1

2015 GOLDEN BEACON

LABOR LAW
By:
MANUEL R.

Dean

1. SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAW

To

commit

1).
the
employer,
persons
another;
2). the
working

sexual

BUSTAMANTE

(RA 7877)

harassment,

the

following

Can
considered

must

be

present:

employer,
employee,
manager,
supervisor,
agent
of
the
teacher, instructor, professor, coach trainer, or any other
has
authority,
influence
or
moral
ascendancy
over
authority,
influence
environment:

or

moral

ascendancy

3). he should have demanded, requested

sexual favor from his employee.

Q:

elements

greeting
by
kissing
on
as sexual harassment?

the

or

cheek,

exists

otherwise

in

in

required

beso-beso

a
a

fashion,

be

A:

A mere casual buss on the cheek is not a sexual harassment conduct or

favor and does not fall within the purview of the sexual harassment under the
Anti-Sexual Harassment Act, otherwise known as RA 7877. (Atty. Susan Aquino vs.
Hon.

Ernesto

Acosta,

A.M. No. CTA-01-1,

April

2,

2002).

2. EMPLOYER - EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

Four-fold Test
The control test
is the most crucial
indication of the existence of an
employer-employee relationship (The Manila Hotel Corp. vs. NLRC, 343 SCRA 1, 2000) . In
determining
whether
a
given
set
of
circumstances
constitute
or
exhibit
an
employer-employee
relationship,
the
accepted
rule
is
that
the
elements
or
circumstances
relating
to
the
following
matters
shall
be
examined
and
considered:

a. the selection and engagement of the employees

b. the payment of wage
c. the power of dismissal; and
d. the power of control the employees conduct
and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employeremployee relationship. (Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp. vs. NLRC, 187 SCRA 694, 1990).
The relationship between jeepney owners/operators on one hand and jeepney
drivers on
the other under the boundary system is that of employer-employee
and not of lessor-lessee. (Jardin vs. NLRC, 326 SCRA 299, 2000) . By analogy, the
doctrine also applies to the relationship
between
bus
owner/operator
and
bus
conductor, auto-calesa owner/operator and driver, taxi owners/operators and taxi
drivers.
the

There is no employer-employee relationship between a resident physician and

training hospital (UERMMC Resident Doctors Union vs. Undersecretary of Labor, G.R. No.

125425-26, November 24, 1993).

Cases where employer-employee relationship exists (Control Test used):

a. Jeepney drivers on boundary system (NLM vs. Dinglasan, 98 Phil. 649)
b. Drivers or helpers of salesmen are employees of the Company
(Alhambra Industries vs. CIR, 355 SCRA 553, 1999)

c. Handicraft

workers

on

pakyaw

system (Dy Keh Beng vs. International

Labor, 90 SCRA 161, 1979)

d,

Tailors,

pressers

and

stitchers

in

COD

tailoring

department

(Rosario Bros. vs. Ople, 131 SCRA 72, 1984)

Cases
where
there
independent contractor)
a. Insurance

company

179 SCRA 459, 1989)

is

no

vis--vis

employer-employee
commission

agents

relationship

(but

one

(Insular Life vs. NLRC,

of

2
b. Company
Machine

c.

vs.

vs.
Drilon,

Softdrinks

collecting
193

agents

SCRA

company

270,

vs.

on

commission

basis

(Singer Sewing

1991).

independent

contractors

selling

softdrinks

(Mafinco vs. Ople, 70 SCRA 139, 1976)

d. Shoe shine

DIFFERENCE

boys

BETWEEN

(Besa vs. Trajano, 146 SCRA 501, 1986)

AN

EMPLOYEE

AND

INDEPENDENT

CONTRACTOR

Of the four elements of the employer-employee relationship,

the control
test
is
the
most
important.
Compared
to
an
employee,
an
independent
contractor
is
one
who
carries
on
a
distinct
and
independent
business
and
undertakes
to
perform
the
job,
work
or
service
on
its
own
account
and
under
its
own
responsibility
according
to
its
own
manner
and method,
free
from
the
control
and
direction
of
the
principal
in
all
matters
connected
with
the
performance
of
the
work
except
as
to
the
results
thereof.
Hence,
while
an
independent
contractor
enjoys
independence
and
freedom
from
the
control
and
supervision
of
his
principal ,
an
employee
is
subject
to
the
employers
power
to
control
the
means
and
methods
by
which
the
employees
work
is
to
be
performed
and
accomplished.

ALEXANDER LOPEZ

vs.

G.R. No. 154472, June 30,

MWSS
2005

The control test merely calls for the existence of the right to control ,
and not the exercise
thereof. It is not essential for the employer to actually
supervise the performance of duties of the employee, it is not enough that
the
former has a right to wield the power.
While petitioners were contractcollectors and were even subject to disciplinary measures . Contrary to MWSS
assertion that petitioners were free to adopt their own method/strategy in the
matter of collection, the Agreement clearly provided that the procedure
and/or
manner
of
the collection
of
bills
to
be
followed
shall
be in accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
Manual
of
Procedures.

3.
Test

KINDS
in

OF

EMPLOYMENT

determining

regular

employment;

reasonable

connection

rule

The primary standard of determining a regular employment is the reasonable

connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation
to the usual
business
or
trade
of
the
employer. The
test
is
whether
the
former
is
usually
necessary
or
desirable
in
the
usual
business
or
trade of
the
employer.
The
connection
can
be
determined
by
considering
the
nature
of
the
work
performed
and
its
relation
to
the
scheme
of
the
particular
business
or
trade in its entirety. (De Leon vs. NLRC, 176 SCRA
615, 1989).
Repeated rehiring and the continuing need
for the employees services
are
sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability
of his services
to the employers
business
or
trade. (Baguio Country Club Corporation vs. NLRC,
206

SCRA 643,

1992)

PROBATIONARY
Probationary

period

of

EMPLOYMENT

employment;

general

rule

and

exception

Generally, the probationary period of employment is limited to six months .

The exception to
this
general rule
is
when
the
parties
to
an employment
contract
may agree otherwise,
such
as
when
the
same
is
established
by
company policy or when the same is required by the nature of work to
be
performed
by
the
employee .
In
the
latter
case,
there
is
recognition
of
the exercise of managerial prerogatives in requiring a longer period of
probationary
employment,
especially
where
the
employee
must
learn
a
particular
kind
of
work
such
as
selling ,
or
when
the
job
requires
qualifications,
skills, experience
or
training. (Busier vs. Leogardo, 131 SCRA 151, 1984).

In all cases involving employees on probationary status, 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 . (A. M. Oreta & Co. vs.
NLRC, 176

During
tenure

SCRA 218, 1989).

the

probationary

period,

the

employee

enjoys

security

of

Jurisprudence is rich in cases guaranteeing the security of tenure, limited

thought it may be,
of probationary employees. Except
for
just
cause
as
provided
by
law
or
under
the
employment
contract,
a
probationary
employee
cannot
be
terminated. A probationary employee
may
be
terminated
on
two
grounds: (a)
for
just
cause; or (b) when he fails to qualify
as
regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by
the
employer at
the time of his engagement. (Biboso vs. Victorias Milling, 76 SCRA 250,
1977).

UNIVAC DEVELOPMENT, INC. vs.

G.R. No. 182072,

WILLIAM

June 19, 2013,

M. SORIANO

699 SCRA 88

FACTS: Soriano
was
hired
as
legal
assistant by
basis.
Eight
(8)
day
prior
to
the
completion
probationary
period,
the
employers
department
head
was being terminated from employment due to the
expenses.

Univac
on
probationary
of
his
six
months
informed
him
that
he
companys
cost
cutting

On
the
other
hand,
Univac
claimed
that
during
the
companys
meeting,
Soriano expressed his
intention to leave the company because he
wanted to review for the bar examinations and
also in that meeting,
he
was informed of his unsatisfactory performance.
ISSUE:
Whether
employee.

the

employer

is

guilty

of

illegal

dismissal

of

probationary

HELD:
YES.
The
power
of
the
employer
to
terminate
a
probationary
employee
is
subject
to
three
limitations ,
namely:
(1)
it
must
be
exercised
in accordance with the specific
requirements
of the contract ; (2)
the
dissatisfaction
on
the
part
of
the
employer
must
be
real
and
in
good
faith,
not
feigned
so
as
to
circumvent
the
contract
or
the
law;
and (3) there must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal.
It
is
undisputed that
Soriano was hired as a
probationary employee .
As
such,
he
did
not
enjoy
a
permanent
status .
Nevertheless,
he
is
accorded
the
constitutional
protection
of
security
of
tenure
which
means
that
he
can
only
be
dismissed
from
employment
for
a
just
cause
or
when
he
fails
to
qualify
as
a
regular
employee
in
accordance
with
reasonable standards made known to him by the employer at the time of
his engagement.
In this case, not only did the employer fail to show that
Soriano
was
apprised
of
the
standards
for
regularization
but
it
was
likewise
not
shown how these standards had been applied in his case.

JOCELYN HERRERA MANAOIS vs. ST. SCHOLASTICAS COLLEGE

G.R. No. 188914,

December

11,

2013,

712

SCRA

418

FACTS:
Manaois
applied
for
a
position
as
full-time
instructor
for
school
year 2000-2001
at
SSC.
She mentioned in her application letter that she
had
been
taking
masteral
studies
majoring
in
creative
writing
at
UP
Diliman and she was completing her masters thesis.
SSC

approved

her

application

on

the

basis

that

she

finishes

her

MA.
At
the completion
terminated her
services
ISSUE:
for
a
private

of
for

her third
failure to

Whether
the
completion
tertiary
level
educator
educational institution.

of
to

year of probationary
employment,
finish her masters degree.

a
masters degree
is
earn
the
status
of

SSC

required
in
order
permanency
in
a

HELD: YES.
The
mere
completion
of
the
3
year
probationary
period
does
not
guarantee
that
the
employee
will
automatically
acquire
a
permanent
status.
Probationer
can
only
qualify
upon
fulfillment
of
the
reasonable
standards
set
for
permanent
employment
as
a
member
of
the
teaching
personnel.

Probationary
employment
refers
to the
trial
stage
or
period
during
which
the
employer
examines
the
competency
and
qualification
of
job
applicants
and
determines
whether
they
are
qualified
to
be
extended
permanent employment
status.
Such an arrangement
allows an
employer the
ability
to
scrutinize
the
fitness
and
competency
of
the
probationary
employee while on the job.

for

Here,
Manaois failed
to
comply with the stated academic
the position of a permanent
full-time faculty member.

PROJECT
Principal

test

for

determining

requirements

EMPLOYMENT

project

employees

The principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly
characterized
as
project
employees as distinguished
from
regular employees
is whether
or
not
the
project employees
were
assigned
to
carry
out
a
specific
project
or
undertaking,
the duration (and scope) of which were
specified at the time the employees were
engaged
for
that project. (ALU-TUCP
vs. NLRC, 234 SCRA 678, 1994).
one

Project
employees
year are deemed

who
worked
for
regular employees.

an

aggregate

period

of

at

least

Although the work to be performed

is only for a specific project or
seasonal, where a
person
thus
engaged
has
been
performing
the
job
for
at
least
one
year,
even
if
the
performance
is
not
continuous
or
is
merely
intermittent,
the
law
deems
the
repeated
and
continuing
need
for
its
performance
as
being
sufficient
to
indicate
the
necessity
or
desirability
of
that
activity
to
the
business
or
trade
of
the
employer.
The employment of such person is also then deemed to be regular with
respect to such activity and while such activity exists . (Magsalin vs. National
Organization

Working

Men,

May 9,

2003).

Failure
of
the
employer
to
report
to
the
nearest
employment
office
the
termination
of
workers
everytime
a
project
is
completed
proves
that
the employees are not project employees (Fernandez vs. NLRC). Contrariwise,
the
faithful
and
regular
effort
of
the
Company
in
reporting
every
completion
of its project and submitting the lay-off
list of its employees proves
the
nature
of
employment
of
the
workers
involved
therein
as
project
employees.

D.M. CONSUNJI CORPORATION

vs. ROGELIO P. BELLO

G.R. No. 159371, July 29, 2013, 702

SCRA 347

FACTS:
Bello
was
employed
by
DMCI
as
a
mason
without
interruption
from
February
1,
1990
until
October
10,
1997.
He
had
a
very diligent and devoted worker and his job as a
mason had
necessary and desirable
in
the usual business or
trade of
DMCI.

any
been
been

During his
employment, he
had
been
diagnosed
pulmonary tuberculosis,
thereby
necessitating
his
leave

to
of

from

Upon
refused
to

work
but
DMCI
had
a
termination paper.

his
recovery,
he
accept
him and

ISSUE: Whether
employee.

Bello

is

had
reported
instead handed
regular

back
to
to him

employee

and

no

be suffering
absence.

longer

project

HELD: YES. Bello has

already acquired the status of a
regular
employee
although he had
started as a project
employee of DMCI by his having
been
employed
as
a
mason who
had
performed
tasks
that
had
been
usually
necessary
and
desirable
in
the
business
or
trade
of
DMCI
continuously from February 1, 1990
to October 5, 1997.
His
repeated
rehiring and the continuing
need
for his services
over
a long span
of
time
had undeniably made him a
regular employee.
A
project
undertaking
and
undertaking
has
employee.

employee
is
one
the
completion
been
determined

who
is
hired
or
termination
at
the
time

for
specific
project
of
such
project
of
engagement
of

It
is
settled
that
the extension of
the
employment
of
a
employee
long
after
the
supposed
project
has
been
completed
the employee
from
the scope of
a
project
employee and
makes
regular
employee.

ROY D. PASOS vs.

or
or
the

project
removes
him a

PNCC

G.R. No. 192394, July 3, 2013, 700 SCRA 608

When
specification

the
of

services
of
as to the

a
project employee
duration, he becomes

SEASONAL

is
extended
without
a regular employee.

EMPLOYMENT

any

to

Seasonal
workers
who
work
for
more
than
one
season
are
deemed
have
acquired
regular
employment . (Hacienda Fatima vs. National Federation of

Sugarcane Workers, January 28, 2003).

Seasonal

workers

during

the

off-season

are

merely

considered

on

leave.

(Hacienda Fatima, supra).

Effect

of

repeated

re-hiring and length of

seasonal employee

service

upon

status

of

In this case, it may appear that the work in the company is seasonal,
however, the records reveal that the employee was repeatedly re-hired , sufficiently
evidencing the necessity
and
indispensability of her services to the formers
business or trade. Owing to her length of service , she became a regular
employee, by operation of law, one year after she was employed . Being a
regular employee, she enjoys security of tenure in the sense that she cannot
be dismissed from employment
except for just and authorized cause . (Gaco vs.
NLRC, 230 SCRA 260, 1994).

JAIME

N.

GAPAYAO

vs.

ROSARIO FULO &

SSS

G.R. No. 193493, June 13, 2013, 698 SCRA 485

FACTS: Jaime Fulo had been in
the
employ
of
Gapayao for
14 years,
from 1983
to
1997 until his death while doing repairs
at the residence
and
business
establishment
of
the
latter.
During
that
period,
he
was
made
to work as
a
laborer in the
agricultural
landholdings,
a
harvester
in
the
abaca
plantation
and
a
repairman/utility
worker
in
several
establishments owned by
Gapayao.
On
the
other
hand,
Gapayao
alleges
that
the
deceased
Fulo
is
a
freelance worker. Since he was engaged on a
pakyaw
basis
and worked
for
a
short
period
of
time,
in
the
nature
of
a
farm
worker
every
season,
he
was
not
precluded
from
working
with
other
persons
and
in
fact
worked
for
them.
Citing
Article
280
of
the
Labor
Code,
seasonal
employees
are
not
covered
by
the
definition
of
regular
and
casual
employees.
ISSUE: Whether the deceased Jaime
despite being
a
pakyaw
worker.

Fulo

be

considered

regular

employee

HELD: YES.
Pakyaw
workers
are
considered
employees
for
as
long
as
their
employers
exercise
control
over
them .
Here,
Gapayao
wielded
control
over
the
deceased
in
the
discharge
of
his
functions .
Being
the
owner
of
the
farm
on
which
the
deceased
worked ,
Gapayao,
on
his
own
or
through
his
overseer,
necessarily
had
the
right
to
review
the
quality
of
work
produced
by
his
laborers.
It
matters
not
whether
the
deceased
conducted
his
work
inside
Gapayaos
farm
or
not
because
the
latter
retained the right of control him in his work.
Farm workers generally fall
under the definition of seasonal employees .
Regular
seasonal
employees
are
those
called
to
work
from
time
to
time .
The nature of their relationship with
the
employer is
that during the off
season,
they
are
temporarily
laid
off,
but
reemployed
during
the
summer
season
or
when
their
services
may
be
needed .
They
are
in
regular
employment
because
of
the
nature
of
their
job
and
not
because of
the
length of time they have worked.
Indeed
the
deceased
was
a
farm
worker
who
was
in
the
regular
employ
of
Gapayao.
From year
to
year,
starting
January
1983
up
until
his
death,
the
deceased
had
been
working
on
Gapayaos
land
by
harvesting
abaca and
coconut,
processing copra
and
cleaning
weeds.
His
employment was continuous in the sense that it was done for more than
one
harvesting
season.
Moreover,
no
amount
of
reasoning
could
detract
from
the
fact
that
these
tasks
were
necessary
or
desirable
in
the
usual business
of Gapayao.

CASUAL

EMPLOYMENT

Seafarers are contractual employees for a fixed term, governed by the

contracts
they
sign;
an
exception
to
Art.
280
of
Labor Code. It
is
clear
that
seafarers
are
considered
contractual
employees .
Their
employment
is
governed by the contracts they sign every time
they
are
rehired
and
their
employment
is
terminated
when
the
contract expires.

6
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.
(Millares vs. NLRC, 385 SCRA 306, 2002).

JOB

CONTRACTING
Permissible

AND

job

LABOR-ONLY

contracting

or

CONTRACTING

subcontracting

Permissible job contracting or subcontracting

refers
to
an arrangement
whereby a principal agrees to put out
or
farm out with a contractor
or
subcontractor
the
performance
or
completion of a specific job,
work or
service within a definite or predetermined period regardless of whether such job,
work or service is be performed within or outside the premises
of
the
principal. (Vinoya vs. NLRC, 324 SCRA 469, 2000).

Effect of a

finding

that

contractor

is

labor-only contractor

A finding that a contractor is a labor-only contractor

is
equivalent
to
declaring
that there is an employer-employee relationship between the principal
and the employees of the labor-only contractor. (Associated Anglo-American Tobacco
Corp. vs. Clave, 189 SCRA 127) . In such cases,
the person or intermediary shall be
considered
merely as an
agent of the employer, who shall be responsible to
the workers in the manner and extent as if the latter were directly employed
by him. (Sandoval Shipyards vs. Pepito, 359 SCRA 555, 2001).

Liability

of principal in legitimate job contracting

vis--vis employees of job contractor

In
legitimate
job
contracting,
the
law
creates
an
employer-employee
relationship for a limited purpose, i.e., to ensure that the employees are paid
their wages. The principal employer becomes jointly and severally liable with the
job contractor only
for the payment of the employees wages
whenever the
contractor fails to pay the same. Other than that, the principal employer is not
responsible to any claim made by the employees.
(San Miguel Corporation
vs.
MAERC-Integrated Services, Inc.)

4.

MANAGEMENT

PREROGATIVE
Exercised

The free
purpose cannot

in

good

faith

will of management to conduct its own affairs to achieve its

be denied. (San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union vs. Ople, 170 SCRA 25, 1989).

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.

As a general rule, the employer has the inherent right to transfer or

assign an employee (PT&T vs. Laplana, 199 SCRA 485, 1991) . The employer has the
inherent right to transfer or assign an employee in the pursuance of its
legitimate
business
interest
subject
only
to
the
condition
that
it
not
motivated by discrimination or bad faith.

Where

transfer

may

constitute

constructive

dismissal

To
say
that
the
employees
were
not
constructively
dismissed inasmuch
as the transfer
was
effected
without
demotion
in
rank
or
diminution
of
salary
benefits
is,
in
this
case,
inaccurate.
It
is
well
to
remember
that
constructive
dismissal
does
not
always
involve
forthright
dismissal
or
diminution
in
rank,
compensation, benefits
and
privileges. For an
act
of
clear
discrimination,
insensibility,
or
disdain
by
an
employer
may
become
so
unbearable
on
the
part
of
the
employee
that it could

7
foreclose

any

choice

by

him

except

to

forego

his

continued

employment .

(Zafra vs. Court of Appeals, 389 SCRA 200, 2002)

Employment

contracts

providing

for

disclosure

of

marriages

An
employment
contract
providing
for
a
disclosure
to
management
of
any
existing
or
future
relationship
with
competitor
company
is
valid
exercise
of
management
prerogatives.
A
companys
policy
prohibiting
an
employee
from
having
relationship
with
an
employee
of
a
competitor
company
is
a
valid
exercise
of
management
prerogative .
The
company
has
a
right
to
guard
its
trade
secrets,
manufacturing formulas, marketing
strategies and other confidential
programs
and
information
from
competitors .
(Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO vs. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc. G. R. 162994, September
17, 2004).

ALILEM CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC. vs. SALVADOR

G.R.

No. 173489,

February

25,

2013,

FACTS:
Bandiola
carried
an
illicit
relationship
his
fellow
worker
in
the
office.
He
was
the grounds under Personnel Policy.
ISSUE:

Whether

Bandiola

is

validly

691

BANDIOLA, JR.

SCRA

with
a
dismissed

533

married woman,
based
on
one

not
of

dismissed.

HELD: YES.
An
employer is
free to regulate all
aspects
of
employment
it
may make
reasonable rules
and regulations for the government of its
employees which become part
of
the contract
of
employment
provided they
are made known
to the employees.

6. SEPARATION PAY
Q:

Will

an

employee

who

voluntarily

resigns

be

granted

separation

pay?

A: An employee who voluntarily resigns

may not be granted separation pay
as
a general
rule,
however,
there is
an
exception , that
is,
when it
is
stipulated
in
the
employment
contract
or
CBA
or
such
payment
is
authorized
by
the
employers
practice or
policy,
as
in
this
case (Hanford
Philippines, Inc. and Victor Te vs. Shirley Joseph, G.R. No. 158251, March 31, 2005).
Q: What

are

the

instances

when

award

of

separation

pay

is

proper?

A: Under
the
Code,
separation
pay
may be
awarded
only
in
cases
when
the termination of employment is due to:
a)
installation of labor saving devices;
b)
redundancy;
c)
retrenchment;
d)
closing or cessation of business operations;
e)
disease
of
an
employee
and
his
continued
employment is
prejudicial
to himself
or
his co-employees;
and
f)
when
an
employee
is
illegally
dismissed
but
reinstatement
is
no longer feasible.
Q:

When

may

an

employer

refuse

to

provide

separation

pay?

A: Separation
pay
shall
be
allowed
as
a
measure
of
social
justice
only
in
those
instances
where
the
employee
is
validly
dismissed
for
causes
other
than
serious
misconduct
or
those
reflecting
on
his
moral
character.
Where
the
reason
for
the
valid
dismissal
is
an
offense
involving
moral
turpitude, the employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee
separation pay, or financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called,
on
the
ground
of
social
justice. (Alan D. Gustilo vs. Wyeth Philippines, Inc., G.R.
No. 149629, October 4, 2004)

UNILEVER

PHILIPPINES,
G.R.

No.

201701,

INC.
June

vs.
3,

MARIA

2013,

697

RUBY
SCRA

M.

RIVERA

136

FACTS:
Rivera
was
dismissed
from
work
because
she
intentionally
circumvented
a
strict
company
policy,
manipulated
another
entity
to
carry
out
her
instructions
without
companys
knowledge
and
approval
and
directed the diversion of
funds, which she even admitted doing
under
the
guise
of
shortening
laborious
process
of
securing
funds
for
promotional
activities
from the
head office. These
transgressions
were
serious offenses
that
warranted
her
dismissal
from
employment
and
proved
that
her
termination from work was for a just cause.

ISSUE:

Whether

she

is

entitled

for

separation

pay.

HELD: YES.
She
was
granted
separation
pay
as
an
act
of
social
justice
or
on equitable
grounds
taking into considerations two (2) criteria
that it is required that a
dismissal for a
just
cause (1)
was
not for
serious misconduct and (2)
did not
reflect on the moral character of the
employee.

7. RIGHT TO SELF - ORGANIZATION

Existence

of

employer-employee

relationship

is

necessary

Existence of employer-employee relationship is essential for the determination

of whether or not one may exercise right of self-organization for purposes of
collective bargaining. It is a condition sine qua non for a bargaining unit that
it be composed of employees , failing which affects the legality of the union
itself and means the ineligibility of union membership to present a petition for
certification election, as well as to vote therein . (La Suerte Cigar & Cigarette Factory vs.
Director of BLR, 123 SCRA 769, 1983).

Who

may

unionize

for

purposes

of

collective

bargaining

negotiations?

General Rule: Any employee may be eligible to join and be a member of

a labor union, beginning on his first day of service , whether employed for a
definite period or not. (UST Faculty Union vs. Betonio, 318 SCRA 185, 1999).

Test

to

determine

the

constituency

of

The community or mutuality of interests

determining
the
proper
constituency
of
a

in

However, where the employer operates

different kinds of business (e.g., garment factory
be separated into two (2)
distinct bargaining
election.
This is so because the employees
share community of interest as the work they
other. (Cruzvale vs. Laguesma, 238 SCRA 389, 1994).

8.

bargaining

unit

test has provided the standard

collective
bargaining unit.

two enterprises engaged in two

and cinema), the employees may
units for purposes of certification
in the two businesses do not
perform are different from each

CERTIFICATION ELECTION
Nature

of

Certification

Election

A certification election is not a litigation but merely an investigation of a

non-adversarial fact-finding character in which the BLR plays the part of a
disinterested investigator seeking merely to ascertain the desires of the employees
as to the matter of their representation. (Airline Pilots Association vs. CIR, 76 SCRA
274, 1977).

Role

of

employer

in

General Rule: The employer is not

activity is the
sole
concern
of
the

certification
a party in
workers.

election
certification

election,

which

Exception:
Where the employer has to file a petition for certification
election pursuant to Art. 258 of the Labor Code because it was requested to
bargain collectively. Even then, it becomes
a
neutral
bystander. (Asian Design and
Mfg. Corp. vs. Calleja, 174 SCRA 477, 1989).

Petition

to

cancel/revoke registration is not a prejudicial

to petition for Certification Election

question

An order to hold a certification election is proper despite the pendency of

the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of the union . The
rationale for this is that at the time the union filed its petition , it still had
the
legal
personality
to
perform
such
act
absent
an
order
directing
the
cancellation. (Pepsi-Cola Products Phil. vs. Secretary of Labor, 312 SCRA 104, 1995).

Jurisdiction

in

determining employer-employee
certification election cases

relationship

in

The Med-Arbiter or the Secretary of Labor has the authority to determine

the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties in a
petition for certification election. (M.Y. San Biscuits, Inc. vs. Laguesma, 198 SCRA 256, 1991).
However, the decision of the Med-Arbiter or the Secretary of Labor in this
regard will not constitute res judicata in an illegal dismissal case., i.e., the
principle of bar by prior judgment will not apply. (Manila Golf and Country Club, Inc. vs.
IAC, 237 SCRA 207, 1994).

Disaffiliation

of

the

local

union

from

the

mother

union

Generally, a labor union may disaffiliate from the mother union to form a
local
union
or
independent
union
only
during
the
60-day
freedom
period
immediately preceding the expiration of the CBA. Even before the onset of the
freedom period (and despite the closed-shop provision in the CBA between the
mother union and management) disaffiliation may still be carried out, but such
disaffiliation must be affected by a majority of the members in the bargaining
unit. This happens when there is a substantial shift in allegiance on the part
of
the
majority of the member of the union. (Associated Labor Union-PTGWO vs.
NLRC,

188

SCRA

Date

123,

1990).

of

acquisition

of

legal

personality

of

union

The issuance of the certificate of registration by the Bureau or Regional

Office is not the operative act that vests legal personality upon a local/chapter
under Department Order No. 9. Such legal personality is acquired from
the
filing of the complete documentary requirements enumerated in Section 1, Rule
VI. It could be discerned that the intention of the Labor Code and its
Implementing Rules that only those labor organizations that have acquired legal
personality are capacitated to file petitions for certification elections. Such is the
general rule. (SMC Mandaue Packaging Products Plants vs. Mandaue Packing Plants- San Packaging
Products SMC Monthlies Rank and file Union-FFF, G.R. No. 152356, August 16, 2005).

HERITAGE

HOTEL

MANILA

G.R. No. 172132,

July

vs.
23,

SECRETARY OF

2014, 730

SCRA

LABOR

400

FACTS:
On October 11, 1995, National Union of Workers (NUWHRAIN) filed a
petition
for
certification
election
seeking
to
represent
all
the
supervisory
employees
of Heritage Hotel Manila.
On February 14, 1996,
Heritage
the
conduct
of
the
certification
membership
of
NUWHRAIN
consisted
file
employees.

Hotel
Manila
filed
an
opposition
on
election
on
the
ground
that
the
of
managerial ,
confidential
and
rank-in-

On May 12, 2000, Heritage Hotel filed a petition for the cancellation of
NUWHRAINs
registration
as
a
labor
union for
failure to
submit its
annual
financial reports
and an
updated list of members as
required by articles
238 and 239 of
the Labor Code.
and

The opposition by the Heritage Hotel was denied

finally DOLE directed the certification elections on

The
certification
election
obtained the
majority
votes of

proceeded
as
the bargaining

by the Labor Med-arbiter

June
23, 2000.

scheduled
unit.

and

NUWHRAIN

ISSUES:
(1) Whether the
employer has the legal
right to oppose the
certification
election on
the
ground
that
the
membership
of
the union consisted of
managerial, confidential
and
rank-and-file
employees.
(2)
Whether
the
filing
of
the
of
unions
registration
bar
the
election.

petition
conduct

HELD: (1) NO.

Basic
is
the
realm
of
labor
certification election
is
the
sole
concern of the
is
deemed an
intruder
as
far
as
certification

for
of

the
the

cancellation
certification

union
rights
is
that
the
workers ,
and
the
employer
election is
concern.

Thus, Heritage Hotel

Manila
lacked
the
legal
personality
to assail the
proceeding for the
certification election, and should stand
aside
as
a
mere
bystander
who
could
not
oppose
the
petition ,
or
even
appeal
the
Med-Arbiters
order
to the
conduct of the
certification election.

10
Except
when
it
is
requested
to
bargain
collectively ,
an
employer is
a
mere
bystander
to
any
petition
to
any
petition
for
certification
election, such proceeding is
non-adversarial
and
merely
investigative , for
the
purpose
thereof
is
to
determine
which
organization
will
represent
the
employees
in
their
collective
bargaining
with
the
employer.
The
choice of
their
representative
is
the exclusive concern
of
the
employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein ; it cannot
interfere
with, much
less
oppose,
the
process by
filing
a
motion
to
dismiss
or
an
appeal
from
it ,
not
even a
mere
allegation that
some
employees
participating
in
a
petition
for
certification
election
are
actually
managerial
employees
will
lend
an
employer
legal personality to block the
certification election.
The
employers
informed thereof.

only

right

in

The
employers
meddling
in
among its
employees unduly gave
to establish a
company
union.

the
the
rise

proceeding
conduct
to the

is

to

be

notified

or

of
the
certification election
suspicion that it
intended

(2) NO. Under the long established rule, the filing of the petition for
cancellation of
NUWHRAINs
registration should
not
bar the
conduct of
certification election.

the
the

In that respect, only a final order for the cancellation of the registration
would
have
prevented
NUWHRAIN
from
continuing
to enjoy
all
the
rights
conferred
on it as
a
legitimate
labor
union , including
the right
to the
petition for the certification election.
The
employers
accused of
interfering

petition for
cancellation
union
activities.

of

union

registration

can

be

Article XIII, Section 3 of

the
Constitution
enumerates
the
fundamental
rights
of
the
employees
such
as (1) the right of
all
workers to selforganization, (2) collective bargaining and
negotiations and
(3)
peaceful concerted
activities.
Thus, the cancellation of a certificate or registration
snuffing
out
the
life
of
a
labor
organization .
registration, it
loses as a rule - its right under the

is the
equivalent of
For
without
such
Labor Code.

Under RA 9481,
it
amended and inserted in the Labor
Code Article
242-A on reportorial
requirements
shall
not
be
a ground for
cancellation
of
union
registration
but
shall
subject
the
erring
officers
or
members to
suspension, expulsion from
membership or any appropriate penalty.

9. COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING

The CBA is the law between the contracting parties

therewith
is mandated
by
the
express
policy
of the law.
Corp.

vs.

NLRC,

255

SCRA

parties

Collective
Bargaining
Agreements
are
unenforceable
thereto. (Razon vs. Secretary of Labor, 222 SCRA 1, 1993).

and

compliance

(Marcopper

Mining

322).

against

persons

not

The union representative need not

be an employee
of the company.
However, the union officer must be an employee in the bargaining unit of the
company. (Sec. 4(f), Rule III of the implementing rules of PD 1391).
unit

The fundamental factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining

are:
(1) will of the employees (Globe Doctrine)
(2) affinity and unity of the employees interest, such as substantial
similarity of work and duties, or similarity
of
compensation and
working conditions (Substantial Interests Rule)
(3) prior collective bargaining history;
(4) similarity of employment status.
(San Miguel Corporation vs. Laguesma, 236 SCRA 595, 1994)

The grievance handling and grievance procedure

in the collective bargaining agreement
are binding
parties. (Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. vs. CIR, 8 SCRA 67, 1963)

GOOD

FAITH

BARGAINING AND
CO-EXIST

stipulated and provided for

upon both the contracting

CBA

DEADLOCK MAY

11
TABANGAO SHELL REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION vs.
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION
G.R. No. 170007,

April 7, 2014,

720

SCRA

631

FACTS:
The
company
and
the
union
started
negotiation
for
a
new
CBA. After
several
negotiation, the
company proposed the
declaration of
a
deadlock and
recommended that the
help of
a
third party be
sought.
On
that
same
day,
the
union
filed
a
Notice
of
Strike
in
the
NCMB
alleging
bad
faith
bargaining
on
the
part
of
the
company .
The
NCMB
immediately
summoned
the
parties
for
the
mandatory
conciliation
mediation
proceedings
but
the
parties
failed
to
reach
an
amicable
settlement.
During
the
strike vote.
The
unanimously voted

cooling
off
period,
the
members
of
the
union ,
for
the
holding of
a

Upon being
for
Assumption
Employment.

aware
of

ISSUE:
Whether
the
company.

there

union
conducted
who
participated
strike.

of this
development , the
company
Jurisdiction
with
the
Secretary
is

an

absence

of

good

faith

the
necessary
in the voting ,
filed
of

on

a
petition
Labor
and

the

part

of

HELD:
NO.
While
the
purpose
of
collective bargaining is the reaching
of
an
agreement
between
the
employer
and
the
employees
union
resulting in a
binding
contract
between the
parties , the failure
to
reach
an agreement after
negotiation continued
for
a
reasonable period does
not
mean lack of
good
faith.
The
laws
invite
and
contemplate
a
collective
bargaining
contract
but
do
not
compel
one.
For
after
all,
a
CBA,
like
any
contract
is
a
product
of
mutual consent
and not of
compulsion .
As
such,
the duty
to
bargain does not
include the
obligation to
reach an
agreement.
As
bargaining

there
was
no
with
the union,

Each
party
found
willing to
yield.

was

bad
faith
on
the
deadlock
was
possible

the

others

offer

part
and

unacceptable

The
company
suggested
seeking
the
assistance
of
settle
the
issue
but
the
union
preferred
the
remedy
of
strike. Each party was
adamant
in its
position.
a

Because
complete

of
did

Shell
occur.

and
a
of

neither
third
filing

of the unresolved issue on wage

increase , there
stoppage of the
ongoing
negotiation between
the

in

its
party

party
to
a
notice

was actually
parties.

The
absence of the parties
mutual declaration of
deadlock
does
not
mean that there
was no deadlock. At
most, it would have been simply
a recognition of the prevailing status quo
between
the
parties.
such

What
was
a deadlock

lacking
was
because the

the
formal
recognition
or
the
union refused a
declaration of

existence
deadlock.

of

As the
term
assume
jurisdiction
connotes,
the intent
of
the
law
is to give the Labor Secretary
full
authority to resolve all
matters within
the
dispute
that
give
rise
to
or
which
arose
out
of
the
strike
or
lockout.
It includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising from or
related
to
the dispute
including cases over
which the
labor arbiter has
exclusive jurisdiction.

The employer, by its refusal to bargain, is guilty of violating the duty to

bargain collectively in good faith. Hence,
the Unions draft CBA proposal may
unilaterally be imposed upon the employer as the collective agreement to govern
their relationship. (Divine Word vs. Secretary of Labor, 213 SCRA 759, 1992).
the

Although a CBA has expired, it continues to have legal effects as between

parties until a new CBA has been entered into. (Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring,

Inc. vs. Roldan-Confesor, 241 SCRA 294, 1995).

12
10.

UNFAIR

Test

to

LABOR

PRACTICE

determine

whether

or

not

employer

is

guilty

of

ULP

The
test
of
whether
an
employer
has
interfered
with
and
coerced
employees
within
the
meaning
of
Art.
248
(a)
of
the
Labor
Code
is
whether the employer has engaged in conduct which it may reasonably be
said
tends
to
interfere
with
the
free
exercise
of
employees
right
to
self-organization
and
it
is
not
necessary
that
there
be
direct
evidence
that
any
employee
was
in
fact
intimidated
or
coerced
by
statement
of
threats
of
the
employer
if
there
is
a
reasonable
interference
that
anti-union
conduct
of
the
employer
does
not
have
and
adverse
effect
of
self-organization
and
collective bargaining . (Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Employees
Association-NATU vs. Insurance Life Insurance Co., 37 SCRA 244, 1971).

ULP

of

Labor

Organization

Unions
are
not
entitled
to
arbitrarily
exclude
qualified
applicants
for
membership, and
a
closed-shop
provision
would
not
justify
the
employer
in
discharging,
or
a
union
in
insisting
upon
a
discharge
of
an
employee
whom
the
union
thus
refuses
to
admit
to
membership,
without
any
reasonable
ground
therefore.
Needless
to
say,
if
said
unions
may
be
compelled
to
admit
new
members ,
who
have
requisites
qualifications,
with
more
reason
may
the
law
and
the
courts
exercise
coercive
power
when
the
employee
involved
is
a
long
standing union
member, who, owing to provocations of union officers, was impelled to tender
his resignation,
which
he
forthwith
withdrew
or
revoked. (Salunga vs. CIR, 21
SCRA 216, 1967)

Union

Security

Clause

Union Security clauses are also governed by law and by principles of

justice, fair play, and legality. Union security clauses cannot be used by union
officials against an employer, much less their own members, except
with a
high
sense
of
responsibility,
fairness,
prudence,
and
judiciousness.
A
union
member may not be expelled from her union , and consequently from her job,
for personal
or
impetuous reasons or for causes foreign to the closed-shop
agreement and in a manner characterized by arbitrariness and whimsically. (Manila
Mandarin Employees Union vs. NLRC, 154 SCRA 368, 1987).

11. STRIKES
if

AND

LOCKOUTS

Good faith
no
longer
no procedural compliance

A unions claim of
procedural steps for a

a defense
for
valid
strike

good faith is
lawful strike.

not a valid excuse to dispense with the

The Supreme Courts previous rulings in
Peoples Industrial & Commercial Employees & Workers Organization vs. PICC did not rule that
procedural requirements can be dispensed
with, even if the Union believed in
good faith that ULP was being committed . The good faith defense invoked in
the Philippine Metal Foundries vs. CIR case had been decided in 1979, but with the
enactment of RA 6715, compliance with the procedural requirements for the
validity
of
a
strike
is
now
mandatory . (Grand Boulevard Hotel vs. Genuine Labor
Organizations in Hotel Restaurant & Allied Industries, G.R. No. 153654, July 18, 2003).

Lawful
are

means

in

conducting

strike

A strike though valid may be declared invalid

where the means employed
illegal. (Association of Independent Unions in the Philippines vs. NLRC, 305 SCRA 219, 1999).

Seven-day

strike

The seven-day strike ban starts from

strike vote is submitted to the Department
for the seven-day strike ban, the first day
included. A deficiency of one-day from the
fatal defect which renders the strike illegal

ban

the day after the results of the

of Labor . In computing the period
shall be excluded and the last day
mandatory seven-day strike ban is a
-- strict adherence to the mandate

13
of the law is required as substantial compliance with a mandatory
will not suffice. (CCBPI Postmix Workers Union vs. NLRC, 299 SCRA 410, 1998).

Compensation

of

striking

provision

workers

The
union
members
who
were
merely
instigated
to
participate
in
the
illegal strike
should
be
treated
differently
from
their
leaders .
Part
of
the
benign
consideration
for
labor
is
the
policy
of
reinstating
rank-and-file
workers
who
were
merely
misled
in
supporting
illegal
strikes.
Nonetheless,
these
reinstated
workers
shall
not
be
entitled
to
backwages
as
they
should
not
be
compensated
for
services
skipped
during
the
illegal
strike. (Lapanday Workers Union vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 97, 1995).

Requisites

for

valid

lockout

All the requisites for a valid strike likewise

apply
for
a
lockout
to
be
valid. Thus,
it
must
be
for
a
lawful
purpose,
undertaken
through
lawful means, and in compliance with the procedural requirements of law such
as: notice of lockout, cooling-off period, taking and filing of lockout vote , and
seven-day lock-out ban. (Association of Independent Unions in the Philippines vs. NLRC, 305 SCRA
219, 1999).

12. ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

The
Secretary
of
Labor
is
not
precluded
from
assuming
over a labor dispute in a vital industry
even if there is no
strike or
a
formal
complaint.
He
need
not
wait
for
a
strike
or
a
formal
complaint
about
a
strike
already
in
before
he
could
exercise
the
powers
given
him
by
law
the
strikes,
picketing
or
lockouts
contemplated
in
the
grant
(Saulog Transit vs. Lazaro, 128 SCRA 591, 1984).
While
termination
by
reason
of
an
illegal
strike
replacement
by
reason
of
violation
of
a
return-to-work
need
one. (Free Telephone Workers Union vs. PLDT, 113 SCRA 663, 1982).

jurisdiction
notice of
notice
of
progress
to
avoid
of
power.

requires
hearing ,
order
does
not

The
authority
of
the
Secretary
of
Labor
to
assume
jurisdiction
in
accordance
with
Art.
263
(g)
of
the
Labor
Code
necessarily
includes
and
extends
to
all
questions
and
controversies
arising
from
the
labor
dispute, including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction.
(International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor, 205 SCRA 59, 1992).

13. TERMINATION
As

OF

an

EMPLOYMENT

Exercise

of

Management

Prerogative

The
discipline
of
prerogative
is
exercised
interest
and
need
not
employees
by
law
or

employees
is
a
management
prerogative .
If
this
in
good
faith
for
the
advancement
of
employers
for
the
purpose
of
defeating
the
rights
of
the
contract,
the
court
will
uphold it . (SMB Sales Force
Union vs. Ople, 170 SCRA 25, 1989).

Illegality in the Manner of Dismissal

(Dismissal without Due Process)
The
Supreme
Court
has
apparently
abandoned
the
Serrano
ruling
and
reverted to the Wenphil ruling . In
so
far
as
it
ruled
that
in
cases
where
there
was
substantial evidence
proving just
cause
BUT
that
due
process
was
not
followed ,
the
termination
will
be
upheld
but
the
employer
will
be
penalized the amount of P30,000.00.
The Supreme Court
stated
that
it
would
not
be
right
to
order
either
reinstatement
of
the
dismissed
employee
or
payment
of
backwages
to
the
employee .
But for
failing to comply with the procedure prescribed by law in terminating the
services of an employee, the employer should be made
liable for payment of
separation pay. (Agabon vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004).

If the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282

but the
employer failed to comply with the notice requirement , the sanction to be
imposed upon him should be tempered
because the dismissal process was , in
effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee; and
If the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 283 but
the
employer
failed
to
comply
with
the
notice
requirement ,
the
sanction
should be
stiffer
because
the
dismissal
process
was
initiated
by
the

14
employers

exercise

of

his

management

prerogative. (Jaka Food Processing Corporation vs.

Darwin Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, March 28, 2005).

Constructive
After
30-day
reinstated to his
period
amounts

Dismissal

period
of
preventive
suspension ,
the
employee
must
be
former position because
suspension
beyond
this
maximum
to
constructive
dismissal. (Hyatt Taxi Services vs. Catinoy, 359 SCRA

686, 2001).

Temporary

Lay-off

There is no specific provision of law

which treats of a temporary
retrenchment or lay-off and provides for the requisites in effecting it
or a
period
or
duration
therefore.
These
employees
cannot
however
be
forever
temporary laid-off. To remedy this situation, Article 286 may be applied but
only
by
analogy
to
set
a
specific
period
that
employees
may
remain
temporarily laid-off or in a floating status for only a period of six months .
After
six
months,
the
employees
should
either
be
recalled
to
work
or
permanently retrenched in accordance with the requirements of law . Failing to
comply with this would be tantamount to dismissing the employees without
cause, and holding employer liable for such illegal dismissal. (Sebuguero vs. NLRC,
245 SCRA 532, 1995)

Suspension

of

operations

Article
286
of
the
Labor
Code
is
clear -- there
is
termination
of
employment when an otherwise bona fide suspension of
work
exceeds
6
months. The cessation of employment for more than six months was patent
and the employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a
just or authorized cause. (Mayon Hotel & Restaurant vs. Rolando Adana, G.R. No. 157634, May
16, 2005).

14.

JURISDICTION
Money

Claim

The money claims of workers

referred to in par. 3 of Article 217
embraces
money-claims
which
arises
out
of
or
in
connection
with
the
employer-employee
relationship,
or
some
aspect
or
incident
of
such
relationship. (San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, 161 SCRA 719, 1988)

Factors

in

determining

jurisdiction

It is the character of the principal relief sought that appears essential

in
this
connection. Where such principal relief is to be granted under labor
legislation or a collective bargaining agreement, the case should fall within the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC . (San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, 161 SCRA 719,
1988).
The general rule is that an employer-employee relationship must exist
between the party litigants for the labor courts to exercise jurisdiction over a
particular case. The exception to the rule is found in Article 212 (i) of the
Labor Code where a labor dispute can nevertheless exist regardless of whether
the disputants stand in the proximate relationship of employer and employee
provided the controversy concerns,
among
others, the terms and conditions of
employment or a change or arrangement thereof. The existence of a labor
dispute is not negatived by the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants do not
stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee . (San Miguel Corporation
Employees Union-PTGWO vs. Bersamira, 186 SCRA 496)

Jurisdiction

of

Labor

Arbiters

Complaints for illegal dismissal filed by the employees who were terminated
pursuant to the CBAs union security clause falls within the jurisdiction of the
Labor
Arbiter
and not the Grievance Machinery. (Sanyo Phil. Workers Union-PSSLU vs.
Caizares, 211 SCRA 361, 1994).

Jurisdiction

of

Regional

Director

The Regional Director exercises both visitorial and enforcement power over
labor
standard
cases,
and
is
therefore
empowered
to
adjudicate
uncontested
money claims of persons still employed. (Maternity Childrens Hospital vs. Secretary of
Labor, 174 SCRA 632, 1989).

15
15. REMEDIES
Appeal
The requirement to perfect the appeal from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC
within 10 calendar days (Art. 223) is mandatory and jurisdictional . Failure to do
so renders the questioned decision final and executory , and is deprive the
appellate court
or
body of the legal authority to alter the
final judgment ,
much less to entertain, the appeal. (Sublay vs. NLRC, 324 SCRA 188, 2000).
An
appeal
is
perfected
to
the
NLRC
once
an
appellant
files
the
memorandum of appeal, pays the required appeal fee and, where an employer
appeals
and a monetary
award
is involved , the latter posts an appeal bond
or
submits a surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company . (Soliman
Security Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 384 SCRA 514, 2000)

Where the decision of the Labor Arbiter involves a monetary award , the
appeal is deemed perfected only upon the posting of a cash
or surety bond
but also within
ten (10) days from receipt to such decision in an amount
equivalent to the monetary award. (Mary Abigalis Food Services vs. Court of Appeals, G.
R. No. 140294, May 9, 2005)

Motion

for

Reconsideration

Before a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may
be availed of, the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine
qua non to afford an opportunity for the correction of the error or
mistake
complained of (ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members vs. ABS CBN Broadcasting Corp.,
304 SCRA 199). However, as
an
exception, the failure of an appellant to file a
motion for reconsideration may be excused
where the error sought to be
reviewed is a patent nullity. (Zurbano vs. NLRC, 228 SCRA 556, 1993)
not

A
be

second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited

entertained at all. (Jardin vs. NLRC, 326 SCRA 299, 2000)

Petition

for

Certiorari

under

pleading

Rule

which

should

65

The period or manner of appeal from the NLRC to the Court of Appeals
governed by Rule 65 pursuant to the ruling in the case of St. Martin Funeral
Homes vs. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494, 1998 . It states that the petition may be filed not
later than 60 days from notice of the judgment , or resolution sought to be
assailed.
is

The fact that the assailed decision becomes final and executory after
a
ten-day period does not preclude the adverse party from challenging it by way
of an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
He
may even further pray for the issuance of a restraining order or a temporary
injunction to prevent the immediate execution of the assailed decision . (Caramol vs.
NLRC, 225 SCRA 582, 1993).

Petition

for

Review

under

Rule

45

From the Court of Appeals,

the aggrieved party may appeal to the
Supreme Court thru a verified petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court. Questions of facts cannot be raised in a petition for
review on certiorari. (Abalos vs. Philex Mining Corp., November 27, 2002).

Review

of

decision

of

Secretary

of

Labor

In conformity with the case of St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, the remedy
of an aggrieved party is to timely file a motion for reconsideration with the
Office
of
the
Secretary
of
Labor
as
a
precondition
for
any
further
or
subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a special civil action for certiorari
to the Court of Appeals under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Finality of BLR decision in petitions for cancellation of union registration

If the petition for cancellation is directly filed with BLR , its decision
canceling union registration is not yet final and executory as it may still be
appealed to the Office of the Secretary. However, if the petition for cancellation
was filed with the Regional Office , the decision of the BLR resolving an
appeal
of
the
said
Regional
Office
is
final
and
executory . (Abbot Laboratories
Philippines, Inc. vs. Abbot Laboratories Employees Union, 323 SCRA 392, 2000).

Review

of

decision

of

Voluntary

Arbitrators

16
Sections 1,
3
and
4
of
the
Rule
43
of
the
1997
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure
provides the rule on appeals . In consonance with Rule 43 ,
the petitioner, upon receipt of a copy of the Voluntary Arbitrators Decision ,
should have filed with the CA , within the 15-day reglementary period , a petition
for review, not a petition for certiorari, which is not a substitute for a lapsed
appeal. Without
an appeal (petition for review) seasonably filed, the questioned
Decision
of
the
Voluntary
Arbitrator
became
final
and
executory
after
ten
calendar days from notice. Moreover, Article 262-A of the Labor Code provides
that the award
or decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator
or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrator shall be final and executory after ten calendar days from receipt of
the copy of the award or decision by the parties. Indeed, once a decision or
resolution becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the court
or tribunal to order its execution.
Such order is not appealable. (Manila Midtown
Hotel vs. Voluntary Arbitrators Borromeo, G. R. No. 138305, September 22, 2004).

16.

EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS

The general
rule
is
that
when
a
decision
becomes final and
executory, it is the ministerial of the court to issue a writ of execution to
enforce the judgment. (Torres vs. NLRC, 330 SCRA 311, 2000) . As an exception to the
rule, a writ of execution may be refused on equitable grounds as when there
was a change in the situation of the parties that would make execution
inequitable or when certain circumstances, which transpired after judgment became
final, rendered execution of judgment unjust. (Baclayan vs. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 761,
1990).

Under Rule 39, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure , a final
and executory judgment may be executed on motion within 5 years from the
date of its entry. After the lapse of such time , and before it is barred by
the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. This rule
applies to labor cases as the Rules of Court are applicable to labor cases in
a suppletory capacity. (Tag Fibers vs. NLRC, 344 SCRA 29, 2000).

17. DOCTRINES
Q: Explain the

principle

of

Fair

days

wage

for

fair

days

labor?

A:
The
age-old
rule
governing
the
relation
between
labor
and
capital , or
management and employee of a
fair days wage for a fair days
labor
remains as the basic factor in determining employees wages. If there is no
work performed
by the employee , there can be no wage
or pay
unless, of
course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work, but was illegally
locked
out,
suspended
or
dismissed,
or
otherwise
illegally
prevented
from
working (Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs. Brillantes, 279 SCRA 218),
a
situation which we find is not present in the instant case.
It would neither
be fair nor
just to allow private respondents to discover something they have
not earned and could not have earned because they did not render services at
the Kalibo office during the stated period . ( Aklan Electric Cooperative vs. NLRC, G.R. No.
121439, January 25, 2000.)

Q:

What

is

A:
Persons
responsibility,
School

Q:

the

Equal

pay

for

equal

work

principle?

who work with substantially equal

under similar conditions should be

qualifications ,
skills, effort and
paid similar salaries. (International

Alliance of Educators vs. Quisumbing, 333 SCRA 13, 2000).

What

is

Red

Circle

Rate?

A: Red Circle Rate allowance is an amount, not included in the basic salary,
that is granted by the company to an employee who is promoted to a higher
position
grade
but
whose
equal
actual
basic
salary
at
the
time
of
the
promotion already exceeds the maximum salary for the position to which he or
she is promoted. It
applies
to
specific
individuals
whose
salary
levels
are
unique
with
respect
to
their new
and
higher
positions . (Meralco vs. Secretary
of Labor).

Q:

Are

non-Muslim

entitled

to

Muslim

Holiday

pay?

A:
Yes. While Article 3 (3) of the Code of Muslim Laws provides that the
provisions of the Code shall be applicable only to Muslims,
there should no
distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims as regard the payment of benefits
of Muslim Holidays. Otherwise, Muslims throughout the Philippines are also not
entitled to holiday pays on Christian Holidays as declared
by law as regular
holidays. (San Miguel Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 30 January 2002).

17
Q:

What

is

surface

bargaining

A:
Surface
Bargaining
negotiating without any

as
legal

or

blue

sky

bargaining?

defined as
going
intent to reach an

through
the
motions
of
agreement . (Standard Chartered Bank

Employees Union vs. Confesor, G.R. No. 114974, June 16, 2004).

Q:

What

is

yellow

dog

contract?

A: It is a
promise exacted
that
they are
not
to
belong
their period of
employment.
Q:

What

is

substitutionary

from
to

workers as
or
attempt

a
to

condition of
employment
foster
a
union
during

doctrine?

A: This doctrine
holds that
since
the CBA
is
binding on
the parties for
the period therein
specified,
the
employees
cannot validly revoke the same
by
the simple
expedient
of
changing
their
bargaining
representative.
If
the
employees
do
change their representative,
the CBA
nonetheless
continues
to
bind
the
parties,
though
the new
agent
may
bargain
for
the
shortening
of
the
contract
period.
Q:

What

is

the

Doctrine

of

INNOCENT

BY-STANDER?

A: The
right
to
picket
is
not
absolute.
sphere
of
communication or
demonstration
to
establishments or persons
with
no
industrial
dispute.
Q:

What

is

the

A:
The
rule
agreements
are
contracts being
Exceptions:
(1) When
(b) When
(c) When
Q:

What

is

Successor-in-interest

The
courts
can
confine
the
the
disputants
and
insulate
connection
or
interest to the

Doctrine?

is
that
employment
contracts
and
not enforceable against
a transferee of
in personal,
thus binding only between

collective
bargaining
an enterprise ,
labor
the parties.

expressly
assumed by
the transferor;
transfer was done with intent to circumvent
transfer was
clothed with bad faith.

the

Doctrine

of

MEANS

the

law;

and PURPOSES?

A:
A
strike
is
legal
when
lawful
means
concur
with
lawful
purpose
or
a
strike
may
be
legal
at
the
start
but
it
may
be
declared
illegal
when the means used in attaining the same are illegal.
Q:

What

is

featherbedding?

A: Featherbedding
refers
to the practice
of
the
union
or
its
agents in
causing
or
attempting
to cause
an
employer
to pay
or
deliver
or
agree
to
pay
or
deliver
money
or
other things of value, in
the nature of
an
action,
for
services
which are not
performed or not
to be performed.
The
essence
of
featherbedding
is
the
exaction of
money ,
or
other things
of
value from
the
employer by
the
union .
It
is
not
featherbedding
where
work is performed
no matter how
unnecessary
or
useless it may
be.

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1997 (R.A. 8282)

YOLANDA SIGNEY vs. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
G.R. No. 173582, January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 629

FACTS: Rodolfo Signey died on May 21, 2001, in his SSS member records, he had
designated his common-law wife, Yolanda as primary beneficiaries and his four
illegitimate children as
secondary beneficiaries. The deceased had
a
legal wife,
Editha, while their only legitimate child predeceased him.
ISSUE: Who

is

entitled

to

the

HELD: YOLANDA
is
disqualified
wife while
it
follows
that
the
deceased, because the legitimate

death

benefits?

to
be
a
beneficiary
being
a
common-law
dependant
illegitimate
minor
children
of
the
child of the deceased predeceased him , as

18
the
only
qualified
100% of the death

primary beneficiaries
benefits.

of

the

deceased ,

are

entitled

to

WHEN EMPLOYMENT NOT DEEMED TERMINATED

LAGONOY BUS CO., INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 165598, August 14, 2007, 530 SCRA 121
An
employer
may
bona fide
suspend
the
operations
of
its
business
for
a
period
not
exceeding
six
months.
In
such
a
case,
there
is
no
termination of the employment of the
employees , but only a temporary
displacement.
When
the
suspension
of the business operations exceeds
six
months,
then
the
employment
of
the
employees
could
be
deemed
terminated.
If
the operation
of
the
business
is
resumed
within
six
months,
it
shall
be
the
duty
of
the
employer
to
reinstate
his
employees to their former positions
without
the
loss
of
seniority
rights ,
if
the
latter
would
indicate
their
desire
to
resume
work
within
one
month from
such
resumption
of
operations.

EXTRA-MARITAL
A JUST

AFFAIRS WITH CO-TEACHER

CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL

DANILO OGALISCO vs. HOLY TRINITY COLLEGE OF GENSAN

G.R. 172913, August 9, 2007, 529 SCRA 672
Substantial
evidence
existing
on
marital affairs
of
Ogalisco
with
his
valid and legal under Article 282 of

record
showed
convincingly
the
extraco-teacher .
Hence,
his
termination
is
the Labor Code.

MOTION TO REDUCE APPEAL BOND

COLBY CONSTRUCTION CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R.

No.

170099,

ISSUE: Whether
or
not
an
motion to reduce bond?

November

appeal

is

28,

2009,

perfected

539

SCRA 159

by

its

timely

filing

of

HELD: NO. An employer who files a motion to reduce the appeal bond is
still
required to post the full amount of cash
or surety bond within the
ten-day reglementary period, even pending resolution of his motion.

HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA vs. NLRC, RAON & VILLA

G.R. Nos. 180478-79, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA `127
No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained
except on meritorious
grounds, and only upon
the posting of
a bond
in a reasonable amount
in
relation
to
the
monetary
award.
The
mere
filing
of
a
motion
to
reduce
bond
without
complying
with
the
requisites
shall
not
stop
the
running of
the
period to
perfect an appeal . The payment of the appeal
bond is a jurisdictional
requisite for the perfection of an appeal
to the
NLRC.

UNIVERSITY PLANS,

INC.

vs. BELINDA P. SOLANO

G.R. No. 170416, June 22, 2011

The Supreme Court
ruled
that although the requirement
of
an
appeal
bond is indispensable
in
the perfection of an appeal
as clearly
provided
for
in
Art.
223
of
the
Labor
Code ,
and
as
emphasized
in
the
Rules
of Procedure of
the
NLRC. It
is likewise provided
that
reduction of the
same is allowed in very specific instances.

The
NLRC
was
not
precluded
from
making
a
preliminary
determination
of
the
employers
financial
capacity
to
post
the
required
bond
without
necessarily
passing
upon
the merits of the
justification
for
the
reduced
bond,
the
evidence
for
the
purpose
would
necessarily
be
less
than
the evidence
required
for a ruling
on
the
merit.

UNION REGISTRATION
20%

of the

Bargaining

Unit

19

TAKATA PHILIPPINES

vs.

G.R. No. 196276,

BUREAU
June 4, 2014,

OF
725

LABOR
SCRA

RELATIONS

61

FACTS:
On July 7, 2009, Takata filed
with DOLE Regional Office
a
petition
for
cancellation
of the certificate of union registration of
SALAMAT
on
the
ground of misrepresentation, false
statement
and
fraud
with
respect
to
the
numbers
who
participated
in
the
organization meeting
on May
1, 2009.
During
the
organizational
meeting
of
SALAMAT ,
only
68
attendees
signed
the
attendance
sheet
and
which
number
comprised
only
17%
of
the total number
of 396 regular rank-in-file
employees . Takata
claimed
that
the union
failed to comply the 20%
minimum
membership requirement.
union

Takata further insisted that only 119

union members
registration instead
of
396
rank-and-file employees.

were

listed

in

the

On the other
hand,
SALAMAT
claimed that the
119
union
members
were
more
than
the
20%
required
for
union
registration
and
further
argued
that
the
68
attendees
to
the
organizational
meeting
constituted
more
than 50%
of the total union membership
of 119.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the 68
attendees
in
the
obviously
less
than
20%
of
the
regular
rank-and-file
employees.
(2)
Whether
the
119
union
properly
represented
the
396
employees.
HELD: (1)
than 50%

organization meeting
total
number
of

members
members

was
396

with
no
signature
of
the
rank-and-file

The
68 attendees
to
the organizational
of
the
total union
membership.

meeting

represents

more

The
list of
employees
who
participated
in
the
organization
meeting
was
a
separate
and distinct
requirement
from the list
of the name
of
members
comprising
at
least
20%
of
the
employees
in
the
bargaining
unit.
of

(2) YES.
the 119

The
registration

There
union

119
as

Therefore,
cancellation
of

was
no
members.

requirement

for

signatures

opposite

the

names

union
members
were
more
than
the
20%
for
union
well the
requirement
for
petition
for
certification election.
no ground of misrepresentation
the
union registration

was

present

to

warrant

the

Retraction
MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS, INC. vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR
G.R. No. 183317, December 21, 2009, 608 SCRA 706
FACTS: SMMSC was issued a Certificate of
Registration as a legitimate labor
organization
by
the
DOLE.
A
month
later,
Mariwasa
filed
a petition for
Cancellation of Union Registration against SMMSC for
failure to
comply with
the 20% union membership requirement for
its
registration as
a legitimate
labor
organization
because
102
employees
had
executed
affidavits
of
recantation of
their union membership.
ISSUE: Whether
the
Union
Registration
should
be
the affidavits executed by the employees
recanting

cancelled
by
reason
of
their union membership.

HELD:
NO.
Withdrawals
made
before
the
filing
of
the
petition
for
certification
election
are
presumed
voluntary
unless
there
is
a
convincing
proof to the contrary,
whereas
withdrawals
made
after
the
filing of the
petition
are
deemed involuntary, because
then the employees
supporting the
petition
become
known
to
the
employer
since
their
names
are
attached
to
the
petition.
Thus, the
employer
may
use
foul
means
for
said
employees to
withdraw
their
support.
The
fact
remains
that
at
the
time
of
the
unions
application
for
registration,
the
affiants
were
members
of
SMMSC
and
they
comprised
more than the required 20% membership for
purposes of registration as a

20
labor
union.
Article
234
of
the
Labor
Code
merely
requires
a
20%
minimum
membership
during
the
application
for
union
membership .
It
does
not
mandate
that
a
union
must
maintain
the
20%
minimum
membership
requirement all throughout its
existence.

Cancellation
STA. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORPORATION
vs. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
G.R. No. 162355, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 92
ISSUE: Whether the
inclusion
cancellation
for
registration

of
as

disqualified
employees
is
the
legitimate
labor
organization.

ground

for

HELD: NO.
The
inclusion
in
the
union
of
disqualified
employees
is
not
among
the
grounds
for
cancellation
of
registration
unless
such
inclusion
is
due
to
misrepresentation,
false
statement
or
fraud
under
the
Labor
Code.
Thus,
CLUP
having
been
validly
issued
a
certificate
of
registration ,
should be considered as having acquired juridical personality which may not
be attacked collaterally.

Collateral Attack on Legal Personality

SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA (SMCC-SUPER) vs. CHARTER
CHEMICAL AND COATING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 169717, March 16, 2011, 645 SCRA 538
the

The
legal
certification

personality
of
the
union
election proceedings.

cannot

be

collaterally

attacked

in

Except when it is requested to

bargain collectively, an
employer is a
mere bystander to
any petition for certification election , such proceeding is
non-adversarial
and
mere
investigation,
for
the
purpose
thereof
is
to
determine
which organization will
represent the employees
in their collective
bargaining
with
the
employer.
The
choice
of
their
representative
is
the
exclusive
concern
of
the
employees;
it
cannot
interfere
with,
much
less
oppose,
the
process
by
filing
a
motion
to
dismiss
or
an
appeal from
it,
not
even
a
mere
allegation
that
some
employees
participating
in
a
petition for certification election are
actually managerial employees ,
will lend
an
employer
legal
personality
to
block
the
certification
election .
The
employers
only
right
in
the
proceeding
is
to
be
notified
or
informed
thereof.

CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL
NELSON GAN vs. GALDERMA PHILIPPINES, INC.
G.R. No. 177167, January 17, 2013, 688 SCRA 666
FACTS: Nelson
was hired by Galderma
as Product
Manager for its Consumer
Products
Division
to
handle the marketing of CBPL.
With
his
satisfactory
performance
since
during
the
first
year,
Nelson
was
acknowledged
and
rewarded
by
Galderma
through
positive
performance
appraisal,
salary
and
benefits increases, and informal notations
on
his
marketing reports.
Nelsons above-average
performance in handling CBPL continued in the first
quarter
of
2002.
On April 11, 2002, feeling he was harassed,
coerced and
intimated by his superior, Nelson severed his
employment
ties
with
Galderma.
On the same day, his immediate superior at
the time accepted the resignation
tendered.
ISSUE:

Whether

Nelson

was

illegally

HELD: NO. Constructive

dismissal
continued employment is rendered

or

constructively

is
defined
impossible,

dismissed.

as
quitting
of
work
because
unreasonable or unlikely.

The
test of constructive
dismissal
is whether a reasonable
person in
the
employees
position
would
have
felt
compelled
to
give
up
his
employment/position
under
the
circumstances.
Since
Nelson
submitted
a
resignation letter,
it
is
incumbent upon him to prove with clear ,
positive,
and
convincing evidence that
his resignation
was
not
voluntary but
was
actually
a
case
of
constructive
dismissal ,
that
it
is
a
product
of
coercion
or
intimidation. Nelson
could not have been
coerced.
as

The
acts
of harassment, if true,
peculiar
circumstances
material
to

do not
suffice
the
execution

to
of

be considered
the
subject

21
resignation
letter
that
is
couched
language. Its content
confirmed
his

in
a
clear ,
concise
and
unmistakable intent
to resign.

categorical

Further,
Nelson
is
no
ordinary
laborer
with
limited
education
and
skills,
he
is
not
a
rank
and
file
employee
with
inadequate
understanding such that
he would be easily beguiled or
forced into doing
something
against
his
will.
He
was
a
management
employee
holding
a
responsible
position.

GIRLY

G. ICO
G.R.

vs. SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE,

No. 185100,

July 9, 2014,

729

SCRA

INC.

439.

When another employee

is soon after appointed to a
position which
the
employer
claims
has
been
abolished ,
while
the
employee
who had
to
vacate
the
same
is
transferred
against
her
will
to
a
position
which
does
not
exist
in
the
corporate structure ,
there
is
evidently
a
case of illegal
constructive dismissal.

MCMER CORPORATIONS, INC. vs. NLRC & FELICIANO LIBUNAO

G.R. No. 193421,

June 4,

2014,

725 SCRA 1

Constructive
dismissal
is
defined
as
a
cessation
of
work
because
continued employment
is rendered
impossible , unreasonable or
unlikely;
when
there is
a
demotion in
rank
or
diminution
in pay or both;
or when
a
clear
discrimination,
insensibility,
or
disdain
by
an
employer
becomes
unbearable
to
the employee.
The
test
of
constructive
dismissal
is
whether
a
reasonable
person
in
the
employers
position
would
have
felt
compelled
to
give
up
his
position
under
the
circumstances.
It
is
an
act
amounting
to
dismissal
but
made
to
appear
as
if
is
were
not .
Constructive
dismissal,
is
therefore, a
dismissal in disguise.
As
maybe
gleaned
from
the
records,
what
transpired
on
July
20,
2007 was not merely
an isolated outburst on the part of
the
employer .
The
latters
behavior
towards
his
employee
shows
a
clear
insensibility
rendering the
working
condition of
Libunao
unbearable.
Libunao had reason to dawdle and refuse to comply with the summons of
employer out of severe fear that he will be physically harmed.
In
to
the
incident.

fact, the
situation

same w as
by
going

VICENTE

ANG

clearly
manifested by
his immediate reaction
to
the
Valenzuela
Police
to
report
the

vs. CEFERINO SAN

G.R. No. 185549,

JOAQUIN, JR.

August 7, 2013, 703 SCRA 269

FACTS:
San
Joaquin
testified in
court
relative
to
the
filed
by
his
former
co-employees
against
his
employer,
latter began
treating him with hostility and
antagonism.
tearing
under

Later
his

on,
a
heated
argument
Daily Time Record.

The following day, he

preventive
suspension.

ISSUE:
Whether
the
constructive dismissal.

act

received
of

his

ensued
a

tearing

between

41
criminal
cases
Vicente
Ang.
The

them

Memorandum

from

employees

time

and

Ang
card

led

Ang

placing

him

constitutes

HELD: YES. By
destroying his time card,
Ang discontinued his relationship
with
San
Joaquin.
The
purpose
of
a
time
card
is
to
show
an
employees
attendance
in
office
for
work
and
to
be
paid
accordingly ,
taking into account
the policy of no work, no pay.

A
daily time
record is primarily
to
the
employer
which
could
result
employee for
no work done.

intended to prevent
damage or
in
instances
where
it
pays

loss
an

VENANCIO S. REYES vs. RP GUARDIANS SECURITY AGENCY

G.R. No. 193756, April 10, 2013,
There is
status beyond

an
the

695

illegal dismissal
when employees
reasonable six-month period.

SCRA 620
were

placed

on

floating

22
ORCHARD GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB vs. AMELIA R. FRANCISCO
G.R. No. 178125, March 18, 2013, 693 SCRA 497
Demotion

in

VOLUNTARY

rank

constitutes

constructive

ARBITRATOR
7K

CORPORATION

vs.

EDDIE

G.R. No. 182295, June 26, 2013,

The
dismissal
agreement

voluntary
arbitrator
and
entitlement
to
of
the
parties.

DEATH
AGILE

dismissal.

ALBANICO

699 SCRA 700

has
jurisdiction
backwages
only

over
when

the
legality
of
made
through

OF SEAFARER - INSTANCE WHEN

BENEFITS MAY
BE DENIED

MARITIME RESOURCES, INC. vs. APOLINARIO

G.R. No. 191034, October 1, 2014,

FACTS:
Dennis,
petitioner Agile.

son

of

Apolinario,

a
of

complaint
for
Dennis
who

Apolinario
filed
Agile
for
the
death
in
the
high
seas.

was

the
the

DEATH
N. SIADOR

737 SCRA 360

hired

as

ordinary

death
benefits
fell
from
the

seaman

by

against
petitioner
vessel
and
died

According to
Apolinario,
Dennis
actuation a
few
days
and moments
before
the
incident
point
to
the
conclusion
that
Dennis
was
already
mentally
disturbed
a
few
days before
he
plunged
into and
drowned in
the ocean
and
cannot be
considered
willful.
Although
the
unfortunate
incident was undisputed , Agile contends that
someone
saw
Dennis
jumped
overboard.
Additionally,
Agile
argues
that
because
of the
personal
circumstances
of
Dennis
characterized
by
heavy
personal
and
psychological
problems
may
have
driven
him
to
take
his
own
life.
This
was
found
by LA
LAs ruling.

also backed
up by statements
of crew
in
dismissing the complaint. On
appeal,

The
CA
reversed
the
NLRC
to
his
death,
Dennis
had
been
could not
be considered
to have
ISSUE:

Whether

Apolonio

is

entitled

members
and
NLRC
affirmed

and
sustained the
position that
suffering
from
mental
instability
intentionally taken his
life.
to

the

death

as
the
prior
and

benefits.

HELD:
NO.
Under
the
POEA-SEC,
no
compensation
shall
be
payable
in
respect
of
any
injury,
incapacity,
disability
or
death
of
the
seafarer
resulting
from
his
willful
or
criminal
act
or
intentional
breach
of
his
duties,
provided
however,
that
the
employer
can
prove
that
such
injury,
incapacity, disability or death is
directly attributable
to
the
seafarer.
As
a
claimant,
seafarers
death (1) is
the
employment.

Apolinario
has
the
work-related
and (2)

Sufficient
proof of
insanity or
negate the requirement of
willfulness

mental
as a

burden
of
proving
happened during the

sickness may
be
presented
matter of
counter - defense.

Since
the
willfulness
may
be
inferred
from
the
physical
of
the
seafarer,
the
insanity
or
mental
illness
required
to
must be one
that
deprived him of the
full control of his
this
regard,
selected
circumstances
prior
to
and
surrounding
might
have
provided
substantial
evidence
of
the
existence
insanity
or
mental
sickness.
own

Thus,
fault,

having
proved
that
the
his
father, Apolinario,
is

that
the
term of
to

act
itself
be
proven
senses .
In
his
death
of
such

death
of
Dennis
was
through
not
entitled to
death
benefits.

his

23
****GODS WAY IS THE BEST WAY****