2019 UPDATE ON

LABOR LAW & SOCIAL

LEGISLATION
by : Atty. JOSE SONNY G. MATULA
National President, Federation of Free Workers
Workers’ delegate/Advisor, Int’l Labour Conferences,
2010 to 2018, Geneva; Former Commissioner, Social
Security Commission; Former Executive Director V,
Presidential Anti-Graft Commission;
Law Lecturer, UPH-College of Law
UM-College of Law and MLQU-School of Law;
MCLE PHILIPPINE LAW SCHOOL
SEPTEMBER 27, 2019
 "I am certain that the title
of an 'attorney' will open
you to a new world of
opportunities. But at the
end of it all, always
remember that in whatever
opportunity you choose,
your integrity is non-
negotiable.”
-- Justice Estela Perlas- Bernabe (June 13, 2019)
 "Remember ours is
a profession of
service and our goal
is to achieve social
justice. Serve our
people," Justice Marvic
Leonen tweeted (June 13,
2019).
Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Management Prerogative
 Sources of labor law
 Labor Standards/Labor Relations
 Basic Constitutional Rights
 Laws & Jurisprudence
 Concluding Remarks
Employer’s Power: Management
Prerogatives
 Managerial Prerogatives are considered
natural rights that allow employers to
manage their business/employees

 Article 428 of the Civil Code provides that:

“the owner has the right to enjoy and
dispose of a thing, without other limitations
other than those established by law.”
Marsman & Company vs
Sta Rita (April 23, 2018)
 The hiring, firing, transfer, demotion, and
promotion of employees have been
traditionally identified as a management
prerogative subject to limitations found in
the law, a collective bargaining agreement,
or in general principles of fair play and
justice. This is a function associated with
the employer's inherent right to control and
manage effectively its enterprise.
In SCA Hygiene Products Employees
Association-FFW vs SCA Hygiene Products
Corporation(641 Phil.534,542(2010), SC said:

 Even as the law is solicitous of the

welfare of employees, it must also
protect the right of an employer to
exercise what are clearly management
prerogatives. The free will of
management to conduct its own
business affairs to achieve its purpose
cannot be denied. x x x.
 Management Prerogative

Established
CBA Laws
company practice

The Principle of Justice and Fair

Play
Everything concerning the business
Right to regulate all
aspects of employment
 (1) hiring  (5) supervision of
 (2) the freedom to their work
prescribe work  (6) lay-off and
assignments discipline, and
 (3) working  (7) dismissal and
methods, process recall of workers (J.
to be followed Peralta, St. Paul College of
Qc vs Spouses Ancheta,
 (4) regulation September 7, 2011, GR No
regarding transfer 169905)

of employees
School may adopt its own
standards
 As long as the standards fixed are
reasonable and not arbitrary, courts
are not at liberty to set them aside.
Schools cannot be required to adopt
standards which barely satisfy criteria
set for government recognition.
(Mercado, et al. v. AMA Computer College-
Parañaque City, Inc., G.R. No. 183572, April 13,
2010, 618 SCRA 218, 233).
 Right to hire is a management
prerogative
(Galang & Chan vs Boie Takeda, July 20, 2016)

 Our labor laws respect the employer's

inherent right to control and manage
effectively its enterprise and do not normally
allow interference with the employer's
judgment in the conduct of his business.
 Management has exclusive prerogatives to
determine the qualifications and fitness of
workers for hiring and firing, promotion or
reassignment.
 Burden on Proof on company practice with
employee
(Galang & Chan vs Boie Takeda, July 20, 2016)

 The burden of proof that the benefit

has ripened into company
practice, i.e.:
– giving of the benefit is done over a long
period of time, and
– that it has been made consistently and
deliberately,
– rests with the employee:
Social Justice

 “He wHo Has less

in life should
have more in
law!”

 - Ramon Magsaysay
 Sources of Labor Law

 Primary (Authoritative);
or
 Auxiliary (Persuasive).
The primary sources of the laws

 The Constitution
 International conventions/treaties
 Legislation passed by congress
 Decisions of the Supreme Court;
 Implementing rules and regulations;
 Decisions of the quasi-judicial bodies
 Auxilliary Sources

 Opinion of Secretaries of DOLE & DOJ

 Minutes of congressional deliberations
 Labor law reviews
 Opinion of legal experts/Textbooks on
social legislation
 Foreign laws and decisions
 Labour

Physical or
What is mental exertion
Labour?
Necessary to
Produce goods/
deliver services
Broader concept: Labor may include
the labor force who are employed or
those who are willing work but are
temporarily unemployed.
 LABOR LAW

 Labor law is a body of rules governing

employment which aims to protect the
rights of workers and those of the
employers. It has two (2) broad
classifications: labor standards and
labor relations.
 LABOR CODE

 The Labor Code or PD 442

promulgated in 1974 is the principal
labor law of the Philippines.

 As a social legislation, labor legislation

is enacted in the exercise of the police
power of the state and anchored on
social justice
 SOCIAL LEGISLATION

 Social legislation is broader than labor

legislation but both are categories of
laws which are intended to protect or
promote the welfare of society or
segments thereof in the furtherance of
social justice.
 Social legislation includes labor law,
social security law, agrarian reform
and other welfare legislations.
 Social Justice
Calalang vs
Williams, Humanization Equalization
70Phils 726 of laws S&E forces
Social justice is the promotion of the welfare of all the
people, the adoption by the government of measures
calculated to insure economic stability of all the
component elements of society thru the maintenance of
proper economic equilibrium in the interrelations of the
members of the community, constitutionally, thru the
adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-
constitutionally, thru the exercise of the power of the
government, based on the time-honored principle of salus
populi est suprema lex.”
 “The social justice
principles of labor law
outweigh or render
inapplicable the civil
law doctrine of unjust
enrichment…”

- Justice Carpio Morales

in an en banc decision (Garcia & Dumago vs PAL,
G.R. 164856, Jan 20, 2009)
 Labor Standards

Employer
Terms,
Set out Must
Conditions &
the minimum Provide or
benefits
Comply with

to which workers are entitled

as a matter of right.
 Minimum Standards Workers are
entitled to as a matter of right:

 Minimum wage  Paternity leave

 Holiday pay  Parental leave for
 Overtime pay solo parent
 Night shift  Leave for victims
differential against women and
 Service charges children
 Service incentive  13th month pay
leave  Separation pay
 Maternity leave  Retirement pay
Burden of Proof on compliance with
the Employer

 “the worker need not litigate to

get what legally belongs to him,
for the whole enforcement
machinery of the DOLE exists to
insure its expeditious delivery to
him free of charge.”
 (Nestor Balladares, et.al. vs Peak Ventures
Corporation, et.al [G.R. No. 161794, June 16,
2009])
Social security and welfare lesgislation

 Socialsecurity (RA 8282)

 Employees’ Compensation

 Philhealth

 Pag-ibig
 New law on labor standards

 Republic Act (RA) 11058, signed by

Duterte on August 27, 2018, ensures
that the provisions of the Labor Code,
domestic laws, and internationally-
recognized standards on
occupational safety and
health (OSH) are being fully enforced
and complied with by employe
 New OSH Law

The law will apply to all establishments:

 projects, sites,

 including Philippine Economic Zone

Authority (PEZA) establishments,
 and all other places where work is
being undertaken in all branches of
economic activity,
 except in the public sector.
 Safe workplaces

 Under the law, any person who

manages, controls, or supervises the
work is compelled to ensure that the
place of employment is safe for
workers. The place should be free
from hazardous conditions likely to
cause death, illness, or physical harm
to workers.
Job safety orientation

 They are also required to give

complete job safety instructions or
orientation to:
– all workers, especially to first-timer; and
– inform workers of the hazards and risks
associated with their work.
These include orientation and training on chemical
safety, electrical safety, mechanical safety, and
ergonomical safety.
Reporting of work hazard

 Workers, meanwhile, are required to

observe instructions and report to
their supervisor or employer and work
hazard that may be discovered in the
workplace.
 A worker may also file claims for
compensation benefit arising out of
work-related disability or death.
 Workers’ Right
 to refuse to work if, as determined by the DOLE, an
imminent danger situation exists that may result in
illness, injury, or death.
 to report accidents, dangerous occurrences, and
hazards to the employer, DOLE, and other
competent government agency in the specific
industry
 to free personal protective equipment (PPE).
 to be paid wages during the period of such
stoppage of work or suspension of operations.
 Incentives to employers

 The law also calls for an established

package of incentives to qualified
employers to recognize their efforts to
comply with OSH and general labor
standards.
 OSH Committee

 to ensure that the safety and health

program in the workplace is being observed
and enforced.
 to be headed by the employer who will
serve as the chairperson.
 Other members are the safety officer of the
company as secretary; other safety officers,
if applicable, as members; health workers;&
 representatives from the workers’ union.
 Prohibited acts

 Willful failure or refusal of the

employer to comply with the required
OSH standards makes the employer
liable for a fine not exceeding
P100,000 per day until the violation is
corrected, starting from the day the
employer is notified.
 Prohibited acts

 Employers who fail or refuse to comply

with such standards and try to conceal
such noncompliance will be liable for a
fine not exceeding P100,000, separate
from the daily fine.
 Prohibited acts

 The same amount will be fined to employers

who make false statements to the DOLE,
and to employers who make retaliatory
measures against workers who gave
information relative to the inspection being
conducted.
 These retaliatory measures include
termination of employment, refusal to pay,
reducing wages and benefits, or any form of
discrimination.
 Labor Relations

define That govern

As well as
Status, Individual &
Institutional
rights & Collective
mechanism
duties interactions

between employers, employees and

their representatives.
 Labor Code

What is Codification into

Labor Code? One volume of 60
PD 442, as pieces of law
amended
8 hr law,
min wage law,
termination law
 Labor Code

 Preliminary Title  Book 4: Health

 Book 1: Pre- Safety and Social
employment Benefits
 Book 2: Human  Book 5: Labor
Resource Dev’t Relations
 Book 3: Conditions  Book 6: Post
of Employment Employment
 Book 7: Transitory
and Final Provisions
ILO Convention Part of Law of the land

 In The Heritage Hotel Manila vs.

National Union of Hotel, Restaurant
and Allied Industries (G.R.178296,
January 12, 2011), the court treats
ILO Convention No 87 with high
respect as a binding law. (Justice
Nachura).
Fr.Joaquin Bernas,SJ said
 the Philippines recognizes that international law has
the force and effect of the domestic law under the
“incorporation clause” of the 1987 Constitution
(Sec 2 of Article II). Thus, International
Conventions of the International Labor Organization
such as ILO Convention No. 87 and Convention No.
98 can be used by the parties like the Labor Code,
Civil Code, Penal Code and other acts of Congress
in the settlement of disputes in quasi-judicial bodies
and regular courts.

ILO Core Labor
Standards
 the prohibition of slavery and
compulsory labor (C29; C105),
 the elimination of
discrimination (C100;C111),
 the prohibition of exploitative
child labor (C182),
 freedom of association and the
right to collective bargaining
(C87;C98)
 The Constitution is
Supreme
 In the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution is
supreme. No branch or office of the
government may exercise its powers in any
manner inconsistent with the Constitution,
regardless of the existence of any law that
supports such exercise. The Constitution
cannot be trumped by any other law. All
laws must be read in light of the
Constitution. Any law that is inconsistent
with it is a nullity. (Sameer vs Cabiles, Aug
5, 2015)
A law that was already declared
unconstitutional remains as such

 Thus, when a law or a provision of law is

null because it is inconsistent with the
Constitution, the nullity cannot be cured by
reincorporation or reenactment of the same
or a similar law or provision. A law or
provision of law that was already declared
unconstitutional remains as such unless
circumstances have so changed as to
warrant a reverse conclusion. (Sameer vs
Cabiles, August 5, 2014).
 Basic Constitutional Rights

1.Right to organize;
Article XIII 2.Right to CB & Nego;
Section 3 3.Peaceful concerted
1987 Consti- activities, strike;
tion
4.Security of tenure;
5.Humane condition
of work; 6.living wage;
7.participate in
Decision making; &
8. Just share in the fruits
[
 Sec 8 Article III of the
Consitution
 The right of the people,
including those employed in
the public and private sectors,
to form unions, associations,
or societies for purposes not
contrary to law shall not be
abridged.
Right to self-organization

Under Art 243 speaks about the right to:

 Join

 Assist or

 Form labor organizations

For purposes of:

 Collective bargaining and

 mutual aid and protection.

Right to self organization

The coverage includes all persons

employed in:
 Commercial, Industrial and Agricultural
enterprises;
as well as those in
 Charitable, Religious, Educational and
medical institutions (FEU vs Trajano,
July 1987)
Right to self organization

For mutual aid and

protection, the
following may also
organize into
workers’  Rural
associations:  Workers with no
definite employers
 Ambulant  Itinerant
 Intermittent  Self employed
 Employees specifically
covered
 Supervisory  Security guards (RA
employees (Art 212[m] 6715, EO 111,
& 245) Meralco vs NLRC,
 Dismissed May 4, 1989)
employees with  Members of the INK
pending cases (Reyes vs Trajano,
contesting dismissal
June 2, 1991)
(Art 269)
 New employees
 Alien with valid work
permit (Art 40) & with (Art 277[c])
reciprocity (Art 269)
Rationale for unionization
University of Pangasinan vs
NLRC, 218 SCRA 65:
The interest of the individual workers
can be better be protected on the
whole by a strong union aware of its
moral and legal obligations to
represent the rank-and-file faithfully,
and secure for them the best wages
and working terms and conditions
 Who is eligible to join?

UST Faculty Union vs Bitonio,

318 SCRA 185:
Any employee may be eligible to join
and be member of a labor union,
beginning on his first day of service,
whether employed for a definite
period or not
 Right to self-organization
La Suerte Cigar & Cigarette
Factory vs BLR, 123 SCRA
679:
Where the workers are not
employees of the company,
they are not entitled to join or
form labor unions for purposes
of collective bargaining
 Employer

“Employer" includes any person

acting in the interest of an
employer, directly or indirectly.
The term shall not include any
labor organization or any of its
officers or agents except when
acting as employer.
 Employee

 "Employee" includes any person in the

employ of an employer. The term shall not
be limited to the employees of a particular
employer, unless the Code so explicitly
states. It shall include any individual whose
work has ceased as a result of or in
connection with any current labor dispute or
because of any unfair labor practice if he
has not obtained any other substantially
equivalent and regular employment.
Employment is a property right

Callanta vs Carnation Phils, 145 SCRA 268:

“It is a principle well recognized under this
jurisdiction, that one’s employment,
profession, trade or calling is a property right,
and the wrongful interference therewith is an
actionable wrong. The right is considered to be
property right within the protection of the
constitutional guarantee of due process of
law.”
 Existence of ER-EE Relationship

1.Selection and en-

Republic gagement;
rep. by SSS vs 2.Payment of wages
Asiapro Coop
(Nov 23, 2007):
3.power of dismissal
4-fold test
4. Power to control
the worker’s
Conduct (primacy)
 Republic vs Asia Pro

 Asiapro, as a cooperative, is composed of

owners-members. Under its by-laws,
owners-members are of two categories, to
wit: (1) regular member, who is entitled to
all the rights and privileges of membership;
and (2) associate member, who has no right
to vote and be voted upon and shall be
entitled only to such rights and privileges
provided in its by-laws.
 Asiapro Cooperative

 The owners-members do not receive

compensation or wages from the
respondent cooperative. Instead, they
receive a share in the service
surplus[10] which the respondent
cooperative earns from different areas
of trade it engages in, such as the
income derived from the said Service
Contracts with Stanfilco.
 Asia Pro Cooperative

 The owners-members get their income

from the service surplus generated by
the quality and amount of services
they rendered, which is determined by
the Board of Directors of the
respondent cooperative.

 Are the owner-members
assigned to work with stanfilco
employees of Asiapro?
 SSS considered the owner-members as employees
and asiapro was required to report them as
employees to SSS for SS coverage
 Asiapro denied employee-employer relationship as
it considered the workers as owner-members of
cooperative. It also questions SSC jurisdiction
arguing that NLRC has primary jurisdiction on
employee-employer relationship not SSC.
 There is also stipulation in their service contract
that there is no employee-employer relationship
between the cooperative and its owner-members.
 Jurisdiction on EE-ER Relationship

Rep. of Phils. Q: Question of EE-ER

Represented by exclusive with NLRC?
SSS & SSC vs
Asiapro Coop Ans: No. SSC not NLRC
(Nov 23, 2007): resolves EE-ER
on SS coverage.

The question of the existence of an employee-employer relationship is

not the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRC. Article 217 (a) (6) of the
Labor Code exempts from its jurisdiction claims for Social Security, xxx.
Hence, the Social Security Commission has primary jurisdiction on
question of an existence employee-employer for purposes of determi-
ning the coverage of SSS (Sec 5 of SS Law of 1987, R.A. 8282)
 No EE-ER stipulation binding?

Q: Is the no ER-EE stipulation binding

Rep. of Phils.
To parties in contract?
Represented by
SSS & SSC vs
Asiapro Coop Ans: No. provision must
(Nov 23, 2007): be struck down as
it circumvents the law

The Service contract in question must be struck down for

being contrary to law and public policy since it is apparently
being used by the respondent cooperative merely to
circumvent the compulsory Coverage of its employees,
who are also its owners-members,
by the social security law.
Other than the NLRC, can the
Secretary of Labor Determine
EE/ER Relationship?
 Yes! No limitation in the law was placed
upon the power of the DOLE to determine
the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. No procedure was laid down
where the DOLE would only make a
preliminary finding, that the power was
primarily held by the NLRC (Bombo Radyo
vs Sec of Labor, Regional Dirctor and
Juezan, March 6, 2012)
 Bombo Radyo case

 Bombo Radyo case recognizes the

validity of the Department of Labor
and Employment’s (DOLE’s) plenary
power under Article 128(b) of the
Labor Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 7730, including its power to
determine the existence of employer-
employee relationship in the exercise
of its Article 128(b) power.
DOLE has power to determine
employer-employee relationship

 The DOLE must have the power to

determine whether or not an
employer-employee relationship exists,
and from there to decide whether
or not to issue compliance orders
in accordance with Art. 128(b) of the
Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730
Who is an employee?

Under “boundary system”, a jeepney

driver is an employee of the jeepney
owner. Though the driver is not paid a
fixed wage, and he remits boundary
and shoulders gas expenses, these
factors themselves do not create
lessor-lessee relationship. Owner still
exercise control and supervision over
the driver.(Jardin v. NLRC, 326 SCRA
299)
How control exercise over
the driver?
 The owner sees to it that his driver
negotiates or follows the government
prescribed route in accordance with
the franchise given by the LTFRB
 In lease, the lessor loses complete
control or possession over the chattel
 In boundary system, the owner retains
control over his vehicle. (Jardin vs.
NLRC, 326 SCRA 299)
 “Boundary-hulog”
scheme
 Villarama owned operated a public jeepney which he
manufactured along Baclaran-Sucat route. Bustamante was
his driver. They converted their daily boundary remittance
scheme into “boundary-hulog” scheme where the later shall
pay P550.00/day to the former for a period of 4 years and
after full payment, the vehicle shall be owned by Bustamante
and the franchise shall be transferred to him.

 In their Kasunduan (contract), failure to pay for one week,

the scheme will cease and the vehicle shall be returned back
to Villarama. Bustamante failed to pay the daily installments
for more than one week and he was no longer allowed to
drive. What was the relationship between Villarama and
Bustamante? Was Bustamante illegally terminated?
 Dual: ER/EE &
VENDOR/VENDEE
 Under the boundary-hulog scheme incorporated in
the Kasunduan, a dual juridical relationship was
created between petitioner and respondent: that of
employer-employee and vendor-
vendee. The Kasunduan did not extinguish the
employer-employee relationship of the parties
extant before the execution of said deed. (Villarama
vs CA & Bustamante, April 19, 2006)
 Yes, the termination of Bustamante without
valid cause and without due process was
illegal.
 Working scholars not
employees
 Students who work for the school or
university in exchange for the privilege
to study free of charge, provided they
are given real opportunity, including
such facilities as may be reasonably,
necessary to finish their chosen course
under the arrangement (Sec 14, Rule
III, Rules Implementing the Labor
Code).
 In civil suit, school is liable for
the act of working scholars as if
it is an employer
 In must be noted that for
purposes of imposing liability for
tortious act, the working scholar is
considered an employee and the
school as employer (Filamer
Christian Institute v. IAC, 212
SCRA 637)
Regular or DomWorker
 Linda was employed by Sectarian University (SU) to
cook for the members of areligious order who teach
and live inside the campus. While performing her
assigned task, Linda accidentally burned herself.
Because of the extent of her injuries, she went on
medical leave. Meanwhile, SU engaged a
replacement cook. Linda filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal,but her employer SU contended that Linda
was not a regular employee but a domestic
househelp. Decide. (4%) (Bar 2014)

Kasambahay Law (RA
10631)
 Section 4(c) Domestic work refers to
work performed in or for a household
or households.
 (f) Household refers to the immediate
members of the family or the
occupants of the house that are
directly provided services by the
domestic worker.
 Domestic Worker

(d) Domestic worker or "Kasambahay" refers

to any person engaged in domestic work
within an employment relationship such as,
but not limited to, the following: general
househelp, nursemaid or "yaya", cook,
gardener, or laundry person, but shall
exclude any person who performs domestic
work only occasionally or sporadically and
not on an occupational basis.
Foster family arrangement

 The term Domestic workers shall not

include children who are under foster
family arrangement, and are
provided access to education and
given an allowance incidental to
education, i.e. "baon", transportation,
school projects and school activities.
 Assignment outside

 No domestic worker shall be assigned

to work in a commercial, industrial or
agricultural enterprise at a wage rate
lower than that provided for
agricultural or nonagricultural workers.
In such cases, the domestic worker
shall be paid the applicable minimum
wage.
 Rest period of DW

 Section 20. Daily Rest Period. – The

domestic worker shall be entitled to an
aggregate daily rest period of eight (8)
hours per day
 Section 21. Weekly Rest Period. –
The domestic worker shall be entitled
to at least 24 consecutive hours of rest
in a week.
 Rights & Privileges

 Standard of Treatment
 Board, Lodging and Medical
Attendance
 Guarantee of Privacy
 Access to Outside Communication
Right to Education and Training
 Prohibition Against Privileged
Information
 Standard treatment

 Section 5. Standard of Treatment. –

not subject a domestic worker to any
kind of abuse nor inflict any form of
physical violence or harassment or any
act tending to degrade the dignity of a
domestic worker.
 Basic Necessities

 Section 6. Board, Lodging and

Medical Attendance. – The employer
shall provide for the basic necessities
of the domestic worker to include at
least three (3) adequate meals a day
and humane sleeping arrangements
that ensure safety.
 Privacy for DW

 Section 7. Guarantee of Privacy. –

Respect for the privacy of the
domestic worker shall be guaranteed
at all times and shall extend to all
forms of communication and personal
effects. This guarantee equally
recognizes that the domestic worker is
obliged to render satisfactory service
at all times.
 Free time Access

 Section 8. Access to Outside

Communication. – The employer shall
grant the domestic worker access to
outside communication during free
time: Provided, That in case of
emergency, access to communication
shall be granted even during work
time.`
 Education for DW

 Section 9. Right to Education and

Training. – The employer shall afford
the domestic worker the opportunity
to finish basic education and may
allow access to alternative learning
systems and, as far as practicable,
higher education or technical and
vocational training.
 Non-disclosure of Privileged Info

 Section 10. Prohibition Against

Privileged Information. – All
communication and information
pertaining to the employer or
members of the household shall be
treated as privileged and confidential,
and shall not be publicly disclosed by
the domestic worker during and after
employment.
Inadmissible in evidence

 Such privileged information shall be

inadmissible in evidence except when
the suit involves the employer or any
member of the household in a crime
against persons, property, personal
liberty and security, and chastity.
Closure of business is a management
prerogative

Dangan vs NLRC, 127 SCRA 706:

Abolition of a department or section of an
employer’s establishment for economic reasons
is a managerial prerogative.

Coca Cola vs. NLRC, 194 SCRA 592:

Closure or cessation of an establishment not due
to serious business losses includes the complete
cessation of operations of only part of
company’s activities.
 Law Limiting Management
Prerogative Normal Working
Hours(Article 83)
 The normal hours of work an
employee has to render must not
exceed eight (8) hours a day and
should be exclusive of the one (1)
hour daily lunch break.
 Philippine laws, however, do not
prohibit work done for less than eight
hours.
Working hours shall include:

 all time during which an employee is

required to be on duty and/or to be at
a prescribed workplace;
 all time during which an employee is
permitted to work; and
 rest periods of short duration during
working hours.
 5-day Work Week

 Health personnel in cities and

municipalities with a population of at
least one million (1,000,000) or in
hospitals and clinics with a bed
capacity of at least one hundred (100)
shall hold regular office hours for eight
(8) hours a day, for five (5) days a
week, exclusive of meal time.
 Health Personnel

 resident  paramedical
physicians technicians
 nurses  psychologists
 nutritionists  midwives
 dietitians  attendants and
 pharmacists  all other hospital
 social workers or clinic
 lab technicians personnel.
 Exception:

 Except where the exigencies of the

service require that such personnel
work for six (6) days or forty-eight
(48) hours, in which case, they shall
be entitled to an additional
compensation of at least thirty percent
(30%) of their regular wage for work
on the sixth day.
CBA provision a limitation to
management prerogative
 the CBA provisions agreed upon by the
Company and the Union delimit the
free exercise of management
prerogative pertaining to the hiring of
contractual employees (Goya Inc.vs
Goya Inc. Employees Union-Federation
of Free Workers [FFW], Jan 21, 2013
[Justice Peralta])
 CBA a limitation to management
prerogative to outsouce or contract out
jobs

 Evidently, this case has one of the

restrictions- the presence of specific
CBA provision
 the CBA is the norm of conduct
between the parties and compliance
therewith is mandated by the express
policy of the law
 (Goya Inc. vs GIEU-FFW GR 170054,
Jan 21, 2013, [Justice Peralta])
Management Prerogative

 Theauthority to hire is likewise

covered and protected by its
management prerogative. (J.
Peralta, St. Paul College of Qc vs Spouses
Ancheta, September 7, 2011, GR No
169905)
 Categories of worker

 Under Article 294, there are four kinds

of employment arrangement. These
are:
 Regular employment.
 Project employment.
 Seasonal employment.
 Casual employment
Regular employment (Art 294)

There are two kinds of regular employees:

 Regular employees by nature of work, that
is, those who are engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer.
 Regular employees by years of service, that
is, those who have rendered at least one
year of service, whether continuous or
broken, with respect to the activity in which
they are employed.
Project employment (Art 294)

A project employee is one whose:

 employment has been fixed for a
specific project or undertaking,
 the completion or termination of
which has been determined at the
time the employee is engaged.
Project employment (Art 294)

 It is not sufficient that an employee is

hired for a specific project or phase of
work.
 There must also be a determination of,
or a clear agreement on, the
completion or termination of the
project at the time the employee is
engaged.
Seasonal employment (Art 294)

 Seasonal workers perform work that is

seasonal in nature and are employed only
for the duration of one season.
 Seasonal workers who are rehired every
working season are considered to be regular
employees.
 The nature of their relationship with the
employer is such that during off season they
are temporarily laid off, but when their
services are needed, they are re-employed.
Casual employment

There is casual employment where:

 an employee is engaged to perform a job,
work or service which is merely incidental to
the business of the employer, and
 that job, work or service is for a definite
period made known to the employee at the
time of engagement (Implementing Rules of
the Labour Code, Book VI, Rule I, section
5(b)).
Fixed-period employment

While not specifically mentioned in Article 294, fixed-

period employment is recognized under the Civil
Code, pursuant to the freedom of parties to fix the
duration of the contract, whatever its object.

These fixed-term employment contracts are not

limited to seasonal work or specific projects with
predetermined completion dates; also contemplated
are employment arrangements whereby the parties
have assigned a specific date of termination.

 Levels of employment

Employees can also be further classified

in terms of position as:

 Managerial.
 Supervisory.
 Rank-and-file
Managerial employees

Those who is vested with the powers or

prerogatives to:
– lay down and execute management
policies and/or
– hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall,
discharge, assign or discipline employees.
Supervisory employees

Supervisory employees are those who,

in the interest of the employer:
– effectively recommend such managerial
actions
 if the exercise of such authority is not
merely routinary or clerical in nature
– but requires the use of independent
judgment
 Written Contract

 Before the start of the term, the institution

shall execute a written contract with its
teaching and non-teaching personnel
 The contract does not affect tenure of
permanent or part-time employees
 Binds them to finish the entire school term
and comply all requirements (Sec 116,
Manual, 2008.
 Probationary under the
Labor Code
 Art 295 (287). Probationary
employment – Probationary
employment shall not exceed six (6)
months from the employee started
working, unless covered by an
apprenticeship agreement stipulating a
longer period. xxx. An employee who
is allowed to work after a probationary
period shall be considered a regular
employee.
PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE

 an employee’s failure to perform the duties

and responsibilities
 which have been clearly made known to him
 constitutes a justifiable basis for a
probationary employee’s non-regularization.
 (Abbott Laboratories, Phils., et al vs. Pearlie
Ann F. Alcar [April 22, 2014])
Probationary Employment
under the Manual (2008)
 Section 117. Probationary Period. –
xxx

 Probationary employment for

academic teaching personnel shall not
be more than six (6) semesters or nine
(9) trimesters of satisfactory service,
as the case maybe. (Manual, 2008)
 Part-time Teachers

 Academic personnel who do not

possess minimum qualification under
Sections 35 and 36 of the Manual are
considered part-time employees
 PTs cannot avail of the status &
privileges of a probationary employee
 PTs cannot acquire permanent regular
status (Section 117 of the Manual, 2008)
 The state regulates relations
between workers & employers

SEC 3 (par. 4) , ARTICLE XIII OF THE CONST:

“The state shall regulate the relations between
workers and employers,
 recognizing the right of labor to its just share
in the fruits of production and
 the right of enterprises to reasonable returns
on investments, and to expansion and growth.”
Employment is a property right

Callanta vs Carnation Phils, 145 SCRA 268:

“It is a principle well recognized under this
jurisdiction, that one’s employment, profession,
trade or calling is a property right, and the
wrongful interference therewith is an
actionable wrong. The right is considered to be
property right within the protection of the
constitutional guarantee of due process of law.”
 Work is a property
right

Callanta vs Carnation Phils, 145 SCRA 268:

WHAT IS
CONTRACTUALIZATION
 “Contractualization”, no definition in
the Labor Code
 “Endo” or “5-5-5” contractual
arrangement
 “Labor-only contracting”
 Contracting out of work
 OFW has security of
tenure?
 Employees are not stripped of
their security of tenure when they
move to work in a different
jurisdiction. With respect to the
rights of overseas Filipino workers,
we follow the principle of lex loci
contractus. (Sameer Placement
Agency vs Joy Cabiles, August 5,
Doctors and dentist,
independent contractors?
 Given the following:
 ( 1) repeated renewal of petitioners‘
contract for fifteen years, interrupted only
by the close of the school year;
 (2) the necessity of the work performed by
petitioners as school physicians and
dentists; and
 (3) the existence of LSGI's power of control
over the means and method pursued by
petitioners in the performance of their job
Samonte vs La Salle
(Feb 10, 2016)

 The SC ruled that petitioners

attained regular employment,
entitled to security of tenure
who could only be dismissed
for just and authorized causes.
 SR Metals vs Lumbres
(Feb 28, 2018)
 The continuous renewal and abrupt
termination of employment were
devious schemes to prevent
respondents’ regularization.
 Prescriptive period for filing illegal
dismissal is four years from the time
the cause of action accrued.
 Dismissal from employment is an
action predicated “upon an injury to
 Member of Coop? Norkis
case (2012)
 A motorcycle assembly and
distribution company operating in
Cebu engaged the services of a
cooperative which supplied workers to
the company. When the workers filed
a complaint with the DOLE regional
office, the company transferred the
workers to a sister firm engaged in
furniture manufacturing. The case filed
by the workers reached the Supreme
 Rowell Industrial Corp (RIC) vs. CA and Taripe
(March 07, 2007 )

 “Thus, there are two kinds of regular employees

(Art. 294 of LC), namely:

 (1) those who are engaged to perform

activities which are usually necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the employer; and

 (2) those who have rendered at least

one year of service, whether continuous or broken,
with respect to the activity in which they are
employed. “
 5-5-5 Outlawed in
Purefoods case (1997)
 The workers (numbering 906) were hired by petitioner Pure
Foods Corporation to work for a fixed period of five months at
its tuna cannery plant in Tambler, General Santos City, SC
found illegally dismissed.

 SC said that since reinstatement is no longer possible because

the petitioner's tuna cannery plant had, admittedly, been
closed in November 1994, the proper award is separation pay
equivalent to one month pay or one-half month pay for every
year of service, whichever is higher, to be computed from the
commencement of their employment up to the closure of the
tuna cannery plant. The amount of back wages must be
computed from the time the private respondents were
dismissed until the time petitioner's cannery plant ceased
operation
 Clear and Convincing Evidence
(Duty Free Phils Services Inc vs
Tria, June 27, 2012)
 In illegal dismissal cases, the employer
is burdened to prove just cause for
terminating the employment of its
employee with clear and convincing
evidence. This principle is designed to
give flesh and blood to the guaranty of
security of tenure granted by the
Constitution to employees under the
Labor Code (Justice Peralta).
 Clear and Convincing Evidence
(Duty Free Phils Services Inc vs
Tria, June 27, 2012)
 To be sure, unsubstantiated
suspicions, accusations, and
conclusions of employers do not
provide for legal justification for
dismissing employees. In case of
doubt, such cases should be resolved
in favor of labor, pursuant to the social
justice policy of labor laws and the
Constitution. (Justice Peralta)
 Just causes for termination

Article 297 (old 282):

1. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience of lawful

orders
2. Gross and habitual neglect of duties
3. Fraud or willfull breach of trust
4. Commission of a crime
5. Other analogies cases
1. Abandonment
2. Defiance of the AJO of Labor Secretary
 Authorized causes for
termination
Article 298 (old 283):

1. Introduction of labor saving device

2. Redundancy
3. Retrenchment
4. Closure

Article 301 (old 284): disease

Article 302 (old 285): Retirement
 Gross misconduct

In the case of Molato vs. NLRC, the Supreme Court

ruled:

“For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just

cause for dismissal the same must be related to the
performance of the employee’s duties and must
show that he has become unfit to continue
working for the employer.”
 Assaulting a co-employees
is serious misconduct
 The act of assaulting another
employee constitutes serious
misconduct which, under Article 297
(282) of the Labor Code, is a just
cause for the termination of
employment. (Ha Yuan Restaurant vs
NLRC, 516 Phil 124, 2006; Eastern
Paper Mills versus NLRC, 252 Phil 618,
1989).
 Long years of service not taken as
mitigating factor for serious
misconduct
" (A)ll the more should the employee's years of
service be taken against him in the light of the
finding of the lower tribunals that his violation of an
established company rule was shown to be willful
and such willfulness was characterized by a
wrongful attitude.'' "The erring employee has never
shown any feeling of remorse for what he has done
x x x in inflicting injury upon a co-employee.'' He
even refused to answer questions during the
investigation (Justice Peralta in Cesar Naguit vs San
Miguel Corporation, GR 188839, June 22, 2015)
 Sexual Congress at the
Office
 One the night of July 4, 1982, at about 11 o'clock,
Trinio allowed two female security guards, Vicky
and Excelsa to come inside the Security Office; he
caused the introduction of intoxicating liquor into
the premises of which he imbibed; he invited and
allowed a guard on duty, Marcelino, to partake of
the liquor when the latter entered the office; and
thereafter he, a married man, had sexual
intercourse with Guard Excelsa, a married woman,
on top of the desk of the Security Head, while
Magaling pretended to be asleep during all the time
that the lustful act was commenced and
consummated. (Standford Microsystems vs NLRC , Jan 28, 1988)
Repulsive to Morality

 Trinio did violate his employer's rules: he

allowed women into the Security office; he
allowed liquor to be brought in; he drank
that liquor and invited another security
guard to drink it, too; he and his lady friend,
both being married but not to each other,
satisfied their carnal passion in a business
office and the known presence of another
person. This last act was, to be sure, one
"repulsive to morality," as the Labor Arbiter
has put it. (Standford Microsystems vs NLRC , Jan 28, 1988)
 First offense not an
excuse
 The offenses cannot be excused upon a
plea of their being "first offenses," or have
not resulted in prejudice to the company in
any way. No employer may rationally be
expected to continue in employment a
person whose lack of morals, respect and
loyalty to his employer, regard for his
employer's rules, and appreciation of the
dignity and responsibility of his office, has
so plainly and completely been bared
(Standford Microsystems vs NLRC , Jan 28, 1988)
Grossly immoral Conduct

 A teacher’s act of entering into said second

marriage constitutes grossly immoral
conduct. No doubt, such actuation
demonstrates a lack of that degree of
morality required of him as a member of the
teaching profession. When he contracted
his second marriage despite the subsistence
of the first, he made a mockery of marriage,
a sacred institution demanding respect and
dignity. (Rene Ventenilla Puse vs Ligaya Delos Santos
Puse, March 15, 2010, GR No. 183678)
Is falling in love to a student an
immoral conduct?
 “If the two fell in love, despite disparity in
their age and academic levels, this only
lends substance to the truism that the heart
has reasons of its own which reason does
not know
 “But, definitely, yielding to this gentle and
universal emotion is not to be so casually
equated with immorality.”
 (Evelyn Chua-Qua vs Hon Jacobo Claver,
G.R. 49549[August 30,1990)
 Marriage between persons despite
differences of ages of 14 years is not
defiance of contemporary norms

 “The deviation of the circumstances of

their marriage from the social pattern
cannot be considered as defiance of
the contemporary social norms.”
(Evelyn Chua-Qua vs Hon. Jacobo
Clave, G.R. 49549 [August 30, 1990]).
 Jurisdiction

 Authority to hear and decide

– Labor Arbiter of NLRC (Article 224 [217],

PD 442, as amended)
– Voluntary Arbitrator (Arts. 275 [261] &
276[262])
– Secretary of Labor (Arts 128, 129 &
263g)
– PRC/DECS/CSC
LABOR ARBITER (Art 224
[217])
 a. Original and exclusive jurisdiction
to hear and decide the following cases
involving all workers, whether
agricultural or non-agricultural:
 1. Unfair labor practice cases;
 2. Termination disputes;

 Labor Arbiter

 3. If accompanied with a claim for

reinstatement, those cases that
workers may file involving wages,
rates of pay, hours of work and other
terms and conditions of employment;
 4. Claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of
damages arising from employer-
employee relations;
 Labor Arbiter

 5. Cases arising from any violation of

Article 279 (264) of the Labor Code, as
amended, including questions
involving the legality of strikes and
lockouts;
 Labor Arbiter
 6. Except claims for employees compensation
not included in the next succeeding paragraph,
social security, medicare, and maternity benefits, all
other claims arising from employer-employee
relations, including those of persons in domestic or
household service, involving an amount exceeding
Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), whether or not
accompanied with a claim for reinstatement;
 Labor Arbiter

 7. Wage distortion disputes in

unorganized establishments not
voluntarily settled by the parties
pursuant to Republic Act No. 6727;
 8. Enforcement of compromise
agreements when there is non-
compliance by any of the parties
pursuant to Article 227 of the Labor
Code, as amended;
 Labor Arbiter
 9. Money claims arising out of employer-
employee relationship or by virtue of any law or
contract, involving Filipino workers for overseas
deployment, including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages as provided
by Section 10, Republic Act No. 8042, as amended
by Republic Act No. 10022; and

 10. Other cases as may be provided by law.

 Commission Proper
 1. Cases decided by the Labor Arbiter;
 2. Cases decided by the Regional Directors or hearing
officers on small money claims;
 3. Cases of national interest certified to by the Secretary of
Labor;
 4. Petitions for injunctions or temporary restraining order
under Article 218 (e) of the Labor Code, as amended; and
 5. Petition to annul or modify the order or resolution
(including those issued during execution proceedings) of the
Labor Arbiter.


 Commission Proper
 1. Cases decided by the Labor Arbiter;
 2. Cases decided by the Regional Directors or hearing
officers on small money claims;
 3. Cases of national interest certified to by the Secretary of
Labor;
 4. Petitions for injunctions or temporary restraining order
under Article 218 (e) of the Labor Code, as amended; and
 5. Petition to annul or modify the order or resolution
(including those issued during execution proceedings) of the
Labor Arbiter.


Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or
Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (Art. 261-
262, Labor Code)

 Exclusive and original jurisdiction to

hear and decide all grievances:
 Arising from the implementation or
interpretation of the collective
bargaining agreements;
 Arising from the interpretation or
enforcement of company personnel
policies;
Voluntary Arbitrator
 Wage distortion issues arising from the application of any
wage orders in organized establishments (Par. 4, Art. 124, RA
6727);
 “Where the application of any prescribed wage
increase by virtue of a law or Wage Order issued by any
Regional Board results in distortions or wage structure within
an establishment, the employer and the union shall negotiate
to correct the distortions. Any dispute arising from wage
distortion shall be resolved through the grievance procedure
under their collective bargaining agreement and, if it remains
unresolved, through voluntary arbitration. Unless otherwise
agreed by the parties in writing, such dispute shall be decided
by the voluntary arbitrators within ten (10) calendar days
from the time said dispute was referred to voluntary
arbitration.”
Voluntary Arbitrator
 4. Unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation and
implementation of the productivity incentive programs under RA
6971.
Sec. 9, RA 6971
 Sec. 9. Disputes and Grievances – Whenever disputes, grievances, or
other matters arise from the interpretation or implementation of the
productivity incentive program, the labor-management committee shall meet
to resolve the dispute, and may seek the assistance of the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board of the Department of Labor and
Employment for such purpose. Any dispute which remains unresolved within
twenty (20) days from the time of its submission to the labor-management
committee shall be submitted for voluntary arbitration in line with the
pertinent provisions of the Labor Code as amended.
 The Productivity incentives program shall include the name(s) if the voluntary
arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators previously chosen and agreed upon
by the labor-management committee.
Voluntary Arbitrator

 Concurrent Jurisdiction
 Any other labor dispute upon agreement of the party may be
submitted to a voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators.
 Before or at any stage of the compulsory arbitration process, the
parties may opt to submit to their dispute to voluntary arbitration.

 The NLRC and its Regional Branches as well as the Regional

Directors of the DOLE are prohibited from entertaining disputes,
grievances or matters under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of
the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators. They shall
immediately dispose and refer the same to the appropriate grievance
machinery or voluntary arbitration provided in the collective
bargaining agreement.
Powers of the Voluntary Arbitrators or
Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (Sec. 4,
Rule XI, Book V)

 To hold hearings;
 To receive evidence;
 To take whatever action is necessary to resolve the
issue/s subject of the dispute;
 To conciliate or mediate to aid the parties in
reaching a voluntary settlement of the dispute;
 To issue a writ of execution to enforce final
decisions, orders, resolutions or awards.
 Labor Arbiter on Termination

 The labor arbiter, the appellate court, and the NLRC differed in their rulings
on the matter of jurisdiction. The labor arbiter and the appellate court
agreed with Ayson and the union’s position. The labor arbiter assumed
jurisdiction and emphasized that when the union met with Landtex on 8 July
1996, Ayson was no longer an employee becauseLandtex terminated him
effective 30 June 1996. The manifestation of the union’s desire to “refer the
matter to a third party in accordance with law and the CBA” does not deviate
from the fact that Ayson was already dismissed. On the other hand, the
NLRC sustained Landtex and William Go’s position. The NLRC asserted that
the determination of whether Ayson’s dismissal constitutes a “disciplinary
action” within the scope of the CBA calls for an interpretation of the
CBA. When the union called for a meeting withLandtex, the union effectively
initiated the grievance procedure. Thus, Ayson’s case should have been
subjected to voluntary arbitration.
 The SC agreed with Ayson and the union and affirm the rulings of the labor
arbiter and the appellate court. (Landtex vs Ayson and FFW, August 9, 2007)
Termination disputes fall under the
jurisdiction of the labor arbiter

 Article 261 of the Labor Code provides that voluntary arbitrators

shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all
unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or
implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and those
arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies. On the other hand, a reading of Article 217 in conjunction
with Article 262 shows that termination disputes fall under the
jurisdiction of the labor arbiter unless the union and the company
agree that termination disputes should be submitted to voluntary
arbitration. Such agreement should be clear and unequivocal.
Existing law is an intrinsic part of a valid contract without need for
the parties to expressly refer to it. Thus, the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the labor arbiter over unfair labor practices,
termination disputes, and claims for damages cannot be arrogated
into the powers of voluntary arbitrators in the absence of an express
agreement between the union and the company (Landtex vs Ayson)
Labor Arbiter and Regular Court

 Illegal termination of officers or other

employee of a private corporation is
under LA (Article 217,PD 442, as
amended)
 Corporate officer is under RTC (PD
902-A, amended by RA 8799)
 Corporate Officers

 Section 25 of PD 907-A enumerates

them:
– President;
– Secretary;
– Treasurer
– Such other officers in the by laws
 Corporate Officers

 “Conformably with Section 25, a

position must be expressly mentioned
in the By-laws in order to be
considered as corporate office. Thus,
the creation of an office pursuant to or
under a By-Law enabling provision is
not enough to make a position a
corporate office.xxx” (Matling Industrial &
Commercial Corp vs Coros [633 SCRA 12], 2010)
 Damages on EE-ER

 It is settled under this jurisdiction that

employer’s claim for damages arising
from employer-employer relationship
is outside the jurisdiction of the
regular court (Article 217 of the Labor
Code as amended; Banez vs Hon.
Valdevilla, G.R. No. 128024, May 9,
2000)
Co-current Jurisdiction

 An administrative case against a public

school teacher may be filed before the
Board of Professional Teachers-PRC,
the DepEd or the CSC, which have
concurrent jurisdiction over
administrative cases such as for
immoral, unprofessional or
dishonorable conduct (Rene Ventenilla Puse vs
Ligaya Delos Santos Puse, March 15, 2010, Gr No. 183678)
 VA jurisdiction

 Art. 262. Jurisdiction over other labor

disputes. The Voluntary Arbitrator or
panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, upon
agreement of the parties, shall also
hear and decide all other labor
disputes including unfair labor
practices and bargaining deadlocks
(see also San Jose v. NLRC, 355 Phil.
759 [1998])
VA has jurisdiction over
Termination cases
 The voluntary arbitrator correctly
assumed that the core issue behind
the issue of separation pay is the
legality of the dismissal of respondent
employee. (7K Corporation vs Eddie
Abarico, June 26, 2013)
 Plenary power to interpret
submission agreement
In Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. v. Deputy
Administrator Magsalin (259 Phil. 658
[1989]) : “a voluntary arbitrator has plenary
jurisdiction and authority to interpret an
agreement to arbitrate and to determine the
scope of his own authority when the said
agreement is vague — subject only, in a
proper case, to the certiorari jurisdiction of
this Court.
Rafael Quillopa vs Quality Guards
Services (Dec 2, 2015)

 Waiver/Quitclaim and Release cannot be

construed to sever the employer-employee
relationship between respondents and
petitioner as the 1st complaints pertains to
monetary claims and the 2nd to constructive
dismissal , simply because there is nothing
therein that would operate as such. Thus, the
CA erred in dismissing the 2nd Complaint on the
ground that there is no more employer-employee
relationship between respondents and petitioner
upon the filing of the same.
 Floating status not more than
six months allowed
 Temporary off-detail or the period of time
security guards are made to wait until they
are transferred or assigned to a new post or
client does not constitute constructive
dismissal, so long as such status does not
continue beyond six months. The onus of
proving that there is no post available to
which the security guard can be assigned
rests on the employer x x x. (Rafael Quillopa
vs Quality Guards Services [Dec 2, 2015])
Constructive Dismissal of
Security Guard
 In view of their unjustified failure to
place petitioner Security Guard back in
active duty within the allowable six
(6)-month period and to discharge the
burden placed upon it by prevailing
jurisprudence, the Court is constrained
to hold respondents liable for
petitioner’s constructive dismissal.
(Rafael Quillopa vs Quality Guards
Services, Dec 2, 2015)
 Survivorship Pension

Dycaico vs SSS et.al, November 30, 2005:

 The SSS denied the petitioner’s application for survivor’s
pension on the sole ground that she was not the legal
spouse of Bonifacio “as of the date of his retirement”, hence,
she could not be considered as his primary beneficiary
under Section 12 of Rep. Act No. 8282. Is SSS correct?
 The SC holds that the proviso “as of the date of retirement”
in section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282, which qualifies the
term “primary beneficiaries”, is unconstitutional for it violates
the due process and equal protection clauses of the
Constitution.
 SS pension vested right
Dycaico vs SSS et.al, November 30, 2005:
 A pension plan when employee participation is
mandatory, the prevailing view is that employees
have contractual or vested rights in the pension
where the pension is part of the terms of
employment. Thus, it was ruled that “a vested right
to benefits that is protected by due process clause”
and “retirees enjoy a protected property interest
whenever they acquire a right to immediate
payment under existing law”.
Pregnancy out of wedlock

 Pre-marital sexual relations between two

consenting adults who have no impediment
to marry each other, and, consequently,
conceiving a child out of wedlock, gauged
from a purely public and secular view of
morality, does not amount to a disgraceful
or immoral conduct under Section 94(e) of
the 1992 MRPS. (Santos Leus vs SSCW, Jan
28, 2015)
Redundancy/Retrenchment

 Eugene S. Arabit and Federation of Free

Workers. Vs. Jerdine Pacific Finance, Inc.
G.R. No. 188190. April 21, 2014

 The SC has already ruled before that

retrenchment and redundancy are two
different concepts; they are not
synonymous; thus, they should not be
used interchangeably.
 Redundancy
 Redundancy exists where the services of an
employee are in excess of what is reasonably
demanded by the actual requirements of the
enterprise. A position is redundant where it is
superfluous, and superfluity of a position or
positions may be the outcome of a number of
factors, such as over hiring of workers, decreased
volume of business, or dropping of a particular
product line or service activity previously
manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise
 Retrenchment
 Retrenchment, on the other hand, is used
interchangeably with the term “lay-off.” It is the
termination of employment initiated by the
employer through no fault of the employee’s and
without prejudice to the latter, resorted to by
management during periods of business
recession, industrial depression, or seasonal
fluctuations, or during lulls occasioned by lack of
orders, shortage of materials, conversion of the
plant for a new production program or the
introduction of new methods or more efficient
machinery, or of automation.
Constructive Dismissal

 Resignation of an employee to be a
viable defense in an action for illegal
dismissal, an employer must prove
that the resignation was voluntary,
and its evidence thereon
must be clear, positive and convincing.
The employer cannot rely on the
weakness of the employees evidence.
 (Grande vs PNTC, March 1, 2017)
 Retirement

 SC denied the petition of DLS-AU against

the NLRC’s June 2008 ruling and the Court
of Appeals’ (CA) June 2009 ruling in favor of
Juanito Bernardo.
 It affirmed that as a part-time lecturer with
fixed-term employment, Bernardo is entitled
to retirement benefits equivalent to a half-
month salary for every year of service.
 (DLS-AU vs Bernardo (Feb 13, 2017)
 Retirement

 Art. 302 [287]. Retirement. - Any

employee may be retired upon
reaching the retirement
age established in the collective
bargaining agreement or other
applicable employment contract.
 Age of retirement

 In the absence of retirement plan or

agreement providing for retirement benefits,
an employee upon reaching the age of 60
years or more, but not beyond 65
(compulsory retirement age), who has
served at least five (5) years in said
establishment, may retire and shall be
entitled to retirement pay of at least 1/2
month salary for every year of service, a
fraction of at least six (6) months being
considered as one whole year.
 Computation of
Retirement
 The term one-half month salary shall
mean fifteen (15) days plus one
twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay
and the cash equivalent of not more
than five (5) days of service incentive
leaves.
 Or 22.5 days per year of service.
 Implementing Rule

 This Rule shall apply to all employees in

the private sector, regardless of their
position, designation or status and
irrespective of the method by which
their wages are paid, except to those
specifically exempted under Section 2
hereof. As used herein, the term "Act" shall
refer to Republic Act No. 7641, which took
effect on January 7, 1993.
Exemptions specifically
identified by RA 7641 & IRR
 (1) Employees of the National
Government and its political
subdivisions, GOCCs covered by the
Civil Service Law and its regulations;
and (2) employees of retail, service
and agricultural establishments or
operations regularly employing not
more than 10 employees. (DLS-AU vs
Bernardo, Feb 13, 2017).
 Sexual Harassment

 “The dearth of quality employment

has become a daily ‘monster’ roaming
the streets that one may not be
expected to give up one's employment
easily but to hang on to it, so to
speak, by all tolerable means.
 Sexual Harassment

 Perhaps, to private respondent's mind,

for as long as she could outwit her
employer's ploys she would continue
on her job and consider them as mere
occupational hazards.” (Philippine
Aeolus Automotive United Corporation
vs NLRC and Cortez, G.R. No.
124617. April 28, 2000)
 Insubordination/Self-
incrimination
 In the honest belief that issuing a
letter of apology would incriminate
him in the said criminal case and upon
the advice of his own lawyer at that
Montallana wrote to respondents and
voluntarily communicated that he was
willing to issue the required apology,
but only had to defer the same in view
of his legal predicament. (Montallana
vs La Consolacion, Dec 8, 2014)
 Insubordination/Self-
incrimination
 As the Court sees it, the tenor of his
letters, and the circumstances under
which they were taken, at the very
least, exhibited Montallana's good faith
in dealing with respondents.

 (Montallana vs La Consolacion, Dec 8,

2014),
 Insubordination/Self-
incrimination
 This, therefore, negates the theory
that his failure to abide by
respondents' directive to apologize
was attended by a "wrong and
perverse mental attitude rendering the
employee's act inconsistent with
proper subordination," which would
warrant his termination from
employment.(Montallana vs La
Consolacion, Dec 8, 2014))
Labor union-Federation

A local union maybe:

 Independent registered or

 An affiliate of a Federation

Also an affiliate maybe:

 A local chapter/Charter local union or

 An independent union affiliated to the

Federation or national union
 Bargaining unit

 A group of employees sharing mutual

interests with a given employer unit
 Comprised of all or less than all of the
body of the employees in said unit or
any specific occupational (cluster of
jobs) or geographic grouping with that
unit.
Test in determining CBU

 Community or mutuality of interest

doctrine
 Globe doctrine
 CB history doctrine
 Employment status doctrine
 Determination of Sole and Exlusive
Bargaining Agent (SEBA)

Five modes of choosing SEBA in CBU:

 Request for SEBA certification
(repealed voluntary recognition)
 Certification election

 Consent election

 Run-off election

 Re-run election
 A union may represent
two bargainin units
 UP All Workers Union represents the
academic and non-academic
bargaining units of University of the
Philippines. (Holy Child Catholic School
vs Sec Patricia Sto Tomas and Holy
Child Catholic School Teachers and
Employees Union, July 23, 2013)
Both academic and non-
academic in one union
 The All U.P. Workers Union was not directed to
divest itself of its academic personnel members and
in fact, we take administrative notice that the All
U.P. Workers Union continue to exist with a
combined membership of U.P. academic and non-
academic personnel although separate bargaining
agreements is sought for the two bargaining units.
(Holy Child Catholic School vs Sec Patricia Sto
Tomas and Holy Child Catholic School Teachers and
Employees Union, July 23, 2013).
Two (2) bargaining units
and one union
 While the Supreme Court ordered a
separate bargaining unit for the U.P.
academic personnel, the Court,
however, did not order them to
organize a separate labor organization
among themselves.
Legitimate union: academic and
non-academic personnel

 Corollary, private respondent can

continue to exist as a legitimate labor
organization with the combined
teaching and non-teaching personnel
in its membership and representing
both classes of employees in separate
bargaining negotiations and
agreements.
 ULP in Collective
Bargaining

Art. 261; Silva vs NLRC, 274 SCRA 159:

1. Bargaining in bad faith
2. Refusal to bargain
3. Individual bargaining
4. Gross violation of the CBA
provisions
 Refusal to bargain

Divine Word vs. Sec of Labor, 213 SCRA 759:

The employer, by its refusal to bargain, is
guilty of violating the duty to bargain
collectively in good faith. Hence, the union’s
draft CBA proposal may unilaterally be
imposed upon the employer as CBA to
govern their relationship.
Managerial cannot partake CBA

 Managerial employees cannot, in the

absence of an agreement to the contrary,
be allowed to share in the concessions
obtained by the labor union through
collective negotiation. Otherwise, they
would be exposed to the temptation of
colluding with the union during the
negotiations to the detriment of the
employer. (Martinez vs. NLRC, GMCR
Inc. and M.A. Javier, G.R. No. 118743,
October 12, 1998)
 Gross violation of CBA

 It must be remembered that a CBA is entered into

in order to foster stability and mutual cooperation
between labor and capital.
 An employer should not be allowed to rescind
unilaterally its CBA with the duly certified
bargaining agent it had previously contracted with,
and decide to bargain anew with a different group
if there is no legitimate reason for doing so and
without first following the proper procedure.
(Employees’ Union of Bayer Philippines –FFW
vs Bayer Phil 162943, Dec 6, 2010)
 ULP under NLRC
 Indeed, in Silva v. National Labor Relations
Commission (G.R. No. 110226, June 19, 1997, 274
SCRA 159). The SC explained the correlations of
Article 248 (1) and Article 261 of the Labor Code to
mean that for a ULP case to be cognizable by the
Labor Arbiter, and for the NLRC to exercise
appellate jurisdiction thereon, the allegations in the
complaint must show prima facie the concurrence
of two things, namely:
– (1) gross violation of the CBA; and
– (2) the violation pertains to the economic provisions of
the CBA
EUBP-FFW vs Bayer Phils
(December 6, 2010)
 When an employer proceeds to
negotiate with a splinter union despite
the existence of its valid CBA with the
duly certified and exclusive bargaining
agent, the former indubitably
abandons its recognition of the latter
and terminates the entire CBA.
 Neither Party Shall Terminate
CBA during its lifetime

 Where there is a collective

bargaining agreement, the duty
to bargain collectively shall also
mean that neither party shall
terminate or modify such
agreement during its lifetime
(Article 264 [253] of the Labor
Code)
Union officers guilty of ULP

 Union officers repeated violations, of CBL and their

disregard of petitioner's rights as a union member -
their inaction on his two appeals which resulted in
his suspension, disqualification from running as
union officer, and subsequent expulsion without
being accorded the full benefits of due process -
connote willfulness and bad faith, a gross disregard
of his rights thus causing untold suffering,
oppression and, ultimately, ostracism from MWEU.
(Mendoza vs Officers of MWEU, Jan 25, 2016)
 Confidential employees
excluded from Bargaining Unit?

 Confidential employees should be

excluded from the bargaining unit and
disqualified from joining any union:
employees should not be placed in a
position involving a potential conflict
of interests. In this regard, the Court
of Appeals erred in holding that
Respondent Employees are allowed to
join the Union. (Univ of Immaculate vs UIC
Employees Union-FFW, Sept 14, 2015)
Refusal to leave union enough
basis for dismissal?

 SC holds that the willful act of refusing

to leave the Union is sufficient basis
for UIC to lose its trust and confidence
on Respondent Employees. There was
just cause for dismissing the
Respondent Employees. (University of
Immaculate Concepcion vs UIC
Employees Union-FFW, Sept 14, 2015)
 Grounds for strike

 Collective Bargaining
Deadlock
 Unfair labor practice
– e.g. Union-busting
Legal Procedure on Strike

 Notice of Strike
 Cooling off period
– 30 days for CB deadlock
– 15 days for ULP
– O day for union busting
 Strike vote (majority of all union members
 Submission of vote results
– 7 days before the day of intended strike
 Peaceful concerted
activity
 Ifthere is NO  If there is NO
obstruction of
–Illegal acts
–ingress,
–Coercion
–egress or
force
– public
–Intimidation thoroughfare
– or threat
Exercise of Police Power

–The assumption of jurisdiction in

Art. 278 (before 263)(g) has
now been viewed as an exercise
of the police power of the State
with the aim of promoting the
common good[19]:
[19]Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Acting Secretary of Labor
Brillantes, 364 SCRA 402, 409 (1999).
Inherent power of the state

 [I]t must be noted that Articles 263 (g) and 264 of

the Labor Code have been enacted pursuant to the
police power of the State, which has been defined
as the power inherent in a government to enact
laws, within constitutional limits, to promote the
order, safety, health, morals and general welfare of
society. The police power, together with the power
of eminent domain and the power of taxation, is an
inherent power of government and does not need
to be expressly conferred by the Constitution. x x
x.[20]
[20] Philtread Workers Union (PTWU) v. Confesor, 336 Phil. 375, 380 (1997); Union of Filipro
Employees v. Nestlé Philippines, Inc., G.R. Nos. 88710-13, 19 December 1990, 192 SCRA
396, 409.
 RTW immediately executory
Univ. of San Augustine Empl. Union-FFW vs CA & USA (March
28, 2006):
Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, supra, is explicit that if a strike has already
taken place at the time of assumption of jurisdiction or certification, all
striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the
employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers
under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lock-
out. xxx On the other hand, the tenor of these ponencias[1][18] indicates
an almost instantaneous or automatic compliance for a striker to return to
work once an AJO has been duly served.
[1][18] Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestle Philippines, Inc., G.R. Nos. 88710-12,
December 19, 1990, 192 SCRA 396; St. Scholastica’s College vs. Torres, G.R. No. 100158,
June 29, 1992, 210 SCRA 565; Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 143013-14, December 18, 2000, 348 SCRA 565; Grand
Boulevard Hotel vs. Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied
Industries (GLOWHRAIN), G.R. No. 153664, July 18, 2003, 406 SCRA 688.
RTW of AJO: Urgent matter
& Executory in Character
 Instructive is the ruling of this Court in Philippine
Airlines Employees Association v. Philippine Airlines,
Inc.[26]:
 The very nature of a return-to-work order issued in
a certified case lends itself to no other construction.
The certification attests to the urgency of the
matter, affecting as it does an industry
indispensable to the national interest. The order is
issued in the exercise of the court’s compulsory
power of arbitration, and therefore must be obeyed
until set aside. x x x.
 [26] 148 Phil. 386, 392 (1971).
Univ of San Agustin case

 On September 19, 2003, the Union staged

a strike. At 6:45 a.m. of the same day,
Sheriffs Reyes and Francisco had arrived
at San Agustin University to serve the AJO
on the Union. At the main entrance of the
University, the sheriffs saw some elements
of the Union at the early stages of the
strike.
San Agustin case

 There they met Merlyn Jara,

the Union’s vice president, upon
whom the sheriffs tried to serve the
AJO, but who, after reading it, refused
to receive the same, citing Union
Board Resolution No. 3 naming the
union president as the only person
authorized to do so.
San Agustin case

 The sheriffs explained to Ms. Jara that

even if she refused to acknowledge
receipt of the AJO, the same would be
considered served. Sheriff Reyes
further informed the Union that once
the sheriffs post the AJO, it would be
considered received by the Union.[6]



San Agustin case

 At approximately 8:45 a.m., the

sheriffs posted copies of the AJO at
the main gate
of San Agustin University, at the main
entrance of its buildings and at
the Union’s office inside the campus.
At 9:20 a.m., the sheriffs served the
AJO on the University.

San Agustin case
 Notwithstanding the sheriffs’ advice as to the
legal implication of the Union’s refusal to be served
with the AJO, the Union went ahead with the
strike.


 At around 5:25 p.m., the Union president

arrived at the respondent University’s premises and
received the AJO from the sheriffs.

Whether the Secretary of Labor is empowered
to give arbitral awards in the exercise of his
authority to assume jurisdiction over labor
disputes
 While an arbitral award cannot per se be
categorized as an agreement voluntarily entered
into by the parties because it requires the
interference and imposing power of the State thru
the Secretary of Labor when he assumes
jurisdiction, the award can be considered as an
approximation of a collective bargaining
agreement which would otherwise have been
entered into by the parties. Hence, it has the
force and effect of a valid contract obligation
between the parties. (Cirtek Employees’ Labor Union-
Federation of Free Workers vs Cirtek Electronics
Corporation, G.R. 190515, June 6, 2011)
 RTW interlocutory in
Nature
RTW as "interlocutory in nature, and is
merely meant to maintain status quo
while the main issue is being threshed
out in the proper forum.” (San
Fernando Coca Cola Rank-and-File
Union [SACORU] vs Coca Cola Bottling
Co, GR 200499, Oct 4, 2017
 Status quo in RTW

From the date the DOLE Secretary

assumes jurisdiction over a dispute
until its resolution, the parties have
the obligation to maintain the status
quo while the main issue is being
threshed out in the proper forum
(SACORU vs Coca Cola Bottling Co,
GR 200499, Oct 4, 2017)
Who shall be admitted back to work
is not a discretion of management

 YSS Employees Union vs YSS Laboratories, Inc. (Dec 4,

2009) :

 The determination of who among the

strikers could be admitted back to work
cannot be made to depend upon the
discretion of employer, lest we strip the
certification or assumption-of-jurisdiction
orders of the coercive power that is
necessary for attaining their laudable
objective.
RTW not interference with but
regulates management prerogative

 YSS Employees Union vs YSS Laboratories,

Inc. (Dec 4, 2009) :
 The return-to-work order does not interfere
with the management’s prerogative, but
merely regulates it when, in the exercise of
such right, national interests will be
affected.
 The rights granted by the Constitution are
not absolute. They are still subject to control and
limitation to ensure that they are not exercised arbitrarily.
Liability in Illegal Strike

 In case of Illegal strike, the local union

and not the mother federation
(neither its counsel) is liable for
damages (J. Purisima, Filipino Pipe
and Foundry Corporation vs NLRC,
Nov 16, 1999)
 In illegal strike, local is
primary responsible
 Evidently, direct and primary
responsibility for the damages
allegedly caused by the illegal strike
sued upon fall on the local union
FPWU, being the principal, and not on
respondent NLU-TUCP, a mere agent
of FPWU-NLU which assisted the latter
in filing the notice of strike.
 Damages against agent or its
lawyer no leg to stand
 Being just an agent, the notice of strike filed
by Atty. Eulogio Lerum, the national
president of NLU-TUCP, is deemed to have
been filed by its principal, the FPWU-NLU.
Having thus dismissed the claim for
damages against the principal, FPWU-NLU,
the action for damages against its agent,
respondent NLU-TUCP, and Atty. Lerum, has
no more leg to stand on and should also be
dismissed.
May a worker avail of a
bereavement benefit under the
CBA on the death of a fetus?
 In Continental Steel Manufacturing Corp vs
Hon. AVA Atty. Allan Montano , et.al (GR
182836, Oct 13, 2009), the SC said that the
rights to bereavement leave and other death
benefits pertain directly to the parents of the
unborn child upon the latter’s death.
 Sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Civil Code do not
provide at all a definition of death. Moreover, while
the Civil Code expressly provides that civil
personality may be extinguished by death, it does
not explicitly state that only those who have
acquired juridical personality could die.
CBA & CBA provisions
interpreted in favor of labor
 In Continental Manufacturing, sufra, the SC
said that “(b)eing for the benefit of the employee,
CBA provisions on bereavement leave and other
death benefits should be interpreted liberally to
give life to the intentions thereof. Time and again,
the Labor Code is specific in enunciating that in
case of doubt in the interpretation of any law or
provision affecting labor, such should be interpreted
in favor of labor.[29] In the same way, the CBA and
CBA provisions should be interpreted in favor of
labor. “
 Faculty Association of Mapua Institute of Technology (FAMIT) v. Court of
[29]

Appeals, G.R. No. 164060, 15 June 2007, 524 SCRA 709, 716.
 Rules on Prescription

Tamayo vs Baterbonia, 165 SCRA 94:

 1. Offenses penalized under the Labor Code,
and the rules and regulations shall prescribed in
3 years;
 2. All ULP shall be filed within one (1) year,
otherwise forever barred; and
 3. All monetary claims shall be filed within 3
years.
How about Illegal dismissal?

The SC said in Callanta vs Carnation

Phils, 145 SCRA 268, inter alia:
IIlegal dismissal case does not fall as an
offense under the Labor Code, but under
Art. 1146 of the Civil Code as “an injury
to the rights of the plaintiff” which under
the Code’s statute of limitations
prescribed in four (4) years.
 Beauty of our dreams

“The future belongs to those who

believe in the beauty of their dreams.”

(Eleanor Roosevelt)
 Thank you

God Bless!