ARPON, Marco O.

Labor Standards

Article 4. Construction In Favor of Labor Law

All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its
implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favour of labor.

Definition of Labor Law.

Labor law is that branch of law that pertains to employees, employers and labor organizations; their
rights and obligations and governs their relationship.

In the interpretation and construction of labor we follow the Liberal Approach to

Laborers welfare.

-In carrying out and interpreting the Labor Codes provision and its implementing rules and
regulations, the working mans welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration.

In addition, article 1702 of the CivilCode provides that in case of doubt, all labor legislations and all
labor contracts shall be construed in favour of the safety and decent living for the labourer.

This kind of interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the
law as embodied in Art. 4 of the labor code and Article 1702 of the civil code. As well as the
Constitutional mandate that the State shall afford full protection to labor and promote full
employment opportunities for all.

What is the reason for according greater protection to employees?

In matter of employment bargaining, there is no doubt the employer stands on higher footing than
the employee.

Consequently, the law must protect labor: to the extent of raising him to equal footing in bargaining
relations with capital and to shield him from abuses brought about by the necessity for survival.

The 1987 Constitution (Art II, Sec 18) declares as a state policy that the state affirms labor as
primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.

The Constitution specifies the guaranteed basic rights of workers, namely:

(1) to organize themselves (2) to conduct collective bargaining(3) to engage in peaceful

concerted activities, including to strike in accordance with law (4) to enjoy security of tenure (5) to
work under humane conditions (6) to receive a living wage (7) to participate in policy and decision-
making process affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.

Moreover, the right to obtain justice is enjoyed by all members of society, rich or poor,
worker or manager, alien or citizen. Justice belongs to everyone. Justice not expediency
is the higher end of law. And the law does not favour favouritism amounting to injustice.

Although this code hardly mentions the employer, except in regulating their relations.
The plain reality is that both sector needs each other.They are interdependent.

In as much as the SC has inclined more often than not toward the worker and upheld his
cause in his conflicts with the employer.Such favouritism, however, has not blinded the
SC to rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in light of the
established facts and applicable law and doctrine.

The Sec of Labor is duly mandated to equally protect and respect both the employee and employer.

The following are the most fundamental of the management rights of an employer:
1Right to ROI or Return of Investments.
2Right to prescribe Rules (binding and valid on the parties unless shown to be grossly oppressive or
contrary to law.
3Right to Select Employees.
4Right to Transfer or Discharge Employees

The law imposes restrictions to management rights

Art. 19 of civil code expressly restricts these rights. A right if abused becomes a legal wrong.
Management rights are subject to limitations provided by law, contracts and general principles of fair
play and justice.

CASE:

G.R. No. 111651 March 15, 1996

OSMALIK S. BUSTAMANTE, PAULINO A. BANTAYAN, FERNANDO L. BUSTAMANTE, MARIO
D. SUMONOD, and SABU J. LAMARAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
FIFTH DIVISION and EVERGREEN FARMS, INC.
PADILLA, J.:

FACTS: Respondent company is engaged in the business of producing high grade bananas in its
plantation in Davao del Norte. Petitioners Paulino Bantayan, Fernando Bustamante, Mario Sumonod
and Osmalik Bustamante were employed as laborers and harvesters while petitioner Sabu Lamaran
was employed as a laborer and sprayer in respondent companys plantation. All the petitioners signed
contracts of employment for a period of six (6) months from 2 January 1990 to 2 July 1990, but they
had started working sometime in September 1989. Previously, they were hired to do the same work
for periods lasting a month or more, from 1985 to 1989. Before the contracts of employment expired
on 2 July 1990, petitioners employments were terminated on 25 June 1990 on the ground of poor
performance on account of age, as not one of them was allegedly below forty (40) years old.
Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

ISSUE: Whether or not private respondent exercises its power to terminate in good faith so as to
make the award of backwages improper in this case.

RULING: We do not sustain public respondents theory that private respondent should not be made
to compensate petitioners for backwages because its termination of their employment was not made
in bad faith. The act of hiring and re-hiring the petitioners over a period of time without considering
them as regular employees evidences bad faith on the part of private respondent. The public
respondent made a finding to this effect when it stated that the subsequent rehiring of petitioners on
a probationary status clearly appears to be a convenient subterfuge on the part of management to
prevent complainants (petitioners) from becoming regular employees.