2) Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union v.

CA; December 16, 2004

WON payroll reinstatement is proper in lieu of actual reinstatement under Art. 263(g) of the Labor Code?

No. Payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement is not sanctioned under the provision of the said
article. The SC noted the difference between UST vs. NLRC and the instant case. In UST case, the teachers
could not be given back their academic assignments since the order of the Secretary for them to return to
work was given in the middle of the first semester of the academic year. The NLRC was, therefore, faced
with a situation where the striking teachers were entitled to a return to work order, but the university
could not immediately reinstate them since it would be impracticable and detrimental to the students to
change teachers at that point in time.

In the present case, there is no similar compelling reason that called for payroll reinstatement as an
alternative remedy. A strained relationship between the striking employees and management is no
reason for payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement. Under Article 263(g), all workers must
immediately return to work and all employers must readmit all of them under the same terms and
conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Court pointed out that the law uses the precise
phrase of “under the same terms and conditions,” revealing that it contemplates only actual
reinstatement. This is in keeping with the rationale that any work stoppage or slowdown in that
particular industry can be inimical to the national economy. The SC reiterates that Article 263(g) was not
written to protect labor from the excesses of management, nor was it written to ease management from
expenses, which it normally incurs during a work stoppage or slowdown. This law was written as a
means to be used by the State to protect itself from an emergency or crisis. It is not for labor, nor is it for
management.

13) Dy Keh Beng v. International Labor; May 25, 1979

WON there existed an employee-employer relation between petitioner and respondents.

Yes. Evidence showed that the work of Solano and Tudla was continuous except in the event of illness,
although their services were compensated on piece basis. The control test calls for the existence of the
right to control the manner of doing the work, not the actual exercise of the right considering that Dy Keh
Beng is engaged in the manufacture of baskets known as “kaing”, those working under Dy would be
subject to Dy’s specifications such as the size and quality of the “kaing”. And since the laborers are done
at Dy’s establishments, it could be inferred that Dy could easily exercise control upon them. As to the
contention that Solano was not an employee because he worked on piece basis, the court ruled that it
should be determined that if indeed payment by piece is just a method of compensation and does not
define the essence of the relation. Payment cannot be construed by piece where work is done in such
establishment so as to put the worker completely at liberty to turn him out and take it another at
pleasure Justice Perfecto also contended that pakyaw system is a labor contract between employers and
employees between capitalists and laborers. Wherefore, the award of backwages is modified to an award
of backwages for 3 years at the rated of compensation the employees were receiving at the time of
dismissal.

Page 5 (KDJ)
 24) CIA Maritama v. Cabagnot; April 29, 1960

WON the deceased was an employee of the Compañia Maritima, entitled to compensation under the
Workmen's Compensation Act.

Yes. While it is true that no written employment contract between the petitioner and the deceased was
presented in evidence, it is not disputed that the petitioner company owns the vessel where the deceased
was assigned as gangwayman, and it was found by the Commission that the salary of the deceased was
paid directly from the funds of petitioner. From these circumstances, it would the appear that at the time
of the accident the deceased was under petitioner's employ. SEC. 39 (b). "Laborer" is used as a synonym
of "employee" and means every person who has entered the employment of, or works under a service or
apprenticeship contract for an employer. It does not include a person whose employment is purely casual
and is not for the purpose of the occupation or business of the employer. For an employee to be excluded
from the term "laborer" or "employee" under the Act, his employment must be "purely casual and is not
for the purpose of the occupation or business of the employer".

35) Duncan Assoc. vs. Glaxo Wellcome Phil.; September 14, 2004

WON the policy of pharmaceutical company prohibiting its employees from marrying employees of any
competitor company violates labor rights?

No. Glaxo has a right to guard its trades secrets, manufacturing formula, marketing strategies, and other
confidential programs and information from competitors. The prohibition against personal or marital
relationships with employees of competitor companies upon Glaxo’s employees is unreasonable under
the circumstances because relationship of that nature might compromise the interest of the company.
That Glaxo possesses the right to protect its economic interest cannot be denied.

The company actually enforce the policy after repeated request to the employee to comply with the
policy. Indeed the application of the policy was made in an impartial and even-handed manner, with due
regard for the lot of the employee.

46) Floren Hotel vs NLRC; May 6, 2005

WON the employees were validly terminated on the ground of abandonment?

No. Petitioner claimed that all five private respondents were guilty of abandoning their jobs. Thus, it was
incumbent upon petitioners to show that the two requirements for a valid dismissal on the ground of
abandonment existed in this case. Petitioners needed to present for each private respondent, evidence
not only of the failure to report for work or that absence was without valid or justifiable reasons, but also
of some overt somehow, act showing the private respondent’s loss of interest to continue working in his
or her job. If it was true that private respondents abandoned their jobs, then petitioners should have
serve them with a notice of termination on the ground of abandonment as required under sec. 2, Rule
XIV. Book V, Rules and Regulation implementing the Labor Code Petitioner’s failure to comply with the
foregoing requirement, thereby bolstering further private respondent’s claim that they did not abandon
their work but were illegally dismissed. None of the respondents in this case had any intention sever
their working relationship. Just days after they dismissed, they filed complaints to protest their
dismissals. Well established is the rule that an employee who takes steps to protest his lay off cannot be
Page 5 (KDJ)
said to have abandoned his work. They even filed a manifestation asking that petitioners be ordered to
allow them back to work when petitioner averred that were never terminated. Clearly, respondents are
eager to resume work.

57) OSS Security and Allied Services vs. NLRC; February 9, 2000

WON the transfer of private respondent from Makati to Taytay, Rizal, after the company in the former
requested to reorganize the men and women assigned to their building to induce more discipline and
proper decorum, can be considered constructive dismissal.

No. Service oriented enterprise adhere to the business adage that “the customer is always right.” In the
employment of personnel, the employer has management prerogatives subject only to limitations
imposed by law. The transfer of an employee would only amount to constructive dismissal when such is
unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee, and when it involves a demotion in rank or
diminution of salaries, benefits and other privileges. In this case the transfer was done in good faith and
in the best interest of the business enterprise. Evidence show nothing about the discrimination of the
employee by the employer in effecting her transfer as such was done to comply with a reasonable
request. Also, the mere convenience of a new job assignment does not by itself make it illegal.

68) University of Immaculate Concepcion v. Secretary of Labor, et. al

WON the Secretary can take cognizance of an issue involving employees who are not part of the
bargaining unit?

Yes. The recognition of the Supreme Court of management prerogatives which is why it often decline to
interfere with the legitimate decisions of the employers, as declared in Metrolab Industries v. Roldan
Confessor, is a mere privilege and is never absolute, as declared in PAL v. National Labor Relations
Commissions (NLRC). One of these exceptions is when the secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over
labor disputes involving industries indispensable to the national interest under Art. 263(g) of the Labor
code. When the Sec. of Labor ordered the university to suspend the effect of the termination of the
individual respondents, the secretary did not exceed her jurisdiction, nor did the secretary gravely abuse
the same. It must be pointed out that one of the substantive evils which Art. 263(g). of the labor code
seeks to curb is the exacerbation of a labor dispute to the further detriment of the national interest. It is
clear that the act of the university of dismissing the individual respondents from their employment
became the impetus for the union to declare a second notice of strike. It is not a question anymore of
whether or not the union to terminated employees, the individual respondents herein are part of the
bargaining unit. Any act committed during the pendency of the between the parties should be considered
an act of exacerbation and should not be allowed.

79) Malayang Manggagawa ng Stay Fast Phils., Inc. v. NLRC

WON a union may file a notice of strike considering it is not the exclusive bargaining agent?

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter which ruled that, while union may file
a notice of strike on behalf of its members, petitioner failed to cite any instance of discrimination or
harassment when it filed its notice of strike and the incidents mentioned as discriminatory occurred after
the filing of the said notice. Moreover, assuming the strike was legal at the beginning, it became illegal
Page 5 (KDJ)
when petitioner committed acts of violence, coercion and intimidation and obstruction of the free ingress
to and egress from respondent company’s premises. Also, petitioner was supposed to have made a self-
imposed prohibition to stage a strike when it submitted its labor dispute with respondent company for
compulsory arbitration. Yet, petitioner continued with its strike. Besides, union filed no new notice if
strike that could have supported its charges of discriminatory acts and unfair labor practice Moreover, no
evidence was presented to establish such charges.

The sit down strike made by union’s officers and members was in violation of respondent company’s
rules, and petitioner’s officers and members ignored the opportunity given by the respondent company
for them to explain their misconduct, which resulted in the termination of their employment. The Court
of Appeals ruled that the said findings were supported by substantial evidence.

90) Rural Bank of Coron v. Cortes

WON a case involving intra-corporate controversy is cognizable by the NLRC?

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies
since corporations can engage its corporate officers to perform services under a circumstance which
would make them employees. In the case at bar, the respondent was not only a corporate officer, but was
not also an employee being designated as the Financial Assistant and the Personnel Officer of the
Corporation. So while it is true that corporate officers are not employees, if they take a position usually
for employees, they descend to the nature of employees. The Labor Arbiter thus has jurisdiction over
respondent’s complaint.

101) PNB v. Cabansag

WON the Philippine labor laws has jurisdiction over the case for Cabansag’s failure to wait it at the time
of his application in the Singapore Ministry of Employment which has duly approved by the POEA.

Yes. Labor Arbiters have exclusive and original jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-employee
relations, including termination disputes involving all workers, among whom are Overseas Filipino
Workers. Thus, based on forgoing provision, labor arbiters clearly have original and exclusive jurisdiction
over claims arising from employer-employee relations, including terminations disputes involving all
workers, among whom are OFWs.

Respondent in this case subsequently became a contract worker or OFW who was covered by the
Philippine Labor Laws and policy upon certification by the POEA. The Certificate, issued on March 1999,
declared her a bona fide contract worker for Singapore. Under the Philippine law, this document
authorized her working status in a foreign country and entitled her to all benefits and processes under
our statutes. Thus, even assuming arguendo that she was considered at the start of her employment as a
direct hire, govern by and subject to the Philippine laws, common practices and customs prevailing in
Singapore she subsequently became a contract worker or an OFW who was covered by Philippine Labor
Law and policies upon certification by the POEA. At the time her employment was illegally terminated,
she already possessed the POEA Employment Certificate. Thus, being a migrant worker or OFW,
respondent is given the option to choose the venue of her complaint against petitioner for illegal

Page 5 (KDJ)
dismissal By mandate of RA 8042, the law gives her two choices: (1) at the Regional Arbitration Branch
where she resides or (2) at the RAB where the principal office of her employer is situated.

112) Singapore Airlines v. Pano

WON the suit for damages against the respondent for his violation of the terms and conditions of his
contract with petitioner is an issue under the jurisdiction by the regular courts?

Yes. While it is true that all other claims arising from an employer-employee relationship, accordingly to
Art. 217 of the Labor code, are cognizable by Labor Arbiters, this case, being grounded on the “wanton
failure and refusal” without just cause of respondent to report for duty despite repeated notices served
upon him regarding the disapproval of his application for leave of absence without pay, is within the
purview of Civil Law. Under the regular courts. The complaint was not anchored per se on the
abandonment but on the manner and the consequent effects of such abandonment of work translated in
terms in of the damages which petitioner had to suffer. The primary relief sought is for liquidated
damages for breach of contractual obligation. The other items demanded are not labor benefits
demanded by workers generally taken in cognizance of in labor disputes, such as payment of wages,
overtime compensation or separation pay. The items claimed are the natural consequences flowing from
the breach of an obligation, intrinsically a civil dispute.

123) Grepalife v. NLRC

WON employer-employee relationship exists between insurance agents and their principal, and hence by
the Labor Code.

Yes, provided that the element of control by the insurance company is present. As the court held in
Investment Planning Corp. vs. SSS, there are two classes of agents who sell insurance policies: (1) salaried
employees who keep definite work on commission basis. The agents who belong to the second class are
not required to report for work at any time, they do not devote their time exclusively to or work solely for
the company since the time and the effort they spend in their work depend entirely on their own will and
initiative; they are not required to account for their time nor submit a report of their activities; they
shoulder their own selling expenses as well as transportation; and they are paid their commission based
on a certain percentage of their sales. The test is whether the company controls or has reserve the right
to control the employee not only as a result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods
by which the same is to be accomplished. In the case at bar, the element of control by the petitioner on
respondent was very much present. He was controlled by the company not only as to the kind of work;
the amount of results, the kind of performance but also the power of dismissal. Undoubtedly, the
respondent, by nature of his position and work, had been a regular employee of petitioner and is
therefore entitled to the protection of the law and could not just be terminated without valid and
justifiable cause.

Page 5 (KDJ)