Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Handwritten
SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC. vs. JOY C.
CABILES
G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014
retirement package even if they did not meet the sales and collection
qualifiers. Therefore, the failure of employer to grant him his SMI is a
violation on the principle of non-diminution of benefits.)
Issue:
WON the granting of SMI to all retired DSSs regardless of whether or
not they qualify to the same had ripened into company practice
Ruling:
Generally, employees have a vested right over existing benefits
voluntarily granted to them by their employer. Thus, any benefit and
supplement being enjoyed by the employees cannot be reduced,
diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer. The principle
of non-diminution of benefits is actually founded on the Constitutional
mandate to protect the rights of workers, to promote their welfare, and
to afford them full protection. In turn, said mandate is the basis of
Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that "all doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of this Code, including its
implementing rules and regulations, shall be rendered in favor of
labor."
There is diminution of benefits when the following
requisites are present:
1. the grant or benefit is founded on a policy or has ripened into a
practice over a long period of time;
2. the practice is consistent and deliberate;
3. the practice is not due to error in the construction or application
of a doubtful or difficult question of law; and
4. The diminution or discontinuance is done unilaterally by the
employer.
Issue:
Whether or not the removal of the bottling operators chairs was a
valid exercise of management prerogative. ---YES
Ruling:
According to the Union, such removal constitutes a violation of the 1)
Occupational Health and Safety Standards which provide that every
worker is entitled to be provided by the employer with appropriate
seats, among others; 2) policy of the State to assure the right of
workers to a just and humane condition of work as provided for in
Article 3 of the Labor Code;8 3) Global Workplace Rights Policy of
CCBPI which provides for a safe and healthy workplace by maintaining
a productive workplace and by minimizing the risk of accident, injury
and exposure to health risks; and 4) diminution of benefits provided in
Article 100 of the 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.
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.
The Union should not complain too much about standing and moving
about for one and one-half (1 ) hours because studies show that
sitting in workplaces for a long time is hazardous to ones health. The
CBA between the Union and CCBPI contains no provision whatsoever
requiring the management to provide chairs for the operators in the
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.
The operators chairs cannot be considered as one of the employee
benefits covered in Article 10016 of the Labor Code. In the Courts
view, the term "benefits" mentioned in the non-diminution rule refers
to monetary benefits or privileges given to the employee with
monetary equivalents.
This Court has already decided several cases regarding the nondiminution rule where the benefits or privileges involved in those cases
mainly concern monetary considerations or privileges with monetary
equivalents. Without a doubt, equating the provision of chairs to the
bottling operators is something within the ambit of "benefits'' in the
context of Article 100 of the Labor Code is unduly stretching the
coverage of the law. The interpretations of Article 100 of the Labor
Code do not show even with the slightest hint that such provision of
chairs for the bottling operators may be sheltered under its mantle.
Facts: On June 9, 1989, Republic Act No. 6727 was enacted into law. In
order to rationalize wages throughout the Philippines, Republic Act No.
6727 created the NWPC and the RTWPBs of the different regions.
Article 121 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 3 of Republic Act
No. 6727, empowered the NWPC to formulate policies and guidelines
on wages, incomes and productivity improvement at the enterprise,
industry and national levels; to prescribe rules and guidelines for the
determination of appropriate minimum wage and productivity
measures at the regional, provincial or industry levels; and to review
regional wage levels set by the RTWPBs to determine whether the
levels were in accordance with the prescribed guidelines and national
development plans, among others.
On the other hand, Article 122(b) of the Labor Code, also amended by
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6727, tasked the RTWPBs to determine
and fix minimum wage rates applicable in their region, provinces or
industries therein; and to issue the corresponding wage orders, subject
to the guidelines issued by the NWPC.
Consequently, the RTWPBNCR issued Wage Order No. NCR07 on
October 14, 1999 imposing an increase of P25.50/day on the wages of
all private sector workers and employees in the NCR and pegging the
minimum wage rate in the NCR at P223.50/day. 6 However, Section 2
and Section 9 of Wage Order No. NCR07 exempted certain sectors
and industries from its coverage
Section 2. The adjustment in this Order does not cover the
following:
A. [W]orkers in the following sectors which were granted
corresponding wage increases on January 1, 1999 as
prescribed by Wage Order No. NCR06:
a.1. Agriculture workers
P12.
Plantation
00
P18.
Nonplantation
50
a.2. Cottage/handicraft industry
P16.
00
P12.
00
P12.
00
P19.
00
in
the
NPWC
Handwritten
Peoples Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo Phils) vs. Sec of DOLE et
al.
March 6, 2012 Resolution on the main Decision of May 8, 2009
Facts:
Jandeleon Juezan (Juezan) filed a complaint before the DOLE against
Bombo Radyo Phils. (Bombo Radyo) for illegal deduction, nonpayment of service incentive leave, 13th month pay, premium pay for
holiday and rest day and illegal diminution of benefits, delayed
payment of wages and non-coverage of SSS, PAG-IBIG and Philhealth.
On the basis of the complaint, the DOLE conducted a plant level
inspection. The Labor Inspector in his report wrote, Management
representative informed that (Juezan) complainant is a drama talent
hired on a per drama participation basis hence no employer-employer
relationship existed between them. As proof of this, management
presented photocopies of cash vouchers, billing statement,
employments of specific undertaking, etc. The management has no
control of the talent if he ventures into another contract with other
broadcasting industries.
Issue: Whether or not the Secretary of Labor has the power to
determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Ruling:
Yes. No limitation in the law was placed upon the power of the DOLE to
determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. No
procedure was laid down where the DOLE would only make a
Rule
1020
of
The DOLE clearly acted within its authority when it determined the
existence of an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner
and respondents as it falls within the purview of its visitorial and
It was the consistent conclusion of the DOLE and the CA that Lancer
was not an independent contractor but was engaged in "labor-only
contracting"; hence, the petitioner was considered an indirect
employer of respondents and liable to the latter for their unpaid money
claims.
the PERAA Retirement Plan, which has been implemented for more
than 30 years, is different from the CBA Retirement Plan. Respondent
further avers that it has always been a practice of petitioner to give
two retirement benefits and that this practice was established by
substantial evidence as found by both the Voluntary Arbitrator and the
CA.
Issue: Whether or not the respondents are entitled to two retirement
plans.
Ruling: The Non-Diminution Rule found in Article 100 of the Labor
Code explicitly prohibits employers from eliminating or reducing the
benefits received by their employees. This rule, however, applies only
if the benefit is based on an express policy, a written contract, or has
ripened into a practice. To be considered a practice, it must be
consistently and deliberately made by the employer over a long period
of time. Respondent was able to present substantial evidence in the
form of affidavits to support its claim that there are two retirement
plans. Based on the affidavits, petitioner has been giving two
retirement benefits as early as 1997. Petitioner, on the other hand,
failed to present any evidence to refute the veracity of these affidavits.
Petitioner's assertion that there is only one retirement plan as the CBA
Retirement Plan and the PERAA Plan are one and the same is not
supported by any evidence.
The Memorandum dated August 16, 2005 is contrary to the existing
CBA. It limits the available leave credits of an employee at the start of
the school year. The Memorandum dated imposes a limitation not
agreed upon by the parties nor stated in the CBA, so it must be struck
down.
Handwritten
Bluer Than Blue Joint Ventures Co., vs. Esteban
Citing 2011 Nina Jewelry Manufacturing of Metal Arts Inc. vs.
Montecillo
GR No. 192582, April 7, 2014,
Facts:
The respondent was employed as a sales clerk and assigned at the
petitioners boutique. Her primary tasks were attending to all customer
needs, ensuring efficient inventory, coordinating orders from clients,
cashiering and reporting to the accounting department. The petitioner
learned that some of their employees had access to their POS system
with the use of a universal password given to them by a certain Elmer
Flores, who in turn learned of the password from the respondent. The
petitioner then conducted an investigation and asked the petitioner to
explain why she should not be disciplinarily dealt with. During the
investigation the respondent was placed under preventive suspension.
After investigation the petitioner terminated the respondent on the
grounds of loss of trust or confidence. This respondent was given her
final wage and benefits less the inventory variance incurred by the
store. This urged the respondent to file a complaint for illegal
dismissal, illegal suspension, holiday pay, rest day and separation pay.
The labor arbiter ruled in her favour awarding her backwages. The
petitioner appealed the decision in the NLRC and the decision was
reversed. However, upon the respondents petition for certiorari in the
court of appeals the decision was reinstated. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether the negative sales variance could be validly deducted
from the respondents wage?
Ruling: No, it cannot be deducted in this case.
Article 113 of the Labor Code provides that no employer, in his own
behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any deduction from the
wages of his employees, except in cases where the employer is
authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, among others. The Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code, meanwhile, provides:
SECTION 14. Deduction for loss or damage. Where the
employer is engaged in a trade, occupation or business where
the practice of making deductions or requiring deposits is
recognized to answer for the reimbursement of loss or damage to
tools, materials, or equipment supplied by the employer to the
employee, the employer may make wage deductions or require
the employees to make deposits from which deductions shall be
made, subject to the following conditions:
a) That the employee concerned is clearly shown to be
responsible for the loss or damage;
b) That the employee is given reasonable opportunity to show
cause why deduction should not be made;
c) That the amount of such deduction is fair and reasonable
and shall not exceed the actual loss or damage; and
d) That the deduction from the wages of the employee does
not exceed 20 percent of the employee's wages in a week.
In this case, the petitioner failed to sufficiently establish that Esteban
was responsible for the negative variance it had in its sales for the year
2005 to 2006 and that Esteban was given the opportunity to show
cause the deduction from her last salary should not be made.
Furthermore, the court ruled, in Nina Jewelry Marketing of Metal Arts,
Inc. v. Montecillo, that:
[T]he petitioners should first establish that the making of
deductions from the salaries is authorized by law, or regulations
issued by the Secretary of Labor. Further, the posting of cash
bonds should be proven as a recognized practice in the jewelry
manufacturing business, or alternatively, the petitioners should
seek for the determination by the Secretary of Labor through the
cases, even the length of time of the performance and its continued
existence. In light of the above legal parameters laid down by the law
and applicable jurisprudence, the respondents are neither project,
seasonal nor fixed-term employees, but regular seasonal workers of
URSUMCO.
(1) The respondents were made to perform various tasks that did
not at all pertain to any specific phase of URSUMCO's strict
milling operations that would ultimately cease upon completion
of a particular phase in the milling of sugar; rather, they were
tasked to perform duties regularly and habitually needed in
URSUMCO's operations during the milling season.
(2) The respondents were regularly and repeatedly hired to perform
the same tasks year after year.
Handwritten
Abbott Laboratories vs. Alcaraz, En Banc Resolution
GR No. 192571, April 22, 2014; see main decision of July 23, 2013
FVR Skills & Services Exponents Inc. et al., vs. Seva, et al.
GR No. 200857, Oct. 22, 2014
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
Issues:
1. Whether or not there was constructive dismissal.
2. Whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed.
3. Whether or not individual respondents may not be held solidarily
liable with respondent corporations.
Ruling:
There was no constructive dismissal in the case at bar.
According to petitioner, he had been experiencing a kind of treatment
that rendered "employment impossible and unreasonable" as early as
in the last quarter of 2005. However, he never resigned. In fact, when
he filed a complaint in March 2006 regarding his car plan benefit, he
did not make any allegation concerning his inability to continue
working for respondents due to an alleged ill working environment. We
thus find that he was still willing and able to continue his employment
despite any alleged ill treatment. For there to be constructive
dismissal, the employer must be shown to have committed an act of
clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain, which had become so
unbearable on the part of the employee that it foreclosed any choice
other than for the latter to forego continued employment.
Petitioner was not illegally dismissed when respondent company
implemented a downsizing program for their Visayas regional office.
Pursuant to Article 283 of the Labor Code, an employer may reduce the
number of its employees based on economic grounds in order to
protect and preserve the employer's viability and ensure its
survival. Consequently, employers are given the management
prerogative to implement a retrenchment program for the purpose of
preventing losses or cessation of business operations due to business
recession, industrial depression, seasonal fluctuations, lack of work, or
considerable reduction in the volume of their business.
Respondents were able to prove that their retrenchment program was
justified and not implemented in bad faith. As found by the ELA and
the NLRC, respondents had been experiencing a downtrend in their
Visayas operations since three years before they decided to downsize.
In fact, City Service was suffering from continuous defeats in numerous
biddings it had participated in. Furthermore, they showed that they had
complied with the requirement of written notice to the employees and
to the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of
downsizing or retrenchment.
Individual respondents may not be held personally liable.
As a general rule, corporate directors, trustees, or officers are not
personally liable for their official acts, unless they have exceeded the
scope of their authority. Indeed, personal liability may attach when
directors, trustees, or officers assent to a patently unlawful act of the
corporation, or when they act in bad faith, resulting in damages to the
corporation, its stockholders, or other persons. However, there was no
substantial evidence on record proving bad faith in the termination of
petitioner's employment due to retrenchment.
service but he was just pulled put from NPC in view of NPCs request
for his replacement.
Issue: Whether or not Canedo was dismissed from service.
Ruling:
NO. In illegal dismissal cases, "while the employer bears the burden to
prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause, the
employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of
dismissal from service." The burden of proving the allegations rests
upon the party alleging and the proof must be clear, positive and
convincing. Thus, in this case, it is incumbent upon petitioner to prove
his claim of dismissal. While it is true that he was not allowed to report
for work after the period of his suspension expired, the same was due
to NPC's request for his replacement as NPC was no longer interested
in his services. And as correctly argued by Kampilan, Canedo from that
point onward is not considered dismissed but merely on a floating
status. "Such a 'floating status' is lawful and not unusual for security
guards employed in security agencies as their assignments primarily
depend on the contracts entered into by the agency with third parties."
A floating status can ripen into constructive dismissal only when it
goes beyond the six-month maximum period allowed by law. In this
case, Canedo filed the Complaint for illegal dismissal even before the
lapse of the six-month period. Hence, his claim of illegal dismissal lacks
basis. It was in fact Canedo who intended to terminate his relationship
with Kampilan through his planned retirement. This circumstance
negates his claim that he was terminated. Clearly, there is no dismissal
to speak of this case.
Ruling:
The motion for reconsideration is partly granted. Court ordered his
reinstatement but without backwages.
As a general rule, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to
reinstatement (or separation pay, if reinstatement is not viable) and
payment of full backwages. 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.
b.
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.
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 dismissal.
Mere absence or failure to report for work, even after notice to return,
is not tantamount to abandonment.
The burden of proof to show that there was unjustified refusal to go
back to work rests on the employer. Abandonment is a matter of
intention and cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts.
To constitute abandonment, there must be clear proof of deliberate and
unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee relationship.
In the instant case, other than Colambot's failure to report back to
work after suspension, petitioners failed to present any evidence which
tend to show his intent to abandon his work. Petitioner failed to
discharge the burden.
These circumstances, taken together, the lack of evidence of dismissal
and the lack of intent on the part of the respondent to abandon his
work, the remedy is reinstatement but without backwages. However,
considering that reinstatement is no longer applicable due to the
strained relationship between the parties and that Colambot already
found another employment, each party must bear his or her own loss.
Issues:
1. WON the fund level commitment is a condition for Geminas
employment to warrant breach of his contractual obligations;
2. WON Gemina was constructively dismissed.
Ruling:
1. The fund level commitment is a condition for Gemina's
employment. A fund level commitment was stipulated as a term
or condition on Geminas contract of employment. Though not
per se a ground for dismissal, it is the standard by which
Geminas performance will be evaluated by Bankwises
management. Thus, the contract states, "your performance
relative to your ability to generate deposits shall be monitored
monthly and reviewed on your 6th month." The stated amount of
funds sets the goal or target amount of funds which Gemina
should strive to generate within a specific number of months.
It must be clear, however, that the fund level commitment is not
the sole basis of Geminas employment. In the same manner, the
failure to comply with this undertaking does not automatically
lead to dismissal from employment. Gemina will still be
subjected to the managements evaluation to determine his
performance based on the amount of funds he was able to bring
in to the coffers of Bankwise. Even then, Gemina may not
conveniently brush aside compliance with the fund level
commitment, thinking that it does not have any implication on
employment. It bears stressing that while not an automatic
ground for dismissal, the failure to generate the funds translates
to a poor performance rating which may ultimately jeopardize his
continued employment. Depending on the results of the periodic
evaluation undertaken by the management, the failure to comply
with the fund level commitment may eventually justify his
dismissal from employment. Thus, Gemina must put forth all his
efforts in order to fulfill his fund level commitment.
2. There was no constructive dismissal. There is constructive
dismissal when "there is cessation of work, because continued
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as
an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay and
other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act
amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not,
constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear
discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes
so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose
any choice by him except to forego his continued employment."
Handwritten
Abbott Laboratories vs. Alcaraz, En Banc Resolution
GR No. 192571, April 22, 2014; see main decision of July 23, 2013
Issue:
Whether or not the transfer of Cabiles to Intel HK was tantamount to
resignation from Intel Phil.
Ruling:
The petition is granted and the decision of the CA is reversed and set
aside and Cabiles is ordered to restitute to petitioner whatever amount
he has received.
Resignation is the formal relinquishment of an office, the overt act of
which is coupled with an intent to renounce. This intent could be
inferred from the acts of the employee before and after the
alleged resignation.
In this case, Cabiles, while still on a temporary assignment in Intel
Chengdu, was offered by Intel HK the job of a Finance Manager. The
words he used in his inquiry email local hire, close, clearance
denote nothing but his firm resolve to voluntarily disassociate himself
from Intel Phil. and take on new responsibilities with Intel HK. Despite a
non-favorable reply as to his retirement concerns, Cabiles still
accepted the offer of Intel HK. His acceptance of the offer meant letting
go of the retirement benefits he now claims as he was informed
through email correspondence that his 9.5 years of service with Intel
Phil. would not be rounded off in his favor.
The continuity, existence or termination of an employer-employee
relationship in a typical secondment contract or any employment
contract for that matter is measured by the following yardsticks:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The
The
The
The
Issue:
Whether or not Labradors resignation was a valid termination of his
employment.
Ruling:
The appeal is granted and the decision of the CA is reversed and set
aside and the complaint for illegal dismissal is dismissed.
In the evidence leading to Labrador's dismissal evidence that
Labrador had acknowledged to have received, thus binding him to its
terms no dispute exists that Labrador committed several infractions.
In fact, the final infraction that brought on his termination was actually
a repetition of the first offense.
The first offense (committed on September 24, 2007) already gave rise
to a "Last Written Warning" with the statement that it was a serious
offense, constituting neglect of duty for deviating from the
program/department's standard operating procedures. Under this
clear warning, a second similar offense would necessarily lead
to his dismissal; otherwise the purpose of a "Last Written
Warning" would have been negated.
The failure to faithfully comply with the company rules and
regulations is considered to be a just cause in terminating one's
employment, depending on the nature, severity and circumstances of
non-compliance. "An employer 'has the right to regulate, according to
its discretion and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including
work assignment, working methods, processes to be followed, working
regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers
and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers.'"
It was within Sutherland's prerogative to terminate Labrador's
employment when he committed a serious infraction and, despite a
previous warning, repeated it. To Sutherland's credit, it duly complied
with the procedural requirement in dismissing an employee; it clearly
observed both substantive and procedural due process. Its action was
based on a just and authorized cause, and the dismissal was effected
after due notice and hearing. But before Sutherland could finally
pronounce its verdict, Labrador submitted his resignation
letter, impelled no doubt, as Sutherland alleged, by the need
to protect his reputation and his future employment chances.
The issue of whether the resignation letter was voluntarily executed is
now moot. Even if Labrador had not submitted his resignation
letter, Sutherland could still not be held liable for constructive
dismissal given the existing just cause to terminate Labrador's
employment.
Issue:
Whether or not the school's act of imposing the penalty of suspension
instead of immediate dismissal from service at the request of the
erring employee, in exchange for the employee's resignation at the
end of the school year, constitutes constructive dismissal.
Ruling:
Petition is granted and the decision of the CA is reversed and set aside
and the NLRC decision reinstated.
Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation
where one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed for the
favor of employment, and opts to leave rather than stay employed. It is
a formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an office, with the
intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by the act of
relinquishment. As the intent to relinquish must concur with the
overt act of relinquishment, the acts of the employee before
and after the alleged resignation must be considered in
determining whether, he or she, in fact, intended to sever his
or her employment.
Respondent had admitted to leaking a copy of the HEKASI 5 special
quiz. On 30 August 2002, the Investigating Committee found
respondent guilty of leaking a copy of the special quiz. Based on this
infraction alone, Chiang Kai Shek College would have been justified to
validly terminate respondent from service. Before the Investigating
Committee could formalize respondent's dismissal, respondent
handwrote a letter requesting that the penalty be lowered
from dismissal to suspension in exchange for respondent's
resignation at the end of the school year.
There is nothing irregular with respondent's handwritten letter. The
letter came about because respondent was faced with an
imminent dismissal and opted for an honorable severance from
Handwritten
DARIO NACAR vs. GALLERY FRAMES AND/OR FELIPE BORDEY, JR.
G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013
Handwritten
MCBURNIE vs. GANZON, EGI-MANAGERS, INC. and E. GANZON,
INC.
G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117 G R. Nos. 186984-85, October 17, 2013
Issue:
because
of
the
Held:
Yes, we cannot accept Jardines shallow understanding of the concepts
of redundancy and retrenchment in determining the validity of the
severance of an employer-employee relationship. These rulings
appropriately clarify that redundancy does not need to be always
triggered by a decline in the business. Primarily, employers resort to
redundancy when the functions of an employee have already become
superfluous or in excess of what the business requires. Thus, even if a
business is doing well, an employer can still validly dismiss an
employee from the service due to redundancy if that employees
position has already become in excess of what the employers
enterprise requires.
From this perspective, it is illogical for Jardine to terminate the
petitioners employment and replace them with contractual
employees. The replacement effectively belies Jardines claim that the
petitioners positions were abolished due to superfluity. Redundancy
could have been justified if the functions of the petitioners were
transferred to other existing employees of the company. To dismiss the
petitioners and hire new contractual employees as replacements
necessarily give rise to the sound conclusion that the petitioners
services have not really become in excess of what Jardines business
requires.
Guidelines in implementing redundancy
This Court laid down the principle that the employer must use fair and
reasonable criteria in the selection of employees who will be dismissed
from employment due to redundancy. Such fair and reasonable criteria
may include the following, but are not limited to: (a) less preferred
status (e.g. temporary employee); (b) efficiency; and (c) seniority.
The presence of these criteria used by the employer shows good faith
on its part and is evidence that the implementation of redundancy was
painstakingly done by the employer in order to properly justify the
termination from the service of its employees (Golden Thread
Knitting Industries vs NLRC). For the implementation of a
redundancy program to be valid, the employer must comply with the
following requisites:
(1)
written notice served on both the employees and
the Department of Labor and Employment at least one
month prior to the intended date of retrenchment;
(2)
payment of separation pay equivalent to at least
one month pay or at least one month pay for every year
of service, whichever is higher;
(3)
good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and
(4)
fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what
positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly
abolished (Asian Alcohol vs NLRC).
The first level, based on Asian Alcohol, is broader as the case
recognized distinctions on a per position basis. At this level, Jardine
failed to explain why among all of the existing positions in its
organization, Jardine chose the petitioners posts as the ones which
have already become redundant and terminable.
The second level, derived from Golden Thread, is more specific. Here
the distinction narrows down to the particular employees occupying
the same positions which were already declared to be redundant. At
this level, Jardines lapse is shown by its failure to explain why among
all of its employees whose positions were determined to be redundant,
the petitioners were the ones selected to be dismissed from the
service.
There was phone call from his wife. She said there was a bombing
incident near her workplace in Tel Aviv. So he acted on and told the
secretary of his department that respondent that he will give
preferential attention to the emergency phone call that he just
received. He also told Torres that he would be back at the office as
soon as he has resolved his predicament.
On that same day, at around 6:15 p.m., respondent returned to
Petitioner Corporations office. When he was finally able to charge his
cellphone at the office, he received a text message from Tina Cecilia
(Cecilia), a member of the Drug Watch Committee that conducted the
drug test, informing him to participate in the said drug test. He
immediately called up Cecilia to explain the reasons for his failure to
submit himself to the random drug test that day. He also proposed that
he would submit to a drug test the following day at his own expense.
Respondent never heard from Cecilia again.
On November 8, 2004, respondent received a Show Cause Notice from
Petitioner Corporation through Jaime Dulot (Dulot), his immediate
supervisor, requiring him to explain in writing why he should not be
charged with "unjustified refusal to submit to random drug testing."
Respondent submitted his written explanation on November 11, 2004.
Petitioner Corporation further required respondent on December 14,
2004 to submit additional pieces of supporting documents.
He was found guilty by the petitioners corporation Investigating panel
of unjustified refusal of to submit random drug testing. and
recommended a penalty of four working weeks suspension without
pay, instead of termination, due to the presence of mitigating
circumstances. petitioner corporations Asst. Vice President for Material
Management Department, George K. Lamela, Jr. (Lamela),
recommended that respondent be terminated from employment
instead of merely being suspended.
Issue:
WON respondent was validly terminated for his failure to take the
mandatory drug test
Held:
No, we agree with the disposition of the appellate court that there was
illegal dismissal in the case at bar. While the adoption and enforcement
by petitioner corporation of its Anti-Drugs Policy is recognized as a
valid exercise of its management prerogative as an employer, such
exercise is not absolute and unbridled. Managerial prerogatives are
subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining
agreements, and the general principles of fair play and justice.
FVR Skills & Services Exponents Inc. et al., vs. Seva, et al.
GR No. 200857, Oct. 22, 2014
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
EMPLOYMENT OF ACADEMIC/NON-ACADEMIC PERSONNEL
IN PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
University of the East et al., vs. Pepanio
G.R. No. 193897, Jan. 23, 2013
Handwritten
Colegio del Santisimo Rosario et al. vs. Rojo
G.R. No. 170388; September 4, 2013
Facts:
Petitioner Colegio del Santisimo Rosario (CSR) hired respondent as a
high school teacher on probationary basis for the school years 19921993, 1993-1994 and 1994-1995. On April 5, 1995, CSR, through
petitioner Sr. Zenaida S. Mofada, OP (Mofada), decided not to renew
respondents services.
Respondent filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal. He alleged that since
he had served three consecutive school years which is the maximum
number of terms allowed for probationary employment, he should be
extended permanent employment. Citing paragraph 75 of the 1970
Manual of Regulations for Private Schools (1970 Manual), respondent
asserted that "full- time teachers who have rendered three (3)
consecutive years
permanent."
of
satisfactory
services
shall
be
considered
Held:
In Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Paraaque City, Inc., we had
occasion to rule that cases dealing with employment on probationary
status of teaching personnel are not governed solely by the Labor Code
as the law is supplemented, with respect to the period of probation, by
special rules found in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools
(the Manual).
With regard to the probationary period, Section 92 of the 1992
Manual provides:
Section 92. Probationary Period. Subject in all instances to
compliance with the Department and school requirements, the
probationary period for academic personnel shall not be more
than three (3) consecutive years of satisfactory service for those
in the elementary and secondary levels, six (6) consecutive
regular semesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary
level, and nine (9) consecutive trimesters of satisfactory service
for those in the tertiary level where collegiate courses are offered
on a trimester basis.
In this case, petitioners teachers who were on probationary
employment were made to enter into a contract effective for one
school year. Thereafter, it may be renewed for another school year,
and the probationary employment continues. At the end of the second
fixed period of probationary employment, the contract may again be
renewed for the last time.
Such employment for fixed terms during the teachers probationary
period is an accepted practice in the teaching profession.
That teachers on probationary employment also enjoy the protection
afforded by Article 281 of the Labor Code is supported by Section 93 of
the 1992 Manual which provides:
Sec. 93. Regular or Permanent Status. - Those who have served
the probationary period shall be made regular or permanent.
Handwritten
Hon. Sto Tomas vs. Salac et al.
G.R. Nos. 156642 & 152710, Nov. 13, 2012, En Banc
Handwritten
SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC. vs. JOY C.
CABILES
G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014
SOCIAL LEGISLATION
inside her dormitory room with her mouth foaming and smelling of
poison.
Based on the police report and the medical report of the examining
physician of the Al-Birk Hospital, who conducted an autopsy of Jasmins
body, the likely cause of her death was poisoning.
Jasmins body was repatriated to Manila on September 3, 1998. The
following day, the City Health Officer of Cabanatuan City conducted an
autopsy and the resulting medical report indicated that Jasmin died
under violent circumstances, and not poisoning as originally found by
the KSA examining physician. The toxicology report of the NBI,
however, tested negative for non-volatile, metallic poison and
insecticides.
Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma (the Cuaresmas), Jasmins parents and
her surviving heirs, received from the Overseas Workers Welfare
Administration (OWWA) the following amounts: P50,000.00 for death
benefits; P50,000.00 for loss of life; P20,000.00 for funeral expenses;
and P10,000.00 for medical reimbursement.
On November 22, 1999, the Cuaresmas filed a complaint against
Becmen and its principal in the KSA, Rajab & Silsilah Company (Rajab),
claiming death and insurance benefits, as well as moral and exemplary
damages for Jasmins death, Jasmins death was work-related, having
occurred at the employers premises; that under Jasmins contract with
Becmen, she is entitled to iqama insurance coverage; that Jasmin is
entitled to compensatory damages in the amount of US$103,740.00,
which is the sum total of her monthly salary of US$247.00 per month
under her employment contract, multiplied by 35 years (or the
remaining years of her productive life had death not supervened at age
25, assuming that she lived and would have retired at age 60).
In their position paper, Becmen and Rajab insist that Jasmin committed
suicide, citing a prior unsuccessful suicide attempt sometime in March
or April 1998 and relying on the medical report of the examining
physician of the Al-Birk Hospital. They likewise deny liability because
the Cuaresmas already recovered death and other benefits totaling
P130,000.00 from the OWWA. They insist that the Cuaresmas are not
entitled to iqama insurance because this refers to the issuance
not insurance of iqama, or residency/work permit required in the KSA.
On the issue of moral and exemplary damages, they claim that the
Cuaresmas are not entitled to the same because they have not acted
with fraud, nor have they been in bad faith in handling Jasmins case.
While the case was pending, Becmen filed a manifestation and motion
for substitution alleging that Rajab terminated their agency
relationship and had appointed White Falcon Services, Inc. (White
Falcon) as its new recruitment agent in the Philippines. Thus, White
Falcon was impleaded as respondent as well, and it adopted and
ISSUES:
(1) whether the Cuaresmas are entitled to monetary claims, by way of
benefits and damages, for the death of their daughter Jasmin.
(2) whether or not Jasmins death be considered as work-connected
and thus compensable even while she was not on duty;
HELD:
Article 19 of the Civil Code provides that every person must, in the
exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Article 21 of the Code states that any person who wilfully causes loss
or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
And, lastly, Article 24 requires that in all contractual, property or other
relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of
his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender
age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.
Clearly, Rajab, Becmen and White Falcons acts and omissions are
against public policy because they undermine and subvert the interest
and general welfare of our OFWs abroad, who are entitled to full
protection under the law. They set an awful example of how foreign
employers and recruitment agencies should treat and act with respect
to their distressed employees and workers abroad. Their shabby and
callous treatment of Jasmins case; their uncaring attitude; their
unjustified failure and refusal to assist in the determination of the true
circumstances surrounding her mysterious death, and instead finding
satisfaction in the unreasonable insistence that she committed suicide
just so they can conveniently avoid pecuniary liability; placing their
own corporate interests above of the welfare of their employees all
these are contrary to morals, good customs and public policy, and
constitute taking advantage of the poor employee and her familys
ignorance, helplessness, indigence and lack of power and resources to
seek the truth and obtain justice for the death of a loved one.
Giving in handily to the idea that Jasmin committed suicide, and
adamantly insisting on it just to protect Rajab and Becmens material
interest despite evidence to the contrary is against the moral law
and runs contrary to the good custom of not denouncing ones
fellowmen for alleged grave wrongdoings that undermine their good
name and honor.
THOUSAND
PESOS
THOUSAND
PESOS