Labor Law Review 2017 Syllabus

LABOR LAW REVIEW
COURSE OUTLINE FOR SUMMER

(Updated April 2017)
For Adamson University College of Law

And Far Eastern University Institute of Law
Dean Ada D. Abad

0917-526-9732
Course description:
[Cases, recitations and lectures, 3 hours a week – 3 units] – A general review of all laws affecting labor
standards, labor relations and welfare legislation. Prerequisite: Labor Standards; Labor Relations
Course requirements:
Attendance, quizzes and recitation: 40%

Midterm examinations: 30%
Final Examinations: 30%
Reference Materials:
Abad, Antonio H. Jr and Anna Maria D. Abad. Compendium on Labor Law. Rex Book Store, 84 P. Florentino St., Quezon
City. Fifth edition, 2015.
Foz, Vicente, editor. The Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, with Appendices and Abstracts,
2012 edition. Philippine Law Gazette, 28 Consult st., Fairview Park, Quezon City. (may be purchased at National
Book Store).
Rex Bookstore Labor Codals 2016 edition (in accordance with renumbering under DOLE Labor Advisory No. 1 s. 2015,
[August 2015]).
DAY ONE
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Constitutional and statutory basis
1.1 Consti., art. 2, secs. 9-14, 18 and 20.

1.2 Consti., art. 3, secs. 10 and 18
1.2 Consti., art. 13, sec. 3
1.3 Labor Code, art. 112
1.4 Civil Code, Article 1700
2. General principles of labor law
2.1 Existence of employer-employee relationship is necessary for the application of labor laws
(See Section B for cases)
a) Principle of incorporation
b) Employment not merely a contractual relationship:

Capitol Medical Center vs. Meris, 470 SCRA 125 [2005]
Convoy Marketing Corporation, et al. vs. Oliver B. Albia, G.R. No. 194969, 07 October 2015.
c) Who has initial burden of proving existence of an employer-employee relationship?

Danilo P. Javier (Bitoy Javier) vs. FlyAce Corporation, G.R. No. 192558, 15 February 2012
Labor Law Review Syllabus | 2018
Bernard A. Tenazas, Jaime Francisco, and Isidro Endraca v. R. Villegas Taxi Transport, G.R. No. 192998, 02
April 2014
Valencia v. Classique Vinyl Products Corp., G.R. No. 206390, 30 January 2017 [J. Del Castillo]
2.2 Burden of proof upon employer to show validity of the exercise of its prerogatives
2.3 Only substantial evidence is required in administrative proceedings

Alilem Credit Cooperative vs. Bandiola, G.R. No. 173489, 25 February 2013
2.4 In case of doubt or ambiguity, liberal interpretation of law in favor of workers

Price vs. Innodata Phils., 567 SCRA 122 [2008]
BPI vs. BPI Employees Union – Metro Manila, G.R. No. 175678, 22 August 2012
Philippine Journalist Inc. vs. Journal Employees Union, G.R. No. 192601, 26 June 2013
National Union Of Workers In Hotel Restaurant And Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN) - Philippine Plaza Chapter vs.
Philippines Plaza Inc., G.R. No. 177524, 23 July 2014.
En contra: Mitsubishi Motors Phils. Salaried Employees Union (MMPSEU) vs. Mitsubishi Motors Phils Corp., G.R.
No. 175773, 17 June 2013
2.5 But management rights likewise protected

Best Wear Garments vs. De Lemos, G.R. No 191281, 05 December 2012.
2.6 Paradigm shift towards mutual cooperation - Consti, Art XIII, Sec. 3
Toyota Motor Phils. Workers vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 171
2.7 Principle of Social and Distributive Justice: Balancing of interests in case workers and
management’s rights collide.
Reynaldo Moya vs. First Solid Rubber Industries, G.R. No. 184011, 18 September 2013
B. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
1. Employer defined: Art. 219 [prev 212] (e), LC;

DOLE Dept. Order 40 [2003], R1 S1 (s)
2. Employee defined: Art. 219 [prev 212] (f), LC

DOLE Dept. Order 40 [2003], R1 S1 (r)
3. Employer relationship as matrix
3.1 Concept of employer-employee relationship
3.2 Tests to determine the existence of employer-employee relationship

(Memory aid: South West Disaster Control)
a. Selection and hiring
b. Payment of Wages
c. Power of Dismissal
d. Control test
Cases:
Republic of the Philippines represented by the Social Security Commission and Social Security Services
vs. Asiapro Cooperative, G.R. No. 172101, 23 November 2007
Legend Hotel [Manila], owned by Titanium Corporation, et al. vs. Hernani S. Realuyo, also known as Joey
Roa. G.R. No. 153511, 18 July 2012.
Navarette vs. Manila Intl Freight Forwarders, G.R. No. 200580, 11 Feb 2015.
Diamond Farms, Inc. vs. Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL), etc., et al., G.R. Nos. 173254-
55 and 173263, 13 January 2016.
3.3 Who has jurisdiction to determine ER-EE relationship: Secretary of Labor or the National Labor
Relations Commission?
People’s Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo Phils) vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 179652, 08 May 2009
3.4 Reasonable causal connection:

2
Indophil Textile Mills Vs. Adviento, G.R. No. 171212, 04 August 2014
Is a car benefit a labor or a civil dispute?

Smart Communications vs. Astorga, 542 SCRA 434, 27 Jan 2008
Grandteq Industrial Steel Products vs. Edna Margallo, G.R. No. 181393, 28 July 2009.
Counterclaim involving transfer of ownership of company car falls within ambit of the Labor
Arbiter’s jurisdiction. Domondon vs. NLRC, 471 SCRA 559 [2005]
3.5 Corporate officer or employee?
Prudential Bank vs. Clarita Reyes, 352 SCRA 316

Renato Real vs. Sangu Philippines, Inc. G.R. No.168757, 19 January 2011
Raul C. Cosare vs. Broadcom Asia, Inc. and Dante Arevalo, G.R. No. 201298, 05 February 2014
Extent of liability of corporate officers: General rule and exception
Essencia Q. Manarpiis vs. Texan Philippines, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 197011, 28 January 2015
The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf Philippines, Inc. vs. Rolly P. Arenas, G.R. No. 208908, 11 March 2015.
3.7 Effect when NO employer-employee relationship exists, or when the main issue does not involve Er-
Ee relationship
- jurisdiction devolves with the regular courts
Manliguez vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 427

Georg Grotjahn GMBH vs. Isnani, 235 SCRA 216
DAY TWO
4. WHEN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT EXIST Re: VALID JOB
CONTRACTING ARRANGEMENTS
DOLE Department Order No. 18 series of 2002; Dept. Order No. 18-A, 14 November 2011 and Dept. Order No. 1,
series of 2012.
4.1 Management prerogative to contract out of services

Alviado et. al. vs. Procter & Gamble, and Promm Gemm, G.R. No. 160506, 09 March 2010
Coca-Cola Bottlers vs. Dela Cruz, et. al., G.R. No. 184977, 07 December 2009
4.2 Independent contractor/ Job-contracting vs. Labor-only contracting (Art. 106, LC; Dept. Order No.
18-02 [21 February 2002]; Department Order No. 18-A, series of 2011)
Marites R. Cusap vs. Adidas Philippines, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 201494, 29 July 2015
Petron Corporation vs. Armz Caberte, G.R. No. 182255, 15 June 2015
Fonterra Brands Phils., Inc. vs. Leonardo Largado, et al., G.R. No. 205300, 18 March 2015
Alilin vs. Petron, G.R. No. 177592, 09 June 2014.
HOWEVER, PRELIMINARY PRESUMPTION IS THAT CONTRACTOR IS LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING. --

Garden of Memories Park and Life Plan vs. NLRC 2 nd Division, G.R. No. 160278, 08 Feb 2012, 665
SCRA 293, J. Mendoza, citing 7K Corporation vs. NLRC, GR 148490, 22 Nov 2006, 507 SCRA 509, 523
Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. vs. Ezard D. Lluz, et al., G.R. No. 208451, 03 February 2016
THE PRINCIPAL HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW THAT THE PERSON CONCERNED IS AN
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR RATHER THAN A REGULAR EMPLOYEE. -- Fuji Television Network, Inc. vs.
Arlene S. Espiritu G.R. No. 204944-45, 03 December 2014
4.3 Examples
Masiador and sentenciador in a cockpit; not employees.

Semblante vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 196426, 15 August 2011.
3
Manufacturing company vs. forwarding agent

Temic Automotive Phils. vs. Temic Automotive Phils. Employees Union –FFW, G.R. No. 18695, 23
December 2009
Television Company vs. Talent

Jose Sonza vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 138051, 10 June 2004
Compare with:
ABS-CBN vs. Nazareno, GR 164156, 26 Sept 2006
Farley Fulache et al vs. ABS-CBN, GR 183810, 21 Jan 2010
Nelson V. Begino, et al., vs. ABS-CBN Corporation, etc., G.R. No. 199166, 20 April 2015.
Insurance company vs. commission agents

Insular Life vs. NLRC, 179 SCRA 459
Contra: Tongko vs. Manufacturers' Life Insurance Company (Phils.) Inc., G.R. No. 167622, 29 June
2010, En Banc
4.4 Salient features of the Department Orders on Valid Job Contracting Arrangements: capitalization,
other requirements and negative list
 Mandatory registration of independent contractors (DO18, s11)

 Requirements for registration
 Declaration of Net Financial Contracting Capacity (DO18A, s3[g])
 Capitalization of at least P3Million (DO18A, s13[l])
 THE NEGATIVE LIST - What cannot be subcontracted out (DO18, as amended by DO18A , s7)
4.5 Liability of principal for unpaid wages of the employees of job contractor – Solidary liability as to
wages and monetary claims
Compare with: Liability of principal to labor-only contracting employees – solidary liability as to

ALL claims
4.5 Effect of DOLE Certification as legitimate job contractor

Ramy Gallego vs. Bayer Phils. G.R. No. 179807, 31 July 2009
Compare with: Coca Cola Bottlers vs. Ricky dela Cruz, supra.
and Coca Cola Bottlers vs. Agito, G.R.No. 179546, 13 Feb 09
4
5. COVERAGE OF LABOR CODE, ART. 6:
5.1 Covered employment

a. Industrial and agricultural employees
b. Employees of labor organization
c. Employees of independent contractor
d. Employees of non-stock, non-profit organizations
5.2 Excluded employment
a. Government employees
Special circumstances: Government employees with CBA
Abanilla vs. Comm on Audit, 468 SCRA 87 [2005]
Compare with: Employees of GOCCs
b. Exempted employers
c. Managerial employees, with respect to right to unionize
C. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES
1. Generally:
San Miguel Brewery Sales vs. Ople, 170 SCRA 25
2. Examples of the exercise of management prerogatives
2.1 Hiring of personnel and size of workforce

Wiltshire File Co. vs. NLRC, 193 SCRA 665
2.2 Taking out of chairs in assembly line

Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., G.R. 198783, 15 April 2013
2.3 Prohibition against Elective Office

Ymbong vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. 184885, 07 March 2012
2.4 Search of office computer to check misconduct

Briccio “Ricky” Pollo vs. Chairperson Karina Constantino-David, G.R. 181881, 18 October 2012
2.5 Transfer of employees: may employee refuse transfer by raising said transfer as a grievance?
Manila Pavillion vs. Henry Delada, GR 189947, 25 January 2012
2.6 Terms and conditions upon hiring; qualification and change in law
St. Luke’s Medical Center Employees’ Union – AFW vs. NLRC, 517 SCRA 677 [2007]
2.7 Terms and conditions upon hiring; ban on spouses in same company:
Star Paper vs. Simbol, 487 SCRA 228 [2006]
Compare with: Stipulations against marriage

Duncan Association of Detailman – PGTWO and Tecson vs. Glaxo Wellcome Phils., G.R. No. 164774,
12 April 2006; 438 SCRA 343 [2004]
2.8 Terms and conditions upon hiring; non-compete clauses

Dator vs. UST, Rev. Frs. Tamerlane Lana and Rodel Aligan, 31 Aug. 2006
Moreno vs. San Sebastian College-Recoletos, Manila, 550 SCRA 415 [28 March 2008]
Avon Cosmetics Vs. Leticia Luna, Gr No. 153674, 20 Dec 2006
2.9 Imposition of weight requirement:

Armando G. Yrasuegui vs Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 168081, 17 October 2008.
5
2.10 Permissible reduction of working hours
2.11 Reorganization as an exercise of management prerogatives

Jonathan V. Morales vs. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc., G.R. No. 174208, 25 January 2011.
3. Policies as to employee classification/status

Goya Inc. vs. Goya Employees Union, G.R. No. 170054, 21 January 2013
Doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”

Philex Gold Phils. vs. Philex Bulawan Supervisors’ Union, 468 SCRA 111 [2005]
3.1 Regular vs. casual employees, Art. 295 [prev 280], LC;
Policy Instructions No.12; Dept. Order No. 10, Art. IV amending
Sec. 5, Rule 1, Bk. IV of Implementing Rules)
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp vs. Acibo, G.R. No. 186439, 15 January 2014, J. Brion
MacArthur Malicdem and Hermenegildo Flores vs. Marulas Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 204406, 26
February 2014. J. Mendoza
Route helpers:
Romeo Basau, et al., vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, G.R. No. 174365-66, 04 February 2015.
Emmanuel D. Quintanar, et al., vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 210565, 28 June 2016.
3.2 Probationary employees, Art. 297 [prev 282], LC; Policy Insts No. 11;
Dept. Order No. 10, Article V amending Sec. 6, Rule 1,
Book VI of Implementing Rules
Intl. Catholic Migration vs. NLRC, 169 SCRA 606

Biboso vs. Victorias Milling, 76 SCRA 250
Mariwasa vs. Leogario, 169 SCRA 465
Abbot Laboratories, Philippines vs. Pearlie Ann Alcaraz, G.R. No. 192571, 22 April 2014
Extended probationary period; when allowed.

Ver Buiser vs. GTE Directories, 131 SCRA 151
Contra: University of the East, Dean Eleanor Javier et. al vs. Analiza Pepanio and Mariti D. Bueno, G.R.
No. 193891, 23 January 2013
Training plus probationary period equals double probation:

Holiday Inn Manila vs. NLRC, 226 SCRA 417 [1993]
No need to inform probationary employee that he has to comply with all company rules and
regulations
Phil. Daily Inquirer vs. Magtibay, GR 164532, 24 July 2007
ON PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT WITH A TERM:

Pines City Educational Ctr. vs. NLRC, 227 SCRA 655 [1993]
Lacuesta vs. Ateneo de Manila, 477 SCRA 217 [2005]
But probationary nature to prevail over term:

Yolanda Mercado vs. AMA Computer College Paranaque, 13 Apr 2010
3.3 Term employment
Brent School vs. Zamora, 181 SCRA 702

Anderson vs. NLRC, 252 SCRA 116 [1996]
AMA Computer College Paranaque vs. Austria, 538 SCRA 438 [2007]
CONTRA: instances when term employment was used as a scheme to preclude security of tenure
Pakistan Air Lines vs. Ople, 190 SCRA 90
Cielo vs. NLRC, 193 SCRA 410
6
Magsalin vs. Natl Orgn of Working Men, G.R. No. 148492, 09 May 2003
Arlene T. Samonte, et al. vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 199683, 10 February 2016
3.4 Project employees, Art. 295 [prev 280], LC; Policy Instructions No. 20
DOLE Dept Order No. 19, series of 1993, Section 2.2 [e] and [f]
Ma. Charito C. Gadia, et al. vs. Sykes Asia, Inc. et al., G.R. No. 209499, 28 January 2015
Omni Hauling Services, Inc. vs. Bernardo Bon, G.R. No. 199388, 03 September 2014.
Cocomangas Hotel Beach Resort vs. Visca, 567 SCRA 269 [2008]
Herma Shipyard, Inc. v. Oliveros, G.R. No. 208936, 17 April 2017 (Del Castillo)
Indicators of project employment, enumerated:

Hanjin Heavy Industries vs. Ibanez, GR 170181, 26 June 2008
Absence of definite duration for projects lead to conclusion of regular employment. – PNOC-Energy
Devlpt Bd vs. NLRC, 521 SCRA 222 [2007]
Work pool explained:

Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works vs. NLRC, 466 SCRA 265 [2005]
Project employment for a fixed term:

Alumamay O. Jamias, et al. vs. NLRC (2nd Div.), et al., G.R. No. 159350, 09 March 2016.
3.5 Seasonal Employees

Mercado vs. NLRC, 201 SCRA 332
Hacienda Fatima vs. Natl Federation of Sugarcane Workers, 396 SCRA 518 [28 Jan 2003]
EMERGING TREND: REGULAR SEASONAL WORKERS.

Gapayao vs. Fulo and SSS, G.R. No. 193493, 13 June 2013 (Sereno, C.J.)
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation and Rene Cabati, G.R. No. 186439. 15 January 2014. J Brion.
Hacienda Cataywa, et al. vs. Rosario Lorenzo, G.R. No. 179640, 18 March 2015.
3.6 Managerial employees vs. supervisory employees

Art. 219 [prev 212] (m), LC; Policy Instructions No. 8
Rural Bank of Cantilan vs. Julve, 517 SCRA 17 [2007]
Echevarria vs. Venutek Medika, 516 SCRA 72 [2007]
Asian Institute of Management vs. AIM Faculty Association, G.R. No. 207971, 23 January 2017. (J. Del
Castillo)
3.7 Field personnel

Hilario Dasco, et al. vs. Philtranco Service Enterprises Inc., et al., G.R. No. 211141, 29 June 2016.
3.8 Workers on piece-rate, pakyaw (pakiao) or task basis

A. Nate Casket Maker et a. vs. Elias V. Arango, et al., G.R. No. 192282, 05 October 2016.
3.9 Domestic helper or person in the personal service of another; kasambahay

Republic Act No. 10361 otherwise known as The “Batas Kasambahay”.
DAY THREE
D. RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
Department Order No. 9. [21 June 1997], and
Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003], Rule II
Republic Act No. 9481 (25 May 2007)
1. Principles of distributive and social justice found in the constitution; rights of workers
7
ART II (State Policies), Sec. 9

ART. III, Secs. 1 and 8;
ART. XII (National Economy and Patrimony), Secs. 1, 6 and 12.
ART XIII (Social Justice & Human Rights; Labor), Secs. 1 & 3
Article 3, Labor Code: Declaration of Policy
2. Who cannot unionize for purposes of collective bargaining
2.1 Government employees [ supra., Part B, sec. 5.2 (a) ]
2.2 Employees of government-owned and controlled corporations

with original charters
2.3 Members of a cooperative

Benguet Electric Cooperative vs. Caleja, 180 SCRA 740
BUT: Republic of the Philippines represented by SSS vs. AsiaPro Cooperative, G.R. No. 172101, 23 Nov 2007
2.4 Managerial employees, Art. 245 cf. Art. 212 [m], Labor Code
Dept. Order No. 9, Rule II, Sec. 2; Dept Order 40, R1 S1(hh)
Higher standards required of managers:
Sim vs. NLRC, 534 SCRA 515 [2007]
2.5 Confidential employees

Philips Industrial Development vs. NLRC, 210 SCRA 339
Golden Farms vs. Sec. of Labor, 234 SCRA 517
Sugbuanon Rural Bank vs. NLRC, 324 SCRA 425 [2000]
Contra:
De la Salle Univ. vs. DLSU-Employees Assn., 330 SCRA 363 [2000]
San Miguel Cor. Supervisory and Exempt Employees Union vs. Laguesma, 277 SCRA 370
2.6 Employees of International Organizations or Specialized Agencies which are registered with the United
Nations and enjoys diplomatic immunity
Contra:
German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) vs. CA, GR No. 152318, 16 April 2009
3. Who can unionize for purposes of collective bargaining

Art. 245 LC cf. B5 R2 S1, IRR
3.1 Supervisory employees (cannot join with rank and file)

Defined: DO40, R1 S1 (xx)
But note: Can they belong to the same Federation?

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9481, Section 8, amending Article 245 of the Labor Code.
3.2 Rank and file employees (But cannot join supervisory union)
Defined: DO40, R1 S1 (nn)
3.3 Security guards

Philips Industrial Development vs. NLRC, (supra.) 210 SCRA 339
3.4 Alien employees with valid working permits

Dept. Order No. 9 [1997], Rule II, Sec. 2
E. LABOR ORGANIZATION
DOLE Department Order No. 9. [21 June 1997], and
Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003], Rule III
1. Definitions
8
1.1 Labor organization - Art. 212 (g); Dept. Order No. 9, RI, S(h)
DO 40, R1, S1 (cc)
1.2 Legitimate labor organization - 212 (h); DO 9, RI, S(i);

DO 40, R1, S1 (ee)
Effect: Art. 242, LC Book 5, Rule 2, Sec. 10, IRR
1.3 Company union - Art. 212 (i)
1.4 Others: Legitimate Workers’ Association, DO40, R1 S1 (ff)
2. Rationale for unionization
3. Union registration and procedure (Department Order No. 9. [21 June 1997], and Department Order No.
40, [17 February 2003], Rule 3, Sections 1-11; Article 234 LC as amended by Rep. Act No. 9481)
3.1 Independent union, requirements for organization

Art. 234, LC; B5 R2 S2-4, IRR; DO 9, RIII, S(i); DO40 R3 S2
Republic Act No. 9481, Section 1, amending Art. 234, LC
3.2 Affiliation with federation or national union, requirements for orgn.

Art. 234 & 237, LC; B5 R2 S2-4, IRR; DO 9, RIII, S(II); DO40 R3 S2, S6-9
Art. 234-A, LC as inserted by Republic Act No. 9481
Chartered Local, defined under DO No. 40, RI S1(i)
3.3 Attestation requirements - verified by Secretary/Treasurer, and

attested by President thereof - DO 9, RV, S2(i)
Whether charter certificate issued by Federation needs to be certified and attested to by the local
union officers, as part of the registration requirements of a charter –
Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Cehmical Soidarily of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms
(SMCC-SUPER) vs. Charter Chemical and Coating Corp., GR 169717, 16 March 2011.
3.4 Action by the Bureau of Labor Relations

Arts. 235-236, LC; B5 R2 S5-6, IRR; DO 9, RV, S3-4
3.5 Reportorial requirements

Article 242-A, LC, as inserted by Rep. Act No. 9481, Sec. 7
3.6 Cancellation
Arts. 238-239; B5 R2 S7-11, IRR; DO 9, RVII
Republic Act No. 9481, secs. 5-9, amending Art. 239, LC; effect of amendment
 For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union registration under Art. 239 LC, the
nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a
majority of union members.
Takata (Philippines) Corporation v Bureau Of Labor Relations And Samahang Lakas Manggagawa Ng Takata
(Salamat), G.R. No. 196276, 04 June 2014.
 Discrepancies in number of members stated in application, whether a ground for cancellation

on account of fraud
Mariwasa Siam Ceramics vs. Secretary of Labor, GR 183317, 21 December 2009
Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club vs. Court of Appeals and Eagle Ridge Employees Union [EREU], G.R. No.
178989, 18 March 2010
 Failure to submit annual financial report; no longer a ground for cancellation of union
registration
The Heritage Hotel Manila vs. National Union of Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries-Heritage
Hotel Manila Supervisors Chapter (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC), G.R. No. 178296, 12 January 2011
 Filing of petition for cancellation of Union’s registration is not per se an act of ULP
Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union vs. NLRC, 317 SCRA 669 (1999)
9
 Registration of union not subject to collateral attack

San Miguel Employees Union-PTGWO vs. San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union – Pambansang
Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino (PDMP), 533 SCRA 125 [2007]
 Inclusion of supervisory employees in the R&F union is NOT a ground to impugn the
legitimacy of the union. –
SAMMA-LIKHA vs. SAMA Corp., G.R. No. 167141, 13 Mar 2009
 Compare with requirements under new law, Republic Act No. 9481, Secs. 4-5, amending Articles
238 and 239 of Labor Code; also Article 238-A, LC
 Pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration will not preclude collective
bargaining
Legend International Resorts vs. Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legenda, GR 169754, 23 February 2011.
 Voluntary cancellation – Article 239-A, LC as inserted by Republic Act No. 9481, Sec. 6
4. Rights and conditions of membership (Art. 241, LC)
4.1 Direct election and tenure of officers (Art. 241 [c, f and k])
Cruz vs. Calleja, 188 SCRA 520
4.2 Payment of membership dues and other assessments

(Art. 241 [g-j, n])
Palacol vs. Calleja, 182 SCRA 710
4.3 Attorney’s fees

Gabriel vs. Secretary of Labor, 328 SCRA 247 [2000]
5. Right to Disaffiliate from Mother Union
Volkschel Labor Union vs. BLR, 137 SCRA 42

Philippine Skylanders Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. 127374, 31 Jan. 2002
Cirtek Employees Labor Union – FFW vs. Cirtek Electronics, GR 190516, 06 June 2011.
F. THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT

Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003]
Republic Act No. 9481 [25 May 2007]
1. Bargaining unit defined - Art. 255, LC

DO 40, R1 S1 (d)
2. Determination of appropriate bargaining unit
2.1 Generally -- community of interest

exception: Globe Doctrine -- desire of employees
2.2 Ineligibility of Managerial Employees to Join any Labor Organization; Right of Supervisory
Employees – Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 8, amending Art. 245, LC
2.3 Effect of Inclusion as Members of Employees Outside the Bargaining Unit - Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 8,
inserting Art. 245-A, LC
G. CERTIFICATION ELECTION
Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003], RVIII
10
1. Role of Employer during certification elections –

Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 12, inserting Art. 258-A, LC
2. Other kinds of recognition of employee representatives

excluding certification elections
2.1 Direct certification - not allowed
2.2 Voluntary recognition, Dept. Order No. 9, Rule X
2.3 Consent election, DO 9, RI, S (ee); DO40 R8 S10

Effect of consent election: DO40 R8 S23
3. Certification election and procedure

Art. 256-257, LC; B5 R5 S1-9, IRR,
Dept. Order No. 40 [2003], Rule8 and 9
Rep. Act No. 9481 [25 May 2007], secs. 10 and 11
3.1 Definition and nature of CE -- B5 R1 S1[x], IRR; DO 9, RI, S(dd)

DO 40, R1 S1 (d)
Heritage Hotel Manila Vs. Secretary Of Labor And Employment, G.R. No. 176317, July 23, 2014, J.
Bersamin
Excl bargaining rep: DOLE Dept. Order 40 [2003], R1 S1 (r)

NUHRWRAIN – Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter vs. Sec. of Labor, BLR, Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel
Labor Union and Acesite Phils. Hotel Corp., GR No. 181531, 31 July 2009
Mariwasa Siam Ceramics vs. Sec of Labor et al, GR 183317, 21 December 2009
3.2 Who may, and where to, file petition for CE

B5 R5 S1-2, IRR; DO 9, Rule XI, S1-2; DO40 R8 S1-2
Republic Act No. 9481, sec. 10, amending Art 256, LC
3.2.1 Challenging the petition for CE
Toyota Motors vs. Toyota MPC Labor Union, 268 SCRA 571 [1997]
Tagaytay Highlands Intl Golf Club, Inc. vs Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union – PGTWO, 395
SCRA 699 [22 Jan 2003]
3.2.2 Filing of petition for cancellation of Union’s

registration is not per se an act of ULP,
3.2.3 Form and content of petition: DO40 R8 S4
3.3 When to file petition for CE - DO40 R8 S3
3.3.1 If unorganized establishment

- at any time (B5 R5 S3-6, IRR)
- Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 8, amending Art. 257, LC
3.3.2 If organized establishment

Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 8, amending Art. 256, LC
a) No duly registered CBA - at any time
b) With duly registered CBA
1) Contract bar rule - only during freedom period
11
(Art. 232, LC; B5 R5 S4, IRR)

FVC Labor Union-PGTWO vs. Sama Samang Nagkakaisang Mangggagawa sa FVC-
SIGLO, GR 176249, 27 November 2009
2) One year bar rule (B5 R5 S3, IRR)
3) Deadlock bar rule (B5 R5 S3, IRR)
4. Denial of Petition for Certification Election;
4.1 Grounds for denial: Dept Order No. 40, R8 S14-15
4.2 Appellate procedure in case of denial

Dept Order No. 40, R8 S17-22
5. Procedure in the Conduct of the Certification Elections

Dept Order No. 40, R9 Sections 1 to 20
5.1 Raffle and pre-election conference

5.2 Qualification of voters; inclusion-exclusion proceedings
May probationary employees vote in the certification elections, if the CBA provision explicitly excludes them
in the vote?
NUHRWRAIN – Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter vs. Sec. of Labor, BLR, Holiday Inn Mnaila Pavilion Hotel Labor Unino
and Acesite Phils. Hotel Corp., GR No. 181531, 31 July 2009
5.3 Voting proper

5.4 Challenging the votes; on-the-spot questions
5.5 Canvass of votes
5.6 Certification of Collective Bargaining Agent
6. Run-off Elections - DO 9, Rule XIII; Dept Order No. 40, R10
7. Failure of elections - Dept Order No. 40, R17 and 18
DAY FOUR
H. INTER-UNION AND INTRA-UNION DISPUTES

DOLE Department Order No. 40-03, series of 2003
1. What are inter- or intra-union disputes [DO40, s1&2].

De la Salle University vs. De la Salle University Employees Association. G.R. No. 169254, 23 August
2012.
2. What are effects of pendency of inter- or intra-union disputes [DO40, s3].
3. Who may file an inter- or intra-union disputes [DO40, s4].
4. Where to file inter- or intra-union disputes.
I. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
1. Duty to bargain collectively

12
1.1 a. Defined
b. Two kinds of Bargaining:
Single enterprise bargaining - One where any voluntarily recognized or certified labor union may demand
negotiations with its employer for terms and conditions of work covering employees in the bargaining unit
concerned.
Multiple Employer bargaining – One where a legitimate labor union(s) and employers may agree in
writing to come together for the purpose of collective bargaining, provided:
(1) only legitimate labor unions who are incumbent exclusive bargaining agents may participate and
negotiate in multi-employer bargaining;
(2) only employers with counterpart legitimate labor unions who are incumbent bargaining agents may
participate and negotiate in multi-employer bargaining; and
(3) only those legitimate labor unions who pertain to employer units who consent to multi-employer
bargaining may participate in multi-employer bargaining.
1.2 When duty to bargain exists/begins -

1.2.1 In the absence of a CBA - Art. 251, LC
1.2.2 Existence of a CBA - only during freedom
period, Art. 253, LC
1.3 Effect of refusal to bargain - constitutes ULP under Art. 258 (g)
Divine Word Univ. vs. NLRC, 213 SCRA 759
Colegio de San Juan de Letran vs. Assn of Employees and Faculty of Letran, 340 SCRA 587 [2000]
1.4 When duty to bargain ceases
1.5 Standard of conduct required
Surface bargaining
Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (NUBE) vs. Secretary Nieves Confesor and Standard Chartered
Bank, GR No. 11497, 16 June 2004
Individual bargaining
Insular Life Assurance Employees-NATO vs. Insular Life Assurance Ltd., 76 SCRA 50 citing Melo Photo
Supply Corp. vs. NLRB, 321 U.S. 332
2. What are bargainable issues - Art. 252, LC
3. Bargaining Deadlock
3.1 When is there a deadlock in collective bargaining

Capitol Medical Center Alliance of Concerned Employees
vs. Laguesma, 267 SCRA 503 (1997)
3.2 Difference between economic and non-economic provisions

San Miguel Food vs. SMC Employees Unino – PTGWO, 535 SCRA 133 [2007].
3.3 Remedies - Notice of strike or notice of lock-out

30-day cooling-period and 7-day strike ban
J. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

Department Order No. 9. [21 June 1997], and Department Order No. 40, [17
February 2003]
13
1. Definition - B5 R1 S1 (jj), IRR
Interpretation: See previous discussion in page 2 hereof, General Priinciples

Benson Industries Employees Union-ALU-TUCP et. al. vs. Benson Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 200746, 06 August
2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
2. Contents - supra., IRR
2.1 Mandatory subjects
a) Compliance with minimum labor standards; what is effect of sub-standard contract

RFM Corp Flour Division vs. KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU, GR No. 162324, 04 February 2009.
b) Grievance procedure and voluntary arbitration
c) No strike/no lockout clause

Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M Greenfield
vs. Ramos, 326 SCRA 428 [2000]
2.2 Union dues vs. Agency fees/special assessments; check-off

Art. 241 (r); Art. 222 (b)
Palacol vs. Calleja, 26 Feb. 1990
Effect if ER fails to implement check-off

Holy Cross of Davao vs. Joaquin, 263 SCRA 358 [18 Oct 1996]
2.3 Union security clauses: nature and kinds

Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. BPI Employees Union - Davao Chapter - Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank, G.R.
No. 164301, 10 August 2010; En Banc.
Termination due to union security clause

PICOP Resources, Inc. (PRI) vs. Anacleto Taneca et. al, G.R. No. 160828, 09 August 2010
2.4 Signing bonus

Caltex Refinery, supra. 279 SCRA 218
3. Signing and ratification

ALU vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 173 SCRA 178
4. Effect:
4.1 With respect to successor-employer

E. Razon vs. Secretary of Labor, 222 SCRA 1
4.2 With respect to a change in exclusive bargaining agent - Substitutionary Doctrine

Benguet Consolidated vs. BCI Ees Union, 23 SCRA 465
5. Procedure in registration of CBA

Art. 231, LC; B5 R9 S1, IRR; DO 9, Rule XVI, Secs. 1-5
6. Scope of the agreement; who may avail of benefits -

Natl. Brewers and Allied Industries Labor Union vs. San Miguel Brewery
New Pacific Timber vs. NLRC, 328 SCRA 404 [2000]
7. Duration of the CBA (Art. 253-A)
7.1 Economic provisions of the CBA: 3 years
7.2 Representation question: 5 years

- contract bar rule, DO 9 Rule XVI, Sec. 4
14
May parties negotiate and agree to extend term of exclusive bargaining status of majority union?
FVC Labor Union – Phil Transport and General Workers Org. (FVCLU-PTGWO) vs Sama-samang
Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa FVC-Solidarity of Independent and General Labor Organization (SANAMA-
FVC-SIGLO), GR 176249, 27 Nov 2009.
7.3 Retroactivity –
Union of Filipro Employees vs. NLRC, 23 SCRA 465

Manila Electric Company vs. Quisumbing, 302 SCRA 173 (1999)
Manila Electric Company vs. Quisumbing, 326 SCRA 172 [2000]
DAY FIVE
K. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. Concept: Article 247, Labor Code.
2. Test to determine ULP
3. Unfair Labor Practices of employers, Art. 248 LC
3.1 Interference in the right to self-organization

Hacienda Fatima vs. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food and General Trade, G.R. No.
149440, 28 January 2003
Prince Transport, Inc. vs. Garcia, et al. G.R. No. 167291, 12 January 2011
3.2 Refusal to bargain collectively

Divine World vs. Secretary of Labor, 213 SCRA 759 [1992]
3.3 Gross violation of the CBA; need not be limited to economic provisions if GROSS PER SE.
Employees Union of Bayer Phils. vs. Bayer Philippines, GR No. 162943, 06 Dec 2010.
4. Unfair Labor Practices of labor organizations, Art. 249 LC
5. When not ULP:
Suspension of CBA due to financial losses not ULP:

Manila Mining Corp. Employees Association, et al. vs.. Manila Mining corp, et al., G.R. Nos.
178222-23, 29 September 2010
L. STRIKES, PICKETING AND LOCK-OUTS

Art. 263 - 266, Labor Code
Rule 8, Secs. 1-14, Impl. Rules and Reglns.
Dept. Order No. 9 [1997], Rule XXII, Secs. 1-14
1. Constitutional basis and definition

DO 40, S1, R1 (uu to ww)
1.1 Mass leave is not equivalent to a strike. --

Alex Q. Naranjo, et al. vs. Biomedica Health Care, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 193789, 19 September 2012
2. Who may declare a strike or lock-out; when it may be declared

15
B5 R8 S2 IRR; Dept. Order No. 9, Rule XXII, Sec. 1-2
3. Requisites for valid strike or lock-out:

Dept. Order No. 9, Rule XXII, Sec. 1
SIX CATEGORIES OF ILLEGAL STRIKE :Toyota Motor Phils Workers Assn. (TMPCWA) vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA
171 (2007).
3.1 Lawful purpose
3.1.1 Economic strike/lock-out; Deadlock defined

Capitol Medical Center Alliance vs. Laguesma, supra.,
267 SCRA 503 [1997]
Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association Vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No.
170007, 07 April 2014, J. Leonardo-De Castro
3.1.2 ULP strike/lock-out

cf. Arts. 248-249, LC
Filing of petition for cancellation of Union’s registration is not per se an act of ULP –
Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union vs. NLRC, 317 SCRA 669 (1999)
Welga ng Bayan not a valid purpose -

Biflex Phils. Labor Union (NAFLU) vs. Filflex Ind’l and Mfg., 511 SCRA 247 [2007]
No lawful purpose when conducted by a union which is not a legitimate labor organization
Manila Diamond Hotel vs. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union, G.R. No. 158075, 30 June 2006
Abaria vs. NLRC, GR 154113. 07 December 2011.
3.2 Lawful means
3.2.1 Art. 264 (b) and (e), LC
3.2.2 Guidelines on Removal of Illegal Blockades at Factory Gates,

DOLE Memorandum dated 22 October 1987
3.2.3 Guidelines for the Conduct of INP/AFP Personnel

during Strikes, Lock-outs and Labor Disputes in General,
effective 22 October 1987
3.2.4 Dept. Order No. 9, Rule 22, Secs. 10-13

Note: Violence committed on both sides during the strike
Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M Greenfield vs. Ramos, 326 SCRA 428 [2000]
3.2.5 Liability of Union officers and members in illegal strikes

Allied Banking Corp. vs. NLRC, 258 SCRA 724 [1996]
C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals / Nagkahiusang Mamumuno sa
Alsons-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), et al. vs. C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc., et al. /
Nagkahiusang Mamumuno sa Alsons-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), et al. vs. C. Alcantara
& Sons, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 155109/G.R. No. 155135/G.R. No. 179220, 29 September 2010.
3.3 Compliance with procedural requirements
3.3.1 Strike vote/Lock-out vote (Dept. Order No. 9, R22, S7-8)

Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Moldex vs. NLRC,
324 SCRa 242 [2000]
3.3.2 Notice of strike/lock-out (Dept. Order 9, R22, S3-5)

San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC, 304 SCRA 1 [1999]
Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corp. vs. NLRC, 318 SCRA 68 [1999]
16
3.3.3 Cooling-off period

a. Economic strike: 30 days
b. ULP strike: 15 days
c. Exceptions - Art. 263 (b); B5 R8 S3, IRR
3.3.4 Seven-day strike ban

National Fedn. of Sugar Workers vs. Ovejera, 114 SCRA 354
First City Interlink vs. Roldan-Confesor, 272 SCRA 124 [1997]
3.3.5 Conciliation proceedings (Dept. Order 9, R22, S6)

GTE Directories vs. Sanchez, 197 SCRA 452
San Miguel Corp vs. NLRC, 403 SCRA 418 [10 June 2003]
3.3.6 Improved offer balloting (Dept. Order 9, R22, S9)
3.4 Good faith strike

Phil. Metal Foundries vs. CIR, 90 SCRA 135
CONTRA: Not a good defense in cases of procedural infirmity

Grand Boulevard Hotel vs. Genuine Labor Organizations of Workers in Hotel Restaurant and Allied Industries,
G.R. No. 1534664, 18 July 2003
4. Effect of a no strike/no lock-out clause in CBA

Master Iron Labor Union vs. NLRC, 17 Feb. 1993
5. Assumption of Jurisdiction by Secretary of Labor or Certification of the labor dispute to the NLRC for
Compulsory Arbitration, Art. 264 (g), LC
Telefunken Semi-conductors Ees Union-FFW vs. CA, 348 SCRA 565 [2000]
5.1 Discretion of the Secretary

FEATI University vs. Bautista, 18 SCRA 1191
Extent of discretion:
 May order the suspension of the termination aspect of a labor dispute - University of Immaculate
Concepcion, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor, et al., G.R. No. 151379, 14 Jan. 2009
 May give an award higher than what was agreed upon by the management and union - Cirtek
Employees Labor Union – FFW vs. Cirtek Electronics, GR 190515, 15 November 2010.
5.2 Nature and Effect of Assumption and Certification Orders
 Payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement during strike proceedings

Manila Diamond Hotel Employees’ Union vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 140518, 12/16/2004
5.3 Effect of Defiance of Return-to-Work Orders
a) Hearing not necessary; akin to contempt of court

St. Scholastica’s College vs. Hon. Ruben Torres, 210 SCRA 565
Allied Banking Corp. vs. NLRC, supra. 258 SCRA 724 [1996]
Telefunken Semi-conductors, supra.
CONTRA: New twist on defiance of return to work order

Solidbank vs. Gamier et al, GR 159460, 15 Nov 2010; Solidbank vs. Solidbank Union et al., GR 159461,
15 Nov 2010
b) May ordinary workers who were reinstated due to dismissal for participation in an illegal strike, be
entitled to payment of backwages?
Danilo Escario et al vs. NLRC, GR 160302, 27 Sept 2010.
6. Picketing and other forms of concerted activities

Dept. Order No. 9, Rule 22, Sec. 12
17
6.1 Nature of picketing

- includes stationing persons at the site of the labor dispute,
or even at run-away shop
MSF Tire and Rubber vs. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 784 [1999]
PAFLU vs Cloribel, 28 March 1969
Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant EEs Union vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc., 512 SCRA 437 [2007]
6.2 Limitations:
6.2.1. Moving picket

6.2.2 Must not affect neutral parties
Liwayway Publications vs. Permanent Concrete
Workers Union, 23 Oct. 1981
6.2.3 Private homes not allowed
6.2.4 Without violence and intimidation
6.3 Other forms of concerted activities
DAY SIX
M. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
Articles 282 – 286, Labor Code; IRR, Book VI, R1 S1-14.
Dept. Order No. 9, Rule XXIII, Secs. 1-9
1. GENERALLY:
1.1 No termination without just cause and due process;

rationale behind principle (Dept. Order No. 9, R23, S1)
Employee not required to prove innocence of the charges leveled against him. - Phil. Transmarine vs. Carilla,
525 SCRA 586 [2007]
1.2 Management prerogative; Company rules and regulations
2. SOME GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION, Art. 282-285, LC
JUST CAUSE FOR TERMINATION
BUT EMPLOYEE MUST PROVE FACT OF DISMISSAL FIRST:

Bitoy Javier (Danilo P. Javier) vs. Fly Ace Corporation/Flordelyn Castillo,G.R. No. 192558, 15 Feb 2012.
2.1 Serious misconduct
Fighting within company premises:

Northwest Airlines Vs. Concepcion Del Rosario, GR. 157633, 10 September 2014. J. Bersamin
Attitude problem e.g., negative attitude:

Cathedral School of Technology vs. NLRC, 251 SCRA 554 [1992]
Citibank NA vs. NLRC, 544 SCRA [2008]
Serious misconduct by manager

Sim vs. NLRC, 534 SCRA 515 [2007]
Tirazona vs. Phil. Eds Techno-Service (PET INC.), G.R. No. 169712, 20 January 2009
Moonlighting:
Capitol Wireless, Inc. vs. Balagot, 513 SCRA 672 [2007].
Drug abuse as serious misconduct:

18
See also: REQUIREMTS FOR VALID DRUG TEST under RA 9156.

Plantation Bay Resort and Spa vs. Dubrico, 04 Dec 2009
Committing offenses penalized with three suspensions within a twelve-month period:

Samahan Ng Manggagawa Sa Hyatt-NUHWRAIN Vs. Magsalin, GR No. 164939, 06 June 2011
Contra: When not serious misconduct
RCPI vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 114777, 05 July 1996 – stapler case
VH Manufacturing vs. NLRC, 322 SCRA 417 [2000] – sleeping on the job; dismissal too harsh a penalty
Samson vs. NLRC, 330 SCRA 460 [2000] – invectives at company xmas party; Contra to Samson: Punzal
vs. ESTI Technologies, 518 SCRA 66 [2007]
2.2 Gross insubordination

EPacific Global Contact Center vs. Cabansay, 538 SCRA 498 [2007]
Hilton Heavy Equipment vs. Ananias Dy, G.R. No. 164860, 02 February 2010.
Contra: Refusal to comply due to valid reason

Lores Realty Enterprises, Inc., Lorenzo Y. Sumulong III v. Virginia E. Pacia, G.R. No.
171189, 09 March 2011.
2.3 Gross negligence/habitual neglect of duty
May gross and habitual neglect likewise be considered as serious misconduct?

Arsenio Quiambao vs. Manila Electric Company, GR No. 171023, 18 December 2009.
Single isolated act of negligence insufficient ground for termination

St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. and Robert Kuan vs. Estrelito Nazario, G.R. No. 152166, 20
October 2010
2.4 Abandonment
2.5 Fraud
N.B.: Concealment of pregnancy; dismissal too harsh

Lakpue Drug vs. Balga, G.R. 166379, 20 Oct 2005]
2.6 Loss of Confidence/Breach of Trust
Two kinds of positions of trust identified:

Abelardo Abel vs. Philex Mining, GR 178976, 31 July 2009
Carlos Valenzuela vs. Caltex, GR 169965-66, 15 Dec 2010
Difference in termination of confidential employees vs rank-and-file

Phil. Transmarine Carriers vs. Carilla, 535 SCRA 893 [2007]
Bago vs. NLRC, 520 SCRA 644`[2007]
Tirazona vs. CA, 548 SCRA 560 (2008)
May an employee be terminated even if he did not benefit from the fraud committed?
Eric Dela Cruz V. Coca-Cola Bottlers, G.R. 180465, 31 July 2009
2.7 Incompetence
Contra: Inefficiency of employee; condonation by employer --

Bebina G. Salvaloza vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Gulf Pacific Security
Agency, Inc., and Angel Quizon, G.R. No. 182086, 24 November 2010
2.8 Commission of a crime

Torreda vs. Toshiba Info Equip., 515 SCRA 133 [2007]
19
AUTHORIZED CAUSES OF TERMINATION
2.9 Redundancy
Sebuguero vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 532 [1995]
Alleged redundancy contradictory to “voluntary” retirement. –

General Milling Corporation vs. Violeta L. Viajar. G.R. No. 181738, 30 January 2013.
2.10 Retrenchment or business reverses
Contra: separation pay not necessary in case of bankruptcy

North Davao Mining vs. NLRC, 254 SCRA 721 [1996]
Financial statements as proof of serious business losses

Virgilio Anabe vs. AsiaKonstruct, GR 183233, 23 Dec 2009
2.11 Closure
Capitol Medical Center vs. Meris, 470 SCRA 125 [2005]
When done in bad faith: Penafrancia Tours and Travel Transport vs. Sarmiento, GR 178397, 20 Oct 2010.
2.12 Disease - continued employment must be prejudicial

to own health and co-workers
Eleazar S. Padillo vs. Rural Bank of Nabunturan, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 199338, 21 January 2013.
2.13 Merger or consolidation with another company

Manlimos vs. NLRC, 242 SCRA 145 [1995]
3. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES:
3.1 Preventive suspension
3.2 Suspension – where allowed for more than one month
3.3 Constructive dismissal -
3.4 Floating status not to exceed 6 months -

Nippon Housing Phil. Inc., et. al., vs. Maia Angela Reyes, G.R. No. 177816, 03 August 2011.
3.5 Last-In First-Out (LIFO) rule -

Maya Farms Employees Org. vs. NLRC, 239 SCRA 508
3.6 Totality of infractions rule
3.7 Length of service

Citibank NA vs. Gatchalian, 240 SCRA 212 [1995]
PLDT vs. NLRC, cited in Villeno case
3.8 Demotion
Leonardo vs. NLRC, 333 SCRA 589 [2000]
3.9 Resignation instead of termination
N.B.: Signing of Release Waivers and Quitclaims

Goodrich Manfuacturing vs. Ativo et al., GR 188002, 01 Feb 2010
Telex is not equivalent to tender of resignation.

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. and Skippers Maritime Services, Inc. Ltd. vs. Nathaniel Doza, et al., G.R. No.
175558. 08 February 2012
20
3.10 Immorality/Sexual Harassment

Republic Act No. 7877
Cheryll Leus Vs. St. Scholastica’s Westgrove And Sr. Edna Quiambao, G.R. No. 187226, 28 Jan 2015
Contra: when not Immorality Chua-Qua vs. Clave, 189 SCRA 117 [1990
Contra on live-in relationships, Toledo vs. Toledo 544 SCRA 27
Lourdes Domingo Vs. Rogelio Rayala, G.R. No. 155831, 18 February 2008. J. Nachura
Contra: When not sexual harassment, Atty. Susan Aquino vs. Hon. Ernesto Acosta, Presiding Judge of the
Court of Tax Appeals, A.M. No. CTA –01-1, 02 April 2002
3.11 Termination instigated by Union on account

of Union Security Clause
Malayang Samahan sa M Greenfield, supra., 326 SCRA 428 [2000]
Alabang Country Vs. NLRC, 545 SCRA 351 [2008].
Inguillio vs. First Phil. Scales, GR No. 165407, 05 June 2009
4. PROCEDURE TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT

Art. 282, Lc; B5 R14 S1-11, IRR; Dept. Order No. 9, Rule 23, Sec. 2-9)
4.1 General Rule: Twin requirements of notice and hearing must be complied with for valid termination
Reasonable period to answer, interpreted as FIVE days:

King of Kings Transport vs. Mamac, 526 SCRA 116 [2007]
Requirements of Charge Sheet/Notice of Appraisal:

Magro Placement vs. Hernandez, 526 SCRA 408 [2007]
Genuino vs. NLRC, 539 SCRA 342 [2007]
Is the employer required to inform the employee in the appraisal/charge sheet that he may be
terminated for the infraction?
Dolores T. Esguerra vs. Valle Verde Country Club et. al., G.R. No. 173012, 13 June 2012
4.2 Exception: WENPHIL doctrine, as affirmed by the AGABON vs NLRC case [17 Nov.
2004]; SERRANO ruling overturned
Wenphil vs. NLRC, 170 SCRA 69 [1989]

Serrano vs. NLRC, 323 SCRA 445 [2000]
Agabon vs. NLRC, 442 SCRA 573 [17 Nov. 2004]
See: Section 5.2 on Illegality of the Manner of Dismissal
4.3 Administrative Hearing/investigation not required:

Perez vs. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company, 584 SCRA 110[2009], En Banc
 When employee has voluntarily admitted guilt

Bernardo vs. NLRC, 255 SCRA 108 [1996]
4.4 Right to counsel on the part of the employee – is this mandatory and indispensable as part of due
process?
Lopez vs. Alturas Group, 11 April 2011,
4.5 Burden of proof rests upon employer to show just cause and due process
5. NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

Art. 279, LC; cf. Art. 223, LC effect of appeal
5.1 Illegality of the act of dismissal - Dismissal without just cause
a) Reinstatement plus full backwages, or separation pay,

in lieu of reinstatement
21
When reinstatement is not done in good faith; demotion

Banares vs. Tabaco Women Transport Services, G.R. No. 197353, 01 April 2013
6.4 ON BACKWAGES - Mercury drug rule overturned by RA 6715
Cannot be reduced by earnings derived elsewhere:

Bustamante vs. NLRC, 265 SCRA 61 [1996]
Conrado A. Lim Vs. HMR Philippines, Inc., Et Al; G.R. No. 201483, 04 August 2014- Computation Of
Backwages: Up To Promulgation Of Decision Or Until Actual Reinstatement? Entitled To Salary Differentials? Entitled
To Holiday Pay?
b) Moral and exemplary damges -
c) Attorney’s fees
d) Liability of corporate officers

Carmen Dy-Dumalasa vs. Domingo Sabado S. Fernandez, et. al., G.R. No. 178760 [23 July 2009].
Park Hotel, et al. vs. Manolo Soriano, et al., G.R. No. 171118, 10 September 2012.
5.2 Illegality in manner of dismissal - Dismissal without due process
a) SERRANO RULING (323 SCRA 445 [2000]) now overturned by AGABON VS. NLRC CASE (17 NOV.
2004); see above
b) Wenphil doctrine to apply per AGABON case; employee to be awarded indemnity in the amount of
P30,000.00
c) To be governed exclusively by civil code principles
Aurora Land Projects vs. NLRC, 266 SCRA 48 [1997]
d) Mere failure to comply with notice requirement on closure or dismissal does not amount to a patently illegal
act. – Carag vs. NLRC, 520 SCRA 28 [2007]
e) If dismissal is for authorized cause BUT without due process, then P50,000.00; if dismissal is for just cause
BUT without due process, the P30,000.00. -- Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, 28 March
2005
g) Factors to consider in determining nominal damages for failure to comply with due process requirements.
-- Industrial Timber Corp. v. Agabon, G.R. No. 164518, 30 March 2006
6. RELIEFS UNDER THE LABOR CODE
6.1 On reinstatement and strained relations

Kunting vs. NLRC, 227 SCRA 571
Congson vs. NLRC, 243 SCRA 260 [1995]
Aguilar vs. Burger Machine Holdings, 516 SCRA 609
6.2 On actual reinstatement vs. payroll reinstatement; effect where the original decision finding for illegal
termination was reversed on appeal
Genuino vs. NLRC, GR 142732-33, 04 Dec 2007
Contra, now prevailing rule: Garcia vs. Philippine Airlines, GR 164856, 20 Jan 2009
6.3 Payment of separation pay not inconsistent with

payment of backwages;
Lim vs. NLRC, March 1989
7. General Rule: Employee who is lawfully dismissed is not

entitled to separation pay
Exception: DIREC (disease; installation of labor-saving devices;
redundancy; retrenchment; cessation of business)
DAY SEVEN
22
N. JURISDICTION REMEDIES AND APPEAL
1. Labor Arbiter
Art. 217, Labor Code
1.1 Strikes and Lock-outs

1.2 Termination disputes
1.3 ULP cases
1.4 Damages
1.5 Small money claims with claim for reinstatement
1.6 Other claims
Cases:
San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, 161 SCRA 719
Sanyo Philippines Workers Union – PSSLU vs. Canizares, 211 SCRA 361
San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTGWO vs. Bersamira, 186 SCRA 496
Contra: Molave Sales, Inc. vs. Laron, 129 SCRA 485
Medina vs. Castro-Bartolome, 116 SCRA 597
2. National Labor Relations Commission

Art. 217 (b]; Art. 223, Labor Code
2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended by NLRC En Banc Resolution No. 11-12, series of 2012
How appeal is perfected from Labor Arbiter to NLRC. -- Soliman Security Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 384 SCRA 514
[2002]).
Posting of Bond; Rules – Navarro vs. NLRC, 327 SCRA 22 [2000]; Article 223, LC
Passbook not equivalent of bond. -- Mindanao Times Corporation vs. Confesor, G.R. No. 183417, 05 February 2010
When bond is issued by surety company with revoked permit. -- Cesario del Rosario vs. Philippine Journalists, Inc., G.R. No.
181516, 19 August 2009
Motion to Reduce Bond; Requisites. - Andrew James McBurnie vs. Eulalio Ganzon, EGI Manager G.R. No. 178034, 178117, 17
October 2013
Substantial compliance. -- Grand Asian Shipping Lines vs. Galvez, G.R. No. 178184, 29 January 2014.
3. Secretary of Labor
Arts. 128 and 263 (g), Labor Code
Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union – FFW vs. Court of Appeals, 348 SCRA 565
Phimco Industries, Inc. vs. Brillantes, 304 SCRA 747
National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma, 304 SCRA 405
4. Regional Director - Art. 129 & 217, LC
3.1 Small money claims without reinstatement

3.2 Visitorial powers
3.3 Petition for certification election
3.4 Decision of RD appealable to NLRC
Cases:
Maternity Children’s Hospital vs. Sec. of Labor, 174 SCRA 632
Odin Security Agency vs. Dela Serna, 182 SCRA 472
SSK Parts Corporation vs. Camas, 181 SCRA 675
Guico vs. Quisumbing, 298 SCRA 666
4. Bureau of Labor Relations - Art. 226, LC
4.1 Inter-union and intra-union conflicts

4.2 Disputes arising from or affecting labor-management
relations except grievances
23
4.3 Registration of CBA
Cases:
Pepsi Cola Sales & Advertising Union vs. Sec. of Labor, 211 SCRA 843
Abbot Laboratories Phils, Inc. vs. Abbot Laboratories Employees Union, 323 SCRA 392
5. Voluntary Arbitrator
Art. 261, Labor Code
Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings, 15 October 2004, Rules IV and
VI.
Cases:
Ludo & Luym Corp. vs. Saordino, 395 SCRA 451
Vivero vs. Court of Appeals, 344 SCRA 268
Tabigue et al vs. Intl Copra Export Corp., GR 183335, 23 Dec 2009
Goya Inc. vs. Goya Employees Union, G.R. No. 170054, 21 January 2013
Cf. Grievance Machinery (Art. 260, Labor Code.)
Master Iron Labor Union vs. NLRC, 219 SCRA 47

San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, 304 SCRA 1
6. NCMB - B5 R13 S3, IRR

NCMB Manual of Regulations for Conciliation and Mediation, 31 Jan 1992
5.1 Strikes and Lock-outs; See previous chapter on Strikes
CONTRA: Labor Injunctions (Arts. 254; 218 and 263, Labor Code.)
7. Court of Appeals
Rules 43 and 65, Rules of Civil Procedure
Cases:
St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494
Veloso vs. China Airlines, Ltd., 310 SCRA 274
Association of Trade Unions vs. Abella, 323 SCRA 50
8. Supreme Court
Rule 45, Rules of Civil Procedure
9. Liability of the Transferee of an Enterprise
Sundowner Dev. Corp. vs. Drilon, 180 SCRA 14

Filipinas Port Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, 200 SCRA 773
10. May employer offset costs of employee’s training from retirement benefits?
Bibiano C. Elegir vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. G.R. No. 181995, 16 July 2012.
11. Workers’ preference of credit vs lien on unpaid wages, Art. 110 LC
Manuel D. Yngson, Jr., (in his capacity as the Liquidator of ARCAM & Co., Inc.) vs. Philippine
National Bank. G.R. No. 171132, 15 August 2012.
12. Prescriptive period in Labor Code prevails over Civil Code

in termination cases
Laureano vs. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 414 [2000]
Victory Liner vs. Race, 519 SCRA 497 [2007]
Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp vs. Panginiban, 514 SCRA 404 [2007]
O. LABOR STANDARDS
24
1. WAGES
Art. 97, 98, 99, 101-119, LC; R7 and R8 B3 IRR LC
SLL International Cable Specialist vs. NLRC, GR 172161, 2 March 2011
1.1 Exclusions from coverage
1.2 Facilities vs. Supplements
Our Haus Realty Development Corporation vs. Alexander Parian, et al., G.R. No. 204651, 06 August 2014.
-- Deductibility of “Facility”; Purpose Test; Requisites.
1.3 Wages vs. Salaries

Gaa vs. CA. GR No. L-44169, 03 Dec 1985, 140 SCRA 304
Jose Songco vs. NLRC, GR No. L-50999, 23 Mar 1990, 182 SCRA 610
1.4 Payment of Wages (Art. 102-105, 110-11, LC; B3 R8 S1-8; Republic Act No. 6727, Sec. 7)
1.5 Bonus, not part of basic salary/wage

Protacio vs. Layang Mananghaya, GR 168654, 25 March 2009
Lepanto Ceramics vs. Lepanto Ceramics Employees Association, GR 180866, 02 March 2010
Mega Magazine Publications, Inc., et al., vs. Margaret Defensor, G.R. No. 162021, 16 June 2014. --
grant of bonus, rule and exception.
1.6 Non-diminution of benefits

Manila Jockey Club Employees Union vs Manila Jockey Club, GR 16770, 07 March 2001
When a practice is deemed to have ripened into a corporate policy:

Vergara vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers, G.R. No. 176985, 01 April 2013
1.7 “No work no pay” principle

Aklan Electric Cooperative vs. NLRC, 223 SCRA 288 [2000]
vs. “Equal pay for Equal work”
International School Alliance of Educators vs. Qusiumbing, GR No. 128845, 01 June 2000, 333 SCRA 13
1.8 Prohibitions regarding Wages (Art. 112-119, LC; B3 R8 S9-11, IRR)

 Labor code provisions for wage protection
 Allowable deductions without employee’s consent
 Other deductions: Attorney’s fees & union service fee in labor cases
 May employer withhold employee’s last pay and benefits pending return of employer’s
properties? Emer Milan, et al. vs. NLRC and Solid Mills, Inc, G.R. No. 202961, February 04, 2015, J.
Leonen
1.9 Workers preference in case of bankruptcy

DBP vs. Secretary of Labor, 179 SCRA 630 [1989]
Contra: Effect if under receivership, Rubberworld Phils. vs. NLRC, 336 SCRA 433
1.10 Minimum Wages and Wage distortion
1.11 CBA vis-à-vis Wage Orders

Republic Act No. 6727,Section 7; Rep Act No. 8188.
2. HOURS OF WORK
Articles 82-93, Labor Code; B3 R1 S1-11, IRR
2.1 Exclusions from coverage
 Govt employees, including GOCCs with original charters
25
 Managerial employees/staff
 Field Personnel
 Family members
 Domestic helpers and persons in the personal service of another
 Workers paid by result
2.2 Normal hours of work: what is considered “hours worked”/“time-in”

Exceptions
 Health personnel
 Compressed Work Week
DOLE Labor Advisory No. 02, s. 2004 (Implementation of Compressed workweek
DOLE Advisory No. 02, s. 2009 (Guidelines on Adoption of Flexible Work Arrangements)
2.3 Hours worked (Art. 84, LC)

Rada vs. NLRC, 205 SCRA 69 [1992]
2.4 Work interruption due to brownouts: DOLE Policy Instruction No. 36
2.5 Meal Break
2.6 Idle time, waiting time, commuting time,

travel time; whether part of hours of work or not
2.7 Overtime work

 Undertime not offset by overtime
 Waiver of overtime pay
PALEA vs. PAL, GR L-31341 and 31343, 31 March 1996
Interphil Laboratories Ees Union-FFW vs. Interphil Lab., GR 142824, 19 Dec 2001
Acuna vs. CA, GR No. 159832, 05 May 2006
2.8 Night Work Prohibition lifted: Republic Act No. 10151 [2011]
a. Who may now be assigned the nightshift; exceptions
b. Rights of Pregnant Women and Lactating mothers
c. Rights of Night Shift Workers
3. REST DAYS
Art 83-85, 89-92, LC; Book3 R1 S3-17, IRR; R1-A, S5-10, IRR; R3 S1-9, IRR
3.1 Right to weekly rest day

3.2 Preference of the employee
3.3 When work on rest day authorized
3.4 Premium Pay, Art. 91-93, LC; B3 R3, IRR
Cases:
North Davao Mining Corp vs. NLRC, GR No. 112546, 13 Mar 1996, 254 SCRA 721
Lagatic vs. NLRC, GR 121004, 28 Jan 1998, 285 SCRA 251
4. HOLIDAYS
Art. 94, LC; R4 S1-11, IRR; Executive Order No. 203 dated 30 June 1987; Republic Act No. 9177 (02 Nov 2002)
amending legal holidays and declaring Eid Al Fitr as a holiday. See also: Republic Act No. 9256 [25 Feburary
2004] declaring Aug 21 Ninoy Aquino Day as special non-working holiday; Republic Act No. 9492 (26 July 2007)
rationalizing the celebration of holidays; Republic Act No. 9849 [Declaring Eid’l Adha as a holiday]).
4.1 Legal holidays vs. special days
4.2 Inclusions and Exclusions from coverage
Ariel L. David, doing business under the name and style “Yiels Hog Dealer” vs. John G. Macasio, G.R. No.
195466, 02 July 2014. -- General Rule: Employees on task or “pakyaw” basis are entitled to holiday pay and
SIL pay; unless they qualify as field personnel.
26
4.3 Right to holiday pay

Jose Rizal College vs. NLRC, GR No. 65482, 01 December 1987
4.4 Entitlement of monthly paid workers

Insular Bank of Asia and American Employees Union vs. Inciong, GR L052415, 23 October 1984, 132 SCRA
663
Villuga vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 750038, 23 August 1993
4.5 Effects of absences on day before holiday

 If employee is absent with leave
 If employee is absent without leave
 In case day before holiday is employee’s rest day or non-working holiday
4.6 Special instances (B3 R4 S1-11, IRR)

 In case of two successive regular holidays
 In case the regular holidays fall on the same day
 In case of temporary or periodic shutdowns
 Teachers, pakiao workers and seasonal workers
5. LEAVES
5.1 Service Incentive Leave Pay

Article 95, Labor Code; B3 R5 S1-6, IRR
 Purpose of the law
 Right to service incentive leave and meaning of “at least one year of service”
 Exclusions from coverage
 Commutable nature of benefit
5.2 Maternity Leave

Republic Act No. 8282, otherwise known as the Social Security Act of 1997, and Republic Act No. 7322,
amending Sec. 14-A of the Social Security Law
 Coverage
 Conditions to entitlement
 Availment
 Whether or not maternity leave benefits are included in the computation of 13th month pay.
5.3 Paternity Leave

Republic Act No. 8187, and implementing Rules
 Coverage
 Availment
5.4 Solo Parent Leave

Republic Act No. 8972, otherwise known as the Solo Parents’ Welfare Act of 2000 and its Implementing Rules
 Coverage
 Availment
5.5 Leaves for victims of violence against women and their children
Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as Anti Violence against Women and Children, Section 43
 Coverage
 Conditions for entitlement
 Availment
6. SERVICES CHARGES
Article 96, LC; B3 R6 S1-7, IRR)
 Coverage
 Exclusion
 Distribution
 Integration in case service charge is abolished
27
7. THIRTEENTH (13TH) MONTH PAY

Pres. Decree No. 851 and Implementing Rules; Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the 13th month pay
issued dated 16 November 1987;
Nature of 13th month pay
 Coverage
 Exclusions/Exemptions from coverage
 What comprises “basis salary” for purposes of computation of 13th momth pay
 Commissions vis-à-vis 13th month pay
 CBA vis-à-vis 13th month pay
Cases:
Honda Phil., Inc. vs. Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda, 460 SCRA 186 [2005]
JPL Marketing Promotions vs. Court of Appeals, 463 SCRA 136 [2005]
DAY EIGHT
8. WOMEN WORKERS
Articles 130-136 [prev 130-138), LC; B3 R12 S1-14 IRR
Republic Act No. 7877, known as Anti-Sexual Harassment Act Of 1995
Republic Act No. 9710 [15 Sept 2009] entitled “The Magna Carta Of Women”, Secs. 4, 12-21
Republic Act No. 10151 {21 June 2011), repealing Articles 130 and 131 of Labor Code regarding prohibition against
night work for women
 Discrimination (Art. 135, LC; See also: Magna Carta of Women)
 Stipulation against marriage (Art. 136, LC)

Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company, G.R. No. 118978, 23 May 1997 citing Zialcita vs. Philippine
Airlines, Case No. R04-3399, 27 May 1976
Lakpue Drug vs. Begla, 473 SCRA 617
Star Paper vs. Simbol, G.R. No. 164774, 12 April 2006; 487 SCRA 228
 Prohibited acts (Art 137, LC)/ Sexual harassment in workplace

Lourdes Domingo vs. Comm. Rogelio Rayala, G.R. No. 155831 , 18 February 2008
Atty. Susan Aquino vs. Hon. Ernesto Acosta, Presiding Judge of the Court of Tax Appeals, A.M. No. CTA –01-
1, 02 April 2002
9. MINOR WORKERS
Articles 137-138 [prev 139-140), LC; B3, R12, S2-3, IRR
Republic Act No. 7610, Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7658
Republic Act No. 9231 [19 Dec 2003], An Act Providing For The Elimination Of The Worst Forms Of Child Labor And
Affording Stronger Protection For The Working Child, Amending For This Purpose Republic Act no. 7610, As Amended,
Otherwise Known As The "Special Protection Of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation And Discrimination Act"
 Regulation of working hours of a child

 General rule and exceptions
 Employment of the child in public entertainment
 Prohibition of employing minors in certain undertakings
and in certain advertisements
10. EMPLOYMENT OF HOUSEHELPERS

Republic Act No. 10361, “Batas Kasambahay” effective 18 Jan 2013; cf. Implementing Rules and Regulations of
the Batas Kasambahay, effective
04 June 2013
Articles 139 to 150 [prev. 141-152), LC; B3, R13 IRR, as amended by RA 10361
Republic Act No. 7655, increasing the minimum wages of househelpers and amending Article 143 of Labor Code
28
 Definition
 Benefits accorded househelpers
 Termination of employment
 Reliefs for unjust termination
Cases:
Apex Mining vs. NLRC, 196 SCRA 251
11. EMPLOYMENT OF HOMEWORKERS

Art. 151- 153 (prev 153-155), Labor Code; B3 R14 IRR; DOLE Dept. Order No. 005-92 dated 04 February 1992
 Definition
 Rights and benefits accorded homeworkers
 Conditions for deduction from homeworkers’ earnings
12. APPRENTICES & LEARNERS

Art. 57-77, Labor Code; B2,R6-7, IRR
Republic Act No. 7686, The Dual Training System
12.1 Apprenticeship
 Meaning, nature and significance of apprenticeship

 On-the-job training
 Qualifications of apprentice
 Compensation and Termination of apprenticeship
Cases:
Nitto Enterprises vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 654
Century Canning Corporation vs. Court of Appeal, 530 SCRA 501
12.2 Learners
 Meaning, nature and significance of learners
 Distinctions between Learners and Apprentices
 When learners may be hired
 Approval and cancellation of learnership program
13. HANDICAPPED/DISABLED PERSONS

Art. 78-81, Labor Code; B2 R8 IRR
Republic Act No. 7277 [24 March 1992], Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, Sec. 4-11, 32-33
Republic Act No. 9442, amending RA 7277 giving additional benefits for disabled persons
 Definition of disabled persons

 Rights and privileges of disabled workers in respect of employment
 What constitutes acts of discrimination against disabled workers
Case: Bernardo vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 122917. 19 July 1999
E. RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT

Articles 12-35, Labor Code
DOLE Rules Governing Private Recruitment and Placement for Local Employment, 05 June 1997
2002 POEA Rules on Landbased Overseas Workers, 04 Feb 2002.
1. Recruitment and placement; defined

People vs. Panis, 142 SCRA 664 [1986], at 667
29
1.1 Agency and principal under obligation to comply with terms of contract; prohibition against
contract substitution
Pert/CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. vs. Amando A. Vinuya, et al. G.R. No. 197528, 05 September
2012.
2. Illegal Recruitment, defined

Art. 38 (Local recruitment),
Labor Code, Sec. 6, Migrant Workers Act,
Republic Act No. 8042 as amended by Republic Act No.
2.1 License vs. Authority

People vs. Alvarez, 387 SCRA 448 [2002]
2.2 Essential elements of illegal recruitment

People vs. Gallardo, 388 SCRA 121 [2002].
2.3 Simple illegal recruitment vs. illegal recruitment in large scale

People of the Philippines vs. Rosario “Rose” Ochoa,G.R. No. 173792. August 31, 2011.
2.4 Illegal recruitment as economic sabotage

Article 38(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. No. 2018
People vs. Navarra, 352 SCRA 84 [2001]
2.5 Illegal Recruitment vs. Estafa
2.6 Liabilities and penalties for illegal recruitment
3. Local employment agency and the foreign employer
3.1 Solidary liability of local employment agency and foreign principal.

Sevillana vs. I.T. [International] Corp., 356 SCRA 451 [2001]
3.2 Theory of imputed knowledge

Sunace International Mgmt Services vs. NLRC, GR No. 161757, 25 January 2006
3.3 Question: Do the provisions of the Labor Code still apply to Filipino OFWs who have been deployed abroad
and are retrenched by the foreign principal? International Management Services vs. Logarta, G.R. No.
163657, 18 April 2012
3.4 Question: Whether the fact that the foreign principal changed its mind and chose another applicant, can
be considered a valid cause for non-deployment? Abosta Ship Management vs. Wilhilm Hilario, G.R. No.
195792, 24 November 2014.
4. Compensability of injury/death for seafarers

Splash Philippines, Inc., Lorenzo Estrada, Taiyo Sangyo Trading and Marine service, Ltd. [TST PANAMA S.A.] and M/V
Harutamou vs. Ronulfo G. Ruizo, G.R. No. 193628, 18 March 2014
4.1 Complainant employee must discharge burden of proof that injury sustained on board ship is proximate
cause of disease. Spouses Aya-Ay vs. Arpaphil Shipping and Magna Marine, G.R. No. 155359, 31 January 2006
4.2 Company designated physicians initially determines compensability, but right of seafarer to seek second
opinion
German Marine Agencies, Inc.vs. NLRC, 403 Phil. 572 [2001]; cited in Panganiban vs. Tara Trading Ship Management.
Inc., G.R. No. 187032, 18 October 2010.
4.3 As to the question of which findings should prevail, that of the company designated physician or the
seafarer’s personal physician. -- Section 20-B of the 2002 POEA-Standard Employment Contract
4.4 Requisites and timeframe for compensability of occupational diseases. – Sections 20(B) and 32-A of the POEA-
Standard Employees’ Contract
Three-day period; Failure of the seaman to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement within three
(3) days from discharge shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.
30
Crew and Ship Management International Inc. and Salena, Inc. vs. Jina T. Soria, G.R. No. 175491. 10 December 2012
120-day period: maximum days entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is
declared fit to work
4.5 Suicide not compensable. -- Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. Donnaelle Pedrejas, G.R. No. 192993, 11 August
2014.
4.6 Dishonesty of seafarer precludes compensability. -- Vetyard Terminals and Miguel Perez vs. Bernardino Suarez,
G.R. No. 199344, 05 March 2014, Abad
5. Ban on Direct hiring, Art. 18 Labor Code
a. Remittance of foreign exchange earnings

b. Prohibited activities
c. Regulatory and visitorial powers of the Labor Secretary
F. RETIREMENT PAY
Article 302 [prev 287), Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7641
B6 R1 S13-14, IRR
Republic Act No. 4917, Retirement Benefits of Private employees not subject to attachment, levy, execution or any
tax
1. Nature and purpose

Oro Enterprises vs. NLRC, GR 110861, 14 November 1994
Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) vs. Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines (ALPAP), 373 SCRA 302
2. Compulsory vs. optional retirement age; parameters
3. Computation: 22.5 days x number of years of service.

Capitol Wireless vs. Confessor, 264 SCRA 68 [1996]
Grace Christian High School vs. Filipinas Lavandera, G.R. No. 177845, 20 August 2014
4. Retirement under a Collective Bargaining Agreement/Applicable Contract
5. When exempted or not exempted from taxation

Cf. Republic Act No. 4917
6. Retirement of Part-time Workers
7. The retirement benefits under RA 7641 and RA 8558 are separate and distinct from those granted by the Social
Security System
8. DOUBLE RETIREMENT: is an employee precluded from receiving retirement benefits from the employer if he
was allowed to work after receiving SSS retirement benefits?
Masing Development, et.al., vs. Gregorio Rogelio, G.R. No. 161787, 08 April 2011.
9. RETIREMENT PLUS SEPARATION PAY: May an employee be precluded from receiving retirement benefits
from the employer if he was retrenched?
Goodyear vs. Marina Angus, G.R. No. 185499, 14 November 2014.
Concepcion A. Villena vs. Batangas II Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 205735, 04 February 2015
G. MEDICAL DENTAL AND OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY and EMPLOYEES

COMPENSATION
1. Medical and Dental Services
Art. 156-161, LC; B4 R1 IRR
2. Occupational Health and Safety

Art. 162-165, LC; B4 R2 IRR
31
3. Employees Compensation
Articles 166-208, Labor Code
Articles 1711-1712, Civil Code
Compensability of injury
Belarmino vs. ECC, G.R. No. 90204, 11 May 1990
Compensability of illness
Raro vs. ECC, G.R. No. L-58445, 27 April 1989
Liability of State Insurance Fund

Mabuhay Shipping vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 94167, 21 Jan 1991
Benefits
Loot vs. GSIS, GR No. 86994, 30 June 1993
H. SSS LAW
1. Coverage and effective date of coverage

 Employer; employee and self-employed
2. Exception from coverage of SSS Law

 Agricultural labor;
 Employment purely casual and not for the purpose of the occupation or business of the employer;
 Service performed by an individual in the employ of his son, daughter, or spouse, and service performed by a child under
the age of twenty-one years in the employ of his parents;
 Service performed on or in connection with an alien vessel by an employee if he is employed when such vessel is outside
the Philippines;
 Service performed in the employ of the Philippine Government or instrumentality or agency thereof;
 Service performed in the employ of a foreign government or international organization, or their wholly-owned
instrumentality;
 Such other services performed by temporary employees which may be excluded by regulation of the Commission.
Employees of bona fide independent contractors shall not be deemed employees of the employer engaging the services
of said contractors.
3. Non-remittance of contributions by employers; penalty for violation and prescriptive period
FINALS HERE
32

Labor Law Review 2017 Syllabus

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Labor Law Review 2017 Syllabus

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

LABOR LAW REVIEW

COURSE OUTLINE FOR SUMMER

For Adamson University College of Law

Dean Ada D. Abad

Attendance, quizzes and recitation: 40%

1. Constitutional and statutory basis

1.1 Consti., art. 2, secs. 9-14, 18 and 20.

2. General principles of labor law

b) Employment not merely a contractual relationship:

c) Who has initial burden of proving existence of an employer-employee relationship?

2.3 Only substantial evidence is required in administrative proceedings

2.4 In case of doubt or ambiguity, liberal interpretation of law in favor of workers

2.5 But management rights likewise protected

1. Employer defined: Art. 219 [prev 212] (e), LC;

2. Employee defined: Art. 219 [prev 212] (f), LC

3. Employer relationship as matrix

3.1 Concept of employer-employee relationship

3.2 Tests to determine the existence of employer-employee relationship

3.4 Reasonable causal connection:

Is a car benefit a labor or a civil dispute?

3.5 Corporate officer or employee?

Prudential Bank vs. Clarita Reyes, 352 SCRA 316

Extent of liability of corporate officers: General rule and exception

Manliguez vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 427

4.1 Management prerogative to contract out of services

HOWEVER, PRELIMINARY PRESUMPTION IS THAT CONTRACTOR IS LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING. --

Masiador and sentenciador in a cockpit; not employees.

Manufacturing company vs. forwarding agent

Television Company vs. Talent

Insurance company vs. commission agents

 Mandatory registration of independent contractors (DO18, s11)

Compare with: Liability of principal to labor-only contracting employees – solidary liability as to

4.5 Effect of DOLE Certification as legitimate job contractor

5. COVERAGE OF LABOR CODE, ART. 6:

5.1 Covered employment

5.2 Excluded employment

c. Managerial employees, with respect to right to unionize

San Miguel Brewery Sales vs. Ople, 170 SCRA 25

2. Examples of the exercise of management prerogatives

2.1 Hiring of personnel and size of workforce

2.2 Taking out of chairs in assembly line

2.3 Prohibition against Elective Office

2.4 Search of office computer to check misconduct

Compare with: Stipulations against marriage

2.8 Terms and conditions upon hiring; non-compete clauses

2.9 Imposition of weight requirement:

2.10 Permissible reduction of working hours

2.11 Reorganization as an exercise of management prerogatives

3. Policies as to employee classification/status

Doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”

Intl. Catholic Migration vs. NLRC, 169 SCRA 606

Extended probationary period; when allowed.

Training plus probationary period equals double probation:

ON PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT WITH A TERM:

But probationary nature to prevail over term:

3.3 Term employment

Brent School vs. Zamora, 181 SCRA 702

Indicators of project employment, enumerated:

Work pool explained:

Project employment for a fixed term:

3.5 Seasonal Employees

EMERGING TREND: REGULAR SEASONAL WORKERS.

3.6 Managerial employees vs. supervisory employees

3.7 Field personnel