Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Issue:
Whether or not the hiring of
G.R. No. 117040 January 27, independent security agency by
2000 Isetann to replace the Security
Checkers Section a valid ground for or contracted to outside agencies.
the termination of Ruben Serrano While there should be mutual
Whether or not the non- consultation, eventually deference is
compliance of Isetann of the 30-day to be paid to what management
written notice requirement in Art 283 decides. Consequently, absent proof
(old) of the Labor Code constituted a that management acted in a malicious
denial of due process or arbitrary manner, the Court will not
interfere with the exercise of
Ruling: judgement by an employer. The
Article 283 of the Labor Code termination of petitioners services
provides that the employer may also was for an authorized cause.
terminate the employment of any Supreme Court also held that
employee due to the installation of not all notice requirements are
labor-saving devices, redundancy, requirements of due process. Some
retrenchment to prevent losses or the are simply part of a procedure to be
closing or cessation of operations of followed before a right granted to a
the establishment or undertaking party can be exercised. With respect
unless the closing is for the purpose of to Art 283 of the Labor Code, the
circumventing the provisions of this employers failure to comply with the
Title, by serving a written notice on notice of requirement does not
the workers and the Department of constitute a denial of due process but
Labor and Employment at least one a mere failure to observe a procedure
month before the intended date for the termination of employment
thereof. In case of termination due to which makes the termination merely
the installation of labor-saving devices ineffectual.
or redundancy, the worker affected In sum, if in proceedings for
thereby shall be entitled to a reinstatement under Art. 283, it is
separation pay equivalent to at least shown that the termination of
one month pay or to at least one employment was due to an authorized
month pay for every year of service, cause, then the employee should not
whichever is higher. In case of be ordered reinstated even though
retrenchment to prevent losses and in there is failure to comply with the 30-
cases of closure or cessation of day notice requirement. Instead, he
operations of establishment or must be granted separation pay in
undertaking not due to serious accordance with Art. 283.
business losses or financial reverses, If employees separation is
the separation pay shall be equivalent without cause, instead of being given
to at least one month pay or at least separation pay, he should be
one-half month pay for every year of reinstated. In either case, whether he
service, whichever is higher. A fraction is reinstated or only granted
of at least six months shall be separation pay, he should be paid full
considered as one whole year. backwages if he has been laid off
Supreme Court held that without written notice at least 30 days
Management cannot be denied the in advance.
faculty of promoting efficiency and Petition granted and the
attaining economy by a study of what resolution the NLRC is modifies by
units are essential for its preparation. ordering Isetann to pay petitioner
To it belongs the ultimate separation pay equivalent to one
determination of whether services month pay for every year of service
should be performed by its personnel and full backwages from the time his
employment was terminated up to the with recruiting a certain number of
time decision becomes final. agents, in addition to his other
administrative functions, leads to no
other conclusion that he was an
TONGKO vs. MANULIFE
employee of Manulife.
FACTS:
2. Manulife did not even point out
Tongko started working at Manulife by
which order or rule that Tongko
virtue of a Career Agents Agreement.
disobeyed. More importantly, Manulife
He was first named as Unit Manager in
did not point out the specific acts that
Manulifes Sales Agency Organization
Tongko was guilty of that would
and later on as Branch Manager. When
constitute gross and habitual neglect
Manulife instituted manpower
of duty or disobedience. Manulife
development programs in the regional
merely cited Tongko's alleged laggard
sales management level, he received
performance, without substantiating
a letter informing him that his region
such claim, and equated the same to
is the lowest performer in terms of
disobedience and neglect of duty.
recruiting. As a result, meetings were
held to tackle on issues and Tongko
Here, Manulife failed to overcome
was provided with directives as part of
such burden of proof. It must be
the changes needed to meet the goal.
reiterated that Manulife even failed to
Subsequently, Tongko received a
identify the specific acts by which
notice of termination with 15-day
Tongko's employment was terminated
effectivity from receipt of such letter.
much less support the same with
substantial evidence. To repeat, mere
ISSUES:
conjectures cannot work to deprive
1. Was there an employer-
employees of their means of
employee relationship between
livelihood. Thus, it must be concluded
Manulife and Tongko?
that Tongko was illegally dismissed.
2. If yes, was Manulife guilty of
illegal dismissal?
Moreover, as to Manulife's failure to
comply with the twin notice rule, it
RULING:
reasons that
1. Thus, with the company
Tongko not being its employee is not
regulations and requirements alone,
entitled to such notices. Since we have
the fact that Tongko was an employee
ruled that
of Manulife may already be
Tongko is its employee, however,
established. Certainly, these
Manulife clearly failed to afford Tongko
requirements controlled the means
said notices.
and methods by which Tongko was to
Thus, on this ground too, Manulife is
achieve the company's goals.
guilty of illegal dismissal.
Additionally, it must be pointed out
that the fact that Tongko was tasked
ARMANDO ALILING, petitioner, vs. Code speaks of procedural due
JOSE B. FELICIANO, MANUEL F. process, the reference is usually to the
SAN MATEO III, JOSEPH R. two (2) notice rule, envisaged in
LARIOSA AND WIDE WIDE WORLD Section 2 (III), Rule XXIII, Book V of the
EXPRESS CORPORATION, Omnibus Rules of Implementing the
respondents. Labor Code which provides:
Here, the first and second notice Respondents then filed Civil Case No.
requirements have not been properly 69294 for Temporary Restraining
observed, thus tainting petitioners Order (TRO), Injunction and Annulment
dismissal with illegality. of Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale. They
imputed bad faith on the part of
petitioner who did not officially inform
EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC. vs. OJ- them of the denial or disapproval of
MARK TRADING, INC. and their proposal to settle the loan
SPOUSES OSCAR AND EVANGELINE obligation by dacion via assignment of
MARTINEZ a commercial property. The trial court
granted a TRO effective for twenty
G.R. No. 165950 (August 11, 2010) (20) days.
HELD:
FACTS:
The 1996 POEA SEC concerning
The late Delfin Dela Cruz was disability claims and sickness
contracted by Philippine Transmarine allowance applies to the case where it
carriers for the position of Oiler. He left states on Section 20 (3) that upon sign
the Philippines and embarked on off for the purpose for medical
August 17, 2000. While performing treatment, the seafarer shall submit
regular duties,, he was hit by a metal himself to a post-employment medical
on his back. He requested medical examination within three working days
attention and was advised to be given upon his return except when he is
light duties. Upon the vessels arrival physically incapacitated to do so, in
at a convenient port on August 16, which case, a written notice to the
2001, his contract expired and was agency within the same period is
signed off from the vessel. He also deemed as compliance. Furthermore,
sought medical assistance but was not failure to do such mandatory reporting
extended such. Afterwards, he was not requirements shall result in his
employed because he was already forfeiture of the right to claim the
incapacitated to engage in his benefits. Unfortunately, the petitioners
customary work. On November 13, failed to show the steps supposedly
2003, he went to De Los Santos undertaken by Delfin to comply with
Medical Center and underwent X-Ray the mandatory reporting requirement.
and MRI of the Spine. He filed his To the Courts mind, this lapse on
petitioners part only demonstrates Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled,
that Delfin did not comply with what We rule for the respondents..
was incumbent upon him. The
reasonable conclusion is that at the The principle that the CBA is the law
time of his repatriation, Delfin was not between the contracting parties
suffering from any physical disability
stands strong and true. However, the
requiring immediate medical
attendance. present controversy involves not
Wherefore, the Petition is merely an interpretation of CBA
hereby DENIED. provisions. More importantly, it
requires a determination of the effect
of an executive order on the terms and
Marcopper Mining Corporation vs the conditions of the CBA. This is, and
National Labor Relations
should be, the focus of the instant
commission and National Mines
and Allied Workers Union G.R. No. case. It is unnecessary to delve too
103525 March 29, 1996 much on the intention of the parties as
to what they allegedly meant by the
Facts: Marcopper mining corporation term "basic wage" at the time the CBA
entered into a Collective Bargaining and MOA were executed because
Agreement with the National Mines there is no question that as of 1 May
and Allied Workers Union effective 1987, as mandated by E.O. No. 178,
from May 1, 1984 until April 1987. the basic wage of workers, or the
Before the expiration of the CBA, they statutory minimum wage, was
executed a memorandum of increased with the integration of the
agreement modifying the CBA by COLA. As of said date, then, the term
adding wage increase 5% of the basic "basic wage" includes the COLA. This
rate, to be effective May 1, 1987. On is what the law ordains and to which
June 1, 1987 Executive Order no. 178 the collective bargaining agreement of
was promulgated and it mandated the the parties must conform.
integration of the cost of living
allowance into the basic wage of the Petitioner's arguments eventually lose
workers, its effectivity retroacts to May steam in the light of the fact that
1, 1987. Petitioner implemented it by compliance with the law is mandatory
increasing first by 5% the basic rate and beyond contractual stipulation by
base on the CBA and then integrating and between the parties;
the cost of living allowance to the consequently, whether or not
basic wage, the respondents assailed petitioner intended the basic wage to
such manner of increase and argued include the COLA becomes immaterial.
that cost of living allowance should There is evidently nothing to construe
first be integrated before the 5% and interpret because the law is clear
increase of the CBA is computed. and unambiguous. Unfortunately for
petitioner, said law, by some uncanny
Issue: Whether or not E.O. No. 178 coincidence, retroactively took effect
should take effect before computing on the same date the CBA increase
the CBA increase? became effective. Therefore, there
cannot be any doubt that the practice, alleging that PAL violated
computation of the CBA increase on paragraphs E and G of Article 249 and
the basis of the "integrated" wage Article 253 of the Labor Code, because
does not constitute a violation of the the implementation of the Code of
CBA. Discipline was unilaterally
implemented without notice and prior
Finally, petitioner misinterprets the discussion with the Union. Also, some
declaration of the Labor Arbiter in the provisions of the Code run counter to
assailed decision that "when the the construction of penal laws and
pendulum of judgment swings to and making punishable any offense within
fro and the forces are equal on both PALs contemplation. Lastly, PALEA
sides, the same must be stilled in alleged that copies of the Code had
favor of labor." While petitioner been circulated in limited numbers.
acknowledges that all doubts in the
interpretation of the Labor Code shall PAL, on the other had asserts its
be resolved in favor of labor, it insists prerogative as an employer to
that what is involved here is the prescribe rules and regulations
amended CBA which is essentially a regarding employees conduct in
contract between private persons. carrying out their duties and functions,
What petitioner has lost sight of is the and alleging that by implementing the
avowed policy of the State, enshrined Code, it had not violated the collective
in our Constitution, to accord utmost bargaining agreement or any provision
protection and justice to labor, a of the Labor Code. PAL maintained
policy, we are, likewise, sworn to that Article 253 cited by PALEA
uphold. referred to the requirement for
negotiating a CBA which was
Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) vs. inapplicable in this case.
National Labor Relations
Commision, Labor Arbiter Isabel P.
Ortiguerra, and Philippine Airlines The Labor Arbiter Isabel Ortiguerra
Employees Association (PALEA), found that there was no bad faith on
G.R. No. 85985 (August 13, 1993) the part of PAL in adopting the Code
and ruled that there was no unfair
Facts: In 1985, Philippine Airlines, Inc. labor practice. However, PAL was not
(PAL) completely revised its 1966 Code totally fault free. Management
of Discipline which was circulated prerogative must meet
among the employees and was reasonableness, propriety and
immediately implemented. In effect, fairness. Also, PAL failed to prove that
some employees were subjected to the new Code was amply circulated.
the disciplinary measures embodied Thus, PAL was ordered to furnish all
therein. On August, the same year, the employees with the new Code, to
Philippine Airlines Employees reconsider the cases of employees
Association (PALEA) filed a complaint meted with penalties under the new
before the National Labor Relations Code and discuss with PALEA the
Commission (NLRC) for unfair labor objected provisions. NLRC affirms.
Petitioner's assertion that it needed
Issue/s: Whether the formulation of a the implementation of a new Code of
Code of Discipline among employees Discipline considering the nature of its
business cannot be overemphasized.
is a shared responsibility of the
Nonetheless, whatever disciplinary
employer and the employees. measures are adopted cannot be
properly implemented in the absence
Ruling:The petition is DISMISSED and of full cooperation of the employees.
the questioned decision AFFIRMED. Such cooperation cannot be attained if
the employees are restive on account
The exercise by management of its of their being left out in the
determination of cardinal and
prerogative shall be done in a just,
fundamental matters affecting their
reasonable, humane and/or lawful employment.
manner.