Maternity Childrens Hospital vs. Secretary of Labor G.R. No.

78909 June 30, 1989

Labor standards refer to the minimum requirements prescribed by existing laws, rules, and
regulations relating to wages, hours of work, cost of living allowance and other monetary and welfare
benefits, including occupational, safety, and health standards (Section 7, Rule I, Rules on the
Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Office, dated September 16, 1987).
Calalang vs. Williams G.R. No. 47800 2 December 1940
Social justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy," but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in
its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the
promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to
insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a
proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community,
constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through
the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of
salus populi est suprema lex.
Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of
interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be
equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life,
consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health,
comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest number."
People vs. Vera Reyes G.R. No. L-45748 April 5, 1939
Police power is the power inherent in a government to enact laws, within constitutional limits,
to promote the order, safety, health, morals, and general welfare of society. In the exercise of this
power the Legislature has ample authority to approve the disputed portion of Act No. 3958 which
punishes the employer who, being able to do so, refuses to pay the salaries of his laborers or
employees in the specified periods of time. Undoubtedly, one of the purposes of the law is to suppress
possible abuses on the part of employers who hire laborers or employees without paying them the
salaries agreed upon for their services, thus causing them financial difficulties. Without this law, the
laborers and employees who earn meager salaries would be compelled to institute civil actions which,
in the majority of cases, would cost them more than that which they would receive in case of a
decision in their favor.
People vs. Pomar 46 Phil 440 November 3, 1924
Without further attempting to define what are the peculiar subjects or limits of the police
power, it may safely be affirmed, that every law for the restraint and punishment of crimes, for the
preservation of the public peace, health, and morals, must come within this category. But the state,
when providing by legislation for the protection of the public health, the public morals, or the public
safety, is subject to and is controlled by the paramount authority of the constitution of the state, and
will not be permitted to violate rights secured or guaranteed by that instrument or interfere with the
execution of the powers and rights guaranteed to the people under their law the constitution.
The police power of the state is a growing and expanding power. As civilization develops and
public conscience becomes awakened, the police power may be extended, as has been demonstrated
in the growth of public sentiment with reference to the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors.
But that power cannot grow faster than the fundamental law of the state, nor transcend or violate the
express inhibition of the people's law the constitution. If the people desire to have the police power
extended and applied to conditions and things prohibited by the organic law, they must first amend
that law.
PASEI v. Drilon G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988, Sarmiento, J.
[Police power] has been defined as the "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere
with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare." As defined, it consists of (1)
an imposition of restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the common good. It is not
capable of an exact definition, but has been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its allcomprehensive embrace.
Cerezo vs. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Company G.R. No. L-10107 February 4, 1916
Assuming that the excavation for the gas pipe is within the category of "ways, works, or
machinery connected with the used in the business of the defendant, " we are of the opinion that
recovery cannot be had under the Act for the reason that, as we have indicated, the deceased was at a
place where he had no right to be at the time he met his death. His work did not call him there, nor is it
shown that he was permitted there tacitly or otherwise. Under the Anglo-American law the applicable
to such a set of facts is that the master is not responsible, under the Employers' Liability Act, for
accidents to his employees when they are outside the scope of their employment for purpose of their
own.
Abella vs. NLRC G.R. No. 71813 July 20, 1987
In any event, it is well-settled that in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of
the Labor Code and its implementing regulations, the working mans welfare should be the primordial
and paramount consideration.
Euro-Linea Phil, Inc. vs. NLRC G.R. No. 78782 December 1, 1987
it is significant to note that in the interpretation of the protection to labor and social justice
provisions of the constitution and the labor laws and rules and regulations implementing the
constitutional mandate, the Supreme Court has always adopted the liberal approach which favors the
exercise of labor rights.
G.R. No. 78763 July 12, 1989 MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY,
RELATIONS COMMISSION, and APOLINARIO M. SIGNO,

vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR

Notice and hearing in termination cases does not connote full adversarial proceedings as
elucidated in numerous cases decide by this court. The essence of due process is simply an
opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones
side
The Supreme Court sustained the decision of the NLRC. Well-established is the principle that
findings of administrative agencies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined
to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but even finality. Judicial review by this
Court on labor cases does not go so far as to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the
proper labor officer or office based his or its determination but is limited to issues of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion. No such issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion is present in the
case at bar.
Sosito vs. Aguinaldo Development Corp. G.R. No. L-48926 December 14, 1987
The Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice 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 its own rights which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the
interest of simple fair play. Out of its concern for those with less privileges in life, this Court has
inclined more often than not toward the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts with the employer.
Such favoritism, however, has not blinded us to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving,
to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and doctrine.
Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc., vs. Ople G.R. No. 73681
June 30, 1988
The order of the respondent Minister to reinstate the employees despite a clear finding of guilt
on their part is not in conformity with law. Reinstatement is simply incompatible with a finding of guilt.
Where the totality of the evidence was sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the employees the law
warrants their dismissal without making any distinction between a first offender and a habitual
delinquent. Under the law, respondent Minister is duly mandated to equally protect and respect not
only the labor or workers' side but also the management and/or employers' side. The law, in protecting
the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. To order
the reinstatement of the erring employees would in effect encourage unequal protection of the laws as
a managerial employee of petitioner company involved in the same incident was already dismissed
and was not ordered to be reinstated. In the case of San Miguel Brewery vs. National Labor Union, "an
employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of a person who admittedly
was guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance towards his employer, and whose continuance in the service
of the latter is patently inimical to his interest."
Mendoza vs. Rural Bank of Lucban G.R. No. 155421 July 7, 2004
Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives. For this reason, courts
often decline to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers. Indeed, labor laws discourage
interference in employers' judgments concerning the conduct of their business. The law must protect
not only the welfare of employees, but also the right of employers.
In the pursuit of its legitimate business interest, management has the prerogative to transfer or assign
employees from one office or area of operation to another -- provided there is no demotion in rank or
diminution of salary, benefits, and other privileges; and the action is not motivated by discrimination,
made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. This
privilege is inherent in the right of employers to control and manage their enterprise effectively. The
right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the
extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them.
Gelmart Industries Phils., Inc. vs. NLRC G.R. No. 85668 August 10, 1989
Consistent with the policy of the State to bridge the gap between the underprivileged
workingmen and the more affluent employers, the NLRC rightfully tilted the balance in favor of the
workingmen and this was done without being blind to the concomitant right of the employer to the
protection of his property.
On the other hand, without being too harsh to the employer, and naively liberal to labor, on the
other, the NLRC correctly pointed out that private respondent cannot totally escape liability for what is
patently a violation of company rules and regulations.
Lagatic vs. NLRC G.R. No. 121004 January 28, 1998
Petitioner loses sight of the fact that except as provided for, or limited by, special laws, an
employer is free to regulate, according to his discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment.
Employers may, thus, make reasonable rules and regulations for the government of their employees,
and when employees, with knowledge of an established rule, enter the service, the rule becomes a
part of the contract of employment. It is also generally recognized that company policies and
regulations, unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law, are generally valid and binding
on the parties and must be complied with.
Corollarily, an employee may be validly dismissed for violation of a reasonable company rule or
regulation adopted for the conduct of the company business. An employer cannot rationally be
expected to retain the employment of a person whose x x x lack of regard for his employers rules x x x
has so plainly and completely been bared. Petitioners continued infraction of company policy requiring
cold call reports, as evidenced by the 28 instances of non-submission of aforesaid reports, justifies his
dismissal. He cannot be allowed to arrogate unto himself the privilege of setting company policy on the
effectivity of solicitation methods. To do so would be to sanction oppression and the self-destruction of
the employer.
China Banking Corp., vs. Borromeo G.R. No. 156515 October 19, 2004
It is well recognized that company policies and regulations are, unless shown to be grossly
oppressive or contrary to law, generally binding and valid on the parties and must be complied with
until finally revised or amended unilaterally or preferably through negotiation or by competent
authority. Moreover, management has the prerogative to discipline its employees and to impose
appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to company rules and regulations.
The
petitioner Banks business is essentially imbued with public interest and owes great fidelity to the

public it deals with. It is expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and
supervision of their employees. As a corollary, and like all other business enterprises, its prerogative to
discipline its employees and to impose appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to company
rules and regulations must be respected. The law, in protecting the rights of labor, authorized neither
oppression nor self-destruction of an employer company which itself is possessed of rights that must
be entitled to recognition and respect.
Associated
Watchmen and
Security Union (PTWO) vs. Lanting G.R. No. L-14120
February 29, 1960
On the whole, therefore, we find that the majority decision is fully supported by the evidence
and by the documents and papers on the record, insofar as it declares that respondent has not been
guilty of unfair labor practice.
The refusal of the respondent to employ guards affiliated with a security or watchmen agency that
does not furnish bond can not constitute an unfair labor practice. Such refusal is merely the exercise of
respondent's legitimate right to protect its own interests, especially as the members of the petitioner
had abandoned a ship they were guarding without previous notice and exposed the ship losses due to
theft and pilferage. It is to be noted that the requirement of filing of a bond was not demanded from
any of the labor unions, or from the petitioner union herein. We cannot conclude that because the
respondent company refused to employ the guards affiliated with the Republic Ships Security Agency,
which affiliates are members of the petitioner union, respondent committed an unfair labor practice or
a discrimination against petitioner union.
Pampanga Bus Company, INC., vs. PAMBUSCO Employees' Union, Inc. G.R. No. 46739
September 23, 1939
The general right to make a contract in relation to one's business is an essential part of the
liberty of the citizens protected by the due-process clause of the Constitution. The right of the laborer
to sell his labor to such person as he may choose is, in its essence, the same as the right of an
employer to purchase labor from any person whom it chooses. The employer and the employee have
thus an equality of right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Section of Commonwealth Act No. 213 confers upon labor organizations the right "to collective
bargaining with employers for the purpose of seeking better working and living conditions, fair wages,
and shorter working hours for laborers, and, in general, to promote the material, social and moral wellbeing of their members." This provision in granting to labor unions merely the right of collective
bargaining, impliedly recognizes the employer's liberty to enter or not into collective agreements with
them. Indeed, we know of no provision of the law compelling such agreements. Such a fundamental
curtailment of freedom, if ever intended by law upon grounds of public policy, should be effected in a
manner that is beyond all possibility of doubt. The supreme mandates of the Constitution should not
be loosely brushed aside. As held by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hitchman Coal & Co.
vs. Mitchell (245 U. S., 229; 62 Law. ed., 260, 276)
Philippine sheet metal workers' union vs the Court of Industrial Relations, Can Company
and Liberal Labor Union GR No. L-2028 April 28, 1949
There was justification for reducing the number of workers in respondent's factory by the
introduction of machinery in the manufacture of its products. There is no question as to the right of the
manufacturer to use new labor-saving devices with the view to effecting more economy and efficiency
in its method of production. But the right to reduce personnel should not be abused. It should not be
made a pretext for easing out laborers on account of their union activities. But neither should it be
denied when it is shown that they are not discharging their duties in a manner consistent with good
discipline and efficient operation of an industrial enterprise
G.R. No. L-6846 July 20, 1955 GREGORIO ARANETA EMPLOYEES UNION, ETC., ET AL., vs.
ARSENIO C. ROLDAN, ET AL.,
We find no reason for disturbing the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, en banc. The
laying off of the 17 employees was due to the retrenchment policy which the Company had to adopt in
order to reduce the overcapitalization and minimize expenses. The volume of business was
considerably reduced.
It should be noted that the retrenchment policy was adopted before even the organization of
the petitioning union. It was not, therefore, aimed at the Union or any of its members for union or labor
activities. It was not an unfair labor practice.
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-3587
December 21, 1951
TIONG KING, vs.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and THE NATIONAL TAILOR'S
ASSOCIATION
Tiong King's capital invested in the Army Shirt Factory was almost exhausted at the time of the
filing of his petition to close it, said petition must be necessity be granted. It is admitted by all the
Judges of the Court of Industrial Relations that an employer may close his business, provided the same
was done in good faith and beyond his control.
RIZAL EMPIRE INSURANCE GROUP AND/OR SERGIO CORPUS, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, TEODORICO L. RUIZ, as Labor Arbiter and ROGELIO R. CORIA G.R.
No. 73140
May 29, 1987
Rule VIII of the Revised Rules of the National Labor Relations Commission on appeal,
provides:
SECTION 1. (a) Appeal. Decision or orders of a labor Arbiter shall be final and executory
unless appealed to the Commission by any or both of the parties within ten (10) calendar days from
receipt of notice thereof.
SECTION 6. No extension of period. No motion or request for extension of the period within
which to perfect an appeal shall be entertained.
The record shows that the employer (petitioner herein) received a copy of the decision of the
Labor Arbiter on April 1, 1985. It filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum of Appeal on
April 11, 1985 and filed the Memorandum of Appeal on April 22, 1985. Pursuant to the "no extension
policy" of the National Labor Relations Commission, aforesaid motion for extension of time was denied

in its resolution dated November 15, 1985 and the appeal was dismissed for having been filed out of
time.
The Revised Rules of the National Labor Relations Commission are clear and explicit and leave
no room for interpretation. Moreover, it is an elementary rule in administrative law that administrative
regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted
to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to great respect (Espanol v. Philippine Veterans
Administration, 137 SCRA 314 [1985]).
Under the above-quoted provisions of the Revised NLRC Rules, the decision appealed from in
this case has become final and executory and can no longer be subject to appeal
CBTC Employees Union vs. Hon. Jacobo Clave and Commercial Bank and Trust Co. of the
Philippines G.R. No. L-49582, January 7, 1986
that the reason for denying the employees their holiday pay was based on Sec. 2, Rule
IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the amended Labor Code which merely
provides a disputable presumption for monthly paid employees of being paid holiday pay and can be
destroyed by evidence to the contrary. In addition, Policy Instruction No. 9, issued by the Labor
Secretary and used as basis to exclude the herein petitioners from their holiday pay, have been
declared null and void in Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees Union vs. Inciong for having
been promulgated in excess of the Labor Secretarys rule-making authority as said policy instruction
amended the law by expanding the scope of the exclusions and for categorically stating that Art. 94 of
Labor Code is principally for the benefit of daily employees when the law clearly states every worker.
In addition, Art. 4 of Labor Code puts all doubts in favor of labor.