRC added that this finding was bolstered by Wensha‟s September 10. they received various complaints against her from the employees so that on August 10.[5] Loreta recounted that on August 10. Upon her return. In contrast. 2004. She started working on April 21. feng shui.[6] The Labor Arbiter (LA) Francisco Robles dismissed Loreta‟s complaint for lack of merit. Consequently. 2004. Respondent bank promptly commenced an investigation. 2004 for loss of trust and confidence. But Xu was persistent and offered her a higher pay. respondent bank underwent an internal reorganization. according to the Feng Shui master. Enticed. Loreta resigned from Manmen and transferred to Wensha. In 2000. but she declined because she had already filed a case. treasury placements and deposits. After he established Wensha. Pursuant thereto. Loreta was initially reluctant to accept Xu‟s offer because her job at Manmen was stable and she had been with Manmen for seven years.

[6] He denied threatening Vicente Niguidula. 105126. in relation to the corporate rehabilitation proceedings that LBNI initiated. Furthermore. LBNI‟s executive vice president. He explained that the one gallon of Delo oil he allegedly took was actually found in Gil Balais‟ room. 23 Carlos De Castro vs.[8] The respondent. 165153. gross negligence and loss of confidence.[5] Moreover. supervisors. Though the acts charged against de Castro took place when he was still under probationary employment. He was guilty of serious misconduct. making his dismissal based on loss of confidence justified. Jr. and to the Makati police. This directly resulted in the unauthorized abstraction of bank funds. FACTS: CHARM The petitioner. respectively. filed the present Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Suspend Proceedings. the accusations were belatedly filed as the imputed acts happened in 1995. former Service Officer respondent Siles Samalea. SP No. we hereby GRANT the petition. to set aside our Decision[1] and. probationary employment. first. Rene Buenaventura and Siles Samalea. Service Officer Irene Tabuzo. 2002. petitioner‟s failure to comply with basic banking policies and procedures were inimical to the interests of the bank. 01-000390-08. de Castro. Dycoco. GUTTIEREZ issued to the officers of the Legazpi branch. HELD: Dismissal. fraud. v. to suspend the court proceedings in view of the Stay Order issued on August 19. No. and willful breach of the trust reposed in him as a managerial employee. SO ORDERED ISSUE: W/N DISMISSAL VALID? HELD: Dismissal. Gross negligence connotes “want of care in the performance of one‟s duties. and Edgardo Quigue.24 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. 2009 decision and May 12.” Petitioner‟s failure on 3 separate occasions to require clients to sign the requisite documents constituted gross negligence. Costs against the respondents. Jr. the employer‟s loss of trust and confidence in said employees may justify the termination of their employment. 2009 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. Inc. et al. 09-00407-06 which held that petitioner was illegally dismissed by respondents Equitable PCI Bank (now Banco de Oro). willful disobedience and gross negligence for not performing his duty to complete the documentary requirements in the opening of accounts pursuant to the bank‟s internal procedures. it has been held that if the employees are cashiers. in RAB-V Case No. we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision and Resolution of the CA promulgated on May 25. including Branch Center Head Glena Orogo.. Investment Clerk Carlo Quirong and the petitioner as the PBM. seeks reconsideration of the August 26. (LBNI).[4] He maintained that he could not have solicited commissions from suppliers considering that he was new in the company. managers. Liberty Broadcasting Network. second.[7] De Castro alleged that prior to executing affidavits against him. Inc. Branch 138. ISSUE: W/N CA was thus correct in upholding the dismissal of petitioner. on the other hand. 2004 and August 30. de Castro filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against LBNI with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Arbitration Branch. worked as a chief building administrator at LBNI. damages. praying for reinstatement. he was already a . The dispositive part of our Decision reads: WHEREFORE. The CA affirmed the decision and resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Jesus Dycoco.R. 2009 resolution denying his petition[1] wherein he assailed the February 16. Liberty Broadcasting Network. As the Bank‟s Personal Banking Manager. whom he claimed verbally assaulted him and challenged him to a fight. Petitioner Jesus E. Equitable PCI Bank / Rene Buenaventura. In reversing the labor arbiter. National Capital Region. Niguidula and Balais had serious clashes with him. The NLRC. 2010. By then. Aggrieved. payment of backwages. LBNI dismissed de Castro on the grounds of serious misconduct. reversed and set aside the July 24. Operations Officers Imelda Espiritu and Maria Fe Gianan. docketed as LAC No. 2005 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. the NLRC ruled that petitioner‟s dismissal was for just cause. 1996. 2004. Carlos C. V. 2007 decision of the labor arbiter of the Regional Arbitration Branch No. August 25.R. and attorney‟s fees. Accordingly. G. Legazpi City. the records show that de Castro was dismissed on the ninth month of his employment with LBNI. salesmen or other personnel occupying positions of responsibility. an incident which he reported to respondent Edgardo Quiogue. and REINSTATE in all respects the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated September 20. On May 31. asking us. premises considered.

Consunji. 20. being project employees./Winston F. Emilio Aleta and Generoso Melo worked as carpenters in the construction projects of petitioner D. which was later superseded by Department Order No. only obliged to render a report to the DOLE. but they were dismissed within the twoyear period. where they started working on September 1. 1998. 19.M. Molina.. Therefore. This is because completion of the work or project automatically terminates the employment. their termination was warranted and legal. Godofredo Paragsa. Petitioner D. . Consunji. 70708. Hence. are covered by Policy Instruction No. series of 1993. respondents saw their names included in the Notice of Termination posted on the bulletin board at the project premises. under the law. that they were dismissed from the last project they were assigned to when their respective phases of work were completed.M. series of 1993.[5] Moreover. et al. Melo. Citing the employment record of each respondent. Ayala. project employees. as evidenced by bank remittances. They had no prior notice of their termination. Consunji. Consunji for illegal dismissal. and that petitioner D. and its Resolution. 2005. On October 14. 1998. as superseded by Department Order No. and non-payment of 13th month pay. August 8. backwages. 25 Winston F. Magellan Dalisay. 169170. ISSUE: W/N DISMISSAL VALID? HELD: Dismissal. Inc. GUTTIEREZ regular employee by operation of law.M. Respondents filed a Complaint with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against petitioner D. series of 1993 with respect to their separation or dismissal. Respondents‟ notices of termination were filed with the DOLE. Consuji maintained the same positions they had against the case of Melo‟s cocomplainants.25 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. Antonio Gobres. petitioner claimed that respondents have been duly paid their service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay through their respective bank accounts. granting that they were project employees. Inc. five (5) days service incentive leave pay. a construction company. Consuji averred that respondents‟ services were terminated when their phases of work for which their services were engaged were completed or when the projects themselves were completed. SP No. Makati. Inc. 1999. Ayala. in which case. the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision[8] dismissing respondents‟ complaint. de Castro was entitled to security of tenure and his illegal dismissal from LBNI justified the awards of separation pay. The Labor Arbiter found that respondents were project employees. Molina. dated March 9. and David M. Consunji..[6] Respondents replied that the Quad 4-Project at Glorietta. Respondents‟ last assignment was at Quad 4-Project in Glorietta. 20. and damages 24 D.[3] With respect to respondent Generoso G. G. Garcia vs. damages. As a regular employee.R. 19. 20. in compliance with Policy Instruction No. the employer is. dated August 2. Respondents were employed per project undertaken by petitioner company and within varying estimated periods indicated in their respective project employment contracts. Consunji. petitioner and David M. et al. Their termination from employment for each project was reported to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). damages and attorney‟s fees. 2005.M. in accordance with Policy Instruction No. Makati City was estimated to take two years to finish. No. petitioner and David M. Garcia Vs. et al. 2010. Mario I. Consunji reported their termination of services to the DOLE in accordance with the requirements of law. denying petitioner‟s motion for reconsideration.[4] Petitioner contended that since respondents were terminated by reason of the completion of their respective phases of work in the CHARM construction project.19. they were still illegally dismissed for nonobservance of procedural due process. Mario I. vs. and David M.. Respondents appealed the Labor Arbiter‟s Decision to the NLRC This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.[7] On October 4. failing to give project employees advance notice of their termination is not a violation of procedural due process and cannot be the basis for the payment of nominal damages. on several occasions and/or at various times. Inc.M.[2] superseded by Department Order No.R. and David M. Inc. FACTS: Respondents Antonio Gobres. Prior or advance notice of termination is not part of procedural due process if the termination of a project employee is brought about by the completion of the contract or phase thereof. Consunji countered that respondents.

the CSC failed to resolve respondents‟ motions to lift preventive suspension order and to transfer the case from the GSIS to the CSC. This rule is equally true in quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings. or property without due process is unqualified by the type of proceedings (whether judicial or administrative) where he stands to lose the sameLabor Procedure CSC. 2002 from petitioner charging them with grave misconduct. 2) leading the concerted protest activities held in the morning of May 22. Specifically. decision rendered without due process. 2002.R. On October 10. On January 2.[8] The following day. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PETITIONERS ABUSED THEIR AUTHORITY AND HAVE BEEN PARTIAL IN REGARD TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS. prosecutor and judge at the same time.26 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. In their Answer[9] dated May 27. FACTS: Respondents Molina and Velasco. No.[7] These acts. 73170. In the same Memoranda. No. a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction. 174137. The filing of formal charges against the respondents without complying with the mandated . SP No. Velasco was accused of performing acts in violation of the Rules on Office Decorum for leaving his office without informing his supervisor of his whereabouts. AND IN PERPETUALLY RESTRAINING THE PETITIONERS FROM HEARING AND INVESTIGATING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CASES FILED AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS – SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE TOTALLY UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE PARTIAL AGAINST THEM. HELD: Due process. respondents denied the charges against them. GUTTIEREZ G. respondents filed with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) an Urgent Petition to Lift Preventive Suspension Order. 2002 during office hours within the GSIS compound. The violation of a party‟s right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue that cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right to due process is apparent. They likewise prayed that petitioner (and the committee) be prohibited from conducting the scheduled hearing and from taking any action on the aforesaid administrative case against respondents. They strongly expressed their opposition to petitioner acting as complainant.[12] Despite their urgent motions.R. respondents filed with the CA a special civil action for certiotari and prohibition with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). petitioner required respondents to submit their verified answer within seventy two (72) hours. 2002. 2003. according to petitioner. August 10. prosecutor and judge. On May 28. and 3) continuously performing said activities despite warning from his immediate superiors.[10] They contended that the acts they allegedly committed were arbitrarily characterized as grave misconduct. Instead. the CA rendered a decision[14] in favor of respondents. and gross insubordination for persistently disregarding petitioner‟s instructions that Velasco should report to the petitioner‟s office.R. Molina was charged for allegedly committing the following acts: 1) directly and continuously helping some alleged disgruntled employees to conduct concerted protest actions and/or illegal assemblies against the management and the GSIS President and General Manager. effective immediately. 157383/G.[13] The case was docketed as CA-G. respondents filed with the CSC a Petition to Transfer Investigation to This Commission. for the constitutional guarantee that no man shall be deprived of life. a committee was constituted to investigate the charges against respondents. 2002. received two separate Memoranda[5] dated May 23.[11] Meanwhile. [6] In addition to the charge for grave misconduct for performing the same acts as Molina. both Attorney V of the GSIS. rules for dismissal. liberty. the GSIS hearing officer directed petitioners to submit to the jurisdiction of the CHARM investigating committee and required them to appear at the scheduled hearing. Considering the gravity of the charges against them. They likewise opposed their preventive suspension for lack of factual and legal basis. petitioner ordered the preventive suspension of respondents for ninety (90) days without pay. Respondents sought the annulment and setting aside of petitioner‟s order directing the former to submit to the jurisdiction of the committee created to hear and investigate the administrative case filed against them. 2010. were committed in open betrayal of the confidential nature of their positions and in outright defiance of the Rules and Regulations on Public Sector Unionism. they averred that petitioner was motivated by vindictiveness and bad faith in charging them falsely. Consistent with their stand that petitioner could not act as the complainant.

HELD: We find no merit in the petition. He likewise claimed his unpaid monetary benefits such as overtime pay. July 2. 167218. This decision. 2000 addressed to the personnel manager and signed by one Victor Morales and Ruben Que. The fact that the charges against the respondents are serious or that the evidence of their guilt is strong cannot compensate for the procedural shortcut undertaken by petitioner. These are.R. premium pay for worked rest days. Erector Advertsing Sign Group. whether the dismissal is for any of the causes provided in the Labor Code of the Philippines. The validity of an employee‟s dismissal from service hinges on the satisfaction of the two substantive requirements for a lawful termination. anent the charge that Cloma had terrorized the staff of the Outright Division and incited a work stoppage. is not a mere technicality but a requirement of due process to which every employee is entitled. as in this case. And second. that he was dismissed without just cause. No. and of misbehavior.[4] In his Complaint[5] filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). without being provoked. suddenly barged into the premises of the Outright Division and. without authority. NLRC. the employer is bound to furnish the employee concerned with two (2) written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected. Sometime in the middle of 1996. that he has already been penalized with suspension for this offense and. Inc. It is conceded by petitioner that Cloma has been suspended several times from work due to frequent tardiness and absenteeism. but the instant case appears to be likewise the result of documented instances of absenteeism without prior notice to and approval from his superior. service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay. Cloma. this act may no longer be added to support the imposition of the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service nor may it be used as an independent ground to that end. 167218 July 2. thereby giving him ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his representative should he so desire. Cloma alleged that he was illegally suspended and then dismissed from his employment without due process of law. is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of constructing billboards and advertising signs. it is clear. however. G. 2010 FACTS: Petitioner Erector Advertising Sign Group. exemplary and actual damages and attorneys fees. The former happened between May 12 and May 15. 2000 suspension order. as well as moral. whereas the latter incident happened on May 11. 2000 when allegedly.[7] This second incident was supposedly narrated fully in a letter dated May 13. first. 2010 G. 26. from the May 17. 2000 when Cloma supposedly failed to report for work without prior notice and prior leave approval[6] which thus effectively prevented the other workers from being transported to the job site as there was no other driver available. petitioner engaged the services of Expedito Cloma (Cloma) as company driver and the latter had served as such until his dismissal from service in May 2000. This constitutes the substantive aspect. Finally. ISSUE: whether Cloma was dismissed with just cause and with due process of law.[28] In this case. One is the notice apprising the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought and this may loosely be considered as the proper charge. it has been stressed.[27] With respect to due process requirement. GUTTIEREZ preliminary investigation or at least giving the respondents the opportunity to comment violated the latter‟s right to due process. we find that no error has been committed by the Court of Appeals in ruling that Cloma‟s dismissal from . hence. No. This is the procedural aspect. These rules on due process apply even in cases where the complainant is the disciplining officer himself. The requirement of notice. must come only after the employee is given a reasonable period from receipt of the first notice within which to answer the charge. threatened the employees with bodily harm if they did not stop from doing their work. this petition. whether the employee was accorded due process the basic components of which are the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.R. The other is the notice informing the employee of the management‟s decision to sever his employment. we find that Cloma‟s dismissal from service did not comply with this basic precept. Inc. The NLRC based its CHARM finding on the termination letter served by petitioner on Cloma such that with respect to the first ground of termination Hence.[30] All told.[8] The NLRC pointed out that not only was Cloma dismissed without due process but also. v.27 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY.

The union's other economic demands and non-economic proposals were all denied. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL (PHILS. 2000. several employees attempted to report for work. and. Director of the Southern Police District. instead of remanding the case." On June 8.a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. The Labor Secretary reiterated his directives in another order dated February 22. The negotiations reached a deadlock. 1999. 27 G.33 ISSUE: The Illegal Dismissal Issue Before we rule on the substantive aspect of this issue. but the striking employees prevented them from entering the company premises. initially at P42. Theunion seasonably submitted proposals to the company for its renegotiation. what the Labor Secretary refused to rule upon was the dismissal from employment that resulted from the strike. Among these proposals were economic demands for a wage increase of P180. GUTTIEREZ service was both without just cause and without due process of law. It affirmed the Labor Secretary's wage increase award. 1999 . also for three years. The CA found the petition partly meritorious. the intent of the law is to give the Labor Secretary full authority to resolve all matters within the dispute that gave rise to or which arose out of the strike or lockout. CHARM 2000 order of the Labor Secretary when they were reinstated only in the payroll. FACTS: The union and the company had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that expired on July 18. to the point of abusing his discretion.00/day from July 19.00. 1999. Union President.. The company countered with a wage increase offer.R.23cralaw They claimed that: (1) the company officials violated the Labor Secretary's return-to-work order when these officials placed them under preventive suspension and refused them entry into the company premises. represented by SABINO F. GRAGANZA. 1999.7cralaw The National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB ) exerted efforts but failed to resolve the deadlock. 1999 . but modified his ruling on the dismissal of the union officers. This grant is not limited to the grounds cited in the notice of strike or lockout that may have preceded the strike or lockout. On February 2 and 3.00 a day. As the term "assume jurisdiction" connotes. 2000 . 2001. P60. 167401 : July 5. and moved that a reinstatement order be issued. Article 263(g) is both an extraordinary and a preemptive power to address an extraordinary situation .11cralaw and deputized Senior Superintendent Manuel A. Cabigon. " to assist in the peaceful and orderly implementation of this Order .54 In the present case.00/day from July 19. including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction. the petition is DENIED. Respondents. the company filed a Notice of Lock-out8cralaw for unfair labor practice due to the union's alleged work slowdown. we deem it proper to resolve first the company's submission that the CA erred: (1) in ruling that the Labor Secretary gravely abused his discretion in not deciding the dismissal issue. then increased it to P45. (2) the company also violated the March 9. vs. and REYVILOSA TRINIDAD. Petitioners. 2000. WHEREFORE.the ultimate weapon in labor disputes that the law specifically singled out under Article 263 of the Labor Code by granting the Labor Secretary assumption of jurisdiction powers. The unionwent on strike three days later.00 for three years. No. and (3) the company committed unfair labor practice and dismissed them without basis. as follows: P70.28 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY.). the union and the officers filed a petition to cite the company and its responsible officers for contempt. HELD: We agree with the CA's conclusion that the Labor Secretary erred. leading to a Notice of Strike the union filed on October 15. nor is it limited to the incidents of the strike or lockout that in the meanwhile may have taken place. INC. when he did not resolve the dismissal issue on the mistaken reading that this issue falls within the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. and P50. spread over three (3) years. This was an egregious error and an abdication of authority on the matter of strikes .00/day from July 19. 2000. On November 15. it includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising from or related to the dispute. (2) in deciding the factual issue itself. or on November 18. Article 264 significantly dwells on this exact subject matter by defining the circumstances when a union officer or member may be . thereby depriving it of the right to present evidence on the matter. 2010 BAGONG PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL.

99550. except those our Decision can no longer reach because of the amicable settlement they entered into with the company. and that retrenchment was not the actual reason for Remo's dismissal. For failure of the company. in this petition for review on certiorari. legally deserve to be dismissed from the service. 1986 as a janitor. it held that the NLRC should not have factored in the P5 million awarded by this Court in another case7cralaw cralawas an actual loss because the award..R.29 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. (Remo served Sentinel for almost twenty [20] years. who is a shop steward but not a union officer. it still committed no reversible error in nullifying the NLRC resolution as it found grave abuse of discretion in the labor tribunal's gross misappreciation of the other adduced evidence. and rising to the position of operations officer in 2005. INC. of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. The labor tribunals glossed over this misrepresentation and failed to appreciate it for what it was . that although the CA focused more on the retrenchment aspect of the disputed dismissal.an act of active bad faith that fatally tainted Remo's dismissal and rendered it illegal. then the termination of [Remo] should not have been attributed to retrenchment. computed from the time of Remo's dismissal up to the time of finality of this Decision. after considering the records and the parties' submissions. as an indication that Sentinel's financial distress was not as serious as it claimed. The CA considered the hiring of a replacement (Marcelo Albay) for Remo. through the union's motion for the issuance of an order for immediate reinstatement of the dismissed officers and the company's opposition to the motion.R. 2006.cra6cralaw cralawThe labor arbiter's decision upheld the dismissal of respondent Rio Jose Remo (Remo) on the ground of retrenchment. Thus. we deem it appropriate to order the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.cra8cralaw cralawIt. in fact. however. 188223 : July 5. the CA pointed out that there was no showing that other less drastic means had been tried and found insufficient or inadequate before Sentinel resorted to retrenchment . vs. GUTTIEREZ declared to have lost his employment. to prove by substantial evidence the illegal acts allegedly committed by Rosalinda Olangar. respectively. J.cra14cralaw cralawThis is the same result that the CA decreed. submitted to the Labor Secretary. RIO JOSE REMO. (Sentinel) challenges. 2009. SP No.cra4 The challenged CA rulings reversed and set aside the resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated January 31. we find her dismissal without a valid cause. Court's Ruling We resolve to deny the petition for lack of merit. the union officers. . the dismissal issue was properly brought before the Labor Secretary and this development in fact gave rise to his mistaken ruling that the matter is legally within the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter to decide. viewed in light of what had transpired between the parties. although not for the same reason and under a computation reckoned from the finality of its own decision. commencing employment on March 21. G. BRION. For having participated in a prohibited activity not once. The appellate court found that Sentinel failed to discharge the burden of proving that the losses it incurred warranted Remo's dismissal. therefore." Also. an illegal dismissal merits the penalty of reinstatement and the payment of backwages from the time of dismissal up to actual reinstatement. 2010 SENTINEL INTEGRATED SERVICES. however.5cralaw cralawthat in turn affirmed the labor arbiter's decision dated January 31. No. We find."12cralaw cralawThis finding totally renders any further discussion of Sentinel's submitted financial statements and its audit-related issues unnecessary. The CA rejected Sentinel's financial statements from 1995 to 2005 (which were submitted during the compulsory arbitration) in CHARM the absence of evidence that these were "fully audited by an independent external auditor.)chanroblesvirtualawlibray The CA Decision The CA ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding Remo's dismissal on the ground of retrenchment. 28.1cralaw cralawthe decision2cralaw cralawand the resolution3cralaw cralawof February 12.a jurisprudential requisite in retrenchments. but twice. Respondent. the sensitive nature of Remo's position. Petitioner. Inc. Lastly.cra13cralaw cralawConsidering. although final. "If this was so. We find from the records that this was an issue that arose from the strike and was.: FACTS: Sentinel Integrated Services. opined that Sentinel did not act in good faith in terminating Remo's employment. 2009 and June 3. ISSUE: W/N Remo's dismissal is valid on the ground of retrenchment? HELD: As a rule. 2007. could still be the subject of compromise. We note that the CA correctly noted this fatal flaw when it stated that.

through the extra-ordinary remedy of certiorari. 2010 LAMBERT PAWNBROKERS and JEWELRY CORPORATION and LAMBERT LIM.00. its gross income for 1998 dropped from P1million to P665. Lim cited business losses necessitating retrenchment as the reason for the termination. SP No. the findings of facts of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the dismissal of respondent was with valid and legal basis. On September 14. HELEN BINAMIRA. Binamira).: It is fundamental that an employer is liable for illegal dismissal when it terminates the services of the employee without just or authorized cause and without due process of law. It observed that for retrenchment to be valid. in this instance. Helen received a letter5cralaw from Lim terminating her employment effective that same day.. In their Position Paper. Lim is married to Rhodora Binamira. Labor Arbiter Geoffrey P. There was no retrenchment.16cralaw the CA found that both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC failed to consider substantial evidence showing that the exercise of management prerogative. 010003-99-B. valid dismissal based on 29. 1999. She claimed that she was a mere casualty of the war of attrition between Lim and the Binamira family.8cralaw petitioners asserted that they had no choice but to retrench respondent due to Retrenchment is the termination of employment initiated by the employer through no fault of and without prejudice to the employees. necessary and desirable position in the pawnshop business. Moreover. Ruling of the Labor Arbiter On November 26. In its Statement of Income and Expenses. The CA ruled that there was no redundancy because the position of vault custodian is a requisite. daughter of Atty. Petitioners. Issue Whether the CA gravely erred in reversing. was done in bad faith and in violation of the employee's right to due process. J. RULE: The petition is without merit. Sr.R. she claimed that there was no proof that the company was suffering from business losses. There was likewise no retrenchment because none of the conditions for retrenchment is present in this case. G. then the retrenchment of Helen was not valid. GUTTIEREZ WHEREFORE. a written notice shall be given to the employee and to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least one month prior to the intended date thereof.30 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. premises considered. seasonal fluctuations. 1998. Helen thus filed a case for illegal dismissal against petitioners docketed as NLRC RAB-VII CASE NO. Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation . 170464 : July 12. vs. Villahermosa rendered a Decision9cralaw which held that Helen was not illegally dismissed but was validly retrenched.Tagbilaran Branch hired Helen as an appraiser in July 1995 and designated her as Vault Custodian in 1996.6cralaw In her Position Paper7cralaw Helen alleged that she was dismissed without cause and the benefit of due process. The corporation suffered a marked decline in profits as well as substantial and persistent increase in losses. we AFFIRM the challenged decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Boler Binamira. SO ORDERED. It is resorted to during periods of business recession. CHARM economic reverses. Respondent. FACTS: Petitioner Lambert Lim (Lim) is a Malaysian national operating various businesses in Cebu and Bohol one of which is Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation. 99550. The dispositive portion of the Decision law library Ruling of the Court of Appeals On petition for certiorari.R. No. The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's Decision reads:chan robles virtual law library Ruling of the NLRC On appeal. who is also the counsel and father-in-law of respondent Helen Binamira (Helen). with MODIFICATION with respect to the exact basis for the finding of illegality and the computation of separation pay of one month pay for every year of service which should be from the date of the respondent's dismissal up to the finality of this Decision. (Atty.000. industrial depression. the NLRC reversed and set aside the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. or during lulls occasioned by lack . Since none was given in this case. DEL CASTILLO.

the employer must comply with the following requisites: (1) written notice served on both the employees and the DOLE at least one month prior to the . NO.. In Philippine American Life and General Insurance v. which reads:chan robles virtual law library Art. but substantial. (2) payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay for every year of service. only the employer-corporation. exists when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the enterprise. It implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity. MARIBAGO BLUEWATER BEACH RESORT. it hired respondent Dual as waiter Redundancy. and is recognized by Article 283 of the Labor Code. 30. 180660 July 20. as a juridical entity.The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to x x x retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operations of the establishment x x x by serving a written notice on the worker and the DOLE at least one month before the intended date thereof. Obligations incurred as a result of the directors' and officers' acts as corporate agents. are not merely de minimis. LapuLapu City. x x x In case of retrenchment to prevent losses. As a general rule.NITO DUAL.versus . decreased volume of business. GUTTIEREZ of orders.27cralaw A corporation. partnership or association or any other entity.R. or automation.31 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. (2) the employer serves written notice both to the employee/s concerned and the DOLE at least one month before the intended date of retrenchment. serious and real. are not their personal liability but the direct responsibility of the corporation they represent. on the other hand. the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half month for every year of service whichever is higher. the following elements must be present: (1) the retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which. malice or bad faith on the part of Lim as a corporate officer was not sufficiently proven to justify a ruling holding him solidarily liable with the corporation. INC . 283. in general. In the present case. (4) the employer exercises its prerogative to retrench in good faith. a stockholder or an officer of a corporation cannot be made personally liable for corporate liabilities. 2010 FACTS: Petitioner Maribago is a corporation operating a resort hotel and restaurant in Barangay Maribago.25 Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation is solely liable for the illegal dismissal of respondent.21cralaw It is a management prerogative resorted to avoid or minimize business losses. from the people comprising it. shortage of materials. which may be held liable for illegal dismissal of employees or for other wrongful acts. Under these conditions.30 bad faith is defined as a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purpose. and (4) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished. G. (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions.24 For the implementation of a redundancy program to be valid. valid dismissal based on CHARM intended date of termination of employment. if already incurred. There must be independent proof of malice or bad faith which is lacking in the present case. are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer. and not its officers. The lack of authorized or just cause to terminate one's employment and the failure to observe due process do not ipso facto mean that the corporate officer acted with malice or bad faith. x x x (Emphasis ours) To effect a valid retrenchment. 29cralaw They are only solidarily liable with the corporation for the illegal termination of services of employees if they acted with malice or bad faith. Gramaje. (3) the employer pays the retrenched employee separation pay in an amount prescribed by the Code. officers and employees. This is as it should be because a corporation is a juridical entity with legal personality separate and distinct from those acting for and in its behalf and. and (5) the employer uses fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be retrenched or retained. the employer has no legal obligation to keep in its payroll more employees than are necessary for the operation of its business. or only if expected.22 There was no redundancy. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. 1995[3]. such as over hiring of workers. may act only through its directors. or phasing out of a service activity previously undertaken by the business. dropping of a particular product line previously manufactured by the company. conversion of the plant to a new production program.28cralaw It is settled that in the absence of malice and bad faith. A redundant position is one rendered superfluous by any number of factors.

he gave a signal to Mission to give the bill. in turn. Upon verification from chief waiter Hiyas. Upon verification. the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 03 August 2005 is VACATED and SET ASIDE and the complainant‟s complaint is DISMISSEDfor lack of merit. the guests asked for their bill.[4] On 9 January 2005.m. (Missionfor brevity) served twelve (12) set dinners to the guests.00 was entered by Dual in the cash register. alleges that four (4) sets were cancelled and two (2) sets were given to the guides for free.00 was likewise missing and in its place. Dual was not present. The guests allegedly gave Mission P10. premises considered.[11] Respondent Dual confirms that the orders were for six (6) sets of lamb dinner and six (6) sets of fish dinner. It was discovered later that only P3.00 (more or less).00 which the latter gave to the guests. Alcoseba was also terminated for dishonesty based on his admission that he altered the order slip. Alvin Hiyas. of 15 January 2005. The rest can be kept by the waiter as tip.100. Regional Arbitration Branch No. illegal dismissal. As per company procedure. only a transaction receipt for P3. GUTTIEREZ and promoted him later as outlet cashier of its Poolbar/Allegro Restaurant.00 and relayed the guests‟ instruction. he was allegedly CHARM told that the sets of dinner were indeed cancelled and placed in the utensil station.00 with the instruction to return only P200. on 14 January 2005. Hiyas and waiter Genaro Mission. Dual filed a complaint[17] for unfair labor practice. VII. According to petitioner. issued memoranda. Dual met Mission and tried again to convince him to say that only six (6) sets of dinner were ordered. Hence.[14] At past 11:00 p.00 was registered. Jr. After dinner. He was able to confirm the cancellation with Alcoseba and Hiyas.m.[5] Captain waiter Alvin Hiyas (Hiyas for brevity) took their dinner orders comprising of six (6) sets of lamb and six (6) sets of fish. and another two (2) sets to their guides[7] free of charge (total of 14 sets of dinner). The original transaction receipt for P10. through its Human Resource Development (HRD) manager.[6] Pursuant to the order slip.[8] In view of the discrepancy between the order slip and the receipt issued. The guests paid the amount indicated on the receipt and thereafter left in a hurry.[19] It ruled that complainant‟s act of depriving respondent of its lawful revenue is tantamount to fraud against the company which warrants dismissal from the .[12] He avers that when he noticed the alteration in the order slip. He was terminated per memorandum dated 22 January 2005. he received the payment for the six (6) sets only.m. fourteen (14) sets of dinner were prepared by the chef. all dated 12 January 2005..036. Cebu City. respondent Dual was found guilty of dishonesty for his fabricated statements and for asking one of the waiters (Mission) to corroborate his allegations. to wit: WHEREFORE. he checked the utensil station and found the Petitioner Maribago submits that the transaction receipt handed to Mission by respondent Dual amounted to P10. requiring respondent Dual. Since Hiyas was attending to other guests. told him that some orders were cancelled because some of the companions of the Japanese guests did not take their dinner. The Labor Arbiter found that respondent‟s termination was without valid cause and ruled that respondent is entitled to separation pay. Dual handed Mission the P200. non-payment of 13th month and separation pay. to wit: The NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter‟s decision and dismissed the complaint. The latter allegedly told him that the order slip was handed by Alcoseba.[15] Mission reported on 16 January 2005 and attended the hearing that day. around 6:30 p. Mission then handed Dual the P10. a group of Japanese guests and their companions dined at Allegro.32 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. He. it was also found out that the order slip was tampered by Alcoseba to make it appear that only six (6) set dinners were ordered. According to respondent. Ernesto Avenido and Basilio Alcoseba to explain why they should not be penalized for violating House After the investigation.500. Respondent further avers that he went to see Alcoseba who. and damages before the NLRC.00. Hiyas forwarded one copy of the order slip to the kitchen and another copy to respondent.100. at around 9:00 p.. The rest of the payment was missing.500. however.[13] Mission did not report for work and did not attend the 15 January 2005 clarificatory hearing since he could not “in conscience” tell a lie. Missionasked respondent Dual for the sales transaction receipt and presented this to the guests. petitioner Maribago.036. Dual and Alcoseba tried to convince Mission to say that he altered the order slip from twelve (12) sets of dinner to six (6) sets.[16] On 3 February 2005. he verified this with Mission.

No. a complaint for illegal dismissal.. UP TO THE FINALITY OF [ITS] DECISION AND SEPARATION PAY OF ONE MONTH SALARY FOR EVERY YEAR OF SERVICE. it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Sometime in June 2002.[34] we ruled that violation of the employee‟s statutory right to due process makes the employer liable to pay indemnity in the form of nominal damages. FACTS: Petitioner Jose P.33 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY.. While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class. illegal suspension.[38] Regarding the due process requirement. On 29 July 2002. holiday pay.[21] Falsification of commercial documents as a means to malverse company funds constitutes fraud against the company. Respondents. authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. SP No.[22] The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and resolution of the NLRC. 13th month pay. he bad-mouthed the employees of RP Guardians Security Agency.cra10 . 172988 : July 26. Andres informed Artificio that a hearing will be held on 12 August 2002. Such favoritism. sent a report 6cralaw to Andres stating that Artificio arrived at the office of RP Guardians Security Agency. The assailed Decision and Resolution dated 7 March 2007 and 30 July 2007. Artificio was employed as security guard by respondent RP Guardians Security Agency. Artificio filed on 5 August 2002. we are constrained to reverse the Court of Appeals. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. Merlino B. WHEREFORE. petitioner had complied with it as clearly shown by the facts. premium pay for holiday and rest days. respectively. another security guard. Edu (Edu). The management also has its own rights. When Artificio learned that no salaries would be given that day. 31. Finding no sufficient valid cause to justify respondent‟s dismissal. Gutierrez Err (Err). RP GUARDIANS SECURITY AGENCY.cra9 Without waiting for the hearing to be held. and threatened to "arson" their office. and damages. on 25 June 2002. however. 2010 JOSE P.[35] Withal. Otherwise. are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. The law requires that an employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just or authorized cause. has not blinded the Court to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving. The law further requires that the burden of proving the cause for termination rests with the employer. requesting that Artificio be investigated for maliciously machinating Edu's hasty relief from his post and for leaving his post during night shift duty to see his girlfriend at a nearby beerhouse. National Labor Relations Commission.[24] In essence.R. under the influence of liquor. the petition is GRANTED. ANDRES. as follows: ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN REVERSING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND DIRECTING PETITIONER TO PAY RESPONDENT FULL BACKWAGES FROM THE TIME HE WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED. Administration & Operations Manager. Inc. G. On 25 July 2002. ALBERTO AGUIRRE. and ANTONIO A. in protecting the rights of the laborers. He also prayed for payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Andres (Andres). Petitioner. a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine Laws and likewise duly licensed to engage in the security agency business. Out of its concern for those with less privileges in life. Inc. non-payment of overtime pay. 02062 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. INC. the law. Artificio had a heated argument with a fellow security guard. an employee unjustly dismissed from work is entitled to reinstatement and full backwages.R. LAURILLA. the issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent was illegally dismissed. GUTTIEREZ service. The complaint of respondent Nito Dual is DISMISSED. to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law and doctrine. as such. HELD: After a full review of the case. the Court of Appeals ordered petitioner to pay respondent full backwages and separation pay.[33] InAgabon v. JUAN VICTOR K. Edu submitted a confidential report5cralaw to Antonio A. vs. the Supreme Court has inclined more often than not toward the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts CHARM with the employer. ARTIFICIO.[32] The law also requires the employer to observe due process in termination cases. Inc. of the Court of Appeals in CAG.

its employees and client in light of the serious allegation of conduct unbecoming a security guard such as abandonment of post during night shift duty. light threats and irregularities in the observance of proper relieving time. He also argues that he was illegally dismissed because the charges against him were couched in general and broad terms. preventive suspension is not proper. such is not prevailing in this case since Artificio immediately filed a complaint before the labor tribunal. While it is true that preventive suspension can ripen into constructive dismissal when it goes beyond the 30-day maximum period allowed by law. including work assignment.cra20cralaw Artificio is entitled to separation pay considering that while reinstatement is an option. 2002. He was set to be heard on August 12.cra19 In this case. preventive suspension is justified where the employee's continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of the employee's coworkers. Without this kind of threat. all aspects of employment. dismissal and recall of workers. set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Besides. his allegation should be taken with utmost caution. GUTTIEREZ After hearing. It ruled that Edu's allegation of irregularity in the observance of relieving time was not specifically detailed. From the documents presented. his preventive suspension was illegal. such is not prevailing in the case at bar as it was complainant who chose to file a complaint and have due process before the courts of law. as the employer. respondent has the right to regulate. WHEREFORE. It was also held that Artificio should have been allowed to confront Edu and Err before he was preventively suspended. in a Decision13cralaw dated 31 August 2004. 2002. finding respondents guilty of illegal suspension and dismissal. This Court has upheld a company's management prerogatives so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements. It was complainant who terminated the relationship with respondents by asking for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement when the fact of dismissal has not yet happened. he filed this instant complaint on August 5. of the Court of . Management has the prerogative to discipline its employees and to impose appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to company rules and regulations. It added that it was Artificio who terminated his relationship with respondents when he asked for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement although he has not yet been dismissed. the NLRC. Such preventive suspension ripened into illegal dismissal. transfer of employees. As succinctly stated above. Respondents counter that Artificio was not dismissed but merely placed under preventive suspension pending investigation of the charges against him. the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dated 6 October 2003. Artificio's preventive suspension was justified since he was employed as a security guard tasked precisely to safeguard respondents' client. The NLRC clarified further that: virtual law library x x x While it is true that preventive suspension can ripen into a constructive dismissal when such goes beyond the 30 day maximum period allowable by law. working methods. Further.34 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. working regulations. pre-empting the administrative investigation undertaken by respondents. he was not given any notice requiring him to explain his side. as well as the Resolution dated 1 June 2006. His continued presence in respondents' or its client's premises poses a serious threat to respondents. at anytime after the notice of preventive suspension intended to remain in the employ of private respondents. Artificio himself has never. according to its discretion and best judgment. CHARM Artificio maintains that he was illegally suspended since his preventive suspension was for an indefinite period and was imposed without investigation.cra14cralaw ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER MAY BE TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT ON THE VERY DATE HE RECEIVED A LETTER FOR HIS PURPORTED RELIEF WITHOUT FIRST BEING GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM AND BEING INFORMED OF [THE] NATURE AND CAUSE OF HIS DISMISSAL. complainant was put on preventive suspension pending investigation of company violations which were supported by documentary evidences on July 29. LA rendered declaring respondents guilty of illegal suspension/lay-off and illegal dismissal. Since Edu had an axe to grind against Artificio. work supervision. It ruled that the Labor Arbiter erred in considering preventive suspension as a penalty. lay-off of workers and the discipline. the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Since he was denied due process. On appeal. processes to be followed. 2002 but before the respondents could hear his side. The Decision dated 31 March 2006.

alleging the unavailability of construction projects. 187200. but until June 30. he may recover backwages only up to May 20. however. Golden Ace Builders vs. 32. even if separation pay was not granted by the Labor Arbiter. 2005 when his reinstatement was rendered impossible without fault on his part. however. Such finding. and with payment of full back wages. and he must be considered to have been in the service not only until 1999. The petitioner and Talde were then referred to the Fiscal Examiner of the NLRC for the recomputation of the amount due to Talde. The accepted doctrine is that separation pay may avail in lieu of reinstatement if reinstatement is no longer practical or in the best interest of the parties. The CA set aside the Resolution of the NLRC holding that Talde is entitled to both backwages and separation pay. hence. Under Article 279 of the Labor Code and as held in a catena of cases. separation pay be granted to Artificio computed at the rate of one (1) month pay for every year of service reckoned from the start of his employment with the respondents in 1986 until 2002. the Labor Arbiter found that actual animosity existed between petitioner and Talde as a result of the filing of the illegal dismissal case. the backwages due respondent must be computed from the time he was unjustly dismissed until his actual reinstatement. the payment of separation pay is considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. 2010 Facts: Jose Tadle was hired in 1990 as a carpenter by petitioner Golden Ace Builders.35 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. he may not be afforded affirmative relief. petitioner advised Talde to report for work in the construction site. petitioner was hired in 1990. he opted for the payment of separation pay. not separation pay in lieu thereof. As to the computation of separation pay. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Talde and his immediate reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges. Jose A. May 5. the latter in view of the strained relations between the parties. Talde GR No. in lieu of reinstatement. SP No. Clearly then. the day he was supposed to return to the job site. 88188 are hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that. stopped giving work assignments to respondent. an employee who is dismissed without just cause and without due process is entitled to backwages and reinstatement or payment of separation pay in lieu thereof. to be adequately supported by substantial evidence. when he was unjustly dismissed. Issue: Is Talde entitled to separation pay? Ruling: Yes. and since he refused to go back to work. The basis for computing backwages is usually the length of the employee‟s service while that for separation pay is the actual period when the employee was unlawfully prevented from working. On the other hand. In February 1999. especially when affirmed by the appellate court as in the case at bar. the day he is deemed to have been actually separated (his . Under the doctrine of strained relations. 2001. Strained relations must be demonstrated as a fact. respondent is entitled to backwages and separation pay as his reinstatement has been rendered impossible due to strained relations. As correctly held by the appellate court. The basis for the payment of backwages is different from that for the award of separation pay. 2005. Pending appeal with the NLRC and in compliance with the Labor Arbiter‟s decision. Separation pay is granted where reinstatement is no longer CHARM advisable because of strained relations between the employee and the employer. prompting the latter to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. The NLRC ruled that since respondent did not appeal the Decision of the Labor Arbiter granting him only reinstatement and backwages. Backwages represent compensation that should have been earned but were not collected because of the unjust dismissal. petitioner. such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On one hand. GUTTIEREZ Appeals in CA-G. In the present case. it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust. and that there was no valid ground for the termination of his services. Talde however submitted a a manifestation to the Labor Arbiter that actual animosities existed between him and petitioners and there had been threats to his life and his family‟s safety. or from February 1999 until June 30. The NLRC dismissed the appeal holding that respondent was a regular employee and not a project employee. Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement may likewise be awarded if the employee decides not to be reinstated. is binding upon the Court.R.

a dereliction of duty. (2) Agad did not observe Caltex‟s rules and regulations when he transferred the said cylinders to Millanes‟ compound without the RMRD form as required under Caltex‟s Field Accounting Manual. Agad became a regular employee. Peñaflor learned that Outdoor Clothing‟s President. 2010 Facts: Peñaflor was hired as probationary HRD Manager of Outdoor Clothing on September 2. Agad G. appointed Edwin Buenaobra (Buenaobra) as the concurrent HRD and Accounting Manager. G. (Caltex) employed respondent Hermie G.500. Delda Engineering Services (Delda Services) for the construction of two crates. the misconduct must be of such grave and aggravated character. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing Corp. (5) Agad did not remit the proceeds of the sale of the LPG cylinders. 2000. Issue: Did Caltex legally terminate Agad‟s employment on just causes? Ruling: CHARM The findings of the CA and National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) establish the following: (1) Agad‟s request for withdrawal of the 190 cylinders of LPG as stated in a Memorandum dated 12 February 1992 cannot be given credence since the Memorandum pertains to the replacement of the scrap materials due to Boy Bato consisting of 3. 34. 177114. APRIL 23.A.R. On March 13. The NLRC reversed the decision of the LA and held that there existed just causes which justified Agad‟s dismissal. the owner of A. In another audit report. a just cause for termination of employment recognized under Article 282(a) of the Labor Code. The company auditor of Caltex verified the crating expense incurred by Agad with Delda. The LA held that there were no just causes for Agad‟s termination of employment. Peñaflor vs. To transfer his belongings from Leyte to Batangas. 162017. and thus filed his irrevocable resignation from Outdoor Clothing effective at the close of office hours on March 15. Agad filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. To be serious.36 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. Thus. Agad paid Delda P15. This act is akin to serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer in connection with his work. Delda alleged that he was forced by Agad to issue the official receipt in order to get a favorable recommendation from the incoming superintendent of the Depot. and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. more than six months from the time he was hired. 2010 Facts: Petitioner Caltex Philippines. Considering these findings. 33.R. Agad (Agad) as Depot Superintendent-A on a probationary basis for six months. No. Peñaflor considered the appointment of Buenaobra to his position as the last straw. He then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA for the nullification of the decision of the NLRC. liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders from the Depot were allegedly withdrawn when Agad was still depot superintendent In a Confidential Memorandum. Agad secured the carpentry services of Alfredo Delda (Delda). April 13. the company auditor declared that 190 pieces of 11 kg. Caltex filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. Caltex transferred Agad to Bauan Bulk Depot in Batangas effective 16 May 1992. evidenced by Official Receipt and submitted the receipt and Caltex reimbursed him the said amount. 1999. the instant petition. Hence. a forbidden act. Talde is entitled to separation pay for 15 years. willful in character. 2000. Nathaniel Syfu (Syfu). Inc. Misconduct has been defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action. (4) Agad failed to submit the periodic inventory report of the LPG cylinders to the accounting department. After Agad had served for two years since 1990 as Superintendent of the Tacloban Bulk Depot (Depot) in Leyte. The CA modified the judgment of the NLRC and ruled in favor of Agad. He thereafter filed an illegal dismissal complaint with the labor arbiter claiming that he had . After enduring what he claimed as discriminatory treatment at work. Caltex vs. Agad was informed of his dismissal on the grounds of serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence.000 kilograms of black iron plates and not to the subject LPG cylinders. it is clear that Agad committed a serious infraction amounting to theft of company property. (3) Agad gave specific instructions to Millanes to sell the cylinders without bidding to third parties in violation of company rules. the LPG cylinders still had monetary value which Agad cannot appropriate for himself without Caltex‟s consent. and (6) even if considered as scrap materials. GUTTIEREZ reinstatement having been rendered impossible) from petitioner company or for a total of 15 years. On 28 February 1984. Caltex conducted its regular audit of employees‟ account and expenses.

Petitioner.28 The Union submitted the required documents attesting to the facts of the organizational meeting on December 6. Issue: Whether THERE WAS FRAUD.37 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. it is still incumbent upon the employer to prove that the employee voluntarily resigned. the appellate court affirmed the NLRC‟s decision. 2010 EAGLE RIDGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB.6 and ratified7 their constitution and by-laws.R. and the adoption of the Union‟s constitution and by-laws. 571 SCRA 226]. Respondents. DOLE RO IV granted the application and issued EREU Registration Certificate (Reg. I-LO. at least 20% of Eagle Ridge‟s rank-and-file employee had a meeting where they organized themselves into an independent labor union. In time. No. Peñaflor decided to permanently sever his ties with Outdoor Clothing. EREU formally applied for registration9 and filed BLR Reg. RO400200512-UR-003.8 On December 19. the Court ruled that should the employer interpose the defense of resignation.. The Facts On December 6. or fraud to EREU in connection with the adoption of its constitution and by-laws. 1998. Cherry Labajo. or disdain by an employer exists and has become unbearable to the employee. Eagle Ridge‟s petition ascribed misrepresentation. When Peñaflor questioned the NLRC‟s decision before the CA. 2005. making one signature a forgery. November 14. No. MISREPRESENTATION AND/OR FALSE STATEMENT WHICH WARRANT THE CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF EREU. when the minutes of its December 6. In Mora v. 2005 and the fact that 26 members affixed their signatures on the documents. Annalyn Poniente and Rowel Dolendo. Issue: Was Peñaflor constructively dismissed? Ruling: Yes. 
vs. I-LO. It arises when a clear discrimination. GUTTIEREZ been constructively dismissed. Precisely because of the attendant hostile and discriminatory working environment. s. The fact of filing a resignation letter alone does not shift the burden of proving that the employee‟s dismissal was for a just and valid cause from the employer to the employee. 178989 March 18. With the appointment of Buenaobra to the position he then still occupied. the numerical composition of the Union. it does not necessarily signify that it was also voluntarily executed. Peñaflor felt that he was being eased out and this perception made him decide to leave the company. as involuntarily resignation due to the harsh. (c) the list of rank-and-file employees45 who ratified the union‟s constitution and by-laws showing the very same list as those who attended the organizational meeting and the election of officers with their individual signatures except the addition of four employees without their signatures.e. s. This falls squarely within the concept of constructive dismissal that jurisprudence defines. to wit: (a) the minutes of its organizational meeting43 held on December 6. Eagle Ridge opposed this petition. The labor arbiter agreed with Peñaflor and issued a decision in his favour. the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the labor arbiter‟s ruling.R. . Avesco [G.5 elected a set of officers. insensibility. the following documents. among others. While the letter states that Peñaflor‟s resignation was irrevocable. 2008. hostile. The misrepresentation was exacerbated by the discrepancy between the certification issued by the Union secretary and president that 25 members actually ratified the constitution and by-laws on December 6. 2005 showing 26 founding members who elected its union officers by secret ballot. 2005. (b) the list of rank-and-file employees44 of Eagle Ridge who attended the organizational meeting and the election of officers with their individual signatures. Hence. 177414.G. and unfavorable conditions set by the employer.
COURT OF APPEALS and EAGLE RIDGE EMPLOYEES UNION (EREU).) No. Form No. Eagle Ridge alleged that the EREU declared in its application for registration having 30 members. i. (d) the union‟s constitution and by-laws46 as approved on December 6. The EREU then filed a petition for certification election in Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club. Form No. Cert. 2005. On appeal. CHARM named "Eagle Ridge Employees Union" (EREU or Union). 2005 organizational meeting showed it only had 26 members. 2005. Going into specifics. Grace Pollo. 35.11 followed by its filing of a petition for the cancellation12 of Registration. and the election of its officers. the election of its officers. It submitted before the DOLE Regional Office with its Application for Registration and the duly filled out BLR Reg. The gauge for constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee‟s position would feel compelled to give up his employment under the prevailing circumstances. 199810 before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office IV (RO IV). false statement. Peñaflor filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Court.

1995. on October 18. Did the labor arbiter have jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the petitioners? 2. accusing the latter of harassment. (f) the list of union members48 showing a total of 30 members. reversed the NLRC and ruled that the labor arbiter had no jurisdiction over the complaint. and (g) the Sworn Statement49 of the union‟s elected president and secretary. The labor arbiter assumed jurisdiction over the case and rendered a decision granting the claims of the union. The union went on strike in November 1995. The members of the EREU totaled 30 employees when it applied on December 19. staged a 2-year illegal strike from 1992 to 1994. 1995 to October 14.. The Secretary of Labor found that the employees would receive higher wages if they were paid on a piece-rate rather than on a daily rate basis. Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint in view of the pending conciliation proceedings. Issues: 1. piece-rate basis). and/or Victoria Reyes GR No. 36. However. the Kaisahan ng Manggagawa sa Remerco Garments Manufacturing Inc. asserting that such action. The controversy was not a simple case of illegal dismissal but a labor dispute involving the manner of ascertaining employees‟ salaries. after their union. Hence. The NLRC denied the appeal of the respondents. Petitioners clearly and consistently questioned the legality of RGMI‟s adoption of the new salary scheme (i. while the conciliation proceedings between the union and respondent were pending. This prompted the petitioners to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court. Among the conditions of their recall was that they would no longer be paid a daily rate but on a piece-rate basis. It claimed that RGMI therefore not only violated the existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) but also diminished the salaries agreed upon. 1996. It also claimed that alleged violations of the CBA should be resolved according to the grievance procedure laid out therein. Neither the union nor RGMI appealed the aforementioned order. The Union thereby complied with the mandatory minimum 20% membership requirement under Art. 1995.e. violated the existing CBA. CHARM For this reason. vs. as shown in the Sworn Statement of the Union president and secretary and confirmed by Eagle Ridge in its petition for cancellation. Was the labor arbiter barred by prior judgment from assuming jurisdiction over the complaint? Ruling (First Issue): No. the labor arbiter did not have jurisdiction over the complaint. Article 217 of the Labor Code provides that “[c]ases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies shall be disposed of by the . March 22. Remerco Garments Manufacturing. (RGMI). the Court is inclined to agree with the CA that the BLR did not abuse its discretion nor gravely err when it concluded that the affidavits of retraction of the members had no evidentiary weight to warrant the cancellation of the Certificate of Registration. 234(c). (KMM Kilusan). It argued that the labor arbiter had no jurisdiction over the complaint. In an order dated September 18. a matter which was governed by the existing CBA. 2010 Facts: Petitioners. in the NCMB. Meanwhile. who are employees of the Remerco Garments Manufacturing. It therefore committed an unfair labor practice. the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the case. the Secretary of Labor ordered all employees to return to work and RGMI to pay its employees their unpaid salaries (from September 25. 1995) on the piecerate basis.38 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. GUTTIEREZ (e) the list of officers47 and their addresses. the union filed a notice of strike in the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) on August 8. The Court of Appeals. 1995. Of note is the undisputed number of 112 rank-and-file employees in Eagle Ridge. et al. involving the same issue. The conciliation proceedings between the union and RGMI before the NCMB resulted in a lockout. despite the provisions of the CBA. Petitioners subsequently amended their complaint. among others. Miguela Santuyo. even before RGMI could normalize its operations. petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against RGMI and respondent Victoria Reyes. Therafter. the new salary scheme would be more advantageous to the employees. Upon this light. pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. 2005 for registration. the change in salary scheme was validated. 174420. RGMI conducted a time and motion study and changed the salary scheme from a daily rate to piece-rate basis without consulting it. All the foregoing documents except the sworn statement of the president and the secretary were accompanied by Certifications50 by the union secretary duly attested to by the union president. however. According to the union. demanding payment of their accrued salaries from September 25 to October 14. were among those recalled to work by the company. Inc. Inc. It ordered all striking workers to return to work. however.

effective April 24. if unresolved within seven days. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code gives the Secretary of Labor discretion to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute likely to cause a strike or a lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest and to decide the controversy or to refer the same to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. Petitioner. Facts: On November 30. Article 260 of the Labor Code clarifies that such disputes must be referred first to the grievance machinery and. "be immediately dismissed from their work for the interest of industrial peace in the plant." Pressured by the threatened filing of a suit for unfair labor practice. DOMINADOR BOOC. namely. the labor arbiter should have dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata. et al. REMEGIO CABANTAN. Casio. Remegio Cabantan. voluntary arbitrators have original and exclusive jurisdiction over matters which have not been resolved by the grievance machinery. Respondents. (Second Issue): Yes. No.). FIDEL VALLE. Edilberto Mendoza and Antonio Panilag (Pino. et al. Since petitioners were part of the bargaining unit represented by the union and members thereof. et al. 1992. alleged as bases for the strike the illegal dismissal of union officers and members. Pursuant to Articles 217 in relation to Articles 260 and 261 of the Labor Code. LORETO GONZAGA. PAULINO CABREROS. the Secretary of Labor shall resolve all questions and controversies in order to settle the dispute. 1992 a Complaint against GMC and Pino. Luna P. in the name of IBMLocal 31. 
vs.. JUMAOAS. ROLANDO IGOT. EDILBERTO MENDOZA and ANTONIO PANILAG. Because the labor arbiter clearly did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. GUTTIEREZ Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as may be provided in said agreements. et al. Bartolome Auman. JR. et al. Since neither the union nor RGMI appealed the said order. 1996 order of the Secretary of Labor applies to them. respondents Virgilio Pino. addressed to Eduardo Cabahug (Cabahug). the labor arbiter was barred by prior judgment from assuming jurisdiction over the complaint. the September 18.” This provision requires labor arbiters to refer cases involving the implementation of CBAs to the grievance machinery provided therein and to voluntary arbitration. Ma. 149552 March 10. entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with GMC. The NCMB-RO held conciliation proceedings. and union busting. Jumaoas. et al. LUNA P. Moreover. for unfair labor Settled is the rule that unions are the agent of its members for the purpose of securing just and fair wages and good working conditions. 1992. G. since the union was the bargaining agent of petitioners. GMC issued a Memorandum dated March 24. Furthermore. discrimination. his decision was void. MARIO FAMADOR. they shall automatically be referred to voluntary arbitration. The parties to . 37. the complaint was barred under the principle of conclusiveness of judgments. In doing so. GMC VicePresident for Engineering and Plant Administration. et al.
ERNESTO CASIO. BARTOLOME AUMAN. NELSON LIM. The Secretary of Labor resolved the labor dispute between the union and RGMI in his September 18.39 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. and ANTONIO ANINIPOK. Respondents.

and

VIRGILIO PINO. MA. IBM-Local 31. 1992 of IBM-Local 31 officers and board members. Fidel Valle. 1991. FELICISIMO BOOC. through its officers and board members. it became final and executory.12 Casio. Loreto Gonzaga. 1991. next sought recourse from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Regional Arbitration Branch VII by filing on August 3. GMC acceded to Gabiana‟s request to terminate the employment of Casio. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the controversy because RGMI had a substantial number of employees and was a major exporter of garments to the United States and Canada CHARM a case are bound by the findings in a previous judgment with respect to matters actually raised and adjudged therein.R. et al. Dominador Booc. Casio. On March 27. under Article 261 of the Labor Code. filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMBRegional Office No.4 Paulino Cabreros. Hence. 1992 and placing the latter under preventive suspension for the meantime. informing the company of the expulsion of Casio.5 Gabiana then wrote a letter10 dated March 10. Gabiana likewise requested that Casio. The effectivity of the said CBA was retroactive to August 1. VII (NCMB-RO). 2010 GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION. 1992 terminating the employment of Casio. 1996 order. from the union pursuant to the Resolution dated February 29. Thus. et al. the labor arbiter should have referred the matter to the grievance machinery provided in the CBA. but no settlement was reached among the parties. coercion. PROCOPIO OBREGON..

.00. respondent General Milling Corporation is. the same partakes the nature of a demandable obligation. For a bonus to be enforceable. Held: The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of procedural due process. marbles. 2001. Verily. the Christmas bonus due to respondent Association has become more than just an act of generosity on the part of the petitioner but a contractual obligation it has undertaken. In 1998. petitioner gave only P600. illegal suspension. petitioner gave bonuses in a form of a certificate which is equivalent to P3.R. ordered to pay separation pay to all [Casio. if he desires.34 Irrefragably. 000. in September 1999. Lepanto Ceramics Employees Association G. petitioner and respondent Association entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which provides for. 1999. even when said dismissal is pursuant to the closed shop provision in the CBA. particularly.00 cash benefit and argued that it was in violation of the CBA. members of the respondent Association.].] within seven (7) calendar days Issue: Whether THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT SAID THAT PETITIONER GMC FAILED TO ACCORD DUE PROCESS TO [Casio. the grant of a Christmas gift package/bonus to the members of the respondent Association. petitioner gave P3.00 for the reason that the bonus was given prior to the effectivity of the CBA between the parties and that the financial losses of the company is not a sufficient reason to exempt it from granting the same. a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable obligation. 2010 Facts: Petitioner Lepanto Ceramics. 180866. illegal dismissal. among others. by virtue of its incorporation in the CBA. March 2. makes. mosaics and CHARM other similar products. The law requires the employer to furnish the employee sought to be dismissed with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected: (1) a written notice apprising the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought in order to afford him an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of counsel. 000. it must have been promised by the employer and expressly agreed upon by the parties. nonetheless. Issue: Is petitioner obliged to give a Christmas bonus to respondent Association? Ruling: Yes. declaring that petitioner is bound to grant each of its workers a Christmas bonus of P3. vs. and (2) a subsequent notice informing the employee of the employer‟s decision to dismiss him. Given that the bonus in this case is integrated in the CBA. The said provision did not state that the Christmas package shall be made to depend on the petitioner‟s financial standing.00 as cash benefit. GUTTIEREZ practice. a corporation primarily in the business of manufacture.000. This procedure is mandatory and its absence taints the dismissal with illegality. et al. Unable to amicably settle the dispute.40 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. in 2002. Respondent Association objected to the P600. On appeal. Lepanto Ceramics. 2000. the termination of legitimate union officers. the Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction Since the dismissal is not for a cause detrimental to the interest of the company. Generally. buy and sell. The rights of an employee to be informed of the charges against him and to reasonable opportunity to present his side in a controversy with either the company or his own union are not wiped away by a union security clause or a union shop clause in a collective bargaining agreement. the case was referred to the Voluntary Arbitrator. However. Inc. Respondent Lepanto Ceramics Employees Association is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent in the establishment of petitioner. and moral and exemplary damages. An employee is entitled to be protected not only from a company which disregards his rights but also from his own union the leadership of which could yield to the temptation of swift and arbitrary expulsion from membership and hence dismissal from his job. No. tiles. GMC cannot dispense with the requirements of notice and hearing before dismissing Casio. The records are also bereft of any showing that the . the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Voluntary Arbitrator. The Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision. Subsequently.35 38. Petitioner averred that the giving of extra compensation was based on the company‟s available resources for a given year and the workers are not entitled to a bonus if the company does not make profits. et al. Finding that the Case did not undergo voluntary arbitration. on whole sale basis. In the succeeding years. Inc. A reading of the provision of the CBA reveals that the same provides for the giving of a "Christmas gift package/bonus" without qualification.00 as bonus to its employees. et al.

of the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping.10 while the Petition for Review had long been filed on February 27. 2004. Soriano has no authority to file the petition on February 27. Third. No. Hence. MANOLO JABONERO. 2010 PNCC SKYWAY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SECURITY DIVISION WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PSTMSDWO). MAGDALENA MALIG-ON BIGNO. the passing on June 30. 2006.00 bonus would be dependent on the company earnings. It insisted that the individual members of the union have the right to schedule their vacation leave. such intention should have been expressed in the CBA. FRANCISCO CABAS. GUTTIEREZ petitioner made it clear during CBA negotiations that the bonus was dependent on any condition. 171231 February 17. Rene Soriano did not possess the required authority at the time the petition was filed on February 27. RENE SORIANO. Rene Soriano. 2006. the parties agreed to submit the issue before the voluntary arbitrator. thus curing any defects thereof. the president of the union was duly authorized to represent the union and to file a case on its behalf. Petitioners. business losses are a feeble ground for petitioner to repudiate its obligation under the CBA. David Castillo. if the petitioner and respondent Association intended that the P3. discontinued or eliminated by the employer. 2010 FARLEY FULACHE. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. 
vs. HARVEY PONCE and ALAN C. Due to the disagreement between the parties. which the CA denied. and the CA rendered a Decision dated October 4. 40 G. Jeffrey Lagunzad. ALMENDRAS.R. Issue: Whether or not Rene Soriano possess the required authority at the time the petition was filed on February 27. PNCC Skyway Corporation is a corporation duly organized and operating under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines. Francisco Cabas. on February 27. 2006. 2006 of a Board Resolution authorizing him to represent the union is deemed a ratification of his prior execution. Respondent. Held: In the case at bar. Thus. DAVID CASTILLO. Jr. 2006. Petitioner objected to the implementation of the said memorandum. Magdalena Malig-on Bigno. it can be inferred that even prior to the filing of the petition before Us on February 27. Rene Soriano is in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition. Respondent FACTS: In June 2001. 2006 by virtue of a board resolution. J. The rule is settled that any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by the employees cannot be reduced. diminished. 2005. G. On November 15. JEFFREY LAGUNZAD. Harvey Ponce and Alan C. petitioner and respondent entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) incorporating the terms and conditions of their agreement which included vacation leave and expenses for security license provisions. Thus. Second. which was previously conferred during a meeting held on October 5. DECISION PERALTA. Almendras (petitioners) and Cresente Atinen (Atinen) filed two separate complaints for regularization. 2006. The principle of non-diminution of benefits is founded on the constitutional mandate to protect the rights of workers and to promote their welfare and to afford labor full protection. the instant petition assigning errors: Respondent alleged that the petition was fatally defective due to the lack of authority of its union president. unfair labor practice and several money claims (regularization case) against ABS-CBN . JR. 183810 :: January 21.. 2005.8 annulling and setting aside the decision and order of the voluntary arbitrator. Indeed. petitioner elevated the matter to the DOLE-NCMB for preventive mediation. No. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION. Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the CA. All given.: Facts: PNCC Skyway Corporation Traffic Management and Security Division Workers' Organization (PSTMSDWO) is a labor union duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). CHARM Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. petitioners Farley Fulache. the Supreme Court rule that Rene Soriano has sufficient authority to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping for the following reasons: First.000. being the president of the union. 39. Petitioner. the resolution dated June 30. represented by its President.R. 2002. assuming that Mr.
 PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION. It alleged that the authority of Rene Soriano to represent the union was only conferred on June 30. 2006 was merely a reiteration of the authority given to the Union President to file a case before this Court assailing the CBA violations committed by the management. from the decision of the arbitrator which the voluntary arbitrator denied in the Order7 dated August 11.. 2006. Manolo Jabonero.41 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. For failure to settle the issue amicably. vs. to sign the certification and verification against forum shopping on petitioner's behalf.

(2) finding no evidence that they are part of the company’s bargaining unit. In the root decision (the labor arbiters decision of January 17.. It argued that even if the petitioners had been found to have been illegally dismissed. The case (RAB VII Case No. vs. While the appeal of the regularization case was pending. G. they only became aware of the CBA when they obtained copies of the agreement. They charged the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion in: (1) denying them the benefits under the CBA. ABS-CBNs actions in the two cases. The Illegal Dismissal Case. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING. It then decided to course through legitimate service contractors all driving. The complaints (RAB VII Case Nos. The four drivers and Atinen responded by filing a complaint for illegal dismissal (illegal dismissal case). Petitioner. rest day and service incentive leave pay. Lagunzad and Atinen (all drivers) for their refusal to sign up contracts of employment with service contractor Able Services.42 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. Rendoque. They also prayed for an award of moral damages and attorneys fees. their reinstatement had become a physical impossibility because their employeremployee relationships had been strained and that Atinen had executed a quitclaim and release. Castillo. as drivers. ABS-CBN. and Cabas was a VTR man/editor. ABS-CBN alleged that even before the labor arbiter rendered his decision of January 17. Fulache and Castillo were drivers/cameramen. Jabonero. ISSUE: W/N VALID DISMISSAL HELD: We find merit in the petitioner’s positions. The CA Petition and Decision CHARM The petitioners went to the CA through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Lagunzad and Jabonero were drivers. Castillo and Lagunzad. 06-1100-01 and 06-117601) were consolidated and were assigned to Labor Arbiter Julie C.PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION. 2002. Jabonero. questioned the propriety of the petitioners use of a certiorari petition. it is declared that complainants in these cases are REGULAR EMPLOYEES of respondent ABS-CBN and not INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS and thus henceforth they are entitled to the benefits and privileges attached to regular status of their employment. 2009 YSS EMPLOYEES UNION . utility. the petitioners fall within the coverage of the bargaining unit and are therefore entitled to CBA benefits as a matter of law and contract. the labor arbiter’s decision in the regularization case. All these go to show that ABS-CBN acted with patent bad faith. ABSCBN and the ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees Union (Union) executed a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) effective December 11. therefore. (3) not reinstating and awarding backwages to Fulache. the Rules characterize as bad faith the act of filing similar and repetitive actions for the same cause with the intent of somehow finding a favorable ruling in one of the actions filed. The penalty against ABS-CBN for its bad faith in the present case should be no less. Forum-shopping is penalized by the dismissal of the actions involved. should have been recognized as regular employees entitled to security of tenure and to the privileges and benefits enjoyed by regular employees. night shift differential. It argued that the proper remedy for the petitioners was an appeal from the reinstated decisions of the labor arbiter. in violation of the Labor Code. Castillo. Lagunzad and Atinen were not singled out for dismissal. the labor arbiter declared: WHEREFORE. they learned that they had been excluded from its coverage as ABS-CBN considered them temporary and not regular employees. make-up. taking into account the factual scenario and the evidence adduced by both parties. They asked that they be paid overtime. and (4) ruling that they are not entitled to damages and attorneys fees. 155125 December 4. messengerial. 2002 in the regularization case. are of the same character. They claimed they had already rendered more than a year of service in the company and. since its obvious intent was to defeat and render useless. 2002) that the NLRC and CA affirmed. it had already undertaken a comprehensive review of its existing organizational structure to address its operational requirements. No. Jabonero. on the other hand. In forum-shopping. As regular employees. Ponce and Almendras were cameramen/editors. as described above. Bigno was a PA/Teleprompter Operator-Editing. Atinen. 07-1300-2002) was likewise handled by Labor Arbiter Rendoque. 1999. A close parallel we can draw to characterize this bad faith is the prohibition against forum-shopping under the Rules of Court. 1999 to December 10. to improve its operations and to make them more economically viable. GUTTIEREZ Broadcasting Corporation-Cebu (ABS-CBN). Fulache. Respondent . The petitioners alleged that on December 17. In defense. they were dismissed because they belonged to a job category that had already been contracted out. in a roundabout way and other than through the appeal it had taken. wardrobe and security services for both the Metro Manila and provincial stations. YSS LABORATORIES. INC. holiday.R. janitorial. ABSCBN dismissed Fulache. 41.

the Secretary of Labor deemed that the continuation of the labor dispute was inimical to national interest. the Secretary did not exceed his jurisdiction. Accordingly. When no one opted to retire early. (YSS Laboratories) to accept the workers back to their work. Claiming that YSS Laboratories was guilty of discrimination and union-busting in carrying out the said retrenchment program. even during the pendency of any petition questioning their validity. YSSEU is a duly registered labor organization and the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file employees of YSS Laboratories. nine were officers and members of YSSEU. in an Order dated 11 May 2001. The Secretary of Labor directed YSS Laboratories to accept all the striking workers back to work. Accepting back the workers in this case is not a matter of option. and is granted great breadth of discretion to adopt the most reasonable and expeditious way of writing finis to the labor dispute. the Secretary of Labor certified the labor dispute to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration. seeking to annul the certification order and the returnto-work order issued by the Secretary of Labor. YSS Laboratories undermines the underlying principle embodied in Article 263(g) of the Labor Code on the settlement of labor disputes -. By harping on the validity of the retrenchment and on the exclusion of the retrenched employees from the coverage of the return-to-work order. The Secretary of Labor to finally intervene in order to put an end to a prolonged labor dispute.R. Copies of the Notices of Termination were filed with DOLE on 19 March 2001 and were served to concerned employees on 20 March 2001. On 26 November 2001. YSS Laboratories brought a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. YSS Laboratories implemented a retrenchment program which affected 11 employees. or gravely abuse the same. YSSEU prayed for the award of backwages in favor of these employees who were not permitted by YSS Laboratories to return to their respective stations despite the Secretary of Labor‟s directive. .43 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. YSS Laboratories argued that nine union officers and members who were previously terminated from service pursuant to a valid retrenchment should be excluded from the operation of the return-to-work order. these employees were given the option to avail themselves of the early retirement program of the company. but to serve the greater interest of society by maintaining the economic equilibrium.that assumption and certification orders are executory in character and are to be strictly complied with by the parties. It also asserted that the union officers11 who participated in the purported illegal strike should likewise not be allowed to be back to their employment for they were deemed to have already lost their employment status. as they found that YSS Laboratories validly carried out its retrenchment program. all striking workers were thereby directed to return to work within 24 hours from their receipt of the said Order. on 9 June 2001. or to favor labor at the expense of management. In order to arrest escalating business losses. but of obligation mandated by law for YSS Laboratories to faithfully comply with. for its part. Its compulsory character is mandated. YSSEU decided to hold a strike. 66095 nullifying the Orders of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) dated 11 May 2001 and 9 June 2001 which enjoined the strike staged by petitioner. the Secretary of Labor. ISSUE: Whether or not the retrenched employees should be excluded from the operation to the return work order? RULING: YSS Laboratories‟ vigorous insistence on the exclusion of the retrenched employees from the coverage of the return-to-work order seriously impairs the authority of the Secretary of Labor to forestall a labor dispute that he deems inimical to the national economy. YSSEU. Initially. FACTS: YSS Laboratories is a domestic corporation engaged in the pharmaceutical business. not to cater to a narrow segment of society. refused to fully comply with the directive of the Secretary of Labor. Acting on the aforesaid motions. including those who were retrenched from employment due to serious business losses. granted the motion of YSSEU and thus issued an Order directing YSS Laboratories to immediately accept back to work the nine retrenched employees and the nine union officers who initiated the alleged illegal strike pending determination of the validity of the retrenchment and illegal strike cases. however. The Secretary of Labor is afforded plenary and broad powers. and YSS Laboratories to accept them under the terms and conditions prevailing before the strike. YSS Laboratories exercised its option to terminate the services of its employees. which effectively severed the concerned employees‟ employment with the company. GUTTIEREZ It is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner YSS Employees Union (YSSEU) – Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision dated 26 November 2001 and the Resolution dated 29 August 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Unyielding. YSS Laboratories. moved that YSS Laboratories be cited for contempt CHARM for refusing to admit the 18 workers back to work. the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision granting the Petition and reversing the assailed Orders dated 11 May 2001 and 9 June 2001. Thus. SP No. and ordered respondent YSS Laboratories Inc. In addition.

over the objection of Ventures which filed a Motion to Expunge. 82 of which belong to 2008. GUTTIEREZ 42. ON August 21. Although it would later find this motion to have been belatedly filed. Five hundred forty two signatures. the provision did not state the effect of such prohibited membership on the legitimacy of the labor organization and its right to file for certification election.S. The issue surrounding the involvement of the 82 employees is a matter of membership or voter eligibility. 2000. the CA rendered the decision assailed . 239(a) of the Labor Code. the Union interposed a motion for reconsideration. However. Ventures cited other instances of fraud and misrepresentation. the BLR. according to Art. in which case the union is divested of the status of a legitimate labor organization. the registration may be canceled or the union may be decertified as the bargaining unit. Case Digest_S. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the DOLE denied the same. Terminated Ventures employees. Ventures filed a Petition to cancel the Union's certificate of registration invoking the grounds set forth in Article 239(a) of the Labor Code. In a decision. While a certificate CHARM of registration confers a union with legitimacy with the concomitant right to participate in or ask for certification election in a bargaining unit. Issue: whether or not the inclusion fo the 82 employees in the list of attendees to the January 9. and its failure to submit its books of account contravened the ruling of the Court in Progressive Development Corporation v Secretary. Sec. Despite Ventures' motion to expunge the appeal. 2000. Venturs' motion for reconsideration met a similar fate. Ventures added that some employees signed the “affidavits” denying having attended such meeting. III. Ventures then went to the CA on a petition for certiorarti under Rule 65. join. Attached to its petition are a Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter issued on January 19. Ventures Labor Union Facts: Petitioner S. 2000 meeting is an internal matter within the ambit of the worker's right ot self-organization and outside the sphere of influence of this office and the petitioner Held: The petition is denied. In an Order. the Union filed with DOLE a petition for certification election in behalf of the rankand-file employees of Ventures. The right to form. stating that it submitted to said office a Charter Certificate issued to it by the national federation Phil. XIII. Respondent S. The DOLE held that Med-Arbiter Bactin's reliance on the decisions of the Court was misplaced. Med-Arbiter found KFWU's legal personality defective and dismissed its petition for certification election. The Union denied committing the imputed acts of fraud or forgery.S. and a Report of Creation of Local/Chapter. (RO300-00-02-UR-0003). 43. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition on the ground that KFWU did not acquire any legal personality because its membership of mixed rank-and-file and supervisory employees violated Article 245 of the Labor Code. Regional Deirector of DOLE-Region III fournd for Ventures. Ventures sought reconsideration fo the above decision but was denied by the BLR. 2001. KFWU appealed to the DOLE which issued a decision granting the appeal. Case Digest_Republic of the Philippines Represented by DOLE v Kawashima Textile MFG Philippines Inc. 246 of the Labor Code. this peition for review under Rule 45. Hence. Ventures International Inc v S.44 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. Among the grounds for cancellation is the commission of any of the acts enumerated in Art. shall not be abridged. It resolved to cancel Certificate Registration No. or assist a union is specifically protected by Art. a recourse which appeared to have been forwarded to the BLR. It is not a ground to cancel union registration. Ventures International Inc is in the business of manufacturing sports shoes. Once registered with the DOLE. Aggrieved. Ventures Labor Union is a labor organization registered with the DOLE. On March 21. such as fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the adoption or ratification of the union's constitution and like documents. Facts: KFWU filed with DOLE a Petition for Certification Election to be conducted in the bargaining until composed of 145 rank-and-file employees of respondent. appeared on the basic documents supporting the petition. for while 245 declares supervisory employees ineligible for membership in a labor organization for rank-and-file employees. Meanwhile. DOLE. the BLR Director rendered a decision granting the Union's appeal and reversing the decision of Dione. In its supplemental reply memorandum filed on March 20. claiming that the “affidavits” executed by 82 alleged Union members show that they were deceived into signing paper minutes or were harrassed to signing their attendance in the organizational meeting.S. Transport & General Workers Organization. 8 of the Constitution and Art.S. gave it due course and treated it as an appeal. on appeal by respondent. 2000 by DOLE. The CA dismissed Ventures' petiton. Whatever misgivings the petitioner may have with regard to the 82 dismissed employees is better addressed in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings during a preelection conference. Section 3 of the Constitution and such right. a union is considered a legitimate labor organization endowed with the right and privileges granted by law to such organization.

Thus. ROSE ANNA G. VILLARETE. CHARM FACTS: Petitioners were employed as female flight attendants of respondent PAL on different dates prior to November 22. the dispute is not between FASAP and respondent PAL. x x x.e. They are members of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP). the Court reiterated that such labor organization had no legal right to file a certification election to represent a bargaining unit composed of supervisors for as long as it counted rank-and-file employees among its members. an employer is a mere bystander to any petition for certification election. The . BERNADETTE A. 1996. Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA is unlawful and unconstitutional? HELD: The Court held that the jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC under Article 217 of the Labor Code is limited to disputes arising from an employeremployee relationship which can only be resolved by reference to the Labor Code. STEHMEIER. Not being one. CABALQUINTO. the union could not. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INCORPORATED. Respondent and FASAP then entered into a CBA incorporating the terms and conditions of their agreement for the years 2000 to 2005. much less oppose.. TERESITA P.45 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. the Constitution and CEDAW. CYNTHIA A. GUTTIEREZ herein. Here. PULIDO. note even a mere allegaiton that some employees participating in a petition for certification election are actually managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality to block the certification election. and other flight attendants of PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. vs. Issue: Whether or not a mixed membership of rankand-file and supervisory employees in a union is a ground for the dismissal of a petition for certification election Held: The petition is granted. who have both previously agreed upon the provision on the compulsory retirement of female flight attendants as embodied in the CBA. Petitioners. flight stewards and pursers of respondent. it cannot possess the requisite personality to file a petition for certification election. SANTIAGO. Respondent. but in which the membership included rank-and-file employees. G. KFWU filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the CA denied it. NOEMI R. ISSUE: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the petitioners' action challenging the legality or constitutionality of the provisions on the compulsory retirement age contained in the CBA between respondent PAL and FASAP? Whether Section 144. n which the labor organization that filed a petition for certification election was one for supervisory employees. In the case at bar. No. VICTA. For the Cabin Attendants hired before 22 November 1996: x x x x 3. prior to purging itself of its supervisory employee members. This Court held that the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitrators do not have the power to determine and settle the issues at hand. Branch 147 against respondent for the invalidity of Section 144. 2009 PATRICIA HALAGUEÑA. MARY CHRISTINE A. Hence. where the principal relief sought is to be resolved not by reference to the Labor Code or other labor relations statute or a CBA but by the general civil law. the jurisdiction over the dispute belongs to the regular courts of justice and not to the labor arbiter and the NLRC.R. reversing the August 18. MARIANNE V. provides that: “A. They have no jurisdiction and competence to decide constitutional issues relative to the questioned compulsory retirement age. 2000 DOLE.n Dunlop. a labor organization certified as the sole and exclusive certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the flight attendants. the employer-employee relationship between the parties is merely incidental and the cause of action ultimately arose from different sources of obligation. MA. The RP filed the present petition to seek closure. it cannot interfere with. as respondent union's membership list contains the names of at least twenty-seven (27) supervisory employees in Level Five positions. ANGELITA L. for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. i. 172013 October 2. 44. TUGAS. KATINDIG. compulsory retirement shall be fifty-five (55) for females and sixty (60) for males. the process by filing a motion to dismiss or an appeal from it. Compulsory Retirement Subject to the grooming standards provisions of this Agreement. Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA. other labor statutes.” Petitioners filed a Special Civil Action for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the RTC of Makati City. such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative. attain the status of a legitimate labor organization. LORNA B. or their CBA. CRESENCIO. The choice of their representative is the exclusive concern of the employees. Section 144. the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein. MA. In the case at bar. Except when it is requested to bargain collectively. only disputes involving the union and the company shall be referred to the grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrators. Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA.

VIII of the CBA does not lie. The CBA reflects the incorporation of different provisions to cover other benefits such as Christmas bonus (Art. across the board. whichever is higher. is therefore. educational benefits (Sec. GUTTIEREZ dispute is between respondent PAL and several female flight attendants who questioned the provision on compulsory retirement of female flight attendants. the phrase "P1." should apply only to salary increases and should not include the other increases in benefits received by employees. medical and hospitalization benefits (Secs. except salary increases.00 per month. Respondent likewise rejected petitioner‟s interpretation of the term "salary increases" as referring not only to the increase in salary but also to corresponding increases in other benefits.46 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. 3. the literal meaning of their stipulations shall control. 8. FACTS: Petitioner forged with the University of San Agustin Employees Union-FFW a CBA effective for 5 years.00 or 80% of the TIP. Resort to the existing grievance machinery having failed. Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA is discriminatory or not being a question of fact that would require a full-blown trial which jurisdiction to hear the same is properly lodged with the the RTC. petitioner‟s belated claim that the 80% TIP should be taken to mean as covering ALL increases and not merely the salary increases as categorically stated in Sec. Art. Sec. and signing bonus (Sec. SY 2001-2002 – P1. Art. 2009 UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN. 3. A reading of the above-quoted provision of the CBA shows that the parties agreed that 80% of the TIP or at the least the amount of P1. across the board. INC. the parties disagreed on the computation of the salary increases. opposed the inclusion of or renegotiated the provision allotting 80% of the TIP to salary increases alone. 10). The Tuition Fee Law. Respondent argued that the provision in question referred to "salary increases" alone.2. hours. 177594 July 23. 252 of the Labor Code is clear on the matter: The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages. UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN EMPLOYEES UNION. This mode of appeal is generally limited only to questions of law which must be distinctly set forth in the petition. If the terms of a contract. petitioner could have. across the board. Thus.000. as it was and is not under any obligation to accept respondent‟s demands hook. VIII. Thus. The rule is settled that pure questions of fact may not be the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari.500 is to be allocated for individual salary increases.500. VIII of the 2000-20005 CBA reads: “Salary Increases.00 per month or 80% of the TIP. hence. 4 and 5. whichever is higher. X). No. 6728. 3. the parties agreed to include a provision on salary increases based on the incremental tuition fee increases or tuition incremental proceeds (TIP) and pursuant to Republic Act No. G.500. Among other things. The following shall be the increases under this Agreement: SY 2000-2001 – P2. Sec. line and sinker. The question as to whether Section 114. whichever is higher. Art.500 per month and its subtraction from the computation of the TIP of the scholarships and tuition fee discounts it grants to deserving students and its employees and their dependents. Art. Respondent refused to accept petitioner‟s proposed across-the-board salary increase of P1. VIII). during the CBA negotiations. SY 2002-2003 – P1. the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The CBA does not speak of any other benefits or increases which would be covered by the employees‟ share in the TIP. It appears that for the School Year 2001-2002.500. leaves (Article IX). X). of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession. VIII. referral to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration would not serve the interest of the petitioners. Art. are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties. 45.R.FFW. Respondent. the parties agreed to submit the case to voluntary arbitration. CHARM ISSUE: Whether or not the salary increase of P1500 or 80% of the TIP is correct? HELD: Sec. The records are thus bereft of any showing that petitioner had made it clear during the CBA negotiations that it intended to source not only the salary . (Emphasis supplied) It is a familiar and fundamental doctrine in labor law that the CBA is the law between the parties and they are obliged to comply with its provisions. Petitioners.00 per month or 80% of the TIP. in this case the CBA. remanded to the RTC for the proper determination of the merits of the petition for declaratory relief is just and proper. without mentioning that these will likewise be sourced from the TIP. bereavement assistance (Sec. WHEREFORE. service award (Art. Art. 6. vs.5). The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Art. In the present case. 1).

Japan and was advised to rest for a month. On February 13. The last position he held was that of 3rd Engineer on board petitioner's vessel M/V Eastern Venus.00 to respondent as financial assistance is . ISSUE: Whether respondent shall be granted the optional retirement benefit being applied for under the gratuity plan of petitioner? HELD: The age of retirement is primarily determined by the existing agreement or employment contract. Bacolod City. the mandated compulsory retirement age is set at 65 years. they are not entitled to reinstatement or payment of separation pay or backwages. NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION Local 103 (NAMAWU). He consulted a doctor in Osaka. may retire from service if he has reached the eligibility age of 60 years. G. Thus. 1997 but was disapproved by the petitioner. is not entitled to the payment of separation pay. there is a retirement gratuity plan between the petitioner and the respondent. Bacolod District Office. upon his written request. Even a perusal of the law will show that it does not make 70% as the mandated ceiling. 1992. as duly noted and signed by the captain of the vessel was marked "Very Good. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT. all acting Sheriffs. The award of P100. where he worked until February 22. Petitioner. G. "G" Holdings.47 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. the Court held that financial assistance may be allowed as a measure of social justice and exceptional circumstances. 171587 October 13.R. 47. 2009 "G" HOLDINGS. 75322. Unmistakably. while in Yokohama. mistake or duress. vs. Hence. In the present case. In the absence of such agreement." and "recommended for hire. not the maximum percentage. Petitioner. is a domestic corporation primarily engaged in the business of owning and holding shares of stock of different companies. he was not admitted back to work. the petition is GRANTED. While under Paragraph C. GUTTIEREZ increases but also the increases in other employee benefits from the 80% of the TIP." Respondent had no derogatory record on file over his long years of service with the petitioner.. a shipboard employee. FACTS: The petitioner. and as an equitable concession. Under Paragraph B of the plan. FERRER D. 1996. he applied for an optional retirement on January 16. (GHI). Records also show that respondent's seaman's book. Thus. Thus.R. which was 19 years short of the required eligibility age. WHEREFORE. it is presumed that it entered into the CBA voluntarily. It was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3. However. Records show that respondent was only 41 years old when he applied for optional retirement. APROSTA and ALBERTO MUNOZ. vs. nothing in the law prohibits them from doing so. Under the Labor Code. No. Consequently. Private respondent. FACTS: Respondent was hired by petitioner to work as a seaman on board its various vessels. 1981 and worked in petitioner's various vessels where he was assigned to different positions. SHERIFFS RICHARD H. National Mines and Allied Workers Union Local 103 (NAMAWU). He was later examined by the company doctor and declared fit to resume work. Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the October 14. he cannot claim either of the optional retirement benefits under the plan as a matter of right. Respondent. Inc. was the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of Maricalum Mining Corporation (MMC). It is clear that seafarers are considered contractual employees. had full knowledge of the contents thereof. 2003 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG. 1996. for having been deprived of continued employment with petitioner's vessel. Region VI. an entity operating a .. Respondent started as an Apprentice Engineer on December 12. Japan and still in the employ of petitioner. what the law sets is the minimum. INC. respondent opted to apply for optional retirement. SP No. while the minimum age for optional retirement is set at 60 years.R. if academic institutions wish to allot a higher percentage for salary increases and other benefits. deemed equitable under the circumstances. ANTONIO. the retirement age shall be fixed by law. being a seaman. ends of social and compassionate justice would be served best if respondent will be given some equitable relief. Being in dire financial need at that time to support his family. No. It is also worth to note that respondent. and was aware of its commitments under the contract. In the case at bar.650 days actually on board vessel for shipboard personnel. Respondents. However. INC. and there is even a 10% portion the disposition of which the law does not regulate. 160236 October 16. respondent filed a complaint for payment of optional retirement benefits against petitioner before the DOLE. he suffered a fractured left transverse process of the fourth lumbar vertebra. Absent any proof that petitioner‟s consent was vitiated by fraud. therefore.000. 2009 EASTERN SHIPPING LINES. it will be the exclusive prerogative and sole option of the company to retire any covered employee who shall have CHARM rendered at least 15 years of credited service for landbased employees and 3. 46.

These financial claims were converted into three Promissory Notes issued by MMC in favor of GHI totaling P500M and secured by mortgages over MMC‟s properties. GHI immediately took physical possession of the mine site and its facilities. Brion.R. 2002 Alias Writ of Execution and Break-Open Order (Sto. with payment of full backwages and benefits. 1992. 1127 for Contempt with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary Injunction and to Nullify the Sheriff‟s Levy on Properties. and that the mortgaged properties were already extrajudicially foreclosed in July 2001 and sold to GHI as the highest bidder on December 3. then DOLE Secretary Patricia A. pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement6 executed between GHI and Asset Privatization Trust (APT). GHI contended that the levied properties were the subject of a Deed of Real Estate and Chattel Mortgage. dated September 5. the trial court ordered the issuance of a Writ of Injunction (issued on October 18. 2001. The trial court issued ex parte a TRO effective for 72 hours. it was registered only on February 24. Tomas ordered the issuance of the July 18. In his July 30. 2001. on motion of NAMAWU. Aggrieved. in 2006. Negros Occidental. Tomas Writ. the appellate court rendered a Decision setting aside the RTC issuances and directing the immediate execution of the Sto. the former bought ninety percent (90%) of MMC‟s shares and financial claims. On May 11. and. effected precisely to prevent the satisfaction of the judgment against MMC. 2002 orders of the RTC. that this deed was registered on February 24. the respondent acting sheriffs. On October 2. Negros Occidental. The Brion Writ was not fully satisfied because MMC‟s resident manager resisted its enforcement. 1997 Order in OS-AJ-10-96-014 (Quisumbing Order). Almost four years thereafter. in G. in favor of any person. as evidenced by the Certificate of Sale dated December 4. Then Labor Secretary later assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and ruled in favor of NAMAWU. a labor dispute (refusal to bargain collectively and unfair labor practice) arose between MMC and NAMAWU. the members of the union. entitled Maricalum Mining Corporation v. Nos. 157696-97. Negros Occidental. The CA further ruled that the subsequent foreclosure of the mortgage was irregular. CHARM On October 14. 1996 was illegal and that MMC committed unfair labor practice. 2001. Tomas Writ. . more importantly. The CA also found that the certificates of title to MMC‟s real properties did not contain any annotation of a mortgage lien. On October 11. but its failure "to satisfy any money judgment against it rendered by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. and ordered the DOLE sheriffs to proceed to the MMC premises for the execution of the same. suspiciously. 2002. and levied on the properties of MMC located at its compound in Sipalay. and took full control of the management and operation of MMC. or on August 23. GUTTIEREZ copper mine and mill complex at Sipalay. assailing the October 17. Brion and NAMAWU. GHI filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabankalan City. but surprisingly. subject to GHI‟s posting of a P5M bond. 1996 executed by MMC in favor of GHI to secure the aforesaid P550M promissory notes. 1996 and October 7. 2000. Much later. with the latter eventually filing with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board of Bacolod City a notice of strike. He then ordered the reinstatement of the laidoff workers. The CA ruled. Sto. and directed the execution of a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) incorporating the terms and conditions of the previous CBA providing for an annual increase in the workers‟ daily wage. that the circumstances surrounding the execution of the September 5. and several armed men implemented the Sto.48 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. now also an Associate Justice of this Court. that it was executed two weeks after the labor dispute arose in 1996. firm or entity. affirmed the propriety of the issuance of the Brion Writ. NAMAWU filed with the CA a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Special Civil Action (SCA) No. 2000. the basis for the extrajudicial foreclosure was not the failure of MMC to pay the mortgage debt. On October 17. among others. GHI did not intervene in the long drawn-out labor proceedings to protect its right as a mortgagee of virtually all the properties of MMC. then Acting Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary. It noted that the foreclosure proceedings were initiated in July 2001. 1996 Deed of Real Estate and Chattel Mortgage yielded the conclusion that the deed was sham. 2002) enjoining the DOLE sheriffs from further enforcing the Sto. fictitious and fraudulent. 1996. Tomas Writ and from conducting any public sale of the levied-on properties. without any legal ground or reason. 2002. immediately after the Court affirmed with finality the Quisumbing Order. Upon the signing of the Purchase and Sale Agreement and upon the full satisfaction of the stipulated down payment. shortly after the issuance of the Brion Writ. Secretary Quisumbing declared that the lay-off (of workers) implemented on May 7. 18 and December 4. On motion of NAMAWU. Arturo D. 2002. Tomas Writ). and set the hearing on the application for a writ of injunction. this Court. and. directed the issuance of a partial writ of execution (Brion Writ).

executed the agreement.49 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY." The "company notes" mentioned therein were actually the very same three (3) Promissory Notes amounting to P550M. PINAG-ISANG GALING AT LAKAS NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HERITAGE MANILA (PIGLAS-HERITAGE).. Respondent This case is about a company‟s objections to the registration of its rank and file union for non-compliance with the requirements of its registration. After all. As success fades from NAMAWU‟s efforts to execute on the properties of MMC. and may still have. Subsequently. as provided in the notes. This presumption would cover all related transactional acts and documents needed to consummate the privatization sale. issued by MMC in favor of GHI. Petitioner company appealed it and filed a motion for reconsideration which was both denied respectively. were a "fictitious" arrangement intended to defraud CHARM NAMAWU. It is obvious. The Med-Arbiter granted the HHE union‟s petition for certification election. in truth. through APT. GUTTIEREZ ISSUE: Whether or not the mortgage and sale agreement between GHI and MMC is valid and would prevent the satisfaction of the claims of NAMAWU because of unfair labor practice? RULING: The mortgage was not a sham.On October 12. in this transaction is significant. 48. v. G. Inc. which were validly foreclosed by GHI. It may be remembered that APT acquired the MMC from the PNB and the DBP. when it was. Given the Government consent thereto. then. however. as follows: The series of negotiations between the petitioner Republic of the Philippines. then the transaction is imbued with an aura of official authority. as well as its company notes. vs. "G" Holdings. acknowledged the existence of the Purchase and Sale Agreement between the APT and the GHI. Under the agreement. through APT. fictitious or fraudulent. . ample supplemental remedies found in Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in order to protect its rights against MMC. that the Government. 2009 THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA (OWNED AND OPERATED BY GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION) Petitioner. this Court has recognized this Purchase and Sale Agreement in Republic. As already adverted to above. etc. FACTS: Sometime in 2000. Inc. still await final execution. eventually. 2001 the Court of Appeals issued a writ of injunction against the holding of the HHE union‟s certification election.161. giving rise to the presumption of regularity in its execution. the HHE union filed a petition for certification election that petitioner company opposed alleging that the HHE union misrepresented itself to be an independent union. in compliance with its mandate to privatize government assets. consented to the "establishment and constitution" of the mortgages on the assets of MMC in favor of GHI. a local chapter of the National Union of Workers in Hotel and Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN) and the company also filed a petition for the cancellation of the HHE union‟s registration certificate.280. the notes (and the stipulations therein) enjoy the benefit of the same presumption of regularity accorded to government actions.704. to "G" Holdings in consideration of the purchase price of P673. already existing in 1992. 1992. The decision of the Court of Appeals became final when the HHE union withdrew the petition for review that it filed with this Court. effective until the petition for cancellation of that union‟s registration shall have been resolved with finality. inclusive of the Promissory Notes. Republic etc. Because the Government had actively negotiated and.R. prompting it to file a petitioin for certiorari with the CA. and recounts the facts attendant to that transaction. of the fact that the labor claims of NAMAWU. To repeat. these notes uniformly contained stipulations "establishing and constituting" mortgages over MMC‟s real and personal properties. the mortgages cannot be characterized as sham. It is difficult to conceive that these mortgages. No. The Department of Labor and Employment-National Capital Region (DOLENCR) later issued a certificate of registration to this union.000 with the balance divided into four tranches payable in installment over a period of ten years. certain rank and file employees of petitioner Heritage Hotel Manila (petitioner company) formed the "Heritage Hotel Employees Union" (the HHE union). APT sold the aforesaid MMC shares and notes to GHI. We are not unmindful. through the APT as its trustee. 177024 October 30. and clothed with the presumption of regularity. the Republic undertook to sell and deliver 90% of the entire issued and outstanding shares of MMC. they were agreed upon long before the seeds of the labor dispute germinated. Accordingly. acknowledged by this Court in Maricalum.. It also provided for a down payment of P98. we see that NAMAWU always had. v. "G" Holdings. The participation of the Government. Then. and "G" Holdings culminated in the execution of a purchase and sale agreement on October 2. almost four (4) years before NAMAWU filed its notice of strike.

And last. This omission.R. Once such charge is proved. Two months later. except for six members. Petitioner company claims that respondent PIGLAS union was required to submit the names of all its members comprising at least 20 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit. the union is deemed to have complied with registration requirements. the fact that some of respondent PIGLAS union‟s members were also members of the old rank and file union. respondents. Here. GUTTIEREZ On December 10. On December 6. the respondent Pinag-Isang Galing at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila (the PIGLAS union). the employees involved formed the PIGLAS union to circumvent the Court of Appeals‟ injunction against the holding of the certification election sought by the former union. It cannot be assumed that all those who attended approved of the constitution and by-laws. petitioner Company filed a petition to cancel the union registration of respondent PIGLAS union. 49. This union applied for registration with the DOLE-NCR and got its registration certificate on February 9. Despite the company‟s opposition. 2003 organizational meeting that only 90 employees responded to the roll call at the beginning. Secretary Drilon issued another order modifying his previous order. vs.50 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. the HHE union. 2004 respondent PIGLAS union filed a petition for certification election that petitioner company also opposed. the Labor Code and its implementing rules do not require that the number of members appearing on the documents in question should completely dovetail. some faculty members staged mass leaves of absence and several days thereafter. According to the company. the discrepancies in the number of union members or employees stated in the various supporting documents that respondent PIGLAS union submitted to labor authorities can be explained. amounted to material misrepresentation that warranted the cancellation of the union‟s registration. is not a ground for canceling the new union‟s registration. At any rate. G. serious disrespect to a superior and conduct unbecoming a faculty member. Secretary Franklin Drilon subsequently issued an order suspending the termination of the 16 employees. 2003 certain rank and file employees of petitioner company held a meeting and formed another union. ordering UST to readmit all its faculty . The labor arbiter certified the matter to the Secretary of Labor and Employment for a possible suspension of the effects of termination. disrupting classes in all levels at the University. The faculty union filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice with the DOLE. it cannot be assumed that such number could not grow to 128 as reflected on the signature sheet for attendance. however. said the company. the labor union acquires none of the rights accorded to registered organizations. FACT: The University of Sto. Only 20 percent of this number or 50 employees were required to unionize. the bargaining unit that respondent PIGLAS union sought to represent consisted of 250 employees. this discrepancy is immaterial. Notably. petitioner. As a result of the dismissal of said employees. UST FACULTY UNION. alleging that the new union‟s officers and members were also those who comprised the old union. The HHE union then filed a petition for cancellation of its union registration. There is also nothing essentially mysterious or irregular about the fact that only 127 members ratified the union‟s constitution and by-laws when 128 signed the attendance sheet. The company claimed that the union made fatal misrepresentation in its application for union registration and committed “dual unionism" which is a ground for canceling a union‟s registration. But. On September 4. the members of the first union. the MedArbiter granted the petition for certification election. No. the names found in the subject list are also in the attendance and signature sheets. the HHE union. adopted a resolution for its dissolution. 1990 UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS. Any member had the right to hold out and refrain from ratifying those documents or to simply ignore the process. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. Here. For as long as the documents and signatures CHARM are shown to be genuine and regular and the constitution and by-laws democratically ratified. has committed the offenses of grave misconduct. ISSUE: Whether or not the new Union can have a valid certification election? RULING: The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. 2004. Tomas (UST) terminated the employment of all 16 union officers and directors of respondent UST Faculty Union on the ground that in publishing or causing to be published in Strike the libelous and defamatory attacks against the Father Rector. The right of any person to join an organization also includes the right to leave that organization and join another one. While it appears in the minutes of the December 10. Yet the list it submitted named only 100 members notwithstanding that the signature and attendance sheets reflected a membership of 127 or 128 employees. 2004. the union more than complied with such requirement. 89920 October 18. A comparison of the documents shows that. as the labor authorities held. Petitioner UST filed a motion for reconsideration.

The respondent union filed before the NLRC a motion to implement the orders of the Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment. 50. However. FACTS: Hortillano. Such error is merely an error of judgment which is not correctible by a special civil action for certiorari. The payroll reinstatement will actually minimize the petitioners‟ problems in the payment of full backwages. There is no showing that such substantial evidence is not present. It was found that their persistence justified as they are rightfully and legally entitled to actual reinstatement. or general principles of fair play and justice. a CBA. (2) A return-to-work order is immediately effective and executory despite the filing of a motion for reconsideration by the petitioner. the petitioner University is restricted from exercising its generally unbounded right to transfer or reassign its employees.51 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. However. GUTTIEREZ members under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the present dispute. firing. the female fetus died during labor due to fetal Anoxia secondary to uteroplacental insufficiency. Additionally. To the extent that Art. (3) The hiring. No. the return-to-work portion of the earlier order which states that "the faculty members should be admitted under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the dispute" was affirmed. an employee of petitioner Continental Steel and a member of respondent Union filed on 9 January 2006. The petitioner manifests the fear that if the temporarily reinstated faculty members will be allowed to handle actual teaching assignments in the classroom. They are subject to limitations found in law. However. Section 2 of the CBA are: (1) death. the elements for bereavement leave under Article X. 182836 October 13. G. which is the subject of this petition for certiorari. ISSUE: Whether or not the CBA is clear and unambiguous so that the literal and legal meaning of death should be applied such that only one with juridical personality can die and a dead fetus never acquired a juridical personality? HELD: As identified. the latter would take advantage of the situation by making the classroom the forum not for the purpose of imparting knowledge to the students but for the purpose of assailing and lambasting the administration. (2) . ACCREDITED VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR ALLAN S. transfer. although the Secretary's order was modified. the order did not amount to grave abuse of discretion. There may be a basis for such a fear. a claim for Paternity Leave.R. Respondents. The reinstated faculty members' refusal to assume their substantially equivalent academic assignments does not contravene the Secretary's return-to-work order. pursuant to the CBA concluded between Continental and the Union. Hortillano‟s wife had a premature delivery while she was in the 38th week of pregnancy. 263(g) calls for the admission of all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike. Continental Steel immediately granted Hortillano‟s claim for paternity leave but denied his claims for bereavement leave and other death benefits. consisting of the death and accident insurance. According to the Certificate of Fetal Death. these are not absolute prerogatives. The NLRC was only trying its best to work out a satisfactory ad hoc solution to a festering and serious problem. it was adjudged that the NLRC's award of backwages until actual reinstatement is correct. Bereavement Leave and Death and Accident Insurance for dependent. ISSUES: Whether or not the order of the alternative remedies of actual reinstatement or payroll reinstatement of the dismissed faculty members is proper? Whether or not the University can be required to pay full backwages of the dismissed employees? Whether or not NLRC is correct when it arrogated upon itself the exercise of the right and prerogatives reposed by law to the petitioner university in the latter‟s capacity as employer? HELD: (1) It was held that it was error for the NLRC to order the alternative remedies of payroll reinstatement or actual reinstatement. vs. Article 263(g) is one such limitation provided by law. demotion and promotion of employees are traditionally Identified as management CHARM prerogatives. Petitioner. while petitioner filed its opposition to the private respondent's motion. MONTAÑO and NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG CENTRO STEEL CORPORATION-SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (NMCSC-SUPER). The NLRC issued a resolution. Since the petitioner failed to comply with the Secretary's order of actual reinstatement. The NLRC subsequently caned the parties to a conference. such a fear is speculative and does not warrant a deviation from the principle that the dismissed faculty members must be actually reinstated pending resolution of the labor dispute. They were merely insisting on being given actual teaching loads. on the return-to-work order being followed. The claim was based on the death of Hortillano‟s unborn child. Since the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are generally accorded not only respect but even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. HON. 2009 CONTINENTAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION.

GUTTIEREZ the death must be of a dependent. the Petition is DENIED. even an unborn child is a dependent of its parents. Even a child inside the womb already has life. Section 4(3) of the CBA are same with the above elements with additional element of presentation of the proper legal document to prove such death. IN VIEW WHEREOF. Hortillano and his wife were validly married and that their child was conceived during said marriage. the CBA did not provide a qualification for the child dependent. making said child legitimate upon her conception. Hortillano was also able to comply with the fourth element entitling him to death and accident insurance under the CBA or the presentation of the death certificate of his unborn child. Additionally." Under said general definition. Therefore. and. The requisites for death and accident insurance under Article XVIII. Death has been defined as the cessation of life.52 CASE DIGESTS IN LABOR RELATION(2011-2012) 1ST SEM ATTY. hence. Life is not synonymous with civil personality. The term legitimate merely addresses the dependent child‟s status in relation to his/her parents. qualifies as death. child shall be understood in its more general sense. then the cessation thereof even prior to the child being delivered. A legitimate child is a product of. implies a valid and lawful marriage. one not able to exist or sustain oneself without the power or aid of someone else. A dependent is "one who relies on another for support. CHARM . which includes the unborn fetus in the mother‟s womb. Given the existence of all the requisites for bereavement leave and other death benefits under the CBA. and (3) legitimate relations of the dependent to the employee. As such. Hortillano‟s claims for the same should have been granted by Continental Steel. One need not acquire civil personality first before he/she could die. The children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate. therefore.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful