 that separation pay or other financial assistance may be allowed to an employee

dismissed for just causes on the basis of equity. This shall be allowed as a measure of
social justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for
causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.

 The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the
extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them.
Thus, an employer may transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another,
provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other privileges, and the
action is not motivated by discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or
demotion without sufficient cause.

 The cause of social justice is not served by upholding the interest of petitioners in
disregard of the right of private respondents. Social justice ceases to be an effective
instrument for the equalization of the social and economic forces by the State when
it is used to shield wrongdoing.

 whatever disciplinary measures are adopted cannot be properly implemented in the

absence of full cooperation of the employees. Such cooperation cannot be attained if
the employees are restive on account, of their being left out in the determination of
cardinal and fundamental matters affecting their employment.

 It should be borne in mind that in termination cases, the employer bears the burden
of proving that the dismissal is for just cause failing which would mean that the
dismissal is not justified and the employee is entitled to reinstatement. In the instant
case, the petitioner failed to convincingly establish valid bases on the alleged serious
misconduct and loss of trust and confidence.
 the application of technical rules of procedure in labor cases may be relaxed to serve the
demands of substantial justice.
 When conflicting interests of labor and capital are to be weighed on the scales of social
justice, the heavier influence of the latter should be counter-balanced by sympathy and
compassion the law must accord the underprivileged worker. The CBA is imbued with
public interest. Compliance with EO 178 is mandatory and beyond contractual
stipulation.

 There are serious doubts in the evidence on record as to the factual basis of the charges
against petitioner. These doubts shall be resolved in her favor in line with the policy under
the Labor Code to afford protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor.[22] The
consistent rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer
and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. The employer
must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a
justifiable cause. Not having satisfied its burden of proof, we conclude that the employer
dismissed the petitioner without any just cause. Hence, the termination is illegal.

 In termination cases, the employer has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence,
that the dismissal is for just cause. If the employer fails to discharge the burden of proof,
the dismissal is deemed illegal. Gurango vs. Best Chemicals

 While in cases of illegal dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proving that the
dismissal is for a valid or authorized cause, the employee must first establish by
substantial evidence the fact of dismissal. Labadan vs. Forest Hills
 General rule in termination cases, burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the
dismissal is for a just and valid cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the
dismissal was illegal.
 It is not for an employee to prove non-payment of benefits to which he is entitled by
law. Rather, it is on the employer that the burden of proving payment of these claims
rests.
 It has been established that the petitioner’s business office was transferred to Kalibo and all its
equipments, records and facilities were transferred thereat and that it conducted its official business in
Kalibo during the period in question. It was incumbent upon private respondents to prove that they indeed
rendered services for petitioner, which they failed to do. Aklan Electric vs NLRC
 the court held that a project employee or member of a work pool may acquire the
status of a regular employee when the following concur:

1. there is continuous rehiring of project employees even after the cessation of a

project,
2. the tasks performed by the alleged “project employee” are vital, necessary and
indispensable to the usual business and trade of the employer.

The evidence on record reveals that petitioner was employed by private respondent
as a data encoder, performing activities which are usually necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade of her employer, continuously for a period of more than
three (3) years, from August 26, 1988 to October 18, 1991 and contracted for a total
of thirteen (13) successive projects. We have previously ruled that "however, the
length of time during which the employee was continuously re-hired is not controlling,
but merely serves as a badge of regular employment." Based on the foregoing, we
conclude that petitioner has attained the status of a regular employee of private
respondent.
 Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility,
under similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries.
 So long as a company’s management prerogatives are exerci
sed in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s inte
rest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing t
he rights of the employees under special laws or under valid
agreements, this Court will uphold them. San Miguel Corp
oration’s offer to compensate the members of its sales force
who will be adversely affected by the implementation of the
CDS by paying them a so-
alled “back adjustment commission”
 RULING: Yes. Although employers have management prerogatives, including the
right to close the operation of an establishment or undertaking, they must comply
with the legal requirements and not offend the protected rights of labor. Requisites:
(a) done in good faith to advance the company’s interest; and (b) not for the purpose
of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under the law.
 The refusal to obey a valid transfer order constitutes willful disobedience
of a lawful order of an employer. Employees may object to, negotiate and
seek redress against employers for rules or orders that they regard as
unjust or illegal. However, until and unless these rules or orders are
 declared illegal or improper by competent authority, the employees ignore
or disobey them at their peril.
 the Supreme Court held that it is evident that the working hours may be changed, at
the discretion of the company, should such change be necessary for its operations,
and that the employees shall observe such rules as have been laid down by the
company.
 1.) Illegal recruitment is committed when two (2) elements concur: 1) that the
offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully
engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and 2) that the offender undertakes
either any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under
Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34.
 To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused-appellant gave
complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send
complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their
money in order to be employed. People vs Angeles
 Illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when a person "(a) undertakes any
recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated
under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) does not have a license or authority to
lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers and (c) commits the
same against three or more persons individually or as a group. People vs Ong
 To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the equal protection
clause and Section 18 of the Constitution translate to economic security
and parity: all monetary benefits should be equally enjoyed by workers
of similar category, while all monetary obligations should be borne by
them in equal degree; none should be denied the protection of the laws
which is enjoyed by, or spared the burden imposed on, others in like
circumstances.

 Upon cursory reading, the subject clause appears facially neutral, for it
applies to all OFWs. However, a closer examination reveals that the
subject clause has a discriminatory intent against, and an invidious
impact on, OFWs at two levels: first, OFWs with employment contracts
of less than one year vis-à-vis OFEs with employment contracts of one
year or more; second, among OFWs with employment contracts of more
than one year; and third, OFWs vis-à-vis local workers with fixed period
employment.

 In sum, prior to R.A. No. 8042, OFWs and local workers with fixed-term
employment who were illegally discharged were treated alike in terms
of the computation of their money claims: they were uniformly entitled
to their salaries for the entire unexpired portions of their contracts. But
with the enactment of R.A. No. 8042, specifically the adoption of the
subject clause, illegally dismissed OFWs with an unexpired portion of
one year or more in their employment contract have since been
differently treated in that their money claims are subject to a 3-month
cap, whereas no such limitation is imposed on local workers with fixed-
term employment.
 The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless
of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular
where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where
the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the
employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and
the employment is for the duration of the season.
 Considering that petitioner was not able to depart from the airport or seaport in the
point of hire, the employment contract did not commence, and no employer-
employee relationship was created between the parties.However, a distinction must
be made between the perfection of the employment contract and the commencement
of the employer-employee relationship. The perfection of the contract, which in this
case coincided with the date of execution thereof, occurred when petitioner and
respondent agreed on the object and the cause, as well as the rest of the terms and
conditions therein. The commencement of the employer-employee relationship, as
earlier discussed, would have taken place had petitioner been actually deployed from
the point of hire. Thus, even before the start of any employer-employee relationship,
contemporaneous with the perfection of the employment contract was the birth of
certain rights and obligations, the breach of which may give rise to a cause of action
against the erring party. Thus, if the reverse had happened, that is the seafarer failed
or refused to be deployed as agreed upon, he would be liable for damages.
 Respondent’s act of preventing petitioner from departing the port of Manila
and boarding "MSV Seaspread" constitutes a breach of contract, giving rise
to petitioner’s cause of action. Respondent unilaterally and unreasonably
reneged on its obligation to deploy petitioner and must therefore answer for
the actual damages he suffered.
 This is the same reason why repatriation is made by law an obligation of the agency
and/or its principal without the need of first determining the cause of the termination
of the worker's employment. Repatriation is in effect an unconditional responsibility of
the agency and/or its principal that cannot be delayed by an investigation of why the
worker was terminated from employment. To be left stranded in a foreign land
without the financial means to return home and being at the mercy of unscrupulous
individuals is a violation of the OFW's dignity and his human rights. These are the
same rights R.A. No. 8042 seeks to protect.19
 Applying the control test to the present case, we find that SONZA is not an employee
but an independent contractor. The control test is the most important test our courts
apply in distinguishing an employee from an independent Contractor. This test is based
on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the supervision
and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The
converse holds true as well – the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the
worker is considered an independent contractor.
 The so-called "control test" is commonly regarded as the most crucial and determinative
indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. Under the
control test, an employer-employee relationship exists where the person for whom the
services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved, but also
the manner and means to be used in reaching that end.
 The rule, however, is not absolute. In Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation of
Sugarcane Workers-Food & General Trade, the Court held that seasonal workers who
have worked for one season only may not be considered regular employees. Similarly, in
Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC, it was held that when seasonal employees are free to contract
their services with other farm owners, then the former are not regular employees. For
regular employees to be considered as such, the primary standard used is the
reasonable connection between the particular activity they perform and the usual trade or
 business of the employer. This test has been explained thoroughly in De Leon v. NLRC,
viz: The primary standard, therefore, of determining a regular employment is the
reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in
relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. The test is whether the former is
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The
connection can be determined by considering the nature of the work performed and its
relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety.
 Project employees are those employed in connection with a particular
construction project. They are not entitled to termination pay if they are
terminated as a result of the completion of the project or any phase thereof in
which they are employed, regardless of the number of projects in which they
have been employed by a particular construction company.
 Once a project or work pool employee has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to
intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and
(2) these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of
the employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee. While the
contracts indeed show that Jamin had been engaged as a project employee, there was
an almost unbroken string of Jamins rehiring from December17, 1968 up to the
termination of his employment on March 20, 1999. While the history of Jamins
employment (schedule of projects)[42] relied upon by DMCI shows a gap of almost four
years in his employment for the period between July 28, 1980 (the supposed completion
date of the Midtown Plaza project) and June 13, 1984 (the start of the IRRI Dorm IV
project), the gap was caused by the company’s omission of the three projects above
mentioned.

