Labor Standards

Right to Labor is Constitutional Right- Labor is akeen property that cannot be taken away without due
process

Laws in PH

Migrant Worker and Overseas Filipino Act RA 8042-

Recruitment and placement

1. Any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers; and

2. Includes referrals, contact services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad,
whether for profit or not.

These acts are not illegal per se-

Becomes if done by a non-licensee or not holder of any authority- It does not matter if nag hingi ng
recruitment fee or not

Does not necessarily require na two or more persons and gi recruit

Generally only government can recruits overseas employment but it can issue to private entities
authority to

At least 75% recruitment and placement-

Required to post both cash and surety bonds

POEA REGULATIONS- for valid claims of violation of the conditions for the grant and use of license,
accreditation, and violations of contracts of the employment.

Notice to the principal is notice to the surety- to avoid surety company from placing the defense that
they were notified- that they were not given opportunity to be heard- surety shall be co-terminus with
the validity period of the license

Bonds can be garnished anytime- failure to replenish the bond shall be ground for the suspension or
cancellation of the license

TAKE NOTE- Article 13 and Article 34

If contract is prejudicial to the employee

Economic Sabotage

Syndicated –committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three or more persons in conspiracy
or confederation with one another;

Large scale or qualified –committed against three or more persons individually or as a group (People v.
Sadiosa, G.R. No. 107084, 15 May 1998) despite the lack of necessary license from POEA (People v.
Alzona, G.R. No. 132029, 30 July 2004). The prescriptive period is twenty (20) years.

Kahit individually irecruit like lahi lahi date considered kay individually or collectively

Kailangan jud sila mag file ng affidavit maski dili mag testify tanan

If original case kay large scale tapos na find out na 2 lang ang guilty so dapat simple IR lang

If original case is simple IR but na find out na daghan diay iya narecruit dili na pwede kay violation of the
right to be informed of the crime filed against him.

Non licensee- 25

Licensee- 21

There is employer- employee relationship

Agent- worker worker-principal

When EE Relationship start- commences from the time worker departs from the airport or seaport in
the point of hire

Relevant in the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter

What if naa nay contract of employment pero di na nakaalis-

Distinguish between Upon Perfection of Contract vs Departure

If Perfection of Contract- claims arising out of a contract

- Sec 10 of RA 8042- NLRC and jurisidiction

Secure from the DOLE certificate of the reason of the agency on failure to deploy- because burden of
proof lies on the accuser

Theory of Imputed Knowledge

A rule in insurance law that any information material to the transaction, either possessed by the agent
at the time of the transaction or acquired by him before its completion, is deemed to be the knowledge
of the principal, at least so far as the transaction is concerned, even though in fact the knowledge is not
communicated to the principal at all. (Leonor v. Filipinas Compania, 48 OG 243, January 10, 1950; Rovels
Enterprises)

Labor Arbiters of NLRC-

Premature –full reimbursement of placement fee- if there are deduction then pay as well-

- In this it will be based on the unexpired portion

Violation of Equal Protection Clause- take note of this look for the case Serrano v. Gallant Maritime
Services & Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., G.R. No.167614, March 24, 2009

Q: Serrano, a seafarer, was hired by Gallant Maritime and Marlow Navigation Co. for 12 months as Chief
Officer. On the date of his departure, he was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract
for the position of Second Officer, upon the assurance that he would be made Chief Officer after a
month. It was not done; hence, he refused to stay on as Second Officer and was repatriated to the Phils.
He had served only 2 months & 7 days of his contract, leaving an unexpired portion of 9 months & 23
days.

Serrano filed with the LA a Complaint against Gallant Maritime and Marlow for constructive dismissal
and for payment of his money claims. The LA rendered a favorable decision to Serrano awarding him
$8,770.00, representing his salary for 3 months of the unexpired portion of his contract of employment
applying R.A. 8042, Sec 10, par. 5:

Money Claims. - In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause
as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement
fee with interest of 12% per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment
contract or for 3 months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.

Is the subject clause constitutional?

A: NO. The subject clause contains a suspect classification in that, in the computation of the monetary
benefits of fixed-term Ees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a 3-month cap on the claim of OFWs
with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts, but none on the claims of other OFWs
or local workers with fixedterm employment. The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs
and burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage.

The clause is a violation of the right of Serrano and other OFWs to equal protection and right to
substantive due process, for it deprives him of property, consisting of monetary benefits, without any
existing valid governmental purpose.

Furthermore, prior to R.A. 8042, all OFWs, regardless of contract periods or the unexpired portions
thereof, were treated alike in terms of the computation of their monetary benefits in case of illegal
dismissal. Their claims were subjected to a uniform rule of computation: their basic salaries multiplied
by the entire unexpired portion of their employment contracts. The same applies local workers with
fixed-term employment.

Thus, Serrano is entitled to his salaries for the entire unexpired period of nine months and 23 days of his
employment contract, pursuant to law and jurisprudence prior to the enactment of RA 8042 (Serrano v.
Gallant Maritime Services & Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., G.R. No.167614, March 24, 2009).

Residence of the party at the time of the commission of the offense- venue

Take note: Repatriation- if caused by act when worker has no fault- repatriation and transport of
personal belongings will be the agency- who will bear the cost- agency or principal (solidary liable)

If because of the fault of the employee- then he shall be liable for it himself

If because of war, natural calamities, epidemics, disaster- the OWWA shall be responsible without
prejudice to reimbursement by principal or local agencies

Seafarers’ contract can be pre-terminated without cause but must have the following requirements:

*Equity

Labor Code

Qualified to do the work or abled bodied workers- given the security of tenure, labor code applies etc.

Instances were probationary employee may be extended

Instances were employee is validly terminated from employment

Just and authorized cause

1) Twin notice rule

2) There is opportunity to be heard.

After probationary period:

1) Reasonable standard made know to employee at the start of engagement to employment.

For teachers: Three years consecutive satisfactory services- elementary and secondary

Six years- for college

Post Employment-

In unjustly terminated-

1) Reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other priviliges

2) Full backawages from the period he was illegally dismissed

If strained relationship- separation pay and full backwages and other benefits

Substantial evidence in Labor Cases- that amount of evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.

Serious misconduct- there must wrongful intent- wilful in character

Elements of serious misconduct

1. It must be serious or of such a grave and aggravated character;

2. Must relate to the performance of the Ees’ duties;

3. Ee has become unfit to continue working for the Er (Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corp. v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 124617, April 28, 2000).

Riot inside the company presence- not SM

Riot outside the company premises after work- not SM

Caught using drugs- SM because affect performance of work

Stealing company properties- if will affect company’s profit viability or masyadong mahal- SM

If is small and insignificant value- not SM

Corrupting minors- SC consider SM

Matagal na sa serbisyo (wala records na violate any policy) but on the 15th year nagbuhat sala- before
aggravating sya but on the latest jurisprudence because of length of service of employee it serves as
mitigating so suspension would suffice.

Willfull disobedience

The employee’s disobedience must relate to substantial matters, not merely to trivial or unimportant
matters. Disobedience to be considered willful must be resorted to without regard to its consequences.
(DOLE Manual; BLTB Co. v CA 71 SCRA 470; Family Planning Org. of the Phil. Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 75907,
March 23, 1992)

Requisites that must concur in order that willful disobedience of the Er’s lawful orders are considered
just cause for termination:

1. The Ees assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized by
a wrongful and perverse attitude.

2. The disobeyed orders, regulations, or instructions of the Er must be

a. Reasonable and lawful

b. Sufficiently known to the Ee

c. In connection with the duties which the Ee has been engaged to discharge (Cosep v. NLRC, G.R. No.
124966, June 16, 1998).

Lack of resulting damage is not an essential element-

Gross negligence

It has been defined as the want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire
absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid
them. (NBS vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 146741; February 27, 2002)

Habitual neglect of duties- Imply repeated failure to perform one’s duties over a period of time,
depending upon the circumstance (JGB and Associates v. NLRC, GR No. 10939, March 7, 1996)
Abandonment: a. Failure to report for work or absence without justifiable reason b. Clear intention to
sever Er-Ee relationship manifested by some overt acts (Labor et. al v. NLRC, GR No. 110388, September
14, 1995)

Pag di kasama sa job description then gi dismiss because of that then dili valid and dismissal

3rd cause: Fraud

Any act, omission, or concealment which involves a breach of legal duty, trust, or confidence justly
reposed and is injurious to another. Fraud must be committed against the employer or representative
and in connection with the employee’s work. (Poquiz, 2012)

Loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for termination:

1. It applies only to cases involving: a. Ees occupying positions of trust and confidence (confidential
and managerial Ee’s)

b. Ees routinely charged with the care and custody of the Er’s money or property.
2. The loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach.
3. The act constituting the breach must be “workrelated” such as would show the Ee concerned to
be unfit to continue working for the Er.
4. It must be substantial and founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant the Ee’s
separation from employment.
5. Fraud must be committed against the Er or his representatives, e.g.: a. Falsification of time cards
b. Theft of company property c. Unauthorized use of company vehicle.

If there is probable cause then time to present substantial evidence

Circumstantial Evidence- kung pwede nga sa criminal sa administrative cases pa kaya…

They can agree on what grounds even if not enumerated under LC- as long as not contrary to law, public
order, morals, public policy…

Union Security Clause-

Article 298- Authorized Causes

Authorized causes – initiated by the employer’s exercise of management prerogative, who shall be liable
to pay separation pay as mandated by law. Does not usually require delinquency or culpability on the
part of the employee.

Authorized causes of termination by the Er:

1. Installation of labor-saving devices

2. Redundancy

3. Reorganization

4. Retrenchment

5. Closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking

6. Disease

30,000 nominal damages pag just cause- then 50,000 nd for authorized causes- lack of notice does not
invalidate the termination.

Closure of business because of extreme losses- no separation pay

Closure contemplated is a unilateral and voluntary act on the part of the Er to close the business
establishment.

Requisites:

1. Written notice served on both the Ees and the DOLE at least 1 month prior to the intended date of
closure
2. Payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least 1/2 month pay for every
year of service, whichever is higher, except when closure is due to serious business losses
3. Good faith
4. No circumvention of the law
5. No other option available to the Er

Redundancy

It is the superfluity in the performance of a particular work. It exists where the services of an Ee are in
excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise (Wiltshire File Co.,
Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 82249, February 7, 1991).

The redundancy should not have been created by the Er.

Requisites of a valid redundancy:

1. Written notice served on both the Ees and the DOLE at least 1 month prior to separation from work

2. Payment of separation pay equivalent to at least 1 month pay or at least 1 month pay for every year
of service, whichever is higher
3. Good faith in abolishing redundant position

4. Fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant: a. Less
preferred status, e.g. temporary Ee b. Efficiency and c. Seniority (DAP v. Court of Appeals. G.R. No.
165811; December 14, 2005).

Retrenchment- take note

What is separation pay?

6th cause: Disease

Must be incurable within 6 months and the continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to
his health as well as to the health of his co-Ees with a certification from the public health officer that the
disease is incurable within 6 months despite due to medication and treatment

Disease as a ground for dismissal

When the Ee suffers from a disease, and:

1. His continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health or to the health of his co-
Ees (IRR, Book VI, Rule I, Sec.8).

2. With a certification by competent public health authority that the disease is incurable within 6
months despite due medication and treatment (Solis v. NLRC, GR No. 116175, October 28, 1996).

Certification- issued by a competent public authority- must show that disease is incurable within the
period of 6 months even with proper care- separation pay is required (only if it was initiated by the
employer).

The requirement for a medical certification cannot be dispensed with; otherwise, it would sanction the
unilateral and arbitrary determination by the Er of the gravity or extent of the Ee’s illness and thus
defeat the public policy on the protection of labor (Manly Express v. Payong, G.R. No. 167462, October
25, 2005.

SC- 5 calendars a written explanation to not be terminated- does not need actual hearing
SC considered substantial compliance –during pendency of ID case- gave notice and opportunity to be
heard-cured the defect-as long as it is not a mere afterthought