Cebu Royal Plant VS.

NLRC
- NO! the dismissal is not proper under article 282 employess who is allowed to work after the
probation is a regular employee. Pilones was already on permanent status when he was
dismissed. He could validly claim security of tenure. The xray examination was made on
august 17 1978 and the results were not yet available. Petitioner had 6 months to examine the
respondent but he chose to wait until the last day of probation.
Sanchez Vs. Harry Lyons
- Plaintiffs are commercially employed and no time has been fixed in their contract for service.
Court hold that plaintiffs come within the perview of art 302 and that the waiver made in
advance was void as being contrary to public policy. It is safe to say that any employee who
waives in advance any benefit granted to him by law, certainly not in his interest or generosity.
But under a forceful intimidation of urgent need. Hence, he could not have so acted freely and
voluntarily.
Sosito VS. Aguinaldo Dev Corp
- The court held that the petioner was not entitled to the said benefit because at the time he
submittd his resignation letter was not in active service, having been on involuntary leave. A
labor dispute does not necessarily in favor of labor. The management also has its own right
which must also be afforded the protection as that of the labor.
Mendoza Vs. Rural Bank of Lucban
- Petition has no merit. In the pursuit of its legal business interest management has the
prerogative to transfer of assign employees from one area of operation of another provided
there is no demotion in rank or diminution in salary, benefits and other privilages. And the
action is not motivated by discrimination, made in bad faith or effected as form of punishment.
Pampanga Bus Vs. Pambusco Bus
- The right of the employer to choose its employee was violated. The court of industrial relation
has no authority to issue such order. The general right to make a contract in relation to ones
business is an essential part of the liberty of the citizen protected by the due process od the
constitution. The right of the laborer to sell his labor as he may choose is in its essence the
same as the right of an employer to purchase labor from any person who it chooses.
Gregorio Araneta Vs. Roldan
- The laying off of it employees was due to retrenchment policy which the company had to adopt
in order to reduce the overcapitalization and to minimize expenses. As a consequence the
volume of business is considerably reduces particularly when it is not aimed at the union or
any of its members for union or labor activity. It is not unfair labor practice.
CBTC Vs Clave
- The court declared that those rules and regulations as well as the policy instructions are null
and void. By disentitiling the monthly employees, the labor secretary exceeded rule-making
authority.
Juco VS NLRC
- National housing corp is a gocc in accordance with the uniform charter of government corp.
considering that the nha had been incorporated under art 1459 the former corporation law, its
a gocc whose employees are subj to the provision of the the labor code. Therefore NLRC has
jurisdiction over jucos case.

BLUM VS Zamora
- In the case, the records fail to show that San Miguel entered into mere oral agreements of
employment with the workers. Considering the length of time that the petitioners have worked
with the company, there is justification to conclude that they were engaged to perform
activities necessary in the usual business or trade. Despite past shutdowns of the glass plant,
the workers promptly returned to their jobs. The power of dismissal by the employer was
evident when the petitioners had already been refused entry to the premises. The amount paid
by San Miguel to the contracting firm is no business expense or capital outlay of the latter.
What the contractor receives is a percentage from the total earnings of all the workers plus an
additional amount from the earnings of each individual worker. The inter-office memoranda
submitted in evidence prove the companys control over the workers. That San Miguel has the
power to recommend penalties or dismissal is the strongest indication of the companys right
of control over the workers as direct employer.