1st Batch - Puro EER lang yung ibang case so kaya na yun.

UNIVERSAL ROBINA Regular seasonal workers

SUGAR MILLING CORP
V. ACIBO When the “seasonal” workers are continuously and repeatedly hired to perform
the same tasks or activities for several seasons or even after the cessation of the
season, this length of time may likewise serve as a badge of regular employment.

BEGINO V. ABS-CBN TV patrol Bicol program

If the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the
performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated
or continuing performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not
indispensability of that activity in the business.

Petitioners were subject to the control an supervision of respondent. Also, the

latter provided them with the equipment essential for the discharge of their
functions. (Relate to Sonza Case)

PROFESSIONAL Hospital; Apparent Authority

SERVICES, INC. V. CA
A hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor-
physician. However, the hospital may be liable if the physician is the
“ostensible” agent of the hospital.

2nd Batch – Jurisdictions

HALAGUENA V. PAL Provision in CBA regarding compulsory retirement for PAL attendants

Petitioner contends RTC has jurisdiction as the issue the constitutionality of the
provision of the CBA.

SC: It is clear that the issue raised is the constitutionality of Sec.114 of the CBA.
The issue cannot be resolved by applying the Labor Code alone. Rather it
requires the application of the Constitution, labor statute, law on contracts,
conventions on women discrimination which is within the jurisdiction of the trial
court. (IPE daw kasi sya)
The jurisdiction of LA and NLRC is limited to disputes arising from EER which
can only be resolved by reference to the LC, other labor statutes or their CBA.

LAPANDAY V. CA/ Increase in wage; wage order

COMMANDA SECURITY
SERVICE RTC has jurisdiction. While the resolution of the issue involves the application
of the labor laws, reference to the said law was only for the determination of the
solidary liability of the parties where no EER exist.
**Right of reimbursement – bayad muna si agency dapat bago magreimburse
kay contractor.

7K CORPORATION V Water purifier; Illegal dismissal; NCMB VA

ALBARICO
ISSUE: Whether VA is correct in assuming jurisdiction to decide on legality of
dismissal as well as entitlement of backwages even if neither was expressly
claimed in the submission of agreement.

SC: The court ruled that Art. 262 of LC provides that “The VA or panel of VA,
upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all other labor disputes
including ULP and bargaining deadlock. Also, the labor disputes referred to in
 the same Article can include all those disputes mentioned in Art. 217 over which
the LA has original and exclusive jurisdiction.

The circumstance in the instant case lead to no other conclusion that that claim
of respondent was premised on his allegation of illegal dismissal. (Nung
dinismiss ni NLRC on the ground offorum shopping kasi pending na sa NCMB,
inassume nya na illegal dismissal nay un)

PEOPLE’S Bombo Radyo case

BROADCASTING V.
DOLE Issue: Does Sec. of Labor has the power to determine the existence of an EER?

Three points in the case:

(1) The law gives prerogative to the NLRC in determining the existence of EER.
It can be assumed that the DOLE in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement
power somehow has to make a determination of existence of an EER. Such
prerogative is merely incidental to its function of enforcing labor standard
provisions;

(2) Strict requirements of rules does not apply to labor case but evidences
presented must be substantial in character. As petitioner offered to present his
evidences w/c prima facie negates the existence of EER, the inspector as well as
RD turned a blind eye to the evidences and relied instead on the self serving
claims of the respondents.

(3) Bonds: Although the law imposed mandatory compliance it must be

appreciated with liberal interpretation. Letter of agreement with bank and petition
is sufficient. The court must look on the substantial aspect rather than
technicalities.

3rd batch

MCBURNIE V. GANZON Aussie shit; Appeal; Motion to reduction bond

SC: The filing of the bond is not only mandatory but a jurisdictional requirement
as well, that must be complied with in order to confer jurisdiction upon the
NLRC. Non-compliance therewith renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final
and executory.

While the bond may be reduced upon motion by the employer, this is subject to
the conditions that:
(1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds; and (2)
a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant.
Otherwise the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of
the period to perfect an appeal. The qualification effectively requires that unless
the NLRC grants the reduction of the cash bond within the 10-day reglementary
period, the employer is still expected to post the cash or surety bond securing the
full amount within the said 10-day period. If the NLRC does eventually grant the
motion for reduction after the reglementary period has elapsed, the correct relief
would be to reduce the cash or surety bond already posted by the employer
within the 10-day period.

It is in this light that the Court finds it necessary to set a parameter for the
litigants’ and the NLRC’s guidance on the amount of bond that shall hereafter be
filed with a motion for a bond’s reduction. , all motions to reduce bond that
are to be filed with the NLRC shall be accompanied by the posting of a cash
or surety bond equivalent to 10% of the monetary award that is subject of
 the appeal, which shall provisionally be deemed the reasonable amount of the
bond in the meantime that an appellant’s motion is pending resolution by the
Commission. The foregoing shall not be misconstrued to unduly hinder the
NLRC’s exercise of its discretion, given that the percentage of bond that is set by
this guideline shall be merely provisional.

To require the full amount of the bond within the 10-day reglementary period
would only render nugatory the legal provisions which allow an appellant to
seek a reduction of the bond.

**The Court has relaxed this requirement under certain exceptional

circumstances in order to resolve controversies on their merits.
These circumstances include:
(1) the fundamental consideration of substantial justice;
(2) the prevention of miscarriage of justice or of unjust enrichment; and
(3) special circumstances of the case combined with its legal merits, and the
amount and the issue involved.

MARIANO ONG V. CA Petitioner received the decision of the Labor Arbiter on January 6, 2000. He filed
with the NLRC a notice of appeal with a memorandum of appeal and paid the
docket fees therefor on January 17, 2000, the last day of filing the appeal.
However, instead of posting the required cash or surety bond, he filed a motion
to reduce the appeal bond.

In a judgment involving a monetary award, the appeal shall be perfected only

upon:
(1) proof of payment of the required appeal fee;
(2) posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company; and
(3) filing of a memorandum of appeal.
A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites mentioned
shall not stop the running of the period for perfection of appeal.

In the case at bar, petitioner did not post a full or partial appeal bond within the
prescribed period, thus, no appeal was perfected from the decision of the Labor
Arbiter. For this reason, the decision sought to be appealed to the NLRC had
become final and executory and therefore immutable. Clearly, then, the NLRC
has no authority to entertain the appeal, much less to reverse the decision of the
Labor Arbiter.

YUPANGCO COTTON Accion reinvindicatoria. Injuntion. Third party claim

MILLS V. CA
The case before the NLRC where Labor Arbiter Reyes issued a writ of
execution on the property of petitioner was a labor dispute between Artex and
Samar-Anglo. Petitioner was not a party to the case. The only issue petitioner
raised before the NLRC was whether or not the writ of execution issued by the
labor arbiter could be satisfied against the property of petitioner, not a party to
the labor case.

On the other hand, the accion reinvindicatoria filed by petitioner in the trial
court was to recover the property illegally levied upon and sold at auction.
Hence, the causes of action in these cases were different.

In light of the above, the filing of a third party claim with the Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC did not preclude the petitioner from filing a subsequent action for
recovery of property and damages with the Regional Trial Court. And, the
institution of such complaint will not make petitioner guilty of forum shopping.
PAL V. NLRC Currency smuggling in Hong Kong; Injunction

SECTION 1. INJUNCTION IN ORDINARY LABOR DISPUTE.-A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OR A

RESTRAINING ORDER MAY BE GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS DIVISIONS
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH (E) OF ARTICLE 218 OF THE LABOR CODE,
AS AMENDED, WHEN IT IS ESTABLISHED ON THE BASES OF THE SWORN ALLEGATIONS IN
THE PETITION THAT THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF, INVOLVING OR ARISING FROM ANY LABOR
DISPUTE BEFORE THE COMMISSION, WHICH, IF NOT RESTRAINED OR PERFORMED
FORTHWITH, MAY CAUSE GRAVE OR IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO ANY PARTY OR RENDER
INEFFECTUAL ANY DECISION IN FAVOR OF SUCH PARTY.

The foregoing ancillary power may be exercised by the Labor Arbiters only as
an incident to the cases pending before them in order to preserve the rights of
the parties during the pendency of the case, but excluding labor disputes
involving strikes or lockout.

In the present case, there is no labor dispute between the petitioner and private
respondents as there has yet been no complaint for illegal dismissal filed with the
labor arbiter by the private respondents against the petitioner.

Injunctions may be issued only in cases of extreme necessity based on legal

grounds clearly established, after due consultations or hearing and when all
efforts at conciliation are exhausted which factors, however, are clearly absent in
the present case

4th batch – Illegal dismissal shit and CBA shit

PDC-PIZZA HUT V. The court held that to determine the validity of labor unions art.234 requiremets of
LAGUESMA registration must be complied with. If its application for registration is vitiated by
falsification and serious irregularities,especially those appearing on the face of the
application and the supporting documents, a labor organization should be denied
recognitin as a legitimate labor org.

LIBERTY COTTON “That the Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union-PAFLU shall be affiliated with the
MILLS WORKERS PAFLU, and shall remain an affiliate as long as ten (10) or more of its members
UNION CASE evidence their desire to continue the said local unions affiliation.”

Record shows that only four (4) out of its members remained for 32 out of the 36
members of the Union signed the resolution of disaffiliation on May 17, 1964,
triggered by the alleged negligence of PAFLU in attending to the needs of its local
union, particularly its failure to assign a conscientious lawyer to the local to attend
to the ULP case they filed against the Company. The disaffiliation was, therefore,
valid under the local's Constitution and By-Laws which, taken together with the
Collective
Bargaining Agreement, is controlling.

VILLAR V. INCIONG AEU-PAFLU; Termination is valid

It is true that disaffiliation from a labor union is not open to legal objection. It is
implicit in the freedom of association ordained by the Constitution. However, a
closed shop is a valid form of union security, and such provision in a CBA is not a
restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution.
When a labor union affiliates with a parent organization or mother union, or
accepts a charter from a superior body, it becomes subject to the laws of the
superior body under whose authority the local union functions. The constitution,
 by-laws and rules of the parent body, together with the charter it issues pursuant
thereto to the subordinate union, constitute an enforceable contract between the
parent body and the subordinate union, and between the members of the
subordinate union inter se.

FERRER V. NLRC Expulsion of members; officers' alleged lack of attention to the economic
demands of the workers.

No hearing ("pandinig") was ever conducted by the SAMAHAN to look into

petitioners' explanation of their moves to oust the union leadership under Capitle,
or their subsequent affiliation with FEDLU. While it is true that petititioners'
actions might have precipitated divisiveness and, later, showed disloyalty to the
union, still, the SAMAHAN should have observed its own constitution and by-
laws by giving petitioners an opportunity to air their side and explain their moves.
If, after an investigation the petitioners were found to have violated union rules,
then and only then should they be subjected to proper disciplinary measures.

while petitioner's act of holding a special election to oust Capitles, et al. may be
considered as an act of sowing disunity among the SAMAHAN members, and,
perhaps, disloyalty to the union officials, which could have been dealt with by the
union as a disciplinary matter, it certainly cannot be considered as constituting
disloyalty to the union. Faced with a SAMAHAN leadership which they had tried
to remove as officials, it was but a natural act of self-preservation that petitioners
fled to the arms of the FEDLU after the union and the OFC had tried to terminate
their employment. Petitioners should not be made accountable for such an act.

PALACOL V. PURA Three requisites to collect special assessment (incidental expenses, attorney’s
FERRER-CALLEJA fees and representation expenses)

(1) Authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the members at the
general membership meeting duly called for the purpose;
(2) Secretary’s record of the minutes of the meeting;
(3) Individual written authorization for check‐off duly signed by the employee
concerned

Failure of the Union to comply strictly with the requirements set out by the law
invalidates the questioned special assessment. Substantialcompliance is not enough
in view of the fact that the special assessment will diminish the compensation of
the union members. Their express consent is required, and this consent must be
obtained in accordance with the steps outlined by law, which must be followed to
the letter.

Handwritten authorization which complied with the law is valid. However, its
withdrawal means no authorization was given.

Victorianio – Iglesia case yun. And Arizala case – yung madame haha katamad.