Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
I. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
LVN PICTURES, INC. v. PHILIPPINE MUSICIANS
GUILD
Facts: The Philippine Musicians Guild, composed of
95% of all the musicians playing for the musical
recordings of LVN Pictures, Inc., Sampaguita
Pictures, Inc. and Premiere Productions, Inc., filed a
petition before the Court of Industrial Relations
praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agency for all musicians working in the
said companies. In their Answer, the companies
denied that they have any musicians as employees
and alleged that these musicians are mere
independent contractors.
The lower court sustained the theory of the Guild
and
granted
the
petition.
A
motion
for
reconsideration was filed but the same was denied
by the court. Hence, LVN Pictures filed a petition for
review on certiorari.
Issue: WON the musicians are employees of the
film companies.
Held: Yes, the musicians are employees of the film
companies.
To determine WON the musicians are employees or
independent contracts of the film companies, the
court used the right of control test. Under this test,
an employer-employee relationship exists where the
person for whom the services are performed
reserves the right to control not only the end to be
achieved, but also the manner and means to be
used in reaching the end.
Applying the foregoing test in the present case, the
Court found that LVN has right of control over the
musicians as shown (1) by calling the musicians
through call slips in the name of the company, (2)
by arranging schedules in its studio for recording
sessions, (3) by furnishing transportation and meals
to musicians, and (4) by supervising and directing in
detail, through the motion picture director, the
performance of the musicians before the camera, in
order to suit the music they are playing to the
picture which is being flashed on the screen.
The Court found all elements of an employeremployee relationship are present in this case.
REPUBLIC v. ASIAPRO COOPERATIVE
1.
Facts: Asiapro Cooperative entered into several
Service Contracts with Stanfilco, a division of DOLE
Philippines, Inc. The owners-members of Asiapro do
not
receive
compensation/wages
from
the
cooperative but instead receive a share in the
service surplus, as determined by the Board of
Directors of the cooperative, which is earned by
Asiapro from different areas of trade it engages in.
In order to enjoy the benefits under the SSS Law,
the owners-members of the cooperative who were
assigned to Stanfilco requested the latter to register
them with SSS as self-employed and to remit their
contributions as such. However, based on the
Service Contracts it executed with Stanfilco, it is
clear that the cooperative is actually a manpower
contractor and the employer of the ownersmembers working with Stanfilco. Hence SSS
instructed Asiapro to register itself with SSS as
employer. Asiapro ignored such demand of SSS.
Hence, SSS filed a petition before the SSC directing
Asiapro or, in the alternative, Stanfilco, to register
as an employer of the owners-members of Asiapro.
Asiapro filed its Answer with MTD alleging the no
employer-employee relationship exists between it
and its owners-members. The SSC denied the MTD.
A motion for reconsideration was filed but the same
was denied by the SSC. Asiapro filed a petition for
certiorari before the CA, which was granted by the
latter. SSS filed a motion for reconsideration but the
same was denied by the CA. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
WON
there
is
employer-employee
relationship between Asiapro and its ownersmembers.
Held: Yes.
The 4 elements for the existence of an employeremployee relationship are:
1. selection
and
engagement
of
the
employees
2. payment of wages
3. power of dismissal
4. power to control the employees conduct
2.
3.
4.
laborer
can
be
Held: Yes.
Ayalde presented mere sampling of payrolls. These
documents are not only lacking, they are also
unworthy of credence. The fact that Iganocios
name does not appear in the payrolls for the years
1975, 1976 and part of 1978 and 1979, is no proof
that he did not work in Hda. B70 in the years 1961
to 1974, and the rest of 1978 and 1979. The
veracity of the alleged payrolls are doubtful
considering that the laborers named therein never
affixed their signatures to show that they actually
received the amounts indicated corresponding to
their names. Also, no record was shown pertaining
to Hda. B-15-M, where Ignacio was supposed to
have worked. Even Ayalde admitted that she hired
Ignacio as arador and sometimes as laborer
during milling in Hda. B-15-M.
Moreover, while Ayalde may not have directly
imposed on Ignacio the manner and methods to
follow in performing his tasks, she did exercise
control through her overseer. Be that as it may, the
power of control refers merely to the existence of
the power. It is not essential for the employer to
actually supervise the performance of duties of the
employee; it is sufficient that the former has a right
to wield the power. Certainly, Ayalde wielded the
power to hire or dismiss, to check on the work, be it
in progress or quality, of the laborers. As the
owner/lessee of the plantations, she possessed the
power to control everyone working therein and
everything taking place therein.
There are other equally important considerations
which support the conclusion that Ignacio was not
an independent contractor. First, Ignacio cannot be
said to be engaged in a distinct occupation or
business. His carabao and plow may be useful in his
livelihood, but he is not independently engaged in
the business of farming or plowing. Second, he had
been working exclusively for Ayalde for 18 years
prior to his demise. Third, there is no dispute that
Ayalde was in the business of growing sugarcane in
Issues:
1. WON Tongko was an employee of Manulife
2. WON Tongko was illegally dismissed.
Held:
1. Yes
In the instant case, Manulife had the power of
control over Tongko that would make him its
employee. Several factors contribute to this
conclusion.
In the Agreement dated July 1, 1977 executed
between Tongko and Manulife, it is provided
that:
The Agent hereby agrees to comply with all
regulations and requirements of the Company
as herein provided as well as maintain a
standard of knowledge and competency in the
sale of the Company's products which satisfies
those set by the Company and sufficiently
meets the volume of new business required of
Production Club membership.
Under this provision, an agent of Manulife must
comply with three (3) requirements: (1)
compliance
with
the
regulations
and
requirements of the company; (2) maintenance
of a level of knowledge of the company's
products that is satisfactory to the company;
and (3) compliance with a quota of new
businesses. Among the company regulations of
Manulife are the different codes of conduct such
as the Agent Code of Conduct, Manulife
Financial Code of Conduct, and Manulife
Financial Code of Conduct Agreement, which
demonstrate the power of control exercised by
the company over Tongko. The fact that Tongko
was obliged to obey and comply with the codes
of conduct was not disowned by respondents.
Thus, with the company regulations and
requirements alone, the fact that Tongko was an
employee of Manulife may already be
established. Certainly, these requirements
controlled the means and methods by which
2.
Yes
Manulife failed to cite a single iota of evidence
to support its claims. Manulife did not even
point out which order or rule that Tongko
disobeyed. More importantly, Manulife did not
point out the specific acts that Tongko was
guilty of that would constitute gross and
habitual neglect of duty or disobedience.
Manulife merely cited Tongko's alleged "laggard
performance," without substantiating such
claim, and equated the same to disobedience
and neglect of duty. Apropos thereto, Art. 277,
par. (b), of the Labor Code mandates in explicit
terms that the burden of proving the validity of
the termination of employment rests on the
employer. Failure to discharge this evidential
burden would necessarily mean that the
dismissal was not justified, and, therefore,
illegal.
FULACHE v. ABS-CBN
Held: Yes.
Facts: Petitioners filed complaint for regularization,
unfair labor practices and several money claims
against ABS-CBN Cebu. They alleged that they were
excluded from the CBA executed by ABS-CBN Rankand-File Employees Union with the company on the
ground that they were considered temporary and
not regular employees. On the other hand, ABS-CBN
alleged
that
petitioners
were
independent
contractors/off camera talents, and they were not
entitled to the benefits and privileges of regular
employees.
The Labor Arbiter issued a decision holding that the
petitioners were regular employees of ABS-CBN and
are entitled to the benefits and privileges of regular
employees. ABS-CBN appealed the LA ruling before
the NLRC Fourth Division.
While the appeal was pending, ABS-CBN dismissed 4
of the petitioners for their refusal to sign up
contracts of employment with service contractor
Able Services. Aggrieved, they filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal. In its defense, ABS-CBN alleged
that they undertook a comprehensive review of its
organizational structure and decided to course
through legitimate service contractors the services
provided by the petitioners. The Labor Arbiter
dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal on the
ground that the dismissal was authorized under the
law (redundancy).
In
2003,
LSC
terminated
the
Agreement.
Consequently, petitioners lost their employment.
BMSI asserted that it is an independent contractor.
It averred that it was willing to regularize
petitioners; however, some of them lacked the
requisite qualifications for the job. LSC averred that
petitioners were employees of BMSI and were
assigned to LSC by virtue of the Agreement. BMSI is
an independent job contractor with substantial
capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipment, and machinery necessary in the conduct
of its business.
The LA dismissed the complaint on the ground that
petitioners were employees of BMSI. It was BMSI
which hired petitioners, paid their wages, and
exercised control over them. The NLRC reversed the
LA. Hence, this petition.
Issue: WON
contracting.
BMSI
is
engaged
in
labor-only
Held: Yes.
The character of the business, i.e., whether as laboronly contractor or as job contractor, should be
measured in terms of, and determined by, the
criteria set by statute. The parties cannot dictate by
the mere expedience of a unilateral declaration in a
contract the character of their business.
1) Petitioners worked at LSCs premises, and
nowhere else. There was no showing that it was
BMSI which established petitioners working
procedure
and
methods,
which
supervised
petitioners in their work, or which evaluated the
same. (absolute lack of evidence)
2) LSC was unable to present proof that BMSI had
substantial capital. What is clear was that the
equipment used by BMSI were owned by, and
merely rented from, LSC.
3) Petitioners performed activities which were
directly related to the main business of LSC. The
work of petitioners as checkers, welders, utility men,
drivers, and mechanics could only be characterized
as part of, or at least clearly related to, and in the
pursuit of, LSCs business.
INDEPENDENT
LABOR
UNION
v.
10
III.
PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT
11
Held: No.
In all cases involving employees engaged on
probationary period basis, the employer shall make
known to the employee at the time he is hired, the
standards by which he will qualify as a regular
employee.
In this case, nowhere in the employment contract
executed
between
petitioner
company
and
respondent Grulla is there a stipulation that the
latter shall undergo a probationary period for three
months before he can qualify as a regular
employee. There is also no evidence on record
showing that the respondent Grulla has been
appraised of his probationary status and the
requirements which he should comply in order to be
a regular employee. In the absence of this
requisites, there is justification in concluding that
respondent Grulla was a regular employee at the
time he was dismissed by petitioner.
As such, he is entitled to security of tenure during
his period of employment and his services cannot
be terminated except for just and authorized causes
enumerated under the Labor Code and under the
employment contract.
MARIWASA MANUFACTURING, INC. v.
LEOGARDO
Facts: Dequila was hired on probation by Mariwasa
as a general utility worker on January 10, 1979.
Upon the expiration of the probationary period of six
months, Dequila was informed by his employer that
his work had proved unsatisfactory and had failed to
meet the required standards. To give him a chance
to improve his performance and qualify for regular
employment, instead of dispensing with his service
then and there, with his written consent Mariwasa
extended his probation period for another 3 months.
However, his performance did not improve. Thus,
his employment was terminated at the end of the
extended period.
Honasan
is
still
probationary
Held: No.
Probation is the period during which the employer
may determine if the employee is qualified for
possible inclusion in the regular force. In the case at
bar, the period was for three weeks, during
Honasan's on-the-job training. When her services
were continued after this training, the petitioners in
effect recognized that she had passed probation and
was qualified to be a regular employee.
Honasan was certainly under observation during her
three-week on-the-job training. If her services
proved unsatisfactory then, she could have been
dropped as early as during that period. But she was
not. On the contrary, her services were continued,
presumably because they were acceptable,
12
13
company
standards.
Aggrieved,
Magtibay
immediately filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
and damages before the Labor Arbiter, arguing that
he had become a regular employee by operation of
law, considering that he had been employed by and
had worked for PDI for a total period of ten months,
i.e., four months more than the maximum six-month
period provided for by law on probationary
employment, and that there was no basis for his
dismissal.
KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT
DE LEON v. NLRC
FACTS: Petitioner Moises de Leon was employed by
private respondent La Tondea Inc. (LTI) on
December 11, 1981, at the Maintenance Section of
its Engineering Department in Tondo, Manila. His
work consisted mainly of painting company building
and equipment, and other odd jobs relating to
14
15
HELD: YES
o
The basic law on the case is Article 280 1 of the
Labor Code. Even while the language of law
might have been more definitive, the clarity of
its spirit and intent, i.e., to ensure a regular
undertaking.
Dire necessity is not an
acceptable ground for annulling the release,
when it is not shown that the employee has
been forced to execute it.
16
ISSUE:
WON the provisions of the Labor Code,
have
anathematized/prohibited
"fixed
period
employment" or employment for a term.
HELD: No
The employment contract between Brent School and
Alegre was executed on July 18, 1971, at a time
when the Labor Code (P.D. 442) had not yet been
promulgated (LC took effect in 1974). At that time,
there was no doubt as to the validity of term
employment. It was recognized by the Termination
Pay Law. It also enumerated just causes for
terminating an employment without a definite
period, either by the employer or by the employee
without incurring any liability therefor.
Prior, thereto, it was the Code of Commerce which
governed employment without a fixed period, and
also acknowledged the propriety of employment
with a fixed period.
The Civil Code (1950) does not prohibit term-or
fixed-period employment.
It is plain then that when the employment contract
was signed between Brent School and Alegre in
1971, it was perfectly legitimate for them to include
in it a stipulation fixing the duration thereof
Stipulations for a term were explicitly recognized as
valid by SC. Biboso v. Victorias Milling Co., Inc.,
.involved teachers in a private school as regards
whom, the following pronouncement was made:
What is decisive is that petitioners (teachers) were
well aware an the time that their tenure was for a
limited duration. Upon its termination, both parties
to the employment relationship were free to renew
it or to let it lapse.
The status of legitimacy continued to be enjoyed by
fixed-period employment contracts under the Labor
Code which contained explicit references to fixed
period employment, or employment with a fixed or
17
DURATION
OF
EMPLOYMENT
AND
18
19
1.
2.
3.
HELD:
The petition should be dismissed on procedural
grounds as the petitioner only filed for certiorari
after almost one year from receipt of the assailed
decision. Nonetheless, the petition would still be
denied even if ruled upon on the merits.
RATIO:
1. Petitioner is covered by Policy Instruction No.
20, according to which, there are two types of
employees in the construction industry: 1)
Project & 2) Non-project Employees. Project
employees are those employed in connection
with a particular construction project. Nonproject employees are those employed by a
construction company without reference to a
particular project. Project employees are not
entitled to termination pay if they are
terminated as a result of the completion of the
project.
DM Consunji was able to present material
documents which showed the ff:
the specific dates of hiring,
the duration of hiring,
the dates of petitioners lay-offs
the lay-off reports
the termination reports submitted to the
MOLE.
The documents showed a month to a few
months gaps between the hiring of
20
3.
HACIENDA
FATIMA,
INC.
v.
NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE WORKERS
Facts:
Employer: Hacienda Fatima
Employee: NFSW
NFSW was certified as the collective bargaining
representative in the certification elections.
However Hacienda Fatima refused to sit down with
the union for the purpose of entering into a CBA
contending that the result is still
on appeal.
Subsequently, members of NFSW were not given
work for more than 1mo prompting them to stage a
strike which was settled upon the signing of a MOA
which stipulated among others that the parties
would meet initially on 11Jan1991 to be concluded
within 30d, that management would provide work to
and prioritize those who were part of Haciendas
workforce prior to the strike.
However, despite this MOA management refused to
bargain with NFSW alleging that they failed to load
15 wagons and thereafter employed all means, such
as using private guards, to prevent the organizers of
NFSW from entering the premises. They were also
subsequently
not
given
work
assignments
prompting NFSW to stage another strike on Jan1992.
21
On ULP:
Refusal to bargain, to their acts of economic
inducements resulting in the promotion of those
who withdrew from the union, the use of armed
guards to prevent the organizers to come in, and
the dismissal of union officials and members is a
clear interference in the right of the workers to selforganization => ULP!
HELD: YES
It is for the mutual interest of both the seafarer and
the employer why the employment status must be
contractual only or for a certain period of time.
Quoting Brent School Inc. v. Zamora, 1990,
and Pablo Coyoca v. NLRC, 1995, the Supreme Court
ruled that seafarers are considered contractual
employees. They cannot be considered as regular
employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
Their employment is governed by the contracts they
sign every time they are rehired and their
employment is terminated when the contract
expires. Their employment is contractually fixed for
a certain period of time. They fall under the
exception of Article 280 whose employment has
been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the
completion or termination of which has been
determined at the time of engagement of the
employee or where the work or services to be
performed is seasonal in nature and the
employment is for the duration of the season.
As ruled in Brent case, there are certain forms of
employment which also require the performance of
usual and desirable functions and which exceed one
year but do not necessarily attain regular
employment status under Article 280. Overseas
workers including seafarers fall under this type of
employment which are governed by the mutual
agreements of the parties.
And as stated in the Coyoca case, Filipino seamen
are governed by the Rules and Regulations of the
POEA.
The
Standard
Employment
Contract
governing the employment of All Filipino seamen on
Board Ocean-Going Vessels of the POEA, particularly
in Part I, Sec. C specifically provides that the
contract of seamen shall be for a fixed period. And
in no case should the contract of seamen be longer
than 12 months.
Moreover, the Court held that it is an accepted
maritime industry practice that employment of
seafarers are for a fixed period only. Constrained by
the nature of their employment which is quite
peculiar and unique in itself, it is for the mutual
interest of both the seafarer and the employer why
the employment status must be contractual only or
for a certain period of time. Seafarers spend most of
22
AND
FACTS:
o
HANJIN is a foreign company engaged in the
construction business in the Philippines while
petitioners Hak Kon Kim and Jhunie Adajar were
employed as Project Director and Supervisor,
respectively, by HANJIN.
o
On 11 April 2002, respondents and 4 other coworkers filed a complaint before the NLRC for
illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement
and full backwages.
o
Allegations of respondents:
1. HANJIN hired them for various positions,
the tasks of which were usual and
necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of HANJIN. (employed
in 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 2000)
2. They were employed as members of a
work pool from which HANJIN draws the
workers to be dispatched to its various
construction projects until they were
dismissed on 15 April 2002.
3. At the time of their dismissal, HANJIN
had several construction projects that
were still in progress, such as MRT II
and III, and continued to hire
23
o
o
ISSUE: WON
employees.
the
respondents
are
regular
to
produce
respondents'
contracts
of
employment and that in their appeal before the
NLRC until the case reached the SC, petitioners
claimed that due to a lapse in management
procedure, no such employment contracts were
executed.
Petitioners alleged that the absence of a written
contract does not remove respondents from the
ambit of being project employees.
o
The SC ruled that such a contract is
evidence that respondents were informed of
the duration and scope of their work and
their status as project employees and in
cases where no other evidence was offered,
the absence of an employment contract
puts into serious question whether the
employees were properly informed at the
onset of their employment status as project
employees. Thus, absent any other proof
that the project employees were informed
of their status as such, it will be presumed
that they are regular employees in
accordance
with
Clause
3.3(a)
of
Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993.
Petitioners allege that the Termination Report
HANJIN filed before the DOLE Regional Office
complied with the indicators of project
employment as prescribed under Department
Order No. 19, Series of 1993.
o
The Court noted that petitioners failed to
offer evidence to refute or controvert the
respondents' claim that they were assigned
to various construction projects. Had
respondents'
allegations
been
false,
petitioners could simply present as
evidence documents and records in their
custody to disprove the same. Petitioners,
instead, chose to remain vague as to the
circumstances surrounding the hiring of the
respondents.
o
The Court also noted that a lone
Termination Report filed by petitioners only
upon the termination of the respondents'
final project, and after their previous
continuous employment for other projects,
is not only unconvincing, but even
suspicious. If respondents were actually
project employees, petitioners should have
filed as many Termination Reports as there
were construction projects actually finished
and for which respondents were employed.
24
appear to have
consideration.
been
made
CASERES v. UNIVERSAL
MINING CORPORATION
for
ROBINA
valuable
SUGAR
ISSUE:
WON
Caseres
and
Pael
are
seasonal/project/term employees and not regular
employees of URSUMCO.
HELD: No.
o
Article 280 of the Labor Code provides for three
kinds of employees: (a) regular employees or
those who have been engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer; (b) project employees or those
whose employment has been fixed for a
specific project or undertaking, the completion
or termination of which has been determined at
the time of the engagement of the employee or
where the work or services to be performed is
seasonal in nature and the employment is for
the duration of the season; and (c) casual
employees or those who are neither regular nor
project employees.
o
The principal test for determining whether an
employee is a project employee or a regular
employee is whether the employment has been
fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the
completion or termination of which has been
engaged
automatically
employment.
25
terminates
their
TERM/DURATION
The
EMPLOYER
hereby
employs,
engages and hires the EMPLOYEE and
the EMPLOYEE hereby accepts such
appointment as FORMATTER effective
FEB. 16, 1999 to FEB. 16, 2000 a period
of ONE YEAR.
xxxx
TERMINATION
6.1 In the event that EMPLOYER shall
discontinue operating its business, this
CONTRACT shall also ipso facto
terminate on the last day of the month
on which the EMPLOYER ceases
operations with the same force and
effect as is such last day of the month
were originally set as the termination
date of this Contract. Further should
the Company have no more need for
the EMPLOYEEs services on account of
completion of the project, lack of work
(sic) business losses, introduction of
new
production
processes
and
techniques, which will negate the need
26
FACTS:
o
ISSUES/HELD:
1.
2.
27
RATIO:
1st Issue: ER-EE Relationship
Petitioners claim: Dagui served therein only as a job
contractor. Dagui had control and supervision of
whoever he would take to perform a contracted job.
On occasion, Dagui was hired only as a "tubero" or
plumber as the need arises in order to unclog
sewerage pipes. Every time his services were
needed, he was paid accordingly. It was understood
that his job was limited to the specific undertaking
of unclogging the pipes. In effect, petitioners would
like us to believe that private respondent Dagui was
an independent contractor, particularly a job
contractor, and not an employee of Aurora Plaza.
We are not persuaded.
28
29
30
V.MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES
SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES FORCE UNION
(PTGWO) v. OPLE
31
FARROL v. CA
FACTS:
o
o
o
o
32
On discipline of employees:
Although the employer has the prerogative to
discipline or dismiss its employee, such prerogative
cannot be exercised wantonly, but must be
controlled by substantive due process and tempered
by the fundamental policy of protection to labor
enshrined in the Constitution.
Infractions committed by an employee should merit
only the corresponding sanction demanded by the
circumstances. The penalty must be commensurate
with the act, conduct or omission imputed to the
employee and imposed in connection with
employers disciplinary authority.
Disposition CA is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and
new one entered REINSTATING the decision of the
Voluntary Arbitrator subject to the MODIFICATION
that petitioners separation pay be recomputed to
include the period within which backwages are due.
For this purpose, this case is REMANDED to the
Voluntary Arbitrator for proper computation of
backwages, separation pay, 13th month pay, sick
leave conversion and vacation leave conversion.
PHIL. TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORP. v.
LAPLANA
FACTS:
o
Alicia Laplana was cashier of Baguio City Br.
Office of PT&T.
o
o
o
o
33
34
ISSUE/HELD:
dismissal - NO
WON
there
was
constructive
On Management Prerogative
35
LEONARDO v. NLRC
FACTS:
Petitioners:
Aurelio Fuerte employed by Reynaldos Marketing
Corp as muffler specialist, receiving P45 per day and
when he was promoted as supervisor, it was
increased to P122/day plus weekly supervisors
allowance of P600. He was informed that he would
be transferred to Sucat plant due to his failure to
meet sales quota and his supervisors allowance
was withdrawn. He protested his transfer and filed a
complaint for illegal termination.
Danilo Leonardo hired as auto-aircon mechanic
with salary of P35/day and increased to P90/day
when he became regular. He claims to have
received a monthly allowance of P2,500 as share in
the profits of auto-aircon division. He was informed
that his services were no longer needed and he also
filed complaint for illegal termination.
LA: ruled in favor of employees and employer was
ordered to reinstate petitioners
NLRC: modified decision; affirmed reinstatement of
Fuerte but without backwages but dismissed
Leonardos complaint for lack of merit
Employers argument: Fuerte was never terminated
but he was demoted for failure to meet his quota for
a certain number of consecutive months. This
company policy is intended to foster competition
among employees.
Leonardo abandoned his post following an
investigation where he was asked to explain an
incident
of
alleged
sideline
work.
Upon
questioning, Leonardo gave contradictory excuses
and he stopped reporting for work but filed his
complaint ten months after his alleged termination.
ISSUE: WON
dismissed.
the
employees
were
illegally
HELD: NO
Fuertes failure to meet his quota is supported by
reports showing that his performance was below
par. It was the companys policy that an employer
FACTS:
Farle P. Almodiel is a certified public accountant who
was hired as Cost Accounting Manager of
respondent Raytheon Philippines, Inc. Before said
employment, he was the accounts executive of
Integrated Microelectronics, Inc. for several years.
36
ISSUES/ HELD:
1.
Whether
the
termination
employment is valid? Yes.
2.
3.
RATIO:
of
Almodiels
Even conceding that the functions of petitioner's
position were merely transferred, no malice or bad
faith can be imputed from said act. Redundancy
exists where the services of an employee are in
excess of what is reasonably demanded by the
actual requirements of the enterprise. The
characterization of an employee's services as no
longer necessary or sustainable, and therefore,
properly terminable, was an exercise of business
judgment on the part of the employer. The wisdom
or soundness of such characterization or decision
was not subject to discretionary review on the part
of the Labor Arbiter nor of the NLRC so long, of
course, as violation of law or merely arbitrary and
malicious action is not shown.
37
o
o
o
o
o
38
o
o
39
On Equal Protection
Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets,
manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies, and
other confidential programs and information from
competitors. The prohibition against pesonal or
marital relationships with employees of competitor
companies upon Glaxo's employees is reasonable
under the circumstances because relationships of
that nature might compromise the interests of the
company. That Glaxo possesses the right to protect
its economic interest cannot be denied.
It is the settled principle that the commands of the
equal protection clause are addressed only to the
state or those acting under color of its authority.
Corollarily, it has been held in a long array of US
Supreme Court decisions that the equal protection
clause erects to shield against merely privately
conduct, however, discriminatory or wrongful.
The company actually enforced the policy after
repeated requests to the employee to comply with
the policy. Indeed the application of the policy was
made in an impartial and even-handed manner, with
due regard for the lot of the employee.
On Constructive Dismissal
Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting, an
involuntary resignation resorted to when continued
employment becomes impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely; when there is demotion in rank, or
diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination,
insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes
unbearable to the employee. None of these
conditions are present in the instant case.
HELD:
The
challenged
policy
has
been
implemented
by
Glaxo
impartially
and
disinterestedly for a long period of time. In the case
at bar, the record shows that Glaxo gave Tecson
several chances to eliminate the conflict of interest
brought about by his relationship with Betsy, but he
never availed of any of them.
YRASUEGUI v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.
Quick facts: An international flight steward was
dismissed for his failure to adhere to the weight
40
41
LABOR RELATIONS
42
VI.
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION