TAN, JOSHUA ANDREW T.

BLOCK A

CONTINENTAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION vs. MONTAO

GR NO. 182836
FACTS:

Hortillano filed his claims for Paternity Leave, Bereavement Leave, and Death
and Accident Insurance for dependent based on the death of his unborn child
when his wife had a premature delivery in the 38th week of her pregnancy.
The company alleges however that he is not entitled to Bereavement Leave
and Death and Accident Insurance because the express provision of the CBA
did not contemplate the death of an unborn child, a fetus, without legal
personality.

ISSUE:

Can an employee claim benefits pursuant to a provision of a CBA which does

not properly define the pertinent terms connected with his claim?

RULING:

Yes. CBA provisions should be interpreted liberally to give life to the

intentions thereof. 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. In the same way, the CBA and its provisions
should be interpreted in favor of labor.
In the case at bar, Arbitrator Montao was correct in pointing out that the
employee was able to satisfy the requirements of the said claims.
The Court found it unnecessary to establish the legal personality of the
unborn child because it is not an issue on this case.
Hortillano was able to establish that there was death of his legitimate
dependent and was able to provide documents in the proof of such. Hence,
his claims were sustained.

STAR PAPER CORPORATION vs. SIMBOL

GR NO. 164774
FACTS:

Simbol, Comia, and Estrella complain of unfair labor practice and constructive
dismissal against Star Paper averring that the company policy of their
employer in banning spouses from working in the same company violates
their right as employees and that such policy is against the law.
On the other hand, Star Paper contends that such policy only gives teeth to
the rule avoiding the employment of relatives up to the third degree.
Furthermore, the employer contends that it is not the marital status of the
employee that is being discriminated, and that it is within the ambit of
management prerogatives.

ISSUE:

Is the policy of an employer in banning spouses from working in the same

company a valid exercise of management prerogative?

RULING:

Yes, as long as it can be established by the employer that a reasonable

business necessity exists to justify the validity of such policy. The policy, to
pass judicial scrutiny, should be shown to be reasonable despite its
discriminatory effect.

The Court said that although there is no statute expressly prohibiting marital
discrimination, the protection given to labor is vast and extensive that
inferences cannot be prudently drawn from the legislatures silence that
married persons are not protected under the Constitution and declare a valid
policy based on a prejudice or stereotype.

REVIDAD vs. NLRC

GR NO. 111105
FACTS:
Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila (AG&P) temporarily laid off some
of its employees pursuant to its management decision to lay off 40% of the
workers due to financial losses and agreed to extend financial assistance to
said affected workers.
ISSUE:
Is the temporary layoff or retrenchment of employees due to continuing
financial
losses valid?
RULING:

Yes, provided that the requirements of the law have been faithfully met.
Retrenchment is one of the economic grounds to dismiss employees resorted
to by an employer primarily to avoid or minimize business losses. The law in
protecting the rights of the laborer authorizes neither oppression nor selfdestruction of the employer.
While the Constitution is committed to the social justice policy and the
protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every labor
dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has
their own rights entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple
fair play.

MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION vs. NLRC

GR NO. 75662
FACTS:

Cesar Ladisla was apprehended by representative of Mercury Drug while in

the act of pilfering company property.
While he was placed in preventive suspension, Mercury Drug filed an
application for his termination on grounds of dishonesty and breach of trust.
Mercury Drug also filed criminal charges and Ladisla was convicted for simple
theft. The NLRC however ordered for Ladislas reinstatement.

ISSUE:

Can an employer be compelled to reinstate an employee convicted for simple

theft
because of stealing company property?

RULING:

No. As a measure of self-protection against acts inimical to its interest, a

company has the right to dismiss its erring employees. An employer cannot
be compelled to continue in employment its employee guilty of acts inimical
to its interest, justifying loss of confidence in the latter.
Under the Labor Code, an employer may terminate an employment for fraud
or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer.
Loss of confidence is established as a valid ground for the dismissal.

The law does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt of such misconduct
to invoke such justification. It is sufficient that there is some basis for the loss
of trust or that the employer has reasonable grounds to believe that the
employee is responsible for the misconduct and his participation therein
renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of his position.
The law in protecting the rights of the laborer authorizes neither oppression
nor self-destruction
of the employer.

SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES FORCE UNION vs. OPLE

GR NO. L-53515
FACTS:

As stipulated in the CBA, employees of San Miguel Corporation within the

appropriate bargaining unit shall be entitled to a basic monthly compensation
plus commission based on their respective sales.
A new marketing scheme, the Complementary Distribution System (CDS)
whereby its beer products were offered for sale directly to wholesalers
through San Miguels sales offices, was introduced by San Miguel. In turn, the
company agreed to compensate for the losses that the workers may suffer.
The labor union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice on the ground that
the new marketing scheme was a violation of the CBA, because such scheme
would reduce the take-home pay of the salesmen and their truck helpers, for
the company would be unfairly competing with them.

ISSUE:

Is the introduction of a new marketing scheme tending to reduce the takehome pay of the employees a valid exercise of the companys management
prerogatives?

RULING:

Yes. An employer is free to regulate, according to his own discretion and

judgment, all aspects of employment, including processes to be followed,
with limitations as provided by special laws. Every business enterprise
endeavors to increase its profits. In the process, it may adopt or devise
means designed towards that goal. So long as a companys management
prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the
employers interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the
rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, the
Court will uphold them.