RECENT

JURISPRUDENCE
ATTY. SIXTO T. RODRIGUEZ, JR.
Assistant Regional Director
DOLE-CAR
 Employer-Employee Relationship

 A cooperative can be likened to a

corporation with personality separate and
distinct from its owners-members.
Consequently, an owner-member of a
cooperative can be an employee of the
latter and an employer-employee
relationship can exist between them. (SSC
vs. ASIAPRO Cooperative, Nov. 23, 2007)
 ER-EE Relationship

The existence of an employer-employee

relationship cannot be negated by
expressly repudiating it in a contract,
when the terms and surrounding
circumstances show otherwise. The
employment status of a person is defined
and prescribed by law and not by what
parties say it should be. (SSC vs. Asiapro)
 ER-EE Relationship
 There exist no er-ee relationship between petitioner and
Delta Milling. In its cross-claim, petitioner is not seeking
any relief under the LC but merely reimbursement of the
monetary benefits claims awarded to the be paid to the
guard employees. There is no labor dispute involved in
the cross-claim against Delta Milling. Rather, the cross-
claim involves is within the realm of civil law, and
jurisdiction over it belongs to the regular courts. (Jaguar
Security and Investigation Agency vs. Sales et. Al., April
22,2008)
 Management Prerogative
 The employer exercise the prerogative to
transfer an employee for valid reasons and
according to the requirements of its business,
provided the transfer does not result in
demotion in rank or diminution of the
employee’s salary, benefits, and other privileges.
 Two requisites of Willful disobedience. (San
Miguel Corp. vs. Pontillas, May 7, 2008)
 Management Prerogative
 Jurisprudential guidelines on the power to transfer: a) a
transfer is a movement from one position to another of
equivalent rank, level or salary without break in the
service or a lateral movement from one position to
another of equivalent rank or salary; b) the Er has the
inherent right to transfer or reassign an employee for
legitimate business purposes; c) a transfer becomes
unlawful where it is motivated by discrimination of bad
faith or is effected as a form of punishment or is a
demotion without sufficient cause; d) the Er must be
able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable,
inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee. (Rural Bank
of Cantilan, Inc., vs. Julve, G.r. 169750)
 Management Prerogative

Power not to promote Eborda is

management prerogative despite union’s
recommendation pursuant to the CBA
provision. (NAMADA-NFL vs. DASUCECO,
Aug. 9, 2006)
 Employment Contract

The employer has the burden to establish

that a restrictive covenant barring an
employee from accepting a competitive
employment after retirement or
resignation is not an unreasonable or
oppressive, or in undue or unreasonable
restraint of trade. (Rivera vs. Solidbank
Corp., April 19, 2006)
 Labor Standards

The fact that the bus driver was paid on

commission basis did not rule out the
presence of an employer-employee
relationship. Art. 97 (f) of the Labor Code
clearly provides that an employee’s wages
can be in the form of commission. (R.
Transport Corp. vs. Ejanda, May 20, 2004
 Labor Standards
Article 3 (3) of P.D. No. 1083 applies not only to Muslims
but also to non-Muslims. There should be no distinction
between Muslims and non-Muslims as regards pays of
benefits for Muslim holidays. Assuming arguendo that
the respondent’s position is correct, then by the same
token, Muslims throughout the Philippines are also not
entitled to holiday pays on Christian holidays declared by
the law as regular holidays. Wages and other
emoluments granted by law to the working man are
determined on the basis of the criteria laid down by laws
and certainly not on the basis of the worker’s faith or
religion. (San Miguel Corporation vs. CA, Jan. 30, 2002)
 Labor Standards
 SIL should be computed not from the start of
employment but a year after commencement of
service, for it is only then that to the employee
is entitled to said benefit. This is because the
entitlement to said benefit accrues only from the
time he has rendered at least one year of
service to his employer. (JPL Marketing
Promotions vs. CA, July 8, 2005)
 Labor Standards
 In case of SIL, the employee may choose to
either use his leave credits or commute it to its
monetary equivalent if not exhausted at the end
of the year. If he does not use it or commute
the same, he is entitled upon his resignation or
separation from work to the commutation of his
accrued SIL. (Auto Bus Trans. System vs.
Bautista, May 16,2005)
 Leave credits are normally converted into their
cash equivalent based on the last prevailing
salary received by the employee.
 Labor Standards
On 13th Month pay
-Excluded from the computation of “basic salary”
are payments of sick, vacation and maternity
leaves, night differentials, regular holiday pay
and premiums for work done on rest days and
special holidays. (Honda Phils. Vs. Samahan ng
Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda, June 15,
2005)
 Labor Standards
 ***But if the employer freely, voluntarily and
continuously included in the computation of its
employees’ 13th month pay, payments for sick, vacation
and maternity leaves, regular holiday pay and premiums
for work done on rest days and special holidays, despite
the fact the law and the government issuances expressly
excluded the same, the act of the employer being
favorable to the employees had ripened into a practice
and therefore they can no longer withdrawn, reduce,
diminished, discontinued or eliminated. (Davao Fruits
Corp. vs. ALU)
 Labor Standards
 The difference between the actual
minimum wage and the actual salary
received by private respondents cannot be
deemed as their 13th month pay and
service incentive leave pay as such
difference is not equivalent to or of the
same import as the said benefits
contemplated by law. (JPL Marketing vs.
CA, July 8, 2005)
 Labor Standards
 The basis for computing the benefits of
taxi drivers paid on “boundary” system
should be the average daily income. But
they are not entitled to the 13th month and
the service incentive leave pay, hence,
their retirement pay should be computed
on the sole basis of their salary. (R & E
Transport, Inc. vs. Latag, Feb. 13, 2004
 Labor Standards
Since a worker is entitled to the enjoyment of
ten paid regular holidays, the fact that two
holidays fall on the same date should not
operate to reduce to nine the ten holiday pay
benefits a worker is entitled to receive. There is
nothing is the law which provides or indicates
that the entitlement to the ten days of holiday
pay shall be reduced to nine when two holidays
fall on the same day. (Asian Transmission
Corporation vs. CA, March 15, 2004)
 Labor Relations
 Petitioners are required to perfect their
appeal in the manner and within the
period permitted by law and failure to do
so rendered the judgment of the Labor
Arbiter final and executory. Petitioners had
ten calendar days to appeal LA’s decision
pursuant to Art. 223 of the LC. (MP
Acebedo Optical Shops vs. NLRC, April
15,2008)
 Labor Relations
 While Art. 245 of the LC limits the ineligibility to
join, form and assist any labor organization to
managerial employees, jurisprudence has
extended this prohibition to confidential
employees or those who by reason of their
positions or nature are required to assist or act
in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees
and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and
highly confidential records. (Standard Chartered
Bank Employees Union vs. SCB, April 22, 2008)
 Labor Relations
 The fact that the conventional term “strike” was not
used by the striking employees to describe their
common course of action is inconsequential since the
substance of the situation, and not its appearance, will
be deemed to be controlling. The term “strike”
encompasses not only concerted work stoppages, but
also slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-downs, attempts to
damage, destroy or sabotage plant equipment and
facilities, and similar activities. (Santa Rosa coca Cola
Plant Employees Union vs. Coca-cola Bottlers Phils. Inc.,
G.R. Nos. 164302-03)
 Labor Relations
 No requirement of written authorization from the
non-union employees is needed to effect a valid
check-off. Art. 248 (e) makes it explicit that Art.
241, par (o), requiring written authorization is
inapplicable to non-union members, especially in
this case where the non-union employees
receive several benefits under the CBA. (Del
Pilar Academy vs. Del PiLar Academy Employees
Union, April 30, 2008)
 Security of Tenure
 Managerial employees enjoy security off tenure and,
although the standards for their dismissal are less
stringent, the loss of trust and confidence must be
substantial and founded on clearly established facts
sufficient to warrant the managerial employee’s
separation from the company. Substantial evidence is of
critical importance and the burden rests on the
employer. Due to its subjective nature, it can easily be
concocted by an abusive employer and used as a subte
rfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or
unjustified. (PLDT vs. Tolentino, Sept. 21 2004)
 Termination
 For serious misconduct to exist, the act
complained of should be corrupt or inspired by
an intention to violate the law or a persistent
disregard of well-known legal rules. In loss or
trust and confidence, it must be shown that the
employee concerned is responsible for the
misconduct or infraction and that the nature of
his participation therein rendered him absolutely
unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded
by his position. (Mitsubishi Motors Phils. Vs.
Simon and Ajero, April 16, 2008)
 Termination
 To be valid ground for dismissal. Loss of
trust and confidence must be based on a
willful breach of trust and founded on clearly
established facts. A breach is willful if it is
done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely,
without justifiable excuse, as distinguished
from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly,
heedlessly or inadvertently. (AMA Computer
College, Inc., vs. Garay, Jan. 23, 2007)
 Termination
 An employee may be validly dismissed for being
a habitual offender, e.g., at least seven (7)
offenses within a three (3) year period despite
promises by the employee that the
transgressions will not be repeated; a series of
irregularities when put together may constitute
serious misconduct. And despite the employee’s
length of service, he is not entitled to separation
pay. (Gustillo vs. Wyeth Phils., Inc. Oct. 4, 2004)
 Termination
 Under Art. 282 of the LC, negligence must
be both gross and habitual to justify the
dismissal of an employee. There was lack
of substantial evidence to prove that
respondent was grossly negligent. (Bell
Corp. vs. Macasusi, April 22, 2008)
 Termination
 The burden of proof to show that respondent’s dismissal from
employment was for a just cause falls on petitioner as employer.
Petitioner cannot discharge this burden by merely alleging that it did
not dismiss respondents; neither can it escape liability by claiming
that respondents abandoned their work. When there is no showing
of a clear, valid and legal cause for the termination of employment,
the law considers it a case of illegal dismissal. Abandonment is a
matter of intention and cannot lightly be inferred or legally
presumed from certain equivocal acts. Mere absence or failure to
report for work, even after notice to return, is not tantamount to
abandonment. (Seven Star Textile Company vs. Marcos, Jan. 24,
2007)
 Termination
 In cases of illegal dismissal, the burden is on the
employer to prove that the termination was for a
valid cause.
 Requisites of abandonment.
 Field personnel is not merely concerned with the
location where the employee regularly performs
his duties but also with the fact that the
employee’s performance is unsupervised by the
employer (Far East Agricultural Supply, Inc. vs.
Lebatique and CA, Feb. 12, 2007)
 Due Process
 The minimum standards of due process in all cases of
termination of employment are prescribed under Article
277 (b) of the Labor Code. Art. 277 (b) in relation to Art.
264 (a) and (e) recognizes the right to due process of all
workers, without distinction as to the causes of their
termination. Where no distinction is given, none is
construed. Hence, the standards of due process apply to
the termination of employment even if the cause
therefor was their supposed involvement in strike-related
violence prohibited under Art.. 264 (a) and (e). (Suico,
et. al., vs. NLRC, Jan. 30, 2007)
 Due Process
 Art. 277 (b) in relation to Art. 264 (a) and (e)
recognizes the right to due process of all
workers, without distinction as to the cause of
their termination. Where no distinction is given,
none is construed. Hence, the foregoing
standards of due process apply to the
termination of employment even if the cause
therefor was their supposed involvement in
strike-related violence prohibited under Art. 264
(a) and (e). (Suico vs. NLRC, Jan. 30, 2007)
 Due Process
 There can thus be no doubt that petitioner
was given ample opportunity to explain
her side. Parenthetically, when an
employee admits the acts complaint of, as
in petitioner’s case no formal hearing is
even necessary. (Panuncillo vs. CAP Phils.,
Feb. 9, 2007)
 Due Process

Formal investigation not necessary where

employee admitted his infractions.

Just inform the employee of employer’s

findings. (Bernardo vs. NLRC, 255 SCRA
108)
 Twin Requirements
 Applies to probationary employees
(Voyeur Visage Studio, March 18,2005)

 Part-time employee still covered by twin-

notice rule. (St. Mary’s Univ. vs. CA, March
8, 2005)
 Separation Pay
 Separation Pay given upon resignation if
provided in CBA or if according to policy
and practice. (Handford Phils., Inc. vs.
Shirley Joseph, March 31, 2005)
 Quitclaims
 When the voluntariness of the execution of the
affidavit of desistance or release is put in issue
then the claim of the employee may still be
given due course. Quitclaims, releases and other
waivers of benefits granted by law or contracts
in favor of workers should be strictly scrutinized
to protect the weak and disadvantaged. (Solgus
Corp. vs CA, Feb, 6, 2007)
FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT COELLUM!

DADIAY LANG APU!

AGYAMANAK UNAY

Atty. POPOY