DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

JURISPRUDENCE
ON LABOR STANDARDS
AND LABOR RELATIONS
1

 LABOR STANDARDS:
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SET BY LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS AND OTHER
ISSUANCES RELATING TO: WAGES, HOURS OF WORK, COST OF LIVING
ALLOWANCES, AND OTHER MONETARY AND WELFARE BENEFITS, INCLUDING
THOSE SET BY OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
LABOR RELATIONS
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES
MECHANISMS BY WHICH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ARE
NEGOTIATED, ADJUSTED AND ENFORCED
INTERACTIONS AND PROCESSES ON HOW THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES ARE
EXERCISED, HOW AGREEMENTS ARE REACHED, AND HOW WORKPLACE
RELATIONSHIP IS ENHANCED

DIRECTLY HIRE
DIRECTLY HIRE

EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
HIRE
HIRE A
THROUGH
THROUGH A
RECRUITMENT
RECRUITMENT
AGENCY
AGENCY
EMPLOYEE

EMPLOYER

ENGAGE A
ENGAGE A
CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR

CONTRACTORS EMPLOYEE
CONTRACTORS EMPLOYEE

TYPES
TYPESOF
OFEMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
1. Regular employment INDEFINITE PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT
2. Casual employment
3. Seasonal employment
PERIOD
4. Probationary employment DEFINITE
OF EMPLOYMENT
5. Project employment
6. Fixed-term employment

REGULAR EMPLOYEE
WHERE, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEE TO THE CONTRARY:

1) THE EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN ENGAGED TO PERFORM

ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE USUALLY NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE
IN THE USUAL BUSINESS OR TRADE OF THE EMPLOYER; OR
2)
THE EMPLOYEE HAS RENDERED AT LEAST ONE YEAR
OF SERVICE, WHETHER SUCH SERVICE IS CONTINUOUS OR
BROKEN, WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIVITY IN WHICH HE IS
EMPLOYED AND HIS EMPLOYMENT SHALL CONTINUE WHILE
SUCH ACTIVITY EXISTS; OR
3) THE EMPLOYEE IS ALLOWED TO WORK AFTER A
PROBATIONARY PERIOD.

CASUAL EMPLOYEE
WHERE AN EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGED TO PERFORM
A JOB, WORK OR SERVICE WHICH IS MERELY
INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER,
AND SUCH JOB, WORK OR SERVICE IS FOR A
DEFINITE PERIOD MADE KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEE
AT THE TIME OF ENGAGEMENT; PROVIDED, THAT
ANY EMPLOYEE WHO HAS RENDERED AT LEAST
ONE YEAR OF SERVICE, WHETHER SUCH SERVICE IS
CONTINUOUS OR NOT, SHALL BE CONSIDERED A
REGULAR EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO THE
ACTIVITY IN WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED AND HIS
EMPLOYMENT SHALL CONTINUE WHILE SUCH
ACTIVITY EXISTS.

SEASONAL EMPLOYEE
WHERE AN EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGED TO WORK
DURING A PARTICULAR SEASON ON AN ACTIVITY
WHICH IS USUALLY NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE IN
THE USUAL BUSINESS OR TRADE OF THE EMPLOYER.

PROBATIONARY
PROBATIONARYEMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
Where the employee is on trial by an employer
during which the employer determines the
qualification of the employee for regular
employment.

PROJECT EMPLOYEE

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.

I. RIGHT TO LABOR STANDARDS.

II. RIGHT TO SECURITY
TENURE AND DUE PROCESS.

OF

III.
RIGHT
TO
SELFORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

JAIME N. GAPAYAO, vs.

ROSARIO FULO, JUNE 13, 2013

SEASONAL WORKER?
REGULAR WORKER?

JAIME N. GAPAYAO, vs.

ROSARIO FULO, JUNE 13, 2013
FARM WORKERS GENERALLY FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION
OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES. WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY
HELD THAT SEASONAL EMPLOYEES MAY BE CONSIDERED
AS
REGULAR
EMPLOYEES.
REGULAR
SEASONAL
EMPLOYEES ARE THOSE CALLED TO WORK FROM TIME TO
TIME. THE NATURE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
EMPLOYER IS SUCH THAT DURING THE OFF SEASON, THEY
ARE TEMPORARILY LAID OFF; BUT REEMPLOYED DURING
THE SUMMER SEASON OR WHEN THEIR SERVICES MAY BE
NEEDED. THEY ARE IN REGULAR EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE
OF THE NATURE OF THEIR JOB, AND NOT BECAUSE OF
THE LENGTH OF TIME THEY HAVE WORKED.

Andrew James McBurnie Vs. Eulalio Ganzon, EGI-Managers, Inc. and E.

Ganzon, Inc., . October 17, 2013.

CONSIDERING THAT MCBURNIE, AN AUSTRALIAN, ALLEGED

ILLEGAL DISMISSAL AND SOUGHT TO CLAIM UNDER OUR
LABOR LAWS, IT WAS NECESSARY FOR HIM TO ESTABLISH,
FIRST AND FOREMOST, THAT HE WAS QUALIFIED AND DULY
AUTHORIZED TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT WITHIN OUR
JURISDICTION. A REQUIREMENT FOR FOREIGNERS WHO
INTEND TO WORK WITHIN THE COUNTRY IS AN
EMPLOYMENT PERMIT, AS PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE 40,
TITLE II OF THE LABOR CODE.

Andrew James McBurnie Vs. Eulalio Ganzon, EGIManagers, Inc. and E. Ganzon, Inc., . October 17,
2013.

IN WPP MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. GALERA,

WE HELD THAT A FOREIGN NATIONALS FAILURE TO SEEK
AN EMPLOYMENT PERMIT PRIOR TO EMPLOYMENT POSES A
SERIOUS PROBLEM IN SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE COURT.
CLEARLY, THIS CIRCUMSTANCE ON THE FAILURE OF
MCBURNIE TO OBTAIN AN EMPLOYMENT PERMIT, BY
ITSELF, NECESSITATES THE DISMISSAL OF HIS LABOR
COMPLAINT.

PEPSI VS. MOLON, February 18, 2013

1. THE UNION WILL RECEIVE 100% OF THE SEPARATION
PAY BASED ON THE EMPLOYEES BASIC SALARY AND THE
REMAINING 50% SHALL BE RELEASED BY MANAGEMENT
AFTER THE NECESSARY DEDUCTIONS ARE MADE FROM
THE CONCERNED EMPLOYEES;
2. BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THE RELEASE OF THESE
BENEFITS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FILING OF THE
CASE BY THE UNION WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION;
3. THE UNION UNDERTAKES TO SIGN THE QUITCLAIM
BUT SUBJECT TO THE 2ND PARAGRAPH OF THIS
AGREEMENT.

PEPSI VS. MOLON, February 18, 2013

THE COURT IS UNCONVINCED.
AS CORRECTLY OBSERVED BY THE CA, THE SEPTEMBER
1999 QUITCLAIMS MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE SEPTEMBER 17, 1999 AGREEMENT, TO WIT:
2. BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THE RELEASE OF THESE
BENEFITS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FILING OF
THE CASE BY THE UNION WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION;
3. THE UNION UNDERTAKES TO SIGN THE QUITCLAIM
BUT SUBJECT TO THE 2ND PARAGRAPH OF THIS
AGREEMENT.

PEPSI VS. MOLON, February 18, 2013

THE LANGUAGE OF THE SEPTEMBER 17, 1999
AGREEMENT IS STRAIGHTFORWARD. THE USE
OF THE TERM "SUBJECT" IN THE 3RD CLAUSE OF
THE SAID AGREEMENT CLEARLY MEANS THAT
THE SIGNING OF THE QUITCLAIM DOCUMENTS
WAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FILING OF A
CASE
WITH
THE
NLRC.
HENCE,
WHEN
RESPONDENTS SIGNED THE SEPTEMBER 1999
QUITCLAIMS,
THEY
DID
SO
WITH
THE
REASONABLE IMPRESSION THAT THAT THEY
WERE NOT PRECLUDED FROM INSTITUTING A
SUBSEQUENT ACTION WITH THE NLRC.

ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION,

Petitioner,
vs.
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS
PHILIPPINES, INC.
-CEBU PLANT,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 198783, April 15, 2013

Violation of the Labor Code

Violation of the Occupational
Safety and Health Standards
Violation of the CBA
Violation of Justice and Fair Play
Violation of Article 100, Labor
Code

LABOR CODE
The rights of the Union under any labor
law were not violated. There is no law
that requires employers to provide
chairs for bottling operators. The CA
correctly ruled that the Labor Code,
specifically Article 132 thereof, only
requires employers to provide seats for
women. No similar requirement is
mandated for men or male workers. It
must be stressed that all concerned
bottling operators in this case are men.

OSHS
There was no violation either of the
Health, Safety and Social Welfare
Benefit provisions under Book IV of the
Labor Code of the Philippines. As
shown in the foregoing, the removal of
the chairs was compensated by the
reduction of the working hours and
increase in the rest period. The
directive did not expose the bottling
operators to safety and health hazards.

CBA

The CBA between the Union and

CCBPI contains no provision
whatsoever
requiring
the
management to provide chairs for
the
operators
in
the
production/manufacturing
line
while performing their duties and
responsibilities.

CBA

Since the matter of the chairs is

not expressly stated in the CBA, it
is understood that it was a purely
voluntary act on the part of CCBPI
and the long practice did not
convert it into an obligation or a
vested right in favor of the Union.

JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY

The Court completely agrees with the CA ruling
that the removal of the chairs did not violate the
general principles of justice and fair play because
the bottling operators working time was
considerably reduced from two and a half (2 )
hours to just one and a half (1 ) hours and the
break period, when they could sit down, was
increased to 30 minutes between rotations. The
bottling operators new work schedule is certainly
advantageous to them because it greatly
increases their rest period and significantly
decreases their working time. A break time of
thirty (30) minutes after working for only one and a
half (1 ) hours is a just and fair work schedule.

PRINCIPLE OF NON-DIMINUTION

The operators chairs cannot be

considered as one of the employee
benefits covered in Article 100 of the
Labor Code. In the Courts view, the
term "benefits" mentioned in the nondiminution rule refers to monetary
benefits or privileges given to the
employee with monetary equivalents.

CONTRACTING AND SUBCONTRACTING

PRINCIPA
L

(CONTRACTOR &
SUBCONTRACTOR)
Service Contract

COMPANY
Employment
Contract

REGULAR EMPLOYEE
CASUAL EMPLOYEE
PROJECT EMPLOYEE
SEASONAL EMPLOYEE
WORKER

PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE
FIXED-TERM EMPLOYEE

ALPS TRANSPORTATION vs. ELPIDIO M. RODRIGUEZ

JUNE 13, 2013

PRINCIPA
L

(CONTACT TOURS
MANPOWER )
Service Contract

ALPS
Employment
Contract

WORKER

ALPS TRANSPORTATION vs. ELPIDIO M. RODRIGUEZ

JUNE 13, 2013

The presumption is that a contractor

is a labor-only contractor unless he
overcomes the burden of proving
that it has substantial capital,
investment, tools, and the like.
While ALPS Transportation is not
the contractor itself, since it is
invoking Contact Tours status as a
legitimate job contractor in order to
avoid liability, it bears the burden of
proving that Contact Tours is an
independent contractor.

ALPS TRANSPORTATION vs. ELPIDIO M. RODRIGUEZ

JUNE 13, 2013

It is thus incumbent upon ALPS

Transportation to present sufficient
proof
that
Contact
Tours
has
substantial capital, investment and
tools in order to successfully impute
liability to the latter. However, aside
from making bare assertions and
offering the Kasunduan between
Rodriguez and Contact Tours in
evidence, ALPS Transportation has
failed to present any proof to
substantiate the former's status as a
legitimate job contractor. Hence, the
legal presumption that Contact Tours is
a labor-only contractor has not been
overcome.

BENIGNO M. VIGILLA, ALFONSO M. BONGOT,

ROBERTO CALLESA, LINDA C. CALLO, NILO B.
CAMARA, ADELIA T. CAMARA, ADOLFO G. PINON,
JOHN A. FERNANDEZ, FEDERICO A. CALLO, MAXIMA
P. ARELLANO, JULITO B. COST ALES, SAMSON F.
BACHAR, EDWIN P. DAMO, RENA TO E. FERNANDEZ,
GENARO F.CALLO, JIMMY C. ALETA, and EUGENIO
SALINAS, Petitioners,
vs.
PHILIPPINE COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY INC. and/or
GREGORY ALAN F. BAUTISTA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 200094

June 10, 2013

PRINCIPA
L

(MBMSI)
Service Contract

PCCr
Employment
Contract

JANITOR AND
JANITRESS

FACTS
SOMETIME IN 2008, PCCR DISCOVERED THAT THE CERTIFICATE
INCORPORATION OF MBMSI HAD BEEN REVOKED AS OF JULY 2, 2003.

OF

ON MARCH 16, 2009, PCCR, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, RESPONDENT GREGORY

ALAN F. BAUTISTA (BAUTISTA), CITING THE REVOCATION, TERMINATED THE
SCHOOLS RELATIONSHIP WITH MBMSI, RESULTING IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE
EMPLOYEES OR MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL UNDER MBMSI, EXCEPT ALFONSO
BONGOT (BONGOT) WHO WAS RETIRED.
IN SEPTEMBER 2009, THE DISMISSED EMPLOYEES, LED BY THEIR SUPERVISOR,
BENIGNO VIGILLA (VIGILLA), FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE COMPLAINTS FOR ILLEGAL
DISMISSAL, REINSTATEMENT, BACK WAGES, SEPARATION PAY (FOR BONGOT),
UNDERPAYMENT OF SALARIES, OVERTIME PAY, HOLIDAY PAY, SERVICE INCENTIVE
LEAVE, AND 13TH MONTH PAY AGAINST MBMSI, ATTY. SERIL, PCCR, AND BAUTISTA.

FACTS
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ______________, AS
AND BY WAY OF SEPARATION PAY DUE TO THE CLOSURE OF THE COMPANY
BROUGHT ABOUT BY SERIOUS FINANCIAL LOSSES, RECEIPT OF THE TOTAL
AMOUNT IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, I _______________, X X X FOREVER
RELEASE AND DISCHARGE X X X METROPOLITAN BUILDING MAINTENANCE
SERVICES, INC., OF AND FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, DEMANDS, CAUSES
OF ACTIONS, DAMAGES, COSTS, EXPENSES, ATTORNEYS FEES, AND
OBLIGATIONS OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER, KNOWN OR UNKNOWN, IN
LAW OR IN EQUITY, WHICH THE UNDERSIGNED HAS, OR MAY HEREAFTER
HAVE AGAINST THE METROPOLITAN BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES,
INC., WHETHER ADMINISTRATIVE, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, AND WHETHER OR
NOT ARISING OUT OF OR IN RELATION TO MY EMPLOYMENT WITH THE
ABOVE COMPANY OR THIRD PERSONS.

QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE

THE NLRC AND THE CA CORRECTLY RULED THAT
THE RELEASES, WAIVERS AND QUITCLAIMS
EXECUTED BY PETITIONERS IN FAVOR OF MBMSI
REDOUNDED TO THE BENEFIT OF PCCR PURSUANT
TO ARTICLE 1217 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE.

NATURE OF LIABILITY
AS
CORRECTLY
POINTED
OUT
BY
THE
RESPONDENTS, THE BASIS OF THE SOLIDARY
LIABILITY OF THE PRINCIPAL WITH THOSE
ENGAGED IN LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING IS THE
LAST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 106 OF THE
LABOR CODE, WHICH IN PART PROVIDES: IN
SUCH CASES LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING, THE
PERSON
OR
INTERMEDIARY
SHALL
BE
CONSIDERED MERELY AS AN AGENT OF THE
EMPLOYER WHO SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO THE
WORKERS IN THE SAME MANNER AND EXTENT
AS IF THE LATTER WERE DIRECTLY EMPLOYED BY
HIM.

NATURE OF LIABILITY
SECTION 19 OF DEPARTMENT ORDER NO. 18-02
ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT (DOLE), WHICH WAS STILL IN
EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE PROMULGATION OF
THE SUBJECT DECISION AND RESOLUTION,
INTERPRETS ARTICLE 106 OF THE LABOR CODE.

NATURE OF LIABILITY
THE DOLE RECOGNIZED ANEW THIS SOLIDARY
LIABILITY OF THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER AND THE
LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTOR WHEN IT ISSUED
DEPARTMENT ORDER NO. 18-A, SERIES OF 2011,
WHICH IS THE LATEST SET OF RULES
IMPLEMENTING ARTICLES 106-109 OF THE
LABOR CODE.

QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE

CONSIDERING THAT MBMSI, AS THE LABOR-ONLY
CONTRACTOR, IS SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH THE
RESPONDENTS, AS THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER, THEN
THE NLRC AND THE CA CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE
RESPONDENTS SOLIDARY LIABILITY WAS ALREADY
EXPUNGED BY VIRTUE OF THE RELEASES, WAIVERS
AND QUITCLAIMS EXECUTED BY EACH OF THE
PETITIONERS IN FAVOR OF MBMSI PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE 1217 OF THE CIVIL CODE WHICH PROVIDES
THAT "PAYMENT MADE BY ONE OF THE SOLIDARY
DEBTORS EXTINGUISHES THE OBLIGATION."

BPI CASE,
G.R. NO. 174912, JULY 24,
2013
Whether or not the act of BPI to outsource the
cashiering, distribution and bookkeeping functions
to BOMC is in conformity with the law and the
existing CBA.

PRINCIPA
L

(BOMC)
Service Contract

BPI
Employment
Contract

EMPLOYEES

BPI CASE,
G.R. NO. 174912, JULY 24, 2013
It is to be emphasized that contracting out of services is not illegal perse. It is an
exercise of business judgment or management prerogative. Absent proof that the
management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere
with the exercise of judgment by an employer. In this case, bad faith cannot be
attributed to BPI because its actions were authorized by CBP Circular No. 1388,
Series of 1993 issued by the Monetary Board of the then Central Bank of the
Philippines (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas). The circular covered amendments
in Book I of the Manual of Regulations for Banks and Other Financial
Intermediaries, particularly on the matter of bank service contracts. A finding of
ULP necessarily requires the alleging party to prove it with substantial evidence.
Unfortunately, the Union failed to discharge this burden.

BPI CASE,
G.R. NO. 174912, JULY 24, 2013

BPI stresses that not a single employee or union member

was or would be dislocated or terminated from their
employment as a result of the Service Agreement. Neither
had it resulted in any diminution of salaries and benefits
nor led to any reduction of union membership.
As far as the twelve (12) former FEBTC employees are
concerned, the Union failed to substantially prove that
their transfer, made to complete BOMCs service
complement, was motivated by ill will, anti-unionism or
bad faith so as to affect or interfere with the employees
right to self-organization.

BPI CASE,
G.R. NO. 174912, JULY 24, 2013

The Court agrees with BPI that D.O. No. 10 is but a guide to
determine what functions may be contracted out, subject to
the rules and established jurisprudence on legitimate job
contracting and prohibited labor-only contracting. Even if the
Court considers D.O. No. 10 only, BPI would still be within
the bounds of D.O. No. 10 when it contracted out the
subject functions. This is because the subject functions
were not related or not integral to the main business or
operation of the principal which is the lending of funds
obtained in the form of deposits. From the very definition of
"banks" as provided under the General Banking Law, it can
easily be discerned that banks perform only two (2) main or
basic functions deposit and loan functions.

BPI CASE,
G.R. NO. 174912, JULY 24, 2013

Thus, cashiering, distribution and bookkeeping are but

ancillary functions whose outsourcing is sanctioned under
CBP Circular No. 1388 as well as D.O. No. 10. Even BPI
itself recognizes that deposit and loan functions cannot be
legally contracted out as they are directly related or
integral to the main business or operation of banks. The
CBP's Manual of Regulations has even categorically
stated and emphasized on the prohibition against
outsourcing inherent banking functions, which refer to any
contract between the bank and a service provider for the
latter to supply, or any act whereby the latter supplies, the
manpower to service the deposit transactions of the
former.

GSIS vs. ALCARAZ, FEBRUARY 6, 2013

BERNARDO WAS EMPLOYED FOR ALMOST TWENTYNINE
(29) YEARS5 BY THE
METRO MANILA
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMDA) IN MAKATI CITY. HE
WORKED AT THE MMDA AS LABORER, METRO AIDE
AND METRO AIDE I.
SOMETIME IN FEBRUARY 2004, BERNARDO WAS
DIAGNOSED WITH PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS (PTB)
AND COMMUNITY ACQUIRED PNEUMONIA (CAP). ON
MAY 13, 2004, HE WAS CONFINED AT THE OSPITAL NG
MAKATI. HE WAS DISCHARGED ON MAY 19, 2004 WITH
THE
FOLLOWING
DIAGNOSIS:
ACUTE
DIFFUSE
ANTEROLATERAL WALL MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION,
KILLIPS IV-1, CAP HIGH RISK, PTB III AND DIABETES
MELLITUS TYPE 2.6
ON JANUARY 15, 2005, BERNARDO WAS FOUND DEAD
AT THE BASEMENT OF THE MMDA BUILDING.

GSIS vs. ALCARAZ, FEBRUARY 6, 2013

1. Myocardial infarction which

caused
Bernardos
death
cannot be said to have been
aggravated by the nature of his
duties.
2. There was no evidence
showing that it was the
performance of his duties that
caused the development of
myocardial infarction as it was
a mere complication of diabetes
mellitus, a non-occupational
disease.
3. His heart ailment, therefore,
cannot
be
considered
an
occupational disease.

GSIS vs. ALCARAZ, FEBRUARY 6, 2013

To be sure, a reasonable
mind analyzing these
facts cannot but arrive
at the conclusion that
the risks present in his
work environment for
the entire duration of
his
employment
precipitated the acute
myocardial
infarction
that led to his death.

GSIS vs. ALCARAZ, FEBRUARY 6, 2013

Based on the evidence on record, we find as the CA did, that
the nature of Bernardos duties and the conditions under
which he worked were such as to eventually cause the onset
of his myocardial infarction. The stresses, the strain, and the
exposure to street pollution and to the elements that
Bernardo had to bear for almost 29 years are all too real to
be ignored. They cannot but lead to a deterioration of health
particularly with the contributing factors of diabetes and
pulmonary disease.
Bernardo had in fact been a walking time bomb ready to
explode towards the end of his employment days. Records
show that the debilitating effect of Bernardos working
conditions on his health manifested itself several months
before his death. As early as May 3, 2004, Bernardo was
already complaining of shortness of breath and dizziness.
From May 13 to 19, 2004, he had to be confined at the
Ospital ng Makati and was diagnosed with acute myocardial
infarction which caused his death on January 15, 2005 while

GSIS vs. ALCARAZ, FEBRUARY 6, 2013

With the resolution, it should be obvious that by itself, a heart

disease, such as myocardial infarction, can be considered
work-related, with or without the complicating factors of
other non-occupational illnesses. Thus, the Court so ruled in
Raises v. ECC,20 where it emphasized that the incidence of
acute myocardial infarction, whether or not associated with a
non-listed ailment, is enough basis for compensation.
Resolution No. 432 provides (as one of the conditions) that a
heart disease is compensable if it was known to have been
present during employment, there must be proof that an
acute exacerbation was clearly precipitated by the unusual
strain by reason of the nature of his work.

GSIS vs. ALCARAZ, FEBRUARY 6, 2013

As a final point, we take this
occasion to reiterate that as an
agency charged by law with the
implementation of social justice
guaranteed and secured by the
Constitution the ECC (as well as
the GSIS and the SSS) should
adopt a liberal attitude in favor of
the employees in deciding claims
for
compensability,
especially
where there is some basis in the
facts for inferring a workconnection to the accident or to
the illness. This is what the
Constitution dictates.

TERMINATION BY
EMPLOYER
JUST CAUSE REFERS TO A WRONGDOING
COMMITTED BY THE EMPLOYEE ON THE BASIS
OF WHICH THE AGGRIEVED PARTY MAY
TERMINATE
THE
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP.
AUTHORIZED CAUSE - REFERS TO A CAUSE
BROUGHT ABOUT BY CHANGING ECONOMIC
OR BUSINESS CONDITIONS OF THE EMPLOYER.
54

JUST CAUSES OF
TERMINATION
SERIOUS MISCONDUCT OR WILLFUL
DISOBEDIENCE BY THE EMPLOYEE OF THE
LAWFUL ORDERS OF HIS EMPLOYER OR
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONNECTION WITH HIS
WORK;

GROSS AND HABITUAL NEGLECT BY THE

EMPLOYEE OF HIS DUTIES;

55

FRAUD OR WILLFUL BREACH BY THE EMPLOYEE

OF THE TRUST REPOSED IN HIM BY HIS EMPLOYER
OR DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE;

COMMISSION OF A CRIME OR OFFENSE BY THE

EMPLOYEE AGAINST THE PERSON OF HIS
EMPLOYER OR ANY IMMEDIATE MEMBER OF HIS
FAMILY OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVES; AND

OTHER CAUSES ANALOGOUS TO THE FOREGOING.

56

AUTHORIZED
CAUSES
INTRODUCTION OF LABOR SAVING
DEVICE;
REDUNDANCY
RETRENCHMENT
CLOSURE OR CESSATION NOT DUE
TO SERIOUS BUSINESS LOSSES;
DISEASE
57

INTEGRATED MICROELECTRONICS, INC., VS. ADONIS A. PIONILLA

August 28, 2013

The essential issue for the Courts

resolution is whether or not its
Resolution dated January 14, 2013
should be reconsidered. Among
others, IMI contends that to award
Pionilla reinstatement and full
backwages would not only be
excessive and unfair, but would be
contrary to existing principles of
law and jurisprudence.
The motion for reconsideration is
partly granted.

INTEGRATED MICROELECTRONICS, INC., VS. ADONIS A. PIONILLA

August 28, 2013

The essential issue for the Courts

resolution is whether or not its
Resolution dated January 14, 2013
should be reconsidered. Among
others, IMI contends that to award
Pionilla reinstatement and full
backwages would not only be
excessive and unfair, but would be
contrary to existing principles of
law and jurisprudence.
The motion for reconsideration is
partly granted.

INTEGRATED MICROELECTRONICS, INC., VS. ADONIS A. PIONILLA

August 28, 2013

IN CERTAIN CASES, HOWEVER,

THE COURT HAS CARVED OUT AN
EXCEPTION TO THE FOREGOING
RULE AND THEREBY ORDERED
THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE
EMPLOYEE WITHOUT BACKWAGES
ON
ACCOUNT
OF
THE
FOLLOWING: (A) THE FACT THAT
DISMISSAL OF THE EMPLOYEE
WOULD BE TOO HARSH OF A
PENALTY; AND (B) THAT THE
EMPLOYER WAS IN GOOD FAITH
IN TERMINATING THE EMPLOYEE.

INTEGRATED MICROELECTRONICS, INC., VS. ADONIS A.

INTEGRATED MICROELECTRONICS, INC., VS. ADONIS A.
PIONILLA
PIONILLA
August 28, 2013
August 28, 2013

IN THIS CASE, THE COURT OBSERVES THAT: (A) THE

PENALTY OF DISMISSAL WAS TOO HARSH OF A PENALTY
TO BE IMPOSED AGAINST PIONILLA FOR HIS
INFRACTIONS; AND (B) IMI WAS IN GOOD FAITH WHEN IT
DISMISSED PIONILLA AS HIS DERELICTION OF ITS POLICY
ON ID USAGE WAS HONESTLY PERCEIVED TO BE A
THREAT TO THE COMPANY'S SECURITY. IN THIS RESPECT,
SINCE THESE CONCURRING CIRCUMSTANCES TRIGGER
THE APPLICATION OF THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE ON
BACKWAGES AS ENUNCIATED IN THE ABOVE-CITED
CASES, THE COURT FINDS IT PROPER TO ACCORD THE
SAME DISPOSITION AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECTS THE
DELETION OF THE AWARD OF BACK WAGES IN FAVOR OF
PIONILLA, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ILLEGALITY OF HIS

NATHANIEL N. DONGON, vs.

RAPID MOVERS AND FORWARDERS CO., INC., August 28,
2013

UNDER THE FOREGOING STANDARDS,

THE DISOBEDIENCE ATTRIBUTED TO
PETITIONER COULD NOT BE JUSTLY
CHARACTERIZED AS WILLFUL WITHIN
THE CONTEMPLATION OF ARTICLE 296
OF THE LABOR CODE. HE NEITHER
BENEFITTED FROM IT, NOR THEREBY
PREJUDICED THE BUSINESS INTEREST OF
RAPID MOVERS. HIS EXPLANATION THAT
HIS DEED HAD BEEN INTENDED TO
BENEFIT RAPID MOVERS WAS CREDIBLE.
THERE COULD BE NO WRONG OR
PERVERSITY
ON
HIS
PART
THAT
WARRANTED THE TERMINATION OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT
BASED
ON
WILLFUL
DISOBEDIENCE.

NATHANIEL N. DONGON, vs.

RAPID MOVERS AND FORWARDERS CO., INC., August 28, 2013

FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE TO BE A GROUND, IT IS

REQUIRED THAT: (A) THE CONDUCT OF THE EMPLOYEE MUST
BE WILLFUL OR INTENTIONAL; AND (B) THE ORDER THE
EMPLOYEE VIOLATED MUST HAVE BEEN REASONABLE,
LAWFUL, MADE KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEE, AND MUST
PERTAIN TO THE DUTIES THAT HE HAD BEEN ENGAGED TO
DISCHARGE.

NATHANIEL N. DONGON, vs.

RAPID MOVERS AND FORWARDERS CO., INC., August 28, 2013

WILLFULNESS MUST BE ATTENDED BY A

WRONGFUL AND PERVERSE MENTAL ATTITUDE
RENDERING THE EMPLOYEES ACT INCONSISTENT
WITH PROPER SUBORDINATION. IN ANY CASE,
THE CONDUCT OF THE EMPLOYEE THAT IS A
VALID GROUND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER THE
LABOR CODE CONSTITUTES HARMFUL BEHAVIOR
AGAINST THE BUSINESS INTEREST OR PERSON
OF HIS EMPLOYER. IT IS IMPLIED THAT IN EVERY
ACT OF WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE, THE ERRING
EMPLOYEE
OBTAINS
UNDUE
ADVANTAGE
DETRIMENTAL TO THE BUSINESS INTEREST OF
THE EMPLOYER.

JEROME M. DAABAY, vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC

August 19, 2013

THE COURT HAS RULED, TIME

AND AGAIN, THAT FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE, OR WHATEVER
NAME IT IS CALLED, AS A
MEASURE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
IS ALLOWED ONLY IN
INSTANCES WHERE THE
EMPLOYEE IS VALIDLY
DISMISSED FOR CAUSES
OTHER THAN SERIOUS
MISCONDUCT OR THOSE
REFLECTING ON HIS MORAL
CHARACTER.

ALILEM CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC.,

ALILEM
CREDIT
COOPERATIVE,
INC., COOPERATIVE, INC., vs.
now
known
as ALILEM
MULTIPURPOSE
now known
ALILEM MULTIPURPOSE
COOPERATIVE,
INC., vs.
SALVADOR
M.as
BANDIOLA,
JR., February 25,
2013
SALVADOR M. BANDIOLA, JR., February 25, 2013

UNDER THE NEW POLICY, ONE

OF THE GROUNDS IS THE
"COMMISSION OF ACTS THAT
BRINGS DISCREDIT TO THE
COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATION,
ESPECIALLY, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, CONVICTION OF ANY CRIME,
ILLICIT MARITAL AFFAIRS,
SCANDALOUS ACTS INIMICAL TO
ESTABLISHED AND ACCEPTED
SOCIAL MORES.

ALILEM CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC.,

ALILEM
CREDIT
COOPERATIVE,
INC., COOPERATIVE, INC., vs.
now
known
as ALILEM
MULTIPURPOSE
now known
ALILEM MULTIPURPOSE
COOPERATIVE,
INC., vs.
SALVADOR
M.as
BANDIOLA,
JR., February 25,
2013
SALVADOR M. BANDIOLA, JR., February 25, 2013

TO BE SURE, AN EMPLOYER IS FREE TO REGULATE ALL

ASPECTS OF EMPLOYMENT. IT MAY MAKE REASONABLE
RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
ITS EMPLOYEES WHICH BECOME PART OF THE
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT PROVIDED THEY ARE
MADE KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEE. IN THE EVENT OF A
VIOLATION,
AN
EMPLOYEE
MAY
BE
VALIDLY
TERMINATED FROM EMPLOYMENT ON THE GROUND
THAT AN EMPLOYER CANNOT RATIONALLY BE
EXPECTED TO RETAIN THE EMPLOYMENT OF A PERSON
WHOSE LACK OF MORALS, RESPECT AND LOYALTY TO
HIS EMPLOYER, REGARD FOR HIS EMPLOYERS RULES
AND
APPLICATION
OF
THE
DIGNITY
AND
RESPONSIBILITY, HAS SO PLAINLY AND COMPLETELY
BEEN BARED.

ALILEM CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC.,

ALILEM
CREDIT
COOPERATIVE,
INC., COOPERATIVE, INC., vs.
now
known
as ALILEM
MULTIPURPOSE
now known
ALILEM MULTIPURPOSE
COOPERATIVE,
INC., vs.
SALVADOR
M.as
BANDIOLA,
JR., February 25,
2013
SALVADOR M. BANDIOLA, JR., February 25, 2013

WHILE RESPONDENTS ACT OF ENGAGING IN

EXTRA--MARITAL AFFAIRS MAY BE CONSIDERED
PERSONAL TO HIM AND DOES NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT
THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS ASSIGNED TASK AS
BOOKKEEPER, ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THE ACT
WAS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY PETITIONERS
PERSONNEL POLICY AS ONE OF THE GROUNDS FOR
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT, SAID ACT RAISED
CONCERNS TO PETITIONER AS THE BOARD
RECEIVED NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS AND PETITIONS
FROM THE COOPERATIVE MEMBERS THEMSELVES
ASKING FOR THE REMOVAL OF RESPONDENT
BECAUSE OF HIS IMMORAL CONDUCT.

CAVITE APPAREL, INCORPORATED, vs. MICHELLE MARQUEZ

CAVITE APPAREL,
February
06, 2013 INCORPORATED, vs. MICHELLE MARQUEZ
February 06, 2013
BASED ON WHAT WE SEE IN THE
RECORDS, THERE SIMPLY CANNOT BE A
CASE OF GROSS AND HABITUAL NEGLECT
OF DUTY AGAINST MICHELLE. EVEN
ASSUMING THAT SHE FAILED TO PRESENT
A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE FOR HER SICK
LEAVE ON MAY 8, 2000, THE RECORDS
ARE BEREFT OF ANY INDICATION THAT
APART FROM THE FOUR OCCASIONS
WHEN SHE DID NOT REPORT FOR WORK,
MICHELLE HAD BEEN CITED FOR ANY
INFRACTION SINCE SHE STARTED HER
EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COMPANY IN
1994. FOUR ABSENCES IN HER SIX YEARS
OF SERVICE, TO OUR MIND, CANNOT BE
CONSIDERED GROSS AND HABITUAL
NEGLECT OF DUTY, ESPECIALLY SO SINCE
THE ABSENCES WERE SPREAD OUT OVER
A SIX-MONTH PERIOD.

CAVITE APPAREL, INCORPORATED, vs. MICHELLE MARQUEZ

CAVITE APPAREL,
February
06, 2013 INCORPORATED, vs. MICHELLE MARQUEZ
February 06, 2013

MICHELLE MIGHT HAVE BEEN

GUILTY OF VIOLATING COMPANY
RULES ON LEAVES OF ABSENCE
AND EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE, STILL
WE
FIND
THE
PENALTY
OF
DISMISSAL
IMPOSED
ON
HER
UNJUSTIFIED
UNDER
THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.

Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for
the Lord , not for men.
Colossians 3:23

THANK YOU
FOR LISTENING!
GOD BLESS US
ALL