CARLOS
DANIEL DUNGAO – 2AA AFTER PERSONS REVIEWER FOR LABOR STANDARDS
LABOR STANDARDS CASES:
I. APPLICABLE LAWS
1. Maternity Children’s Hospital vs Sec. of Labor
-ECOLA, Regional Director jurisdiction on labor standards
-“Labor standards refer to the minimum requirements
prescribed by existing laws, rules, and regulations relating to
wages, hours of work, cost of living allowance and other
monetary and welfare benefits, including occupational, safety
and health standards”
2. P.I. Manufacturing vs. P.I. Manufacturing Union
-CBA, RA 6640 resulting wage increase, wage distortion cured
by CBA
-The law has no intention for oppression. Not in all cases that
the court rules in favor of labor.
3. Philippine Association of Service Exporters (PASEI) vs Drilon
-The deployment ban of female domestic workers was a proper
exercise of police power. There was no violation of the equal
protection clause and the right to travel.
4. Sosito vs Aguinaldo Development Corporation
-Retrenchment program, Indefinite leave, Not in active service,
no separation pay, best of both worlds
-“While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social
justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be
supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided
in favor of labor. Management also has its own rights which, as
such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of
simple and fair play.”
5. Mendoza vs Rural Bank of Lucban
-Valid exercise of management prerogative to reshuffle
employees provided there is a legitimate business interest.
-“In the pursuit of its legitimate business interest, management
has the prerogative to 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.”
6. China Banking Corporation vs Borromeo
-Bank Manager to Assistant VP who made fictitious loans,
withheld half of separation benefits because of Borromeo,
violate company rules
“Moreover, management has the prerogative to discipline its
employees and to impose appropriate penalties on erring
workers pursuant to company rules and regulations.”
7. SSS Employees vs CA
-No right to strike, detrimental to public service, remedy is with
Congress and not CBA
8. Domingo vs Rayala
-NLRC Chairman sexual harassment
-“Likewise, contrary to Rayala’s claim, it is not essential that the
demand request or requirement be made as a condition for
continued employment or for promotion to a higher position. It
is enough that the respondents acts result in creating an
intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee.”
9. Aquino vs Acosta
-Sexual harassment CTA
-“In all the incidents complained of, the respondent’s
pecks on the cheeks of complainant should be understood in
the context of having been done on the occasion of some
festivities, and not in the assertion of the latter that she was
singled out by Judge Acosta in his kissing escapades. The
busses on her cheeks were simply friendly and innocent, bereft
of malice and lewd design.”
10. Star Paper Corp. vs Simbol
-Prohibition against marriage between employees under Art.
136 of LC
CARLOS DANIEL DUNGAO – 2AA AFTER PERSONS REVIEWER FOR LABOR STANDARDS

-“There must be a compelling business necessity for which no expeditious action on labor cases as a major aspect of
alternative exists other than the discriminatory practice.” constitutional protection to labor.
-Standard of reasonableness parallel to the bona fide
Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of
occupational qualification requirement
B.P. No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the
11. Duncan Association vs Glaxo Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean
and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently,
-Same prohibition against marriage with employees from other all such petitions should hence forth be initially filed in the Court
rival companies but with reason of protecting trade secrets. of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy
-Court upheld it was a valid exercise of management of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired.”
prerogative for its reasonableness of protecting its trade
secrets.
12. Chua-Qua vs Clave
-Teacher fell inlove with grade 6 student and was dismissed
despite their marriage
-Court ruled on illegality of dismissal since “the heart has
reasons which reason does not know”
13. Leus vs St Scholastica’s College
-Teacher dismissed for pregnancy
-Court ruled in favor of teacher for absence of legitimate
grounds of dismissal. Morality is not based on religion but on
moral standards independent from religion.

14. St. Martin Funeral Home vs NLRC

-Appropriate appellate prodecure
Labor Arbiter -> NLRC -> CA ->SC via Rule 65

“While we do not wish to intrude into the Congressional

sphere on the matter of the wisdom of a law, on this score we
add the further observations that there is a growing number of
labor cases being elevated to this Court which, not being a trier
of fact, has at times been constrained to remand the case to the
NLRC for resolution of unclear or ambiguous factual findings;
that the Court of Appeals is procedurally equipped for that
purpose, aside from the increased number of its component
divisions; and that there is undeniably an imperative need for
CARLOS DANIEL DUNGAO – 2AA AFTER PERSONS REVIEWER FOR LABOR STANDARDS
II. BASIC PRINCIPLES
1. Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement vs Zamora
-EER, Contractual employees of San Miguel Corp for 7yrs.
2. Tabas vs. California Manufacturing Company
-EER, Livi Manpower is not an independent contractor
3. Philippine Fuji Xerox vs. NLRC
-EER, Skillpower, Fuji defense that employee is not directly
related nor necessary to the business
-“The nature of one’s business is not determined by self-serving
appellations one attaches thereto but by the tests provided in
the statute.”
4. Manila Golf and Country Club vs IAC
-No EER, no control, not economically dependent on petitioner
-“Manila Golf has no means of compelling the presence of a
caddy. A caddy is not required to exercise his occupation only
in the premises of petitioner. He may work with any other fold
club or he may seek employment as a caddy or otherwise with
any entity or individual without restriction by petitioner.”
5. Encyclopedia Britannica vs NLRC
-No EER, no control, agent or an independent dealer paid on
commission basis of selling encyclopedia
-“The element of control is absent; where a person who works
for another does so more or less as his own pleasure and is not
subject to definite hours or conditions of work, and in turn is
compensated according to the result of his efforts and not the
amount thereof, we should not find that the relationship of
employer and employee exists.”
6. Sevilla vs CA
-EER, Commission basis is not a defense of an employer,
Tourist World Service
7. Insular Life Assurance Co. vs NLRC
- EER, employee cannot work for any other life insurance under
agency contract, compensation in the form of commissions and
devise own ways and means to fulfill obligations.
-“Exclusivity of service, control of assignments and removal of
agents under private respondent’s unit, collection of premiums,
furnishing of company facilities and materials as well as capital
unit described as Unit Development Fund are but hallmarks of
the management system in which herein private respondent
worked. This obtaining, there is no escaping the conclusion that
Delos Reyes was an employee of herein petitioner.”
8. Great Pacific Life Assurance Co. vs. Judico
-EER, Salaried insurance agent, Minimum weekly allowance
known as sales reserve, required to report to work when not in
field
9. Tongko vs Manufactures Life Insurance (MANULIFE)
-No EER, No control since Tongko declared in her income tax
returns that she is self-employed
-No control as the means and methods in attaining the result
was established.
10. Francisco vs NLRC
-EER under two-tiered test, promoted to acting manager but her
salary was lowered and mid year bonus was not given
-“In certain cases, the control test is not sufficient to give a
complete picture of the EER... The better approach would
therefore be to adopt a two-tiered test involving:
(1) the putative employer’s power to control the employee with
respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be
accomplished; and (2) the underlying economic realities of the
activity or relationship.”
11. Paguio vs NLRC
- EER, contractual in agreement but was required to submit
daily sales activity report to Manila Times
CARLOS DANIEL DUNGAO – 2AA AFTER PERSONS REVIEWER FOR LABOR STANDARDS
-“A regular employee is one who is engaged to perform activities
which are necessary and desirable in the usual business or
trade of the employer as against those which are undertaken for
a specific project or are seasonal.”
12. Maraguinot vs NLRC
-EER, Filming crew of Viva productions were only contractual
but repeatedly hired
-SC ruled they were essential to the business of Viva
13. Sy vs CA
-EER, Trucking services
-Employee wanted SSS premiums due to injuries sustained
from work.
-Defense alleged not an employee but a partner but SC ruled it
was practically impossible.
14. Villamaria vs CA
-EER, Boundary-hulog system, Boundary basis of 550 despite
termination of vendor-vendee relationship
-Kasunduan negating existance of EER is not conclusive
-Power of control considering he was provided a route satisfied
control
15. Makati Haberdashery vs NLRC
-EER, Being piece-rate workers does not negate the fact of
EER.
-Requisite of control is present since they are all supervised in
their work.
16. Javier vs. Flyace Corporation
-No EER
-“Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law
should establish their right thereto. Sadly, Javier failed to
adduce substantial evidenve as basis for the grant of relief.”
17. Orlando Farm vs NLRC
-EER, packers and harvesters, unregistered association does
not negate the fact of EER.
-”The contention that petitioner, being an unregistered
association and having been formed solely to serve as an
effective medium for dealing collectively with Stanfilco, does not
exist in law and, therefore, cannot be considered an employer,
is misleading.”
18. Orozco vs CA
-No EER for a newspaper columnist who, despite publishes
weekly columns, had a high pay and was free to publish her
works in different newspapers.
-Most of all, Orozco failed to show how PDI dictated how she
was to write or produce her articles each week.
19. Sonza vs ABS CBN Corp
-No EER, Sonza was hired by MJMDC.
-Payment of talent fees directly to Sonza does not
negate status of Sonza as an independent contractor.
-No control since Sonza merely supplied his talents and without
dictate by ABS on how the outcome of the show is. They merely
follow guidelines and is shown on TV.
-“Individuals with special skills, expertise or talent enjoy the
freedom to offer their services as independent contractor.”
20. Dumpit-Murillo vs CA
-EER, Newscaster and TV Anchor had a contract which lasted
only for 3 months but was subsequently renewed for four years,
fixed term contract
-“The practice of having fixed-term contracts in the industry
does not automatically make all talent contracts valid and
compliant with labor law. The assertion that a talent contract
exists does not necessarily prevent a regular employment
status.
- “While this Court has recognized the validity of fixed-term
employment contracts in a number of cases, it has consistently
emphasized that when the circumstances of a case show that
CARLOS DANIEL DUNGAO – 2AA AFTER PERSONS REVIEWER FOR LABOR STANDARDS
the periods were imposed to block the acquisition of security of
tenure, they should be struck down for being contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order or public policy.”
21. Fuji Television Network vs Espiritu
-EER of news correspondent who had lung cancer. Fixed-term
contract expired, Fuji is not an independent contractor
-“ the employer shall not terminate his employment unless there
is a certification by a competent public health authority that the
disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be
cured within a period of six (6) months even with proper medical
treatment.”
-“The standard, supplied by the law itself, is whether the work
undertaken is necessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade of the employer, a fact that can be assessed by looking
into the nature of the services rendered and its relation to the
general scheme under which the business or trade is pursued
in the usual course. It is distinguished from a specific
undertaking that is divorced from the normal activities required
in carrying on the particular business or trade”
22. Consulta vs CA
-No EER, Consulta recruited employees of with an exclusivity
clause and paid on commission basis, management prerogative
-No control considering the means and methods of recruitment
and training her sales associates as well as the development,
management and maintenance of her sales division are left to
her sound judgment.
23. Quintanar vs Coca Cola
-EER, Helpers at Coca Cola paid by an agent, Not labor only
contracting; DOLE Certificate is not conclusive evidence to
disprove labor-only contracting.
-“The repeated rehiring of workers and the continuing need for
their services clearly attest to the necessity or desirability of their
services in the regular conduct of the business or trade of
petitioner company.”
III. WAGE AND WAGE RATIONALIZATION ACT
1. International School vs Quisumbing
-Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work
-“The foregoing provisions mpregnably institutionalize in
its jurisdiction the long honored principle of equal pay for equal
work. Persons with substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort
and responsibility under similar conditions should be paid
similar salaries.”
2. MetroBank Union vs NLRC
-Wage distortion.
-While the bank increased wages of probationary employees
and those who had been promoted to regular status receiving
below 100 a day. However, it refused to give regular employees
above earning above 100 a day.
-Formula for WD
3. Bankard Employees Union vs NLRC
-There is no wage distortion on the basis of seniority. There can
only be one if on rank
4. Prubankers Association vs Prudential Bank and Trust Co.
-Region V and Region VII of employees of Prudential Bank
-There is no wage distortion if you compare salaries of
employees between regions.
5. Manila Mandarin Employees Union vs NLRC
-No wage distortion
-Remedies of addressing wage distortion if unionized
and not unionized
-“And even if there were wage distortions, which is not the case
here, the appropriate remedy thereunder prescribed is for the
employer and the union to "negotiate" to correct them; or, if the
dispute be not thereby resolved, to thresh out the controversy
through the grievance procedure in the collective bargaining
agreement, or through conciliation or arbitration. “
CARLOS DANIEL DUNGAO – 2AA AFTER PERSONS REVIEWER FOR LABOR STANDARDS
IV. VIOLATION OF WAGE ORDERS / WAGE ENFORCEMENT AND
RECOVERY
1. Cirineo Bowling Plaza vs Sensing
-Regional Director question of jurisdiction; Visitorial and
Enforcement Powers Art. 128
- “While it is true that under Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor
Code, the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear and decide
cases where the aggregate money claims of each employee
exceeds Php 5,000, said provisions of law do not contemplate
nor cover the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary
of Labor or his duly authorized representatives.”
2. Peoples Broadcasting Service vs Secretary of Labor (Bombo Radyo)
NOTE: It is important to distinguish the 2009 case and the 2012 case.
-Regional Director’s power to determine EER; Art. 128 (b)
-2009 case: Regional Director has no power to determine EER
“But even in conceding the power of the DOLE to determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court held
that the determination of the existence of an employer-
employee relationship is still primarily within the power of the
NLRC, that any finding of the DOLE is merely preliminary.
-2012 case: The SC reversed itself
“Under Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, the DOLE is fully
empowered to make a determination of the existence of an
employer-employee relationship in the exercise of its visitorial
and enforcement power, subject to judicial review, not review by
the NLRC... To recapitulate, if a complaint is brought before the
DOLE to give effect to the labor standards provisions of the
Labor Code or other labor legislation, and there is a finding by
the DOLE that there is an existing employer-employee
relationship, the DOLE exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of
the NLRC. If the DOLE finds that there is no employer-employee
relationship, the jurisdiction is properly with the NLRC.”
3. Jethro Intelligence and Security Corp vs. Sec of Labor
-Petitioners allege Sec. of Labor has no jurisdiction, following
Art. 129 of the Labor Code, that the aggregate money claim of
each employee cannot exceed Php 5000
“While it is true that under Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor
Code, the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear and decide
cases where the aggregate money claims of each employee
exceeds P5,000, said provisions do not contemplate nor cover
the visitorial and enforcement functions of the Secretary of
Labor or his duly representatives.”
“It bears emphasis that the SOLE, under Article 106 of the Labor
Code, as amended, exercises quasi-judicial power, at least to
the extent necessary to determine violations of labor standards
provisions of the Code and other labor legislation. He/she or the
Regional Director can issue compliance orders and writs of
execution for the compliance thereof. The significance of and
binding effect of the compliance orders of the DOLE Secretary
us enunciated under Art. 128 of the Labor Code.”
4. Republic vs Asiapro Cooperative
-Whether the Social Security Commission has the authority to
determine existence of EER; YES
“ART. 217. JURISDICTION OF LABOR
ARBITERS AND THE COMMISSION. - (a) x x x.
xxxx
6. Except claims for Employees
Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and
maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from
employer-employee relations, including those of
persons in domestic or household service,
involving an amount exceeding five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether
accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.[20]
Although the aforesaid provision speaks merely of claims for
Social Security, it would necessarily include issues on the
coverage thereof, because claims are undeniably rooted in the
coverage by the system. Hence, the question on the existence
of an employer-employee relationship for the purpose of
CARLOS DANIEL DUNGAO – 2AA AFTER PERSONS REVIEWER FOR LABOR STANDARDS
determining the coverage of the Social Security System is
explicitly excluded from the jurisdiction of the NLRC and falls
within the jurisdiction of the SSC.”
5. EJR Crafts Corporation vs CA
-Whether the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the case
despite the fact that the employees in question have ceased to
be connected with the petitioner at the time of the filing of the
complaint; Yes
“Considering thus that there still exists an employer-employee
relationship between petitioner and private respondents and
that the case involves violations of labor standard provisions of
the Labor Code, we agree with the Undersecretary of Labor and
the appellate court that the Regional Director has jurisdiction to
hear and decide the instant case in conformity with Article
128(b) of the Labor Code”
6. Bay Haven Inc. vs Abuan
-Whether the Regional Director can assume jurisdiction over a
complaint of illegal dismissal; NO
-Whether the consolidated complain affects co-respondents
who do not question illegal dismissal; NO
“While it may be true that as far as respondent Abuan is
concerned, his allegation of illegal dismissal had deprived the
DOLE of jurisdiction as per Art. 217 of the Labor Code, the same
does not hold for the rest of respondents, who do not claim to
have been illegaly dismissed.”
7. St. Joseph College vs. St Joseph College Workers Association
-Increase of tuition fee resulted to students dropping out of
school, thereby creating loss of income on the part of the school
-Whether the school can be exempt from the minimum
prescribed allocation of 70% of income proceeds to teachers
because of its losses
“When such a decision is made, it is assumed that the school
has undertaken a serious and thorough study of the probable
consequences. In this sense, the action on whether to raise
these fees becomes an entrepreneurial risk that the owner
assumes. In case such action turns out to be unwise or
inconvenient, its result should be the primary responsibility of
the risk taker. The personnel -- while presumed to be equally
interested in the continued financial viability of the school -- had
little or no say in that action. Hence, they should not be held
responsible for its consequent ill effects.”
8. Catholic Vicariate vs Sto Tomas
-Whether the jurisdiction of the Regional Director can be raised
at any time during the appeal; NO
“Petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the
Regional Director when it actively participated in the
proceedings held therein.
9. Urbanes vs Sec of Labor
-Whether the Regional Director can exercise its jurisdiction on
the basis of an employment contract against a contractor for
solidary liability; NO
“We agree with the respondent that the RTC has jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the present case. It is well settled in
law and jurisprudence that where no employer-employee
relationship exists between the parties and no issue is involved
which may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other
labor statutes or any collective bargaining agreement, it is the
Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction. In its complaint,
private respondent is not seeking any relief under the Labor
Code but seeks payment of a sum of money and damages on
account of petitioner's alleged breach of its obligation under
their Guard Service Contract. The action is within the realm of
civil law hence jurisdiction over the case belongs to the regular
courts. While the resolution of the issue involves the application
of labor laws, reference to the labor code was only for the
determination of the solidary liability of the petitioner to the
respondent where no employer-employee relation exists.”
CARLOS DANIEL DUNGAO – 2AA AFTER PERSONS REVIEWER FOR LABOR STANDARDS
V. WAGE PROTECTION PROVISIONS & PROHIBITIONS
REGARDING WAGES
1. La Rosa vs Ambassador Hotel
-Whether reduction of work days constitutes constructive
dismissal; YES but dependent on circumstances
-SC said there was no abandonment when petitioners instantly
filed a complaint against the employer
“Case law holds that constructive dismissal occurs when there
is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered
impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank
or diminution in pay or both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility,
or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee.
Respondents sudden, arbitrary and unfounded adoption of the two-day
work scheme which greatly reduced petitioners salaries renders it liable
for constructive dismissal.”
2. Unicorn Safety Glass vs Yulo
-Whether there was constructive dismissal from 6 days work week to 3
days work week which resulted to diminution of benefits; YES
-SC did not consider economic loss of Unicorn Safety Glass because
it was not able to discharge the burden of proof in its losses.
3. Special Steel Products vs Villareal and So
-Withhold and offsetting benefits invalid; Car loan surety and training
abroad
“Indeed, petitioner has no legal authority to withhold
respondents 13th month pay and other benefits. What an employee
has worked for, his employer must pay. Thus, an employer cannot
simply refuse to pay the wages or benefits of its employee because
he has either defaulted in paying a loan guaranteed by his
employer; or violated their memorandum of agreement; or failed to
render an accounting of his employers property.”
4. Honda Philippines Inc. vs Samahang Manggagawa ng Honda
-New formula for award of 13th month pay; From 12/12 mos pay
regardless of absences to 11/12 because of strike; pro rata
“We have held that this act, which is favorable to the
employees though not conforming to law, has ripened into a
practice and therefore can no longer be withdrawn, reduced,
diminished, discontinued or eliminated.”
5. Pag-asa Steel Works vs CA
-Simultaneous increase of salary in Wage Order and CBA; Not
a company practice because it was done only once
“Wage Order No. NCR-08 clearly states that only those
employees receiving salaries below the prescribed minimum
wage are entitled to the wage increase provided therein, and
not all employees across-the-board as respondent Union would
want petitioner to do. Considering therefore that none of the
members of respondent Union are receiving salaries below
the P250.00 minimum wage, petitioner is not obliged to grant
the wage increase to them.”
6. Protacio vs Zaya Mananghaya and Co.
-Year end lump sum payment not a practice. It was
dependent on the company’s performance.
“By definition, a bonus is a gratuity or act of liberality of
the giver. It is something given in addition to what is ordinarily
received by or strictly due the recipient. A bonus is granted and
paid to an employee for his industry and loyalty which
contributed to the success of the employers business and made
possible the realization of profits. Generally, a bonus is not a
demandable and enforceable obligation. It is so only when it is
made part of the wage or salary or compensation. When
considered as part of the compensation and therefore
demandable and enforceable, the amount is usually fixed. If the
amount would be a contingent one dependent upon the
realization of the profits, the bonus is also not demandable and
enforceable.”
7. Producers Bank of the Phils vs NLRC
-Mid year bonus and 13th month pay; Company losses
“However, an employer cannot be forced to distribute bonuses
which it can no longer afford to pay. To hold otherwise would penalize
the employer for his past generosity.”
CARLOS DANIEL DUNGAO – 2AA AFTER PERSONS REVIEWER FOR LABOR STANDARDS
V. CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
1. Penaranda vs Baganga Plywood Corporation
-Managerial employees; Supervisor who wants to claim
overtime pay
“Managerial employees and members of the managerial
staff are exempted from the provisions of the Labor Code on
labor standards. Since petitioner belongs to this class of
employees, he is not entitled to overtime pay and premium pay
for working on rest days.”
2. Cainta Catholic School vs Cainta Catholic School Union
-Managerial employees
-Whether the Dean of Student Affairs is a managerial employee,
and assuming the affirmative, whether a managerial employee can join
a strike and be part of a union composed of rank-and file employees;
YES; NO
“It is fairly obvious from a perusal of the list that the Dean
of Student Affairs exercises managerial functions, thereby
classifying Llagas as a managerial employee.
Supervisory employees, as defined in Article 212(m) are
those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively
recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such
authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires
the use of independent judgment.
In the same vein, a reading of the above functions leads
us to conclude that Javier was a supervisory employee. Verily,
Javier made recommendations as to what actions to take in
hiring, termination, disciplinary actions, and management
policies, among others.
Having established that Llagas is a managerial
employee, she is proscribed from joining a labor union, more so
being elected as union officer. In the case of Javier, a
supervisory employee, she may join a labor union composed
only of supervisory employees.]Finding both union officers to be
employees not belonging to the rank-and-file, their membership
in the Union has become questionable, rendering
the Union inutile to represent their cause.”
-Whether employers can retire employees who have not yet reached
the retirement age but on basis of the CBA agreed upon; YES
3. Jaculbe vs Silliman University
-Whether employer has the right to impose a compulsory
retirement despite not yet reaching the retirement age under an
existing employment plan; NO
“Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of the parties, a
voluntary agreement between the employer and the employee
whereby the latter, after reaching a certain age agrees to sever his
or her employment with the former.19In Pantranco North Express,
Inc. v. NLRC,20 to which both the CA and respondent refer, the
imposition of a retirement age below the compulsory age of 65 was
deemed acceptable because this was part of the CBA between the
employer and the employees. The consent of the employees, as
represented by their bargaining unit, to be retired even before the
statutory retirement age of 65 was laid out clearly in black and
white and was therefore in accord with Article 287.
In this case, neither the CA nor the respondent cited any
agreement, collective or otherwise, to justify the latter’s imposition
of the early retirement age in its retirement plan, opting instead to
harp on petitioner’s alleged "voluntary" contributions to the plan,
which was simply untrue
4.Gaa vs CA
-Whether the motion to lift garnishment on the ground that Gaa’s
Salaries, commission and, or remuneration are exempted from
execution under Article 1708 of the New Civil Code; NO
“Article 1708 uses the word “wages” and not “salary” in
relation to “laborer” when it declared what are to be exempted
from attachment and execution. The term “wages” as
distinguished from “salary”, applies to the compensation for
manual labor, skilled or unskilled, paid at stated times, and
measured by the day, week, month or season, while “salary”
denotes a higher degree of employment, or a superior grade of
services, and implies a position of office: by contrast, the term
wages indicates considerable pay for a lower and less
responsible character of employment, while “salary” is
suggestive of a larger and more important service.”
5. Autobus Transport Systems vs Bautista
CARLOS DANIEL DUNGAO – 2AA AFTER PERSONS REVIEWER FOR LABOR STANDARDS
-Whether Bautista is a field personnel and assuming he is one,
whether he is entitled to service incentive leave; NO; driver is
constantly supervised by employer in performance of his work.
“At this point, it is necessary to stress that the definition
of field personnel is not merely concerned with the location
where the employee regularly performs his duties but also with
the fact that the employees performance is supervised by the
employer. As discussed above, field personnel are those who
regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of
business of the employer whose actual hours of work in the field
cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.”
“Furthermore, if the employee entitled to service
incentive leave does not use or commute the same, he is
entitled upon his resignation or separation from work to the
commutation of his accrued service incentive leave.”
6. Insular Bank of Asia Union vs Inciong
-Whether Policy instruction No. 9 is valid; NO
“It is clear that monthly paid employees are not excluded
from the benefits of holiday pay. However, the implementing
rules on holiday pay promulgated by the then Secretary of labor
excludes monthly paid employees from said benefits... In Policy
Instruction No. 9, the then Secretary of Labor went as far as to
categorically state that the benefit is principally intended for
daily paid employees, when the law clearly states that every
worker shall be paid their regular holiday pay.”
7. The Chartered Bank Employees Assoc. vs Ople
-Divisor of overtime compensation pay
-Whether the divisor to be used is 251 despite the fact that the
employees are already paid for all non-working holidays.
“The strong argument in favor of the of the petitioner’s
stand is the fact that the Chartered Bank, in computing overtime
compensation for its employees, employs a “divisor” for 251
days. The 251 working days divisor is the result of subtracting
all Saturdays, Sundays and the ten (10) legal holidays from the
total number of calendar days in a year. If the employees are
already paid for all non-working days, the divisor should be 365
and not 251.”
“The contention of the respondent that 100% base pay
and 50% premium pay for work actually rendered on holidays is
given in addition to monthly salaries only because the collective
bargaining agreement so provides is itself an argument in favor
of the petitioner stand. It shows that the Collective Bargaining
Agreement already contemplated a divisor of 251 days for
holiday pay computations before the questioned presumption in
the Integrated Rules and the Policy Instruction was formulated.
There is furthermore a similarity between overtime pay, which
is computed on the basis of 251 working days a year, and
holiday pay, which should be similarly treated notwithstanding
the public respondents' issuances. In both cases overtime work
and holiday work- the employee works when he is supposed to
be resting. In the absence of an express provision of the CBA
or the law to the contrary, the computation should be similarly
handled.”
8. Union of Filpro Employees vs Vivar (Nestle case)
-Computation of overtime compensation pay; Labor arbitrator
used 251 instead of 261 as divisor
-Whether the divisor should be changed from 251 to 261; NO
“Following the criterion laid down in the Chartered
Bank case, the use of 251 days' divisor by respondent Filipro
indicates that holiday pay is not yet included in the employee's
salary, otherwise the divisor should have been 261...
...The respondent arbitrator's order to change the divisor
from 251 to 261 days would result in a lower daily rate which is
violative of the prohibition on non-diminution of benefits found
in Article 100 of the Labor Code. To maintain the same daily
rate if the divisor is adjusted to 261 days, then the dividend,
which represents the employee's annual salary, should
correspondingly be increased to incorporate the holiday pay.”
CARLOS DANIEL DUNGAO – 2AA AFTER PERSONS REVIEWER FOR LABOR STANDARDS
9. Interphil Laboratories Union vs Interphil Laboratories
-Two-shift work schedule 6am to 6pm and 2am to 2pm as
stipulated in the CBA; Employees refused to go to work
-Whether the change to a two shift work schedule is valid; YES
In any event, the parties stipulated:
“Section 1. Regular Working Hours - A normal workday
shall consist of not more than eight (8) hours. The regular working
hours for the Company shall be from 7:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. The
schedule of shift work shall be maintained; however the company
may change the prevailing work time at its discretion, should such
change be necessary in the operations of the Company. All
employees shall observe such rules as have been laid down by the
company for the purpose of effecting control over working hours.
It is evident from the foregoing provision 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. In the case before us, Labor Arbiter Caday found
that respondent company had to adopt a continuous 24-hour
work daily schedule by reason of the nature of its business and
the demands of its clients. It was established that the employees
adhered to the said work schedule since 1988. The employees
are deemed to have waived the eight-hour schedule since they
followed, without any question or complaint, the two-shift
schedule while their CBA was still in force and even prior
thereto. The two-shift schedule effectively changed the working
hours stipulated in the CBA. As the employees assented by
practice to this arrangement, they cannot now be heard to claim
that the overtime boycott is justified because they were not
obliged to work beyond eight hours.”
10. Mabeza vs NLRC
-Facilities and supplements; Hotel quarters and wage deduction
-Whether or not the hotel employer can deduct the meal and
lodging it provides for Mabeza; NO
“More significantly, the food and lodging, or the
electricity and water consumed by the petitioner were not
facilities but supplements. A benefit or privilege granted to an
employee for the convenience of the employer is not a facility.
The criterion in making a distinction between the two not so
much lies in the kind (food, lodging) but the purpose.
Considering, therefore, that hotel workers are required to work
different shifts and are expected to be available at various odd
hours, their ready availability is a necessary matter in the
operations of a small hotel, such as the private respondent's
hotel.”
11. Milan vs NLRC and Solid Mills
-Agreement to occupy SM Housing while employees were
working but on the condition that the employees would vacate the
premises as the company deems fit.
“An employee is allowed to withhold terminal pay and
benefits pending the employee’s return of its properties.”
12. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines vs Eastern
Telecommunications Employees Unions
-Whether the company can validly defer 14th, 15th, and 16th
month bonuses despite agreement in the CBA for the reason
that they incurred losses; NO
“The records are also bereft of any showing that the
ETPI made it clear before or during the execution of the Side
Agreements that the bonuses shall be subject to any condition.
Indeed, if ETPI and ETEU intended that the subject bonuses
would be dependent on the company earnings, such intention
should have been expressly declared in the Side Agreements
or the bonus provision should have been deleted altogether. In
the absence of any proof that ETPI’s consent was vitiated by
fraud, mistake or duress, it is presumed that it entered into the
Side Agreements voluntarily, that it had full knowledge of the
contents thereof and that it was aware of its commitment under
the contract.”
CARLOS DANIEL DUNGAO – 2AA AFTER PERSONS REVIEWER FOR LABOR STANDARDS
13. SHS Perforated Materials vs Diaz
-German boss withheld wages of Diaz because
dissatisfaction with his performance; Invalid
“Any withholding of an employees wages by an
employer may only be allowed in the form of wage deductions
under Art. 113 of the Labor Code. ”
14. Odango vs NLRC
-Odango demanded that their wages be paid 365 days a year;
Invalid
“Even assuming that Section 2, Rule IV of Book III is
valid, petitioners claim will still fail. The basic rule in this
jurisdiction is no work, no pay. The right to be paid for un-worked
days is generally limited to the ten legal holidays in a year.”
VI. MINIMUM LABOR STANDARDS BENEFITS AND OTHER
BENEFITS
of
1. Sime Darby Pilipinas Inc vs NLRC
-Employer changed working schedule from 7:45-3:45 with 30
mins paid lunch break to 7:45 to 4:45 with 1 hour lunch break
but unpaid; Valid exercise of management prerogative
“The right to fix the work schedules of the employees
rests principally on their employer... Since the employees are
no longer required to work during the 1 hour lunch break, there
is no more need for them to be compensated for this period.”
“Further, management retains the prerogative,
whenever exigencies of the service so require, to change the
working hours of its employees. So long as such prerogative is
exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employers
interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing
the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid
agreements, this Court will uphold such exercise.”
2. Bisig Manggagawa ng Tryco vs NLRC and Tryco
-Compressed Workweek meant that employees no longer had
to work on Saturdays.
-Whether employees are still entitled to OT pay on the same
hours; NO; Valid exercise of management prerogative
3. Damasco vs NLRC
-Whether there can be an offsetting of pay between the wages
and overtime pay considering the fact that the employee is paid
more minimum wage presribed by law; NO
“Still, even assuming that Damasco received a wage
which is higher than the minimum provided by law, it does not
follow that any additional compensation due her can be offset
by her pay in excess of the minimum, in the absence of an
express agreement to that effect. Moreover, such arrangement,
if there be any, must appear in the manner required by law on
how overtime compensation must be determined. For it is
CARLOS DANIEL DUNGAO – 2AA AFTER PERSONS REVIEWER FOR LABOR STANDARDS
necessary to have a clear and definite delineation between an
employees regular and overtime compensation to thwart
violation of the labor standards provision of the Labor Code”
4. Kwok vs Philippine Carpet Manufacturing Corporation
-Whether Kwok is entitled to cash conversion of his vacation
and sick leave credits; NO
“In the present case, the petitioner relied principally on his
testimony to prove that Lim made a verbal promise to give him
vacation and sick leave credits, as well as the privilege of
converting the same into cash upon retirement. The Court
agrees that those who belong to the upper corporate echelons
would have more privileges. However, the Court cannot
presume the existence of such privileges or benefits. The
petitioner was burdened to prove not only the existence of such
benefits but also that he is entitled to the same, especially
considering that such privileges are not inherent to the positions
occupied by the petitioner in the respondent corporation, son-
in-law of its president or not.”
5. Honda Philippines Inc. vs Samahang Manggagawa ng Honda
-New formula for award of 13th month pay; From 12/12 mos pay
regardless of absences to 11/12 because of strike; pro rata
“We have held that this act, which is favorable to the
employees though not conforming to law, has ripened into a
practice and therefore can no longer be withdrawn, reduced,
diminished, discontinued or eliminated.”
6. Boie-Takeda Chemicals vs De La Serna
-Whether productivity bonuses/commissions and overtime pay
form part of the basic salary of an employee; NO
“Quite obvious from the foregoing is that the term "basic
salary" is to be understood in its common, generally-accepted
meaning, i.e., as a rate of pay for a standard work period
exclusive of such additional payments as bonuses and
overtime...
...In remunerative schemes consisting of a fixed or
guaranteed wage plus commission, the fixed or guaranteed
wage is patently the "basic salary" for this is what the employee
receives for a standard work period. Commissions are given for
extra efforts exerted in consummating sales or other related
transactions. They are, as such, additional pay, which this Court
has made clear do not form part of the "basic salary."
7. Philippine Duplicators vs NLRC
-Whether sales commissions form part of the overtime pay; YES
“In other words, the sales commissions received for
every duplicating machine sold constituted part of the basic
compensation or remuneration of the salesmen of Philippine
Duplicators for doing their job.”
NOTE: It is important to make a distinction between sales commissions
used in Duplicators and productivity bonuses or the commissions used
in Boie Takeda:
“We recognize that both productivity bonuses and sales
commissions may have an incentive effect. But there is reason
to distinguish one from the other here. Productivity bonuses are
generally tied to the productivity or profit generation of the
employer corporation. Productivity bonuses are not directly
dependent on the extent an individual employee exerts himself.
A productivity bonus is something extra for which no specific
additional services are rendered by any particular employee
and hence not legally demandable, absent a contractual
undertaking to pay it. Sales commissions, on the other hand,
such as those paid in Duplicators, are intimately related to or
directly proportional to the extent or energy of an employee's
endeavors. Commissions are paid upon the specific results
achieved by a salesman-employee. It is a percentage of the
sales closed by a salesman (Philippine Duplicators vs NLRC).”