LABOR STANDARDS

1. FAMIT v. Court of Appeals, et al, June 15, 2007

2. Capitol Medical Center Inc. v. Trajano, June 30, 2005
3. Santa Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc.,
January 24, 2007
4. Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees
Union, June 30, 2006
5. National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries-Manila
Pavillion Hotel Chapter v. Secretary of Labor and Employment

RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT

1. SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., v. JOY C. CABILES, August 5, 2014
2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v.MELISSA CHUA a.k.a. Clarita Ng Chua, September
13, 2012

TERMINATION AND EMPLOYMENT

1. Unilever Philippines, Inc., v. Maria Ruby M. Rivera, June 3, 2013
2. Jonathan I. Sang-An v. Equator Knights Detective and Security Agency, Inc.,
February 13, 2013
3. Armando Aliling v. Jose B. Feliciano Manuel et al., April 25, 2012

MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE
1. Dannie M. Pantoja v. SCA Hygiene Products Corporation, April 23, 2010
2. Jenny F. Peckson v. Robinsons Supermarket Corporation et al., July 3, 2013
3. SHS Perforated Materials Inc., Winfried Hartmannshenn and Hinrich Johann
Schumacher v. Manuel F. Diaz, October 13, 2010
LABOR RELATIONS
1. Timoteo H. Sarona v. NLRC, Royale Security Agency and Cesar S. Tan, January 18,
2012
2. Jenny M. Agabon and Virgilio C. Agabon v. NLRC, Rivera Home Improvements, Inc.
and Vicente Angeles, November 17, 2004
3. Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club v. Tagaytay Highland Employees Union
4. Associated labor Union v. Judge Amador E. Gomez, Judge Jose C. Borromeo and
Superior Gas and Equipment Co., of Cebu Inc., February 9, 1967
5. Juan S. Barrera v. The Honorable Court of Industrial relations, PAWO and MASPE
Workers Union
6. T & H Shopfitters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation, Stinnes Huang, Ben Huang
And Rogelio Madriaga v. T & H Shopfitters Corporation/Gin Queen Workers Union,
et al., February 26, 2014
7. Bank Of Philippine Islands V. Bpi Employees Union-Davao Chapter Federation Of
Unions In Bpi Unibank, August 10, 2010
Pantoja vs SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS
FACTS:
Respondent, a corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of industrial
paper and tissue products, employed petitioner as a utility man on March 15, 1987.
Petitioner was eventually assigned at respondents Paper Mill No. 4, the section which
manufactures the companys industrial paper products, as a back tender in charge of the
proper operation of the sections machineries.
In a Notice of Transfer dated March 27, 1999, respondent informed petitioner of its
reorganization plan and offered him a position at Paper Mill No. 5 under the same terms and

conditions of employment in anticipation of the eventual closure and permanent shutdown

of Paper Mill No. 4 effective May 5, 1999. The closure and concomitant reorganization is in
line with respondents decision to streamline and phase out the companys industrial paper
manufacturing operations due to financial difficulties brought about by the low volume of
sales and orders for industrial paper products.
However, petitioner rejected respondents offer for is transfer. Thus, a notice of termination
of employment effective May 5, 1999 was sent to petitioner as his position was declared
redundant by the closure of Paper Mill No. 4. He then received his separation pay equivalent
to two months pay for every year of service in the amount of P356, 335.20 and thereafter
executed a release and quitclaim in favor of respondent. On April 5, 1999, respondent
informed the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) of its reorganization and partial
closure by submitting with the said office an Establishment Termination Report together with
the list of 31 terminated employees.
On June 20, 2000, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent
assailing his termination as without any valid cause.
He averred that the alleged
redundancy never occurred as there was no permanent shutdown of Paper Mill No. 4 due to
its continuous operation since his termination.
In its defense, respondent refuted petitioners claim of illegal dismissal. It argued that
petitioner has voluntarily separated himself from service by opting to avail of the separation
benefits of the company instead of accepting reassignment/transfer to another position of
equal rank and pay.
According to respondent, petitioners discussion on the alleged resumption of operation of
Paper Mill No. 4 is rendered moot by the fact of petitioners voluntary separation.
Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision dismissing petitioners complaint for lack of merit.
Upon appeal by petitioner, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters Decision by finding
petitioners separation from employment illegal. The CA reversed the NLRCs Decision and
reinstated the
Labor Arbiters Decision dismissing the compliant
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of illegal dismissal.
HELD:
Respondents right of management prerogative was exercised in good faith.
As held in International Harvester Macleod, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the
determination of the need to phase out a particular department and consequent reduction of
personnel and reorganization as a labor and cost saving device is a recognized management
prerogative which the courts will not generally interfere with.
In this case, the abolishment of Paper Mill No. 4 was undoubtedly a business judgment
arrived at in the face of the low demand for the production of industrial paper at the time.
Despite an apparent reason to implement a retrenchment program as a cost-cutting
measure, respondent, however, did not outrightly dismiss the workers affected by the
closure of Paper Mill No. 4 but gave them an option to be transferred to posts of equal rank
and pay.
Respondent
did
not
proceed
directly
to
retrench.
of
good
faith
This,
onto
respondents
our
mind,
is
part
an indication
asother
it
exhausted
than
retrenchment.
other
possible
measures
Respondent did not proceed directly to retrench. This, to our mind, is an indication of good
faith on respondents part as it exhausted other possible measures other than retrenchment.

Respondent
retrench.
This,
did
not
our
proceed
mind,
is
directly
an indication
to
of
exhausted
good
faith
other
onto
respondents
possible
measures
part
asother
it
than
retrenchment.
Respondent
retrench.
This,
did
not
our
proceed
mind,
is
directly
an indication
to
of
exhausted
good
faith
other
onto
respondents
possible
measures
part
asother
it
than
retrenchment.

Apparently, respondent implemented its streamlining or reorganization plan with good faith,
not in an arbitrary manner and without prejudicing the tenurial rights of its employees.
Agabon vs NLRC 442 SCRA 573 (2004)
FACTS:
Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is engaged in the business of selling
and installing ornamental and construction materials. It employed petitioners Virgilio Agabon
and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers on January 2, 1992 until February
23, 1999 when they were dismissed for abandonment of work. Petitioners then filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims and on December 28, 1999, the

Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring the dismissals illegal and ordered private
respondent to pay the monetary claims.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents dismissal is illegal.
HELD:
The Court ruled that the dismissal is legal and entitles them of payment of benefits.
Dismissals based on just causes contemplate acts or omissions attributable to the employee
while dismissals dismissals based on authorized causes involve grounds under the Labor
Code which allow the employer to terminate employees. A termination for an authorized
cause requires payment of separation pay.
When the dismissal is for just or authorized cause but due process was not observed, the
dismissal should be upheld. While the procedural infirmity cannot be cured, it should not
invalidate the dismissal. However, the employer should be held liable for non-compliance
with the procedural requirements of due process. The dismissal should be upheld because it
was established that the petitioners abandoned their jobs to work for another company.
Private respondent, however, did not follow the notice requirements and instead argued that
sending notices to the last known addresses would have been useless because they did not
reside there anymore. Unfortunately for the private respondent, this is not a valid excuse
because the law mandates the twin notice requirements to the employees last known
address. Thus, it should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements
of due process.
Where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the instant case, the lack of statutory due
process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the
employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights. The
indemnity to be imposed should be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent practice of "dismiss
now, pay later," which we sought to deter. The sanction should be in the nature of
indemnification or penalty and should depend on the facts of each case, taking into special
consideration the gravity of the due process violation of the employer.
It must be stressed that in the present case, the petitioners committed a grave offense, i.e.,
abandonment, which, if the requirements of due process were complied with, would
undoubtedly result in a valid dismissal.
An employee who is clearly guilty of conduct violative of Article 282 should not be protected
by the Social Justice Clause of the Constitution. Social justice, as the term suggests, should
be used only to correct an injustice. As the eminent Justice Jose P. Laurel observed, social
justice must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among
diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended
to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the
fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and
quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest number.
"Justice in every case should only be for the deserving party. It should not be presumed that
every case of illegal dismissal would automatically be decided in favor of labor, as
management has rights that should be fully respected and enforced by this Court. As
interdependent and indispensable partners in nation-building, labor and management need
each other to foster productivity and economic growth; hence, the need to weigh
and balance the rights and welfare of both the employee and employer.