PEOPLES BROADCASTING SERVICE (BOMBO RADYO PHILS., INC.

), vs THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DOLE REGION VII, and JANDELEON JUEZAN G.R. No. 179652

Private respondent Jandeleon Juezan filed a complaint against petitioner with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. VII, Cebu City, for illegal deduction, nonpayment of service incentive leave, 13th month pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day and illegal diminution of benefits, delayed payment of wages and noncoverage of SSS, PAG-IBIG and Philhealth. After the conduct of summary investigations and after the parties submitted their position papers, the DOLE Regional Director found that private respondent was an employee of petitioner, and was entitled to his money claims. Petitioner sought reconsideration of the Directors Order, but failed. The Acting DOLE Secretary dismissed petitioners appeal on the ground that petitioner submitted a Deed of Assignment of Bank Deposit instead of posting a cash or surety bond. When the matter was brought before the CA, where petitioner claimed that it had been denied due process, it was held that petitioner was accorded due process as it had been given the opportunity to be heard, and that the DOLE Secretary had jurisdiction over the matter, as the jurisdictional limitation imposed by Article 129 of the Labor Code on the power of the DOLE Secretary under Art. 128(b) of the Code had been repealed by Republic Act No. (RA) 7730 ISSUE: WON DOLE can make a determination of whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists. HELD: The DOLE, in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, has a ready set of guidelines to follow, the same guide the courts themselves use. The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; (4) the employers power to control the employees conduct. The use of this test is not solely limited to the NLRC. The DOLE Secretary, or his or her representatives, can utilize the same test, even in the course of inspection, making use of the same evidence that would have been presented before the NLRC. The determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship by the DOLE must be respected. The expanded visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE granted by RA 7730 would be rendered nugatory if the alleged employer could, by the simple expedient of disputing the employeremployee relationship, force the referral of the matter to the NLRC. The Court issued the declaration that at least a prima facie showing of the absence of an employer-employee relationship be made to oust the DOLE of jurisdiction. But it is precisely the DOLE that will be faced with that evidence, and it is the DOLE that will weigh it, to see if the same does successfully refute the existence of an employeremployee relationship. If the DOLE makes a finding that there is an existing employer-employee relationship, it takes cognizance of the matter, to the exclusion of the NLRC. The DOLE would have no jurisdiction only if the employer-employee relationship has already been terminated, or it appears, upon review, that no employer-employee relationship existed in the first place.

MA. MELISSA A. GALANG, vs JULIA MALASUGUI G.R. No. 174173 FACTS: On 26 June 1993, Julia Malasugui (Malasugui) was hired by Ma. Melissa A. Galang (Galang) to take care, oversee and man the premises of the Davao Royal Garden Compound (Pangi Property) the main compound of Galang where the orchids and other ornamental plants used for the business were nursed and propagated. Aside from taking care of the plants, she was required by Galang to be present at the premises at seven thirty in the morning until five thirty in the afternoon every day, including Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays without any day-offs From 1993-1995, Malasugui was paid by Galang P40.00 as daily wage and after three years, it was increased to P70.00 per day until February 1999. She was also given one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) bonus every December by Galang. Malasugui was later made to stay and live at the premises, particularly in one of the bunk houses within the Pangi property which was vacated by the family driver of Galang, so that she could watch and guard the premises even during nighttime. In November 1998, she became sick with severe cough and asked for financial assistance from Galang for medical check-up. Thereafter, she was terminated from work and barred from entering the Pangi property on 27 January 1999. Galang claims that Malasugui was never a n employee and that she merely tolerated Malasuguis presence on by reason of kindness and on the promise that Malasugui would live there temporarily as she looked for proper employment. ISSUE: WON there was actual employee-employer relationship. HELD: As found by the labor arbiter, the NLRC and the CA, there is an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondent; and it is a fact that there was a severance of employment. The dispute is on the reason for the severance. Petitioner pleads that there was abandonment. Respondent, as she had charged petitioner at the outset, submits that there was illegal dismissal. Jurisprudence provides that the burden of proof to show that the dismissal was for a just cause is on the employer. Petitioner alleged that respondent packed her bags and left the property after being scolded due to her non-appearance at the medical examination arranged by the petitioner. The submission is that respondent left the premises and abandoned her work. Abandonment is a form of neglect of duty, one of the just causes for an employer to terminate an employee. It is a hornbook precept that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proof. For a valid termination of employment on the ground of abandonment, the employer must prove, by substantial evidence, the concurrence of the employees failure to report for work for no valid reason and his categorical intention to discontinue employment. There is in this case no substantial evidence that will prove respondents categorical intention to discontinue employment. On the contrary, the story of abandonment is simply doubtful.

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, vs JAN CARLO GALA, G.R. Nos. 191288 & 191304

FACTS: On March 2, 2006, respondent Jan Carlo Gala commenced employment with the petitioner Meralco Electric Company (Meralco) as a probationary lineman. He was assigned at Meralcos Valenzuela Sector. He initially served as member of the crew of Meralcos Truck No. 1823 supervised by Foreman Narciso Matis. After one month, he joined the crew of Truck No. 1837 under the supervision of Foreman Raymundo Zuiga, Sr. On July 27, 2006, barely four months on the job, Gala was dismissed for alleged complicity in pilferages of Meralcos electrical supplies, particularly, for the incident which took place on May 25, 2006. Gala points out that he was not at all involved and that during the incident he was at a distance from the truck as he was with the digging crew digging the hole for the pole. Gala insists that he cannot be sanctioned for the theft of company property on May 25, 2006. He maintains that he had no direct participation in the incident and that he was not aware that an illegal activity was going on as he was at some distance from the trucks when the alleged theft was being committed. He adds that he did not call the attention of the foremen because he was a mere lineman and he was focused on what he was doing at the time. He argues that in any event, his mere presence in the area was not enough to make him a conspirator in the commission of the pilferage. ISSUE: WON Gala is entitled to pursue the company for illegal dismissal. HELD: Gala misses the point. He forgets that as a probationary employee, his overall job performance and his behavior were being monitored and measured in accordance with the standards (i.e., the terms and conditions) laid down in his probationary employment agreement. Under paragraph 8 of the agreement, he was subject to strict compliance with, and non-violation of the Company Code on Employee Discipline, Safety Code, rules and regulations and existing policies. Par. 10 required him to observe at all times the highest degree of transparency, selflessness and integrity in the performance of his duties and responsibilities, free from any form of conflict or contradicting with his own personal interest. The evidence on record established Galas presence in the worksite where the pilferage of company property happened. It also established that it was not only on May 25, 2006 that Llanes, the pilferer, had been seen during a Meralco operation. He had been previously noticed by Meralco employees, including Gala (based on his admission) in past operations. If Gala had seen Llanes in earlier projects or operations of the company, it is incredulous for him to say that he did not know why Llanes was there or what Zuiga and Llanes were talking about. To our mind, the Meralco crew (the foremen and the linemen) allowed or could have even asked Llanes to be there during their operations for one and only purpose to serve as their conduit for pilfered company supplies to be sold to ready buyers outside Meralco worksites. Meralco has ground to terminate Gala.

ERNESTO G. YMBONG, vs ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, VENERANDA SY AND DANTE LUZON, G.R. No. 184885 FACTS: On January 1, 1996, the ABS-CBN Head Office in Manila issued Policy No. HR-ER-016 or the Policy on Employees Seeking Public Office. The pertinent portions read: 1. Any employee who intends to run for any public office position, must file his/her letter of resignation, at least thirty (30) days prior to the official filing of the certificate of candidacy either for national or local election. xxxx 3. Further, any employee who intends to join a political group/party or even with no political affiliation but who intends to openly and aggressively campaign for a candidate or group of candidates (e.g. publicly speaking/endorsing candidate, recruiting campaign workers, etc.) must file a request for leave of absence subject to managements approval. For this particular reason, the employee should file the leave request at least thirty (30) days prior to the start of the planned leave period. Ymbong was a radio and TV talent for ABS CBN and Patalinghug was a scriptwriter and director for various radio programs. Subsequently Ymbong and Patalinghug ran for public office but both lost. They eventually tried to come back to ABS CBN but were barred from doing so. Patalinghug prior to running sent a resignation letter to his superiors letting them know he was indeed running for councillor of Naga Cebu. On the other hand Ymbong merely filed a leave of absence at first to help campaign for a political party but latter ran for office at the last minute. Ymbong claims there is violation of his right to suffrage due to the company policy. ISSUE: WON ABS CBNs company policy violates the right to suffrage. HELD: ABS-CBN, for its part, counters that the validity of policies such as the policy in question, has long been upheld by this Court which has ruled that a media company has a right to impose a policy providing that employees who file their certificates of candidacy in any election shall be considered resigned. Moreover, case law has upheld the validity of the exercise of management prerogatives even if they appear to limit the rights of employees as long as there is no showing that management prerogatives were exercised in a manner contrary to law. ABS-CBN contends that being the largest media and entertainment company in the country, its reputation stems not only from its ability to deliver quality entertainment programs but also because of neutrality and impartiality in delivering news. Ymbongs overt act of running for councilor of Lapu-Lapu City is tantamount to resignation on his part. He was separated from ABS-CBN not because he was dismissed but because he resigned. Since there was no termination to speak of, the requirement of due process in dismissal cases cannot be applied to Ymbong. Thus, ABS-CBN is not duty-bound to ask him to explain why he did not tender his resignation before he ran for public office as mandated by the subject company policy.

BLUE SKY TRADING COMPANY, INC. and/or JOSE TANTIANSU and LINDA TANTIANSU vs ARLENE P. BLAS and JOSEPH D. SILVANO G.R. No. 190559 Petitioner Blue Sky Trading Company, Inc. (Blue Sky) is a duly registered domestic corporation engaged in the importation and sale of medical supplies and equipment. Petitioner Jose G. Tantiansu, Jr. (Jose) is Blue Sky's vice president for operations while petitioner Linda G. Tantiansu (Linda) is its assistant corporate secretary. The respondents Arlene P. Blas (Arlene) and Joseph D. Silvano (Joseph) were regular employees of Blue Sky and they respectively held the positions of stock clerk and warehouse helper before they were dismissed from service on February 5, 2005. The issue arose from the fact that there were missing stocks unaccounted for by the employees of Blue sky. Arlene and Joseph were held in preventive suspension during the pendency of the investigation. Subsequently they were terminated. Arlene and Joseph question the propriety of the preventive suspension and their subsequent termination. ISSUE: WON preventive suspension was properly applied by the company in this case HELD: The preventive suspension was proper in the case at bar. During the pendency of the investigation on what occurred and the inquiries of where the missing stocks were the proper action of the company is to suspend the employees that are suspected and are to be inquired upon. The purpose of the suspension is to prevent an employee from causing harm or injury to his colleagues and to the employer. The maximum period of suspension is 30 days, beyond which the employee should either be reinstated or be paid wages and benefits due to him. In Arlene and Joseph's case, Blue Sky issued to them notices to explain on February 3, 2005. They submitted their written explanation the day after and they were dismissed from service on February 5, 2005. While we do not agree with Blue Sky's subsequent decision to terminate them from service, we find no impropriety in its act of imposing preventive suspension upon the respondents since the period did not exceed the maximum imposed by law and there was a valid purpose for the same.

WILFREDO ARO, RONILO TIROL, JOSE PACALDO, PRIMITIVO CASQUEJO and MARCIAL ABGO vs NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, fourth division and benthel development corporation G.R. No. 174792 Several employees of private respondent Benthel Development Corporation, including the petitioners, filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with various money claims and prayer for damages against the latter, in the NLRC Arbitration Branch No. VII in Cebu City and docketed as RAB Case No. 07-09-1222-97/12-1609-97. Thereafter, Labor Arbiter Ernesto F. Carreon rendered a decision finding private respondent guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering it to pay its thirty-six (36) employees P446,940.00 as separation pay. The employees, including the petitioners herein, appealed from the said decision. The NLRC, in NLRC Case No. V-000399-98, affirmed the decision of Labor Arbiter Carreon in its Decision dated January 12, 1999, with the modification that private respondent pay backwages computed from the respective dates of dismissal until finality of the decision. Private respondent, unsatisfied with the modification made by the NLRC, filed a motion for reconsideration with the contention that, since it has been found by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed in the assailed decision that the employees were project employees, the computation of backwages should be limited to the date of the completion of the project and not to the finality of the decision. The NLRC, however, denied the motion ruling that private respondent failed to establish the date of the completion of the project. ISSUE: WON as project employees the computation should be limited to the date of completion of the project HELD: They were hired for the construction of the Cordova Reef Village Resort in Cordova, Cebu. Thus, that private respondents are project employees has already been effectively established. Likewise, a review of the public respondent's January 12, 1999 decision shows that it affirmed the labor arbiter's finding of the private respondents' being project employees. It is settled that, without a valid cause, the employment of project employees cannot be terminated prior to expiration. Otherwise, they shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. However, if the project or work is completed during the pendency of the ensuing suit for illegal dismissal, the employees shall be entitled only to full backwages from the date of the termination of their employment until the actual completion of the work. Therefore, being project employees, petitioners are only entitled to full backwages, computed from the date of the termination of their employment until the actual completion of the work. Illegally dismissed workers are entitled to the payment of their salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of their employment where the employment is for a definite period. In this case, as found by the CA, the Cordova Reef Village Resort project had been completed in October 1996 and private respondent herein had signified its willingness, by way of concession to petitioners, to set the date of completion of the project as March 18, 1997; hence, the latter date should be considered as the date of completion of the project for purposes of computing the full backwages of petitioners.

C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al GR. 155109

FACTS: The negotiation between CASI and the Union on the economic provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) ended in a deadlock prompting the Union to stage a strike, but the strike was later declared by the Labor Arbiter (LA) to be illegal having been staged in violation of the CBAs no strike-no lockout provision. Consequently, the Union officers were deemed to have forfeited their employment with the company and made them liable for actual damages plus interest and attorneys fees, while the Union members were ordered to be reinstated without backwages there being no proof that they actually committed illegal acts during the strike Notwithstanding the provision of the Labor Code mandating that the reinstatement aspect of the decision be immediately executory, the LA refused to reinstate the dismissed Union members. On November 8, 1999, the NLRC affirmed the LA decision insofar as it declared the strike illegal and ordered the Union officers dismissed from employment and liable for damages but modified the same by considering the Union members to have been validly dismissed from employment for committing prohibited and illegal acts. On petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals (CA) annulled the NLRC decision and reinstated that of the LA. Aggrieved, CASI, the Union and the Union officers and members elevated the matter to this Court. The cases were docketed as G.R. Nos. 155109 and 155135. ISSUE: WON the award of separation pay was proper for those who participated in illegal strike and committed illegal acts during such HELD: NO, the resolution is of the same issue in Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers Association (TMPCWA) v. National Labor Relations Commission. Following the declaration that the strike staged by the Union members is illegal, the Union officers and members were considered validly dismissed from employment for committing illegal acts during the illegal strike. The Court affirmed the CAs conclusion that the commission of illegal acts during the illegal strike constituted serious misconduct. Hence, the award of separation pay to the Union officials and members was not sustained. Indeed, we applied social justice and equity considerations in several cases to justify the award of financial assistance. In Piero v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court declared the strike to be illegal for failure to comply with the procedural requirements. We, likewise, sustained the dismissal of the Union president for participating in said illegal strike.