LABOR

LAW
REVIEW
Case Digests – Atty. Marlon Manuel

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW | 4B 2015-2016

BAHILLO. BARRUGA. BAUTISTA. BORLAGDAN. CABOCHAN. CABRERA. CALIPAY. CAMBRI. CHIONG. DATUIN.
DIAZ. DIOLA. ENCARNACION. FERNANDEZ, L. FERNANDEZ, R. FERNANDO. GONZALES. GRATUITO. ILAGAN.
JUANICO. MACALOS. MADAMBA. MANCENIDO. MANZANO. ONG. PANGILINAN. PERALTA. RAGAZA. RIVERA.
SENORAN. SEPACIO. SURTIDA. TAN. TANDAAN. TUMANG. YUMANG-MEDINA.
PART I

RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION

Concept and Scope

Arts. 243, 246, 277 (c), 212 (e, f)
Omnibus Rules, Book V, Rule I-Rule II, as amended by D.O. 40, series of 2001

NUWHRAIN-MPHC v Secretary of Labor and Employment, July 31, 2009

Labor Organizations and Registration of Unions

Labor Code: Arts. 212 (g, h), 231, 234-242, 277 (a)
Omnibus Rules, Book V, Rule I, Sec. I (a, h-p, w, cc, ee, ff, jj, kk, zz, ccc), Rule III-V, XIV-XV, as amended by
D.O. 40-03, as further amended by D.O. 40-B.

R.A. No. 9481, Sec. 1-9

Department Order No. 40-F-03, series of 2008.
(Implementing Rules for R.A. 9481 amendments)

San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (SMCEU-
PTGWO) v. San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union-Pambansang Diwa Ng Manggagawang Pilipino
(SMPPEU-PDMP), September 12, 2007
The Heritage Hotel Manila (Owned and Operated By Grand Plaza Hotel Corporation) v. Pinag-Isang Galing at Lakas
Ng Mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila (Piglas-Heritage), October 30, 2009
Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club v. CA, March 18, 2010
Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical (SMCC-SUPER) v. Charter Chemical and Coating Corp, March 16,
2011
Yokohama Tire Phils. v. Yokohama Employees Union, March 10, 2010

Eligibility for Membership; Special Groups of Employees

Labor Code: Arts. 245, 212 (m)

R.A. No. 9481, Sec. 8-9
Department Order No. 40-F-03, series of 2008
Omnibus Rules, Book V, Rule I, Sec. I (hh), (nn), (xx), as amended by D.O. 40

Cathay Pacific Steel Corp. v. CA, August 2006

San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma, August 15, 1997
Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU-NUBE) v. Standard Chartered Bank, April 22, 2008
Coastal Subic Bay Terminal v. DOLE, November 20, 2006
Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia Brewery, August 3, 2010
San Miguel Foods v SMC supervisors and Exempt Union, August 1, 2011

Union Security Clause

BPI v BPI Employees Union, August 10, 2010 (Main Decision and Dissenting Opinion), October 19, 2011
General Milling Corp v Casio, March 10, 2010
PICOP Resources v Taneca, August 9, 2010
Victoriano v Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54
Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning Division v Ferrer-Calleja, 162 SCRA 367

Conditions of Membership and Rights of Members

Labor Code: Arts. 241, 274, 222 (b)

Omnibus Rules, Book V, Rule XI, XII, XIII, XVIII, XX, as amended by D.O. 40

NOTE: Compare the original provisions of the Labor Code with the amended provisions of R.A. No. 9481.

1
For reference:
Atlas Litographic Services v. Laguesma, 205 SCRA 12
De La Salle University Medical Center v. Laguesma, 294 SCRA 141
Tagaytay Highlands v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union- PTGWO, January 22, 2003

PART II
BARGAINING UNIT

Omnibus Rules, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (d, t), as amended by D.O. 40-03

De La Salle v. De La Salle University Employees’ Association, 330 SCRA 363

San Miguel Foods v. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union, August 1, 2011
Holy Child Catholic School v. HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS, July 23, 2013

BARGAINING AGENT, CERTIFICATION ELECTION PROCEEDINGS

Labor Code: Arts. 255-259, 258-A (Note: Arts. 256 & 257 had been amended by R.A. 9481)

Omnibus Rules, Book V , Rule I, Sec. 1 (d, h, j, o, p, q, t, ll, ss, bbb),

Rules VI-X, as amended by D.O. 40, and further amended by D.O. 40-F-03, series of 2008

Republic of the Philippines, represented by DOLE, v. Kawashima Textile, July

23, 2008
St. James School of Quezon City v. Samahang Manggagawa sa St. James, November 23, 2005
DHL Phils. United Rank and File Association v. Buklod ng Manggagawa ng
DHL Phils., July 22, 2004
Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation v. Hon. Secretary Of Labor, August 14,
2009
Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Samma–Lakas Sa Industriya Ng
Kapatirang Haligi Ng Alyansa (Samma–Likha) v. Samma Corporation, March 13, 2009
Chris Garments Corporation v. Hon. Patricia A. Sto.Tomas and Chris GarmentsWorkers Union-
PTGWO, January 12, 2009
National Union Of Workers In Hotels, Restaurants And Allied Industries- Manila
Pavilion Hotel Chapter v. Secretary of Labor, July 31, 2009
Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club v. CA, March 18, 2010
PICOP Resources, Inc. v. Tañeca, August 9, 2010
Legend International Resorts v. Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legend, February 23, 2011
Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Chemical (SMCC-SUPER) v. Charter Chemical and Coating Corp., March 16,
2011

Voluntary Recognition

Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation v. Hon. Secretary Of Labor, August 14, 2009

For reference: Coastal Subic Bay Terminal v. DOLE, November 20, 2006

PART III
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Labor Code: Arts. 250-254, 247-249, 261
Omnibus Rules, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (d, h, j, t, bbb), Rules XVI-XVII, as amended by D.O. 40-03

Art. 231, 212 (n), 260-262 (b), 277 (f,g,h)

Omnibus Rules, Book V, Rule XIX, XXI, as amended by D.O. 40-03

Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle Phils., March 3, 2008

PAL v. PALEA, March 12, 2008
San Miguel Foods v. San Miguel Corporation Employees Union, October 5, 2007
Capitol Medical Center v. Trajano, June 30, 2005
Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union v. Confesor, June 16, 2004
General Milling Corporation v. CA, February 11, 2004
 FVC Labor Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (FVCLU-PTGWO) v. Sama-Samang
Nagkakaisang Manggagawa Sa FVC-Solidarity Of Independent And General Labor Organizations (SANAMA-FVC-
SIGLO), November 27, 2009
RFM Corporation v. KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU, February 4, 2009
Fulache v. ABS-CBN, GR No. 183810, January 21, 2010
Employees Union of Bayer v. Bayer Phils., December 6, 2010
General Milling Corp. Independent Labor Union v. General Milling, June 15, 2011
Malayan Employees Association v. Malayan Insurance Co., February 2, 2010
Santuyo v. Remerco Garments, March 22, 2010
Insular Hotel Employees Union v. Waterfront Insular Hotel, September 22, 2010
Cirtek Employees Labor Union v. Cirtek Electronics, November 15, 2010
Eastern Telecoms v. Eastern Telecoms Employees Union, February 8, 2012
PNCC Skyway Traffic Management & Security Division Workers Organization v. PNCC Skyway Corp., February
17, 2010
Supreme Steel v. Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Supreme, March 28, 2011

For reference:

Halagueña, et al., and other flight attendants of Philippine Airlines v Philippine

Airlines, October 2, 2009

PASSI v. Boclot, September 28, 2007

PART IV
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

Labor Code: Arts. 247-249, 261

Employees Union of Bayer Phils. v. Bayer Phils., December 6, 2010

Prince Transport v. Garcia, January 12, 2011
Manila Mining Employees Corp. v. Manila Mining, September 29, 2010
Central Azucarera de Bais Employees Union v. Central Azucarera de Bais, Nov. 17, 2010
BPI Employees Union-Davao v. BPI, July 24, 2013
Pepsi Cola Products v. Molon et al., February 18, 2013
Royal Plant Workers Union v. Coca Cola Bottlers, April 15, 2013
Goya v. Goya Employees Union, January 21, 2013

STRIKES, LOCKOUTS AND CONCERTED ACTIONS

Arts. 212 (o-s), 263-266, 254; Rules, Book V, Rule XXII, as amended by D.O. 40-03, and further amended by D.O. 40-
A and D.O. 40-G-03 (2010)

Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Clothman Knitting v. CA, January 17, 2005

Steel Corporation v. SCP Employees Union, April 16, 2008
Biflex Phils. v. Filflex Industrial & Manufacturing Corp., Dec. 19, 2006
Bascon & Cole v. CA, February 5, 2004
Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers Association v. Toyota Motor Phils, Oct. 19, 2007
NUWHRAIN Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter v. CA, November 11, 2008
Capitol Medical Center v. NLRC, GR 147080, April 26, 2005
Trans-Asia Shipping Lines-Unlicensed Crews Employees Union v. CA, July 7, 2004
Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union v. CA, Secretary, December 16, 2004
Philcom Employees Union v. Phil. Global Communications, July 17, 2006
Nissan Motors v. Secretary, June 21, 2006
FEU-NRMF v. FEU-NRMFEA-AFW, October 16, 2006
Pilipino Telephone Corporation v. PILTEA, June 22, 2007
Club Filipino v. Bautista, July 13, 2009
A. Soriano Aviation v. Employees Association of A. Soriano Aviation, August 14, 2009
Jackbilt Industries v. Jackbilt Employees Union, March 20, 2009
Alcantara & Sons v. CA, GR G.R. No. 155109, September 29, 2010
PHIMCO Industries, Inc. v. PILA, August 11, 2010
Solidbank Corporation v. Gamier, November 15, 2010

2
Escario v. NLRC, September 27, 2010
Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Triumph v. Secretary, July 5, 2010
Fadriquelan v. Monterey Foods, June 8, 2011
Magdala Multipurpose & Livelihood v. KMLMS, October 19, 2011
Automotive Engine Rebuilders v. Progresibong Unyon, July 13, 2011; January 16, 2013
Naranjo v. Biomedica Heath Care, September 19, 2012
VCMC v. Yballe, January 15, 2014

PART V
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

A. Elements of Relationship

Labor Code: Article 97 (a), (b), (c), (e); 167 (f), (g); 212 (e) & (f)
Cases:
Television and Production Exponents v. Servaña (GR 167648, January
28,2008) ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Nazareno (GR 164156, Sept. 26,
2006) Fulache v. ABS-CBN (January 21, 2010)
(These three cases should be read in relation to Sonza v. ABS-CBN
Broadcasting Corporation [GR 138051, June 10, 2004])
Bernante v. PBA (September 14, 2011)
Abella v. PLDT (GR 159469, June 8, 2005)
Consulta v. CA (GR 145443, March 18, 2005)
Villamaria v. CA (GR 165881, April 19, 2006)
Republic of the Philippines v. ASIAPRO Cooperative (GR 172101, November
23, 2007)
Phil. Global Communications v. De Vera (GR 157214, June 7, 2005)
Coca Cola Bottlers v. Climaco (GR 146881, February 5, 2007)
Chavez v. NLRC (GR 146530, January 17, 2005)
Angelina Francisco v. NLRC (GR 170087, August 31, 2006)
Tongko v. Manufacturers Life Insurance (GR 167622, June 29, 2010 & January
25, 2011)
Intel Technology v. NLRC & Cabiles, February 5, 2014
Matling Industrial v. Coros (October 13, 2010)
Cosare v. Broadcom Asia, February 5, 2014
Atlanta Industries v. Sebolino (January 26, 2011)
Republic v. Asiapro Cooperative (November 23, 2007)

B. Independent Contractors and Labor-Only Contractors

Labor Code: Art. 106-109

Department Order No. 18-A, series of 2011 (which amended D.O. No. 18, s. 2002)
Cases:

Philippine Airlines v. Ligan (GR 146408, February 29, 2008)

San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa (GR 149011, June 28, 2005)
Meralco Industrial Engineering Services v. NLRC (GR 145402, March 14, 2008)
Manila Electric Company v. Benamira (GR 145271, July 14, 2005)
Dole Phils. v. Esteva (GR No. 161115, November 30, 2006)
Aliviado v. Procter and Gamble (GR 160506, March 9, 2010)
Temic Automotive v. Temic Automotive Phils. Employees Union (GR 186965,
December 23, 2009)
Smart Communications v. Astorga (GR 148132, January 28, 2008)
Coca-Cola Bottlers v. Agito (GR 179546, February 13, 2009)
Manila Water v. Dalumpines (GR 175501, October 4, 2010)
Babas v. Lorenzo Shipping (GR 186091, December 15, 2010)
Teng v. Pahagac (GR 169704, November 17, 2010)

PART VI
CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES
Arts. 278, 280-281; Rules, Book VI, Secs. 5-6

Magis Young Achievers’ Learning Center v. Manalo, February 13, 2009

Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring Services v. Boclot, September 28, 2007
The Peninsula Manila v. Alipio, June 17, 2008
Rowell Industrial Corporation v. CA, March 7, 2007
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Nazareno, September 26, 2006
Kimberly Clark Phils. v. Secretary, November 23, 2007
Benares v. Pancho, April 29, 2005
Hacienda Bino/Hortencia Starke v. Cuenca, April 15, 2005
Gapayao v. Fulo, June 13, 2013
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. v. Acibo, January 15, 2014
Filipinas Pre-fabricated Building Systems (FilSystems) v. Puente, March 18, 2005
St. Mary’s University v. CA, March 8, 2005
Poseidon Fishing v. NLRC, February 20, 2006
PLDT v. Arceo, May 5, 2006
Fulache v. ABS CBN, January 21, 2010
Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union v. PNOC, March30, 2011
Asos v. PNCC, July 3, 2013
Malicdem v. Marulas Industrial Corp., February 26, 2014
Exodus International Construction v. Biscocho, February 23, 2011
DM Consunji v. Gobres, August 8, 2010
Mercado v. AMA Computer College, April 13, 2010
Colegio del Santisimo Rosario v. Rojo, September 4,
2013 University of the East v. Pepanio, January 23, 2013
Herrera-Manaois v. St. Scholastica’s College, December 11, 2013

PART VII
SECURITY OF TENURE

Arts. 277 (b), 279, 282-287; Rules, Book VI, Secs. 2, 5, 6, Book V, Rule XXIII

Just Causes

Salas v. Aboitiz One, June 27, 2008

RB Michael Press v. Galit, February 13, 2008
San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, April 16, 2008
LBC Express v. Mateo, June 9, 2009
Genuino v. NLRC, December 4, 2007
Bughaw v. Treasure Island, March 28, 2008
Moreno v. San Sebastian College, March 28, 2008
Janssen Pharmaceutica v. Silayro, February 26, 2008
Suico v. NLRC, January 30, 2007
Perez & Doria v. PT&T, April 7, 2009
Bacolod-Talisay Realty v. Dela Cruz, April 30, 2009
Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Labor Union v. NLRC, June 13, 2012
Cosmos Bottling Co. v. Fermin, June 20, 2012
Sampaguita Auto Transport v. NLRC & Sagad, January 30, 2013
Dongon v. Rapid Movers, Augsut 28, 2013
Alilem Credit Cooperative v. Bandiola, February 25, 2013
Cavite Apparel v. Marquez, February 6, 2013
Esguerra v. Valle Verde, June 13, 2012

Authorized Causes

Andrada v. NLRC, December 28, 2007

Manatad v. PT&T, March 7, 2008
Linton Commercial v. Hellera, October 10, 2007
AMA Computer College v. Garcia, April 14, 2008
GSWU-NAFLU-KMU v. NLRC, October 17, 2006
Dickinson Philippines v. NLRC, November 15, 2005
PT & T v. NLRC, April 15, 2005
Oriental Petroleum v. Fuentes, October 14, 2005
FASAP v. PAL, July 22, 2008 and October 2, 2009
General Milling Corp. v. Viajar, January 30, 2013

Constructive Dismissal/Preventive Suspension

Maricalum v. Decorion, April 12 2006

Uniwide Sales v. NLRC, February 29, 2008
Norkis Trading v. Genilo, February 11, 2008
Fungo v. Lourdes School, July 27, 2007
The University of the Immaculate Conception v. NLRC, January 26, 2011
Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corp. v. Ranchez, January 19, 2011
Dreamland Hotel v. Johnson, March 12, 2014

Union Security Clause

Alabang Country Club v. NLRC, February 14, 2008

Inguillo v. First Philippine Scales, June 5, 2009
General Milling Corp. v. Casio, March 10, 2010

Disease

Crayons Processing v. Pula, July 30, 2007

Villaruel v. Yeo Han Guan, June 1, 2011
Padillo v. Rural bank of Nabunturan, January 21, 2013

Temporary Suspension of Operations/Floating Status

Manila Mining Corp. Employees Association v. Manila Mining Corp., September 29, 2010
Nippon Housing v. Leynes, August 3, 2011
SKM Art Corp. v. Bauca, November 27, 2013

Illegal Strike

Jackbilt Industries v. Jackbilt Employees Union, March 20, 2009

Escario v. NLRC, September 27, 2010
Abaria v. NLRC, December 7, 2011 (relate to Bascon v. CA, February 5, 2004)
PHIMCO Industries v. PHIMCO Industries Labor Association, August 11, 2010

Suspension

Caong v. Regualos, January 26, 2011

Consequences of Dismissal

Composite Enterprises v. Caparoso, August 8, 2007

Sagum v. CA, May 26, 2005
Agabon v. NLRC, November 17, 2004
Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot, March 28, 2005
Industrial Timber v. Ababon, March 30, 2006
Sangwoo Phil. v. Sangwoo Phils. Employees Union, December 9, 2013
Equitable Banking v. Sadac, June 8, 2006
Carlos v. CA, August 28, 2007
Tomas Claudio Memorial College v. CA, February 16, 2004
Chronicle Securities v. NLRC, November 25, 2004
Intercontinental Broadcasting v. Benedicto, July 20, 2006
Velasco v. NLRC, June 26, 2006
PCIB v. Abad, February 28, 2005
Bago v. NLRC, April 4, 2007
Panuncillo v. CAP Phils., February 9, 2007
Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, January 20, 2009
Islriz v.Capada, January 31, 2011
Lansangan v. Amkor Technology Philippines, January 30, 2009
Palteng v. UCPB, February 27, 2009
Alcantara & Sons v. CA, September 29, 2010
Aboc v. Metrobank, December 13, 2010
Prince Transport v. Garcia, January 12, 2011
Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corp. v. Ranchez, January 19, 2011
Pfizer v. Velasco, March 9, 2011
Luna v. Allado Construction, May 30, 2011
Villaruel v. Yeo Han Guan, June 1, 2011
Nacar V. Gallery Frames, August 13, 2013
Integrated Microelectronics V. Pionilla, August 28, 2013
United Tourist Promotion V. Kemplin, February 5, 2014

PART VIII
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

Labor Code: Arts. 128-129, 213-226, 254, 260-262-B, 263 (g-i), 273-275, 277
(b), 290-292, note the amendments introduced by R.A. 9347
Executive Order No. 126 & 251

People’s Broadcasting v. Secretary, May 8, 2009

Diokno v. Cacdac, July 4, 2007
Jaguar Security v. Sales, April 22, 2008
Pioneer Concrete Philippines v. Todaro, June 8, 2007
Tegimenta Chemical Phils. v. Buensalida, June 17, 2008
Metro Transit Organization v. PIGLAS NFWU-KMU, April 14, 2008
Hacienda Valentin-Balabag v. Secretary, February 11, 2008
Pentagon Steel Corp. v. CA, June 26, 2009
Masmud v. NLRC, February 13, 2009
Negros Metal Corp. v. Lamayo, August 25, 2010
Albert Teng Fish Trading v. Pahagac, November 17, 2010
Sarona v. NLRC, January 18, 2012.
McBurnie v. Ganzon, EGI-Managers, Inc., October 17, 2013
Prince Transport v. Garcia, January 12, 2011.
Manila Pavillion v. Delada, January 25, 2012
Unilever v. Rivera, June 3, 2013.
Phil. Carpet Manufacturing Corp. v. Tagyamon, December 11, 2013
Nacar v. Gallery Frames, August 13, 2013
RIGHT TO SELF ORGANIZATION 1. YES. The inclusion of Gatbonton’s vote was
proper not because it was not questioned but
because probationary employees have the right
NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS, to vote in a certification election. The votes
RESTAURANTS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES of the five other probationary employees should
MANILA PAVILION HOTEL CHAPTER vs. thus also have been counted. Rule II, Sec. 2 of
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT Department Order No. 4003, series of 2003, which
G.R. No. 181531. July 31, 2009. amended Rule XI of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code, provides:
FACTS
In a certification election conducted among the rank For purposes of this section, any employee,
and file employees of respondent Holiday Inn Manila whether employed for a definite period or not, shall
Pavilion Hotel (the Hotel), the following results were beginning on the first day of his/her service, be
obtained: eligible for membership in any labor organization.

EMPLOYEES IN VOTERS LIST = 353 The period of reckoning in determining who shall
TOTAL VOTES CAST = 346 be included in the list of eligible voters is in cases
NUWHRAINMPHC = 151 where a timely appeal has been filed from the
HIMPHLU = 169 Order of the MedArbiter, the date when the Order
NO UNION = 1 of the Secretary of Labor and
SPOILED = 3 Employment, whether affirming or denying the
SEGREGATED = 22 appeal, becomes final and executory. The
provision in the CBA disqualifying probationary
Among the segregated were five votes on the employees from voting cannot override the
on the ground that they were cast by Constitutionallyprotected right of workers to self-
probationary employees and, pursuant to the organization, as well as the provisions of the
existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), Labor Code and its
such employees cannot vote. It bears noting early Implementing Rules on certification elections and j
on, however, that the vote of one Jose urisprudence thereon.
Gatbonton (Gatbonton),
a 2. NO. under the socalled double majority rule, for
probationary employee, was counted. there to be a valid certification election, majority
of the bargaining unit must have voted AND
MedArbiter Calabocal ruled for the opening of 17 out of the winning union must have garnered majority of
the 22 segregated votes, except the five votes of the the valid votes cast. Prescinding from the Courts
probationary employees. Petitioner, which garnered ruling that all the probationary
151 votes, appealed to the Secretary employees votes
of Labor and Employment (SOLE), arguing that the should be deemed valid votes while that of the
votes of the probationary employees should have been supervisory employees should be excluded, it
opened considering that probationary employee follows that the number of valid votes cast
Gatbonton’s vote was tallied. And petitioner averred would increase from 321 to 337. Under Art.
that respondent HIMPHLU, which garnered 169 256 of the Labor Code, the union obtaining
votes, should not be immediately certified as the the majority of the valid votes cast by the
bargaining agent, as the opening of the 17 eligible voters shall be certified as the sole
segregated ballots would push the number of valid and exclusive bargaining agent of all the
votes cast to 338 (151 + 169 + 1 + 17), hence, the 169 workers in the appropriate bargaining unit. This
votes which HIMPHLU majority is 50% + 1. Hence, 50% of 337 is 168.5 +
garnered would be one vote shortof the majority which 1 or at least 170. HIMPHLU
would then become 69. obtained 169 while petitioner received 151 votes.
Clearly, HIMPHLU was not able to obtain a
The Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE), majority vote.
through then Acting Secretary Luzviminda Padilla,
affirmed the MedArbiters Order.
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES
ISSUES: UNION–PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL
1. Whether or not the five votes of the probationary WORKERS ORGANIZATION (SMCEU–PTGWO),
employees should be opened. petitioner, vs. SAN MIGUEL PACKAGING
2. Whether HIMPHLU should be certified as the PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNION–PAMBANSANG
exclusive bargaining unit. DIWA NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO
(SMPPEU–
HELD: PDMP), respondent

1
G.R. No. 171153, September 12, 2007 least 20% of (2) No. After an
requirement under the the employees exhaustive
FACTS: Labor Code. in the study of the
San Miguel bargaining unit governing
Corporation ISSUES: where it seeks labor law
Employees Union- (1) Is SMPPEU, a to operate, as provisions,
Philippine Transport chapter, provided under both statutory
and General Workers required to Article 234 of and regulatory,
Organization (SMCEU- comply with the the Labor Code the court finds
PTGWO) is the 20% and Section 2 no legal
incumbent bargaining membership of Rule III, justification to
agent for the requirement Book V of the support the
bargaining unit under the Implementing conclusion that
comprised of the Labor Code? Rules, the a trade union
regular monthly-paid (2) May PDMP, a same is no center is
rank and file trade union longer required allowed to
employees of the three center, validly of a branch, directly create
divisions of San Miguel create local local or a local or
Corporation (SMC), and chapters? chapter. The chapter
namely, the San intent of the through
Miguel Corporate Staff HELD: law in imposing chartering.
Unit (SMCSU), San (1) No. The less Department
Miguel Brewing creation of a requirements in Order No. 9
Philippines (SMBP), branch, local or the case of a mentions two
and the San Miguel chapter is branch or local labor
Packaging Products treated of a registered organizations
(SMPP), in all offices differently. The federation or either of which
and plants of SMC Court, in the national union is allowed to
while San Miguel landmark case is to encourage directly create
Packaging Products of Progressive the affiliation of a local or
Employees Union– Development a local union chapter
Pambansang Diwa ng Corporation v. with a through
Manggagawang Secretary, federation or chartering – a
Pilipino (SMPPEU– Department of national union duly
PDMP) is registered Labor and in order to registered
as a chapter of Employment, increase the federation ora
Pambansang Diwa ng declared that local union's national union.
Manggagawang when an bargaining Department
Pilipino (PDMP). unregistered powers Order No. 9
SMCEU-PTGWO filed union becomes respecting defines a
a petition for the a branch, local terms and "chartered
cancellation of or chapter, conditions of local" as a
SMPPEU’s registration some of the labor. labor
and its dropping from aforementione organization in
the rolls of legitimate d requirements the private
labor organizations for registration sector
alleging that SMPPEU are no longer operating at
committed fraud and necessary or the enterprise
falsification in compulsory. level that
obtaining its certificate Whereas an acquired legal
of registration and that applicant for personality
PDMP does not have registration of through a
the power to create a an independent charter
local or a chapter union is certificate,
since it is a trade union mandated to issued by
center. It was also submit, among a duly
found by the regional other things, registered
director that SMPPEU the number of federation or
failed to comply with employees and national union
the 20% % names of all its and reported
membership members to the
comprising at
2
Regional the exclusion HERITAGE), c
Office in of another. G
accordance When certain t
with Rule III, persons or .
Section 2-E things are .
of these specified in a R
Rules. law, contract,
or will, an .
Article 234 intention to 3
now includes exclude all
the term others from its 0
trade union operation may N
center, but be inferred. If ,
interestingly, a statute o
the provision specifies one
indicating the exception to a .
procedure for general rule 2
chartering or or assumes to
creating a specify the 0
local or effects of a 1
chapter, certain 0
namely provision, 7
Article 234- other 9
A, still makes exceptions or 7
no mention of effects are
a "trade excluded. 0
union center. F
Also worth *A trade union 2
emphasizing center is any group of A
is that even registered national 4
in the most unions or federations C
recent organized for the ,
amendment mutual aid and T
of the protection of its
implementing members; for S
rules,there assisting such O
was no members in collective
mention of a bargaining; or for Sometime in 2000, cancellation of the HHE
trade union participating in the certain rank and file unions registration
center as formulation of social employees of petitioner certificate.
being among and employment Heritage Hotel Manila
the labor policies, standards, formed the Heritage the Med-Arbiter granted
organizations and programs, and is Hotel Employees Union the HHE unions petition
allowed to duly registered with (the HHE union). for certification election.
charter. the DOLE in DOLE-NCR issued a Petitioner appealed to
accordance with Rule certificate of the Secretary of Labor
The Court III, Section 2 of the registration to this but the latter denied the
deems it Implementing Rules. union. the HHE union appeal and the motion
proper to filed a petition for for reconsideration,
apply the THE HERITAGE certification election. prompting the company
Latin maxim HOTEL MANILA petitioner company to file a petition for
expressio (OWNED AND opposed, alleging that certiorari with the Court
unius est OPERATED BY the HHE union of Appeals. the CA
exclusio GRAND PLAZA misrepresented itself to issued a writ of
alterius. HOTEL be an independent injunction against the
Under this CORPORATION) V. union, when it was, holding of the HHE
maxim of PINAG-ISANG in truth, a local unions certification
statutory GALING AT LAKAS chapter of the election, effective until
interpretation, NG MGA NUWHRAIN. the the petition for
the MANGGAGAWA SA company also filed a cancellation of that
expression of HERITAGE MANILA petition for the unions registration shall
one thing is (PIGLAS-
3
have been resolved union registration of dual unionism and
with finality. The respondent PIGLAS showed that the new But, as the labor
decision of the CA union. The company union was merely an authorities held, this
became final when the claimed that the alter ego of the old. discrepancy is
HHE union withdrew documents submitted immaterial. A
the petition for review with the unions ISSUE: comparison of the
that it filed with this application for Whether or not the documents shows that,
Court. registration bore false respondent union except for six
information. committed members, the names
On December 10, misrepresentation in found in the subject list
2003 certain rank and Petitioner company its application for are also in the
file employees of alleged that the union registration? attendance and
petitioner company misrepresentation was signature sheets.
formed another union, evidenced by the HELD: Notably, the bargaining
the respondent Pinag- discrepancy in the No. The Labor Code unit that respondent
Isang Galing at Lakas number of union and its implementing PIGLAS union sought
ng mga Manggagawa members appearing in rules do not require to represent consisted
sa Heritage Manila the application and the that the number of of 250 employees.
(the PIGLAS union). list as well as in the members appearing Only 20 percent of this
This union applied for number of signatories on the documents in number or 50
registration with the to the attendance and question should employees were
DOLE-NCR and got its signature sheets. The completely dovetail. required to unionize.
registration certificate. company further For as long as the Here, the union more
later, the members of alleged that 33 documents and than complied with
the first union, the members of signatures are shown such requirement.
HHE union, adopted a respondent PIGLAS to be genuine and
resolution for its union were members of regular and the Labor laws are liberally
dissolution. The HHE the defunct HHE union. constitution and by- construed in favor of
union then filed a This, according to the laws democratically labor especially if
petition for cancellation company, violated the ratified, the union is doing so would affirm
of its union policy against deemed to have its constitutionally
registration. complied with guaranteed right to
registration self-organization.
On September 4, 2004 requirements. Here, the PIGLAS
respondent PIGLAS unions supporting
union filed a petition Petitioner company documents reveal the
for certification claims that unmistakable yearning
election, that petitioner respondent PIGLAS of petitioner companys
company also union was required to rank and file
opposed, alleging that submit the names of employees to
the new unions officers all its members organize. This
and members were comprising at least 20 yearning should not be
also those who percent of the frustrated by
comprised the old employees in the inconsequential
union. According to the bargaining unit. Yet technicalities.
company, the the list it submitted
employees involved named only 100 EAGLE RIDGE GOLF
formed the PIGLAS members AND COUNTRY
union to circumvent notwithstanding that CLUB VS. COURT OF
the Court of Appeals the signature and APPEALS
injunction against the attendance sheets GR. No. 178989, March
holding of the reflected a 18, 2010
certification election membership of 127 or
sought by the former 128 employees. This Doctrine: Art. 234[c]
union. Despite the omission, said the requires the list of
companys opposition, company, amounted names of all the union
however, the Med- to material members of an
Arbiter granted the misrepresentation that INDEPENDENT
petition for certification warranted the UNION comprising at
election. petitioner cancellation of the least 20% of the
company filed a unions registration. bargaining unit. This
petition to cancel the
4
should not be membership) will not meeting. Prior to their organization seeking
equated with the list retroact to the time of withdrawal, the six to represent the
of workers who application for employees in question bargaining unit of rank-
participated in the registration or even were bona fide union and-file employees
organizational way back to the members. does not divest it of its
meetings (Art.234 organizational status as a legitimate
[b]). Subsequent meeting. With the withdrawal of labor organization.
affidavits of retraction six union members,
(withdrawal of FACTS there is still compliance FACTS:
Eagle Ridge registration of the with the mandatory Samahang
Employees Union Union. membership Manggagawa sa
(EREU or Union) filed requirement under Art. Charter Chemical
a petition for HELD 234(c), for the Solidarity of Unions in
certification election in No. The fact that six remaining 24 union the Philippines for
Eagle Ridge Golf & union members, members constitute Empowerment and
Country Club. Eagle indeed, expressed the more than the 20% Reforms (petitioner
Ridge opposed this desire to withdraw their membership union) filed a petition
petition, followed by its membership through requirement of 22 for certification election
filing of a petition for their affidavits of employees. among the regular
the cancellation of retraction will not cause rank-and-file
certificate of the cancellation of SAMAHANG employees of Charter
registration claiming registration on the MANGGAGAWA SA Chemical and Coating
misrepresentation, ground of violation of CHARTER CHEMICAL Corporation
false statement, or Art. 234(c) of the Labor v. CHARTER (respondent company)
fraud to EREU in Code requiring the CHEMICAL and with the Mediation
connection with the mandatory minimum COATING Arbitration Unit of the
adoption of its 20% membership of CORPORATION DOLE, National
constitution and by- rank-and-file G.R. No. 169717, Capital
laws, the numerical employees in the March 16, 2011
composition of the employees' union. Med-Arbiter’s Ruling
Union, and the election The inclusion of Dismissed the petition
of its officers. Twenty percent (20%) supervisory employees for certification
of 112 rank-and-file in a labor election. It held that
Eagle Ridge alleged employees in Eagle the list of membership
that the EREU Ridge would require a of petitioner union
declared in its union membership of at consisted of 12
application for least 22 employees batchman, mill
registration having 30 (112 x 205 = 22.4). operator and leadman
members, when the When the EREU filed who performed
minutes of its its application for supervisory functions.
December 6, 2005 registration on Under Article
organizational meeting December 19, 2005, 245 of the Labor Code,
showed it only had 26 there were clearly 30 said supervisory
members. Also, Eagle union members. Thus, employees are
Ridge contended that when the certificate of prohibited from joining
five employees who registration was petitioner union which
attended the granted, there is no seeks to represent the
organizational meeting dispute that the Union rank-and-file
had manifested the complied with the employees of
desire to withdraw mandatory 20% respondent company.
from the union. The membership As a result, not being a
five executed requirement. legitimate labor
individual affidavits or organization, petitioner
Sinumpaang Besides, it cannot be union has no right to
Salaysay. argued that the six file a petition for
affidavits of retraction certification election for
ISSUE retroact to the time of the purpose of
Whether or not the the application of collective bargaining.
separation of members registration or even
from the Union can way back to the Department of Labor
detrimentally affect the organizational and Employment’s

5
Ruling Allowed the RULING of its status as a as choices.[3] The
certification election No. The CA found that legitimate labor election held on
among the regular petitioner union has organization. The Court November 23, 2001
rank-and-file for its membership held that while there is yielded the following
employees. There both rank-and-file and a prohibition against result:
was no independent supervisory the mingling of
evidence employees. However, supervisory and rank- YOKOHA
petitioner union and-file employees in MA
presented to establish
sought to represent one labor organization, EMPLOYE
respondent the bargaining unit the Labor Code does ES UNION
company’s claim that consisting of rank- not provide for the – 131 NO
some members of and- file employees. effects thereof. Thus, UNION –
petitioner union were Under Article 245 of the Court held that after 117
holding supervisory the Labor Code, a labor organization SPOILED – 2
position. supervisory has been registered, it -
employees are not may exercise all the -
Court of Appeal’s eligible for rights and privileges of -
Ruling membership in a labor a legitimate labor -
It upheld the Med- organization of rank- organization. Any -
Arbiter’s finding that and-file employees. mingling between
petitioner union Thus, the appellate supervisory and rank- 2
consisted of both court ruled that and-file employees in 5
rank-and-file and petitioner union its membership cannot 0
supervisory cannot be considered affect its legitimacy for
employees. a legitimate labor that is not among the VOTES
organization pursuant grounds for CHALLENGED
ISSUE to Toyota Motor cancellation of its BY
WON the alleged Philippines v. Toyota registration, unless [YOKOHAMA] –
mixture of rank-and- Motor Philippines such mingling was 78 VOTES
file and supervisory Corporation Labor brought about by CHALLENGED
employees of Union (hereinafter misrepresentation, BY [UNION] –
petitioner union’s Toyota). false statement or fraud 73
membership is a under Article 239 of the ------
ground for the Preliminarily, we note Labor Code. TOTAL
cancellation of that petitioner union CHALL
petitioner union’s questions the factual YOKOHAMA TIRE ENGE
legal personality. findings of the Med- D
Arbiter, as upheld by PHILIPPINES, INC. v. VOTE
the appellate court, routinary but require YOKOHAMA S–
that 12 of its members, the use of independent EMPLOYEES UNION 151
consisting of judgment, hence, G.R. No. 159553, TOTAL
batchman, mill falling within the December 10, 2007 VOTE
operator and leadman, definition of supervisory S
are supervisory employees under FACTS CAST
employees. However, Article 212(m) of the On October 7, 1999, - 401
petitioner union failed Labor Code. For this respondent Yokohama
to present any rebuttal reason, we are Employees Union
evidence in the constrained to agree (Union) filed a petition
proceedings below with the Med-Arbiter, for certification election
after respondent as upheld by the among the rank-and-
company submitted in appellate court, that file employees of
evidence the job petitioner union Yokohama. Upon
descriptions of the consisted of both rank- appeal from the Med-
aforesaid employees. and- file and Arbiters order
The job descriptions supervisory employees. dismissing the petition,
indicate that the the Secretary of the
aforesaid employees Nonetheless, the Department of Labor
exercise inclusion of the and Employment
recommendatory aforesaid supervisory (DOLE) ordered an
managerial actions employees in petitioner election with (1)
which are not merely union does not divest it Yokohama Employees
Union and (2) No Union
6
 the rule in force during without a final . . An employee who
Yokohama the November 23, judgment declaring has been dismissed
challenged 78 votes 2001 certification the legality of from work but has
cast by dismissed election clearly, dismissal, dismissed contested the legality
employees. On the unequivocally and employees are of the dismissal in a
other hand, the unambiguously allows eligible or qualified forum of appropriate
Union challenged dismissed employees voters. Thus, jurisdiction at the time
68 votes cast by to vote during the of the issuance of the
newly regularized certification election if RULE IX CONDUCT order for the conduct
rank-and-file the case they filed OF CERTIFICATION of a certification
employees and contesting their ELECTION election shall be
another five (5) votes dismissal is still Section 5. Qualification considered a qualified
by alleged pending at the time of of voters; inclusion- voter, unless
supervisor-trainees. the election. exclusion. .
Yokohama formalized his/her dismissal was G.R. No. 18065116456,
its protest and raised I declared valid in a final August 30, 2006
as an issue the S judgment at the time of Chico-Nazario, J.
eligibility to vote of S the conduct of the
the 78 dismissed U certification election. FACTS:
employees,[5] while E Enrique Tamandong III
the Union submitted S xxxx was a Personnel
only a handwritten Thus, we find no Superintendent in
manifestation during I reversible error on the Cathay Pacific. His
the election. . part of the DOLE position has fixed daily
WHETHER OR NOT Acting Secretary and working hours or 8am to
Petitioner argues that THE COURT OF the Court of Appeals in 12nn an 1pm to 5pm.
the Court of Appeals APPEALS ordering the Among his functions
erred in ruling that the SERIOUSLY ERRED appreciation of the was issuing memos on
votes of the IN DISALLOWING votes of the dismissed company rules and
dismissed employees THE APPRECIATION employees. regulations, imposing
should be OF THE VOTES OF disciplinary sanctions
appreciated. SIXTY-EIGHT Finally, we need not such as warnings (with
Petitioner posits that REGULAR RANK- resolve the other irregular attendance
employees who have AND-FILE. issues for being moot. and unauthorized leave
quit or have been The 68 votes of the of absences) and
dismissed for just II. newly regularized rank- suspensions, and
cause prior to the WHETHER OR NOT and- file employees, executing the same
date of the THE COURT OF even if counted in favor which was “noted by”
certification election APPEALS of No Union, will not the company Vice
are excluded from SERIOUSLY ERRED materially alter the President.
participating in the IN ALLOWING THE result. There would still
certification election. APPRECIATION OF be ISSUE:
Petitioner had VOTES OF ALL OF 208 votes in favor of Is Enrique Tamandong
questioned the ITS EMPLOYEES respondent and 189 III a supervisory
eligibility to vote of WHO WERE votes in favor of employee eligible to join
the 78 dismissed PREVIOUSLY Union. We also note a union of supervisory
employees. DISMISSED FOR that the certification employees?
SERIOUS election is already a fait
Respondent counters MISCONDUCT AND accompli, and clearly HELD:
that Section 2, Rule ABANDONMENT OF petitioners rank-and-file Yes.
XII[16] of the rules WORK WHICH ARE employees had chosen
implementing Book V CAUSES respondent as their Tamondong does not
of the Labor Code UNRELATED TO THE bargaining possess the power to
allows a dismissed CERTIFICATION representative. hire, transfer, terminate,
employee to vote in ELECTION. or discipline erring
the certification CATHAY PACIFIC employees of the
election if the case Was it proper to STEEL company. At the most,
contesting the appreciate the votes the record merely
dismissal is still of the dismissed CORPORATION showed that he
pending. employees VS COURT informed and warned
Section 2, Rule XII, The new rule has OF APPEALS rank-and-file employees
explicitly stated that
7
with respect to their FACTS: access to information
violations of Cathay Petitioner Union filed which is regarded by
Pacific's rules and Case cited - before the DOLE a the employer to be
regulations. Also, the Engineering Petition for District confidential from the
functions performed by Equipment, Inc. v. Certification or business standpoint.
Tamandong such as NLRC (1984) Certification Election Laguesma granted
issuance of warning to “Among the among the respondent company’s
employees with characteristics of the supervisors and appeal and ordered
irregular attendance managerial rank are: exempt employees of the remand of the case
and unauthorized (1) he is not subject to the SMC Magnolia to the Med-Arbiter of
leave of absences and the rigid observance Poultry Products origin for determination
requiring employees to of regular office hours; Plants of Cabuyao, of the true
explain regarding (2) his work requires San Fernando and classification of each
charges of the consistent Otis. The Med-Arbiter of the employees
abandonment of work, exercise of discretion issued an Order to sought to be included
are normally and judgment in its conduct certification in the appropriate
performed by a mere performance; among the bargaining unit.
supervisor, and not by (3) the output supervisors and
a manager. produced or the result exempt employees of Laguesma granted
accomplished cannot the SMC Magnolia respondent company’s
Likewise the be standardized in Poultry Plants of appeal and ordered
imposition upon relation to a given Cabuyao, San the remand of the case
Tamandong’s required period of time; Fernando and Otis as to the Med-Arbiter of
fixed daily working (4) he manages a one bargaining unit. origin for determination
hours is very customarily of the true
uncharacteristic of a recognized Respondent SMC filed classification of each
managerial employee. department or a Notice of Appeal employees sought to
A managerial rank is subdivision of the with Memorandum of be included in the
that he is not establishment, Appeal, pointing out, appropriate bargaining
subjected to the rigid customarily and among others, the unit. Upon petitioner’s
observance of regular regularly directing the Med-Arbiter’s error in motion, Laguesma
office hours or work of other grouping together all granted the
maximum hours of employees therein; three reconsideration and
work. (5) he either has the (3) separate plants directed the conduct of
authority to hire or into one bargaining separate certification
discharge other unit, and in including elections among the
employees or his supervisory levels 3 supervisors ranked as
suggestions and and above whose supervisory levels 1 to
recommendations as positions are 4 and the exempt
to hiring and confidential in nature employees in each of
discharging, since they have the three plants.
advancement and ISSUE: bargaining unit?
promotion or other 1. Are
change of status of supervisory HELD:
other employees are employees and 1. NO. It is the
given particular exempt contention of
weight; and employees of SMC that
(6) as a rule, he is not the company supervisory
paid hourly wages nor considered employees 3
subjected to confidential and 4 and the
maximum hours of employees, exempt
work.” hence ineligible employees
to join a union? come within the
SAN MIGUEL 2. If they are not meaning of the
CORPORATION confidential term
SUPERVISORS AND employees, do confidential
EXEMPT UNION VS. the employees employees
HON. LAGUESMA of the three primarily
G.R. No. 110399. plants because they
August 15, 1997. constitute an answered in the
appropriate affirmative

8
when asked confidential that, although in San
“Do you status, such they belong to Fernando,
handle information three different Pampanga is
confidential must relate to plants, they immaterial.
data or the employers perform work Geographical
documents?” labor relations of the same location can
in Position policies. nature, receive be completely
Questionnaire the same disregarded if
s submitted by 2. YES. An wages and the communal
the Union. In appropriate compensation, or mutual
the same bargaining unit and most interests of the
questionnaire, may be defined importantly, employees are
however, it as a group of share a not sacrificed.
was also employees of a common stake We rule that
stated that the given in concerted the distance
confidential employer, activities. among the
information comprised of three plants is
handled by all or less than The fact that not productive
questioned all of the entire the three plants of
employees body of are located in insurmountabl
relate to employees, three different e difficulties in
product which the places, the
formulation, collective namely, in administration
product interest of all Cabuyao, of union
standards and the employees, Laguna, in affairs. Neither
product consistent with Otis, are there
specification equity to the Pandacan, regional
which by no employer, Metro Manila, differences
means relate indicate to be and that are likely
to labor best suited to to impede the
relations. serve the operations of a
Granting reciprocal single
arguendo that rights and bargaining
an employee duties of the representative.
has access to parties under
confidential the collective COASTAL SUBIC BAY
labor relations bargaining V. DOLE
information but provisions of November 20, 2006
such is merely the law.
incidental to FACTS
his duties and It is readily Private respondents
knowledge seen that the Coastal Subic Bay
thereof is not employees in Terminal, Inc. Rank-
necessary in the instant and-File Union
the case have (CSBTI-RFU) and
performance community or Coastal Subic Bay
of such duties, mutuality of Terminal, Inc.
said access interest, which Supervisory Union
does not is the standard (CSBTI-SU) filed
render the in determining separate petitions for
employee a the proper certification election
confidential constituency of before Med- Arbiter
employee. If a collective Eladio de Jesus of the
access to bargaining unit. Regional Office No. III.
confidential It is undisputed The rank-and-file union
labor relations that they all insists that it is a
information is belong to the legitimate labor
to be a factor Magnolia organization having
in the Poultry Division been issued a charter
determination of San Miguel certificate by the
of an Corporation. Associated Labor
employee’s This means
9
Union (ALU), and the HELD both do not meet the representative of the
supervisory union by Yes. First, as earlier criteria to attain the former’s rank and file
the Associated discoursed, once a status of legitimate employees. Under the
Professional, labor union attains the labor organizations, cba, twelve jobs were
Supervisory, Office status of a legitimate and thus could not excluded from the
and Technical labor organization, it separately petition for bargaining agreement.
Employees Union continues as such certification elections. Subsequently, a dispute
(APSOTEU). Private until its certificate of arose when ABI’s
respondents also registration is The purpose of management stopped
alleged that the cancelled or revoked affiliation of the local deducting union dues
establishment in in an independent unions into a common from eighty one
which they sought to action for enterprise is to employees, believing
operate was cancellation.23 In increase the collective that their membership in
unorganized. addition, the legal bargaining power in BLMA violated the CBA.
personality of a labor respect of the terms Respondent insisted
The Med-Arbiter organization cannot and conditions of labor. that they fall under the
dismissed the be collaterally When there is “Confidential and
petitions, holding that attacked.24 Thus, commingling of officers Executive Secrtaries”
the ALU and when the personality of a rank-and-file union expressly excluded by
APSOTEU are one of the labor with a supervisory the CBA from the rank
and the same organization is union, the constitutional and file bargaining unit.
federation having a questioned in the policy on labor is BLMA claimed that
common set of same manner the veil circumvented. Labor ABI’s actions restrained
officers. Thus, the of corporate fiction is organizations should the employees’ rights to
supervisory and the pierced, the action ensure the freedom of self organization and
rank-and-file unions partakes the nature of employees to organize brought the matter to
were in effect a collateral attack. themselves for the the grievance
affiliated with only Hence, in the absence purpose of leveling the machinery. As the
one federation. of any independent bargaining process but parties failed to settle
Secretary of Labor action for cancellation also to ensure the the controversy, BLMA
and Employment of registration against freedom of workingmen lodged a complaint
reversed it. CA either APSOTEU or and to keep open the before the NCMB. The
affirmed the decision ALU, and unless and corridor of opportunity parties eventually
of the Secretary. until their registrations to enable them to do it agreed to submit the
are cancelled, each for themselves. case for arbitration to
ISSUE continues to possess resolve the issue with
Are ALU, a rank-and- a separate legal WHEREFORE, the respect to the right of
file union and personality. The petition is GRANTED. self organization. VA
APSOTEU, a CSBTI-RFU and ruled in favor of BLMA.
supervisory union CSBTI-SU are TUNAY NA Accordingly, the subject
one and the same therefore affiliated PAGKAKAISA NG employees were
because of the with distinct and MANGGAGAWA SA declared eligible for
commonalities separate federations, ASIA BREWERY VS inclusion within the
between them? Are despite the ASIA BREWERY bargaining unit
they commingled? commonalities of G.R. No. 162025, represented by BLMA.
APSOTEU and ALU. August 3, 2010 On appeal to the CA, it
In the instant case, the federation, actively
national federations participates in the FACTS
that exist as separate CSBTI-RFU, giving Respondent Asia
entities to which the occasion to possible Brewery Inc (ABI) is
rank-and-file and conflicts of interest engaged in the
supervisory unions are among the common manufacture, sale and
separately affiliated officers of the distribution of beer,
with, do have a federation of rank-and- shandy, bottled water
common set of file and the federation and glass products, it
officers. In addition, of supervisory unions. entered into a cba,
APSOTEU, the For as long as they are effective for five years
supervisory federation, affiliated with the with Lakas ng mga
actively participates in APSOTEU and ALU, Manggagagawa sa
the CSBTI-SU while the supervisory and Asia-Independent
ALU, the rank-and-file rank-and-file unions (BLMA), the exclusive
bargaining
1
0
reversed the VA, form and assist any bargaining unit, for Executive Secretaries
ruling that eighty one labor organization to which reason ABI expressly excluded by
employees are managerial seeks their the CBA from the rank-
excluded from and employees, disaffiliation from and-file bargaining
not eligible for jurisprudence has petitioner. As can be unit. However, perusal
inclusion in the extended this gleaned from the of the job descriptions
bargaining unit as prohibition to above listing, it is of these
defined in section confidential rather curious that secretaries/clerks
two, article one of the employees or those there would be reveals that their
cba; the eighty one who by reason of their several assigned duties and
employees cannot be positions or nature of secretaries/clerks for responsibilities involve
validly members of work are required to just one (1) routine activities of
respondent and/or if assist or act in a department/division recording and
already members, fiduciary manner to performing tasks monitoring, and other
that their membership managerial which are mostly paper works for their
is violative of the cba employees and routine and clerical. respective
and that they should hence, are likewise Respondent insisted departments while
disaffiliate from privy to sensitive and they fall under the secretarial tasks such
respondent; and highly confidential Confidential and as receiving telephone
petitioner has not records. Confidential calls and filing of office SAN MIGUEL FOODS,
committed any act employees are thus correspondence INCORPORATED vs.
that restrained or excluded from the appear to have been SAN MIGUEL
tended to restrain its rank-and-file commonly imposed as CORPORATION
employees in the bargaining unit. The additional duties. SUPERVISORS and
exercise of their right rationale for their Respondent failed to EXEMPT UNION
to self organization. A separate category and indicate who among G.R. No. 146206 August
certification election disqualification to join these numerous 1, 2011
was held on August any labor organization secretaries/clerks have
10, 2002 wherein is similar to the access to confidential Under: Eligibility for
petitioner won. As the inhibition for data relating to Membership – Special
incumbent bargaining managerial management policies Groups of Employees
representative of employees because if that could give rise to FACTS: On the date of
ABI’s rank and file allowed to be affiliated potential conflict of an ordered certification
employees claiming with a Union, the latter interest with their Union election, petitioner San
interest in the might not be assured membership. Clearly, Miguel Foods, Inc. filed
outcome of the case, of their loyalty in view the rationale under our an objection thereto
petitioner filed with of evident conflict of previous rulings for the questioning the
the CA an omnibus interests and the exclusion of executive eligibility to vote by
motion for Union can also secretaries or division some of its employees
reconsideration of the become company- secretaries would have on the grounds that
decision and denominated with the little or no significance some employees do not
intervention, with presence of considering the lack of belong to the bargaining
attached petition managerial or very limited access unit which respondent
signed by the union employees in the to confidential seeks to represent.
officers. Both motions Union membership. information of these Specifically, it argued,
were denied by CA. Having access to secretaries/clerks. It is among others, that
confidential not even farfetched that certain employees
ISSUE information, the job category may (Note: which includes,
Whether or not workers confidential exist only on paper among others, Payroll
were confidential employees may also since they are all daily- Master, Human
employees become the source of paid workers. Quite Resource Assistant,
undue advantage. understandably, and Personnel
RULING Said employees may petitioner had earlier Assistant) should not be
No. Secretaries or act as a spy or spies expressed the view that allowed to vote as they
clerks, numbering of either party to a the positions were just are confidential
about forty, are rank collective bargaining being reclassified as employees. The then
and file employees agreement. In the these employees Acting DOLE
and confidential present case, the CBA actually discharged Undersecretary, in a
employees. Although expressly excluded routine functions. resolution affirmed the
Article 245 of the Confidential and order of the Med-Arbiter
Labor Code limits the Executive Secretaries stating that respondent
ineligibility to join, from the rank- and-file
1
1
is certified to be the management policies The CA correctly held interests and the union
exclusive bargaining in the field of labor that the position of can also become
agent of the relations. The two Payroll Master does company-denominated
supervisors and criteria are not involve dealing with the presence of
exempt employees of cumulative, and both with confidential labor managerial employees
petitioner's Magnolia must be met if an relations information in the union
Poultry Products employee is to be in the course of the membership. Having
Plants, with considered a performance of his access to confidential
modification that some confidential employee functions. Since the information,
of the challenged - that is, the nature of his work confidential employees
employees be confidential does not pertain to may also become the
excluded from the relationship must exist company rules and source of undue
bargaining unit which between the regulations and advantage. Said
respondent seeks to employee and his confidential labor employees may act as
represent. The Court supervisor, and the relations, it follows a spy or spies of either
of Appeals (CA) supervisor must that he cannot be party to a collective
affirmed with handle the prescribed excluded from the bargaining agreement.
modification the responsibilities subject bargaining
Resolution of the relating to labor unit. In this regard, the CA
DOLE Undersecretary, relations. The correctly ruled that the
stating that those exclusion from 2. Corollarily, positions of Human
holding the positions of bargaining units of although Article 245 of Resource Assistant
Human Resource employees who, in the the Labor Code limits and Personnel
Assistant and normal course of their the ineligibility to join, Assistant belong to the
Personnel Assistant duties, become aware form and assist any category of confidential
are excluded from the of management labor organization to employees and,
bargaining unit. policies relating to managerial hence, are excluded
labor relations is a employees, from the bargaining
ISSUES: principal objective jurisprudence has unit, considering their
1. Whether the CA sought to be extended this respective positions
erred in not excluding accomplished by the prohibition to and job descriptions.
the position of Payroll "confidential employee confidential As Human Resource
Master in the definition rule." employees or those Assistant, the scope
of a confidential who by reason of their
employee A confidential positions or nature of
2. Whether the CA employee is one work are required to
erred in ruling that the entrusted with assist or act in a
positions of Human confidence on fiduciary manner to
Resource Assistant delicate, or with the managerial
and Personnel custody, handling or employees and,
Assistant belong to the care and protection hence, are likewise
category of of the employer’s privy to sensitive
confidential employees property. Confidential and highly
employees, such as confidential records.
RULING: accounting personnel, Confidential
1. Confidential should be excluded employees are thus
employees are from the bargaining excluded from the
defined as those unit, as their access to rank-and-file
who confidential bargaining unit. The
(1) assist or act in a information may rationale for their
confidential capacity, become the source of separate category and
in regard (2) to undue advantage. disqualification to join
persons who However, such fact any labor organization
formulate, determine, does not apply to the is similar to the
and effectuate position of Payroll inhibition for
Master and the whole managerial
gamut of employees employees, because if
who, as perceived by allowed to be affiliated
petitioner, has access with a union, the latter
to salary and might not be assured
compensation data. of their loyalty in view
of evident conflict of
1
2
of one’s work necessarily involves labor relations,
recruitment and selection of employees, access to
employees' personal files and compensation package,
and human resource management. As regards a
Personnel Assistant, one's work includes the recording
of minutes for management during collective
bargaining negotiations, assistance to management
during grievance meetings and administrative
investigations, and securing legal advice for labor
issues from the petitioner’s team of lawyers, and
implementation of company programs. Therefore, in
the discharge of their functions, both gain access to
vital labor relations information which outrightly
disqualifies them from union membership.
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. BPI
EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO CHAPTER-
FEDERATION OF UNIONS IN BPI UNIBANK
FACTS: The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and
Securities and Exchange Commission approved the
Articles of Merger executed by and between BPI,
herein petitioner, and FEBTC. Pursuant to the Article
and Plan of Merger, all the assets and liabilities of
FEBTC were transferred to and absorbed by BPI as
the surviving corporation. FEBTC employees, including
those in its different branches across the country, were
hired by petitioner as its own employees, with their
status and tenure recognized and salaries and benefits
maintained.
Respondent BPI Employees Union is the exclusive
bargaining agent of BPI's rank and file employees. The
former FEBTC rank-and-file employees did not belong
to any labor union at the time of the merger.
Respondent Union then sent notices to the former
FEBTC employees who refused to join the Union, as
well as those who retracted their membership, and
called them to a hearing regarding the matter. When
these former FEBTC employees refused to attend the
hearing, the president of the Union requested BPI to
implement the Union Shop Clause of the CBA and to
terminate their employment pursuant thereto.
Petitioner refused to do so.
ISSUE: WON the employees absorbed by the BPI due
to the merger are considered as "New Employees",
thus covered by the Union Shop Clause in the CBA
RULING: Yes.
The Union Shop Clause in the CBA simply states that
"new employees" who during the effectivity of the CBA
"may be regularly employed" by the Bank must join the
union within thirty (30) days from their regularization.
There is nothing in the said clause that limits its
application to only new employees who possess
nonregular status, meaning probationary status, at the
start of their employment. Petitioner likewise failed to
point to any provision in the CBA expressly excluding
from the Union Shop Clause new employees who are
10
"absorbed" as regular employees from the beginning
of their employment. What is indubitable from the
Union Shop Clause is that upon the effectivity of the
CBA, petitioner's new regular employees (regardless
of the manner by which they became employees of
BPI) are required to join the Union as a condition of
their continued employment.
There are no substantial differences between a newly
hired non-regular employee who was regularized
weeks or months after his hiring and a new employee
who was absorbed from another bank as a regular
employee pursuant to a merger, for purposes of
applying the Union Shop Clause.
The effect or consequence of BPI's so-called
"absorption" of former FEBTC employees should be
limited to what they actually agreed to, i.e., recognition
of the FEBTC employees' years of service, salary rate
and other benefits with their previous employer. The
effect should not be stretched so far as to exempt
former FEBTC employees from the existing CBA
terms, company policies and rules which apply to
employees similarly situated. If the Union Shop Clause
is valid as to other new regular BPI employees, there
is no reason why the same clause would be a violation
of the "absorbed" employees' freedom of association.
Carpio (Dissenting Opinion):
The former FEBTC employees should not be
considered as "new employees" of BPI. The former
FEBTC employees were absorbed by BPI immediately
upon merger, leaving no gap in their employment. The
employees retained their previous employment status,
tenure, salary and benefits. This clearly indicates the
intention of BPI to assume and continue the employer-
employee relations of FEBTC and its employees. The
FEBTC employees' employment remained continuous
and unchanged, except that their employer, FEBTC,
merged with BPI which, as the surviving entity,
continued the combined business of the two banks.
Thus, the former FEBTC employees are immediately
regularized and made permanent employees of BPI.
They are not subject to any probationary period as in
the case of "new employees" of BPI. The 30-day
period within which regularized "new employees" of
BPI must join the Union does not apply to former
FEBTC employees who are not probationary
employees but are immediately regularized as
permanent employees of BPI. In short, the former
FEBTC employees are immediately given the same
permanent status as old employees of BPI.
Brion (Dissenting Opinion):
An intrinsic distinction exists between the absorbed
employees and those who are hired as immediate
regulars, which from their work for the with the right to due It is State policy to
distinction cannot interest of industrial process of the promote unionism to
simply be disregarded peace in the plant employees. (HINDI PO enable workers to
because it establishes AKO SURE. ) negotiate with
how the absorbed ISSUE: Is management on an
employees came to The labor union Ilaw at even playing field and
work for BPI. Those the Buklod ng Mangagawa with more
who are immediately (IBM)- Local 31 persuasiveness than if
hired as regulars Chapter (Local 31) was they were to
acquire their status dismissal illegal? the sole and exclusive individually and
through the voluntary bargaining agent of the separately bargain with
act of hiring done HELD: rank and file the employer. For this
within the effective YES. employees of GMC in reason, the law has
term or period of the There is no question Lapu-Lapu City. allowed stipulations for
CBA. The absorbed that in the present union shop and closed
employees, on the case, the CBA Casio, et al. were shop as means of
other hand, merely between GMC and regular employees of encouraging workers
continued the IBM-Local 31 included GMC with daily to join and support the
employment they a maintenance of earnings ranging from union of their choice in
started with FEBTC; membership and P173.75 to P201.50, the protection of their
they came to be BPI closed shop clause as and length of service rights and interest
employees by reason can be gleaned from varying from eight to 25 vis the
of a corporate merger Sections 3 and 6 of years.[7] Casio was
that changed the Article II. IBM-Local elected IBM-Local 31 employer In
personality of their 31, by written request, President for a three- terminating the
employer but did not at can ask GMC to year term in June 1991, employment of an
all give them any new terminate the while his co- employee by enforcing
employment. Thus, employment of the respondents were the union security
they are neither "new" employee/worker who union shop stewards. clause, the employer
employees nor failed to maintain its needs only to
employees who good standing as a Subsequently, on determine and prove
became regular only union member. February 29, 1992, that: (1) the union
during the term of the Union security clauses Pino, et al., as officers security clause is
CBA in the way that are recognized and and members of the applicable; (2) the
newly regularized explicitly allowed IBM-Local 31, issued a union is requesting for
employees become so. under Article 248(e) of Resolution expelling the enforcement of the
They were regular the Labor Code Casio, et al. from the union security
employees under their union. Gabiana then provision in the CBA;
present employment wrote a letter dated and (3) there is
long before BPI March 10, 1992, sufficient evidence to
succeeded to FEBTC's addressed to Eduardo support the decision of
role as employer. Cabahug (Cabahug), the union to expel the
GMC Vice-President employee from the
Ultimately, the obviously, not within for Engineering and union. These
absorbed employees the contemplation of Plant Administration, requisites constitute
are best recognized for the CBA parties when informing the company just cause for
what they really are — they executed their of the expulsion of terminating an
a sui generis group of CBA — is not contrary Casio, et al. from the employee based on
employees whose to, nor governed by, union pursuant to the the union security
classification will not any of the agreed Resolution dated provision of the CBA.
be duplicated until BPI terms of the existing February 29, 1992 of
has another merger CBA on union security, IBM-Local 31 officers There is no question
where it would be the and thus occupies a and board members. that in the present
surviving corporation gap that BPI, in the Gabiana likewise case, the CBA
and no provision would exercise of its requested that Casio, between GMC and
be made to define the management et al. be immediately IBM-Local 31 included
situation of the prerogative, can fill. dismissed a maintenance of
employees of the membership and
merged constituent GMC vs. Casio closed shop clause as
corporation. Doctrine: Enforcement can be gleaned from
Significantly, this of CBA union security Sections 3 and 6 of
classification — clause in connection Article II. IBM-Local
11
31, by written is an act of disloyalty just cause for
request, can ask the and a valid basis for terminating an
GMC to terminate the termination for a cause
employment of the union. It is the third in accordance with its
employee/worker who requisite that there is Constitution and By-
failed to maintain its sufficient evidence to Laws and CBA terms.
good standing as a support the decision After investigation, they
union member. of IBM-Local 31 to were subsequently sent
It is similarly expel Casio, et al. termination notices on
undisputed that IBM- which appears to be the ground of "acts of
Local 31, through lacking in this case. disloyalty".
Gabiana, the IBM Irrefragably, GMC Respondents then
Regional Director for cannot dispense with accused PRI of Unfair
Visayas and the requirements of Labor Practice. They
Mindanao, twice notice and hearing alleged that none of
requested GMC, in before dismissing them ever withdrew
the letters dated Casio, et al. even their membership from
March 10 and 19, when said dismissal is NAMAPRI-SPFL or
1992, to terminate the pursuant to the closed submitted to PRI any
employment of Casio, shop provision in the union dues and check-
et al. as a necessary CBA. The rights of an off disauthorizations
consequence of their employee to be against NAMAPRI-
expulsion informed of the SPFL. They claimed
charges against him that they continue to
from and to reasonable remain on record as
opportunity to present bona fide members of
his side in a NAMAPRI-SPFL. They
controversy with either petitioner PRI. PRI has also claimed that there
the company or his a collective bargaining was lack of procedural
own union are not agreement (CBA) with due process. The
wiped away by a union NAMAPRI-SPFL. It Labor Arbiter declared
security clause or a contained a union the respondents’
union shop clause in a security clause, to wit: dismissal to be illegal.
collective bargaining All employees within
agreement. the appropriate ISSUE: Whether or not
bargaining unit who are respondents are validly
PICOP RESOURCES members of the terminated pursuant to
v. TANECA UNION at the time of union security clause
August 9, 2010 the signing of this provided in the CBA
AGREEMENT shall, as
FACTS: a condition of HELD: No.
Respondents filed a continued employment In terminating the
Complaint for unfair by the COMPANY, employment of an
labor practice, illegal maintain their employee by
dismissal and money membership in the enforcing the union
claims against UNION in good security clause, the
petitioner PICOP standing employer needs to
Resources, determine and prove
Incorporated (PRI) and PRI sent a letter to the that: (1) the union
its officers. They were management of PRI security clause is
regular rank-and-file demanding the applicable; (2) the
employees of PRI and termination of union is requesting
bona fide members of employees who for the enforcement
Nagkahiusang allegedly campaigned of the union security
Mamumuo sa PRI for, supported and provision in the CBA;
Southern Philippines signed the Petition for and (3) there is
Federation of Labor Certification Election of sufficient evidence to
(NAMAPRI-SPFL), the Federation of Free support the decision
which is the collective Workers Union (FFW) of the union to expel
bargaining agent for during the effectivity of the employee from
the rank-and-file the CBA. NAMAPRI- the union. These
employees of SPFL contended that it requisites constitute
12
employee based on Respondents did not cover members of any rights. Appellant
the union security resign or withdraw religious sects which Union, furthermore,
provision of the their membership from prohibit affiliation of asserted that a "closed
CBA. the Union to which their members in any shop provision" in a
they belong. such labor collective bargaining
As to the first Respondents organization, is agreement cannot be
requisite, there is no continued to pay their unconstitutional and considered violative of
question that the CBA union dues and never that said law violates religious freedom.
between PRI and joined the FFW. the EPWU’s and
respondents included Hence, the third ERF’s ISSUE: Whether or not
a union security requisite is lacking. legal/contractual RA 3350 is
clause, specifically, a unconstitutional.
maintenance of VICTORIANO V join a labor union and
membership as HELD: No despite the fact that
stipulated in Sections ELIZALDE Republic Act No. 3350 there is a closed shop
6 of Article II, Union is constitutional. The agreement in the factory
Security and Check- ROPE Act classifies where he was
Off. Following the employees and employed, his
same provision, PRI, WORKERS UNION workers, as to the employment could not
upon written request 59 SCRA 54 effect and coverage of be validly terminated for
from the Union, can union shop security his non-membership in
indeed terminate the Benjamin Victoriano is agreements, into those the majority therein.
employment of the a member of the who by reason of their Further, the right to join
employee who failed religious sect known religious beliefs and a union includes the
to maintain its good as the "Iglesia ni convictions cannot sign right not to join a union.
standing as a union Cristo" and had been up with a labor union, The law is not
member. Secondly, it in the employ of the and those whose unconstitutional. It
is likewise undisputed Elizalde Rope religion does not recognizes both the
that NAMAPRI-SPFL, Factory, Inc. He was prohibit membership in rights of unions and
in two (2) occasions also a member of the labor unions. The employers to enforce
demanded from PRI EPWU (Elizalde Rope classification terms of contracts and
to terminate the Workers’ Union). The introduced by said Act at the same time it
employment of Company has a is also germane to its recognizes the workers’
respondents due to collective bargaining purpose. The purpose right to join or not to join
their acts of disloyalty agreement containing of the law is precisely union. RA 3550
to the Union. a closed shop to avoid those who recognizes as well the
However, as to the provision. Victoriano cannot, because of primacy of a
third requisite, we find tendered his their religious belief, constitutional right over
that there is no resignation from join labor unions, from a contractual right.
sufficient evidence to EPWU claiming that being deprived of their
support the decision as per RA 3350 he is right to work and from For Reference:
of PRI to terminate an exemption to the being dismissed from
the employment of closed shop their work because of ATLAS V. LAGUESMA
the respondents. agreement by virtue of union shop security Doctrine: Union of
his being a member of agreements. The act supervisory employees
The mere signing of the INC because also applies equally to cannot be merged and
the authorization in apparently in the INC, all members of said represented with the
support of the Petition one is forbidden from religious sects; this is union of the rank and
for Certification being a member of evident from its file employees even
Election of FFW any labor union. The provision. The fact that through a national
before the "freedom company moved to the law grants a federation.
period," is not terminate Victoriano privilege to members of
sufficient ground to due to his non- said religious sects FACTS
terminate the membership from the cannot by itself render Respondent is a
employment of EPWU. EPWU and the Act supervisory union of
respondents. Nothing ERF reiterated that he unconstitutional. petitioner and an
in the records would is not exempt from the affiliate of the national
show that close shop agreement The right to religion federation representing
respondents failed to because RA 3350, prevails over the rank and file
maintain their which provides that contractual or legal employees of the same
membership in good closed shop rights. As such, an INC petitioner. Said national
standing in the Union. agreements shall not member may refuse to federation sough for
13
certification election for Members of the certification election. workers, regardless of
the supervisors unit. supervisory union religious affiliation."
However, petitioner might refuse to carry ISSUE
opposed the out disciplinary Whether or not INC
certification election on measures against members, who BARGA
the ground that conflict their co- member deliberately and
of interest would arise previously refused to INING
rank-and-file
since same federation employees. affiliate with a union, UNIT
would represent two In the area of may organize by
adverse and distinct bargaining, their themselves.
units, that of the rank DE LA SALLE
interests cannot be UNIVERSITY
and file and considered identical.
supersisors. RULING MEDICAL CENTER
The needs of one are AND COLLEGE OF
different from those of Yes! This Court's
ISSUE decision inVictoriano MEDICINE VS.
the other. Moreover, LAGUESMA
whether or not the in the event of a vs. Elizalde Rope
union of rank and file Workers' Union, 59 G.R. No. 102084,
strike, the national August 12, 1998
employees and union federation might SCRA 54, upholding
of supervisory influence the the right of members
employees can be of the IGLESIA NI FACTS:
supervisors' union to Petitioner De La Salle
members of the same conduct a sympathy KRISTO sect not to
federation. join a labor union for University Medical
strike on the sole Center and College of
basis of affiliation. being contrary to their
RULING religious beliefs, does Medicine
(NOTE! THIS RULING (DLSUMCCM) is a
NO. We agree with the IS NOW REPEALED.) not bar the members
petitioner's contention of that sect from hospital and medical
that a conflict of forming their own school at Dasmariñas,
KAPATIRAN SA Cavite. Private
interest may arise in MEAT AT CANNING union. The public
the areas of discipline, respondent correctly respondent Federation
V. BLR CALLEJA of Free Workers-De La
collective bargaining observed that the
and strikes. "recognition of the Salle University
FACTS: Petitioner Medical Center and
was an exclusive tenets of the sect ...
should not infringe on College of Medicine
bargaining Supervisory Union
representative. Prior the basic right of self-
organization granted Chapter (FFW-
to its expiration as DLSUMCCMSUC),
such, it staged a strike by the constitution to
to pressure the on the other hand, is a DLSUMCCM on the
employer to extend its labor organization grounds that several
contract. Now, within composed of the employees who signed
the freedom period, supervisory employees the petition for
another union of petitioner certification election
belonging to the same DLSUMCCM. On April were managerial
unit filed for 17, 1991, the employees and that the
certification election. Federation of Free FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC
The same was Workers (FFW), a was composed of both
challenged by herein national federation of supervisory and rank-
petitioner on the labor unions, issued a and-file employees in
ground that the union certificate to private the company. The
petitioning for respondent FFW- respondent however
certification election is DLSUMCCMSUC denied the petitioner’s
mostly composed of recognizing it as a local allegations and
Iglesia ni Cristo chapter. On the same contended that It is not
members who once day, it filed on behalf of true that supervisory
refused to affiliate with private respondent employees are joining
it. It then contends FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC the rank-and- file
that, by virtue of their a petition for employees' union.
prior religious certification election While it is true that both
objection, the said among the supervisory regular rank-and-file
union(mostly employees of petitioner employees and
composed of INC DLSUMCCM. Its supervisory employees
members) are not petition was opposed of herein respondent
eligible to file for by petitioner have affiliated with
14
FFW, yet there are two consequences can employees of Country Club, Inc., a
separate unions obtain not only in cases petitioner corporation distinct
organized by FFW. where supervisory and DLSUMCCM are and separate from
The supervisory rank-and-file indeed affiliated with THIGCI; and that out
employees have a employees in the same the same national of the
separate charter company belong to a federation, the FFW, 192 signatories to the
certificate issued by single union but also petitioner petition, only 71 were
FFW. where unions formed DLSUMCCM has not actual rank-and-file
independently by presented any employees of THIGCI.
ISSUE: supervisory and rank- evidence showing that THIGCI also alleged
Whether or not and-file employees of a the rank-and-file that some of the
supervisory union and company are allowed employees composing signatures in the list of
rank-and-file union can to affiliate with the the other union are union members were
affiliate in the same same national directly under the secured through
federation federation. As we authority of the fraudulent and
explained in the case of supervisory deceitful means, and
RULING: Atlas vs. Laguesma, employees. submitted copies of the
YES. Supervisory however, such a handwritten denial and
employees have the situation would obtain TAGAYTAY withdrawal of some of
right to self- only where two HIGHLANDS its employees from
organization as do conditions concur: INTERNATIONAL participating in the
other classes of First, the rank-and-file GOLF CLUB petition. Replying to
employees save only employees are directly INCORPORATED vs. THIGCI’s Comment,
managerial ones. under the authority of TAGAYTAY THEU asserted that it
Conformably with the supervisory employees HIGHLANDS had complied with all
constitutional mandate, and second, the EMPLOYEES the requirements for
Art. 245 of the Labor national federation is UNION-PGTWO valid affiliation and
Code now provides for actively involved in G.R. No. 142000, inclusion in the roster
the right of supervisory union activities in the January 22, 2003 of legitimate labor
employees to self- company. Although organizations pursuant
organization, subject to private respondent FACTS: to DOLE Department
the limitation that they FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC On October 16, 1997, Order No. 9, series of
cannot join an and another union the Tagaytay 1997, on account of
organization of rank- composed of rank-and- Highlands Employees which it was duly
and-file employees. file Union (THEU)– granted a Certification
The reason for the Philippine Transport of Affiliation by DOLE
segregation of and General Workers on October 10, 1997;
supervisory and rank- Organization and that Section 5,
and-file employees of (PTGWO), a Rule V of said
a company with legitimate labor Department Order
respect to the exercise organization said to provides that the
of the right to self- represent majority of legitimacy of its
organization is the the rank-and-file registration cannot be
difference in their employees of THIGCI, subject to collateral
interests. Supervisory filed a petition for attack, and for as long
employees are more certification election. as there is no final
closely identified with THIGCI, in its order of cancellation, it
the employer than with Comment, opposed continues to enjoy the
the rank-and-file THEU’s petition for rights accorded to a
employees. If certification election legitimate organization.
supervisory and rank- on the ground that the
and-file employees in list of union members ISSUE:
a company are submitted by it was Whether the certificate
allowed to form a defective and fatally of registration of the
single union, the flawed as it included union should be
conflicting interests of the names and cancelled
these groups impair signatures of
their relationship and supervisors, resigned, RULING:
adversely affect terminated and absent After a certificate of
discipline, collective without leave (AWOL) registration is issued to
bargaining and strikes. employees, as well as a union, the legal
10 These employees of The personality cannot be
15
subject to collateral false statement or not confidential SAN MIGUEL FOODS
attack. it may be fraud under the employees and should V. SAN MIGUEL
questioned only in an circumstances therefore be included in CORP.
independent petition mentioned in the bargaining unit of SUPERVISORS AND
for cancellation. the sections a and c rank- and-file EXEMPT UNION
inclusion in a union of Article employees. August 1, 2011
disqualified 239 of the Labor
employees is not Code. THEU, having ------------------ FACTS:
among the grounds been validly issued The Court also affirms Petitioner is
for cancellation a certificate of the findings of the questioning the
unless such inclusion registration, should voluntary arbitrator that eligibility to vote by
is due to be the employees of the some of its employees
misrepresentation, College of St. Benilde on the ground that
considered to have discipline officers should be excluded some employees do
already acquired (which were previously from the bargaining unit not belong to the
juridical personality excluded) confidential of the rank-and-file bargaining unit.
which may not be employees? NO. employees of Dela
assailed collaterally. Salle University, ISSUES:
As for petitioner’s RULING: because the two 1. Should there be a
allegation that some of educational institutions separate bargaining
the signatures in the The express exclusion have their own unit for those engaged
petition for certification of the computer separate juridical in dressed chicken
election were obtained operators and personality and no processing, i.e.,
through fraud, false discipline officers from sufficient evidence was handling and
statement and the bargaining unit of shown to justify the packaging of chicken
misrepresentation, the rank-and- file piercing of the veil of meat and those
proper procedure is, employees in the 1986 corporate fiction. engaged in live
as reflected above, for collective bargaining chicken operations,
it to file a petition for agreement does not i.e., those who breed
cancellation of the bar any re-negotiation chicks and grow
certificate of for the future inclusion chickens? NO.
registration, and not to of the said employees 2. Are payroll
intervene in a petition in the bargaining unit. masters confidential
for certification During the freedom employees and must
election. period, the parties may be excluded from the
not only renew the bargaining unit? NO.
DE LA SALLE V. DE existing collective 3. Are those holding
LA SALLE bargaining agreement the positions of
UNIVERSITY but may also propose Human Resource
EMPLOYEES’ and discuss Assistant and
ASSOCIATION modifications or Personnel Assistant
330 SCRA 363 amendments thereto. excluded from the
bargaining unit? YES.
FACTS: We rule that the said
DLSU and the UNION computer operators RULING:
(composed of regular and discipline 1. There should be
non- academic R&F) officers are not only one bargaining
entered into a CBA. 60 confidential unit for the employees
days before its employees. As involved in dressed
expiration, the union carefully examined by chicken processing
initiated negotiations the Solicitor General, and those engaged in
which were the service record of a live chicken
unsuccessful. The computer operator operations. Certain
Union filed a Notice of reveals that his duties factors, such as
Strike with the NCMB. are basically clerical specific line of work,
During conciliation, 5 and non-confidential in working conditions,
out of 11 issues were nature. As to the location of work, mode
resolved by parties. discipline officers, we of compensation, and
agree with the other relevant
ISSUE: voluntary arbitrator that conditions do not affect
Are computer based on the nature of or impede their
operators and their duties, they are commonality of
16
interest. Although unit, considering their The Resolution of FACTS:
they seem separate respective positions SOLE directed the Petitioner (School) has
and distinct from and job descriptions. conduct of two 98 teaching personnel,
each other, the As Human Resource separate certification 25 non- teaching
specific tasks of each Assistant, the scope elections for the academic employees
division are actually of ones work teaching and the non- and 33 non-teaching
interrelated and there necessarily involves teaching personnel. and non-academic
exists mutuality of labor relations, Corollary, it ruled that employees. These 156
interests which recruitment and [private respondent] employees supported
warrants the selection of can continue to exist the petition for
formation of a single employees, access to as a legitimate labor certification election
bargaining unit. employees' personal organization with the filed by Private
files and combined teaching Respondent (Union).
2. The CA correctly compensation and non-teaching The School assails the
held that the position package, and human personnel in its legitimacy of the Union
of Payroll Master resource membership and and its right to file a
does not involve management. As representing both petition for certificate
dealing with regards a Personnel classes of employees election due to the
confidential labor Assistant, one's work in separate commingling of
relations information includes the recording bargaining academic and non-
in the course of the of minutes for negotiations and academic rank-and-file
performance of his management during agreements. employees.
functions. Since the collective bargaining
nature of his work negotiations, The Supreme Court PETITIONER’S
does not pertain to assistance to ruled that the CA did ARGUMENT:
company rules and management during not act with grave The SOLE erred in
regulations and grievance meetings abuse of discretion. interpreting the decision
confidential labor and administrative The ruling of SOLE is of the Supreme Court in
relations, it follows investigations, and AFFIRMED. U.P. v. Ferrer-Calleja1.
that he cannot be securing legal advice According to Petitioner,
excluded from the for labor issues from DOCTRINE: the Court (in U.P. v.
subject bargaining the petitioners team of 1. The legal Ferrer-Calleja) sought
unit. lawyers, and personality of the creation of separate
implementation of the Union, bargaining units,
3. Human Resource company programs. cannot be namely: (1)
Assistant and Therefore, in the collaterally
attacked in
Personnel Assistant discharge of their certification 1 The Supreme Court stated
belong to the functions, both gain election that the non-academic
category of access to vital labor proceedings by
rank-and file employees of
the University of the
confidential relations information petitioner Philippines shall constitute
employees and, which outrightly school which, a bargaining unit to the
hence, are excluded disqualifies them from as employer, is exclusion of the academic
from the bargaining union membership. generally a by employees of the
PIGLAS), institution.
stander in the
HOLY CHILD Respondents. proceedings.
CATHOLIC SCHOOL G.R. No. 179146, July 2. The
vs. HON. 23, 2013 commingling of
PATRICIA STO. non-academic
TOMAS, in her SUMMARY: This case and academic
official capacity as is a Petition for Review rank-and-file
Secretary of the on Certiorari under employees in
Department of Labor Rule 45 assailing the one labor
and Employment, Decision of the Court of organization
and PINAG-ISANG Appeals affirming the does not affect
TINIG AT LAKAS NG Resolution of the the latter's
ANAKPAWIS – HOLY Secretary of the legitimacy and
CHILD CATHOLIC Department of Labor its right to file a
SCHOOL TEACHERS and Employment petition for
AND EMPLOYEES (SOLE) allowing private certification
LABOR UNION respondent’s petition election.
(HCCS-TELU- for certification election.
17
[petitioner]’s teaching [petitioner] school rank-and-file KFWU did not acquire
personnel to the must form separate employees of any legal personality
exclusion of non- bargaining units. respondent. because its
teaching personnel; Thus, the order for the membership of mixed
and (2) [petitioner]’s conduct of two Respondent-company rank-and-file and
non- teaching separate certification filed a Motion to supervisory employees
personnel to the elections, one Dismiss the petition violated
exclusion of teaching involving teaching on the ground that
personnel. personnel and the Article 245 of the Labor could have been
other involving non- Code, and its failure to Republic Act (R.A.) No.
ISSUE: teaching personnel. It submit its books of 9481 [AN ACT
WON the should be stressed account contravened STRENGTHENING TH
commingling of non- that in the subject the ruling of the Court WORKERS’
academic and petition, [private in Progressive CONSTITUTIONAL
academic rank-and- respondent] union Development RIGHT TO SELF-
file employees in one sought the conduct of Corporation v. ORGANIZATION,
labor organization a certification election Secretary, Department AMENDING FOR THE
affect the latter's among all the rank- of Labor and PURPOSE
legitimacy and its and-file personnel of Employment. PRESIDENTIAL
right to file a petition [petitioner] school. DECREE NO. 442, AS
for certification Since the decision of ISSUE: AMENDED,
election. the Supreme Court in (1) whether a mixed OTHERWISE KNOWN
the U.P. case membership of rank- AS THE LABOR CODE
HELD: prohibits us from and-file and OF
[Petitioner] appears to commingling teaching supervisory employees THE PHILIPPINES]
have confused the and non-teaching in a union is a ground Sections 8 and 9.
concepts of personnel in one for the dismissal of a However, R.A. No. 9481
membership in a bargaining unit, they petition for certification took effect only on June
bargaining unit and have to be separated election in view of the 14, 2007; hence, it
membership in a into two separate amendment brought applies only to labor
union. In emphasizing bargaining units with about by D.O. 9, series representation cases
the phrase “to the two separate of 1997, which deleted filed on or after said
exclusion of certification elections the phraseology in the date. As the petition for
academic employees” to determine whether old rule that “[t]he certification election
stated in U.P. v. the employees in the appropriate bargaining subject matter of the
Ferrer-Calleja, respective bargaining unit of the rank-and- file present petition was
[petitioner] believed units desired to be employee shall not filed by KFWU on
that the petitioning represented by include the supervisory January 24, 2000,28
union could not admit [private respondent]. employees and/or R.A. No. 9481 cannot
academic employees security guards;” and apply to it. There may
of the university to its REPUBLIC OF THE have been curative
membership. But PHILIPPINES, (2) whether the labor legislations that
such was not the represented by legitimacy of a duly were given
intention of the Department of registered labor retrospective effect, but
Supreme Court. Labor and organization can be not the aforecited
Employment collaterally attacked in provisions of
The Supreme Court (DOLE), Petitioner, a petition for a R.A. No. 9481, for
ordered the “non- vs. KAWASHIMA certification election otherwise, substantive
academic rank- and- TEXTILE MFG., through a motion to rights and interests
file employees of U.P. PHILIPPINES, dismiss filed by an already vested would
to constitute a INC., Respondent. employer such as be impaired in the
bargaining unit to the G.R. No. 160352, July Kawashima Textile process.
exclusion of the 23, 2008 Manufacturing Phils.,
academic employees Inc. Instead, the law and
of the institution”, but FACTS: rules in force at the time
did not order them to KFWU filed with HELD: of the filing by KFWU of
organize a separate DOLE Regional Office the petition for
labor organization. No. IV, a Petition for The petition is imbued certification election on
Certification Election with merit. January 24, 2000 are
In the same manner, to be conducted in the R.A. No. 6715,
the teaching and non- bargaining unit The key to the closure amending Book V of
teaching personnel of composed of 145 that petitioner seeks Presidential Decree
18
(P.D.) No. 442 (Labor Effective 1989, R.A. supervisory membership list
Code),as amended, No. 6715 restored the employees is no labor contains the names of
and the Rules and prohibition against the organization at all. It at least twenty-seven
Regulations questioned mingling in cannot, for any guise (27) supervisory
Implementing R.A. No. one labor or purpose, be a employees in Level
6715,34 as amended organization, viz: legitimate labor Five positions, the
by Department Order organization. Not union could not, prior
No. 9, series of 1997. Sec. 18. Article 245 of being one, an to purging itself of its
the same Code, as organization which supervisory employee
One area of contention amended, is hereby carries a mixture of members, attain the
has been the further amended to rank-and-file and status of a legitimate
composition of the read as follows supervisory labor organization. Not
membership of a labor employees cannot being one, it cannot
organization, “Art. 245. Ineligibility possess any of the possess the requisite
specifically whether of managerial rights of a legitimate personality to file a
there is a mingling of employees to join any labor organization, petition for certification
supervisory and rank- labor organization; including the right to election.
and-file employees right of supervisory file a petition for
and how such employees. certification election But then, on June 21,
questioned mingling Managerial for the purpose of 1997, the 1989
affects its legitimacy. employees are not collective bargaining. Amended Omnibus
eligible to join, assist It becomes necessary, Rules was further
or form any labor therefore, anterior to amended by
organization. the granting of an Department Order No.
Supervisory order allowing a 9, series of 1997 (1997
employees shall not certification election, Amended Omnibus
be eligible for to inquire into the Rules). Specifically,
membership in a labor composition of any the requirement under
organization of the labor organization Sec. 2(c) of the 1989
rank-and-file whenever the status Amended Omnibus
employees but may of the labor Rules – that the
join, assist or form organization is petition for certification
separate labor challenged on the election indicate that
organizations of their basis of Article 245 of the bargaining unit of
own.” (Emphasis the Labor Code xxxx rank-and-file
supplied) employees has not
In the case at bar, as been mingled with
Unfortunately, just like respondent union’s supervisory employees
R.A. No. 875, R.A. – was removed.
No. 6715 omitted Consequently, the petition for certification
specifying the exact Court reinstates that of election; such
effect any violation of the DOLE granting the proceeding is non-
the prohibition would petition for certification adversarial and merely
bring about on the election of KFWU. investigative, for the
legitimacy of a labor purpose thereof is to
organization. II. Now to the second determine which
issue of whether an organization will
Thus, when the issue employer like represent the
of the effect of respondent may employees in their
mingling was brought collaterally attack the collective bargaining
to the fore in Toyota, legitimacy of a labor with the employer. The
the Court, citing organization by filing choice of their
Article 245 of the a motion to dismiss representative is the
Labor Code, as the latter’s petition exclusive concern of the
amended by R.A. No. for certification employees; the
6715, held: election. employer cannot have
any partisan interest
Clearly, based on this Except when it is therein; it cannot
provision, a labor requested to bargain interfere with, much less
organization collectively, an oppose, the process by
composed of both employer is a mere filing a motion to
rank-and-file and bystander to any dismiss or an appeal
19
from it; not even a grounds that the total Manggagawa seeks to workers are actually
mere allegation that number of rank and file represent is the non- St. James’ regular
some employees employees was 179, academic personnel employees in its motor
participating in a and that those who or the rank and file pool, construction and
petition for certification voted were mere employees from the transportation
election are actually construction workers of motor pool, departments, and
managerial employees an independent construction and eventually the
will lend an employer contractor, Architect transportation Supreme Court which,
legal personality to Conrado Bacoy departments, and not in a Resolution dated
block the certification ("Architect Bacoy"). all the rank and file 10 October 2001,
election. The employees of St. closed any issue on
employer’s only right in In 6 January 2000, the James. A subsequent the validity of the
the proceeding is to be Med-Arbiter, Tomas F. motion for formation of the labor
notified or informed Falconitin, using the list reconsideration was union.
thereof. of rank and file denied by the DOLE.
employees submitted The ruling of the The Validity of the
The amendments to by St. James, ruled that DOLE was sustained Certification Election
the Labor Code and its at the time of the by the Court of Petitioner alleges that
implementing rules certification election, Appeals. it has 179 rank and file
have buttressed that the 84 voters were no employees in its
policy even more. longer working at St. Issue: Quezon City Campus,
James. This decision Are the formation of all of which were never
Petition is GRANTED. was reversed by the the labor union and able to vote during the
DOLE which ruled that the certification certification election
G.R. No. 151326; what Samahang election valid? since they were on
November 23, 2005 duty. Even if the 84
ST. JAMES Ruling: votes should be
SCHOOL OF counted, it does not fall
QUEZON CITY, The petition has no within the majority of
Petitioner, vs. merit. total number of
SAMAHANG employees of the five
MANGGAGAWA SA The Validity of the St. James campuses
ST. JAMES SCHOOL Formation of the Labor – 570.
OF QUEZON Union
CITY, Respondent. The issue on the The argument is
CARPIO, J. employer-employee untenable. According
relationship between to the Court, “the
Facts: St. James and members of
A petition for majority of the Samahang
certification election members of Manggagawa are
was file by the Samahang employees in the
Samahang Manggagawa has Tandang Sora
Manggagawa sa St. already been resolved campus. Under its
James School of in a previous case. constitution and by-
Quezon City laws, Samahang
("Samahang Prior to the holding of Manggagawa seeks to
Manggagawa") on the certification represent the motor
behalf of the motor election, St. James pool, construction and
pool, construction and filed a petition for transportation
transportation cancellation of employees of the
employees of St. Samahang Tandang Sora
James School of Manggagawa’s union campus. Thus, the
Quezon City ("St. registration for lack of computation of the
James"). On 26 June employer- employee quorum should be
1999, the certification relationship between based on the rank and
election was held at St. James and file motor pool,
the DOLE office in Samahang construction and
Intramuros, Manila. 84 Manggagawa’s transportation
out of the 149 eligible members. This case employees of the
voters cast their votes. reached the Court of Tandang Sora campus
A protest was filed by Appeals, which held and not on all the
petitioners on the that the construction employees in St.
20
James’ five quorum existed in the nullification of the
campuses.” certification election Ruling: election proceedings,
when the 84 votes The Petition lacks merit. the election officer
In determining were cast. should have deferred
whether there was a The petitioner hinges issuing the
quorum, the number Petition denied. the validity of the Certification of the
to be used is 149. A decision of the election results thereof. Section
even if it was an officer on the fact that 13 of the Implementing
G.R. No. 152094; July affiliate of the no protest for the Rules cannot strictly
22, 2004 Federation of Free misrepresentation was be applied to the
DHL PHILIPPINES Workers (FFW). filed during the election present case.”
CORPORATION or within 5 days from
UNITED RANK AND Those who found out the close thereof. Respondents voted in
FILE ASSOCIATION- withdrew their However, the Court favor of the petitioner
FEDERATION OF membership and held that “when the because it was their
FREE formed BUKLOD, med-arbiter admitted desire to have an
WORKERS whose Certificate of and gave due course to independent union.
Registration was respondent’s Petition However, this
issued by DOLE on for misrepresentation
(DHL-URFA-FFW),
petitioner, vs. December 23, 1997. caused them to
BUKLOD NG disaffiliate and form a
MANGGAGAWA NG Come January 19, new union. Upon filing
DHL PHILIPPINES 1998, petitioner the application but
CORPORATION, received 546 votes and prior the issuance of a
respondent. "no union" garnering certificate of
PANGANIBAN, J. 348 votes, and was registration, the
certified by the election respondent already
Facts: officer as the sole and filed its petition to
A certification election exclusive bargaining nullify the certification
was conducted among agent of the rank and election. This was
the regular rank and file employees of the opposed by petitioner
file employees in the corporation. on the ground that
main office and the there was no certificate
regional branches of The Med-Arbiter issued to respondent
DHL Philippines Tomas F. Falconitin yet. However, the court
Corporation on nullified the November held that “because
November 25, 1997. 25, 1997 certification such certificate was
The contending election and ordered issued in favor of the
choices were petitioner the conduct of a new latter [respondent] four
and "no union." one with respondent as days after the filing of
one of the choices, the Petition, on
However, on alongside petitioner December 23, 1997,
December 19, 1997, a and “no choice.” This the misgivings of the
petition for the decision was reversed former were brushed
nullification for the by DOLE aside by the med-
certification election Undersecretary arbiter. Indeed, the fact
was filed by the Rosalinda Dimapilis- that respondent was
respondent Buklod ng Baldoz. not yet a duly
Manggagawa ng DHL registered labor
Philippines Upon reaching the organization when the
Corporation Court of Appeals, it Petition was filed is of
(BUKLOD) with the held that the withdrawal no moment, absent
Industrial Relations of 704 out of 894 any fatal defect in its
Division of the members of the application for
Department of Labor petitioner union was a registration.”
and Employment valid impetus to hold a
(DOLE) on the ground new certification Moreover, the
of fraud and deceit, election. respondents did not
particularly by sleep on their rights.
misrepresenting to the Issue: “Hence, their failure to
employees that it was Is the certification follow strictly the
an independent union election valid? procedural
21
technicalities Petition denied. instituted a petition for
regarding the period certification election
for filing their protest STA. LUCIA EAST
should not be taken COMMERCIAL
against them. Mere CORPORATION vs.
technicalities should HON. SECRETARY
not be allowed to OF LABOR AND
prevail over the EMPLOYMENT
welfare of the
workers. What is and
essential is that they
be accorded an STA.
opportunity to
determine freely and LUCIA
intelligently which
labor organization EAST COMMERCIAL
shall act on their CORPORATION
behalf. Having been
denied this WORKERS
opportunity by the ASSOCIATION
betrayal committed (CLUP LOCAL
by petitioner’s officers CHAPTER),
in the present case, G
the employees were .
prevented from R
making an intelligent .
and independent N
choice.” o
.
Lastly, the Court held 1
that “a certification 6
election may be set 2
aside for 3
misstatements made 5
during the campaign, 5
where 1) a material A
fact has been u
misrepresented in the g
campaign; 2) an u
opportunity for reply st
has been lacking; and 1
3) the 4
misrepresentation ,
has had an impact on 2
the free choice of the 0
employees 0
participating in the 9
election.” The C
misrepresentation A
was committed by the R
officers of the P
petitioner, and I
petitioner cannot O
claim that there was ,
sufficient time J.
between the said :
misrepresentation
and election to Facts:
ascertain the truth of On 2001,
petitioner’s Confederated Labor
statements. Union of the
Philippines (CLUP)
22
among the regular rank- and-file employees of Sta.
Lucia East Commercial Corporation (THE
CORPORATION) and its Affiliates. The affiliate
companies included in the petition were SLE
Commercial, SLE Department Store, SLE Cinema,
Robsan East Trading, Bowling Center, Planet Toys,
Home Gallery and Essentials.
On August 2001, Med-Arbiter Bactin ordered the
dismissal of the petition due to inappropriateness of
the bargaining unit.
Later CLUP in its local chapter under THE
CORPORATION reorganized itself and re-registered
as CLUP-Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation
Workers Association (herein THE UNION), limiting its
membership to the rank-and-file employees of Sta.
Lucia East Commercial Corporation.
On the same date, THE UNION or THE UNION filed
the instant petition for certification election. It claimed
that no certification election has been held among
them within the last 12 months prior to the filing of the
petition, and while there is another union registered
covering the same employees, namely Samahang
Manggawa sa SLEC [SMSLEC], it has not been
recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent of [THE
CORPORATION’s] employees.
On November 2001, THE CORPORATION or THE
CORPORATION filed a motion to dismiss the petition.
It averred that it has voluntarily recognized SMSLEC
as the exclusive bargaining agent of its regular rank-
and-file employees, and that collective bargaining
negotiations already commenced between them. THE
CORPORATION argued that the petition should be
dismissed for violating the one year and negotiation
bar rules under the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code.
The CBA between SMSLEC and the corporation was
ratified by its rank-and-file employees and registered
with DOLE.
In the meantime, on December 2001, the union filed its
Opposition to THE CORPORATION’S
Motion to Dismiss questioning the validity of the
voluntary recognition of [SMSLEC] by [THE
CORPORATION] and their consequent negotiations
and execution of a CBA. According to [THE UNION],
the voluntary recognition of [SMSLEC] by [THE
CORPORATION] violated the requirements for
voluntary recognition, i.e., non-existence of another
labor organization in the same bargaining unit. It
pointed out that the time of the voluntary recognition
on 20 July 2001, appellant’s registration which covers
the same group of employees covered by Samahang
Manggagawa sa Sta. Lucia East Commercial, was
existing and has neither been cancelled or abandoned.
The Med-Arbiter’s Ruling
20
Med-Arbiter Bactin dismissed THE UNION’s petition
for direct certification on the ground of contract bar
rule. The prior voluntary recognition of SMSLEC and
the CBA between THE CORPORATION and SMSLEC
bars the filing of THE UNION’s petition for direct
certification. THE UNION raised the matter to the
Secretary.
The Ruling of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment.
The Secretary held that the subsequent negotiations
and registration of a CBA executed by THE
CORPORATION with SMSLEC could not bar THE
UNION’s petition. THE UNION constituted a registered
labor organization at the time of THE
CORPORATION’s voluntary recognition of SMSLEC.
THE CORPORATION then filed a petition for certiorari
before the appellate court.
The Ruling of the Appellate Court
The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the Secretary
Issue:
Whether THE CORPORATION’s voluntary recognition
of SMSLEC was validly done while a legitimate labor
organization was in existence in the bargaining unit.
Held:
NO. The fundamental factors in determining the
appropriate collective bargaining unit are: (1) the will of
the employees (Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity
of the employees’ interest, such as substantial
similarity of work and duties, or similarity of
compensation and working conditions (Substantial
Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining
history; and (4) similarity of employment status.
(eto yung important)
The UNION’S initial problem was that they constituted
a legitimate labor organization representing a non-
appropriate bargaining unit. However, The union
subsequently re-registered as THE UNION, limiting its
members to the rank-and-file of THE CORPORATION.
THE CORPORATION cannot ignore the union was a
legitimate labor organization at the time of THE
CORPORATION’s voluntary recognition of SMSLEC.
THE CORPORATION and SMSLEC cannot, by
themselves, decide whether CLUP-THE
CORPORATION and its Affiliates Workers Union
represented an appropriate bargaining unit. The
inclusion in the union of disqualified employees is not
among the grounds for cancellation of registration,
unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation,
false statement or fraud under the circumstances.
The union having been validly issued a certificate of
registration, should be considered as having acquired
juridical personality which may not be attacked
collaterally. The proper procedure for THE
CORPORATION is to file a petition for cancellation of
certificate of failed to establish its inclusion-exclusion Federation on the
registration of CLUP- legal personality; (2) proceedings. ground of prohibited
THE CORPORATION petitioner failed to mixture of supervisory
and its Affiliates prove its existence as a Meanwhile, Director of and rank-and-file
Workers Union and not local chapter; (3) it DOLE revoked the employees and non-
to immediately failed to attach the charter certificate of compliance with the
commence voluntary certificate of non-forum SAMMA-LIKHA as attestation clause
recognition shopping and (4) it had local chapter of LIKHA under paragraph 2 of
proceedings with a prohibited mixture of Article 235 of the
SMSLEC. supervisory and rank- Labor Code.
and-file employees.
SAMAHAN NG MGA CA’s Ruling
MANGGAGAWA SA Med-Arbiter’s Ruling CA reversed SOL’s
SAMMA– LAKAS SA Med-Arbiter dismissed decision. CA held that
INDUSTRIYA NG the petition on the Administrative Circular
KAPATIRANG following grounds: (1) No. 04-94 which
HALIGI NG lack of legal personality required the filing of a
ALYANSA (SAMMA– for failure to attach the certificate of non-forum
LIKHA) V. SAMMA certificate of shopping applied to
CORPORATION registration purporting petitions for
March 13, 2009 to show its legal certification election. It
personality; (2) also ruled that the
Samahan ng mga prohibited mixture of Secretary of Labor
Manggagawa sa rank-and- file and erred in granting the
Samma Lakas sa supervisory employees appeal despite the lack
Industriya ng and (3) failure to submit of proof of service on
Kapatirang Haligi ng a certificate of non- respondent. Lastly, it
Alyansa (SAMMA- forum shopping. found that petitioner
LIKHA) filed a petition had no legal standing
for certification election Petitioner moved for to file the petition for
on July 24, 2001. It MR. The Regional certification election
claimed that: (1) it was Director of DOLE because its members
a local chapter of the forwarded the case to were a mixture of
LIKHA Federation, a the Secretary of Labor. supervisory and rank-
legitimate labor During pendency of the and-file employees.
organization registered petition, Samma Corp.
with the DOLE; (2) it filed a petition for Issues:
sought to represent all cancellation of 1. Whether a
the rank-and-file petitioners union certificate for
employees of registration in the non-forum
respondent Samma DOLE Regional Office shopping is
Corporation; (3) there IV. required in a
was no other legitimate petition for
labor organization Sec. of Labor’s Ruling certification
representing these Reversed the order of election. – NO
rank-and-file the med-arbiter. SOL 2. Whether
employees; (4) ruled that the legal SAMMA
respondent was not a personality of a union LIKHA had the
party to any collective cannot be collaterally legal
bargaining agreement attacked but may personality to
and (5) no certification only be questioned in file the petition
or consent election an independent for certification
had been conducted petition for election. – NO.
within the employer cancellation of
unit for the last 12 registration. Thus, he 1. REQUIREMENT
months prior to the directed the holding of OF CERTIFICATE OF
filing of the petition. a certification election NON- FORUM
among the rank-and- SHOPPING IS NOT
Samma Corp. moved file employees of REQUIRED IN A
for the dismissal of the respondent, subject to PETITION FOR
petition arguing that the usual pre- election CERTIFICATION
(1) LIKHA Federation conference and
21
ELECTION. commission of wrongs certificate of rank- and-file
nor asserted registration. Unless employees. This should
The requirement for a deprivation of rights petitioners union not be the case. We
certificate of non- but is merely the registration is cancelled have already declared
forum shopping refers determination of in independent that, in certification
to complaints, proper bargaining proceedings, it shall elections, the employer
counter-claims, cross- units and the continue to have all the is a bystander; it has no
claims, petitions or ascertainment of the rights of a legitimate right or material interest
applications where will and choice of the labor organization, to assail the certification
contending parties employees in respect including the right to election.
litigate their of the selection of a petition for certification
respective positions bargaining election. CHRIS GARMENTS
regarding the claim representative. CORPORATION,
for relief of the Samma Corp. filed a petitioner, vs. HON.
complainant, Under the omnibus petition for cancellation PATRICIA A. STO.
claimant, petitioner or rules implementing of the registration of TOMAS and CHRIS
applicant. A the Labor Code as petitioner on December GARMENTS
certification amended by D.O. No. 14, 2002. In a WORKERS UNION-
proceeding, even 9, the PCE is resolution dated April PTGWO LOCAL
though initiated by a supposed to be filed in 14, 2003, petitioners CHAPTER No. 832,
petition, is not a the Regional Office charter certificate was respondents.
litigation but an which has jurisdiction revoked by the DOLE. G.R.
investigation of a non- over the principal But on May 6, 2003, No.
adversarial and fact- office of the employer petitioner moved for the 167426 January 1
finding character. or where the reconsideration of this 2009
bargaining unit is resolution. Neither of QUISU
Such proceedings are principally situated. the parties alleged that MBING,
not predicated upon The rules further this resolution revoking J.:
an allegation of provide that where petitioners charter FACTS: Respondent
misconduct two or more petitions certificate had attained Chris Garments
requiring relief, but, involving the same finality. However, in this Workers Union–
rather, are merely of bargaining unit are petition, petitioner PTGWO, Local Chapter
an inquisitorial filed in one Regional prayed that its charter No. 832 (Union) filed a
nature. The Board's Office, the same shall certificate be reinstated petition for certification
functions are not be automatically in the roster of active election. Med-Arbiter
judicial in nature, but consolidated. Hence, legitimate labor dismissed said petition
are merely of an the filing of multiple [organizations]. The finding that there was
investigative suits and the proceedings on a no employer-employee
character. The object possibility of petition for cancellation relationship; that even if
of the proceedings is conflicting decisions of registration are such relationship
not the decision of will rarely happen in independent of those of existed, the petition will
any alleged this a petition for still fail due to the
proceeding and, if it certification election. contract bar rule.
does, will be easy to LIKHA was granted This case originated Hence,
discover. legal personality as a from the latter. If it is
federation. With shown that petitioners
2. LEGAL certificates of legal personality had
PERSONALITY OF registration issued in already been revoked
PETITIONER their favor, they are or cancelled with
The erroneous clothed with legal finality in accordance
inclusion of one personality as with the rules, then it is
supervisory employee legitimate labor no longer a legitimate
in the union of rank- organizations. labor organization with
and-file employees the right to petition for a
was not a ground to Such legal personality certification election.
impugn its legitimacy cannot thereafter be
as a legitimate labor subject to collateral A FINAL NOTE
organization which had attack, but may be Respondent, as
the right to file a questioned only in an employer, had been the
petition for certification independent petition for one opposing the
election. cancellation of holding of a certification
election among its
22
it could only be filed merits; and (4) there MORAL Contending unions
during the 60-day must be as between ES, J.: referred the case to
freedom period of the the first and second the Med-Arbiter to
current CBA. The action, identity of FACTS: Certification determine which
Secretary of Labor parties, subject election was among said votes
and Employment matter, and causes of conducted among the should be opened and
affirmed said action.” rank-and-file tallied. 11 of said votes
decision, observing employees of were segregated since
the contract bar rule. Here, the first three Respondent Holiday they were cast by
A second petition for requisites are present. Inn Manila Pavilion dismissed employees,
certification election However, the fourth Hotel. Out of the 346 whose dismissal was
was filed. The same element is not. The votes cast, 22 were pending before the
was dismissed by the third petition for segregated.
Med-Arbiter and the certification election CA. 6 votes were cast affirming or denying the
Secretary of Labor was filed well within by employees already appeal, becomes final
based on the the 60-day freedom occupying supervisory and executory.”
abovementioned period. positions. The last 5 “The filing of an appeal
grounds. A third votes were cast by to the SOLE from the
petition for “There is no identity of probationary Med- Arbiter’s Order
certification election, causes of action to employees. Med- stays its execution, in
now within the speak of since in the Arbiter ruled for the accordance with Sec.
freedom period, was first petition, the union opening of 17 votes, 21, and rationally, the
filed. Med-Arbiter has no cause of action particularly, those cast Med-Arbiter cannot
dismissed for non- while in the third, a by 11 dismissed direct the employer to
existence of cause of action employees and the 6 furnish him/her with the
employer-employee already exists for the supposedly supervisory list of eligible voters
relationship and res union as they are now employees. pending the resolution
judicata having set in. legally allowed to of the appeal.”
challenge the status of ISSUE: May
ISSUE: Is the case SMCGC-SUPER as employees on “During the pendency of
barred by res exclusive bargaining probationary status at the appeal, the
judicata or representative.” the time of the employer may hire
conclusiveness of certification election additional employees.
judgment? NATIONAL UNION be allowed to vote, To exclude the
OF WORKERS IN notwithstanding the employees hired after
HELD: NO. HOTELS, pendency of an the issuance of the
“The doctrine of res RESTAURANTS AND appeal with the Med-Arbiter’s Order but
judicata provides that ALLIED Secretary of Labor before the appeal has
a final judgment or INDUSTRIES- and Employment? been resolved would
decree on the merits MANILA PAVILION violate the guarantee
by a court of HOTEL CHAPTER, HELD: YES. that every employee
competent jurisdiction Petitioner, vs. In light of the pertinent has the right to be part
is conclusive of the SECRETARY OF provisions of D.O. No. of a labor organization
rights of the parties or LABOR AND 40-03, and the principle from the first day of their
their privies in all later EMPLOYMENT, that all employees are, service. Even if the
suits on points and BUREAU OF LABOR from the first day of Implementing Rules
matters determined in RELATIONS, their employment, gives the SOLE 20 days
the former suit. The HOLIDAY INN eligible for membership to decide the appeal
elements of res MANILA PAVILION in a labor organization, from the Order of the
judicata are: (1) the HOTEL LABOR “it is evident that the Med-Arbiter, experience
judgment sought to UNION AND period of reckoning in shows that it sometimes
bar the new action ACESITE determining who shall takes months to be
must be final; (2) the PHILIPPINES be included in the list of resolved. To rule then
decision must have HOTEL eligible voters is, in that only those
been rendered by a CORPO cases where a timely employees hired as of
court having RATION appeal has been filed the date of the issuance
jurisdiction over the , from the Order of the of the Med-Arbiter’s
subject matter and Respon Med-Arbiter, the date Order are qualified to
the parties; (3) the dents. when the Order of the vote would effectively
disposition of the G.R. No. Secretary of Labor and disenfranchise
case must be a 181531 July 31, 2009
Employment, whether employees hired during
judgment on the CARPIO
23
the pendency of the numerical composition of the five, Eagle proceedings of the
appeal. More of the Union, and the Ridge maintained, organizational meeting
importantly, reckoning election of its officers. effectively reduced the on December 6, 2005.
the date of the union membership to
issuance of the Med- Going into specifics, 20 or 21, either of Issue:
Arbiter’s Order as the Eagle Ridge alleged which is below the
cut-off date would that the EREU mandatory minimum Did EREU commit
render inutile the declared in its 20% membership fraud,
remedy of appeal to application for requirement under Art. misrepresentation and
the SOLE.” registration having 234(c) of the Labor false statement when it
30 members, when Code. Reckoned from filed for its registration
the minutes of its 112 rank-and-file and did it fail to comply
EAGLE RIDGE GOLF December 6, 2005 employees of Eagle with the membership
& COUNTRY CLUB V. organizational Ridge, the required requirement for the
CA, ET. AL. meeting showed it number would be 22 registration as a labor
G.R. No. 178989, only had 26 members. or 23 employees. organization?
March 18, 2010 The misrepresentation
was exacerbated by The Union presented Ruling:
Facts: the discrepancy the duly accomplished
The Eagle Ridge between the union membership No. A scrutiny of the
Employees Union certification issued by forms of four records fails to show
(EREU) filed a petition the Union secretary additional members. any misrepresentation,
for certification election and president that 25 And to rebut the false statement, or
in Eagle Ridge Golf & members actually allegations in the fraud committed by
Country Club, ratified the constitution affidavits of retraction EREU to merit
docketed as Case No. and by-laws on of the five union cancellation of its
RO400-0601-RU- December 6, 2005 members, it presented registration. The Union
002. Eagle Ridge and the fact that 26 the Sama-Samang submitted the required
opposed this members affixed their Sinumpaang Salaysay documents attesting to
petition,11 followed by signatures on the of eight union the facts of the
its filing of a petition for documents, making members; another organizational meeting
the cancellation of one signature a Sama-Samang on December 6, 2005,
EREU's certificate of forgery. Sinumpaang the election of its
registration ascribing Salaysay, of four other officers, and the
misrepresentation, Finally, Eagle Ridge union members; and adoption of the Union’s
false statement, or contended that five the Sworn Statement constitution and by-
fraud to EREU in employees who of the Union’s legal laws. EREU complied
connection with the attended the counsel. These with the mandatory
adoption of its organizational affidavits attested to minimum 20%
constitution and by- meeting had the orderly and proper membership
laws, the manifested the desire requirement under Art. affidavits of 12 union
to withdraw from the 234(c) when it had 30 members and their
union. The five employees as member counsel as to the
executed individual when it registered. Any proceedings and the
affidavits or seeming infirmity in the conduct of the
Sinumpaang Salaysay application and organizational meeting
on February 15, 2006, admission of union on December 6, 2005.
attesting that they membership, most The DOLE Regional
arrived late at said especially in cases of Director and the BLR
meeting which they independent labor OIC Director obviously
claimed to be drinking unions, must be viewed erred in giving credence
spree; that they did in favor of valid to the affidavits of
not know that the membership. retraction, but not
documents they according the same
signed on that In the issue of the treatment to the
occasion pertained to affidavits of retraction supporting affidavits. It
the organization of a executed by six union is settled that affidavits
union; and that they members, the probative partake the nature of
now wanted to be value of these affidavits hearsay evidence, since
excluded from the cannot overcome those they are not generally
Union. The withdrawal of the supporting prepared by the affiant

24
but by another who condition of continued which states that "it
uses his own language PICOP RESOURCES, employment by the shall be the duty of
in writing the affiant’s INC. V. TAÑECA COMPANY, maintain both parties to keep
statement, which may August 9, 2010 their membership in the status quo and to
thus be either omitted the UNION in good continue in full force
or misunderstood by FACTS: On February standing during the and effect the terms
the one writing them. It 13, 2001, respondents effectivity of the and conditions of the
is required for affiants filed a Complaint for agreement. On May existing agreement
to re-affirm the unfair labor practice, 16, 2000, (Atty. during the 60-day
contents of their illegal dismissal and Fuentes) sent a letter period and/or until a
affidavits during the money claims against to the management of new agreement is
hearing of the instant petitioner PICOP PRI demanding the reached by the
case for them to be Resources, Inc. termination of parties." It claimed that
examined by the Respondents were employees who they are still bound by
opposing party, i.e., regular rank-and- file allegedly campaigned the Union Security
the Union. For their employees of PRI for, supported and Clause of the CBA
non-presentation, the and bona fide signed the Petition for even after the
six affidavits of members of Certification Election expiration of the CBA;
retraction are Nagkahiusang of the Federation of hence, the need to
inadmissible as Mamumuo sa PRI Free Workers Union terminate the
evidence against the Southern Philippines (FFW) during the employment of
Union in the instant Federation of Labor effectivity of the CBA. respondents.
case. Twenty percent (NAMAPRI-SPFL), NAMAPRI-SPFL Petitioner's reliance on
(20%) of 112 rank- which is the collective considered said act of Article 253 is
and-file employees in bargaining agent for campaigning for and misplaced. At the
Eagle Ridge would the rank- and-file signing the petition for expiration of the
require a union employees of petitioner certification election of freedom period, the
membership of at least PRI. PRI has a FFW as an act of employer shall
22 employees. When collective bargaining disloyalty and a valid continue to recognize
the EREU filed its agreement (CBA) with basis for termination the majority status of
application for NAMAPRI- SPFL for a for a cause in the incumbent
registration on period of five (5) years accordance with its bargaining agent
December 19, 2005, from May 22, 1995 until Constitution and By- where no petition for
there were clearly May 22, 2000. The Laws, and the terms certification election is
30 union members. CBA contained union and conditions of the filed. Applying the
Thus, when the security provisions on CBA, specifically provision of Article 256
certificate of maintenance of Article II, Sections of the Labor Code, it
registration was membership which 6.1 and 6.2 on Union can be said that while
granted, there is no provides that all Security Clause. it is incumbent for the
dispute that the Union employees within the Eventually, the employer to continue
complied with the appropriate bargaining respondents were to recognize the
mandatory 20% unit who are members terminated. majority status of the
membership of the UNION at the incumbent bargaining
requirement. Prior to time of the signing of ISSUE: Whether or agent even after the
their withdrawal, the this AGREEMENT not an existing CBA expiration of the
six employees who shall, as a can be given its full freedom period, they
retracted were bona force and effect in all could only do so when
fide union members. its terms and no petition for
With the withdrawal of conditions including its certification election
six union members, union security clause, was filed. The reason
there is still even beyond the 5- is, with a pending
compliance with the year period when no petition for certification,
mandatory new CBA has yet any such agreement
membership been entered into? entered into by
requirement under Art. management with a
234(c), for the HELD: PRI anchored labor organization is
remaining 24 union their decision to fraught with the risk
members constitute terminate that such a labor union
more than the 20% respondents’ may not be chosen
membership employment on Article thereafter as the
requirement of 22 253 of the Labor Code collective bargaining
employees.
25
representative. The true expression of the the Labor Relations certificate of
provision for status will of the workers as Division Chief, that the registration is issued to
quo is conditioned on to which labor respondent union a union, its legal
the fact that no organization would acquired a legal personality cannot be
certification election represent them. personality x x x cannot subject to a collateral
was filed during the be challenged in a attack. In may be
freedom period. Any LEGEND petition for certification questioned only in an
other view would INTERNATIONAL election. The discussion independent petition
render nugatory the RESORTS V. of the Secretary of Labor for cancellation in
clear statutory policy KILUSANG and Employment on this accordance with
to favor certification MANGGAGAWA NG point is also enlightening. Section 5 of Rule V,
election as the means LEGEND Section 5, Rule V of Book V of the
of ascertaining the February 23, 2011 D.O. 9 is instructive on Implementing Rules.
FACTS: On June 6, claimed that its legitimacy the matter. It provides
2001, KML filed with the as a labor union could that the legal personality SAMAHANG
Med-Arbitrater a Petition not be collaterally of a union cannot be the MANGGAGAWA SA
for Certification Election. attacked in the subject of collateral CHARTER
KML alleged that it is a certification election attack in a petition for CHEMICAL
legitimate labor proceedings but only certification election, but SOLIDARITY OF
organization of the rank through a separate and may be questioned only UNIONS IN THE
and file employees of independent action for in an independent PHILIPPINES FOR
Legend International cancellation of union petition for cancellation of EMPOWERMENT
Resorts Limited registration. Finally, as to union registration. This AND REFORMS
(LEGEND). LEGEND the alleged acts of has been the rule since (SMCC-SUPER),
moved to dismiss the misrepresentation, KML NUBE v. Minister of ZACARRIAS JERRY
petition alleging that asserted that LEGEND Labor, 110 SCRA 274 VICTORIO-Union
KML is not a legitimate failed to substantiate its (1981). What applies in Presi
labor organization claim. this case is the principle Petitioner, vs.
because its membership that once a union CHARTER CHEMICAL
is a mixture of rank and ISSUE: Whether or not acquires a legitimate and COATING
file and supervisory the legitimacy of the status as a labor CORPORATION,
employees in violation legal personality of KML organization, it continues Respondent.
of Article 245 of the may be collaterally as such until its G.R. No. 169717,
Labor Code. LEGEND attacked in a petition for certificate of registration March 16, 2011
also claimed that KML certification election? is cancelled or revoked
committed acts of fraud in an independent action Facts: On February
and misrepresentation HELD: No. the legitimacy for cancellation. The 19, 1999, petitioner
when it made it appear of the legal personality of legal personality of a SMCC- SUPER filed a
that certain employees KML cannot be legitimate labor petition for certification
attended its general collaterally attacked in a organization x x x election among the
membership meeting on petition for certification cannot be subject to a regular rank-and-file
April 5, 2001 when in election proceeding. This collateral attack. The employees of
reality some of them is in consonance with our law is very clear on this respondent company.
were either at work; ruling in Laguna matter. x x x The Respondent company
have already resigned Autoparts Manufacturing Implementing Rules filed an Answer with
as of March 2001; or Corporation v. Office of stipulate that a labor Motion to Dismiss
were abroad. In its the Secretary, organization shall be because of the
Comment, KML argued Department of Labor and deemed registered and inclusion of
that even if 41 of its Employment that such vested with legal supervisory employees
members are indeed legal personality may not personality on the date within petitioner
supervisory employees be subject to a collateral of issuance of its union.The Med-Arbiter
and therefore excluded attack but only through a certificate of dismissed the petition
from its membership, the separate action instituted registration. Once a for certification
certification election particularly for the election.On appeal, the
could still proceed purpose of assailing it. Department of Labor
because the required The Court further held and Employment
number of the total rank therein that to raise the (DOLE) reversed the
and file employees issue of the respondent Med-Arbiter’s ruling.
necessary for unions legal personality The Court of Appeals
certification purposes is is not proper in this case. (CA) nullified the CA’s
still sustained. KML also The pronouncement of ruling.

26
Issue: Whether or not L employees of Sta. Unions initial problem
the alleged mixture of E Lucia East Commercial was that they
rank-and- file and C Corporation. It was constituted a legitimate
supervisory C issued Certificate of labor organization
employees of ) Creation of a Local representing a non-
petitioner union’s , Chapter. It thereafter appropriate bargaining
membership is a filed a petition for unit. However, CLUP-
ground for the P certification election. SLECC and its Affiliates
cancellation of e Petitioner SLECC filed Workers Union
petitioner union’s t a motion to dismiss. It subsequently re-
legal personality and i averred that it has registered as CLUP-
dismissal of the t voluntarily recognized SLECCWA, limiting its
petition for i Samahang members to the rank-
certification election? o Manggagawa sa Sta. and-file of SLECC.
Held: No. While there n Lucia East Commercial SLECC cannot ignore
is a prohibition e (SMSLEC) on 20 July that CLUP-SLECC and
against the mingling r 2001 as the exclusive its Affiliates Workers
of supervisory and , bargaining agent of its Union was a legitimate
rank-and-file regular rank-and-file labor organization at the
employees in one v employees, and that time of SLECCs
labor organization, s collective bargaining voluntary recognition of
the Labor Code does . negotiations already SMSLEC. SLECC and
not provide for the HON. SECRETARY commenced between SMSLEC cannot, by
effects thereof. Thus, OF LABOR AND them. SLECC argued themselves, decide
the Court held that EMPLOYMENT and that the petition should whether CLUP-SLECC
after a labor STA. LUCIA EAST be dismissed for and its Affiliates
organization has COMMERCIAL violating the one year Workers Union
been registered, it CORPORATION and negotiation bar. represented an
may exercise all the WORKERS The Med-Arbiter ruled appropriate bargaining
rights and privileges ASSOCIATION dismissed the petition unit.The inclusion in the
of a legitimate labor (CLUP- for certification union of disqualified
organization. Any SLECCWA), election. The Secretary employees is not
mingling between Respondents. of Labor and among the grounds for
supervisory and rank- G.R. No. 162355 Employment, on cancellation of
and-file employees in August 14, 2009 appeal, reversed the registration, unless such
its membership decision of the Med- inclusion is due to
cannot affect its Facts: On 27 February Arbiter. The Court of misrepresentation, false
legitimacy for that is 2001, Confederated Appeals (CA) affirmed statement or fraud
not among the Labor Union of the the ruling of the under the
grounds for Philippines (CLUP), in Secretary. circumstances
cancellation of its behalf of its chartered Issue: Whether or not enumerated in Article
registration, unless local, instituted a SLECCs voluntary 239 of the Labor
such mingling was petition for certification recognition of SMSLEC Code.THUS, CLUP-
brought about by election among the was done while a SLECC AND ITS
misrepresentation, regular rank-and-file legitimate labor AFFILIATES
false statement or employees of Sta. organization was in WORKERS UNION,
fraud under Article Lucia East existence in the HAVING BEEN
239 of the Labor Commercial bargaining unit? VALIDLY ISSUED A
Code. Corporation and its Held: Yes. Any CERTIFICATE OF
Affiliates. The Med- applicant labor REGISTRATION,
STA. LUCIA EAST Arbiter ordered the organization shall SHOULD BE
COMMERCIAL dismissal of the acquire legal CONSIDERED AS
CORPORATION petition due to personality and shall be HAVING ACQUIRED
( inappropriateness of entitled to the rights JURIDICAL
S the bargaining and privileges granted PERSONALITY WHICH
by law to legitimate MAY NOT BE
unit. CLUP-SLECC Commercial
labor organizations ATTACKED
and its Affiliates Corporation Workers
upon issuance of the COLLATERALLY. THE
Workers Union Association (CLUP-
certificate of PROPER
reorganized itself and SLECCWA) limiting its
registration.CLUP- PROCEDURE FOR
re-registered as CLUP- membership to the
SLECC and its SLECC IS TO FILE A
Sta. Lucia East rank-and-file
Affiliates Workers PETITION FOR
27
CANCELLATION OF employer may for certification the federation with
CERTIFICATE OF voluntarily recognize election. The which it is affiliated. It
REGISTRATION2 OF the representation employer opposed, is a separate and
CLUP-SLECC AND status of a union in citing that both were distinct voluntary
ITS AFFILIATES unorganized not legitimate labor association owing its
WORKERS UNION establishments.SLEC organizations and that creation to the will of
AND NOT TO C WAS NOT AN the proposed its members. Mere
IMMEDIATELY UNORGANIZED Bargaining Units were affiliation does not
COMMENCE ESTABLISHMENT not particularly divest the local union
VOLUNTARY WHEN IT described. The rank of its own personality;
RECOGNITION VOLUNTARILY and file union insists neither does it give the
PROCEEDINGS RECOGNIZED that it has been issued mother federation the
WITH SMSLEC.The SMSLEC AS ITS a chartered certificate license to act
EXCLUSIVE by ALU and the independently of the
BARGAINING supervisory union, by local union. It only
REPRESENTATIVE the APSOTEU. The gives rise to a contract
ON 20 JULY 2001. petition was dismissed of agency, where the
CLUP-SLECC AND by the Med Arbiter, former acts in
ITS AFFILIATES holding that ALU and representation of the
WORKERS UNION APSOTEU are one latter. Hence, local
FILED A PETITION and the same unions are considered
FOR federation and that in principals while the
CERTIFICATION effect, the supervisory federation is deemed
ELECTION ON 27 and RNF unions were to be merely their
FEBRUARY 2001 in effect, affiliated with agent. As such
AND THIS PETITION only one federation. principals, the unions
REMAINED are entitled to exercise
PENDING AS OF ISSUE: 1. Whether or the rights and
20 JULY 2001. THUS, not the rank and file privileges of a
SLECCS and supervisory legitimate labor
VOLUNTARY unions were legitimate organization, including
RECOGNITION OF in a sense that they the right to seek
SMSLEC ON 20 could file certification as the sole
JULY 2001, THE petitions for certification and exclusive
SUBSEQUENT election. bargaining agent in the
NEGOTIATIONS 2. Can supervisory appropriate employer
AND RESULTING employees join Rank unit.
REGISTRATION OF and File unions?
A CBA EXECUTED 2. No. Under
BY SLECC AND RULING: 1. Yes. A Article 245 of the Labor
SMSLEC ARE VOID local union does not Code, supervisory
AND CANNOT BAR owe its existence to employees are not
CLUP- SLECCWAS eligible for membership
PRESENT PETITION in a labor union of rank- local supervisors’ union
FOR and-file employees. should not be allowed to
CERTIFICATION The supervisory affiliate with the national
ELECTION. employees are allowed federation of unions of
to form their own union rank-and-file employees
COASTAL SUBIC BAY but they are not where that federation
TERMINAL V. DOLE allowed to join the actively participates in
November 20, 2006 rank-and-file union the union activity within
because of potential the company. Thus, the
FACTS: Coastal Bay conflicts of interest. limitation is not confined
Subic Terminal Inc. Further, to avoid a to a case of supervisors
RANK-AND- FILE situation where wanting to join a rank-
UNION (CSBTI-RFU) supervisors would and-file union. The
and Coastal Bay merge with the rank- prohibition extends to a
Subic Terminal Inc. and-file or where the supervisors’ local union
SUPERVISORY supervisors’ labor applying for
UNION (CSBTI-SU) union would represent membership in a
filed separate petitions conflicting interests, a national federation the

28
members of which strike was filed by the ISSUE: Whether or FACTS:
include local unions of union prediated on not the Secretary of Standard Chartered
rank-and-file Nestle’s alleged ULP DOLE can take Bank (the Bank, for
employees. (bargaining in bad faith cognizance of matters brevity) is a foreign
– by setting beyond the subject of banking corporation
[med arbiter denial of preconditions in the the notice of strike in doing business in the
PCE affirmed by CA, ground rules and/or CBA negotiations? Philippines. The
SC] refusing to include the exclusive bargaining
issue of the retirement RULING: agent of the rank and
[note: Amendatory plan in the CBA Yes. The Secretary of file employees of the
laws provide that negotiations. The DOLE may. Based on Bank is the Standard
supervisory employees Secretary assumed the Notices of Strike Chartered Bank
MAY join RNF unions jurisdiction over the filed by UFE-DFA- Employees Union (the
however for purposes subject labor dispute. KMU, the Secretary Union, for brevity).
of determination of of the DOLE rightly
Bargaining Unit Nestlé and UFE-DFA- decided on matters Before the
membership, KMU filed their of substance. That commencement of the
supervisory employees respective position the union later on negotiation, the Union,
shall simply be papers. Nestlé changed its mind is of through Divinagracia,
deemed not included.] addressed several no moment because suggested to the
issues concerning to give premium to Banks Human
economic provisions of such would make the Resource Manager
COLLECTI the CBA as well as the legally mandated and head of the
non-inclusion of the discretionary power of negotiating panel,
VE issue of the Retirement the Dole Secretary Cielito Diokno, that
BARGAINI Plan in the collective subservient to the the bank lawyers
bargaining
NG negotiations. On the
whims of the parties. It should be excluded
was UFE-DFA-KMU from the negotiating
other hand, UFE-DFA- which first alleged a team. The Bank
UNION OF FILIPRO KMU limited itself to the bargaining deadlock acceded.[11]
EMPLOYEES V. issue of whether or not as the basis for the Meanwhile, Diokno
NESTLE PHILS. the retirement plan was filing of its Notice of suggested to
March 3, 2008 a mandatory subject in Strike; and at the time Divinagracia that Jose
its CBA negotiation. of the filing of the first P. Umali, Jr., the
Union of Filipro Notice of Strike, President of the
Employees – Drug several conciliation National Union of
Food and Allied conferences had Bank Employees
Industries Union – already been (NUBE), the
Kilusang Mayo Uno undertaken where federation to which
was the sole and both parties had the Union was
exclusive bargaining already exchanged affiliated, be
agent of the rank-and- with each other their excluded from the
file employees of respective CBA Unions negotiating
Nestle belonging to proposals. In fact, panel.[12] However,
Alabang and Cabuyao during the conciliation Umali was retained as
plants. Prior the meetings before the a member thereof.
expiration of the CBA, NCMB, but prior to the
they signified their filing of the notices of On March 12, 1993,
intent to renegotiate a strike, the parties had the parties met and set
new CBA. Nestle already delved into the ground rules for
informed them about matters affecting the the negotiation. Diokno
its counter proposal meat of the collective suggested that the
and that it bargaining agreement. negotiation be kept a
implemented rules to family affair. The
govern the conduct of STANDARD proposed non-
CBA negotiations. Due economic provisions of
to a failure to reach an CHARTERED BANK the CBA were
agreement, discussed first.[13]
conciliation EMPLOYEES UNION Even during the final
proceedings V. CONFESOR reading of the non-
bargaining deadlock economic provisions
ensued. A notice of
29
on May 4, 1993, there the same should be differences over the The Union alleges that
were still provisions changed to economic provisions the Bank violated its
on which the Union DEADLOCKED to became heated and the duty to bargain; hence,
and the Bank could indicate that such parties had become committed ULP under
not agree. items remained frustrated. It happened Article 248(g) when it
Temporarily, the unresolved. Both after the parties started engaged in surface
notation DEFERRED parties agreed to to involve personalities. bargaining. It alleged
was placed therein. place the notation As the public that the Bank just went
Towards the end of DEFERRED/DEADLO respondent noted, through the motions of
the meeting, the CKED. passions may rise, and bargaining without any
Union manifested that as a result, suggestions intent of reaching an
RULING: NO given under less agreement, as evident
The petitioner asserts The circumstances that adversarial situations in the Banks counter-
that the private occurred during the may be colored with proposals.
respondent committed negotiation do not unintended meanings.
ULP, i.e., interference show that the Such is what appears Surface bargaining is
in the selection of the suggestion made by to have happened in defined as going
Unions negotiating Diokno to Divinagracia this case. through the motions of
panel, when Cielito is an anti-union negotiating without any
Diokno, the Banks conduct from which it The Duty to Bargain legal intent to reach an
Human Resource can be inferred that the Collectively agreement.[50] The
Manager, suggested to Bank consciously If at all, the suggestion resolution of surface
the Unions President adopted such act to made by Diokno to bargaining allegations
Eddie L. Divinagracia yield adverse effects on Divinagracia should be never presents an
that Jose P. Umali, Jr., the free exercise of the construed as part of the easy issue. The
President of the right to self- normal relations and determination of
NUBE, be excluded organization and innocent whether a party has
from the Unions collective bargaining of communications, which engaged in unlawful
negotiating panel. In the employees, are all part of the surface bargaining is
support of its claim, especially considering friendly relations usually a difficult one
Divinagracia executed that such was between the Union and because it involves, at
an affidavit, stating that undertaken previous to Bank. bottom, a question of
prior to the the commencement of the intent of the party
commencement of the the negotiation and in question, and
negotiation, Diokno simultaneously with usually such intent can
approached him and Divinagracias only be inferred from
suggested the suggestion that the the totality of the
exclusion of Umali bank lawyers be challenged partys
from the Unions excluded from its conduct both at and
negotiating panel, and negotiating panel. away from the
that during the first bargaining table. It
meeting, Diokno stated The records show that involves the question
that the negotiation be after the initiation of the of whether an
kept a family affair. collective bargaining employers conduct
process, with the demonstrates an
ISSUE(1): Whether or inclusion of Umali in unwillingness to
not the Union was able the Unions negotiating bargain in good faith or
to substantiate its panel, the negotiations is merely hard
claim of unfair labor pushed through. The bargaining.
practice against the complaint was made
Bank arising from the only on August 16, The minutes of
latters alleged 1993 after a deadlock meetings from March
interference with its was declared by the 12, 1993 to June 15,
choice of negotiator; Union on June 15, 1993 do not show that
surface bargaining; 1993. the Bank had any
making bad faith non- intention of violating its
economic proposals; It is clear that such duty to bargain with
and refusal to furnish ULP charge was the Union. Records
the Union with copies merely an afterthought. show that after the
of the relevant data The accusation Union sent its proposal
occurred after the to the Bank on
arguments and
30
February 17, 1993, past negotiations. g
the latter replied with After all, the We, likewise, do not had standing to
a list of its counter- conclusion of the CBA agree that the Union is negotiate a CBA, GMC
proposals on was included in the guilty of ULP for did not send any
February 24, 1993. order of the SOLE, engaging in blue-sky counter-proposal.
Thereafter, meetings while the signing bargaining or making
were set for the bonus was included in exaggerated or Issue:
settlement of their the CBA itself. unreasonable W/N GMC is guilty for
differences. The Moreover, the Union proposals.[59] The ULP for violating the
minutes of the twice filed a motion for Bank failed to show duty to bargain
meetings show that reconsideration that the economic
both the Bank and the respecting its ULP demands made by the Ruling:
Union exchanged charges against the Union were YES. The law mandates
economic and non- Bank before the exaggerated or that the representation
economic proposals SOLE. unreasonable. The provision of a CBA
and counter- minutes of the meeting should last for five
proposals. T show that the Union years.The relation
h based its economic between labor and
The Union has not e proposals on data of management should be
been able to show rank and file undisturbed until the
that the Bank had U employees and the last 60 days of the fifth
done acts, both at n prevailing economic year. It is indisputable
and away from the i benefits received by that when the union
bargaining table, o bank employees from requested for a
which tend to show n other foreign banks renegotiation of the
that it did not want to doing business in the economic terms of the
reach an agreement D Philippines and other CBA on November 29,
with the Union or to i branches of the Bank in 1991, it was still the
settle the differences d the Asian region. certified collective
between it and the bargaining agent of the
Union. Admittedly, N GENERAL MILLING workers. The withdrawal
the parties were not o CORPORATION VS of some union members
able to agree and t CA FEB 11, 2004 from the union will not
reached a deadlock. affect the majority
However, it is herein E On April 28, 1989, status of the union as
emphasized that the n GMC and the union the exclusive bargaining
duty to bargain g concluded a collective agent. GMC should
does not compel a bargaining agreement have responded and
either party to agree g (CBA) which included kept its duty to bargain
to a proposal or e the issue of collectively.
require the making representation effective
of a concession.[53] I for a term of three FVC LABOR UNION –
Hence, the parties n years. The day before PHIL. TRANSPORT
failure to agree did the expiration of the AND GENERAL
not amount to ULP B CBA, the union sent WORKERS
under Article 248(g) l GMC a proposed CBA, ASSOCIATION VS.
for violation of the u with a request that a SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO
duty to bargain. e counter-proposal be
- submitted within ten Facts: On December
ISSUE(2): whether or S (10) days. However, 22, 1997, the petitioner
not the petitioner is k GMC had received FVCLU- PTGWO – the
estopped from filing y collective and individual recognized bargaining
the instant action. letters from workers agent of the rank-and-
RULING: NO B who stated that they file employees of the
In the case, however, a had withdrawn from FVC Philippines, –
the approval of the r their union signed a five-year
CBA and the release g membership, on collective bargaining
of signing bonus do a grounds of religious agreement (CBA) with
not necessarily mean i affiliation and personal the company. The five-
that the Union waived n differences. Believing year CBA period was
its ULP claim against i that the union no longer from February 1, 1998
the Bank during the n
31
to January 30, 2003. They extended the KMU (SUMAPI-NAFLU-
At the end of the 3rd original five-year G. KMU) for the Feeds
year of the five-year period of the CBA by R. Division (respondents).
term and pursuant to four (4) months. No The CBAs, which
the CBA, FVCLU- . contained similar
PTGWO and the On January 21, 2003, 16 provisions, were
company entered into nine (9) days before 23 effective for five years,
the renegotiation of the the January 30, 2003 24 from July 1, 2000 up to
CBA and modified, expiration of the , June 30, 2005. A
among other originally-agreed five- Fe section of the CBAs
provisions, the CBA’s year CBA term (and br provides that the
duration. four months and nine ua company should make
days away from the ry payment if Black
expiration of the 4, Saturday, November 1,
amended CBA 20 and December 31
period), the 09 were declared as
respondent Ca special holidays by the
(SANAMA-SIGLO) rpi National Government.
filed before the o-
Department of Labor M During the first year of
and Employment or the effectivity of the
(DOLE) a petition for al CBAs in 2000,
certification election es December 31 which
for the same rank- , fell on a Sunday was
and- file unit covered J. declared by the
by the FVCLU- national government
PTGWO CBA. DOCTRINE: as a special holiday.
If the terms of a CBA Respondents thus
Issue: are clear and have no claimed payment of
W/N the extension of doubt upon the their members’
the life of the CBA intention of the salaries, invoking the
also extended the contracting parties, as above-stated CBA
exclusive bargaining in the herein provision. Petitioner
status as well questioned provision, refused the claims for
the literal meaning payment,
Ruling: thereof shall prevail.
NO. By express
provision of Article FACTS:
253-A, the exclusive Petitioner RFM
bargaining status Corporation (RFM) is
cannot go beyond 5 a domestic
years and the corporation engaged
representation status in flour-milling and
is a legal matter not animal feeds
for the parties to manufacturing.
agree upon. Despite Sometime in 2000, its
the agreement to Flour Division and SFI
extend the life of the Feeds Division
CBA beyond the 5-yr entered into collective
period, the exclusive bargaining
bargaining status is agreements (CBAs)
effective only for five with their respective
years and hence, it labor unions, the
can be challenged Kasapian ng
within the 60- day Manggagawang
period prior to the Pinagkaisa-RFM
expiration of the (KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU)
CBA’s first five years. for the Flour Division,
and Sandigan at
RFM CORPORATION Ugnayan ng
V. KAMPI-NAFLU- Manggagawang
Pinagkaisa-SFI
32
averring that December 31, 2000 was not
compensable as it was a rest day. The controversy
resulted in a deadlock, drawing the parties to submit
the same for voluntary arbitration. The voluntary
arbitrator ruled in favor of the respondents and upon
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the VA’s
decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the employees are entitled to the
questioned salary according to the provision of the
CBA.
HELD:
Yes. If the terms of a CBA are clear and have no doubt
upon the intention of the contracting parties, as in the
herein questioned provision, the literal meaning thereof
shall prevail. That is settled. 5 As such, the daily-paid
employees must be paid their regular salaries on the
holidays which are so declared by the national
government, regardless of whether they fall on rest
days. The CBA is the law between the parties, hence,
they are obliged to comply with its provisions. 7 Indeed,
if petitioner and respondents intended the provision in
question to cover payment only during holidays falling
on work or weekdays, it should have been so
incorporated therein.
Petitioner maintains, however, that the parties failed to
foresee a situation where the special holiday would fall
on a rest day. The Court is not persuaded. The Labor
Code specifically enjoins that in case of doubt in the
interpretation of any law or provision affecting labor, it
should be interpreted in favor of labor.
FULACHE V. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 183810, January 21, 2010
Brion, J.
DOCTRINE:
CBA coverage is not only a question of fact, but of law
and contract.
FACTS:
Petitioners, who worked as drivers, cameramen, and
editors for respondent, filed several complaints against
the latter for unfair labor practice, regularization, and
money claims. The petitioners alleged that on
December 17, 1999, ABS-CBN and the ABS-CBN
Rank-and-File Employees Union (Union) executed a
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) effective
December 11, 1999 to December 10, 2002; they only
became aware of the CBA when they obtained copies
of the agreement; they learned that they had been
excluded from its coverage as ABS-CBN considered
them temporary and not regular employees, in
violation of the Labor Code. They claimed they had
already rendered more than a year of service in the
company and, therefore, should have been recognized
as regular employees entitled to security of tenure and
30
to the privileges and benefits enjoyed by regular
employees. ABS-CBN alleged that the petitioners’
services were contracted on various dates by its Cebu
station as independent contractors/off camera talents,
and they were not entitled to regularization in these
capacities. Thus they are not entitled to the benefits
granted under their collective bargaining agreement.
On January 17, 2002, Labor Arbiter Rendoque
rendered his decision5 holding that the petitioners were
regular employees of ABS-CBN, not independent
contractors, and are entitled to the benefits and
privileges of regular employees. Upon appeal, the
NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the
benefits under the CBA.
HELD:
Yes. Under the terms of the CBA, the petitioners are
members of the appropriate bargaining unit because
they are regular rank-and-file employees and do not
belong to any of the excluded categories. Specifically,
nothing in the records shows that they are supervisory
or confidential employees; neither are they casual nor
probationary employees.
The Supreme Court sees no merit in ABS-CBN’s
arguments that the petitioners are not entitled to CBA
benefits because: (1) they did not claim these benefits
in their position paper; (2) the NLRC did not
categorically rule that the petitioners were members of
the bargaining unit; and (3) there was no evidence of
this membership. CBA coverage is not only a question
of fact, but of law and contract. The factual issue is
whether the petitioners are regular rank-and-file
employees of ABS-CBN. The tribunals below uniformly
answered this question in the affirmative.
EMPLOYEES UNION OF BAYER V. BAYER
PHILIPPINES
December 6, 2010
FACTS:
Employees Union of Bayer Philippines is the exclusive
bargaining agent of all rank-and-file employees of
Bayer Philippines (Bayer). In 1997, its president
Juanito S. Facundo, negotiated with Bayer for the
signing of a CBA. During the negotiations, EUBP
rejected Bayers wage-increase proposal resulting in a
bargaining deadlock.
Pending the resolution of the dispute, respondents,
headed by Avelina Remigio without any authority from
their union leaders, accepted Bayers wage-increase
proposal. EUBPs grievance committee questioned
Remigios action and reprimanded Remigio and her
allies. Thereafter, the DOLE Secretary issued an
arbitral award ordering EUBP and Bayer to
execute a CBA. CBA; and (2) the proposal to GMC, with Whether an imposed
violation pertains to a request for counter- CBA has the same
Meanwhile, the rift the economic proposals from the effect as that of a CBA
between Facundos provisions of the latter, for the purpose duly agreed upon by
leadership and CBA. of renegotiating the the parties.
Remigios group existing CBA between
broadened. Six months This pronouncement in the parties. In view of HELD: YES
after the CBA, Silva, however, should GMCs failure to comply Considering that no
respondent sought to not be construed to with said request, the new CBA had been, in
disaffiliate from the apply to violations of Union commenced the the meantime, agreed
union. A tug- of-war the CBA which can be complaint for unfair upon by GMC and the
then ensued between considered as gross labor practice. Union, we find,
the two rival groups, violations per se, pursuant to Article 253
with both seeking such as utter ISSUE: of the Labor Code, the
recognition from Bayer disregard of the very provisions of the
and demanding existence of the CBA imposed CBA
remittance of the union itself, similar to what continues to have full
dues collected from its happened in this force and effect until a
rank- and-file case. When an new CBA has been
members. Bayer employer proceeds to entered into by the
refused to accede to negotiate with a parties. Article 253
the demands of the 2 splinter union despite mandates the parties
group but the existence of its to keep the status
subsequently turn over valid CBA with the quo and to continue
the collected union duly certified and in full force and
dues to herein exclusive bargaining effect the terms and
respondent. Hence, agent, the former conditions of the
petitioner filed this indubitably abandons existing agreement
case. its recognition of the during the 60-day
latter and terminates period prior to the
ISSUE: Whether the the entire CBA. expiration of the old
act of the management CBA and/or until a
of Bayer in dealing and GENERAL new agreement is
negotiating with reached by the
Remigios splinter MILLING parties. In the same
group despite its manner that it does
validly existing CBA CORPORATION not provide for any
with EUBP can be INDEPENDENT exception nor
considered unfair labor LABOR UNION V. qualification on
practice. GENERAL MILLING which economic
CORPORATION provisions of the
HELD: YES. Bayer June 15, 2011 existing agreement
committed ULP. are to retain its force
Indeed, in Silva v. FACTS: and effect, the law
National Labor General Milling does not distinguish
Relations Commission, Corporation and the between a CBA duly
we explained the Union entered into a agreed upon by the
correlations of Article collective bargaining parties and an
248 (1) and Article 261 agreement which imposed CBA like the
of the Labor Code to provided, among other one under
mean that for a ULP terms, the latters consideration.
case to be cognizable representation of the
by the Labor Arbiter, collective bargaining While it is true that the
and for the NLRC to unit for a three-year provisions of the
exercise appellate term made to retroact imposed CBA extend
jurisdiction thereon, to 1 December 1988. beyond said remaining
the allegations in the On 29 November 1991 two-year duration of
complaint must show or one day before the the original CBA in
prima facie the expiration of the view of the parties
concurrence of two subject CBA, the Union admitted failure to
things, namely: (1) sent a draft CBA conclude a new CBA,
gross violation of the
31
the corresponding of the imposed CBA. the union and its the strike that was
computation of the members have been subsequently declared
benefits accruing in MALAYAN granted union leave illegal. Those who were
favor of GMCs EMPLOYEES privileges under the recalled are allowed to
covered employees ASSOCIATION V. CBA, the grant cannot resume work on the
after the term of the MALAYAN be considered condition that they
original CBA was INSURANCE CO., separately from the would no longer be paid
correctly excluded in G.R. No. other provisions of the a daily rate but on a
the aforesaid 27 181357,February 2, CBA, particularly the piece-rate basis.
October 2005 order 2010 provision on Without allowing RGMI
issued in RAB VII-06- management to normalize its
0475-1992. Rather Facts: prerogatives where the operations, the union
than the abbreviated Rodolfo Mangalino, CBA reserved for the filed a notice of strike in
pre-execution who is a union company the full and the National Conciliation
proceedings before member of Malayan complete authority in and Mediation Board
Executive Labor Employees managing and running (NCMB) on August 8,
Arbiter Violeta Ortiz- Associations was its business. 1995. According to the
Bantug, the suspended for taking The prior approval union, RGMI conducted
computation of the a union leave without policy fully supported a time and motion study
same benefits beyond the prior authority of the validity of the and changed the salary
30 November 1993 his department head suspensions the scheme from a daily
should, instead, be and despite a company imposed on rate to piece-rate basis
threshed out by GMC previous disapproval Mangalino. We point without consulting it.
and the Union in of the requested out additionally that as RGMI therefore not only
accordance with the leave. A provision in an employee, violated the existing
Grievance Procedure the unions collective Mangalino had the collective bargaining
outlined as follows bargaining agreement clear obligation to agreement (CBA) but
under Article XII of (CBA) with the comply with the also diminished the
the imposed CBA company allows union management salaries agreed upon. It
As for the benefits officials to avail of disapproval of his therefore committed an
after the expiration of union leaves with pay requested leave while unfair labor practice.
the term of the parties for a total of ninety- at the same time Later, petitioners filed a
original CBA, we find man days per year for registering his objection complaint with the labor
that the extent thereof the purpose of to the company arbiter and amended
as well as identity of attending grievance regulation and action. their complaint, stating
the employees meetings, Labor- That he still went on that respondents
entitled thereto will be Management leave, in open suspended them for
better and more Committee meetings, disregard of his questioning their
thoroughly threshed annual National Labor superiors orders, decision to pay salaries
out by the parties Management rendered Mangalino on a piece-rate basis.
themselves in Conferences, labor open to the charge of Respondents, on the
accordance with the education programs insubordination, other hand, moved to
grievance procedure and seminars, and separately from his dismiss the complaint in
outlined in Article XII other union activities. absence without official view of the pending
The company issued a filed union leave leave. conciliation proceedings
rule in November 2002 applications in January (which involved the
requiring not only the and February, 2004. SANTUY same
prior notice that the His department head O VS.
CBA expressly disapproved the REMERC
requires, but prior applications because O
approval by the the department was GARMEN
department head undermanned at that TS G.R.
before the union and time. No.
its members can avail 174420,
of union leaves. The Issue: March 22,
rule was placed into Whether or not the 2010
effect in November suspension is invalid
2002 without any and violated the CBA? Facts:
objection from the Petitioners, who had
union until a union Held: been employed as
officer, Mangalino, No. While it is true that sewers, were among
those recalled due to
32
issue) in the NCMB. arbiter clearly did not
Moreover, alleged have jurisdiction over
violations of the CBA the subject matter, his
should be resolved decision was void.
according to the
grievance procedure CIRTEK
laid out therein. Thus, EMPLOYEES
the labor arbiter had LABOR UNION
no jurisdiction over FEDERATION OF
the complaint. FREE WORKERS vs
CIRTEK
Issue:
Is the contention that Facts:
the labor arbiter lacks Amicable settlement
jurisdiction as the of the CBA between
case involves petitioner union and
interpretation of the respondent company
provision of CBA was deadlocked,
valid? petitioner went on
strike. Secretary of
Held: Labor assumed
Yes. Petitioners jurisdiction over the
clearly and controversy and
consistently issued a Return to
questioned the Work Order which
legality of RGMIs was complied with.
adoption of the new Before the Secretary
salary scheme (i.e., of Labor could rule on
piece-rate basis), the controversy,
asserting that such respondent created a
action, among others, Labor Management
violated the existing Council (LMC)
CBA. Indeed, the through which
controversy was not a concluded with the
simple case of illegal officers of petitioner a
dismissal but a labor Memorandum of
dispute involving the Agreement (MOA)
manner of providing for daily
ascertaining wage increases of
employees’ salaries, P6.00 per day
a matter which was effective January 1,
governed by the 2004 and P9.00 per
existing CBA. day effective January
1, 2005. Petitioner
Under Article 261, submitted the MOA
voluntary arbitrators via Motion and
have original and Manifestation to the
exclusive jurisdiction Secretary of Labor,
over matters which alleging that the
have not been remaining officers
resolved by the signed the MOA under
grievance machinery. respondents
Pursuant to Articles assurance that should
217 in relation to the Secretary order a
Articles 260 and 261 higher award of wage
of the Labor Code, increase, respondent
the labor arbiter would comply.
should have referred
the matter to the Secretary of Labor
grievance machinery resolved the CBA
provided in the CBA. deadlock by awarding
Because the labor a wage increase of
from P6.00 to P10.00
per day effective Respondent moved for
January 1, 2004 and a reconsideration of
from P9.00 to P15.00 the Decision as
per day effective petitioners vice-
January 1, 2005, and president submitted a
adopting all other Muling Pagpapatibay
benefits as embodied ng Pagsang-ayon sa
in the MOA. Kasunduan
na may Petsang ika-4 Code, may resolve all
ng Agosto 2005, stating issues involved in the
that the union members controversy including
were waiving their the award of wage
rights and benefits increases and benefits.
under the Secretary’s While an arbitral award
Decision. Court ruled in cannot per se be
favor of respondent categorized as an
and accordingly set agreement voluntarily
aside the Decision of entered into by the
the Secretary of Labor. parties because it
It held that the requires the intervention
Secretary of Labor and imposing power of
gravely abused his the State thru the
discretion in not Secretary of Labor
respecting the MOA. when he assumes
Petitioners filed the jurisdiction, the arbitral
present petition, award can be
maintaining that the considered an
Secretary of Labors approximation of a
award is in order, being collective bargaining
in accord with the agreement which would
parties CBA history ─ otherwise have been
it respondent having entered into by the
already granted P15.00 parties, hence, it has
per day for 2001, the force and effect of a
P10.00 per day for valid contract obligation.
2002, and P10.00 per Since the filing and
day for 2003, and that submission of the MOA
the Secretary has the did not have the effect
power to grant awards of divesting the
higher than what are Secretary of his
stated in the CBA. jurisdiction, or of
automatically disposing
Issue: the controversy, then
Whether or not the neither should the
MOA entered into by provisions of the MOA
the petitioner and the restrict the Secretary’s
respondent constitutes leeway in deciding the
CBA between them matters before him.
and thus restricts the
Secretary’s leeway in While a contract
deciding matters before constitutes the law
it between the parties,
this is so in the present
Held: case with respect to the
No. It is well-settled CBA, not to the MOA in
that the Secretary of which even the unions
Labor, in the exercise signatories had
of his power to assume expressed reservations
jurisdiction under Art. thereto. But even
263 (g)[11] of the Labor assuming arguendo that
33
the MOA is treated as
a new CBA, since it is
imbued with public
interest, it must be
construed liberally and
yield to the common
good. While the terms
and conditions of a
CBA constitute the law
between the parties, it
is not, however, an
ordinary contract to
which is applied the
principles of law
governing ordinary
contracts. A CBA, as a
labor contract within
the contemplation of
Article 1700 of the Civil
Code of the
Philippines which
governs the relations
between labor and
capital, is not merely
contractual in nature
but impressed with
public interest, thus, it
must yield to the
common good. As
such, it must be
construed liberally
rather than narrowly
and technically, and
the courts must place
a practical and
realistic construction
upon it, giving due
consideration to the payment would also finding that the
context in which it is be subject to company is engaged in
negotiated and availability of funds. an industry considered
purpose which it is vital to the, certified the
intended to serve. Invoking the Side labor dispute for
Agreement of the compulsory arbitration.
EASTERN existing Collective
TELECOMMUNICATI Bargaining Agreement ETEU theorized that
ONS, PHIL., INC. V. for the period 2001- the grant of the subject
EASTERN 2004 between ETPI bonuses is not only a
TELECOMS UNION and ETEU which company practice but
G.R. No. 185665; stated as follows: “4. also a contractual
February 8, 2012 Employment Related obligation of ETPI to
Bonuses. The the union members.
FACTS: Eastern Company confirms ETEU contended that
Telecommunications that the 14th, 15th and the unjustified and
Phils., Inc. (ETPI) is a 16th month bonuses malicious refusal of the
corporation engaged (other than 13th month company to pay the
in the business of pay) are granted.” The subject bonuses was a
providing union strongly clear violation of the
telecommunications opposed the economic provision of
facilities employing deferment in payment the CBA and
approximately 400 of the bonuses by constitutes unfair labor
employees. Eastern filing a preventive practice (ULP). On the
Telecoms Employees mediation complaint other hand, ETPI
Union (ETEU) is the with the NCMB. The contends that NLRC
certified exclusive company declared had no jurisdiction over
bargaining agent of that until the matter is the issue which merely
the company’s rank resolved in a involved the
and file employees compulsory interpretation of the
with a strong following arbitration, the economic provision of
of 147 regular company cannot and the 2001-2004 CBA
members. It has an will not pay any Side Agreement. It
existing collecti[ve] bonuses to any and all averred that the
bargaining agreement union members. subject bonuses were
with the company to ETEU filed a Notice of not part of the legally
expire in the year Strike on the ground demandable wage and
2004 with a Side of unfair labor practice the grant thereof to its
Agreement signed on for failure of ETPI to employees was an act
September 3, 2001. pay the bonuses in of pure gratuity and
The labor dispute was gross violation of the generosity on its part,
a spin-off of the economic provision of involving the exercise
companys plan to the existing CBA. of management
defer payment of the Secretary of Labor prerogative and always
2003 14th, 15th and and Employment, dependent on
16th month bonuses the financial ETEUs complaint and
sometime in April performance and held that ETPI could not
2004. The company’s realization of profits. be forced to pay the
main ground in ETPI emphasized that union members the
postponing the even if it had an bonuses as the
payment of bonuses is unconditional obligation payment of these
due to allege to grant bonuses to its additional benefits was
continuing employees, the drastic basically a management
deterioration of decline in its financial prerogative. ETEU
company’s financial condition had already moved for
position which started legally released it reconsideration but the
in the year 2000. therefrom pursuant to motion was denied.
However, ETPI while Article 1267 of the Civil ETEU filed a petition for
postponing payment Code. certiorari. The CA
of bonuses sometime declared that the Side
in April 2004, such NLRC dismissed Agreements of the 1998
34
and 2001 CBA created commitment under the when the giving of the request of
a contractual contract. such bonus has been preference of the
obligation. However, Notwithstanding such the company’s long employees. [c] Any
the CA sustained the huge losses, ETPI and regular practice. unused vacation leave
NLRC finding that the entered into the 2001- The giving of the shall be converted to
allegation of ULP was 2004 CBA Side subject bonuses cash and shall be
devoid of merit. ETPI Agreement. The parties cannot be paid to the
appealed via Rule 45 to the contract must be peremptorily employees on the first
of the Rules of Court. presumed to have withdrawn by ETPI week of December
assumed the risks of without violating each year.”
ISSUES: (1) Whether unfavorable Article 100 of the
or not petitioner ETPI developments. It is, Labor Code. The Head of the TMSD
is liable to pay 14th, therefore, only in issued a Memorandum
15th and 16th month absolutely exceptional PNCC SKYWAY dated January 9, 2004
bonuses for the year changes of TRAFFIC to all TMSD personnel.
2003 and 14th month circumstances that MANAGEMENT AND In the said
bonus for the year equity demands SECURITY DIVISION memorandum, it was
2004 to the members assistance for the WORKERS provided that:
of respondent union; debtor. In the case at ORGANIZATION
and (2) Whether or not bench, the Court (PSTMSDWO) V. “SCHEDULED
the CA erred in not determines that ETPIs PNCC SKYWAY VACATION LEAVE
dismissing outright claimed depressed CORPORATION WITH PAY.
ETEUs petition for financial state will not G.R. No. 171231; T
certiorari. release it from the February 17, 2010 he 17
binding effect of the days
RULING: The Court 2001-2004 CBA Side FACTS: Petitioner (15
finds no merit in the Agreement. PSTMSDWO is a duly days
petition. A bonus, Considering that ETPI registered labor union. SVL
however, becomes a had been continuously Respondent PNCC plus
demandable or suffering huge losses Skyway Corporation is 2-day-
enforceable obligation from 2000 to 2002, its a corporation duly off)
when it is made part of business losses in the organized and sched
the wage or salary or year 2003 were not operating under and uled
compensation of the exactly unforeseen or by virtue of the laws of vacati
employee. A reading of unexpected. the Philippines. On on
the [CBA Side Granting November 15, 2002, leave
Agreements] reveals arguendo that the CBA petitioner and (SVL)
that the same provides Side Agreement does respondent entered with
for the giving of 14th, not contractually bind into a Collective pay
15th and 16th month petitioner ETPI to give Bargaining Agreement for the
bonuses without the subject bonuses, (CBA) incorporating year
qualification. The nevertheless, the Court the terms and 2004
records are also bereft finds that its act of conditions of their had
of any showing that the granting the same has agreement which been
ETPI made it clear become an established included vacation publis
before or during the company practice such leave and expenses hed
execution of the Side that it has virtually for security license for
Agreements that the become part of the provisions. every
bonuses shall be employee’s salary or one to
subject to any wage. A bonus may be The pertinent take a
condition. In the granted on equitable provisions of the CBA vacati
absence of any proof consideration relative to vacation on
that ETPIs consent leave and sick leave with
was vitiated by fraud, are as follows: “[b] pay
mistake or duress, it is The company shall which
presumed that it schedule the will be
entered into the Side vacation leave of our
Agreements employees during opport
voluntarily, that it had the year unity
full knowledge of the taking to
contents thereof and into consideration enjoy
that it was aware of its
35
qualit the Petitioner objected to the union have the
y conce the implementation of right to schedule their
time rned the said vacation leave. It
with partie memorandum. It opined that the
our s. insisted that the unilateral scheduling
famili Howe individual members of of the
es ver, employees' vacation with the CA, and the CA
and the leave was done to annulled and set aside
perfo under avoid the monetization the decision and order
rm signe of their vacation leave of the voluntary
our d in December 2004. arbitrator. The CA ruled
other may Petitioner also that since the provisions
activi consi demanded that the of the CBA were clear,
ties der expenses for the the voluntary arbitrator
requi the required in-service has no authority to
ring re- training of its member interpret the same
our sched security guards, as a beyond what was
pers uling requirement for the expressly written.
onal of the renewal of their license, Petitioner filed a motion
atten SVL be shouldered by the for reconsideration.
tion upon respondent. Hence, the instant
and the petition.
supe writte Due to the
rvisio n disagreement between ISSUES: (1) Whether
n. reque the parties, petitioner the management has
Swa st of elevated the matter to the sole discretion to
ppin conce the DOLE-NCMB for schedule the vacation
g of rned preventive mediation. leave; (2) Whether the
SVL TMS The voluntary arbitrator management is not
sche D ruled that the liable for the in-service-
dule perso scheduling of all training of the security
is nnel vacation leaves shall guard.
allow at be under the discretion
ed least of the union members, RULING:
on a 30 and the management (1) As to the
one- days to convert them into issue on
on- befor cash all the leaves vacation
one e the which the management leaves, the
basis sched compelled them to use. same has
by uled It also ruled that the in- no merit.
sub SVL. service-training of the The rule is that where
mittin Re- company security the language of a
g a sched guards, as a contract is plain and
writte uling requirement for unambiguous, its
n will renewal of licenses, meaning should be
requ be shall not be their determined without
est evalu personal account but reference to extrinsic
at ated that of the company. All facts or aids. The
least taking other claims were intention of the parties
30 into dismissed for lack of must be gathered from
days consi merit. Respondent filed that language, and from
befor derati a motion for that language alone.
e the on reconsideration, which Stated differently, where
actu the the voluntary arbitrator the language of a
al TMS denied. Respondent written contract is clear
sche Ds filed a Petition for and unambiguous, the
dule opera Certiorari with Prayer contract must be taken
of tional for Temporary to mean that which, on
SVL requir Restraining Order its face, it purports to
duly emen and/or Writ of mean, unless some
signe t.” Preliminary Injunction good reason can be
d by
36
assigned to show that
the words used should
be understood in a
different sense.
In the case at bar, the
contested provision of
the CBA is clear and
unequivocal. Article
VIII, Section 1 (b) of
the CBA categorically
provides that the
scheduling of vacation
leave shall be under
the option of the
employer. The
preference requested
by the employees is
not controlling
because respondent
retains its power and
prerogative to consider
or to ignore said
request.
Thus, if the terms of a
CBA are clear and
leave no doubt upon
the intention of the
contracting parties, the
literal meaning of its
stipulation shall
prevail. In fine, the
CBA must be strictly However, it is
adhered to and incorrect to award
respected if its ends payment of the cash
have to be achieved, equivalent of vacation
being the law between leaves that were
the parties. In Faculty already used and
Association of Mapua enjoyed by the
Institute of employee.
Technology (FAMIT) Accordingly, the
v. Court of Appeals, vacation leave
this Court held that privilege was not
the CBA during its intended to serve as
lifetime binds all the additional salary, but
parties. The as a non-monetary
provisions of the CBA benefit. To give the
must be respected employees the option
since its terms and not to consume it with
conditions constitute the aim of converting
the law between the it to cash at the end of
parties. The parties the year would defeat
cannot be allowed to the very purpose of
change the terms they vacation leave.
agreed upon on the Petitioner's contention
ground that the same that labor contracts
are not favorable to should be construed
them. in favor of the laborer
is without basis and,
In the grant of therefore, inapplicable
vacation leave to the present case.
privileges to an This rule of
employee, the construction does not
employer is given the benefit petitioners
leeway to impose because, as stated,
conditions on the there is here no room
entitlement to and for interpretation.
commutation of the Since the CBA is clear
same, as the grant of and unambiguous, its
vacation leave is not a terms should be
standard of law, but a implemented as they
prerogative of are written.
management. Along
that line, since the (2) This
grant of vacation brings Us to the issue
leave is a prerogative of who is accountable
of the employer, the for the in-service
latter can compel its security guard would
employees to exhaust pay or incur in order to
all their vacation leave secure or renew his
credits. Of course, any license.
vacation leave credits
left unscheduled by Since it is the primary
the employer, or any responsibility of
scheduled vacation operators of company
leave that was not security forces to
enjoyed by the maintain and upgrade
employee upon the the standards of
employer's directive, efficiency, discipline,
due to exigencies of performance and
the service, must be competence of their
converted to cash, as personnel, it follows
provided in the CBA. that the expenses to be
37
training of the security
guards. On this point,
We find the petition
meritorious.
Although it is a rule
that a contract freely
entered into between
the parties should be
respected, since a
contract is the law
between the parties,
there are, however,
certain exceptions to
the rule, specifically
Article 1306 of the Civil
Code. Moreover, the
relations between
capital and labor are
not merely contractual.
They are so impressed
with public interest that
labor contracts must
yield to the common
good. If the provisions
in the CBA run
contrary to law, public
morals, or public
policy, such provisions
may very well be
voided.
In the present case,
Article XXI, Section 6
of the CBA provides
that All expenses of
security guards in
securing /renewing
their licenses shall be
for their personal
account. A reading of
the provision would
reveal that it
encompasses all
possible expenses a
incurred therein shall be
for the personal account
of the company.
Further, the intent of the
law to impose upon the
employer the obligation
to pay for the cost of its
employees training is
manifested in the
aforementioned laws
provision that Where
the quality of training is
better served by
centralization, the
CFSD Directors may
activate a training staff
from local talents to
assist. The cost of
training shall be pro-
rated among the
participating
agencies/private
companies. It can be
gleaned from the said
provision that cost of
training shall be pro-
rated among
participating agencies
and companies if the
training is best served
by centralization. The
law mandates pro-
rating of expenses
because it would be
impracticable and
unfair to impose the
burden of expenses
suffered by all
participants on only
one participating
agency or company.
Thus, it follows that if
there is no
centralization, there
can be no pro-rating,
and the company that
has its own security
forces shall shoulder
the entire cost for such
training. If the intent of
the law were to impose
upon individual
employees the cost of
training, the provision
on the pro-rating of
expenses would not
have found print in the
law.
HALAGUEÑA, et
al v. PHILIPPINE
INCORPORATED
G.R. No. 172013,
October 2, 2009,
Peralta
FACTS
Petitioners are
members of the Flight
Attendants and
Stewards Association
of the Philippines
(FASAP), a labor
organization certified
as the sole and
exclusive bargaining
representative of the
flight attendants, flight RULING
stewards and pursers Yes. The subject of
of PAL. In 2011, PAL litigation is incapable
and FASAP entered of pecuniary
into a CBA, a provision estimation, exclusively
of which provides that cognizable by the
compulsory retirement RTC, pursuant to
for cabin attendants Section 19 (1) of BP
hired before November 129, as amended.
1996 shall be 55 (years Being an ordinary civil
old) for females and 60 action, the same is
for males. Petitioners beyond the jurisdiction
manifested that the of labor tribunals. The
aforementioned CBA said issue cannot be
provision is resolved solely by
discriminatory, and applying the Labor
demanded for an equal Code. Rather, it
treatment with their requires the
male counterparts. application of the
Petitioners filed a Constitution, labor
Special Civil Action for statutes, law on
Declaratory Relief with contracts and the
the Makati RTC Convention on the
seeking to invalidate Elimination of All
the said CBA provision. Forms of
The RTC upheld its Discrimination Against
jurisdiction over the Women, and the
case, reasoning that power to apply and
the allegations do not interpret the
make out a labor constitution and
dispute arising from CEDAW is within the
employer-employee jurisdiction of trial
relationship nor does it courts, a court of
involve a claim against general jurisdiction.
PAL. Here, the employer-
employee relationship
ISSUE between the parties is
Does the RTC have merely incidental and
jurisdiction over the the cause of action
petitioners’ action ultimately arose from
challenging the legality different sources of
or constitutionality of obligation, i.e., the
the provisions on the Constitution and
compulsory retirement CEDAW.
age contained in the
CBA? Thus, where the
principal relief sought
is to be resolved not
by reference to the
Labor Code or other
labor relations statute
or a collective
bargaining agreement
but by the general civil
law, the jurisdiction
over the dispute
belongs to the regular
courts of justice and
not to the labor arbiter
and the NLRC. In
such situations,
38
resolution of the
dispute requires
expertise, not in labor
management relations
nor in wage structures
and other terms and
conditions of
employment, but rather
in the application of the
general civil law.
Clearly, such claims
fall outside the area of
competence or
expertise ordinarily
ascribed to labor
arbiters and the NLRC
and the rationale for
granting jurisdiction
over such claims to
these agencies
disappears.
If We divest the regular
courts of jurisdiction
over the case, then
which tribunal or forum
shall determine the
constitutionality or
legality of the assailed
CBA provision? This
Court holds that the
grievance machinery
and voluntary
arbitrators do not have
the power to determine
and settle the issues at
hand. They have no
jurisdiction and
competence to decide
constitutional issues
relative to the
questioned compulsory
retirement age. Their
exercise of jurisdiction
is futile, as it is like
vesting power to
someone who cannot
wield it.
The change in the
terms and conditions
of employment, should
Section 144 of the
CBA be held invalid, is
but a necessary and
unavoidable
consequence of the
principal relief sought,
i.e., nullification of the
alleged discriminatory
provision in the CBA.
Thus, it does not invoking the trial the regular worker..
necessarily follow court's jurisdiction 2) and the adoption of Because a reliever is
that a resolution of merely because it a "union shop" as a treated as if mere
controversy that may eventually result condition for project employee
would bring about a into a change of the employment
change in the terms terms and conditions - there must be a Issue:
and conditions of of employment. Along certain time upon which 1) WON respondent in
employment is a that line, the trial court the employee must this case is a casual
labor dispute, is not asked to set and become a member of a employee
cognizable by labor fix the terms and union upon his hiring 2) WON the nature of
tribunals. It is unfair conditions of the work of a reliever
to preclude employment, Contention of the in this case is cove
petitioners from respondent: bythe CBA 2.1)
but is called upon to machinery and 1) he worked for WON respondent
determine whether voluntary arbitration beyond 6 months, thus, became a regular
CBA is consistent with would not serve the following the CBA he employee
the laws. interest of the should already be a
petitioners. # regular employee Ruling:
Although the CBA 1) Yes, he is a casual
provides for a PASSI Contention of the employee but the basis
procedure for the (STEVEDORING AND petitioner: of this is not because
adjustment of ARASTRE COMPANY) 1) CBA will not apply to of the 1st paragraph of
grievances, such V. BACOLOT you, you are neither a article 280.. But under
referral to the Doctrine: when the regular, casual nor a the 2nd paragraph
grievance machinery scales are tilted probationary because he does not
and thereafter to towards labor it must employee.. You are just fall under any kinds of
voluntary arbitration not be so tilted as to a mere reliever whose employee in article
would be inappropriate cause injustice to the work depends on the 280, however, to be a
to the petitioners, employer absence of regular employee
because the union and under the 2nd
the management have If a reliever is allowed paragraph the
unanimously agreed to to work for at least 365 employee must have
the terms of the CBA accumulated days.. He rendered at least 1
and their interest is may become a regular year of service
unified. employee under article whether or not it is
280(2). continous or broken,
The he dispute in the the total work time of
case at bar is not FACTS the respondent is only
between FASAP and Bacolot was hired by 228.5 days. Therefore
respondent PAL, who PASSI to work as a he is not a regular
have both previously stevedore for an employee UNDER
agreed upon the accumulated 36 THE LABOR CODE
provision on the months (but only ALONE.
compulsory retirement worked for 228.5 days -
of female flight average is 1 week of (to justify as to why
attendants as work per month), the didn't the court
embodied in the CBA. nature of his work is consider the 36
The dispute is that of a reliever, he will months to be beyond 1
between respondent only work if the regular year despite the fact
PAL and several steverdore is absent. that the law allows
female flight "broken"... Because
attendants who On the CBA: when the law tilts the
questioned the 1) there is a scale to labor, it must
provision on stipulation that not be so tilted as to
compulsory retirement casual/probationary cause injustice to the
of female flight employees shall employer.. Plus, it is a
attendants. Thus, become regular common industrial
applying the principle employees after the practice in stevedoring
in the aforementioned accumulation of 6 to get relievers in
case cited, referral to months of employment cases where the
the grievance from their hiring.; regular stevedores

39
could not make it to UNFAIR Anastacia Villareal, two rulings hence, this
work so that the Treasurer of REUBP. petition.
business could LABOR Herein complaint was,
continue for 24 hours PRACTICE however, dismissed ISSUE
or to finish without and no appeal was Whether the act of the
any interruptions, and taken. management of Bayer
the fact that there EMPLOYEES UNION in dealing and
was no prohibition OF BAYER PHILS Petitioners filed a negotiating with
imposed to the (EUBP) VS. BAYER second ULP complaint Remigio’s splinter group
respondent that he PHILIPPINES, INC. against herein despite its validly
can freely offer his G.R. No. 162943, respondents. Three existing CBA with EUBP
service to other December 6, 2010, days later, can be considered
persons) Villarama petitioners amended unfair labor practice.
the complaint charging
2) Because of the Petitioner EUBP is the the respondents with HELD
"union shop" clause exclusive bargaining unfair labor practice YES. It must be
under the existing agent of respondent committed by remembered that a CBA
CBA, the respondent Bayer. The parties organizing a company is entered into in order
being seen by the law figured in a bargaining union, gross violat ion to foster stability and
as a "casual deadlock in 1997 for of the CBA and mutual cooperation
employee" is deemed failure to agree on violation of their duty to between labor and
to have been a Bayer’s offer of 9.9% bargain. On even date, capital. An employer
member of a union wage increase. REUBP and Bayer should not be allowed to
within a certain time Pending the resolution agreed to sign a new rescind unilaterally its
as a precondition to of the dispute, CBA. Remegio CBA with the duly
employment (to AvelinaRemigio immediately informed certified bargaining
clarify, even non- (Remigio) and 27 her allies of the agent it had previously
union members may other union members management decision. contracted with, and
be hired but subject accepted said offer In response, petitioners decide to bargain anew
to this condition), without authority from immediately filed an with a different group
became a regular the urgent motion for the
employee by virtue of issuance of a
the provisions of the union restraining
CBA because 228.5 order/injunction. Said
days is equivalent to leaders. EUBP’s CBA was, however,
8 months of work grievance committee eventually signed and
which is beyond the questioned ratified despite the
agreed 6 months Remigios action and BLR’s ruling and order
under the CBA. reprimanded Remigio that the management
and of Bayer should respect
her allies. Later, the Philippines (REUBP). A the authority of the
DOLE Secretary tug-of-war then ensued duly-elected officers of
issued an arbitral between the two rival EUBP in the
award orderinggroups, with both administration of the
EUBP seeking recognition prevailing CBA.
execute a CBA from Bayer and
retroactive to demanding remittance The second ULP was
January 1, 1997 and to of the union dues dismissed by the Labor
be made effective until collected from its rank- Arbiter for lack for
December 31, 2001. and files members. jurisdiction for the issue
Bayer decided to put involves an intra- union
Meanwhile, the rift the union dues in a dispute. The NLRC
between the trust account. likewise dismissed the
Facundo’s leadership motion for a restraining
and Remegio’s group EUBP then filed a order and/or injunction
broadened. Six months complaint for ULP stating that the subject
after the signing of the against Bayer for the matter involved an
1997-2001 CBA, the non-remittance of dues. intra-union dispute,
latter group formed the During its pendency, over which the
Reformed Employees Bayer turned over the Commission has no
Union of Bayer collected union dues to jurisdiction. On appeal,
the CA sustained the
40
if there is no the pendency of the resulted in (Lubas); despite such
legitimate reason for intra-union dispute demoralization on the transfer, the schedule
doing so and without case, yet they still employees' ranks; of drivers and
first following the proceeded to turn later, the foregoing conductors, as well as
proper procedure. If over the collected circumstances led their company
such behavior would union dues to REUBP respondents to form a identification cards,
be tolerated, and to effusively deal union for their mutual were issued by PTI;
bargaining and with Remigio. The aid and protection. In the daily time records,
negotiations between totality of respondents order to block the tickets and reports of
the employer and the conduct, therefore, continued formation of the respondents were
union will never be reeks with anti-EUBP the union, PTI caused also filed at the PTI
truthful and animus. the transfer of all office; and, all claims
meaningful, and no union members and for salaries were
CBA forged after PRINCE sympathizers to one transacted at the
arduous negotiations TRANSPORT, INC. of its sub- companies, same
will ever be honored and MR. RENATO Lubas Transport
or be relied upon. A CLAROS vs. office; later, the self-organization or if it
CBA entered into by DIOSDADO GARCIA, business of Lubas discriminates in regard
a legitimate labor et al deteriorated because of to wages, hours of work
organization that has January 12, 2011, G.R. the refusal of PTI to and other terms and
been duly certified as No. 167291, Peralta maintain and repair the conditions of
the exclusive units being used employment in order to
bargaining Petitioner PTI is a therein, which resulted encourage or
representative and company engaged in in the virtual stoppage discourage membership
the employer the business of of its operations and in any labor
becomes the law transporting respondents' loss of organization.
between them. passengers by land, employment.
on the other hand, Indeed, evidence of
When an employer respondents were Petitioners, on the petitioners' unfair labor
proceeds to negotiate hired as drivers, other hand, denied the practice is shown by the
with a splinter union conductors, material allegations of established fact that,
despite the existence mechanics and the complaints after respondents'
of its valid CBA with inspectors. In addition contending that herein transfer to Lubas,
the duly certified and to their regular respondents were no petitioners left them
exclusive bargaining monthly income, longer their employees, high and dry insofar as
agent, the former respondents also since they all the operations of Lubas
indubitably abandons received commissions transferred to Lubas. was concerned.
its recognition of the equivalent to 8 to 10% Petitioners withheld the
latter and terminates of their wages; ISSUE necessary financial and
the entire CBA. sometime in October Whether or not logistic support such as
1997, the said petitioner is guilty of spare parts, and repair
Respondents cannot commissions were unfair labor practice and maintenance of the
claim good faith to reduced to 7 to 9%; transferred buses until
justify their acts. They this led respondents HELD only two units remained
knew that Facundos and other employees Yes. The respondents’ in running condition.
group represented of PTI to hold a series transfer of work This left respondents
the duly-elected of meetings to discuss assignments to Lubas virtually jobless.
officers of EUBP. the protection of their was designed by
Moreover, they were interests as petitioners as a MANILA MINING
cognizant of the fact employees; these subterfuge to foil the CORP. EMPLOYESS v.
that even the DOLE meetings led formers right to MANILA MINING
Secretary himself had petitioner Claros, organize themselves CORP.
recognized the president of PTI, to into a union. Under G.R. Nos. 178222-23,
legitimacy of EUBPs suspect that Article 248 (a) and (e) September 20, 2010,
mandate by rendering respondents are about of the Labor Code, an Perez
an arbitral award to form a union. In employer is guilty of
ordering the signing December 1997, PTI unfair labor practice if it Manila Mining Corp.
of the 1997-2001 employees requested interferes with, (MMC), a corporation
CBA between Bayer for a cash advance, restrains or coerces its engaged in large-scale
and EUBP. but the same was employees in the mining, constructed
Respondents were denied by exercise of their right to several tailings dams to
likewise well-aware of management, which
41
treat and store its WON the suspension representing
waste materials and of CBA negotiations As a result of a almost all the
one of these tailings can be considered as bargaining deadlock, rank and file
dams was operating unfair labor practice. the NCMB workers of
under a permit issued commenced CAB, had
by DENR-EMB. RULING conciliation/mediation concluded a
Petitioner Union, No. Unfair labor proceedings involving new collective
submitted letters to practice cannot be CAB, employer, and bargaining
MMC relating its imputed to MMC since CABEU-NFL, the agreement
intention to bargain the call of MMC for a exclusive bargaining with CAB.
collectively and suspension of the agent. In a letter-
likewise submitted its CBA negotiations response to the The NCMB did not act
CBA proposal. cannot be equated to NCMB, CAB sought on the letter-request.
However, upon “refusal to bargain.” suspension of the Neither did it conclude
expiration of the For a charge of unfair conciliation/mediation the
tailings permit, DENR- labor practice to proceedings on the conciliation/mediation
EMB did not issue a prosper, it must be following grounds: proceedings involving
permanent permit due shown that the 1) CABEU-NFL CABEU-NFL and CAB.
to the inability of MMC employer was lost its
to secure an motivated by ill-will, majority ISSUE
Environmental bad faith or fraud, or status by Is CAB guilty of acts
Compliance was oppressive to reason of the constituting unfair
Certificate. Hence, it labor. The employer disauthorizati labor practice (ULP) by
was compelled to must have acted in a on and refusing to bargain
temporarily shut down manner contrary to withdrawal of collectively in good
its mining operations, morals, good support faith?
resulting in the customs, or public thereto by
temporary lay-off of policy causing social more than HELD
more than 400 humiliation, wounded 90% of the No. By imputing bad
employees, including feelings or grave rank and file faith to the actuations
the complainants. anxiety. While the law employees in of CAB, CABEU-NFL
MMC called for the makes it an obligation the bargaining has the burden of
suspension of for the employer and unit; and proof to present
negotiations on the the employees to 2) the workers
CBA with the Union bargain collectively themselves,
until resumption of with each other, such acting as
mining operations. compulsion does not principal, after
include the disauthorizing
ISSUE commitment to the previous
precipitately accept or agent
agree to the proposals CABEU-NFL
of the other. All it have
contemplates is that organized
both parties should themselves
approach the into a new
negotiation with an Union known
open mind and make as Central
reasonable effort to Azucarera de
reach a common Bais
ground of agreement. Employees
Labor
CENTRAL Association
AZUCARERA DE (CABELA)
BAIS EMPLOYEES and after
UNION-NFL (CABEU- obtaining their
NFL) V. CENTRAL registration
AZUCARERA DE certificate and
BAIS, INC. (CAB) making due
G.R. No. 186605, representation
November 17, 2010, that it is a duly
Mendoza organized
union
42
substantial evidence to support the allegation of unfair
labor practice.The circumstances relied upon as proof
of CAB’s bad faith are merely those mentioned in the
letter-response, namely, the execution of the supposed
CBA between CAB and CABELA and the request to
suspend the negotiations. In simply relying on the said
letter-response, CABEU-NFL failed to substantiate its
claim of unfair labor practice to rebut the presumption
of good faith.
Moreover, the filing of the complaint for unfair labor
practice was premature inasmuch as the issue of
collective bargaining is still pending before the NCMB.
CAB cannot be faulted for the NCMB’s inaction.
BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO V. BPI
July 24, 2013, G.R. No. 174912, Mendoza
BOMC, which was created pursuant to Central Bank
Circular No. 1388, Series of 1993 (CBP Circular No.
1388, 1993), and primarily engaged in providing and/or
handling support services for banks and other financial
institutions, is a subsidiary of the Bank of Philippine
Islands (BPI) operating and functioning as an entirely
separate and distinct entity. A service agreement
between BPI and BOMC was initially implemented in
BPI’s Metro Manila branches. In this agreement,
BOMC undertook to provide services such as check
clearing, delivery of bank statements, fund transfers,
card production, operations accounting and control,
and cash servicing Not a single BPI employee was
displaced and those performing the functions, which
were transferred to BOMC, were given other
assignments. On January 1, 1996, the service
agreement was likewise implemented in Davao City.
Later, a merger between BPI and Far East Bank and
Trust Company (FEBTC) took effect on April 10, 2000
with BPI as the surviving corporation. Thereafter, BPI’s
cashiering function and FEBTC’s cashiering,
distribution and bookkeeping functions were handled
by BOMC. Consequently, twelve (12) former FEBTC
employees were transferred to BOMC to complete the
latter’s service complement.
BPI Employees Union-Davao City-FUBU (Union),
objected to the transfer of the functions and the twelve
(12) personnel to BOMC contending that the functions
rightfully belonged to the BPI employees and that the
Union was deprived of membership of former FEBTC
personnel who, by virtue of the merger, would have
formed part of the bargaining unit represented by the
Union pursuant to its union shop provision in the CBA.
BPI proposed a Labor Management Conference (LMC)
between the parties. During the LMC, BPI invoked
management prerogative stating that the creation of
the BOMC was to preserve more jobs and to designate
it as an agency to place employees where they were
most needed. On the other hand, the Union charged
that BOMC undermined the existence of the union
since it reduced or divided the bargaining unit. While
BOMC employees perform BPI functions, they were
40
beyond the bargaining unit’s coverage. In contracting
out FEBTC functions to BOMC, BPI effectively
deprived the union of the membership of employees
handling said functions as well as curtailed the right of
those employees to join the union.
Thereafter, the Union demanded that the matter be
submitted to the grievance machinery as the resort to
the LMC was unsuccessful. As BPI allegedly ignored
the demand, the Union filed a notice of strike before
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB)
on the following grounds:
a) Contracting out services/functions performed by
union members that interfered with, restrained and/or
coerced the employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization;
b) Violation of duty to bargain; and
c) Union busting
BPI then filed a petition for assumption of
jurisdiction/certification with the Secretary of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), who
subsequently issued an order certifying the labor
dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. The
DOLE Secretary directed the parties to cease and
desist from committing any act that might exacerbate
the situation. The NLRC came out with a resolution
upholding the validity of the service agreement
between BPI and BOMC and dismissing the charge of
ULP. It ruled that the engagement by BPI of BOMC to
undertake some of its activities was clearly a valid
exercise of its management prerogative.11 It further
stated that the spinning off by BPI to BOMC of certain
services and functions did not interfere with, restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization. The Union is of the position that the
outsourcing of jobs included in the existing bargaining
unit to BOMC is a breach of the union-shop agreement
in the CBA. In transferring the former employees of
FEBTC to BOMC instead of absorbing them in BPI as
the surviving corporation in the merger, the number of
positions covered by the bargaining unit was
decreased, resulting in the reduction of the Union’s
membership.
ISSUE
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
RULING
No. The rule now is covered by Article 261 of the
Labor Code, which took effect on November 1,
1974.25 Article 261 provides: “Accordingly, violations
of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, except those
which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated
as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as
grievances under the Collective Bargaining
Agreement. For purposes of this article, gross
violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall
mean flagrant and/or self-organization busting/ULP. It claimed Whether Pepsi
malicious refusal to because the that Pepsi’s adoption of committed ULP in the
comply with the employees themselves the retrenchment form of union busting
economic provisions of were neither program was designed
such agreement. transferred nor solely to bust their HELD
dismissed from the union so that come NO. Under Article
Clearly, only gross service. It is to be freedom period, Pepsi’s 276(c) of the Labor
violations of the emphasized that company union, the Code, there is union
economic provisions of contracting out of Leyte Pepsi-Cola busting when the
the CBA are treated as services is not illegal Employees Union- existence of the union
ULP. Otherwise, they per se. It is an exercise Union de Obreros de is threatened by the
are mere grievances. of business judgment Filipinas - would garner employer’s act of
or management the majority vote to dismissing the former’s
In the present case, prerogative. Absent retain its exclusive officers who have been
the alleged violation of proof that the bargaining status. duly-elected in
the union shop management acted in a accordance with its
agreement in the CBA, malicious or arbitrary ISSUE constitution and by-
even assuming it was manner, the Court will laws.
malicious and flagrant, not interfere with the
is not a violation of an exercise of judgment On the other hand, the
economic provision in by an employer.In this term unfair labor
the agreement. The case, bad faith cannot practice refers to that
provisions relied upon be attributed to BPI gamut of offenses
by the Union were because its actions defined in the Labor
those articles referring were authorized by Codewhich, at their
to the recognition of CBP Circular. core, violates the
the union as the sole constitutional right of
and exclusive PEPSI-COLA workers and
bargaining PRODUCTS employees to self-
representative of all PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. organization, with the
rank-and-file MOLON, et. al sole exception of
employees, as well as G.R. No. 175002, Article 257(f)
the articles on union February 18, 2013, (previously Article
security, specifically, Perlas-Bernabe 248[f]).
the maintenance of
membership in good In 1999, Pepsi adopted Unfair labor practice
standing as a condition a company-wide refers to acts that
for continued retrenchment program violate the workers'
employment and the denominated as right to organize. The
union shop clause. It Corporate Rightsizing prohibited acts are
failed to take into Program. On July 13, related to the workers'
consideration its 1999, Pepsi notified the right to self-
recognition of the DOLE of the initial organization and to the
bank’s exclusive rights batch of forty-seven observance of a CBA.
and prerogatives, (47) workers to be Without that element,
likewise provided in retrenched.Among the acts, no matter
the CBA, which these employees were how unfair, are not
included the hiring of six (6) elected officers unfair labor practices.
employees, promotion, and twenty-nine (29) The only exception is
transfers, and active members of the Article 257(f).
dismissals for just LEPCEU-ALU,
cause and the including herein ROYAL PLANT
maintenance of order, respondents. WORKERS UNION V.
discipline and COCA COLA
efficiency in its On July 19, 1999, BOTTLERS
operations. It is LEPCEU-ALU filed a G.R. No. 198783, April
incomprehensible how Notice of Strike before 15, 2013
the "reduction of the National
positions in the Conciliation and PETITIONER Royal
collective bargaining Mediation Board Plant Workers Union is
unit" interferes with the (NCMB) due to Pepsi’s the union of bottling
employees’ right to alleged acts of union
41
operators employed aspects of doing any harm to the provide only for
with respondent employment, including workers’ rights. Probationary, Regular,
Coca- Cola Bottlers hiring, work and Casual. With the
Philippines, Inc.-Cebu assignments, working GOYA, INC. v. GOYA, hiring of contractual
Plant (CCBPI). methods, time, place, INC. EMPLOYEES employees, the Union
and manner of work, UNION- FFW contended that it would
In 1974, the bottling processes to be G.R. No. 170054, no longer have
operators were followed, supervision January 21, 2013 probationary and casual
provided with chairs of workers, working employees from which it
upon their request. regulations, transfer of Petitioner Goya, Inc. could obtain additional
Sometime in employees, work (Company), a domestic Union members. In
September 2008, the supervision, layoff of corporation engaged in countering the Union’s
chairs were removed workers, and the manufacture, allegations, the
pursuant to a national discipline, dismissal importation, and Company argued that:
directive of and recall of workers. wholesale of top quality (a) the law expressly
respondent. This The exercise of food products. It hired allows contracting and
directive is in line with management contractual employees subcontracting
the “I operate, I prerogative, however, from PESO Resources arrangements and that
maintain, I clean” is not absolute as it Development the CBA merely
program of petitioner must be exercised in Corporation (PESO) to provides for the
for bottling operators. good faith and with perform temporary and definition of the
due regard to the occasional services in categories of
The CCBPI maintains rights of labor. its factory in Parang, employees and does
that the removal of Marikina City. This not put a limitation on
the subject chairs is a In the present prompted respondent the Company’s right to
valid exercise of controversy, it cannot Goya, Inc. Employees engage the services of
management be denied that CCBPI Union–FFW (Union) to job contractors or its
prerogative. Is there removed the request for a grievance management
merit to this operators’ chairs conference on the prerogative to address
contention? pursuant to a national ground that the temporary/occasional
directive and in line contractual workers do needs in its operation.
RULING with its “I Operate, I not belong to the The Voluntary Arbitrator
Yes. The Supreme Maintain, I Clean” categories of ruled that the
Court has held that program, launched to employees stipulated in engagement of PESO is
management is free enable the union to the existing Collective not in keeping with the
to regulate, according perform their duties Bargaining Agreement intent and spirit of the
to its own discretion and responsibilities (CBA). The matter was
and judgment, all more unresolved and
efficiently. The chairs chairs was done with referred to National
were not removed good intentions, as Conciliation and
indiscriminately. They CCBPI wanted to avoid Mediation Board
were carefully studied instances of operators (NCMB) for voluntary
with due regard to the sleeping on the job arbitration. The Union
welfare of the while in the asserted that the hiring
members of the Union. performance of their of contractual
The removal of the duties and employees from PESO
chairs was responsibilities and is not a management
compensated by a) a because of the fact that prerogative and in
reduction of the the chairs were not gross violation of the
operating hours of the necessary, considering CBA tantamount to
bottling operators from that the operators unfair labor practice
2.5-hour rotation constantly move about (ULP). It noted that the
period to a 1.5-hour while working. In short, contractual workers
rotation period; and b) the removal of the engaged have been
an increase of the chairs was designed to assigned to work in
break period from 15 increase work positions previously
to 30 minutes between efficiency. Hence, handled by regular
rotations. CCBPI’s exercise of its workers and Union
management members in effect
Apparently, the prerogative was made violating CBA’s
decision to remove the in good faith without provision on Categories
of Employees which
42
CBA. The Company has already provided CLOTHMAN certification election. It
filed a petition for for the categories of KNITTING V. CA incidentally resulted to
review in the Court of the employees in the G.R. No. 158158, respondent becoming
Appeals. Company’s January 17, 2005, sour with its relation to
establishment. As Callejo the employees,
ISSUE stated earlier, the prompting it to
Whether or not the work to be performed Petitioner is a temporarily close a
Company is guilty of by PESO was similar legitimate labor union department in the
violating the CBA in to that of the casual of the private company. As a result,
engaging the services employees. With the respondent employer. members and officers
of a third party provision on casual It filed a petition for of
service provider. employees, the hiring petitioner union The allegation that there
of PESO contractual stopped from working can be no work
HELD employees, therefore, and staged a picket stoppage because the
A careful reading of is not in keeping with outside the employer’s operation in the Dyeing
the above- the spirit and intent of building. LA, NLRC and and Finishing Division
enumerated their CBA. It is familiar CA said that there was had been shutdown is
categories of and fundamental strike despite the of no consequence. It
employees reveals doctrine in labor law argument of the bears stressing that the
that the PESO that the CBA is the petitioner that there other divisions were
contractual law between the could not have been a fully operational. There
employees do not fall parties and they are strike considering that is nothing on record
within the obliged to comply with most of those who showing that the union
enumerated its provisions. participated in the members and the
categories of However, this cannot “picket” belong to the supporters who formed
employees stated in be considered unfair temporarily closed a picket line in front of
the CBA of the labor practice, department. the respondent’s
parties. Since the because it is not a compound were
Company had gross violation of the ISSUE assigned to the finishing
admitted that it CBA. Whether or not the so department. As can be
engaged the services called “picket” of the clearly inferred from the
of PESO to perform *** Definition under petitioner union spot reports, employees
temporary or CBA constituted an illegal from the knitting
occasional services Casual Employee – strike. department also joined
which is akin to those One hired by the in picket. The blockade
performed by casual Company to perform HELD of the delivery of trucks
employees, the occasional or Yes. A strike is any and the attendance of
Company should seasonal work directly temporary stoppage of employees from the
have tapped the connected with the work by the concerted other departments of
services of casual regular operations of action of employees as the respondent meant
employees instead of the Company, or one a result of an industrial work stoppage. The
engaging PESO. hired for specific or labor dispute. A placards that the
projects of limited labor dispute includes picketers caused to be
While contracting out duration not any controversy or displayed arose from
services is a connected directly matter concerning matters concerning
management with the regular terms or conditions of terms or conditions of
prerogative, however, operations of the employment or the employment as well as
is not without Company. association or the association or
limitation. In representation of representation of
contracting out persons in negotiating, persons in negotiating,
services, the STRIKES fixing, maintaining, fixing, maintaining,
management must be changing or arranging changing or arranging
motivated by good AND
the terms and the terms and
faith and the LOCKOUT conditions of conditions of
contracting out should
not be resorted to
S employment, employment.
regardless of whether
circumvent the law or the disputants stand in Clearly, the petitioner
must not have been BUKLURAN NG the proximate relation union, its officers,
the result of malicious MGA of employer and members and
arbitrary actions. In employee. supporters staged a
the case at bench, MANGGAGAWA strike. In order for a
the CBA of the parties SA
43
strike to be valid, the on the proposals in YES. The strike is a
following requirements STEEL view of its pending legitimate weapon in
laid down in CORPORATION OF motion for the human struggle for
paragraphs (c) and (f) THE PHILIPPINES reconsideration. a decent existence. It
of Article 263 of the vs. SCP Finding no justification is considered as the
Labor Code must be EMPLOYEES in petitioner's refusal most effective weapon
complied with: (a) a UNION-NATIONAL to bargain with it, in protecting the rights
notice of strike must be FEDERATION OF respondent filed a of the employees to
filed; (b) a strike-vote LABOR UNIONS Notice of Strike with improve the terms and
must be taken; and (c) G.R. Nos. 169829-30, the National conditions of their
the results of the April 16, 2008 Conciliation and employment. But to be
strike-vote must be Mediation Board valid, a strike must be
reported to the Petitioner Steel (NCMB) on December pursued within legal
DOLE.41 It bears Corporation of the 11, 2000. The union bounds. The right to
stressing that these Philippines (SCP) is raised the issue of strike as a means for
requirements are engaged in unfair labor practice the attainment of social
mandatory, meaning, manufacturing (ULP) allegedly justice is never meant
non-compliance construction materials, committed by to oppress or destroy
therewith makes the supplying petitioner for the the employer. The law
strike illegal. The approximately 50% of latter's refusal to provides limits for its
evident intention of the the domestic needs bargain with it. exercise. In the instant
law in requiring the for roofing materials. Meanwhile, the NLRC case, the strike
strike notice and strike- On August 17, 1998, issued a Resolution undertaken by the
vote report is to SCP- Federated dated April 17, 2002, officers of respondent
reasonably regulate Union of the Energy declaring petitioner as union is patently illegal
the right to strike, Leaders – General having no obligation to for the following
which is essential to and Allied Services recognize respondent reasons: (1) it is a
the attainment of (FUEL-GAS) filed a as the certified union-recognition-
legitimate policy petition for bargaining agent; strike which is not
objectives embodied in Certification Election dismissing the charge sanctioned by labor
the law. in its bid to represent of unfair labor laws; (2) it was
the rank- and-file practice; declaring as undertaken after the
Considering that the employees of the illegal the strike held dispute had been
petitioner union failed petitioner. by the union; and certified for
to comply with the Respondent SCP declaring the loss of compulsory arbitration;
aforesaid Employees Union employment of the and (3) it was in
requirements, the (SCPEU) – National officers of the union. violation of the
strike staged on June Federation of Labor Secretary's return-to-
11 to 18, 2001 is Unions (NAFLU) ISSUE work order.
illegal. Consequently, intervened, seeking to Whether or not the Respondent's notices
the officers of the participate and be strike held by the of strike were founded
union who participated voted for in such elect respondents is illegal on petitioner's
therein are deemed to but the same was continued refusal to
have lost their denied for having RULING bargain with it. It thus
employment status. been filed out of time. staged the strike to out a collective
On October 16, 2000, compel petitioner to bargaining agreement
the Undersecretary recognize it as the despite the striking
rendered a Decision collective bargaining union's doubtful majority
certifying respondent agent, making it a status to merit voluntary
as the exclusive union- recognition- recognition and lack of
bargaining agent of strike. As its legal formal certification as
petitioner's designation implies, the exclusive
employees. As a this kind of strike is representative in the
consequence of its calculated to compel bargaining unit
certification as the the employer to
exclusive bargaining recognize one's union BIFLEX PHILS. V.
agent, respondent and not other FILFLEX
sent to petitioner CBA contending groups, as
proposals. Petitioner, the employees' INDUSTRIAL &
however, held in bargaining MANUFACTURING
abeyance any action representative to work CORP.

44
G.R. NO. 155679, Dec. petitioners file a protest BASCON v. CA, roaming around the
19, 2006, Carpio with the management METRO CEBU hospital with placards.
Morales or a complaint therefor COMMUNITY In their collective
against respondents? HOSPITAL, INC. response dated March
The labor sector As the Labor Arbiter G.R. No. 144899. 18, 1996, the union
staged a welga ng observed, [t]he inaction February 5, 2004, members, including
bayan to protest the of [petitioners] betrays Quisumbing petitioners, explained
accelerating prices of the weakness of their that wearing armbands
oil. Petitioner-unions, contention for normally The petitioners in the and putting up
led by their officers, a locked- out union will instant case were placards was their
herein immediately bring employees of private answer to MCCHs
petitioners,staged a management before respondent Metro illegal refusal to
work stoppage which the bar of justice. Cebu Community negotiate with NAMA-
lasted for several Hospital, Inc. (MCCH) MCCH.
days, prompting (3) Yes. They violated and members of the
respondents to file on Article 264(e) of the Nagkahiusang Petitioner Bascon, at
October 31, 1990 a Labor Code which Mamumuosa Metro the time of her
petition to declare the provides that [n]o Cebu Community termination from
work stoppage illegal person engaged in Hospital (NAMA- employment, already
for failure to comply picketing shall obstruct MCCH), a labor union held the position of
with procedural the free ingress to or of MCCH employees. Head Nurse. The other
requirements. egress from the Believing that their petitioner, Cole, had
employers premises for union was the certified been working as a
ISSUES: lawful purposes, or collective bargaining nursing aide with
(1) Is “welga ng bayan” obstruct public agent, the members MCCH. Both
an illegal strike? thoroughfares. and officers of NAMA- petitioners were
(2) Was there an illegal MCCH staged a dismissed by the
lockout? Petitioners, being union series of mass actions respondent hospital for
(3) Are union officers officers, should thus inside MCCHs allegedly participating
liable for blocking the bear the consequences premises for alleged in an illegal
free ingress to and of their acts of failure of MCCH to strike.Bascon and Cole
egress of the company knowingly participating negotiate and renew filed a complaint for
premises? in an illegal strike, the CBA. They illegal dismissal
conformably with the marched around the
HELD: third paragraph of hospital putting up ISSUE
(1) Yes. Stoppage of Article 264 (a) of the streamers, placards Whether or not
work due to welga ng Labor Code and petitioners were validly
bayan is in the nature posters.Subsequently, terminated for
of a general strike, an the Department of (1) allegedly
extended sympathy Labor and participating in an
strike. It affects Employment (DOLE) illegal strike and/or (2)
numerous employers office in Region 7 gross insubordination
including those who do issued two (2) to the order to stop
not have a dispute with certifications stating wearing armbands and
their employees that NAMA-MCCH putting up placards.
regarding their terms was not a registered
and conditions of labor HELD
employment. organization.Meanwhil (1) NO. In this case, it
e, the MCCH was found that
Employees who have management received petitioners actual
no labor dispute with reports that petitioners participation in the
their employer but participated in NAMA- illegal strike was
who, on a day they are MCCHs mass actions. limited to wearing
scheduled to work, Consequently, notices armbands and putting
refuse to work and were served on all up placards. There
instead join a welga ng union members, was no finding that the
bayan commit an petitioners included, armbands or the
illegal work stoppage. asking them to explain placards contained
in writing why they offensive words or
(2) No. If there was were wearing red and symbols. Thus, neither
illegal lockout, why, black ribbons and such wearing of
indeed, did not
45
armbands nor said can be terminated for putting up placards to vehicle manufacturers
putting up of placards mere participation in express ones views in the country
can be construed as an illegal strike, an without violating the employing around
an illegal act. In fact, ordinary striking rights of third parties, 1,400 workers for its
per se, they are within employee, like are legal per se and plants in Bicutan and
the mantle of petitioners herein, even constitutionally Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
constitutional must have protected. Thus, MCCH
protection under participated in the could have done well to On February 14, 1999,
freedom of speech. commission of illegal respect petitioners right the Union filed a
acts during the strike. to freedom of speech petition for certification
In Article 264 (a) of There must be proof instead of threatening election among the
the Labor Code it that they committed them with disciplinary Toyota rank and file
could be gleaned that illegal action and eventually employees with the
while a union officer terminating them. National Conciliation
acts during the strike. An employer may and Mediation Board
Substantial evidence, terminate an TOYOTA MOTOR (NCMB), but this was
which may justify the employment for any of PHILS. CORP. denied by Med- Arbiter
imposition of the the following causes: WORKERS Ma. Zosima C.
penalty of dismissal, (a) Serious misconduct ASSOCIATION Lameyra denied the
may suffice. or willful disobedience (TMPCWA) v. NLRC petition. This order
by the employee of the G.R. Nos. 158786 & was reversed on
Evidence on record lawful orders of his 158789, October 19, appeal to the DOLE
shows that various employer or 2007, Secretary.
illegal acts were representative in Velasco
committed by connection with his On the other hand,
unidentified union work. The Union is a Toyota filed for
members in the course legitimate labor reconsideration but it
of the protracted mass However, willful organization duly was denied. Toyota
action. And we disobedience of the registered with the challenged said Order
commiserate with employers lawful Department of Labor via an appeal to the
MCCH, patients, and orders, as a just cause and Employment DOLE Secretary.
third parties for the for dismissal of an (DOLE) and is the sole
damage they suffered. employee, envisages and exclusive In the meantime, the
But we cannot hold the concurrence of at bargaining agent of all Union submitted its
petitioners responsible least two requisites: Toyota rank and file Collective Bargaining
for acts they did not (1) the employee's employees.Toyota, on Agreement (CBA)
commit. The law, assailed conduct must the other hand, is a proposals to Toyota,
obviously solicitous of have been willful, that domestic corporation but the latter refused to
the welfare of the is, characterized by a engaged in the negotiate in view of its
common worker, wrongful and perverse assembly and sale of pending appeal.
requires, before attitude; and (2) the vehicles and parts, and Consequently, the
termination may be order violated must one of the largest Union filed a notice of
considered, that an have been reasonable, motor strike on January 16,
ordinary union lawful, made known to 2001 with the NCMB
member must have the employee and must based on Toyota’s
knowingly participated pertain to the duties refusal to bargain. On
in the commission of which he had been February 5, 2001, the
illegal acts during a engaged to discharge. NCMB-NCR converted
strike. the notice of strike into
In this case, we find a preventive mediation
(2) As regards the lacking the element of case on the ground
appellate courts willfulness that the issue of
finding that petitioners characterized by a whether or not the
were justly terminated perverse mental Union is the exclusive
for gross attitude on the part of bargaining agent of all
insubordination or petitioners in Toyota rank and file
willful disobedience, disobeying their employees was still
Article 282 of the employers order as to unresolved by the
Labor Code provides warrant the ultimate DOLE Secretary.
in part: penalty of dismissal.
Wearing armbands and In connection with

46
Toyota’s appeal, February 27, 2001, members and officers, Meanwhile, on May 23,
Toyota and the Union Toyota sent individual the Union went on 2001, at around 12:00
were required to letters to some 360 strike on March 17, nn., despite the
attend a hearing on employees requiring 2001. Subsequently, issuance of the DOLE
February 21, 2001 them to explain within from March 28, 2001 to Secretary’s
before the Bureau of 24 hours why they April 12, 2001, the certification Order,
Labor Relations should not be Union intensified its several payroll-
(BLR). The hearing dismissed for their strike by barricading reinstated members of
was cancelled and obstinate defiance of the gates of Toyota’s the Union staged a
reset to February 22, the company’s Bicutan and Sta. Rosa protest rally in front of
2001. On February directive to render plants. The strikers Toyota’s Bicutan Plant.
21, 2001, 135 Union overtime work on prevented workers who Then, on May 28,
officers and members February 21, 2001, for reported for work from 2001, around forty-
failed to render the their failure to report entering the plants. four (44) Union
required overtime for work on February members staged
work, and instead 22 and 23, 2001, and another protest action
marched to and for their participation in front of the Bicutan
staged a picket in in the concerted Plant. At the same
front of the BLR office actions which severely time, some twenty-nine
in Intramuros, Manila. disrupted and (29) payroll-reinstated
Mass actions on paralyzed the plant’s employees picketed in
February 22 and 23, operations.Meanwhile, front of the Santa Rosa
2001 in front of the a February 27, 2001 Plant’s main entrance,
BLR and the DOLE Manifesto was and were later joined
offices pushed circulated by the by other Union
through. Toyota Union which urged its members.
experienced acute members to
lack of manpower in participate in a On June 5, 2001,
its manufacturing and strike/picket and to notwithstanding the
production lines, and abandon their posts. certification Order, the
was unable to meet Union filed another
its production goals On the next day, the notice of strike, which
resulting in huge Union filed with the was docketed as
losses of PhP NCMB another notice NCMB-NCR-NS-06-
53,849,991. of strike for union 150-01.
busting amounting to
Soon thereafter, on unfair labor practice. In the meantime, the
On March 1, 2001, the employees on February NLRC ordered both
Union nonetheless 22 and 23, 2001 could parties to submit their
submitted an not be classified as an respective position
explanation in illegal strike or picket, papers on June 8,
compliance with the and that Toyota had 2001. The union,
February 27, 2001 already condoned the however, requested for
notices sent by Toyota alleged acts when it abeyance of the
to the erring accepted back the proceedings pending
employees. The Union subject employees. the petition for
members explained certiorari with the CA.
that their refusal to On March 16, 2001, On June 19, 2001, the
work on their Toyota terminated the NLRC issued an
scheduled work time employment of 227 Order, reiterating its
for two consecutive employees for previous order for both
days was simply an participation in parties to submit their
exercise of their concerted actions in respective position
constitutional right to violation of its Code of papers on or before
peaceably assemble Conduct and for June 2, 2001. On June
and to petition the misconduct under 27, 2001, the Union
government for Article 282 of the Labor filed a Motion for
redress of grievances. Code. Reconsideration of the
It further argued that NLRC’s June 19, 2001
the demonstrations In reaction to the Order, praying for the
staged by the dismissal of its union deferment of the

47
submission of
position papers until
its petition for
On March 29, 2001,
Toyota filed a petition
for injunction with a
prayer for the issuance
of a temporary
restraining order
(TRO) with the NLRC
to seek free ingress to
and egress from its
Bicutan and Sta. Rosa
manufacturing plants,
this was granted by the
NLRC.Meanwhile,
Toyota filed a petition
to declare the strike
illegal with the NLRC
arbitration branch,
which was docketed as
NLRC NCR (South)
Case No. 30-04-
01775-01, and prayed
that the erring Union
officers, directors, and
members be
dismissed.
On April 10, 2001, the
DOLE Secretary
assumed jurisdiction
over the labor dispute
and issued an
Ordercertifying the
labor dispute to the
NLRC. In said Order,
the DOLE Secretary
directed all striking
workers to return to
work at their regular
shifts by April 16, 2001
and ordered Toyota to
accept the returning
employees under the
same terms and
conditions obtaining
prior to the strike or at
its option, put them
under payroll
reinstatement. The
Union ended the strike
on April 12, 2001. The
union members and
officers tried to return
to work on April 16,
2001 but were told that
Toyota opted for
payroll-reinstatement
authorized by the
Order of the DOLE
certiorari is resolved On June 29, 2001, dismissed employees
by the CA. only Toyota submitted based on social
its position paper. On justice.
July 11, 2001, the
Secretary. NLRC again ordered ISSUES
the Union to submit its (1) Whether the mass
In the meantime, the position paper by July actions committed by
Union filed a motion for 19, 2001, with a the Union on different
reconsideration of the warning that upon occasions are illegal
DOLE Secretary’s April failure for it to do so, strikes; and
10, 2001 certification the case shall be (2) Whether
Order, which, however, considered submitted separation pay should
was denied by the for decision. be awarded to the
DOLE Secretary in her Meanwhile, on July Union members who
May 25, 2001 17, 2001, the CA participated in the
Resolution. dismissed the Union’s illegal strikes.
Consequently, a petition for certiorari.
petition for certiorari
was filed before the During the August 3,
CA, which was 2001 hearing, the
docketed as CA-G.R. Union, despite several
SP No. 64998. accommodations, still
failed to submit its
position paper. Later
that day, the Union
claimed it filed its
position paper by
registered mail.
Subsequently, the
NLRC, in its August 9,
2001 Decision,
declared the strikes
staged by the Union
on February 21 to 23,
2001 and May 23 and
28, 2001 as illegal.
Accordingly, both
Toyota and the Union
filed Motions for
Reconsideration,
which the NLRC
denied in its
September 14, 2001
Resolution. The CA
then consolidated the
petitions.
In justifying the recall
of the severance
compensation, the CA
considered the
participation in illegal
strikes as serious
misconduct. However,
in its June 20, 2003
Resolution, the CA
modified its February
27, 2003 Decision by
reinstating severance
compensation to the
48
RULING
The Union contends that the NLRC violated its right to
due process when it disregarded its position paper in
deciding Toyota’s petition to declare the strike illegal. It
is entirely the Union’s fault that its position paper was
not considered by the NLRC. Records readily reveal
that the NLRC was even too generous in affording due
process to the Union. It issued no less than three (3)
orders for the parties to submit its position papers,
which the Union ignored until the last minute. No
sufficient justification was offered why the Union
belatedly filed its position paper.
Petitioner Union contends that the protests or rallies
conducted on February 21 and 23, 2001 are not within
the ambit of strikes as defined in the Labor Code,
since they were legitimate exercises of their right to
peaceably assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances. The Union’s position fails to
convince us.
While the facts in Philippine Blooming Mills Employees
Organization are similar in some respects to that of the
present case, the Union fails to realize one major
difference: there was no labor dispute in Philippine
Blooming Mills Employees Organization. In the present
case, there was an on-going labor dispute arising from
Toyota’s refusal to recognize and negotiate with the
Union, which was the subject of the notice of strike
filed by the Union on January 16, 2001.
A strike means any temporary stoppage of work by the
concerted action of employees as a result of an
industrial or labor dispute. A labor dispute, in turn,
includes any controversy or matter concerning terms
or conditions of employment or the association or
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and
conditions of employment, regardless of whether the
disputants stand in the proximate relation of the
employer and the employee.35
The protest actions undertaken by the Union officials
and members on February 21 to 23, 2001 are not valid
and proper exercises of their right to assemble and ask
government for redress of their complaints, but are
illegal strikes in breach of the Labor Code. The Union’s
position is weakened by the lack of permit from the
City of Manila to hold "rallies." Shrouded as
demonstrations, they were in reality temporary
stoppages of work perpetrated through the concerted
action of the employees who deliberately failed to
report for work on the convenient excuse that they will
hold a rally at the BLR and DOLE offices in Intramuros,
Manila, on February 21 to 23, 2001. The purported
reason for these protest actions was to safeguard their
rights against any abuse which the med-arbiter may
commit against their cause. However, the Union failed
to advance convincing proof that the med-arbiter was
biased against them.
It is obvious that the February 21 to 23, 2001
concerted actions were undertaken without satisfying
the prerequisites for a valid strike under Art. 263 of the
Labor Code. These requirements are mandatory and
the failure of a union to comply with them renders the
strike illegal.
Moreover, the aforementioned February 2001 strikes
are in blatant violation of Sec. D, par. 6 of Toyota’s
Code of Conduct which prohibits "inciting or
participating in riots, disorders, alleged strikes or
concerted actions detrimental to [Toyota’s] interest."
The penalty for the offense is dismissal. The Union
and its members are bound by the company rules, and
the February 2001 mass actions and deliberate refusal
to render regular and overtime work on said days
violated these rules. In sum, the February 2001 strikes
and walk-outs were illegal as these were in violation of
specific requirements of the Labor Code and a
company rule against illegal strikes or concerted
actions.
With respect to the strikes committed from March 17 to
April 12, 2001, those were initially legal as the legal
requirements were met. However, on March 28 to April
12, 2001, the Union barricaded the gates of the
Bicutan and Sta. Rosa plants and blocked the free
ingress to and egress from the company premises.
Toyota employees, customers, and other people
having business with the company were intimidated
and were refused entry to the plants. As earlier
explained, these strikes were illegal because unlawful
means were employed.
Petitioner Union also posits that strikes were not
committed on May 23 and 28, 2001. The Union asserts
that the rallies held on May 23 and 28, 2001 could not
be considered strikes, as the participants were the
dismissed employees who were on payroll
reinstatement. It concludes that there was no work
stoppage. This contention has no basis.
It is clear that once the DOLE Secretary assumes
jurisdiction over the labor dispute and certifies the case
for compulsory arbitration with the NLRC, the parties
have to revert to the status quo ante (the state of
things as it was before). As provided under Article
2634(g) of the Labor Code, all striking workers are
directed to return to work at their regular shifts by April
16, 2001; the Company is in turn directed to accept
them back to work under the same terms and
conditions obtaining prior to the work stoppage,
subject to the option of the company to merely
reinstate a worker or workers in the payroll in light of
the negative emotions that the strike has generated
and the need to prevent the further deterioration of the
relationship between the company and its workers.
While it may be conceded that there was no work
disruption in the two Toyota plants, the fact still
remains that the Union and its members picketed and participated in several mass actions, viz:
performed concerted actions in front of the Company
premises. This is a patent violation of the assumption
of jurisdiction and certification Order of the DOLE
Secretary, which ordered the parties "to cease and
desist from committing any act that might lead to the
worsening of an already deteriorated situation." While
there are no work stoppages, the pickets and
concerted actions outside the plants have a
demoralizing and even chilling effect on the workers
inside the plants and can be considered as veiled
threats of possible trouble to the workers when they go
out of the company premises after work and of
impending disruption of operations to company officials
and even to customers in the days to come.

From the foregoing discussion, we rule that the

February 21 to 23, 2001 concerted actions, the March
17 to April 12, 2001 strikes, and the May 23 and 28,
2001 mass actions were illegal strikes.

Union officers are liable for unlawful strikes or illegal

acts during a strike. It is clear that the responsibility of
union officials is greater than that of the members. The
Union officials were in clear breach of Art. 264(a) when
they knowingly participated in the illegal strikes held
from February 21 to 23, 2001, from March 17 to April
12, 2001, and on May 23 and 28, 2001.

Member’s liability depends on participation in illegal

acts. Art. 264(a) of the Labor Code provides that a
member is liable when he knowingly participates in an
illegal act "during a strike." While the provision is silent
on whether the strike is legal or illegal, we find that the
same is irrelevant. As long as the members commit
illegal acts, in a legal or illegal strike, then they can be
terminated. However, when union members merely
participate in an illegal strike without committing any
illegal act, are they liable? This was squarely
answered in Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v.
NLRC, where it was held that an ordinary striking
worker cannot be terminated for mere participation in
an illegal strike. This was an affirmation of the rulings
in Bacus v. Ople and Progressive Workers Union v.
Aguas, where it was held that though the strike is
illegal, the ordinary member who merely participates in
the strike should not be meted loss of employment on
the considerations of compassion and good faith and
in view of the security of tenure provisions under the
Constitution. In Esso Philippines, Inc. v.
MalayangManggagawasa Esso (MME), it was
explained that a member is not responsible for the
union’s illegal strike even if he voted for the holding of
a strike which became illegal. Thus, the rule on
vicarious liability of a union member was abandoned
and it is only when a striking worker "knowingly
participates in the commission of illegal acts during a
strike" that he will be penalized with dismissal.

In the cases at bench, the individual respondents

 (1) The rallies held at the DOLE and BLR
offices on February 21, 22, and 23, 2001;
(2) The strikes held on March 17 to April 12,
2001; and
(3) The rallies and picketing on May 23 and
28, 2001 in front of the Toyota Bicutan and
Sta. Rosa plants.
Did they commit illegal acts during the illegal strikes
on February 21 to 23, 2001, from March 17 to April
12,
2001, and on May 23 and 28, 2001? The answer is in
the affirmative. As we have ruled that the strikes by
the Union on the three different occasions were
illegal, we now proceed to determine the individual
liabilities of the affected union members for acts
committed during these forbidden concerted actions.
After a scrutiny of the records, we find that the 227
employees indeed joined the February 21, 22, and
23, 2001 rallies and refused to render overtime work
or report for work. These rallies, as we earlier ruled,
are in reality illegal strikes, as the procedural
requirements for strikes under Art. 263 were not
complied with. Worse, said strikes were in violation of
the company rule prohibiting acts "in citing or
participating in riots, disorders, alleged strikes or
concerted action detrimental to Toyota’s interest."
Anent the March 28 to April 12, 2001 strikes,
evidence is ample to show commission of illegal acts
like acts of coercion or intimidation and obstructing
free ingress to or egress from the company premises.
around by the CA in granting separation pay in its June
20, 2003 Resolution after initially denying it in its
February 27, 2003 Decision. The general rule is that
when just causes for terminating the services of an
employee under Art. 282 of the Labor Code exist, the
employee is not entitled to separation pay. The
apparent reason behind the forfeiture of the right to
termination pay is that lawbreakers should not benefit
from their illegal acts. The dismissed employee,
however, is entitled to "whatever rights, benefits and
privileges [s/he] may have under the applicable
individual or collective bargaining agreement with the
employer or voluntary employer policy or practice" 65 or
under the Labor Code and other existing laws. With
respect to benefits granted by the CBA provisions and
voluntary management policy or practice, the
entitlement of the dismissed employees to the benefits
depends on the stipulations of the CBA or the
company rules and policies.
As in any rule, there are exceptions. One exception
where separation pay is given even though an
employee is validly dismissed is when the court finds
justification in applying the principle of social justice
well entrenched in the 1987 Constitution.
We hold that henceforth separation pay shall be
allowed as a measure of social justice only in those
instances where the employee is validly dismissed for
Mr. Eduardo Nicolas III, Toyota’s Security Chief,
attested in his affidavit that the strikers "badmouthed
people coming in and shouted invectives such as
bakeru at Japanese officers of the company." The
strikers even pounded the vehicles of Toyota officials.
More importantly, they prevented the ingress of Toyota
employees, customers, suppliers, and other persons
who wanted to transact business with the company.
These were patent violations of Art. 264(e) of the
Labor Code, and may even constitute crimes under the
Revised Penal Code such as threats or coercion
among others.
Lastly, the strikers, though on payroll reinstatement,
staged protest rallies on May 23, 2001 and May 28,
2001 in front of the Bicutan and Sta. Rosa plants.
These workers’ acts in joining and participating in the
May 23 and 28, 2001 rallies or pickets were patent
violations of the April 10, 2001 assumption of
jurisdiction/certification Order issued by the DOLE
Secretary, which proscribed the commission of acts
that might lead to the "worsening of an already
deteriorated situation." Art. 263(g) is clear that strikers
who violate the assumption/certification Order may
suffer dismissal from work. This was the situation in
the May 23 and 28, 2001 pickets and concerted
actions, with the following employees who committed
illegal acts:
Anent the grant of severance compensation to legally
dismissed union members, Toyota assails the turn-
causes other than serious misconduct or those
reflecting on his moral character. Where the reason for
the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual intoxication
or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit
sexual relations with a fellow worker, the employer may
not be required to give the dismissed employee
separation pay, or financial assistance, or whatever
other name it is called, on the ground of social justice.
A recall of recent cases decided bearing on the issue
reveals that when the termination is legally justified on
any of the grounds under Art. 282, separation pay was
not allowed. In all of the foregoing situations, the Court
declined to grant termination pay because the causes
for dismissal recognized under Art. 282 of the Labor
Code were serious or grave in nature and attended by
willful or wrongful intent or they reflected adversely on
the moral character of the employees. We therefore find
that in addition to serious misconduct, in dismissals
based on other grounds under Art. 282 like willful
disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duty, fraud
or willful breach of trust, and commission of a crime
against the employer or his family, separation pay
should not be conceded to the dismissed employee.
In the case at bench, are the 227 striking employees
entitled to separation pay?
In the instant case, the CA concluded that the illegal
strikes committed by the Union members constituted
serious misconduct.In disposing of the Union’s plea for reconsideration of its February 27, 2003 Decision, the
CA however performed a volte-face by reinstating the
award of separation pay. The CA’s grant of separation
pay is an erroneous departure from our ruling in Phil.
Long Distance Telephone Co. v. NLRC that serious
misconduct forecloses the award of separation pay.

NUWHRAIN – Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter v. CA

G.R. No. 163942, November 11, 2008, Velasco

Quick Facts: This case is with regard to the shaving of

heads issue of Hotel Employees. Whether such act,
among others, under certain circumstances amount to
an illegal strike. The SC said, yes it is.

FACTS
The Union is the certified bargaining agent of the
regular rank-and-file employees of Dusit Hotel Nikko
(Hotel), a five star service establishment owned and
operated by Philippine Hoteliers, Inc. located in Makati
City.

On October 24, 2000, the Union submitted its CBA

negotiation proposals to the Hotel. As negotiations
ensued, the parties failed to arrive at mutually
acceptable terms and conditions. Due to the
bargaining deadlock, the Union, on December 20,
2001, filed a Notice of Strike on the ground of the
bargaining deadlock with the NCMB. Thereafter,
conciliation hearings were conducted which proved
unsuccessful.

Consequently, a Strike Vote was conducted by the

Union on January 14, 2002 on which it was decided
that the Union would wage a strike.

Soon thereafter, in the afternoon of January 17, 2002,

the Union held a general assembly at its office located
in the Hotel's basement, where some members
sported closely cropped hair or cleanly shaven heads.
The next day, or on January 18, 2002, more male
Union members came to work sporting the same hair
style. The Hotel prevented these workers from
entering the premises claiming that they violated the
Hotel's Grooming Standards.

In view of the Hotel's action, the Union staged a picket

outside the Hotel premises. Later, other workers were
also prevented from entering the Hotel causing them to
join the picket. For this reason the Hotel experienced a
severe lack of manpower which forced them to
temporarily cease operations in three restaurants.

Subsequently, on January 20, 2002, the Hotel issued

notices to Union members, preventively suspending
them and charging them with the following offenses:
(1) violation of the duty to bargain in good faith; (2)
illegal picket; (3) unfair labor practice; (4) violation of
the Hotel's Grooming Standards; (5) illegal strike; and
(6) commission of illegal acts during the illegal strike.
The next day, the Union filed with the NCMB a second
Notice of Strike on the ground of unfair labor practice
and violation of Article 248(a) of the Labor Code on
illegal lockout, which was docketed as NCMB-NCR-
NS-01-019-02. In the meantime, the Union officers and
members submitted their explanations to the charges
alleged by the Hotel, while they continued to stage a
picket just inside the Hotel's compound.
On January 26, 2002, the Hotel terminated the
services of 29 Union officers and 61 members; and
suspended 136 employees from 5-30 days. On the
same day, the Union declared a strike. Starting that
day, the Union engaged in picketing the premises of
the Hotel. During the picket, the Union officials and
members unlawfully blocked the ingress and egress of
the Hotel premises.
Consequently, on January 31, 2002, the Union filed its
third Notice of Strike with the NCMB which, this time
on the ground of unfair labor practice and union-
busting.
On the same day, the Secretary, through her January
31, 2002 Order, assumed jurisdiction over the labor
dispute and certified the case to the NLRC for
compulsory arbitration. The Hotel was ordered either
to have actual or payroll reinstatement of dismissed
employees.
After due proceedings, the NLRC issued its October 9,
2002 Decision in which it ordered the Hotel and the
Union to execute a CBA within 30 days from the
receipt of the decision. The NLRC also held that the
January 18, 2002 concerted action was an illegal strike
in which illegal acts were committed by the Union; and
that the strike violated the "No Strike, No Lockout"
provision of the CBA, which thereby caused the
dismissal of 29 Union officers and 61 Union members.
The NLRC ordered the Hotel to grant the 61 dismissed
Union members financial assistance in the amount of
½ month's pay for every year of service or their
retirement benefits under their retirement plan
whichever was higher.
The NLRC explained that the strike which occurred on
January 18, 2002 was illegal because it failed to
comply with the mandatory 30-day cooling-off period
and the seven-day strike ban, as the strike occurred
only 29 days after the submission of the notice of strike
on December 20, 2001 and only four days after the
submission of the strike vote on January 14, 2002. The
NLRC also ruled that even if the Union had complied
with the temporal requirements mandated by law, the
strike would nonetheless be declared illegal because it
was attended by illegal acts committed by the Union
officers and members.
The Union MR of the NLRC's Decision was denied.
The Union filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
50
with the CA.
CA upheld NLRC’s Ruling. The CA ratiocinated that
the Union failed to demonstrate that the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion and capriciously
exercised its judgment or exercised its power in an
arbitrary and despotic manner. Union’s MR was again
denied.
ISSUES
1. May the Secretary order payroll reinstatement rather
than actual reinstatement? - YES
2. Did the union stage an illegal strike? – YES
- May Hotel Nikko legally prevent employees from
reporting for work for alleged violation of the hotel's
grooming standards? – YES
- Was there an illegal lock-out committed by Hotel
Nikko? - NO
RULING:
1. YES. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code states that
all workers must immediately return to work and
all employers must readmit all of them under the
same terms and conditions prevailing before the
strike or lockout. The phrase "under the same
terms and conditions" makes it clear that the norm
is actual reinstatement. This is consistent with the
idea that any work stoppage or slowdown in that
particular industry can be detrimental to the
national interest.
Thus, it was settled that in assumption of
jurisdiction cases, the Secretary should impose
actual reinstatement in accordance with the intent
and spirit of Art. 263(g) of the Labor Code.
However, this one is subject to exceptions. In
Manila Diamond Hotel Employees' Union v. Court
of Appeals that payroll reinstatement is a
departure from the rule, and special
circumstances which make actual reinstatement
impracticable must be shown. In one case, payroll
reinstatement was allowed where the employees
previously occupied confidential positions,
because their actual reinstatement, the Court
said, would be impracticable and would only serve
to exacerbate the situation.
The peculiar circumstances in the present case
validate the Secretary's decision to order payroll
reinstatement instead of actual reinstatement. It is
obviously impracticable for the Hotel to actually
reinstate the employees who shaved their heads
or cropped their hair because this was exactly the
reason they were prevented from working in the
first place. Further, as with most labor disputes
which have resulted in strikes, there is mutual
antagonism, enmity, and animosity between the
union and the management. Payroll
reinstatement, most especially in this case, would
have been the only avenue where further
incidents and damages could be avoided. Public
 officials Labor Code such as a no- not need to
entrusted with on the strike clause advertise its
specific requisites or conclusive labor problems
jurisdictions of a valid arbitration with its clients. It
enjoy great strike]; or clause. can be gleaned
confidence from 3. when it is from the records
this Court. The declared The Union staged before us that
Secretary surely for an an illegal strike. the Union
meant only to unlawful First, the Union's officers and
ensure industrial purpose, violation of the members
peace as she such as Hotel's Grooming deliberately and
assumed inducing Standards was in apparent
jurisdiction over the clearly a concert shaved
the labor employer to deliberate and their heads or
dispute. In this commit an concerted action cropped their
case, we are not unfair labor to undermine the hair. This was
ready to practice authority of and shown by the
substitute our against to embarrass the fact that after
own findings in non-union Hotel and was,
the absence of a employees; therefore, not a
clear showing of or protected action.
grave abuse of 4. when it The appearances
discretion on her employs of the Hotel
part. unlawful employees
means in directly reflect the
2. Art. 212(o) of the the pursuit character and
Labor Code of its well- being of the
defines a strike objective, Hotel, being a
as "any such as a five-star hotel
temporary widespread that provides
stoppage of work terrorism of service to top-
by the concerted non-strikers notch clients.
action of [for Being bald or
employees as a example, having cropped
result of an prohibited hair per se does
industrial or acts under not evoke
labor dispute." Art. 264(e) negative or
of the unpleasant
Noted authority Labor feelings. The
on labor law, Code]; or reality that a
Ludwig Teller, 5. when it is substantial
lists six (6) declared in number of
categories of an violation of employees
illegal strike, viz.: an existing assigned to the
1. when it is injunction[, food and
contrary to a such as beverage outlets
specific injunction, of the Hotel with
prohibition of prohibition, full heads of hair
law, such as or order suddenly decided
strike by issued by to come to work
employees the DOLE bald-headed or
performing Secretary with cropped hair,
governmenta and the however,
l functions; NLRC suggests that
or under Art. something is
2. when it 263 of the amiss and
violates a Labor insinuates a
specific Code]; or sense that
requirement 6. when it is something out of
of law[, such contrary to the ordinary is
as Article an existing afoot. Obviously,
263 of the agreement, the Hotel does
51
coming to work on Grooming Implementing Rules calculated to
January 18, 2002, Standards which of Book V of the antagonize and
some Union resulted in the Labor Code. This embarrass the
members even had temporary rule prohibits the Hotel management
their heads shaved cessation and commission of any and in doing so
or their hair cropped disruption of the act which will disrupt effectively
at the Union office Hotel's operations or impede the early disrupted the
in the Hotel's is an unprotected settlement of the operations of the
basement. Clearly, act and should be labor disputes that Hotel and violated
the decision to considered as an are under their duty to
violate the company illegal strike. conciliation. Since bargain collectively
rule on grooming Second, the the bargaining in good faith.
was designed and Union's concerted deadlock is being
calculated to place action which conciliated by the Fourth, the Union
the Hotel disrupted the NCMB, the Union's failed to observe
management on its Hotel's operations action to have their the mandatory 30-
heels and to force it clearly violated the officers and day cooling-off
to agree to the CBA's "No Strike, members' heads period and the
Union's proposals. No Lockout" shaved was seven-day strike
Clause. manifestly
In view of the ban before it disruption of the
Union's The facts are clear conducted the Hotel's operations
collaborative effort that the strike strike on January clearly violated the
to violate the Hotel's arose out of a 18, 2002. The above-stated
Grooming bargaining NLRC correctly mandatory periods.
Standards, it deadlock in the held that the Union
succeeded in CBA negotiations failed to observe CAPITOL MEDICAL
forcing the Hotel to with the Hotel. The the mandatory CENTER, INC.,
choose between concerted action is periods before petitioner, vs.
allowing its an economic strike conducting or NATIONAL LABOR
inappropriately hair upon which the holding a strike. RELATIONS
styled employees to afore-quoted "no Records reveal COMMISSION, et
continue working, to strike/work that the Union filed al.
the detriment of its stoppage and its Notice of Strike G.R. No. 147080. April
reputation, or to lockout" on the ground of 26, 2005, Callejo
refuse them work, prohibition is bargaining
even if it had to squarely deadlock on Respondent Capitol
cease operations in applicable and December 20, Medical Center
affected legally binding. 2001. The 30-day Employees Association-
departments or cooling-off period Alliance of Filipino
service units, which Third, the Union should have been Workers (Union)
in either way would officers and until January 19, demanded to be
disrupt the members' 2002. On top of certified as the
operations of the concerted action that, the strike exclusive bargaining
Hotel. This Court is to shave their vote was held on agent of Petitioner
of the opinion, heads and crop January 14, 2002 Company’s rank-and-
therefore, that the their hair not only and was submitted file employees. The
act of the Union violated the to the NCMB only Union had to contend
was not merely an Hotel's Grooming on January 18, with another union the
expression of their Standards but also 2002; therefore, Capitol Medical Center
grievance or violated the the 7-day strike Alliance of Concerned
displeasure but, Union's duty and ban should have Employees (CMC-
indeed, a calibrated responsibility to prevented them ACE). Med-Arbiter
and calculated act bargain in good from holding a granted the petition, but
designed to inflict faith. By shaving strike until January the Secretary of DOLE
serious damage to their heads and 25, 2002. The reversed the same.
the Hotel's finances cropping their hair, concerted action Because of the Union’s
or its reputation. the Union officers committed by the questioned majority
Thus, we hold that and members Union on January status, Petitioner
the Union's violated then 18, 2002 which refused to negotiate a
concerted violation Section 6, Rule resulted in the CBA. This resulted in a
of the Hotel's XIII of the
52
union-led strike by the and until the NCMB is order, the petitioners them back under the
Union. notified at least 24 went on strike on July same terms and
hours of the unions 23, paralyzing the conditions prevailing
ISSUE decision to conduct a respondents before the strike. The
Is the strike illegal? strike vote, and the operations. The SOLE terminated workers
date, place, and time was thus constrained asserted that said
HELD thereof, the NCMB to issue the Order phrase must be
YES. Respondent cannot determine for dated July 23, 1999 construed to mean that
Union failed to comply itself whether to directing all striking they be reinstated to
with the mandatory supervise a strike vote workers to return to their former
twenty-four (24) hour meeting or not and work within twelve assignments. The
notice to the NCMB for insure its peaceful and (12) hours from respondent posited
the conduct of a strike regular conduct. The receipt of this Order that it refers only to
vote. failure of a union to and for the Company their salary grades,
comply with the to accept them back rank and seniority, but
“Unless the NCMB is requirement of the under the same terms cannot encompass the
notified of the date, giving of notice to the and conditions usurpation of
place and time of the NCMB at least 24 prevailing before the managements
meeting of the union hours prior to the strike. prerogative to
members for the holding of a strike vote determine where its
conduct of a strike meeting will render On even date, twenty- employees are to be
vote, the NCMB would the subsequent strike one (21) of the striking assigned nor to
be unable to supervise staged by the union workers, including the determine their job
the holding of the illegal.” individual petitioners, assignments.
same, if and when it were dismissed from
decides to exercise its TRANS-ASIA employment by the ISSUE
power of supervision.” SHIPPING LINES, respondent for alleged Whether or not the
INC. - UNLICENSED violation of the cease- striking employees
“The requirement of CREWS and-desist directive may be reinstated in
giving notice of the EMPLOYEES UNION contained in the Order their former
conduct of a strike ASSOCIATED of July 20, 1999 by assignments by virtue
vote to the NCMB at LABOR UNIONS waging an illegal of the phrase "for the
least 24 hours before (TASLI-ALU) et. al. strike. company to accept
the meeting for the vs. COURT OF them back under the
said purpose is APPEALS and The bone of same terms and
designed to (a) inform TRANS-ASIA contention between conditions prevailing
the NCMB of the intent SHIPPING LINES, the parties hinged on before the strike" in the
of the union to conduct INC. the proper Order issued by the
a strike vote; (b) give G.R. No. 145428, July interpretation of the SOLE?
the NCMB ample time 7, 2004, Callejo phrase for the
to decide on whether company to accept HELD
or not there is a need On July 6 and 7, Yes. The respondent returned to their ship
to supervise the 1999, the two unions cannot rightfully assignments as before
conduct of the strike filed separate notices exercise its they staged their strike.
vote to prevent any of strike with the managements To reiterate, Article 263
acts of violence and/or NCMB-RB VII against prerogative to (g) of the Labor Code
irregularities attendant the respondent on the determine where its constitutes an exception
thereto; and (c) should ground of ULP. Then employees are to be to the management
the NCMB decide on Secretary of Labor assigned or to prerogative of hiring,
its own initiative or Bienvenido E. determine their job firing, transfer, demotion
upon the request of an Laguesma intervened assignments in view of and promotion of
interested party and issued the Order the explicit directive employees. And to the
including the dated July 20, 1999 contained in the Orders extent that Article 263
employer, to supervise certifying the labor of the SOLE to accept (g) calls for the
the strike vote, to give dispute to the NLRC the striking workers admission of all workers
it ample time to for compulsory back under the same under the same terms
prepare for the arbitration and terms and conditions and conditions
deployment of the enjoining any strike or prevailing prior to the prevailing before the
requisite personnel, lock-out. strike. The order simply strike, the respondent is
including peace means that the restricted from
officers if need be. Despite the aforesaid employees should be exercising its generally
Unless
53
unbounded right to setting up a stationary Yes. The Secretary asserts, was not
transfer or reassign its picket at the main properly took properly submitted for
employees. The entrance of the cognizance of the resolution of the
respondent is building.Then Acting issue on the legality of Secretary. The
mandated, under the Labor Secretary the strike. As the authority of the
said order, to issue Cresenciano Court of Appeals Secretary to assume
embarkation orders to B. Trajano issued an correctly pointed out, jurisdiction over a labor
the employees to Order assuming since the very reason dispute causing or
enable them to report jurisdiction over the of the Secretarys likely to cause a strike
to their ship dispute, enjoining any assumption of or lockout in an
assignments in strike or lockout, jurisdiction was PEUs industry indispensable
compliance with the whether threatened or declaration of the to national interest
Order of the Secretary actual, directing the strike, any issue includes and extends
of Labor. parties to cease and regarding the strike is to all questions and
desist from committing not merely incidental controversies arising
PHILCOM any act that may to, but is essentially from such labor
EMPLOYEES UNION exacerbate the involved in, the labor dispute. The power is
V. PHIL. GLOBAL situation, directing the dispute itself.The plenary and
COMMUNICATIONS striking workers to powers granted to the discretionary in nature
G.R. No. 144315, July return to work within Secretary under to enable him to
17, 2006, Carpio twenty-four (24) hours Article 263(g) of the effectively and
from receipt of the Labor Code have efficiently dispose of
Upon the expiration of Secretary’s Order and been characterized as the dispute.
the Collective for management to an exercise of the
Bargaining Agreement resume normal police power of the NISSAN MOTORS VS.
(CBA) between operations, as well as State, with the aim of SECRETARY OF
petitioner Philcom accept the workers promoting public LABOR
Employees Union back under the same good.When the G.R. Nos. 158190-91,
(PEU or union, for terms and conditions Secretary exercises June 21, 2006, Garcia
brevity) and private prior to the strike.The these powers, he is
respondent Philippine Secretary of Labor granted great breadth A bargaining deadlock
Global adjudicated, among of discretion in order prompted the filing of
Communications, Inc. other things, that the to find a solution to a four notices of strike by
(Philcom, Inc.), the strike was illegal. labor dispute. The the labor union. The
parties started most obvious of these DOLE, upon Nissan
negotiations for the ISSUE powers is the Motor’s petition, issued
renewal of their CBA. WON the Secretary automatic enjoining of an order assuming
While negotiations properly took an impending strike or jurisdiction over the
were ongoing, PEU cognizance of the issue lockout or its lifting if dispute. Consequently,
filedwith the National on the alleged illegal one has already taken the DOLE Secretary
Conciliation and strike even though it place.In this case, the issued an order
Mediation Board was not properly Secretary assumed expressly enjoining
(NCMB) National submitted to the jurisdiction over the any strike or lockout
Capital Region, a Secretary for dispute because it and directed the
Notice of Strikedue to resolution? falls in an industry parties to cease and
perceived unfair labor indispensable to the desist from committing
practice committed by HELD national interest. It is any act that may
the company, and of no moment that exacerbate the
another Notice of PEU never situation. Several
Strikeon the ground of acquiesced to the Union Officers were
bargaining deadlock. submission for dismissed due to the
While the union and resolution of the issue continued conduct of a
the company officers on the legality of the slowdown – union
and representatives strike. PEU cannot members who
were meeting, the prevent resolution of participated in such
remaining union the legality of the were not. Petitioners
officers and members strike by merely fault the NLRC for
staged a strike at the refusing to submit the dismissing only the
company premises, issue for resolution. It union officers for
barricading the is also immaterial that violation of the return
entrances and this issue, as PEU to work order.
egresses thereof and
54
 bounds of the law – labor dispute was Revised Rules of
ISSUE and certainly rendered issued, thereby Court. Under the
Is liability for the a judicious solution to prohibiting any strike. NLRC Revised Rules
violation of a RTWO the dispute – when The copy of the AJO of Procedure, service
solely a responsibility she spared the was not served to the of copies of orders
of union officers? striking workers or respondent because should be madeby the
union members from there no union officer process server either
RULING the penalty of was around. Instead personally or through
Yes. The public dismissal. This the copy was posted in registered mail.
respondent Secretary disposition takes stock several conspicuous
of Labor and of the following places within the The presumption of
Employment - and circumstances premises of the receipt of the copies of
necessarily the CA - justifying a less drastic hospital. Striking the Assumption of
acted within the penalty for employees continued JurisdictionOrder AJO
ordinary striking October 16, 2006, to strike claiming that could not be taken for
workers: a) the Chico-Nazario they did not know granted considering
employees who about the AJO order. the adverse effect in
engaged in slowdown FEU-NRMF and FEU-NRMF filed a case the parties
actually reported for respondent union (a case before the NLRC, failedto heed to the
work and continued to legitimate labor contending that injunction directed by
occupy their respective organization and is the respondent union such Order. Defiance
posts, or, in fine, did duly recognized staged the strike in of the assumption and
not abandon their jobs; representative of the defiance of the AJO, return- to-workorders
b) they were only rank and file hence, it was illegal. of the Secretary of
following orders of employees of Labor after he has
their leaders; and c) no petitioner), entered into ISSUE assumed jurisdiction is
evidence has been a CBA that will expire Whether the service of a valid ground for the
presented to prove on 30 April 1996. In the AJO was validly loss ofemployment
their participation in view of the forthcoming effected by the process status of any striking
the commission of expiry, respondent server so as to bindthe union officer or
illegal activities during union sent a letter respondent union and member. Employment
the strike. Nissan proposal to petitioner hold them liable for the is a property right
Motor appeared to FEU-NRMF stating acts committed ofwhich one cannot be
have also their economic and subsequent to the deprived of without
exacerbated, as earlier non-economic issuance ofthe said due process. Due
indicated, the proposals for the Order. process here would
emerging volatile negotiation of the new demand that
atmosphere despite CBA. FEU-NRMF RULING therespondent union
the Secretary’s order rejected respondent The process server be properly notified of
veritably enjoining the union’s demands. resorted to posting the the Assumption of
parties to respect the Respondent union then Order when personal Jurisdiction Order of
status quo prevailing filed a Notice of Strike service was the Secretaryof Labor
when she assumed before NCMB on the renderedimpossible enjoining the strike and
jurisdiction over the ground of bargaining since the striking requiring its members
dispute. Foremost of deadlock, then it employees were not to return to work. Thus,
these exacerbating staged a strike. FEU- present at the strike there must be aclear
acts is the en masse NRMF filed a Petition area. This mode and unmistakable
termination of most of for the Assumption of ofservice, however, is proof that the
the Union members, Jurisdiction (AJO) or for not sanctioned by requirements
albeit it may be Certification of Labor either the NLRC prescribed by the
conceded that the Dispute with the NLRC, Revised Rules of Rules in the manner
employer has the underscoring the fact Procedure or the ofeffecting personal or
prerogative of that it is a medical substituted service had
imposing disciplinary institution engaged in been faithfully
sanctions against the business of complied with.
assumption-order- providing health care
defying employees. for its patients. Merely posting copies
Secretary of Labor of the AJO does not
FEU-NRMF v. FEU- granted the petition and satisfy the rigid
NRMFEA-AFW an Order assuming requirement for
G.R. No. 168362, jurisdiction over the properservice outlined

55
by the above stated Company filed a officers and members labor and management
rules. Needless to petition for during the CBA has been endangered
say, the manner of Consolidated negotiations. Surely, by abuse of one party's
service made by Assumption of promotion is different bargaining prerogative,
theprocess server Jurisdiction with the from dismissal. to the extent of
was invalid and Office of the Secretary disregarding not only
irregular. Respondent of Labor. On August This is consistent with the direct order of the
union could not 14, 1998, then our ruling in Bulletin government to maintain
therefore be Secretary Bienvenido Publishing Corporation the status quo, but the
adjudged tohave E. Laguesma issued v. Sanchez27 that a welfare of the entire
defied the said Order an Order assuming promotion which is workforce though they
since it was not jurisdiction over the manifestly beneficial to may not be involved in
properly apprised entire labor dispute at an employee should the dispute. The grave
thereof. Accordingly, Pilipino Telephone not give rise to a penalty of dismissal
the strikeconducted Corporation. On gratuitous speculation imposed on the guilty
by the respondent September 4, 1998, that it was made to parties is a natural
union was valid under the Union filed a deprive the union of the consequence,
the circumstances. second Notice of membership of the considering the interest
Strike with the NCMB benefited employee. of public welfare.
PILIPINO on the grounds of: a)
TELEPHONE Union busting, for the (2) YES. It cannot be CLUB FILIPINO vs.
CORPORATION v. alleged refusal of the overemphasized that BAUTISTA
PILIPINO Company to turn over strike, as the most G.R. No. 168406,
TELEPHONE union funds; and b) preeminent economic January 14, 2015,
EMPLOYEES The mass promotion weapon of the workers Leonen
ASSOCIATION of union members to force management
(PILTEA) during the CBA to agree to an equitable Doctrine: In cases of
G.R. No. 160058, June negotiation, allegedly sharing of the joint bargaining deadlocks,
22, 2007, Puno aimed at excluding product of labor and the notice shall state
them from the capital, exert some theunresolved issues in
On July 13, 1998, the bargaining unit during disquieting effects not the bargaining
Union filed a Notice of the CBA negotiation. only on the relationship negotiations and be
Strike with the NCMB On the same day, the between labor and accompanied by the
for unfair labor Union went on strike. management, but also written proposals of
practice due to the On December 7, on the general peace theunion, the counter-
alleged acts of 1998, the Company and progress of society proposals of the
"restraint and filed with the NLRC a and economic well- employer and the proof
coercion of union petition to declare the being of the State. This of a request for
members and Union's September 4, weapon is so critical conference to
interference with their 1998 (second strike) that the law imposes
right to self- strike illegal. the supreme penalty of
organization" dismissal on union
committed by the ISSUES: officers who
Company. The irresponsibly participate
1. Whether or not the constitute union busting in an illegal strike and
mass promotion of under Article 263 of the union members who
union members Labor Code, there must commit unlawful acts
constituted union be: 1) a dismissal from during a strike. The
busting employment of union responsibility of the
2. Whether or not the officers duly elected in union officers, as main
dismissal of union accordance with the players in an illegal
officers as a penalty union constitution and strike, is greater than
for illegal strike is by-laws; and 2) the that of the members as
correct existence of the union the union officers have
must be threatened by the duty to guide their
HELD: such dismissal. In the members to respect the
(1) NO. There was no case at bar, the second law. The policy of the
union busting which notice of strike filed by state is not to tolerate
would warrant the non- the Union merely actions directed at the
observance of the assailed the "mass destabilization of the
cooling-off period. To promotion" of its social order, where the
relationship between
56
settledifferences. andthe party Thus, it meted the arrived, the union went
Noncompliance will concerned shall be so workers 30- day on strike. The
illegalize the strike. informed by the suspension and filed company filed a motion
However, the union regional branch of the an illegal strike to re- open the case
should not be Board. against them. The which was granted
prejudiced when attempted settlement by LA. In its decision,
there was no counter- The union cannot be having been futile, the LA declared that the
proposal submitted faulted for its union filed a Notice of strike is illegal. On
by the employer to omission. The union Strike. Despite the appeal, the NLRC
begin with. could not have conciliation no dismissed it in per
attached the counter- amicable settlement of curiam decision.
Petitioner and the proposal of the the dispute was
union had a CBA company in the notice In the interim, into the and placards, coupled
which expired on May of strike it submitted to second strike, with the name-calling
31, 2000. Within the the NCMB as there petitioner filed a and harassment, the
freedomperiod, the was no such counter- complaint before LA for same indicates that it
union made several proposal. Nowhere in illegal strike on the was resorted to coerce
demands for the ruling of the LA ground of alleged force the resolution of the
negotiation but the can we find any dispute – the very evil
company replied that discussion of how violence. In its decision, which Art. 264 seeks to
it could notmuster a respondents, as LA declared the second prevent. While the strike
quorum, thus no CBA unionofficers, strike illegal. On is the most preeminent
negotiations could be knowingly participated appeal, the NLRC economic weapon of
held. In order to in the alleged illegal affirmed in toto the workers to force
compel the company strike. LA’s decision. On management to agree
to negotiate, union appeal to CA, the CA to an equitable sharing
filed a request for A. SORIANO reversed and set aside of the joint product of
preventive mediation AVIATION v. the NLRC ruling. labor and capital, it
with NCMB but again EMPLOYEES Hence, the present exerts some disquieting
failed. On April ASSOCIATION OF A. position. effects not only on the
2001,a notice of strike SORIANO AVIATION relationship between
was filed by the union G.R. No. 166879, ISSUE labor and management,
and thereafter, a August 14, 2009, Whether or not the but also on the general
strike was held. Carpio-Morales strike staged by the peace and progress of
respondent is illegal. society and economic
ISSUE Petitioner, which is well-being of the State.
Whether the strike engaged in providing HELD If such weapon has to
staged by respondent transportation of YES. The Union be used at all, it must
is legal guests to and from members’ repeated be used sparingly and
Amanpulo and El Nido name-calling, within the bounds of law
RULING resorts in Palawan, harassment and threats in the interest of
YES. In cases of and respondent, of bodily harm directed industrial peace and
bargaining deadlocks, which is the duly against company public welfare.
the notice shall, as far certified bargaining officers and non-
as practicable, further agent of the rank and striking employees and, JACKBILT
state theunresolved file employees of the more significantly, the INDUSTRIES v.
issues in the petitioner, entered into putting up of placards, JACKBILT
bargaining a CBA which included banners and streamers EMPLOYEES
negotiations and be a “No Strike-No Lock- with vulgar statements WORKERS UNION-
accompanied by the out Clause.” On imputing criminal NAFLU-KMU
written proposals of several dates, which negligence to the G.R. Nos. 171618-19,
theunion, the counter- were legal holidays company, which put to March 20, 2009,
proposals of the and peak season, doubt reliability of its Corobna
employer and the some of the members operations, come within
proof of a request for of the union refused to the purview of illegal Due to the adverse
conference to rendered overtime acts under Art. 264 and effects of the Asian
settledifferences. Any work. Petitioner jurisprudence. economic crisis on the
notice which does not treated the refusal construction industry
conformwith the as a concerted action Specifically with beginning 1997, Jackbilt
requirements of this which is a violation of respect to the putting Industries, Inc. decided
shall be deemed as the No-Strike, No- up of those banners to temporarily stop its
not having been filed Lock-out Clause.
57
business. Jackbilt Whether or not the in the course of its life. molesting, and
Employees Workers filing of a petition with At some point the impeding by barricade
Union-NAFLU- KMU the labor arbiter to parties began the entry of non-
immediately protested declare a strike illegal negotiating the striking employees at
the temporary is a condition sine qua economic provisions the Companys
shutdown and non for the valid of their CBA but this premises. On June 29,
contented that termination of ended in a deadlock, 1999 the Labor Arbiter
petitioner halted employees who prompting the Union rendered a decision,
production to avoid its commit an illegal act to file a notice of declaring the Unions
duty to bargain in the course of such strike. After efforts at strike illegal for
collectively. The strike. conciliation by the violating the CBAs no
shutdown was Department of Labor strike, no lockout,
allegedly motivated by HELD and Employment provision. As a
anti-union sentiments. No. Article 264(e) of (DOLE) failed, the consequence, the
Accordingly, on March the Labor Code Union conducted a Labor Arbiter held that
9, 1998, respondent prohibits any person strike vote that the Union officers
went on strike. Its engaged in picketing resulted in an should be deemed to
officers and members from obstructing the overwhelming majority have forfeited their
picketed petitioner’s free ingress to and of its members employment with the
main gates and egress from the favoring it. The Union Company and that
deliberately prevented employer’s premises. reported the strike they should pay actual
persons and vehicles Since respondent was vote to the DOLE and, damages. With respect
from going into and out found in the July 17, after the observance to the striking Union
of the compound. On 1998 decision of the of the mandatory members, finding no
its July 17, 1998 NLRC to have cooling-off period, proof that they actually
decision, the NLRC prevented the free went on strike. During committed illegal acts
found out that entry into and exit of the strike, the during the strike, the
respondent prevented vehicles from Company filed a Labor Arbiter ordered
the free entry into and petitioner’s petition for the their reinstatement
exit of vehicles from compound, issuance of a writ of without backwages.
petitioner’s compound. respondents officers preliminary injunction
and employees clearly with prayer for the ISSUES
ISSUE committed illegal acts issuance of a 1. Whether or the
in the course of the temporary restraining strike conducted
March 9, 1998 strike. order (TRO) Ex Parte is illegal?
The use of unlawful with the National 2. Whether or not
means in the course Labor Relations the union
of a strike renders Commission (NLRC) members
such strike illegal. to enjoin the strikers should also
Therefore, pursuant to from intimidating, be terminated?
the principle of threatening,
conclusiveness of HELD
judgment, the March 1. Yes, a strike conclusive
9, 1998 strike was may be arbitration
ipso facto illegal. The regarded as clause. Here,
filing of a petition to invalid the CBA
declare the strike although the between the
illegal was thus labor union has parties
unnecessary. complied with contained a no
the strict strike, no
C. ALCANTARA & requirements lockout
SONS, INC VS. CA for staging one provision that
G.R. 155109, as provided in enjoined both
September 29, 2010 Article 263 of the Union and
the Labor Code the Company
The Company and the when the same from resorting
Union entered into a is held contrary to the use of
Collective Bargaining to an existing economic
Agreement (CBA) that agreement, weapons
bound them to hold no such as a no available to
strike and no lockout strike clause or them under the

58
 law and to their temporary restraining RULING
instead take employment order (TRO), to enjoin No. Although the strike
recourse to can no longer the strikers from was illegal, PHIMCO
voluntary reinstated. preventing through violated the
arbitration in However, the force, intimidation and requirements of due
settling their records also coercion the ingress process of the Labor
disputes. No fail to disclose and egress of non- Code when it
law or public any past striking employees into dismissed the
policy prohibits infractions and from the company respondents.
the Union and committed by premises. Several PILA
the Company the dismissed members and officers Under Article 277b of
from mutually Union were dismissed. the Labor Code, the
waiving the members. employer must send
strike and Taking these ISSUE the employee, who is
lockout maces circumstances Whether or not the about to be terminated,
available to in members and officers a written notice stating
them to give consideration, of the respondent were the cause/s for
way to the Court validly dismissed termination and must
voluntary regards the give the employee the
arbitration. award of opportunity to be heard
The Court financial and to defend himself.
finds no assistance to
compelling these Union To meet the
reason to members in the requirements of due
depart from form of one- process in the
the findings of half month dismissal of an
the Labor salary for every employee, an
Arbiter, the year of service employer must furnish
NLRC, and the to the company him or her with two (2)
CA regarding up to the date written notices: (1) a
the illegality of of their written notice
the strike. termination as specifying the
Social justice equitable and grounds for
is not one- reasonable. termination and giving
sided. It the employee a
cannot be PHIMCO INDUSTRIES reasonable opportunity
used as a VS. PILA to explain his side and
badge for not G.R. NO. 170830, (2) another written
complying with August 11, 2010, Brion notice indicating that,
a lawful upon due
agreement. PHIMCO is a consideration of all
2. Yes, given that corporation engaged in circumstances,
their illegal the production of grounds have been
acts of matches and established to justify
threatening, respondent Phimco the employer's
coercing and Industries Labor decision to dismiss the
intimidating Association (PILA) is employee.
non-strikers, the duly authorized
obstructing the bargaining In the present case,
free ingress representative of PHIMCO sent a letter,
and egress PHIMCOs daily-paid on June 23, 1995, to
from the workers. Because of thirty-six (36) union
company the deadlock on members, generally
premises and economic issues, directing them to
resisted and mainly due to explain within twenty-
defied the disagreements on four (24) hours why
implementatio salary increases and they should not be
n of the writ of benefits, PILA staged a dismissed for the
preliminary strike. PHIMCO filed illegal acts they
injunction with the NLRC a committed during the
issued against petition for preliminary strike; three days later,
the strikers, injunction and
59
or on June 26, 1995, exacerbate the thus illegal. proceedings before the
the thirty-six (36) situation. Secretary Secretary of Labor were
union members were Laguesma resolved all Article 264 (a) of the still pending as in fact
informed of their economic and non- Labor Code, as they filed a motion for
dismissal from economic issues amended, also reconsideration of the
employment. submitted by the considers it a March 24, 2000 Order,
parties. Dissatisfied prohibited activity to they cannot invoke
SOLIDBANK with the Secretary’s declare a strike during good faith as a defense.
CORPORATION V. ruling, the Union the pendency of cases
GAMIER officers and members involving the same For the rest of the
G.R. Nos. 159460 – decided to protest the grounds for the same individual respondents
159461, November 15, same by holding a strike.There is no who are union
2010, rally infront of the dispute that when members, the rule is
Villarama Office of the Secretary respondents conducted that an ordinary striking
of Labor and their mass actions on worker cannot be
Petitioner Solidbank Employment in April 3 to 6, 2000, the terminated for mere
and respondent Intramuros, Manila, proceedings before the participation in an illegal
Solidbank Employees simultaneous with the Secretary of Labor strike. There must be
Union (Union) were filing of their motion were still pending as proof that he or she
set to renegotiate the for both parties filed committed illegal acts
economic provisions reconsideration.The motions for during a strike. In all
of their 1997-2001 union members also reconsideration of the cases, the striker must
CBA to cover the picketed the banks March 24, 2000 Order. be identified. But proof
remaining two years Head Office in Clearly, respondents beyond reasonable
thereof. Seeing that Binondo and Paseo knowingly violated the doubt is not required.
an agreement was de Roxas. As a result aforesaid provision by Substantial evidence
unlikely, the Union of the employees holding a strike in the available under the
declared a deadlock concerted actions, guise of mass attendant
on and filed a Notice Solidbanks business demonstration circumstances, which
of Strike. In view of operations were simultaneous with may justify the
the impending actual paralyzed. The herein concerted work imposition of the penalty
strike, then Secretary 129 individual abandonment/boycott. of dismissal, may
of Labor and respondents were suffice. Liability for
Employment among the 199 (2) However, a worker prohibited acts is to be
BienvenidoE. employees who were merely participating in determined on an
Laguesma assumed terminated for their an illegal strike may not individual
jurisdiction. The participation in the be terminated from basis.Petitioners have
assumption order three-day work employment. It is only not adduced evidence
dated directed the boycott and protest when he commits on such illegal acts
parties to cease and action. illegal acts during a committed by each of
desist from strike that he may be the individual
committing any and ISSUES declared to have lost respondents who are
all acts that might employment status. We union members.
(1) Whether the (1) The Court has have held that the Instead, petitioners
protest rally and consistently ruled that responsibility of union simply point to their
concerted work once the Secretary of officers, as main admitted participation in
abandonment/boycott Labor assumes players in an illegal the mass actions which
staged by the jurisdiction over a labor strike, is greater than they knew to be illegal,
respondents violated dispute, such that of the members being
the Order of the jurisdiction should not and, therefore, limiting
Secretary of Labor; (2) be interfered with by the penalty of dismissal
whether the the application of the only for the former for
respondents were coercive processes of a participation in an
validly terminated; and strike or lockout. A illegal strike is in order.
(3) whether the strike that is Hence, with respect to
respondents are undertaken despite the respondents who are
entitled to separation issuance by the union officers, the
pay or financial Secretary of Labor of validity of their
assistance. an assumption order termination by
and/or certification is a petitioners cannot be
RULING prohibited activity and questioned. Being fully
aware that the
60
in violation of the walked out of the striking union who did participating in an
Secretarys premises of not commit any illegal illegal strike simply
assumption order. Pinakamasarap act during the strike. accords with the reality
The dismissal of Corporation (PINA) that they do not render
herein respondent- and proceeded to the Article 264(a) work for the employer
union members are barangay office to authorizes the award during the period of the
therefore unjustified show support for an of full backwages only illegal strike. If there is
in the absence of a officer of the Union when the termination no work performed by
clear showing that charged with oral of employment is a the employee, there
they committed defamation by PINA’s consequence of an can be no wage or pay
specific illegal acts personnel manager. unlawful lockout. Also, unless, of course, the
during the mass As a result of the that backwages are laborer was able,
actions and walkout, PINA not granted to willing and ready to
concerted work preventively employees
boycott. suspended all officers work but was illegally refused to rule on the
of the Union and locked out, suspended validity of the dismissal
(3) Under the terminated the officers or dismissed or of the Union Officers
circumstances, of the Union after a otherwise illegally and the shop
respondents month. The Union prevented from stewardess because it
reinstatement without later conducted a working.For this believed that it is under
backwages suffices strike but the same exception to apply, it is the jurisdiction of the
for the appropriate was declared to be an required that the strike Labor Artbiter
relief. But since illegal strike by the be legal.
reinstatement is no Labor Arbiter. The ISSUE
longer possible, given NLRC sustained the BAGONG WON the Sec of Labor
the lapse of finding of the illegality PAGKAKAISA NG has jurisdiction to hear
considerable time of the strike, but ruled MANGGAGAWA NG and decide cases of
from the occurrence that the union TRIUMP VS illegal dismissal arising
of the strike, not to members should not SECRETARY OF out from a strike/lock-
mention the fact that be considered to have LABOR out
Solidbank had long abandoned their G.R. No. 167401
ceased its banking employment on the RULING
operations, the award ground that mere A bargaining deadlock Yes. First: Jurisdiction
of separation pay of participation of a arise between the of Secretary of Labor -
one (1) month salary union member in an parties, thus a notice of As the term assume
for each year of illegal strike does not strike was filed by jurisdiction connotes,
service, in lieu of mean loss of petitioner, a notice of the intent of the law is to
reinstatement, is in employment. lock-out was then filed give the Labor
order. For the twenty- by the respondent due Secretary full authority
one (21) individual ISSUE to a work-slowdown. to resolve all matters
respondents who Are the union But the secretary of within the dispute that
executed quitclaims members entitled to labor assumed gave rise to or which
in favor of the full backwages due to jurisdiction and issued arose out of the strike or
petitioners, whatever their not being found a RTW Order, but lockout; it includes and
amount they have to have abandoned those who want to extends to all questions
already received from their jobs? return to work was and controversies
the employer shall be prevented by the other arising from or related
deducted from their RULING striking members. to the dispute, including
respective separation No. Conformably cases over which the
pay. with the long Due to the intervention labor arbiter has
honored principle of of the Sec. of Labor, it exclusive jurisdiction.
ESCARIO v. NLRC a fair days wage for a was agreed that all
G.R. No. 160302, fair days labor, would return to work FADRIQUELAN V.
September 27, 2010, employees dismissed except the officers and
Bersamin for joining an illegal the shop steward MONTEREY
strike are not entitled pending their
Officers and to backwages for the investigation, they were FOODS
members of period of the strike reinstated only in the CORPORATION
Malayang Samahan even if they are payroll. G.R. No. 178409, June
ng mga reinstated by virtue of 8, 2011, Abad
Manggagawasa their being merely The Secretary of Labor
Balanced Foods members of the
61
When the 3-year CBA lost his employment. Those who cannot be
between the union On June 23, 2003, the Here, what is involved connected to the
Bukluran ng DOLE Secretary is a slowdown strike. slowdowns were
Manggagawasa included the union’s Unlike other forms of illegally dismissed. IN
Monterey-Ilaw at second notice of strike strike, the employees this case, only the
Buklod ng but, on the same day, involved in a identity and
Manggagawa and the the union filed a third slowdown do not walk participations of Arturo
company Monterey notice of strike based out of their jobs to hurt Eguna, Armando
Foods Corporation on allegations that the the company. They Malaluan, Danilo
expired, and after company had need only to stop work Alonso, Romulo
reaching a deadlock in engaged in union or reduce the rate of Dimaano,
the negotiation for a busting and illegal their work while RoelMayuga, Wilfredo
new CBA, the union dismissal of union generally remaining in Rizaldo, Romeo Suico,
filed a notice of strike officers. On July 7, their assigned post. Domingo Escamillas,
with the NCMB to 2003, the company and Domingo Bautro in
which the DOLE filed a petition for The union officers and the slowdowns were
Secretary assumed certififcation of their members in this case properly
jurisdiction on May 12, labor dispute to the held a slowdown
2003. NLRC for compulsory strike at the
arbitration but the company’s farms
On May 21, 2003, the DOLE Secretary despite the fact that
union filed a second denied the motion and the DOLE Secretary
notice of strike on the subsumed the third had on May 12, 2003
alleged ground that the notice of strike. already assumed
company committed jurisdiction over their
ULPs. The company The DOLE upheld the labor dispute. The
then sent notices to termination of 17 evidence sufficiently
the union officers, union officers but the shows that union
charging them with CA only upheld the officers and members
intentional acts of validity of termination simultaneously
slowdown, and 6 days of 10 union officers stopped work at the
later, the company and declared illegal companys Batangas
sent notices of that of the other 7, and Cavite farms at
termination from work hence, this petition. 7:00 a.m. on May 26,
for defying the the 2003.
assumption order. ISSUES
1. Did slowdowns (2) Qualified yes. A
actually transpire distinction exists,
at the company’s however, between the
farms? ordinary workers
2. Did the union liability for illegal strike
officers commit and that of the union
illegal acts that officers who
warranted their participated in it. The
dismissal from ordinary worker
work? cannot be terminated
for merely
HELD participating in the
(1) Yes. No strike strike. There must be
shall be declared after proof that he
the Secretary of Labor committed illegal acts
has assumed during its conduct. On
jurisdiction over a the other hand, a
labor dispute. A strike union officer can be
conducted after such terminated upon mere
assumption is illegal proof that he
and any union officer knowingly participated
who knowingly in the illegal strike.
participates in the The participating
same may be union officers have to
declared as having be properly identified.

62
established. These officers simply refused to work or
they abandoned their work to join union assemblies.
MAGDALA MULTIPURPOSE & LIVELIHOOD V.
KMLMS
G.R. Nos. 191138-39, October 19, 2011, Velasco
KMLMS held a strike-vote one day before its
registration was granted. It later staged a strike where
several illegal acts were committed. The company
argued that the strike was illegal, and all participating
union members should be declared to have forfeited
their employment. SC ruled in favor of the company.
The mandatory notice of strike and the conduct of the
strike-vote report were ineffective for having been filed
and conducted before KMLMS acquired legal
personality as an LLO.
ISSUE
Whether or not the strike was illegal.
RULING
Yes. A strike conducted by a union which acquired its
legal personality AFTER the filing of its Notice of Strike
and the conduct of the Strike Vote is ILLEGAL.
There is no question that the May 6, 2002 strike was
illegal, first, because when KilusangManggagawa ng
LGS, Magdala Multipurpose and Livelihood
Cooperative (KMLMS) filed the notice of strike on
March 5 or 14, 2002, it had not yet acquired legal
personality and, thus, could not legally represent the
eventual union and its members. And second,
similarly, when KMLMS conducted the strike-vote on
April 8, 2002, there was still no union to speak of,
since KMLMS only acquired legal personality as an
independent legitimate labor organization only on April
9, 2002 or the day after it conducted the strike-vote.
Consequently, the mandatory notice of strike and the
conduct of the strike-vote report were ineffective for
having been filed and conducted before KMLMS
acquired legal personality as a legitimate labor
organization, violating Art. 263(c), (d) and (f) of the
Labor Code and Rule XXII, Book V of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing the Labor Code. It is, thus, clear
that KMLMS did not comply with the mandatory
requirement of law and implementing rules on
possession of a legal personality as a legitimate labor
organization.
AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE REBUILDERS, INC. (AER) v.
PROGRESIBONG UNYON NG MGA
MANGGAGAWA SA AER
G.R. No. 16013, July 13, 2011, Mendoza
Records show that AER is a company engaged in the
automotive engine repair and rebuilding business and
other precision and engineering works for more than
35 years. Progresibong Unyon Ng Mga
Manggagawasa AER (Unyon) is the legitimate labor
60
union of the rank and file employees of AER which
was formed in the year 1998. AER accused the Unyon
of illegal concerted activities (illegal strike, illegal
walkout, illegal stoppage, and unfair labor practice)
while Unyon accused AER of unfair r On December
22, 1998, Unyon filed a petition for certification election
before the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) after organizing their employees union within
AER. Resenting what they did, AER forced all of its
employees to submit their urine samples for drug
testing. Those who refused were threatened with
dismissal. On January 12, 1999, AER issued a
memorandum suspending seven employees from work
for violation of Article D, Item 2 of the Employees
handbook which reads as follows: Coming to work
under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or
drinking any alcoholic beverages on the premises on
company time While they were in the process of
securing their respective medical certificates, however,
they were shocked to receive a letter from AER
charging them with insubordination and absence
without leave and directing them to explain their acts in
writing. Despite their written explanation, AER refused
to reinstate them. Meanwhile, Unyon found out that
AER was moving out machines from the main building
to the AER-PSC compound located on another street.
Sensing that management was going to engage in a
runaway shop, Unyon tried to prevent the transfer of
the machines which prompted AER to issue a
memorandum accusing those involved of gross
insubordination, work stoppage and other offenses. On
February 2, 1999, the affected workers were denied
entry into the AER premises by order of management.
Because of this, the affected workers staged a picket
in front of company premises hoping that management
would accept them back to work. When their picket
proved futile, they filed a complaint for unfair labor
practice, illegal suspension and illegal dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether or not the drug testing was valid
RULING
AERs fault is obvious from the fact that a day after the
union filed a petition for certification election before the
DOLE, it hit back by requiring all its employees to
undergo a compulsory drug test. Although AER argues
that the drug test was applied to all its employees, it
was silent as to whether the drug test was a regular
company policy and practice in their 35 years in the
automotive engine repair and rebuilding business. As
the Court sees it, it was AERs first ever drug test of its
employees immediately implemented after the workers
manifested their desire to organize themselves into a
union. Indeed, the timing of the drug test was
suspicious. Moreover, AER failed to show proof that
the drug test conducted on its employees was
performed by an authorized drug testing center. It did
not mention how the tests were conducted and
whether the proper procedure was employed.
Section 36 of R.A. No. 9165 provides that drug
tests shall be September 19, 2012, 2. Were the petitioners dispute.”
performed only by Velasco illegal dismissed? Concerted is
authorized drug testing defined as
centers. Moreover, Petitioners Naranjo et HELD “mutually
Section 36 also al are all employees of 1. NO. Petitioners contrived or
prescribes that drug Biomedica. Carina did not go on planned” or
testing shall consist of Motol is the President strike. The “performed in
both the screening test of said company. On Labor Code unison.” In this
and the confirmatory November 7, 2006, defines a strike case, the
test. Department Order during Motol’s birthday, as “any petitioners
No. 53-03 further petitioners were all temporary were absent
provides: Drug testing absent for various stoppage of for various
shall conform with the personal reasons. The work by the personal
procedures as next day, petitioners concerted reasons.
prescribed by the came in for work but action of Petitioners
Department of Health were not allowed to employees as were in
(DOH). Only drug enter the premises. a result of any different
testing centers Motol, through foul industrial or places on said
accredited by the DOH language, told them to labor date and
shall be utilized. A list find employment attended to
of accredited centers elsewhere. their personal
may be accessed needs or
through the OSHC. Subsequently, affairs. They
Drug testing shall Biomedica issued did not go to
consist of both the notices to petitioners the company
screening test and the accusing them of premises to
confirmatory test; the having conducted an petition
latter to be carried out illegal strike and were Biomedica for
should the screening asked to explain within their
test turn positive. The 24 hours why they grievance.
employee concerned should not be held This shows
must be informed of guilty of and dismissed that there was
the test results for violation of NO INTENT to
whether positive or company policy against go on strike.
negative. Furthermore, illegal strikes.
AER engaged in a Biomedica, however, 2. YES.
runaway shop when it did not furnish them Petitioners
began pulling out with a copy of the said were not
machines from the company policy. afforded
main AER building to procedural due
the AER-PSC Petitioners failed to process. The
compound located on submit a written period of 24
another street on the explanation, thus, hours given to
pretext that the main Biomedica served petitioners to
building was Notices of Termination answer the
undergoing renovation. to them. It stated that notice was
Certainly, the striking petitioners engaged in severely
workers would have no an illegal strike. insufficient.
reason to run and Petitioners then filed a The law
enter the AER-PSC complaint for illegal provides that
premises and to cause dismissal. The Labor an employee
the return of the Arbiter dismissed the should be
machines to the AER complaint. The NLRC given
building if they were reversed the LA. On “reasonable
not alarmed that AER appeal, the CA opportunity” to
was engaging in a reinstated the decision file a
runaway shop. of the LA. response. The
SC in King of
NARANJO v. ISSUES Kings
BIOMEDICA HEALTH 1. Did the petitioners Transport vs.
CARE, INC. engage in an illegal Mamac
G.R. No. 193789, strike?
61
construed such in which they participated.
this to be a regulations. ISSUE workers’ continued
period of at W/N union members employment; (f) facts
least five (5) VISAYAS who were illegally that make execution
calendar COMMUNITY dismissed for mere unjust or inequitable
days from MEDICAL CENTER participation in an have supervened; or (g)
receipt of (VCMC) illegal strike are entitled strained relations
notice to give v. YBALLE to separation pay? between the employer
the G.R. No. 196156, and employee.
employees January 15, 2014 HELD
an YES, they are entitled In the Decision dated
opportunity to Respondents were to separation pay but December 7, 2011, we
study the hired as staff nurses not backwages. held that the grant of
accusation (Ong and Angel) and separation pay to
against them, midwives (Yballe and With respect to complainants is the
consult a Cortez) by petitioner backwages, the appropriate relief under
union officer Visayas Community principle of a "fair day’s the circumstances,
or lawyer, Medical Center wage for a fair day’s thus:
gather (VCMC), formerly the labor" remains as the
evidence, Metro Cebu basic factor in Considering that 15
and decide Community Hospital, determining the award years had lapsed from
on the Inc. (MCCHI). The thereof. If there is no the onset of this labor
defense they four workers were work performed by the dispute, and in view of
will raise among the 100 rank- employee there can be strained relations that
against the and-file employees no wage or pay unless, ensued, in addition to
complaint. whose services were of course, the laborer the reality of
terminated by the was able, willing and replacements already
Petitioners VCMC for ready to work but was hired by the hospital
were also not participating in the illegally locked out, which had apparently
afforded strike and picket in suspended or recovered from its huge
substantive April 1996. dismissed or otherwise losses, and with many
due process. illegally prevented from of the petitioners either
To justify the The dismissed working. employed elsewhere,
dismissal of workers had already old and sickly,
an employee demanded for the The alternative relief for or otherwise
on the ground hospital management union members who incapacitated,
of serious to resume bargaining. were dismissed for separation pay without
misconduct, These workers were having participated in back wages is the
the employer part of a series of an illegal strike is the appropriate relief.
must first mass actions payment of separation
establish the spearheaded by Nava pay in lieu of
existence of a where they wore black reinstatement under
valid and red armbands EMPLO
the following
company rule and marched around circumstances: (a) YE
or regulation. the hospital premises,
In this case, then put up placards
when reinstatement R-
can no longer be
Biomedica and streamers in the effected in view of the
EM
failed to vicinity. Consequently, passage of a long PL
establish that VCMC sent period of time or
petitioners termination letters to OY
because of the realities
violated union leaders and of the situation; (b) EE
company other members who
rules since participated in the
reinstatement is RE
inimical to the
they did not strike and picket. In employer’s interest; (c)
LA
present a the Decision dated reinstatement is no TIO
copy of the December 7, 2011, longer feasible; (d)
rules and SC ruled that the NS
reinstatement does not
they failed to mass termination of serve the best interests HIP
prove that complainants was of the parties involved;
petitioners illegal, (e) the employer is TELEVISION AND
were made notwithstanding the prejudiced by the PRODUCTION
aware of illegality of the strike
62
EXPONENTS, INC. March 1987 until he respondent was hired which is payable by an
and/or ANTONIO P. was terminated on 3 by TAPE. Respondent employer to an
TUVIERA vs. March 2000. presented his employee under a
ROBERTO C. Respondent filed a identification card to written or unwritten
SERVAÑA complaint for illegal prove that he is contract of
G.R. No. 167648, dismissal and indeed an employee employment for work
January 28, 2008 nonpayment of of TAPE. It has been done or to be done, or
benefits against in held that in a for service rendered or
TAPE is a domestic TAPE. TAPE business to be rendered. It is
corporation engaged in countered that the establishment, an beyond dispute that
the production of labor arbiter had no identification card is respondent received a
television programs, jurisdiction over the usually provided not fixed amount as
such as the long- case in the absence of just as a security monthly compensation
running variety an employer- measure but to mainly for the services he
program, "Eat employee relationship identify the holder rendered to TAPE.
Bulaga!". Its president between the parties. thereof as a bona
is Antonio P. Tuviera TAPE averred that fide employee of the [Dismissal] The
(Tuviera). Respondent respondent was an firm who issues it. Memorandum
Roberto C. Servaña independent informing respondent
had served as a contractor falling [Wages] Respondent of the discontinuance
security guard for under the talent group claims to have been of his service proves
TAPE from category and was receiving P5,444.44 that TAPE had the
working under a as his monthly salary power to dismiss
special arrangement while TAPE prefers to respondent.
which is recognized in designate such
the industry. amount as talent fees. [Control] Control is
Respondent for his Wages, as defined in manifested in the
part insisted that he the Labor Code, are bundy cards submitted
was a regular remuneration or by respondent in
employee having earnings, however evidence. He was
been engaged to designated, capable required to report daily
perform an activity of being expressed in and observe definite
that is necessary and terms of money, work hours.
desirable to TAPE’s whether fixed or
business for thirteen ascertained on a time, ABS-CBN
(13) years. task, piece or BROADCASTING
commission basis, or CORP. V. NAZARENO
ISSUE other method of G.R. 164156, Sept. 26,
Whether Respondent calculating the same, 2006
Roberto C. Servaña Petitioner ABS-CBN were required to work
was a regular Broadcasting for a minimum of eight
employee Corporation (ABS- hours a day, including
CBN) is engaged in the Sundays and holidays.
RULING broadcasting business.
Yes. Petitioner employed The PAs were under
[Selection] respondents Nazareno, the control and
Respondent was first Gerzon, Deiparine, and supervision of Assistant
connected with Agro- Lerasan as production Station Manager Dante
Commercial Security assistants (PAs) on J. Luzon, and News
Agency, which different dates. They Manager Leo
assigned him to assist were assigned at the Lastimosa.
TAPE in its live news and public affairs,
productions. When the for various radio On December 19, 1996,
security agency’s programs in the Cebu petitioner and the ABS-
contract with RPN-9 Broadcasting Station, CBN Rank-and-File
expired in 1995, with a monthly Employees executed a
respondent was compensation of Collective Bargaining
absorbed by TAPE or, P4,000. They were Agreement (CBA) to be
in the latter’s issued ABS-CBN effective during the
language, "retained as employees’ period from December
talent." Clearly, identification cards and 11, 1996 to December

63
11, 1999. However, different duties under (Atinen) filed two
since petitioner It is of no moment that the control and separate complaints
refused to recognize petitioner hired direction of ABS- CBN for regularization,
PAs as part of the respondents as executives and unfair labor practice
bargaining unit, "talents." The fact that supervisors. and several money
respondents were not respondents received claims (regularization
included to the CBA. pre- agreed "talent In this case, it is case) against ABS-
fees" instead of undisputed that CBN Broadcasting
On October 12, 2000, salaries, that they did respondents had Corporation-Cebu
respondents filed a not observe the continuously (ABS-CBN).
Complaint for required office hours, performed the same
Recognition of Regular and that they were activities for an The petitioners alleged
Employment Status, permitted to join other average of five years. that on December 17,
Underpayment of productions during their Their assigned tasks 1999, ABS-CBN and
Overtime Pay, Holiday free time are not are necessary or the ABS-CBN Rank-
Pay, Premium Pay, conclusive of the desirable in the usual and-File Employees
Service Incentive Pay, nature of their business or trade of Union (Union)
Sick Leave Pay, and employment. the petitioner. The executed a collective
13th Month Pay with Respondents cannot persisting need for bargaining agreement
Damages against the be considered "talents" their services is (CBA) effective
petitioner before the because they are not sufficient evidence of December 11, 1999 to
NLRC. actors or actresses or the necessity and December 10, 2002;
radio specialists or indispensability of they only became
Respondents insisted mere clerks or utility such services to aware of the CBA
that they belonged to a employees. They are petitioner’s business when they obtained
"work pool" from which regular employees who or trade.40 While copies of the
petitioner chose perform several length of time may not agreement; they
persons to be given be a sole controlling learned that they had
specific assignments test for project been excluded from its
at its discretion, and employment, it can be coverage as ABS-CBN
were thus under its a strong factor to considered them
direct supervision and determine whether the temporary and not
control regardless of employee was hired regular employees, in
nomenclature. for a specific violation of the Labor
undertaking or in fact Code. They claimed
ISSUE tasked to perform they had already
Are Nazareno et. al functions which are rendered more than a
employees of ABS- vital, necessary and year of service in the
CBN? indispensable to the company and,
usual trade or therefore, should have
HELD business of the been recognized as
We agree with employer regular employees
respondents’ entitled to security of
contention that where FARLEY FULACHE tenure and to the
a person has rendered V. ABS-CBN privileges and benefits
at least one year of BROADCASTING enjoyed by regular
service, regardless of CORPORATION employees. They
the nature of the G.R. No. 183810, asked that they be
activity performed, or January 21, 2010, Brion paid overtime, night
where the work is shift differential,
continuous or Petitioners Farley holiday, rest day and
intermittent, the Fulache, Manolo service incentive leave
employment is Jabonero, David pay. They also prayed
considered regular as Castillo, Jeffrey for an award of moral
long as the activity Lagunzad, Magdalena damages and
exists, the reason Malig-on Bigno, attorney’s fees.
being that a customary Francisco Cabas, Jr.,
appointment is not Harvey Ponce and ABS-CBN claimed that
indispensable before Alan C. Almendras to cope with fluctuating
one may be formally (petitioners) and business conditions, it
declared as having Cresente Atinen contracts on a case-to-
attained regular status.
64
case basis the independent illegal dismissal cases. ABS-CBN moved for
services of persons contractors who offer The NLRC ruled that the reconsideration of
who possess the their services to there was an employer- the decision,
necessary talent, broadcasting employee relationship reiterating that
skills, training, companies. between the petitioners Fulache, Jabonero,
expertise or and ABS-CBN as the Castillo and Lagunzad
qualifications to meet Instead of salaries, company exercised were independent
the requirements of ABS-CBN pointed out control over the contractors, whose
its programs and that talents are paid a petitioners in the services had been
productions. These pre-arranged performance of their terminated due to
contracted persons consideration called work; the petitioners redundancy; thus, no
are called talents and talent fee were regular backwages should
are considered employees because have been awarded.
taken from the budget service contractor Able they were engaged to On the regularization
of a particular program Services. The four perform activities issue, the NLRC stood
and subject to a ten drivers and Atinen usually necessary or by the ruling that the
percent (10%) responded by filing a desirable in ABS-CBN's petitioners were
withholding tax. complaint for illegal trade or business; they regular employees
Talents do not dismissal (illegal cannot be considered entitled to the benefits
undergo probation. dismissal case). In contractual employees and privileges of
Their services are defense, ABS-CBN since they were not regular employees. On
engaged for a specific alleged that it decided paid for the result of the illegal dismissal
program or production, to course through their work, but on a case, the petitioners,
or a segment thereof. legitimate service monthly basis and were while recognized as
Their contracts are contractors all driving, required to do their regular employees,
terminated once the messengerial, janitorial, work in accordance were declared
program, production or utility, make-up, with the company’s dismissed due to
segment is completed. wardrobe and security schedule.The NLRC redundancy.
services for both the reversed the labor
Labor Arbiter Metro Manila and arbiters ruling in the ISSUE
Rendoque rendered provincial stations, to illegal dismissal case; it Whether or not the
his decision holding improve its operations found that petitioners petitioners are covered
that the petitioners and to make them Fulache, Jabonero, by the CBA and
were regular more economically Castillo, Lagunzad and therefore entitled to its
employees of ABS- viable. Fulache, Atinen had been benefits.
CBN, not independent Jabonero, Castillo, illegally dismissed and
contractors, and are Lagunzad and Atinen awarded HELD
entitled to the benefits were not singled out for thembackwages and YES. They are ABS-
and privileges of dismissal; as drivers, separation pay in lieu CBNs regular
regular employees. they were dismissed of reinstatement. Under employees entitled to
ABS- CBN appealed because they belonged both cases, the the benefits and
the ruling to the to a job category that petitioners were privileges of regular
National Labor had already been awarded CBA benefits employees. These
Relations Commission contracted out. and privileges from the benefits and privileges
(NLRC) mainly time they became arise from entitlements
contending that the Labor Arbiter regular employees up under the law
petitioners were Rendoque upheld the to the time of their (specifically, the Labor
independent validity of ABS- CBN's dismissal. Code and its related
contractors, not regular contracting out of laws), and from their
employees. certain work or services employment contract
in its operations.He as regular ABS-CBN
While the appeal of the awarded them employees, part of
regularization case separation pay of one which is the CBA if
was pending, ABS- (1) months salary for they fall within the
CBN dismissed every year of coverage of this
Fulache, Jabonero, service.Again, ABS- agreement. Thus, what
Castillo, Lagunzad and CBN appealed to the only needs to be
Atinen (all drivers) for NLRC which rendered resolved as an issue
their refusal to sign up on December 15, 2004 for purposes of
contracts of a joint decision on the implementation of the
employment with regularization and decision is whether the

65
petitioners fall within admitted that the under the Employees on grounds other than
CBA coverage. petitioners were Stock Option Plan breach of contract.
regular employees (ESOP).ABS-CBN filed
The petitioners are whose services, by a Motion to Dismiss on Power of control: The
members of the law, can only be the ground that no control test is the most
appropriate terminated for the just employer-employee important test our courts
bargaining unit and authorized relationship existed apply in distinguishing
because they are causes defined under between the parties. an employee from an
regular rank-and-file the Labor Code. independent
employees and do ISSUE contractor.This test is
not belong to any of JOSE Y. SONZA v. Whether or not there is based on the extent of
the excluded ABS-CBN an employer-employee control the hirer
categories. BROADCASTING relationship between exercises over a
Specifically, nothing CORPORATION the respondent and worker. The greater the
in the records shows G.R. No. 138051, June petitioner supervision and control
that they are 10, 2004, Carpio the hirer exercises, the
supervisory or HELD more likely the worker is
confidential In May 1994, There is no employer- deemed an employee.
employees; neither respondent ABS-CBN employee relationship. The converse holds true
are they casual nor Broadcasting Applying the four-fold as well the less control
probationary Corporation (ABS- test, petitioner Sonza the hirer exercises; the
employees. Most CBN) signed an was considered by the more likely the worker is
importantly, the labor Agreement Court as an considered an
arbiters decision of (Agreement) with the independent contractor. independent contractor.
January 17, 2002 Mel and Jay
affirmed all the way Management and Selection and ABS-CBN did not
up to the CA level Development engagement of exercise control over
ruled against ABS- Corporation employee: The specific the means and methods
CBNs submission (MJMDC). Referred to selection and hiring of of performance of
that they are in the Agreement as SONZA, because of SONZAs work. Hence,
independent AGENT, MJMDC his unique skills, talent Sonza is not an
contractors. Thus, as agreed to provide and celebrity status not employee but an
regular rank-and-file SONZAs services possessed by ordinary independent contractor.
employees, they fall exclusively to ABS- employees, is a
within CBA coverage CBN as talent for circumstance
under the CBAs radio and television. indicative, but not
express terms and The Agreement listed conclusive, of an
are entitled to its the services SONZA independent
benefits. would render to ABS- contractual
CBN, as Co-host for relationship.
ABS-CBN forgot that Mel & Jay radio and
by claiming TV program, ABS- Payment of wages: The
redundancy as CBN agreed to pay for power to bargain talent
authorized cause for SONZAs services a fees way above the
dismissal, it impliedly monthly talent fee of salary scales of
P310,000 ordinary employees is
for the first year and reserves the right to a circumstance
P317,000 for the seek recovery of the indicative, but not
second and third year other benefits under conclusive, of an
of the Agreement. said Agreement.Later independent
on, SONZA filed a contractual
In 1996, SONZA wrote complaint against ABS- relationship.
a letter to ABS-CBNs CBN before the DOLE.
President stating his SONZA complained Power of dismissal: For
resignation, notice of that ABS-CBN did not violation of any
rescission of the pay his salaries, provision of the
Agreement, and waiver separation pay, service Agreement, either party
of recovery of the incentive leave pay, may terminate their
remaining amount 13th month pay, signing relationship. SONZA
stipulated in paragraph bonus, travel allowance failed to show that
7 of the Agreement but and amounts due ABS-CBN could
terminate his services
66
BERNARTE v. PBA on the means and professional employee of the
G.R. Nos. 192084, methods by which the basketball game former. For a hired
September 14, 2011, work is accomplished. undoubtedly calls for party to be considered
Carpio The so-called "control freedom of control by an employee, the
test" is the most respondents. hiring party must have
Bernarte and important indicator of control over the means
Guevarra aver that the presence or The fact that PBA and methods by which
they were invited to absence of an repeatedly hired the hired party is to
join the PBA as employer-employee petitioner does not by perform his work,
referees and they relationship. In this itself prove that which is absent in this
were made to sign case, PBA admits petitioner is an case.
contracts on a year- repeatedly engaging ABELLA V. PLDT No. Based on the
to-year basis. petitioner's services, G.R. No. 159469, June following
However, changes as shown in the 8, 2005, Chico-Nazario circumstances, PLDT is
were made on the retainer contracts. not the employer of the
terms of their PBA pays petitioner a PSI, a legitimate job security guards
employment. retainer fee, exclusive contractor, entered into a) The screening
Bernarte received a of per diem or an agreement with the of security
letter advising him allowances, as PLDT to provide the guards does not
that his contract stipulated in the latter with such number amount to hiring
would not be retainer contract. PBA of qualified uniformed but merely a
renewed citing his can terminate the and properly armed referral by PSI
unsatisfactory retainer contract for security guards. PSI intended for
performance on and petitioner's violation of determined and paid possible
off the court. its terms and the compensation of assignment in a
Guevarra alleged that conditions. the security guards. designated
beginning February Upon deployment, client. Thus
2004, he was no We agree with PLDT conducted employer-
longer made to sign a respondents that once interviews and employee
contract. in the playing court, evaluation to ensure relationship is
Respondents averred the referees exercise that the standards it set deemed
that complainants their own independent are met by the security perfected even
entered into two judgment, based on guards. PLDT rarely before the
contracts of retainer the rules of the game, failed to accept security posting of the
with the PBA in the as to when and how a guards referred to by security guards
year 2003 and after call or decision is to PSI but on account of with the PLDT,
December 2003, PBA be made. The height deficiency. as assignment
decided not to renew referees decide PLDT likewise only comes
their contracts. whether an infraction conducted seminars for after
was committed, and the security guards in employment.
ISSUE the PBA cannot its premises. b) PSI had control
WON petitioner is an overrule them once over the
employee of the PBA, the decision is made Later, several security determination
thus illegally on the playing court. guards deployed in and payment of
dismissed. The referees are the PLDT sought the security
only, absolute, and regularization of guards’
RULING final authority on the employment with compensation.
No. To determine the playing court. PLDT, claiming that c) PSI is a
existence of an Respondents or any PLDT employed them legitimate job
employer- employee of the PBA officers through the years contractor,
relationship, case law cannot and do not commencing from 1982 hence, the
has consistently determine which calls and that all of them employer of the
applied the four-fold to make or not to served PLDT directly security guards.
test, to wit: (a) the make and cannot for more than 1 year.
selection and control the referee As regards the holding
engagement of the when he blows the ISSUE of seminars for security
employee; (b) the whistle because such Are the guards, it is not
payment of wages; authority exclusively security uncommon, especially
(c) the power of belongs to the guards for big aggressive
dismissal; and (d) the referees. The very employees of corporations like PLDT,
employer's power to nature of petitioner's PLDT? HELD to align or integrate their
control the employee job of officiating a
67
corporate visions and may be required of your undertaking the President Aleta
policies externally or your position in assignment and the Tolentino ("Tolentino").
with that of other accordance with accompanying duties
entities they deal with pertinent Company and responsibilities, ISSUE
such as their suppliers, policies and you shall be entitled to Whether
consultants, or guidelines. In pursuit compensation Consulta was
contractors. of this objective, you computed as follows: an employee of
are hereby tasked On Initial Membership Pamana
CONSULTA V. CA with the Fee Entrance Fee 5%; RULING
GR 145443, March 18, responsibilities of Medical Fee 6%; On Yes.Applying the four-
2005, Carpio recruiting, training and Subsequent fold test :(1) the power
directing your Membership Fee 6% to hire;
Pamana Philippines, Supervising You are likewise (2) the payment of
Inc. ("Pamana") is Associates (SAs) and entitled to participate wages; (3) the power
engaged in health care the Health in sales contests and to dismiss; and (4) the
business. Raquel P. Consultants under such other incentives power to control. The
Consulta ("Consulta") their respective that may be power to control is the
was a Managing agencies, for the implemented by the most important of the
Associate of Pamana. purpose of promoting Company. This four elements. The
Consulta’s our corporate Love appointment is on a power to control is
appointment dated 1 Mission. The authority non-employer- explained as: “x xx It
December 1987 as MA likewise vests employee relationship should, however, be
states: “We are upon you command basis, and shall be in obvious that not every
pleased to formally responsibility for the accordance with the form of control that the
confirm your actions of your SAs Company Guidelines hiring party reserves to
appointment and and HealthCons; the on Appointment, himself over the
confer upon you the Company therefore Reclassification and conduct of the party
authority as reserves the right to Transfer of Sales hired in relation to the
MANAGING debit your account for Associates. services rendered may
ASSOCIATE (MA) any On 4 March 1988, be accorded the effect
effective on December accountabilities/financi Pamana and the U.S. of establishing an
1, 1987 up to January al obligations arising Naval Supply Depot employer- employee
2, 1988. In this therefrom. signed the FFCEA relationship between
capacity, your principal account. Consulta, them in the legal or
responsibility is to By your acceptance of claiming that Pamana technical sense of the
organize, develop, this appointment, it is did not pay her term. A line must be
manage, and maintain understood that you commission for the drawn somewhere, if
a sales division and a must represent the FFCEA account, filed the recognized
full complement of Company on an a complaint for unpaid distinction between an
agencies and Health exclusive basis, and wages or commission employee and an
Consultants and to must not engage against Pamana, its individual contractor is
submit such number of directly or indirectly in President Razul Z. not to vanish
enrollments and activities, nor become Requesto altogether.
revenue attainments affiliated in official or ("Requesto"), and its Realistically, it would
as unofficial capacity with Executive Vice- be a rare contract of
companies or service that gives be employed in
organizations which untrammelled freedom attaining it, and those
compete or have the to the party hired and that control or fix the
same business as eschews any methodology and bind
Pamana. It is further intervention or restrict the party
understood that his whatsoever in his hired to the use of such
[sic] self- inhibition performance of the means. The first, which
shall be effective for a engagement. Logically, aim only to promote the
period of one year the line should be result, create no
from date of official drawn between rules employer-employee
termination with the that merely serve as relationship unlike the
Company arising from guidelines towards the second, which address
any cause achievement of the both the result and the
whatsoever. mutually desired result means used to achieve
without dictating the it.
In consideration of means or methods to

68
In the present case, resources to bolster VILLAMARIA vs. agreed that if
the power to control is their recruitment. They COURT Bustamante failed to
missing. Pamana shared in the payment APPEALS pay the boundary-
tasked Consulta to of the salaries of their BUSTAMANTE hulog for 3 days,
organize, develop, secretaries. They gave GR No. 165881, April Villamaria Motors
manage, and maintain cash incentives to their 19, 2006, Callejo, Sr. would hold on to the
a sales division, submit sales associates from vehicle until
a number of their own pocket. Oscar Villamaria, Jr. Bustamante paid his
enrollments and These circumstances was the owner of arrears, including a
revenue attainments in show that the Villamaria Motors, a penalty of 50 a day; in
accordance with Managing Associates sole proprietorship case Bustamante
company policies and were independent engaged in failed to remit the daily
guidelines, and to contractors, not assembling passenger boundary-hulog for a
recruit, train and direct employees, of Pamana. jeepneys with a public period of one week,
her Supervising utility franchise to the Kasunduan would
Associates and Health The appointment operate along the cease to have the legal
Consultants. However, provided that Consulta Baclaran-Sucat route. effect and Bustamante
the manner in which must represent By 1995, Villamaria would have to return
Consulta was to Pamana on an stopped assembling the vehicle to
pursue these activities exclusive basis. She jeepneys and retained Villamaria motors.In
was not subject to the must not engage only nine, four of 1999, Bustamante and
control of Pamana. directly or indirectly in which operated by other drivers who also
Consulta failed to activities of other employing drivers on had the same
show that she had to companies that a “boundary basis.” arrangement failed to
report for work at compete with the One of those drivers pay their respective
definite hours. The business of Pamana. was respondent boundary- hulog. This
amount of time she However, the fact that Bustamante.Bustama prompted Villamaria to
devoted to soliciting the appointment nte remitted 450 a day serve a “Paalala”. On
clients was left entirely required Consulta to to Villamaria as July 24,
to her discretion. The solicit business boundary and kept the 2000.Villamaria took
means and methods of exclusively for Pamana residue of his daily back the jeepney
recruiting and training did not mean that earnings as driven by Bustamante
her sales associates, Pamana exercised compensation for and barred the latter
as well as the control over the means driving the vehicle. In from driving the
development, and methods of August 1997, vehicle.Bustamante
management and Consulta’s work as the Villamaria verbally filed a complaint for
maintenance of her term control is agreed to sell the Illegal Dismissal.
sales division, were left understood in labor jeepney to
to her sound judgment. jurisprudence. Neither Bustamante under a ISSUES
Managing Associates did it make Consulta an “boundary- hulog WON the existence of
only received employee of Pamana. scheme”, where a boundary-hulog
suggestions from Pamana did not Bustamante would agreement negates the
Pamana on how to go prohibit Consulta from remit to Villamaria employer-employee
about their recruitment engaging in any other P550 a day for a relationship between
and sales activities. business, or from being period of 4 years; the vendor and vendee
They could adopt the connected with any Bustamane would
suggestions but the other company, for as then become the HELD
suggestions were not long as the business or owner of the vehicle NO. Under the
binding on them. They company did not and continue to drive boundary-hulog
could adopt other compete with the same under scheme, a dual
methods that they Pamana’s business. Villamaria’s franchise, juridical relationship is
deemed more but with Php 10,000 created; that of
effective. Further, the downpayment. On employer- employee
Managing Associates August 7, 1997, and vendor-vendee.
had to ask the Villamaria executed a The Kasanduan did
Management of contract entitled not extinguish the
Pamana to shoulder “Kasunduan ng employer employee
half of the Bilihan ng relationship of the
advertisement cost for SasakyansaPamamag parties existing before
their recruitment itan ng Boundary the execution of said
campaign. They Hulog”. The parties deed.
shelled out their own
69
 for the consequences cooperative. Instead, cooperative alleges
a. Under this system of its use. The they receive a share in that its owners-
the owner/operator management of the the service surplus members own the
exercises control and business is still in the which Asiapro earns cooperative, thus, no
supervision over the hands of the from different areas of employer-employee
driver. It is unlike in owner/operator, who, trade it engages in, relationship can arise
lease of chattels being the holder of the such as the income between them.
where the lessor certificate of public derived from the said
loses complete convenience, must Service Contracts with ISSUE
control over the see to it that the driver Stanfilco. In order to WON an employer-
chattel leased but the follows the route enjoy the benefits employee relationship
lessee is still prescribed by the under the Social exists between
ultimately responsible franchising Security Law of 1997, Stanfilco and its
and regulatory not dependent on how the owners-members of owner-members
authority, and the rules the worker is paid but Asiapro in Stanfilco
promulgated with on the presence or requested the services HELD
regard to the business absence of control over of the latter to register YES. An owner-
operations. the means and method them with SSS as self- member of a
of the work. The employed and to remit cooperative can be an
b. The driver performs amount earned in their contributions as employee of the latter
activities which are excess of the such. Petitioner SSS and an employer-
usually necessary or “boundary hulog” is sent a letter to employee relationship
desirable in the usual equivalent to wages respondent cooperative can exist between
business or trade of and the fact that the informing the latter that them. a cooperative
the owner/operator. power of dismissal was based on the Service acquires juridical
Under the Kasunduan, not mentioned in the Contracts it executed personality upon its
respondent was Kasunduan did not with Stanfilco, Asiapro registration with the
required to remit Php mean that private is actually a manpower Cooperative
550 daily to petitioner, respondent never contractor supplying Development
an amount which exercised such power, employees to Stanfilco Authority. It has its
represented the or could not exercise and so, it is an Board of Directors,
boundary of petitioner such power. employer of its owners- which directs and
as well as members working with supervises its
respondent’s partial REPUBLIC v. Stanfilco. Thus, business; meaning, its
payment (hulog) of the ASIAPRO Asiapro should register Board of Directors is
purchase price of the COOPERATIVE itself with petitioner the one in charge in
jeepney. Thus, the G.R. No. 172101, SSS as an employer the conduct and
daily remittances also November 23, 2007, and make the management of its
had a dual purpose: Chico Nazario corresponding report affairs. With that, a
that of petitioner’s and remittance of cooperative can be
boundary and Asiapro, as a premium contributions. likened to a
respondent’s partial cooperative, is Despite letters corporation with a
payment (hulog) for composed of owners- received, respondent personality separate
the vehicle. members. Its primary cooperative and distinct from its
objectives are to continuously ignored owners-members. It is
c. The obligation is not provide savings and the demand of true that the Service
novated by an credit facilities and to petitioner SSS. Contracts executed
instrument that develop other livelihood Respondent between the
expressly recognizes services for its owners- respondent
the old one, members. In the cooperative and
changes only the discharge of the Stanfilco expressly
terms of payment and aforesaid primary provide that there shall
adds other obligations objectives, respondent be no employer-
not incompatible with cooperative entered employee relationship
the old provisions or into several Service between the
where the contract Contracts with respondent
merely supplements Stanfilco. The owners- cooperative and its
the previous one. members do not owners-members.
receive compensation However, the
d. The existence of an or wages from the existence of an
employment relation is respondent employer-employee

70
relationship cannot be relationship are all 7, 2005 services to its
negated by expressly present in this case. employees through
repudiating it in a First. It is expressly Petitioner Philippine accredited hospitals
contract, when the provided in the Global near the company
terms and Service Contracts that Communications, Inc. premises. De Vera filed
surrounding it is the respondent (PhilCom), is a a complaint for illegal
circumstances show cooperative which has corporation engaged in dismissal before the
otherwise. The the exclusive the business of National Labor
employment status of discretion in the communication Relations Commission
a person is defined selection and services and allied (NLRC), alleging that
and prescribed by law engagement of the activities, while that he had been
and not by what the owners-members as respondent Ricardo De actually employed by
parties say it should well as its team Vera is a physician by Philcom as its company
be. It is settled that leaders who will be profession whom physician since 1981
the contracting assigned at Stanfilco. petitioner enlisted to and was dismissed
parties may establish Second. the weekly attend to the medical without due process. He
such stipulations, stipends or the so- needs of its employees. averred that he was
clauses, terms and called shares in the designated as a
conditions as they service surplus given On May 15, 1981, De "company physician on
want, and their by the respondent Vera offered his retainer basis" for
agreement would cooperative to its services to the reasons allegedly
have the force of law owners- members petitioner, therein known only to Philcom.
between them. were in reality wages, proposing his plan of
However, the agreed as the same were works required of a The Labor Arbiter
terms and conditions equivalent to an practitioner in industrial dismissed the complaint
must not be contrary amount not lower than medicine including for lack of merit and
to law, morals, that prescribed by check- up and held that De Vera was
customs, public policy existing labor laws, treatment of an “independent
or public order. The rules and regulations, employees, pre- contractor” and that he
Service Contract including the wage employment physical was not dismissed
provision in question order applicable to the and mental check-ups instead his contract
must be struck down area and industry, and holding clinic hours ended when it was not
for being contrary to they are also given to for consultation of renewed. NLRC
law and public policy the owners-members employees. For this reversed and found De
since it is apparently as compensation in purpose they entered Vera to be a regular
being used by the rendering services to into a Retainership employee of the
respondent respondent Agreement which will company and ordered
cooperative merely to cooperative’s client, be for a period of one him to be reinstated.
circumvent the Stanfilco. Third .it is year subject to
compulsory coverage the respondent renewal. The ISSUE
of its employees, who cooperative which has retainership Whether an employer-
are also its owners- the power to arrangement went on employee relationship
members, by the investigate, discipline from 1981 to 1994 with exists between
Social Security Law. and remove the changes in the petitioner and
The four elements in owners- members and retainer’s fee. respondent
determining the its team leaders who However, for the years
existence of an were rendering 1995 and 1996, HELD
employer- employee renewal of the contract
services at Stanfilco. prove that, indeed, was only made
Fourth and most there is an employer- verbally.
importantly, it is the employee relationship
respondent between the In December 1996
cooperative which has respondent cooperative when Philcom, thru a
the sole control over and its owners- letterinformed De Vera
the manner and means members. of its decision to
of performing the discontinue the latter’s
services under the PHILIPPINE GLOBAL "retainer’s contract with
Service Contracts with COMMUNICATIONS, the Company because
Stanfilco as well as the INC. v. RICARDO DE management has
means and methods of VERA decided that it would be
work. All these clearly G.R. No. 157214, June more practical to
provide medical
71
In a long line of 1982 to 1994. The control the employee
decisions, the Court, labor arbiter added not only as to the
in determining the the indicia, not result of the work
existence of an disputed by done but also as to
employer-employee respondent, that from the means and
relationship, has the time he started to methods by which the
invariably adhered to work with petitioner, same is to be
the four-fold test, to he never was included accomplished.
wit: [1] the selection in its payroll; was Petitioner had no
and engagement of never deducted any control over the
the employee; [2] the contribution for means and methods
payment of wages; [3] remittance to the by which respondent
the power of Social Security went about performing
dismissal; and [4] the System (SSS); and his work at the
power to control the was in fact subjected company premises
employee’s conduct, by petitioner to the ten not to mention the fact
or the so- called (10%) percent that respondent’s
"control test", withholding tax for his work hours and the
considered to be the professional fee, in additional
most important accordance with the compensation were
element. National Internal negotiated upon by
Revenue Code, the parties.In fine, the
Applying the four-fold matters which are parties themselves
test to this case, we simply inconsistent practically agreed on
initially find that it was with an employer- every terms and
respondent himself employee relationship. conditions of
who sets the respondent’s
parameters of what We note, too, that the
his duties would be in power to terminate the
offering his services parties’ relationship
to petitioner. was mutually vested
Evidence also shows on both. Either may
that respondent terminate the
PHILCOM did not arrangement at will,
have control over the with or without cause.
schedule of the Clearly, the elements
complainant as it [is] of an employer-
the complainant who employee relationship
is proposing his own are wanting in this
schedule and asking case. We may add
to be paid for the that the records are
same. This is proof replete with evidence
that the complainant showing that
understood that his respondent had to bill
relationship with the petitioner for his
respondent monthly professional
PHILCOM was a fees. It simply runs
retained physician against the grain of
and not as an common experience
employee. If he were to imagine that an
an employee he ordinary employee
could not negotiate as has yet to bill his
to his hours of work. employer to receive
his salary.
The complainant also
admitted that his Finally, remarkably
service for the absent from the
respondent was parties’ arrangement
covered by a is the element of
retainership contract control, whereby the
[which] was renewed employer has
every year from reserved the right to
72
engagement, which thereby negates the element of
control in their relationship.
COCA COLA BOTTLERS V. CLIMACO
G.R. No. 146881, February 5, 2007, Azcuna
Respondent was hired by petitioner as a company
doctor; a retainership agreement renewable annually
was signed pursuant thereto. For 3 consecutive years,
the retainer agreement was signed annually. On the 4 th
year, the contract of respondent was not renewed yet
the latter remained working for the petitioner. On later
date, petitioner expressly told respondent that the
former will no longer renew the retainership.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent is an employee of
petitioner.
RULING
No. The Court, in determining the existence of an
employer-employee relationship, has invariably
adhered to the four-fold test: (1) the selection and
engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of
wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to
control the employee’s conduct, or the so-called
"control test," considered to be the most important
element.
The Court agrees with the finding of the Labor Arbiter
and the NLRC that the circumstances of this case
show that no employer-employee relationship exists
between the parties. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
correctly found that petitioner company lacked the
power of control over the performance by respondent
of his duties. The Labor Arbiter reasoned that the
Comprehensive Medical Plan, which contains the
respondent’s objectives, duties and obligations, does
not tell respondent "how to conduct his physical
examination, how to immunize, or how to diagnose
and treat his patients, employees of [petitioner]
company, in each case."
Considering that there is no employer-employee
relationship between the parties, the termination of the
Retainership Agreement, which is in accordance with
the provisions of the Agreement, does not constitute
illegal dismissal of respondent. Consequently, there is
no basis for the moral and exemplary damages
granted by the Court of Appeals to respondent due to
his alleged illegal dismissal.
PEDRO CHAVEZ vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, SUPREME
PACKAGING, INC. and ALVIN LEE
G.R. No. 146530. January 17, 2005
The respondent company, Supreme Packaging, Inc., is
in the business of manufacturing cartons and other
packaging materials for export and distribution. It
engaged the services of the petitioner, Pedro Chavez,
70
as truck driver on October 25, 1984. As such, the
petitioner was tasked to deliver the respondent
companys products from its factory in Mariveles,
Bataan, to its various customers, mostly in Metro
Manila. The respondent company furnished the
petitioner with a truck. Most of the petitioners delivery
trips were made at nighttime, commencing at 6:00 p.m.
from Mariveles, and returning thereto in the afternoon
two or three days after. The deliveries were made in
accordance with the routing slips issued by respondent
company indicating the order, time and urgency of
delivery. Initially, the petitioner was paid the sum of
P350.00 per trip. This was later adjusted to P480.00
per trip and, at the time of his alleged dismissal, the
petitioner was receiving P900.00 per trip.
ISSUE
Whether or not there existed an employer-employee
relationship between the respondent company and the
petitioner
RULING
YES. The elements to determine the existence of an
employment relationship are: (1) the selection and
engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of
wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the
employers power to control the employees conduct.
The most important element is the employers control
of the employees conduct, not only as to the result of
the work to be done, but also as to the means and
methods to accomplish it.All the four elements are
present in this case. As earlier opined, of the four
elements of the employer-employee relationship, the
control test is the most important. Although the
respondents denied that they exercised control over
the manner and methods by which the petitioner
accomplished his work, a careful review of the records
shows that the latter performed his work as truck driver
under the respondents supervision and control. Their
right of control was manifested by the following
attendant circumstances:
1. The truck driven by the petitioner belonged to
respondent company;
2. There was an express instruction from the
respondents that the truck shall be used exclusively to
deliver respondent companys goods;
3. Respondents directed the petitioner, after
completion of each delivery, to park the truck in either
of two specific places only, to wit: at its office in Metro
Manila at 2320 Osmea Street, Makati City or at BEPZ,
Mariveles, Bataan; and
4. Respondents determined how, where and when the
petitioner would perform his task by issuing to him gate
passes and routing slips.
ANGELINA FRANCISCO v. NLRC
G.R. 170087, August 31, 2006, Ynares-Santiago
Petitioner was hired by Kasei Corporation during its
incorporation stage.She reported for work regularly
and served in various capacities as Accountant,
Liaison Officer, economic realities of corporations Technical vouchers indicating her
Technical Consultant, the activity or Consultant. salaries/wages,
Acting Manager and relationship. benefits, 13th month
Corporate Secretary, Under the broader pay, bonuses and
with substantially the Thus, the determination economic reality test, allowances, as well as
same job functions, of the relationship the petitioner can deductions and Social
that is, rendering between employer and likewise be said to be Security contributions
accounting and tax employee depends an employee of from August 1, 1999 to
services to the upon the respondent corporation December 18, 2000.
company and circumstances of the because she had
performing functions whole economic served the company for It is therefore apparent
necessary and activity,such as: six years before her that petitioner is
desirable for the (1) the extent to which dismissal, receiving economically
proper operation of the the services performed check dependent on
corporation such as are an integral part of respondent corporation
securing business the employers for her continued
permits and other business; (2) the extent employment in the
licenses over an of the workers latter’s line of
indefinite period of investment in business.
engagement. XXX On equipment and
October 15, 2001, facilities; GREGORIO V.
petitioner asked for her (3) the nature and TONGKO vs. THE
salary from Acedo and degree of control MANUFACTURERS
the rest of the officers exercised by the LIFE INSURANCE
but she was informed employer; (4) the CO. (PHILS.), INC.
that she is no longer workers opportunity for and RENATO A.
connected with the profit and loss; (5) the VERGEL DE DIOS
company. amount of initiative, G.R. No. 167622,
skill, judgment or January 25, 2011, Brion
ISSUE foresight required for
Was there an the success of the TOPIC: Agency;
employer-employee claimed independent Insurance Companies;
relationship between enterprise; (6) the Employer- employee
petitioner and private permanency and relationships
respondent Kasei duration of the
Corporation? relationship between DOCTRINE: Control
the worker and the over the performance
HELD employer; and (7) the of the task of one
Yes. In certain cases degree of dependency providing service both
the control test is not of the worker upon the with respect to the
sufficient to give a employer for his means and manner,
complete picture of the continued employment and the results of the
relationship between in that line of business. service is the primary
the parties, owing to element in determining
the complexity of such The proper standard of whether an
a relationship where economic dependence employment
several positions have is whether the worker is relationship exists.In
been held by the dependent on the the Supreme Courts
worker. alleged employer for June 29, 2010
his continued Resolution of this
The better approach employment in that line case, they noted that
would therefore be to of business. there are built-in
adopt a two-tiered test elements of control
involving: (1) the By applying the control specific to an
putative employers test, there is no doubt insurance agency,
power to control the that petitioner is an which do not amount
employee with respect employee of Kasei to the elements of
to the means and Corporation because control that
methods by which the she was under the characterize an
work is to be direct control and employment
accomplished; and (2) supervision of Seiji relationship governed
the underlying Kamura, the
71
by the Labor Pet. and Res.) withdrawal or
Code.The Insurance It is understood and cancellation of HELD
Code provides agreed that the the right to No Employer-Employee
definite parameters in Agent is an terminate this Relationship.The
the way an agent independent Agreement by Supreme Court ruled
negotiates for the contractor and the Company petitioners Motion
sale of the companys nothing contained shall be against his favor since
insurance products, herein shall be construed for he failed to show that
his collection construed or any previous the control Manulife
activities and his interpreted as failure to exercised over him was
delivery of the creating an exercise its the control required to
insurance contract or employer-employee right under any exist in an employer-
policy. They do not relationship provision of employee relationship;
reach the level of between the this Manulifes control fell
control into the Company Agreement. short of this norm and
means and manner of c) Either of the carried only the
doing an assigned and parties hereto characteristic of the
task that invariably may likewise relationship between an
characterizes an the terminate his insurance company and
employment Agreement at its agents, as defined by
relationship as Agent. any time the Insurance Code and
defined by labor law. a) The Agent shall without cause, by the law of agency
canvass for by giving to the under the Civil Code.
FACTS applications for Life other party
Taking from the Insurance, fifteen (15) To reiterate, guidelines
November 2008 Annuities, Group days notice in indicative of labor law
decision, the facts are policies and other writing. "control" do not merely
as follows: products offered by relate to the mutually
Manufacturers Life the Company, and De Dios sent Tongko a desirable result
Insurance, Co. is a collect, in exchange letter of termination(for intended by the
domestic corporation for provisional inability to push for contractual relationship;
engaged in life receipts issued by company development they must have the
insurance business. the Agent, money and growth) in nature of dictating the
De Dios was its due or to become accordance with means and methods to
President and Chief due to the Company Tongko's Agents be employed in
Executive Officer. in respect of Contract. Tongko filed attaining the result.
Petitioner Tongko applications or a complaint with the Tested by this norm,
started his policies obtained by NLRC against Manulife Manulifes instructions
relationship with or through the Agent for illegal dismissal, regarding the objectives
Manulife in 1977 by or from alleging that he had an and sales targets, in
virtue of a Career policyholders employer- employee connection with the
Agent's Agreement. allotted by the relationship with De training and
Pertinent provisions Company to the Dios instead of a engagement of other
of the agreement Agent for servicing, revocable agency by agents, are among the
state that: (this part is subject to pointing out that the directives that the
essential to determine subsequent latter exercised control principal may impose on
relationship between confirmation of over him through the agent to achieve the
receipt of payment provisions directives regarding assigned tasks.They
by the Company as hereof by the how to manage his are targeted results that
evidenced by an Agent by giving area of responsibility Manulife wishes to
Official Receipt written notice and setting objectives attain through its
issued by the to the Agent for him relating to the agents. Manulifes codes
Company directly to within fifteen business. Tongko also of conduct, likewise, do
the policyholder. (15) days from claimed that his not necessarily intrude
b) The the time of the dismissal was without into the insurance
Company may discovery of basis and he was not agents means and
terminate this the breach. No afforded due process. manner of conducting
Agreement for waiver, their sales. Codes of
any breach or extinguishment ISSUE conduct are norms or
violation of any , Whether there is an
of the abandonment, employer-employee
relationship
72
standards of behavior hire starting February Grace Ong, Nida LA held that Cabiles
rather than employer 1. On January 23, delos Santos, did not sever his
directives into how 2007, Intel Phil., Gabronino, and Pia employment with Intel
specific tasks are to through Penny Viloria, to pay Cabiles Phil. when he moved
be done. Gabronino the amount of HKD to Intel HK, similar to
(Gabronino), stated 419,868.77 or its peso the instances when he
In sum, the Supreme that he is not entitled equivalent as was assigned at Intel
Court found to receive his retirement pay with Arizona and Intel
absolutely no entitlement benefit. legal interest and Chengdu.
evidence of labor law attorney’s fees. The
control. On January 31, 2007, Aggrieved, Intel Phil. thus, qualifying him for
Cabiles signed the job elevated the case to retirement benefits.
INTEL offer.8OCabiles the CA via a petition for
TECHNOLOGY executed a Release, certiorari with RULING
PHILIPPINES, INC. Waiver and Quitclaim application for a Resignation is the
v. NATIONAL (Waiver) in favor of Temporary Restraining formal relinquishment of
LABOR RELATIONS Intel Phil. Order (TRO) on April 5, an office,24 the overt act
COMMISSION AND acknowledging receipt 2011. The application of which is coupled with
JEREMIAS CABILES of P165,857.62 as full for TRO was denied. an intent to renounce.
G.R. No. 200575, and complete Earlier, on September This intent could be
February 5, 2014, settlement of all 19, 2011, pending inferred from the acts of
Mendoza benefits due him by disposition of the the employee before
reason of his petition before the CA, and after the alleged
Cabiles was initially separation from Intel the NLRC issued a writ resignation.25 In this
hired by Intel Phil. on Phil. On September 8, of execution14 against case, Cabiles, while still
April 16, 1997 as an 2007, after seven (7) Intel Phil. As ordered on a temporary
Inventory Analyst. He months of by the NLRC, Intel Phil. assignment in Intel
was subsequently employment, Cabiles satisfied the judgment Chengdu, was offered
promoted several resigned from Intel on December 13, 2011 by Intel HK the job of a
times over the years HK. by paying the amount Finance Manager. In
and was also ofP3,201,398.60 which contemplating whether
assigned at Intel On August 18, 2009, included the applicable to accept the offer,
Arizona and Intel Cabiles filed a withholding taxes due Cabiles wrote Intel Phil.
Chengdu. He later complaint for non- and paid to the Bureau providing details and
applied for a position payment of retirement of Internal Revenue. asked about the
at Intel benefits and for moral Cabiles received a retirement benefits.
Semiconductor and exemplary net amount of Despite a non-favorable
Limited Hong Kong damages with the P2,485,337.35, reply as to his
(Intel HK). NLRC Regional covered by the Bank of retirement concerns,
Arbitration Branch-IV. the Philippine Islands Cabiles still accepted
In a letter dated He insisted that he Manager’s Check No. the offer of Intel HK.
December 12, 2006, was employed by Intel 0000000806.16 By
Cabiles was offered for 10 years and 5 reason thereof, Intel His acceptance of the
the position of months from April Phil. filed on December offer meant letting go of
Finance Manager by 1997 to September 21, 2011 a Supplement the retirement benefits
Intel HK. Before 2007 – a period which to the Petition for he now claims as he
accepting the offer, included his seven (7) Certiorari17 praying, in was informed through
he inquired from Intel month stint with Intel addition to the reliefs email correspondence
Phil., through an HK. Thus, he believed sought in the main, that that his 9.5 years of
email, the he was qualified to the CA order the service with Intel Phil.
consequences of avail of the benefits restitution of all the would not be rounded
accepting the newly under the company’s amounts paid by them off in his favor. He, thus,
presented opportunity retirement policy pursuant to the NLRC’s placed himself in this
in Hong Kong, allowing an employee writ of execution, dated position, as he chose to
particularly his who served for 10 September 19, 2011. be employed in a
retirement benefits. years or more to company that would pay
He will celebrate his receive retirement ISSUE him more than what he
10th year of service benefits. WON Cabiles had could earn in Chengdu
with Intel on April 16, completed the required or in the Philippines.
2007. However, he On March 18, 2010, 10 year continuous The choice of staying
will be moving to the LA ordered Intel service21 with Intel Phil., with Intel Phil. vis-à-vis
Hong Kong as a local Phil. together with
73
a very attractive The Court, however, principal employer for that matter, for one
opportunity with Intel is again not while Cabiles was on to be considered as a
HK put him in a convinced. The a temporary corporate officer, the
dilemma. continuity, existence assignment. By virtue position must, if not
or termination of an of which, it still listed in the by-laws,
Cabiles views his employer- employee assumed have been created by
employment in Hong relationship in a responsibility for the the corporation's board
Kong as an typical secondment payment of of directors, and the
assignment or an contract or any compensation and occupant thereof
extension of his employment contract benefits due him. The appointed or elected
employment with Intel for that matter is assignment to Intel by the same board of
Phil. He cited as measured by the HK, on the other directors or
evidence the offer following yardsticks:1. hand, was a stockholders.
made to him as well as the selection and permanent transfer
the letter, dated engagement of the and Intel Phil. never - The criteria for
January 8, 2007,27 employee;2. the participated in any distinguishing between
both of which used the payment of wages;3. way in the process of corporate officers who
word "assignment" in the power of his employment there. may be ousted from
reference to his dismissal; and4. the It was Cabiles himself office at will, on one
engagement in Hong employer’s power to who took the hand, and ordinary
Kong as a clear control the employee’s opportunity and the corporate employees
indication of the conduct.28 risk. If it were indeed who may only be
alleged continuation of similar to Intel Arizona terminated for just
his ties with Intel Phil. As applied, all of the and Intel Chengdu cause, on the other
The foregoing above benchmarks assignments, Intel hand, do not depend
arguments of Cabiles, ceased upon Cabiles’ Philippines would on the nature of the
in essence, speak of assumption of duties have had a say in it. services performed,
the "theory of with Intel HK on Petition granted. but on the manner of
secondment." February 1, 2007. creation of the office.
Intel HK became the MATLING
new employer. It INDUSTRIAL & - The determination of
provided Cabiles his COMMERCIAL whether the dismissed
compensation. CORPORATION V. officer was a regular
Cabiles then became RICARDO COROS employee or corporate
subject to Hong Kong G.R. No. 157802, officer unravels the
labor laws, and October 1, 2010 conundrum” of whether
necessarily, the rights a complaint for illegal
appurtenant thereto, Doctrine: For a dismissal is cognizable
including the right of position to be by the Labor Arbiter or
Intel HK to fire him on considered as a by the RTC. “In case
available grounds. corporate office, or, of the regular
Lastly, Intel HK had employee, the LA has
control and jurisdiction; otherwise, Arbitration Branch XII,
supervision over him the RTC exercises the Iligan City.
as its new Finance legal authority to
Manager. Evidently, adjudicate. The petitioners moved
Intel Phil. no longer to dismiss the
had any control over FACTS complaint, raising the
him. Hence, Cabiles’ After respondent ground, among others,
theory of secondment Ricardo Coros’ that the complaint
must fail. dismissal by Matling as pertained to the
its Vice President for jurisdiction of the
What distinguishes Finance and Securities and
Intel Chengdu and Administration, he filed Exchange Commission
Intel Arizona from Intel on August 10, 2000 a due to the controversy
HK is the lack of complaint for illegal being intra- corporate
intervention of Intel suspension and illegal inasmuch as the
Phil. on the matter. In dismissal against respondent was a
the two previous Matling and some of its member of Matling’s
transfers, Intel Phil. corporate officers in the Board of Directors aside
remained as the NLRC, Sub- Regional from being its Vice-

74
President for Finance among the positions that matter, for one to paid to such employee.
and Administration listed in Matling’s be considered as a
prior to his termination. Constitution and by- corporate officer, the This ruling was
laws. position must, if not reiterated in the
The respondent listed in the by-laws, subsequent cases of
opposed the On motion for have been created by Ongkingco v. National
petitioners’ motion to reconsideration, the corporation's Labor Relations
dismiss, insisting that petitioners submitted a board of directors, and Commission and De
his status as a certified machine the occupant thereof Rossi v. National
member of Matling’s copies of Matling’s appointed or elected Labor Relations
Board of Directors was Amended Articles of by the same board of Commission.
doubtful, considering Incorporation and By- directors or
that he had not been laws to prove that the stockholders. This is The position of vice-
formally elected as President of Matling the implication of the president for
such; that he did not was thereby granted ruling in Tabang v. administration and
own a single share of “full power to create National Labor finance, which Coros
stock in Matling, new offices and Relations used to hold in the
considering that he appoint the officers Commission, which corporation, was not
had been made to sign thereto” and the reads: created by the
in blank an undated minutes of special corporation’s Board of
endorsement of the meeting held on June The president, vice Directors but only by
certificate of stock he 7, 1999 by Matling’s president, secretary its president or
had been given in Board of Directors to and treasurer are executive vice-
1992; that Matling had prove that the commonly regarded president pursuant to
taken back and respondent was, as the principal or the by-laws of the
retained the certificate indeed, a Member of executive officers of a corporation. Moreover,
of stock in its custody; the Board of Directors. corporation, and Coros’ appointment to
and that even Nonetheless, the NLRC modern corporation said position was not
assuming that he had denied the petitioners’ statutes usually made through any act
been a Director of motion for designate them as the of the board of
Matling, he had been Reconsideration. The officers of the directors or
removed as the Vice petitioners elevated the corporation. However, stockholders of the
President for Finance issue to the CA by other offices are corporation.
and Administration, not petition for Certiorari. sometimes created by Consequently, the
as a Director, a fact the charter or by-laws position to which
that the notice of his The CA dismissed the of a corporation, or Coros was appointed
termination dated April petition for certiorari. the board of directors and later on removed
10, 2000 showed. For a position to be may be empowered from, is not a corporate
considered as a under the by-laws of a office despite its
On October 16, 2000, corporate office, or, for corporation to create nomenclature, but an
the Labor Arbiter additional offices as ordinary office in the
granted the petitioners’ may be necessary. corporation. Coros
motion to dismiss, alleged illegal
ruling that the It has been held that dismissal therefrom is,
respondent was a an 'office' is created therefore, within the
corporate officer. by the charter of the jurisdiction of the labor
corporation and the arbiter.
On March 13, 2001, officer is elected by
the NLRC set aside the directors or MR was likewise
the dismissal, stockholders. On the denied.Hence this
concluding that the other hand, an petition for review on
respondent’s 'employee' usually certiorari.
complaint for illegal occupies no office and
dismissal was properly generally is employed ISSUE
cognizable by the not by action of the Whether or not
Labor Arbiter not by directors or respondent was a
the SEC, because he stockholders but by corporate officer of
was not a corporate the managing officer Matling Industrial and
officer by virtue of his of the corporation who Commercial
position in Matling, also determines the Corporation. - NO
albeit high ranking and compensation to be
managerial, not being
75
RULING anoffice pursuant to or occupied by ordinary stockholder had any
Conformably with under a by-law employees of Matling. relation at all to his
Section 25 of the enabling provision is Suchpowers were appointment and
Corporation Code, a not enough to make incidental to the subsequent dismissal
position must be aposition a corporate President’s duties as as Vice President for
expressly mentioned office. Guerrea vs the executive head of Finance and
inthe by-laws in order Lezama, the first Matling toassist him in Administration.
to be considered as a ruling on the matter, the daily operations of
corporate office. heldthat the only the business. Even though he might
officers of a have become a
Thus, the creation of The criteria for stockholder of Matling
corporation were those exercise the functions distinguishing between in 1992, his promotion
given that character of the corporate corporate officers who to the position of Vice
either by the officers, except those may be ousted from President for Finance
Corporation Code or functions lawfully office at will, on one and Administration in
by the by-laws; the delegated to them. hand, and ordinary 1987 was by virtue of
rest of the corporate Their functions and corporate employees the length of quality
officers could duties are tobe who may only be service he had
beconsidered only as determined by the terminated for just rendered as an
employees or Board of cause, on the other employee of Matling.
subordinate officials. Directors/Trustees. hand, do not depend His subsequent
on the nature of the acquisition of the
It is relevant to state in Moreover, the Board of services performed, but status of
this connection that the Directors of Matling on the manner of Director/stockholder
SEC, the primary could not validly creation of the office. In had no relation to his
agencyadministering delegate the power the respondents case, promotion. Besides,
the Corporation Code, tocreate a corporate he was supposedly at his status of
adopted a similar office to the President, once an employee, a Director/stockholder
interpretation of in light of Section 25 of stockholder, and a was unaffected by his
Section 25of the the CorporationCode Director of Matling. The dismissal from
Corporation Code in its requiring the Board of circumstances employment as Vice
Opinion dated Directors itself to elect surrounding his President for Finance
November 25, 1993, to the corporate officers. appointment to office and Administration.
wit: Verily,the power to must be fully
elect the corporate considered to CA’s decision is
Thus, pursuant to officers was a determine whether the affirmed. Coros was an
Section 25 of the discretionary power dismissal constituted employee, Labor
Corporation Code, that the law exclusively an intra-corporate Arbiter has jurisdiction
whoever are the vested in the Board of controversy or a labor on the illegal dismissal
corporateofficers Directors, and could termination dispute. We case.
enumerated in the By- not be delegated must also consider
laws are the exclusive tosubordinate officers whether his status as RAUL C. COSARE v.
officers of the or agents. The office of Director and BROADCOM ASIA,
corporation andthe Vice President for INC. and DANTE
Board has no power to Finance AREVALO
create other offices andAdministration G.R. No. 201298,
without amending first created by Matling’s February 5, 2014,
the corporateBy-laws. President pursuant to Reyes
However, the Board By-law No. V was
may create appointive anordinary, not a Petitioner Cosare
positions other than corporate, office. claims that he was the
thepositions of Assistant Vice
corporate officers, but To emphasize, the President for Sales
the persons occupying power to create new (AVP for Sales) and
such positions are offices and the power Head of the Technical
notconsidered as to appoint the officersto Coordination for
corporate officers occupy them vested by Respondent
within the meaning of By-law No. V merely Corporation. Sometime
Section 25 of the allowed Matling’s in 2003, one Alex
CorporationCodeand President tocreate non- Abiog was appointed
are not empowered to corporate offices to be as Vice President for

76
Sales, becoming his reasonable person in respondents’ full They claimed that they
immediate superior. the employee’s investigation on the were illegally dismissed
Petitioner informed position would have matter. In addition to when the
Arevalo, being felt compelled to give this, the fact that no apprenticeship
President, of certain up his position under further investigation agreement expired.
anomalies Abiog was the circumstances. It and final disposition
involved. Petitioner is an act amounting to appeared to have been In defense, Atlanta and
was then furnished a dismissal but is made made by the Chan argued that the
memo, whereby he to appear as if it were respondents on workers were not
was given forty-eight not. Constructive Cosare’s case only entitled to regularization
(48) hours from date dismissal is therefore negated the claim that and to their money
to present his a dismissal in they actually intended claims because they
explanation on the disguise. The law to first look into the were engaged as
charges of recognizes and matter before making a apprentices under a
irregularities. resolves this situation final determination as government-approved
Petitioner was totally in favor of employees to the guilt or apprenticeship program.
barred from entering in order to protect innocence of their The company offered to
company premises their rights and employee. This also hire them as regular
and to wait outside for interests from the manifested from the employees in the event
further instructions, coercive acts of the fact that even before vacancies for regular
but no instructions employer.” Cosare was required to positions occur in the
were given until 8PM. “It is clear from the present his side on the section of the plant
Petitioner now files cited circumstances charges of serious where they had trained.
with LA complaint for that the respondents misconduct and willful They also claimed that
constructive already rejected breach of trust, he was their names did not
dismissal. Cosare’s continued summoned to Arevalo’s appear in the list of
involvement with the office and was asked to employees (Master List)
ISSUE company. Even their tender his immediate prior to their
Was Petitioner refusal to accept the resignation in
constructively explanation which exchange for financial engagement
dismissed? Cosare tried to tender assistance.” apprentices.
on April 2, 2009
H further evidenced the ATLANTA ISSUE
E resolve to deny INDUSTRIES, INC. Whether or not
L Cosare of the and/or ROBERT Sebolinoet. al. attained
D opportunity to be CHAN v. APRILITO R. status of regular
heard prior to any SEBOLINO, KHIM V. employees and were
Y decision on the COSTALES, ALVIN V. illegally dismissed
E termination of his ALMONTE, and
S employment. The JOSEPH H. SAGUN HELD
. respondents allegedly G.R. No. 187320, YES. The petition is
“The test of refused acceptance of January 26, 2011, Brion unmeritorious.
constructive dismissal the explanation as it
is whether a was filed beyond the Sebolino et al. filed
mere 48-hour several complaints for
period which they employee of the illegal dismissal,
granted to Cosare opportunity to fully regularization,
under the memo dated explain his defenses underpayment,
March 30, 2009. and ultimately, retain nonpayment of wages
However, even this his employment.” and other money
limitation was a flaw in claims as well as
the memo or notice to “In sum, the damages. They alleged
explain which only respondents were that they had attained
further signified the already resolute on a regular status as they
respondents’ severance of their were allowed to work
discrimination, disdain working relationship with Atlanta for more
and insensibility with Cosare, than six (6) months
towards Cosare, notwithstanding the from the start of a
apparently resorted to facts which could have purported
by the respondents in been established by his apprenticeship
order to deny their explanations and the agreement between
them and the company.
77
 opportunity to be of the respondent Stanfilco and for that
The CA correctly heard, their dismissal cooperative, who were reason, it is an
recognized the was illegal under the assigned to Stanfilco employer of its
authenticity of the law. requested the owners-members
operational services of the latter working with Stanfilco.
documents, for the REPUBLIC V. to register them with Thus, respondent
failure of Atlanta to ASIAPRO petitioner SSS as self- cooperative should
raise a challenge COOPERATIVE employed and to remit register itself with
against these G.R. No. 172101, their contributions as petitioner SSS as an
documents before the November 23, 2007 such. Petitioner SSS employer and make
labor arbiter, the said that based on the the corresponding
NLRC and the CA Under the Service Contracts it report and remittance
itself. The appellate respondent’s by-laws, executed with of premium
court, thus, found the owners-members are Stanfilco, respondent contributions in
said documents of two categories, to cooperative is actually accordance with the
sufficient to establish wit: (1) regular a manpower Social Security Law of
the employment of member, who is contractor supplying 1997. On 9 October
the respondents entitled to all the rights employees to 2002, respondent
before their and privileges of cooperative, through its the means and methods
engagement as membership; and (2) counsel, sent a reply to to accomplish. The
apprentices. associate member, petitioner SSSs letter power of control refers
who has no right to asserting that it is not to the existence of the
The fact that Sebolino vote and be voted an employer because power and not
and the three others upon and shall be its owners-members necessarily to the actual
were already entitled only to such are the cooperative exercise thereof. It is
rendering service to rights and privileges itself; hence, it cannot not essential for the
the company when provided in its by- be its own employer. employer to actually
they were made to laws. In the discharge supervise the
undergo of the aforesaid ISSUE performance of duties of
apprenticeship (as primary objectives, Whether or not there is the employee; it is
established by the respondent an employer-employee enough that the
evidence) renders the cooperative entered relationship between employer has the right
apprenticeship into several Service [respondent to wield that power. All
agreements irrelevant Contracts. The cooperative] and its the aforesaid elements
as far as the four are owners-members do [owners-members]. are present in this case.
concerned. This not receive First. It is expressly
reality is highlighted compensation or HELD provided in the Service
by the CA finding that wages from the Yes. In determining the Contracts that it is the
the respondents respondent existence of an respondent cooperative
occupied positions cooperative but employer- employee which has the exclusive
such as machine instead they receive a relationship, the discretion in the
operator, scaleman share in the service following elements are selection and
and extruder operator surplus which the considered: (1) the engagement of the
- tasks that are respondent selection and owners-members as
usually necessary cooperative earns engagement of the well as its team leaders
and desirable in from different areas of workers; (2) the who will be assigned at
Atlanta's usual trade it engages in, payment of wages by Stanfilco. Second.
business or trade as such as the income whatever means; (3) Wages are defined as
manufacturer of derived from the said the power of dismissal; remuneration or
plastic building Service Contracts with and (4) the power to earnings, however
materials. These Stanfilco. The owners- control the workers designated, capable of
tasks and their nature members get their conduct, with the latter being expressed in
characterized the four income from the assuming primacy in terms of money,
as regular employees service surplus the overall whether fixed or
under Article 280 of generated by the consideration.The most ascertained, on a time,
the Labor Code.Thus, quality and amount of important element is task, piece or
when they were services they the employer’s control commission basis, or
dismissed without just rendered. In order to of the employee’s other method of
or authorized cause, enjoy the benefits conduct, not only as to calculating the same,
without notice, and under the Social the result of the work to which is payable by an
without the Security Law of 1997, be done, but also as to employer to an
the owners-members
78
employee under a control test is the most that Synergy was "an respondents' complaint
written or unwritten important. In the case independent for regularization
contract of at bar, it is the contractor and . . . that against petitioner, but
employment for work respondent there would be no granted their money
done or to be done, or cooperative which has employer-employee claims.
for service rendered the sole control over relationship between
or to be rendered. the manner and CONTRACTOR ISSUE
In this case, the means of performing and/or its employees Whether Synergy is a
weekly stipends or the the services under the on the one hand, and mere job-only
so-called shares in the Service Contracts with OWNER, on the contractor or a
service surplus given Stanfilco as well as other." Respondents, legitimate contractor?
by the respondent the means and who appear to have
cooperative to its methods of work. been assigned by RULING
owners-members were Also, the respondent Synergy to petitioner Synergy is a mere job-
in reality wages, as the cooperative is solely filedcomplaints before only contractor.
same were equivalent and entirely the NLRC Regional Section 5.Prohibition
to an amount not lower responsible for its Office VII at Cebu City against labor-only
than that prescribed by owners-members, against petitioner, contracting. Labor-only
existing labor laws, team leaders and Synergy and their contracting is hereby
rules and regulations, other representatives respective officials for declared prohibited.
including the wage at Stanfilco. All these underpayment, non- For this purpose,
order applicable to the clearly prove that, payment of premium labor-only contracting
area and industry; or indeed, there is an pay for holidays, shall refer to an
the same shall not be employer-employee premium pay for rest arrangement where
lower than the relationship between days, serviceincentive the contractor or
prevailing rates of the respondent leave pay, 13th month subcontractor merely
wages. It cannot be cooperative and its pay and allowances, recruits, supplies or
doubted then that owners-members. and for regularization places workers to
those stipends or of employment status perform a job, work or
shares in the service PHILIPPINE AIRLINES with petitioner, they service for a principal,
surplus are indeed V. LIGAN claiming to be and any of the
wages, because these GR 146408, February "performing duties for following elements are
are given to the 29, 2008, Carpio the benefit of [sic] present:
owners-members as Morales petitioner since their (i) The contractor or
compensation in job is directly subcontractor does not
rendering services to Petitioner Philippine connected with its have substantial
respondent Airlines as Owner, business. Labor capital or investment
cooperatives client, and Synergy Services Arbiter Dominador which relates to the
Stanfilco. Third. It is Corporation (Synergy) Almirante found job, work or service to
also stated in the as Contractor, entered Synergy an be performed and the
above- mentioned into an independent employees recruited,
Service Contracts that Agreementwhereby contractor and supplied or placed by
it is the respondent Synergy undertook to dismissed such
cooperative which has provide loading, contractor or contracting.
the power to unloading, delivery of subcontractor are The control test element
investigate, discipline baggage and cargo performing activities under the immediately-
and remove the and other related which are directly quoted paragraph
owners-members and services to and from related to the main echoes the prevailing
its team leaders who [petitioner]'s aircraft at business of the jurisprudential trend
were rendering the principal; OR elevating such element
services at MactanStation.The (ii) The contractor does as a primary
Stanfilco.Fourth. As Agreement specified not exercise the right to determinant of
earlier opined, of the the CONTRACTOR control over the employer-employee
four elements of the shall furnish all the performance of the relationship in job
employer-employee necessary capital, work of the contractual contracting agreements.
relationship, the workers, loading, employee. (Emphasis,
unloading and delivery underscoring and Petitioner in fact
materials, facilities, capitalization supplied) admitted that it fixes the
supplies, equipment Even if only one of the work schedule of
and tools. And it two elements is present respondents as their
expressly provided then, there is labor-only work was dependent on

79
the frequency of plane the cooperative; 4. The subject to the control Furthermore, what
arrivals. And as the cooperative undertakes of the employer, appears is that
NLRC found, to pay the salary of the except only as to the Sunflower does not
petitioner's managers member-workers; 5. results of the work. In have substantial
and supervisors Unless sooner legitimate labor capitalization or
approved respondents' terminated, the contract contracting, the law investment in the form
weekly work will be deemed creates an employer- of tools, equipment,
assignments and renewed on a month- employee relationship machineries, work
respondents and other to-month basis until for a limited purpose, premises and other
regular PAL terminated. Several i.e., to ensure that the materials to qualify it
employees were all employees were employees are paid as an independent
referred to as "station engaged by sunflower their wages. The contractor. On the
attendants" of the cooperative. Soon, principal employer other hand, it is
cargo operation and such employees becomes jointly and gathered that the lot,
airfreight services of demanded recognition severally liable with building, machineries
petitioner. as regular employees the job contractor, and all other working
Respondents having of SMC, alleging that only for the payment tools utilized by private
performed tasks which they are under the of the employees respondents in
are usually necessary direct control and wages whenever the carrying out their tasks
and desirable in the air supervision of SMC contractor fails to pay were owned and
transportation supervisors. the same. Other than provided by SMC. from
business of petitioner, that, the principal the job description
they should be ISSUE employer is not provided by SMC itself,
deemed its regular Does direct control and responsible for any the work assigned to
employees and supervision of the claim made by the private respondents
Synergy as a labor- Principal Contractee employees. was directlyrelated to
only contractor. convert Job Contractng the aquaculture
into LO contracting? The Contract of operations of SMC.
SAN MIGUEL Services between Undoubtedly, the
CORPORATION V. RULING: Yes. The test SMC and Sunflower nature of the work
ABALLA to determine the shows that the parties performed by private
G.R. No. 149011, June existence of clearly disavowed the respondents in shrimp
28, 2005, Carpio independent existence of an harvesting, receiving
Morales contractorship is employer-employee and packing formed an
whether one claiming relationship between integral part of the
San Miguel to be an independent SMC and private shrimp processing
Corporation entered contractor has respondents. The operations of SMC. As
into a contract of contracted to do the language of a contract for janitorial and
services with work according to his is not, however, messengerial services,
Sunflower Cooperative own methods and determinative of the that they are
for the rendition of without being parties relationship; considered directly
Messengerial, rather it is the totality related to the principal
Janitorial, Shrimp of the facts and business of the
Harvesting, Sanitation, surrounding employerhas been
Washing, Cold Storage circumstances of the jurisprudentially
activities. Pertinent case.A party cannot recognized.
provisions of the dictate, by the mere
contract involve: 1. expedient of a Furthermore,
The cooperative unilateral declaration Sunflower did not carry
employs the necessary in a contract, the on an independent
personnel and character of its business or undertake
provides adequate business, i.e., whether the performance of its
equipment, materials, as labor-only service contract
tools and apparatus; contractor or job according to its own
2. The cooperative has contractor, it being manner and method,
the entire charge, crucial that its free from the control
control and character be and supervision of its
supervision of the work measured in terms of principal, SMC, its
and services; 3. No and determined by the apparent role having
employment criteria set by statute. been merely to recruit
relationship exists persons to work for
between the SMC and
80
SMC. the petitioner janitorial employer in (AFSISI) and
services,which include everyrespect. Meralco MERALCO took effect,
MERALCO labor, materials, tools may be considered an terminating the
INDUSTRIAL and equipment, as indirect employer previous security
ENGINEERING well assupervision of onlyfor purposes of service agreement with
SERVICES its assigned unpaid wages. ASDAI. Except as to
V. NLRC employees, at the number of security
G.R. 145402, March Meralco’s MANILA ELECTRIC guards, the amount to
14, 2008, Chico- RockwellThermal COMPANY be paid the agency,
Nazario Plant in Makati v. ROGELIO
and the effectivity of
City.The 49 BENAMIRA the agreement, the
Meralco and the employees lodged a G.R. No. 145271, July terms and conditions
private respondent Complaint for 14, 2005, Austria- were substantially
executed a illegaldeduction, Martinez identical with the
contractwhere the underpayment, non- security service
latter would supply payment of The individual agreement with
overtime pay, respondents. The CA respondents are ASDAI. The individual
legalholiday pay, on theother hand, licensed security respondents amended
premium pay for modified the Decision guards formerly their complaint to
holiday and rest day of the NLRC and held employed by People’s implead AFSISI as
and nightdifferentials Meralcoto be solidarily Security, Inc. (PSI) and party respondent and
against the private liable with the private deployed as such at to allege that AFSISI
respondent before the respondent for MERALCO’s head terminated their
LA. By virtue of RA thesatisfaction of the office. On November services on August 6,
6727, the contract laborer’s separation 30, 1990, the security 1992 without notice
between Meralco pay. service agreement and just cause and
andthe private between PSI and therefore guilty of
respondent was ISSUE MERALCO was illegal dismissal. For
amended to increase Whether Meralco terminated. Thereafter, the first time in appeal
the minimumdaily should be liable for the fifty-six of PSI’s before the Court of
wage per employee. 2 payment of the security guards, Appeals, the individual
months after the dismissed laborer’s including herein eight respondents alleged
amendment of separation pay individual respondents, that MERALCO is their
thecontract, Meralco filed a complaint for employer
sent a letter to private RULING unpaid monetary
respondent The CA used Art. 109 benefits against PSI ISSUES
informingthem that at of the Labor Code to and MERALCO. 1. Whether or not the
the end of business holdMeralcosolidarily Meanwhile, the security individual respondents
hours of Jan. 31, 1990, liable with the private service agreement are regular employees
it wouldbe terminating respondent as regard between respondent of MERALCO
contract entered into tothe payment of Armed Security & 2. Whether or not
with the separation pay. Detective Agency, Inc., MERALCO is their
privaterespondents. However, the SC ruled (ASDAI) and employer
On the said date, the that Art.109 should be MERALCO took effect 3. Whether or not
complainants were read in relation to Art. on December 1, 1990. MERALCO can be
pulled outfrom their 106 and 107 of the Subsequently, the held solidarily liable
work. The LC.Thus, an indirect individual respondents with AFSISI
complainants employer can only be were absorbed by
amended their held liable with ASDAI and retained at HELD
complaint toinclude the theindependent MERALCO’s head (1) NO. The
charge of illegal contractor or office. On July 25, individual respondents
dismissal and to subcontractor in the 1992, the security cannot be considered
implead Meralco asa event that thelatter fails service agreement as regular employees
party respondent.The to pay the wages of its between respondent of the MERALCO for,
LA dismissed the employees. While it is Advance Forces although security
complaint. On appeal, true thatthe petitioner Security & Investigation services are necessary
the NLRCaffirmed the was the indirect Services, Inc. and desirable to the
decision of the LA with employer of the business of
the modification that complainants, itcannot MERALCO, it is not
Meralcowas solidarily be held liable in the directly related to its
liable with the private same way as the principal business and

81
may even be
considered The clause that
unnecessary in the MERALCO has the
conduct of right at all times to
MERALCO’s principal inspect the guards of
business, which is the the agency detailed in
distribution of its premises is
electricity. likewise not indicative
of control as it is not a
(2) NO. As to the unilateral right. The
provision in the agreement provides
agreement that that the agency is
MERALCO reserved principally mandated
the right to seek to conduct
replacement of any inspections, without
guard whose prejudice to
behavior, conduct or MERALCO’s right to
appearance is not conduct its own
satisfactory, such inspections.
merely confirms that
the power to
discipline lies with the
agency. It is a
standard stipulation in
security service
agreements that the
client may request
the replacement of
the guards to it.
Service-oriented
enterprises, such as
the business of
providing security
services, generally
adhere to the
business adage that
"the customer or
client is always right"
and, thus, must
satisfy the interests,
conform to the needs,
and cater to the
reasonable
impositions of its
clients.
Neither is the
stipulation that the
agency cannot pull
out any security
guard from
MERALCO without its
consent an indication
of control. It is simply
a security clause
designed to prevent
the agency from
unilaterally removing
its security guards
from their assigned
posts at MERALCO’s
premises to the
latter’s detriment.
82
(3) YES. The fact that there is no actual and direct
employer-employee relationship between MERALCO
and the individual respondents does not exonerate
MERALCO from liability as to the monetary claims of
the individual respondents. When MERALCO
contracted for security services with ASDAI as the
security agency that hired individual respondents to
work as guards for it, MERALCO became an indirect
employer of individual respondents pursuant to Article
107 of the Labor Code. When ASDAI as contractor
failed to pay the individual respondents, MERALCO as
principal becomes jointly and severally liable for the
individual respondents’ wages, under Articles 106 and
109 of the Labor Code
ASDAI is held liable by virtue of its status as direct
employer, while MERALCO is deemed the indirect
employer of the individual respondents for the purpose
of paying their wages in the event of failure of ASDAI
to pay them. This statutory scheme gives the workers
the ample protection consonant with labor and social
justice provisions of the 1987 Constitution. However,
this is without prejudice to the right of reimbursement.
DOLE PHILIPPINES vs. ESTEVA
G.R. No. 161115, November 30, 2006
Doctrine: CAMPCO, the alleged contractor, did not
carry out an independent business from petitioner. It
was precisely established to render services to
petitioner to augment its workforce during peak
seasons. Petitionerwas its only client. Even as
CAMPCO had its own office and office equipment,
these were mainly usedfor administrative purposes;
the tools, machineries, and equipment actually used
by CAMPCOmembers when rendering services to the
petitioner belonged to the latter. This is indicative of a
labor-only contracting.
Dole Philippines and CAMPCO entered into a Service
Agreement. Respondents argued that they should be
considered regular employees of petitioner given that:
1.they were performing jobs that were usually
necessary and desirable in the usual business
of petitioner; 2. petitioner exercised control over
respondents, not only as to the results, but also as
tothe manner by which they performed their assigned
tasks; and 3. CAMPCO, a labor-only contractor,was
merely a conduit of petitioner. As regular employees of
petitioner, respondents asserted that theywere entitled
to security of tenure and those placed on “stay home
status” for more than six monthshad been
constructively and illegally dismissed.
ISSUE
Whether or not CAMPCO is a legitimate contractor and
if no, whether or not DOLE is liable as direct employer
RULING
NO. CAMPCO was a labor-only contractor and, thus,
petitioner is the real
80
employer of the respondents, with CAMPCO acting
only as the agent or intermediary of petitioner. In 1993,
when CAMPCO wasestablished and the Service
Contract between petitioner and CAMPCO was
entered into, CAMPCO onlyhad P6,600.00 paid-up
capital, which could hardly be considered substantial.
(Refer to the Doctrine mentioned above, which is a
stronger indication about the labor-only contracting)
ALVIADO v. PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILS., INC.
G.R. No. 160506, March 9, 2010, Del Castillo
Petitioners worked as merchandisers of P&G. They all
individually signed employment contracts with either
Promm-Gem or SAPS for periods of more or less five
months at a time.They were assigned at different
outlets, supermarkets and stores where they handled
all the products of P&G. They received their wages
from Promm-Gem or SAPS. Subsequently, petitioners
filed a complaint against P&G for regularization,
service incentive leave pay and other benefits with
damages. The complaint was later amendedto include
the matter of their subsequent dismissal. The Labor
Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit and
ruled that there was no employer-employee
relationship between petitioners and P&G. He found
that the selection and engagement of the petitioners,
the payment of their wages, the power of dismissal
and control with respect to the means and methods by
which their work was accomplished, were all done and
exercised by Promm-Gem/SAPS. He further found that
Promm-Gem and SAPS were legitimate independent
job contractors. On appeal to the NLRC, it affirmed the
decision of the LA.
ISSUE
Whether or not the respondent is the employer of the
petitioner.
HELD
In order to determine whether P&G is the employer of
petitioners, it is necessary to first determine whether
Promm-Gem and SAPS are labor-only contractors or
legitimate job contractors. There is "labor-only"
contracting where the person supplying workers to an
employer does not have substantial capital or
investment in the form of tools, equipment,
machineries, work premises, among others, and the
workers recruited and placed by such person are
performing activities which are directly related to the
principal business of such employer. The Court held
that Promm-Gem cannot be regarded as labor-only
contractor but a legitimate independent contractor
because the financial statement of Promm-Gem shows
that it has authorized capital stock of P1 million and a
paid-in capital, or capital available for operations, of
P500,000.00 as of 1990.
On the other hand, the Articles of Incorporation of
SAPS shows that it has a paid-in capital of only P31,
250.00. There is no on the issue of the legitimate activity when its implementing rules.
other evidence scope and coverage of we held that a To reiterate, no
presented to show the collective company can evidence or argument
how much its working bargaining unit, determine in its best questions the
capital and assets are. specifically to the judgment whether it company’s basic
Considering that SAPS question of whether or should contract out a objective of achieving
has no substantial not the functions of the part of its work for as greater economy and
capital or investment forwarders employees long as the employer is efficiency of
and the workers it are functions being motivated by good operations. This, to our
recruited are performed by the faith; the contracting is mind, goes a long way
performing activities regular rank-and-file not for purposes of to negate the presence
which are directly employees covered by circumventing the law; of bad faith. No
related to the principal the bargaining unit. The and does not involve or evidence likewise
business of P&G, the union thus demanded be the result of stands before us
court held that SAPS that the forwarders' malicious or arbitrary showing that the
is engaged in "labor- employees be action. Our own outsourcing has
only contracting". The absorbed into the examination of the resulted in a reduction
contractor is petitioner's regular agreement shows that of work hours or the
considered merely an employee force and be the forwarding splitting of the
agent of the principal given positions within arrangement complies bargaining unit effects
employer and the latter the bargaining unit. The with the requirements that under the
is responsible to the petitioner, on the other of Article 106[26] of the implementing rules of
employees of the hand, on the premise Labor Code and Article 106 of the
labor-only contractor that the contracting Labor Code can make
as if such employees arrangement with the a contracting
had been directly forwarders is a valid arrangement illegal.
employed by the exercise of its
principal employer. management NO. It is in the
prerogative appreciation of these
TEMIC AUTOMOTIVE forwarder services as
PHILIPPINES, INC. v. ISSUE one whole package of
TEMIC AUTOMOTIVE 1. Whether or not inter-related services
PHILIPPINES, INC. the company that we discern a basic
EMPLOYEES UNION- validly misunderstanding that
FFW contracted out results in the error of
G.R. No. 186965, or outsourced equating the functions
December 23, 2009, the services of the forwarders
Brion involving employees with those
forwarding, of regular rank-and-file
Since 1998, the packing, employees of the
petitioner contracts out loading and company. A clerical
some of the work in clerical job, for example, may
the warehouse activities similarly involve typing
department, related thereto. and paper pushing
specifically those in 2. Whether or not activities and may be
the receiving and the functions of done on the same
finished goods the forwarders company products that
sections, to three employees are the forwarders
independent service functions being employees and
providers or performed by company employees
forwarders. These regular rank- may work on, but
forwarders also have and-file these similarities do
their own employees employees not necessarily mean
who hold the positions covered by the that all these
of clerk, material bargaining unit employees work for
handler, system the company. The
encoder and general HELD regular company
clerk. YES. In Meralco v. employees, to be sure,
Quisumbing, we joined work for the company
This outsourcing this universal under its supervision
arrangement gave rise recognition of and control, but
to a union grievance outsourcing as a
81
forwarder employees Office for years but payroll records of Implementing
work for the forwarder were not regularized. Interserve. Articles 106-
in the forwarders own Coke averred that 109 of the
operation that is itself respondents were ISSUES Labor Code, as
a contracted work employees of 1. Whether or not amended, since
from the company. Interserve who were Inteserve is a labor- it did not
The company tasked to perform only contractor; exercise the
controls its contracted services in 2. Whether or not an right to control
employees in the accordance with the employer-employee the
means, method and provisions of the relationship exists performance of
results of their work, Contract of Services between petitioner the work of
in the same manner executed between Coca-Cola Bottlers respondents.
that the forwarder Coke and Interserve Phils. Inc. and 2. Yes. With the
controls its own on 23 March 2002. respondents. finding that
employees in the Said Contract Interserve was
means, manner and constituted legitimate HELD engaged in
results of their work. job contracting, given 1. Yes. In sum, prohibited
Complications and that the latter was a Interserve did labor-only
confusion result bona fide independent not have contracting,
because the company contractor with substantial petitioner shall
at the same time substantial capital or capital or be deemed the
controls the forwarder investment in the form investment in true employer
in the results of the of tools, equipment, the form of of respondents.
latter’s work, without and machinery tools, As regular
controlling however necessary in the equipment, employees of
the means and conduct of its machineries, petitioner,
manner of the business. and work respondents
forwarder employees premises; and cannot be
work. To prove the status of respondents, dismissed
Interserve as an its supposed except for just
COCA-COLA independent employees, or authorized
BOTTLERS PHILS., contractor, petitioner performed causes, none of
INC. vs. ALAN M. presented the work which which were
AGITO, et al following pieces of was directly alleged or
GR No. 179546, evidence: (1) the related to the proven to exist
February 13, 2009 Articles of principal in this case, the
Incorporation of business of only defense of
Petitioner (Coke) is a Interserve; petitioner. It is, petitioner
domestic corporation (2) the Certificate of thus, evident against the
engaged in Registration of that Interserve charge of illegal
manufacturing, Interserve with the falls under the dismissal being
bottling and Bureau of Internal definition of a that
distributing soft drink Revenue; (3) the “labor-only” respondents
beverages and other Income Tax Return, contractor, were not its
allied products. with Audited under Article employees.
Respondents were Financial 106 of the
salesmen assigned at Statements, of Labor Code; as SMART
Coke Lagro Sales well as Section COMMUNICATIONS
Interserve for 2001; employees of 5(i) of the vs. ASTORGA
and (4) the Certificate Interserve, since it was Rules G.R. No. 148132,
of Registration of the latter which hired Implementing January 28, 2008,
Interserve as an them, paid their wages, Articles 106- Nachura
independent job and supervised their 109 of the
contractor, issued by work, as proven by: (1) Labor Code, as Regina M. Astorga
the Department of respondents’ Personal amended. It is (Astorga) was employed
Labor and Data Files in the also apparent by respondent Smart
Employment (DOLE). records of Interserve; that Interserve Communications,
(2) respondents’ is a labor-only Incorporated (SMART)
As a result, petitioner Contract of Temporary contractor as District Sales
asserted that Employment with under Section Manager of the
respondents were Interserve; and (3) the 5(ii) of the Corporate Sales
Rules Marketing Group/ Fixed
82
Services Division (SNMI). Since SNMI was an honest effort to its customers
(CSMG/FSD). SMART was formed to do the to make SMARTs requirement, abolished
launched an sales and marketing sales and marketing CSMG/FSD and
organizational work, SMART departments more shortly thereafter
realignment to achieve abolished the efficient and assigned its functions
more efficient CSMG/FSD, Astorgas competitive. As the to newly-created SNMI
operations. Part of the division. Despite the CA had taken pains to Multimedia
reorganization was the abolition of the elucidate: Incorporated, a joint
outsourcing of the CSMG/FSD, Astorga venture company of
marketing and sales continued reporting for x x x a careful and SMART and NTT of
force. Thus, SMART work. SMART issued assiduous review of Japan, for the reason
entered into a joint a memorandum the records will yield that CSMG/FSD does
venture agreement advising Astorga of no other conclusion not have the
with NTT of Japan, the termination of her than that the necessary technical
and formed SMART- employment on reorganization expertise required for
NTT Multimedia, ground of redundancy. undertaken by the value added
Incorporated Astorga states that the SMART is for no services. By
justification advanced purpose other than its transferring the duties
by SMART is not true declared objective as of CSMG/FSD to
because there was no a labor and cost SNMI, SMART has
compelling economic savings device. created a more
reason for Indeed, this Court competent and
redundancy. finds no fault in specialized
SMARTs decision to organization to perform
ISSUE outsource the the work required for
Whether or not the corporate sales corporate accounts. It
cause for Astorga’s market to SNMI in is also relieved
dismissal is valid order to attain greater SMART of all
productivity. [Astorga] administrative costs
RULING belonged to the Sales management, time and
Yes. Contrary to her Marketing Group money-needed in
claim, an employer is under the Fixed maintaining the
not precluded from Services Division CSMG/FSD. The
adopting a new policy (CSMG/FSD), a determination to
conducive to a more distinct sales force of outsource the duties of
economical and SMART in charge of the CSMG/FSD to
effective management selling SMARTs SNMI was, to Our
even if it is not telecommunications mind, a sound
experiencing services to the business judgment
economic reverses. corporate market. based on relevant
Neither does the law SMART, to ensure it criteria and is therefore
require that the can respond quickly, a legitimate exercise of
employer should efficiently and flexibly management
suffer financial losses prerogative.
before he can Indeed, out of our guarantees the right of
terminate the services concern for those the employer to
of the employee on lesser circumstanced in reasonable returns for
the ground of life, this Court has his investment. In this
redundancy. inclined towards the light, we must
worker and upheld his acknowledge the
Supreme Court cause in most of his prerogative of the
agreed with the CA conflicts with his employer to adopt such
that the organizational employer.This favored measures as will
realignment treatment is consonant promote greater
introduced by with the social justice efficiency, reduce
SMART, which policy of the overhead costs and
culminated in the Constitution. But while enhance prospects of
abolition of tilting the scales of economic gains, albeit
CSMG/FSD and justice in favor of always within the
termination of workers, the framework of
Astorgas employment fundamental law also existing laws.

83
Accordingly, we also for its courier distinct legal elements are present:
sustain the needs. Earlier, in a personality from (i) the contractor or
reorganization and memorandum, FCCSI Manila Water, and it subcontractor does not
redundancy program gave a deadline for the was duly registered as have substantial
undertaken by bill collectors who were an independent capital or investment
SMART. members of ACGI to contractor before the which relates to the
submit applications and DOLE. job, work, or service to
MANILA WATER V. letters of intent to be performed and the
DALUMPINES transfer to FCCSI. On ISSUE employees recruited,
G.R. No. 175501, various dates, Whether FCCSI was a supplied, or placed by
October 4, 2010, individual respondents labor-only contractor such contractor or
Nachura were terminated from and that respondent subcontractor are
employment. Manila bill collectors are performing activities
By virtue of Republic Water no longer employees of which are directly
Act No. 8041, renewed its contract petitioner Manila related to the main
otherwise known as with FCCSI because it Water. business of the
the "National Water decided to implement a principal; or (ii) the
Crisis Act of 1995," the "collectorless" scheme RULING contractor does not
Metropolitan whereby Manila Water Yes. FCCSI was a exercise the right to
Waterworks and customers would labor-only contractor control the
Sewerage System instead remit payments and that respondent performance of the
(MWSS) was given the through "Bayad bill collectors are work of the contractual
authority to enter into Centers." employees of employee.
concession petitioner Manila
agreements allowing The aggrieved bill Water. FCCSI has no
the private sector in its collectors individually sufficient investment in
operations. Petitioner filed complaints for "Contracting" or the form of tools,
Manila Water illegal dismissal, unfair "subcontracting" equipment and
Company, Inc. (Manila labor practice, refers to an machinery to
Water) was one of two damages, and arrangement whereby undertake contract
private attorney’s fees, with a principal agrees to services for Manila
concessionaires prayer for put out or farm out Water involving a fleet
contracted by the reinstatement and with a contractor or of around
MWSS to manage the backwages against subcontractor the 100 collectors
water distribution petitioner Manila Water performance or assigned to several
system in the east and respondent FCCSI. completion of a branches and covering
zone of Metro Manila. The complaints were specific job, work, or the service area of
Before the expiration consolidated and jointly service within a Manila Water
of the contract of heard. Petitioner definite or customers spread out
services, the 121 bill Manila Water, for its predetermined period, in several cities/towns
collectors formed a part, denied that there regardless of whether of the East Zone. The
corporation duly was an employer- such job, work, or only rational
registered with the employee relationship service is to be conclusion is that it is
Securities and between its company performed or Manila Water that
Exchange Commission and respondent bill completed within or provides most if not all
(SEC) as the collectors. Based on outside the premises the logistics and
"Association the agreement between of the principal. equipment including
Collector’s Group, Inc." FCCSI and Manila service vehicles in the
(ACGI). ACGI was one Water, respondent bill Department Order No. performance of the
of the entities engaged collectors are the 18-02, Series of 2002, contracted service,
by Manila Water for its employees of the enunciates that labor- notwithstanding that
courier service. former, as it is the only contracting refers the contract between
However, Manila former that has the to an arrangement FCCSI and Manila
Water contracted right to select/hire, where the contractor Water states that it is
ACGI for collection discipline, supervise, or subcontractor the Contractor which
services only in its and control. FCCSI has merely recruits, shall furnish at its own
Balara Branch. Manila a separate and supplies, or places expense all materials,
Water entered into a workers to perform a tools and equipment
service agreement with job, work, or service needed to perform the
respondent First for a principal, and tasks of collectors.
Classic Courier any of the following
Services, Inc. (FCCSI)
84
BABAS v. LORENZO entered into an working procedure and business. Logically,
SHIPPING agreement with Best methods, which when petitioners were
CORPORATION Manpower Services, supervised petitioners assigned by BMSI to
G.R. No. 186091, Inc. (BMSI) wherein in their work, or which LSC, BMSI acted
December 15, 2010, BMSI undertook to evaluated the same. merely as a labor-only
Nachura provide maintenance There was absolute contractor.Lastly, as
and repair services to lack of evidence that found by the NLRC,
Lorenzo Shipping LSCs container vans, BMSI exercised control BMSI had no other
Corporation (LSC), a heavy equipment, over them or their work, client except for LSC,
shipping company, trailer except for the fact that and neither BMSI nor
chassis, and generator contracting or petitioners were hired LSC refuted this
and to provide subcontracting if the by BMSI.Second, LSC finding, thereby
checkers to inspect all following conditions was unable to present bolstering the NLRC
containers received for concur:(a) The proof that BMSI had finding that BMSI is a
loading to and/or contractor carries on a substantial capital. The labor-only contractor.
unloading from its distinct and record before us is
vessels. Simultaneous independent business bereft of any proof Consequently, the
with the execution and undertakes the pertaining to the workers that BMSI
of the contract work on his contractors supplied to LSC
account under his own capitalization, nor to its became regular
Agreement, LSC responsibility according investment in tools, employees of the
leased to his own manner and equipment, or latter.
its method, free from the implements actually
equipment, tools, and control and direction of used in the TENG V. PAHAGAC
tractors to BMSI. BMSI his employer or performance or G.R. No. 169704
then hired petitioners principal in all matters completion of the job,
on various dates to connected with the work, or service that it Respondent was hired
work at LSC as performance of his was contracted to for the purpose of
checkers, welders, work except as to the render. What is clear measuring the volume
utility men, clerks, results thereof;(b) The was that the equipment of fishes caught by the
forklift operators, motor contractor has used by BMSI were petitioner company,
pool and machine substantial capital or owned by, and merely the
shop workers, investment; and(c) The rented from, LSC.Third, counting/measuring
technicians, trailer agreement between the petitioners performed was done using the
drivers, and principal and the activities which were tools and equipment of
mechanics. Six years contractor or directly related to the petitioner and even
later, LSC entered into subcontractor assures main business of LSC. through his express
another contract with the contractual The work of petitioners direction. However,
BMSI, this time, a employees' entitlement as checkers, welders, after sometime Teng
service contract. to all labor and utility men, drivers, and terminated the
Petitioners filed with occupational safety and mechanics could only services of Pahagac
the Labor a complaint health standards, free be characterized as and on several
for regularization exercise of the right to part of, or at least occasions even
against LSC and self- organization, clearly related to, and doubted the
BMSI. Later, LSC security of tenure, and in the pursuit of, LSCs measurements given
terminated their social welfare benefits. by the respondent
Agreement which led which resulted to his
to petitioners losing Given the above termination of his
employment. standards, we sustain services.
the petitioners
ISSUE contention that BMSI is ISSUE
Is BMSI engaged in engaged in labor-only WON there is an EE-ER
labor-only contracting, contracting. First, relationship
entitling petitioners to petitioners worked at
be considered as LSCs premises, and RULING
employees of LSC? nowhere else. Other Yes, The element of
than the provisions of control is present in
RULING the Agreement, there this case. Teng not
Yes. A person is was no showing that it only owned the tools
considered engaged in was BMSI which and equipment, he
legitimate job established petitioners directed how the

85
respondent workers MAGIS YOUNG satisfactorily completed they cannot be removed
were to perform their ACHIEVERS the probationary period except for cause as
job as checkers; they, LEARNING CENTER of three (3) school provided by law, or if at
in fact, acted as AND MRS. VIOLETA years and is rehired the end of every yearly
Teng's eyes and ears T. CARIO V. that he acquires full contract during the
in every fishing ADELAIDA P. tenure as a regular or three-year period, the
expedition. MANALO permanent employee. employee does not
furthermore it was his G.R No. 178835, meet the reasonable
company that issued February 13, 2009, Pursuant to Section 93 standards set by the
to the respondent Nachura of the Manual, no employer at the time of
workers identification vested right to a engagement. But this
cards (IDs) bearing On April 18, 2002, permanent guarantee of security of
their names as Adelaida Manalo was appointment shall tenure applies only
employees and hired as a teacher and accrue until the during the period of
Teng's signature as acting princiapl of employee has probation. Once that
the employer. Magis Young completed the period expires, the
Generally, in a Achievers Learning prerequisite three-year constitutional protection
business Center. It appears period necessary for can no longer be
establishment, IDs that, on March 29, the acquisition of a invoked.
are issued to identify 2003, Manalo wrote a permanent status. Of
the holder as a letter of resignation to course, the mere In this case, Manalo
bonafide employee of Magis’ directress rendition of service for rendered service only
the issuing entity. For Violeta Cario but, on three consecutive from April 18, 2002,
the 13 years that the March 31, 2003, years does not until March 31, 2003.
respondent workers Manalo received a automatically ripen into She has not completed
worked for Teng, they letter of termination a permanent the requisite three-year
received wages on a from Magis so Manalo appointment. It is also period of probationary
regular basis, in filed a comlaint for necessary that the employment She
addition to their illegal dismissal and employee be a full-time cannot, by right, claim
shares in the fish non- payment of 13th teacher, and that the permanent status.
caught. month pay with prayer services he rendered Manalo’s appointment
for reinstatement. are satisfactory. as acting principal is
Magis, among others, merely temporary, or
CLASSES claimed that Manalo All this does not mean one that is good until
OF was legally terminated that academic another appointment is
becayse the 1-year personnel cannot made to take its place.
EMPLOYE probationary periof acquire permanent
E had already lapsed employment status
and she failed earlier than after the
lapse of three years.
to meet the criteria set apply to all classes of The period of probation
by the school pursuant occupations. For may be reduced if the
to the Manual of academic personnel in employer, convinced of
Regulation for Private private schools, the fitness and
Schools.The LA colleges, and efficiency of a
dismissed the universities, probationary employee,
complaint. NLRC probationary voluntarily extends a
reversed the decision. employment is permanent
MR was denied. CA governed by Sec. 92 of appointment even
affirmed. MR was the 1992 Manual of before the three-year
denied. Hence, this Regulations for Private period ends.
petition. Schools, supplemented
by DOLE-DECS- Nonetheless, teachers
ISSUE CHED-TESDA Order on probationary
Is Adelaida Manalo a No. 1 dated February employment enjoy
permanent employee? 7, 1996 and Sec. security of tenure.
4.m(4)[c] of the probationary
HELD Manual. For academic employees enjoy
No. The 6-month limit personnel in private security of tenure
on the term of elementary and during the term of their
probationary secondary schools, it is probationary
employment does not only after one has employment. As such,
86
 company.
However, since Magis
failed to show by ISSUE
competent evidence Whether or not he has
that Manalo did not attained regular status .
meet the standards
set by the school, it RULING
can be concluded that Yes. Though usual
her termination before and necessary, his
the end of her employment is
probationary period. dependent on
availability of work SC
PIER 8 ARRASTRE took judicial notice
& STEVEDORING that it is an industry
SERVICES V. practice in port
BOCLOT services to hire
G. R. No. 173849 , “reliever” stevedores
September 28, 2007, in order to ensure
Chico- Nazario smooth- flowing 24-
hour stevedoring and
Boclot was hired by arrastre operations in
PASSI to perform the the port area. No
functions of a doubt, serving as a
stevedore. Later on, stevedore, respondent
Boclot filed Complaint performs tasks
with the Labor Arbiter necessary or
claiming desirable to the usual
regularization; business of
payment of service petitioners. However,
incentive leave and it should be deemed
13th month pays; part of the nature of
moral, exemplary and his work that he can
actual damages; and only work as a
attorney’s fees. stevedore in the
He alleged that he absence of the
was hired by PASSI employee regularly
in October 1999 and employed for the very
was issued company same function.
ID No. 304, a PPA
Pass and SSS Moreover, respondent
documents. In fact, does not contest that
respondent he was well aware
contended that he that he would only be
became a regular given work when there
employee by April are absent or
2000, since it was his unavailable
sixth continuous employees.
month in service in Respondent also does
PASSI’s regular not allege, nor is there
course of business. any showing, that he
He argued on the was disallowed or
basis of Articles 280 prevented from
and 281 of the Labor offering his services to
Code. He maintains other cargo handlers
that under paragraph in the other piers at
2 of Article 280, he the North Harbor other
should be deemed a than petitioners. As
regular employee aforestated, the
having rendered at situation of
least one year of respondent is akin to
service with the that of a seasonal or
project or term
87
employee, albeit on a
daily basis.
Under the CBA, he
qualifies as a regular
employee The
Supreme Court still
finds respondent to be
regular status all
incumbent probationary
or casual employees
and workers in the
Company who have
served the Company
for an accumulated
service term of
employment of not less
than six (6) months
from his original date of
hiring. Respondent
assents that he is not a
member of the union,
as he was not
recognized by PASSI
as its regular
employee, but this
Court notes that PASSI
adopts a union-shop
agreement, culling from
Article II of its CBA.
Under a union-shop
agreement, although
nonmembers may be
hired, an employee is
required to become a
union member after a
certain period, in order
to retain employment.
This requirement
applies to present and
future employees. The
same article of the CBA
stipulates that
employment in PASSI
cannot be obtained
without prior
membership in the
union. Hence, applying
the foregoing
provisions of the CBA,
respondent should be
considered a regular
employee after six
months of accumulated
service. Having
rendered 228.5 days,
or eight months of
service to petitioners
since 1999, then
respondent is entitled
to regularization by
a regular employee on
the basis of pertinent
provisions under the
CBA between PASSI
and its Workers’ union,
wherein it was stated
that it agrees to
convert to
virtue of the said CBA
provisions.
THE PENINSULA
MANILA, ROLF
PFISTERER AND
BENILDA QUEVEDO-
SANTOS, vs. ELAINE
M. ALIPIO
G.R. No. 167310, June
17, 2008, Quisumbing
Petitioner is a
corporation engaged in
the hotel business. Co-
petitioners Rolf Pfisterer
and BenildaQuevedo-
Santos were the
general manager and
human resources
manager, respectively,
of the hotel at the time
of the controversy.
Respondent Elaine M.
Alipio was hired merely
as a reliever nurse in
the company's 24-hour
clinic. However, she
had been performing
the usual tasks and
functions of a regular
nurse since the start of
her employment on
December 11, 1993.
Hence, after about four
years of employment in
the hotel, she inquired
why she was not
receiving her 13th
month pay. Alipio was
paid P8,000 as her 13th
month pay for 1997.
Alipio likewise
requested for the
payment of her 13th
month pay for 1993 to
1996, but her request
was denied.
Alipio was informed by
a fellow nurse that she
can only report for work
after meeting up with petitioner Elaine M. she was already a “rectangular power
petitioner Santos. Alipio as regular staff "regular staff nurse" press machine
When Alipio met with nurse without loss of until her dismissal. operator”. Taripe
Santos, Alipio was seniority rights. alleged that upon
asked regarding her Being a regular employment, he was
payslip vouchers. She ISSUE employee, Alipio made to sign a
told Santos that she Whether enjoys security of document, which was
made copies of her or not tenure. Her services not fully explained to
payslip vouchers Alipio is a may be terminated him but was a
because Peninsula regular only upon compliance condition for him to be
does not give her employee with the substantive hired and for which he
copies of the same. RULING and procedural was not given a copy.
Santos was peeved Under Article 280 of requisites for a valid
with Alipio's response the Labor Code, an dismissal: (1) the Apparently, the
because the latter was employment is dismissal must be for contract of
allegedly not entitled to deemed regular when any of the causes employment was only
get copies of her the activities provided in Article good for a period of
payslip vouchers. performed by the 28212 of the Labor five (5) months unless
Santos likewise employee are usually Code; and (2) the it is renewed by mutual
directed Alipio not to necessary or employee must be consent. Along with
report for work desirable in the usual given an opportunity other contractual
anymore. business of the to be heard and to employees, he was
Aggrieved, Alipio filed employer. However, defend himself.13 hired only to meet the
a complaint for illegal any employee who increase in demand for
dismissal against the has rendered at least ROWELL packaging materials
petitioners. one year of service, INDUSTRIAL for the Christmas
Private respondents even though CORPORATION vs. season and to build up
The Peninsula Manila intermittent, is HON. COURT OF stock levels for the
and BenildaQuevedo- deemed regular with APPEALS and JOEL early part of the year.
Santos are ordered to respect to the activity TARIPE Taripe filed a
reinstate performed and while G.R. No. 167714, complaint for
such activity actually March 7, 2007, Chico- regularization and
exists. Nazario holiday pay.

In this case, records Petitioner Rowell The LA dismissed his

show that Alipio's Industrial is engaged complaint. The NLRC
services were in manufacturing tin reversed the LA. The
engaged by the hotel cans for packaging CA affirmed the
intermittently from consumer products. resolution of the
1993 up to 1998. Her Respondent Joel NLRC.
services as a reliever Taripe was employed
nurse were by petitioner as a ISSUE
undoubtedly Is Taripe a Regular broken, with respect to
necessary and Employee? the activity in which
desirable in the hotel's they are employed.
business of providing HELD Taripe belonged to the
comfortable YES. There are two first category.
accommodation to its kinds of regular
guests. In any case, employees: (1) those The purported contract
since she had who are engaged to of employment
rendered more than perform activities which providing that Taripe
one year of are USUALLY was hired as contractual
intermittent service as NECESSARY OR employee for five (5)
a reliever nurse at the DESIRABLE in the months only, cannot
hotel, she had USUAL BUSINESS or prevail over the
become a regular TRADE of the undisputed fact that he
employee as early as employer; and was hired to perform the
December 12, 1994. (2) those who have function of power press
Lastly, per the hotel's rendered at least one operator, a function
own Certification year of service, necessary or desirable
dated April 22, 1997, whether continuous or in petitioner’s business

88
of manufacturing tin
cans. Petitioner’s
contention that the four
(4) months length of
service of Taripe did
not grant him a regular
status is
inconsequential,
considering that length
of service assumes
importance only when
the activity in which the
employee has been
engaged to perform is
not necessary or
desirable to the usual
business or trade of
the employer.
Also, it cannot be
denied that the
employment contract
signed by respondent
Taripe did not mention
that he was hired only
for a specific
undertaking, the
completion of which
had been determined
at the time of his
engagement. The said
employment contract
neither mentioned that
respondent Taripe's
services were
seasonal in nature and
that his employment
was only for the
duration of the
Christmas season as
purposely claimed by
petitioner. What was
stipulated in the said
contract was that
respondent Taripe's
employment was
contractual for the
period of five months.
As a rank-and-file
employee, Taripe can
hardly be on equal
terms with petitioner
as ‘almost always,
employees agree to
any terms of
employment just to get
employed’.
ABS-CBN
BROADCASTING
CORPORATION v.
MARLYN
NAZARENO, a "work pool" from HELD
MERLOU GERZON, which petitioner chose YES. They are regular
JENNIFER persons to be given employees. Where a
DEIPARINE, and specific assignments person has rendered
JOSEPHINE at its discretion, and at least one year of
LERASAN. were thus under its service, regardless of
G.R. No. 164156, direct supervision and the nature of the
September 26, 2006 control regardless of activity performed, or
nomenclature. where the work is
Petitioner employed continuous or
respondents Nazareno, For its part, petitioner intermittent, the
Gerzon, Deiparine, and alleged in its position employment is
Lerasan as production paper that the considered regular as
assistants (PAs) on respondents were long as the activity
different dates. On PAs who basically exists, the reason
October 12, 2000, assist in the conduct being that a customary
respondents filed a of a particular appointment is not
Complaint for program ran by an indispensable before
Recognition of Regular anchor or talent. one may be formally
Employment Status, Among their duties declared as having
Underpayment of include monitoring attained regular status.
Overtime Pay, Holiday and receiving Article 280 of the
Pay, Premium Pay, incoming calls from Labor Code provides:
Service Incentive Pay, listeners and field
Sick Leave Pay, and reporters and calls of The primary standard,
13th Month Pay with news sources; therefore, of
Damages against the generally, they determining regular
petitioner before the perform leg work for employment is the
NLRC. Respondents the anchors during a reasonable connection
alleged that they were program or a between the particular
engaged by respondent particular production. activity performed by
ABS-CBN as regular They are considered the employee in
and full-time in the industry as relation to the usual
employees for a "program employees" trade or business of
continuous period of in that, as the employer. The test
more than five (5) distinguished from is whether the former
years with a monthly regular or station is usually necessary or
salary rate of Four employees, they are desirable in the usual
Thousand (P4,000.00) basically engaged by business or trade of
pesos beginning 1995 the station for a the employer.
up until the filing of this particular or specific
complaint on program broadcasted Not considered regular
November 20, 2000. by the radio station. employees are “project
Respondents insisted Petitioner asserted employees,” the
that they belonged to that as PAs, the completion or
complainants were termination of which is
issued talent more or less
information sheets determinable at the
which are updated time of employment,
from time to time, and such as those
are thus made the employed in
basis to determine the connection with a
programs to which particular construction
they shall later be project, and “seasonal
called on to assist. employees” whose
employment by its
ISSUE nature is only desirable
W/N the respondents for a limited period of
can be considered as time. Even then, any
regular employees employee who has
rendered at least one
89
year of service, Respondents cannot challenged ballots cast Kimberly filed a motion
whether continuous be considered by 64 casual workers for reconsideration of
or intermittent, is “talents” because they whose regularization the DOLE Order
deemed regular with are not actors or was in question. arguing in the main
respect to the activity actresses or radio KILUSAN-OLALIA filed that the decision only
performed and while specialists or mere a protest. pertained to casuals
such activity actually clerks or utility who had rendered one
exists. employees. They are During the pendency of year of service as of
regular a case filed by April 21, 1986, the
employees who business of the KILUSAN- OLALIA filing date of KILUSAN-
perform several employer. Such a job against the Ministry of OLALIA’s petition for
different duties under or undertaking must Labor and certification election.
the control and also be identifiably Employment, Kimberly
direction of ABS-CBN separate and distinct dismissed from service ISSUES
executives and from the ordinary or several employees Whether the reckoning
supervisors. regular business among which are the point in determining
operations of the casual employees who among Kimberly’s
Thus, there are two employer. The job or whose regularization casual employees are
kinds of regular undertaking also are in question. After a entitled to
employees under the begins and ends at series of cases regularization should
law: (1) those engaged determined or between the parties be April 21, 1986, the
to perform activities determinable times. which reached the date KILUSAN-
which are necessary Supreme Court, DOLE OLALIA filed a petition
or desirable in the The principal test is eventually ordered for certification election
usual business or whether or not the Kimberly to pay the to challenge the
trade of the employer; project employees workers who have incumbency of
and (2) those casual were assigned to carry been regularized their UKCEO- PTGWO
employees who have out a specific project or differential pay with Whether the
rendered at least one undertaking, the respect to minimum employees who are
year of service, duration and scope of wage, cost of living not parties in the
whether continuous or which were specified at allowance, 13th month cases between the
broken, with respect to the time the employees pay, and benefits parties should not be
the activities in which were engaged for that provided for under the included in the
they are employed. project. applicable collective implementation orders
bargaining agreement of DOLE
Under existing KIMBERLY-CLARK, from the time they
jurisprudence, project INC. vs. SECRETARY became regular RULING
(for project employees) OF LABOR employees. No. The law [thus]
could refer to two G.R. No. 156668, provides for two kinds
distinguishable types November 23, 2007 of regular employees,
of activities. First, a namely: (1) those who
project may refer to a When the Collective are engaged to
particular job or Bargaining Agreement perform activities
undertaking that is executed by and which are usually
within the regular or between Kimberly- necessary or desirable
usual business of the Clark, Inc., Kimberly in the usual business
employer, but which is and UKCEO-PTGWO or trade of the
distinct and separate, expired, KILUSAN- employer; and (2)
and identifiable as OLALIA those who have
such, from the other challenged the rendered at least one
undertakings of the incumbency of year of service,
company. Such job or UKCEO-PTGWO. A whether continuous or
undertaking begins certification election broken, with respect to
and ends at was subsequently the activity in which
determined or conducted with they are employed.
determinable times. UKCEO-PTGWO The individual
Second, the term winning by a margin of petitioners herein who
project may also refer 20 votes over have been adjudged to
to a particular job or KILUSAN-OLALIA. be regular employees
undertaking that is not Remaining as fall under the second
within the regular uncounted were 64 category. These are

90
the mechanics, filed a petition for that petitioner failed to probative facts
electricians, certification election, discharge the burden of thereof,"20 the ground
machinists, machine the concerned proving that the for the dismissal of the
shop helpers, employees attained termination of complaint implies a
warehouse helpers, regular status by respondents was for a finding that respondents
painters, carpenters, operation of law. just or authorized are regular employees.
pipefitters and cause. Hence,
masons. It is not No. The grant of the respondents were The NLRC was more
disputed that these benefit of illegally dismissed and unequivocal when it
workers have been in regularization should should be awarded pronounced that
the employ of not be limited to the their money claims. respondents have
KIMBERLY for more employees who acquired the status of
than one year at the questioned their ISSUE regular seasonal
time of the filing of the status before the labor Whether respondents employees having
petition for tribunal/court and are regular employees worked for more than
certification election asserted their rights; it of Hacienda Maasin one year, whether
by KILUSAN-OLALIA. should also extend to and thus entitled to continuous or broken in
those similarly their monetary claims. petitioner’s hacienda.
Considering that an situated. There is,
employee becomes thus, no merit in HELD JOSEFINA BENARES
regular with respect petitioner's contention In this case, petitioner V. JAIME PANCHO
to the activity in which that only those who argues that G.R. No. 151827, April
he is employed one presented their respondents were not 29, 2005, Tinga
year after he is circumstances of her regular employees
employed, the employment to the as they were merely
reckoning date for courts are entitled to "pakiao" workers who
determining his regularization. did not work
regularization is his continuously in the
hiring date. BENARES V. sugar plantation. They
Therefore, it is error PANCHO performed such tasks
for petitioner Kimberly G.R. NO. 151827, April as weeding, cutting and
to claim that it is from 29, 2005 loading canes, planting
April 21, 1986 that the cane points, fertilizing,
one-year period Respondent Had. cleaning the drainage,
should be counted. Maasin II is a sugar etc. These functions
While it is a fact that cane plantation allegedly do not require
the issue of located in Murcia, respondents’ daily
regularization came Negros Occidental presence in the
about only when with an area of sugarcane field as it is
KILUSAN- OLALIA not everyday that one
12-24 has. planted, to have been weeds, cuts canes or
owned and managed terminated without applies fertilizer. In
by Josefina Benares, being paid termination support of her
individual co- benefits by respondent allegations, petitioner
respondent. in retaliation to what submitted "cultivo" and
they have done in milling payrolls.
On July 24, 1991, reporting to the
complainants thru Department of Labor The probative value of
counsel wrote the and Employment their petitioner’s evidence,
Regional Director of working conditions viz- however, has been
the Department of a-viz (sic) wages and passed upon by the
Labor and other mandatory labor arbiter, the NLRC
Employment, Bacolod benefits. and the Court of
City for intercession Appeals. Although the
particularly in the The NLRC held that labor arbiter dismissed
matter of wages and respondents attained respondents’ complaint
other benefits the status of regular because their "position
mandated by law. seasonal workers of paper is completely
Hda. Maasin II having devoid of any
On October 15, 1991, worked therein from discussion about their
complainants alleged 1964-1985. It found alleged dismissal,
much less of the
91
Respondents alleged Whether respondents of the work performed
to have started are regular employees and its relation to the
working as sugar of Hacienda Maasin scheme of the
farm workers on and thus entitled to particular business or
various dates in Hda. their monetary claims; trade in its entirety. If
Maasin II which is a whether respondents the employee has
sugar cane plantation were illegally been performing the
located in Murcia, dismissed. job for at least a year,
Negros Occidental even if the
planted, owned and HELD: performance is not
managed by Josefina YES. The law provides continuous and
Benares, individual for three kinds of merely intermittent,
co-respondent. They employees: the law deems
alleged to have been (1) regular employees repeated and
terminated without or those who have continuing need for its
being paid been engaged to performance as
termination benefits perform activities sufficient evidence of
by respondent in which are usually the necessity if not
retaliation to what necessary or indispensability of that
they have done in desirable in the usual activity to the
reporting to the business or trade of business. Hence, the
Department of Labor the employer; (2) employment is
and Employment their project employees or considered regular,
working conditions those whose but only with respect
and their wages and employment has been to such activity and
other mandatory fixed for a specific while such activity
benefits. Later on, in project or undertaking, exists.
compliance with an the completion or
issued directive, a termination of which
formal complaint was has been determined
filed for illegal at the time of the
dismissal with money engagement of the
claims. But the Labor employee or where
Arbiter dismissed the the work or service to
complaint for lack of be performed is
merit. seasonal in nature
and the employment
On appeal, the NLRC is for the duration of
held that respondents the season; and (3)
attained the status of casual employees or
regular seasonal those who are neither
workers of Hda. regular nor project
Maasin II having employees.
worked therein from
1964-1985. It found The Court, in
that petitioner failed Hacienda Fatima,
to discharge the condensed the rule
burden of proving that that the primary
the termination of standard for
respondents was for determining regular
a just or authorized employment is the
cause. Hence, reasonable
respondents were connection between
illegally dismissed the particular activity
and should be performed by the
awarded their money employee vis--vis the
claims. Said ruling usual trade or
was affirmed by the business of the
CA hence, this employer. This
petition. connection can be
determined by
ISSUE considering the nature
92
In this case, petitioner argues that respondents were
not her regular employees as they were merely pakiao
workers who did not work continuously in the sugar
plantation. They performed such tasks as weeding,
cutting and loading canes, planting cane points,
fertilizing, cleaning the drainage, etc.
The probative value of petitioners evidence, however,
has been passed upon by the labor arbiter, the NLRC
and the Court of Appeals. Although the labor arbiter
dismissed respondents complaint because their
position paper is completely devoid of any discussion
about their alleged dismissal, much less of the
probative facts thereof, the ground for the dismissal of
the complaint implies a finding that respondents are
regular employees.
HACIENDA BINO/HORTENCIA STARKE,
INC./HORTENCIA L. STARKE, , vs. CANDIDO
CUENCA, et al.
G.R. No. 150478, April 15, 2005, Callejo
Hacienda Bino is a sugar plantation located in Negros
Occidental and represented in this case by Hortencia
L. Starke, owner and operator of the said
hacienda.The 76 individual respondents were part of
the workforce of Hacienda Bino consisting of 220
workers, performing various works.On July 18, 1996,
during the off-milling season, petitioner Starke issued
an Order or Notice, which stated, that all those who
signed in favor of CARP are expressing their desire to
get out of employment on their own volition andonly
those who did not sign for CARP will be given
employment by Hda. Bino.
The respondents regarded such notice as a
termination of their employment. As a consequence,
they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, wage
differentials, 13th month pay, holiday pay and premium
pay for holiday, service incentive leave pay, and moral
and exemplary damages with the NLRC Bacolod City,
on September 17, 1996.
On October 6, 1997, the Labor Arbiter rendered a
Decision, finding that petitioner Starkes’ notice was
tantamount to a termination of the respondents’
services, and holding that the petitioner company was
guilty of illegal dismissal. On appeal, the NLRC
affirmed with modification the decision of the Labor
Arbiter.
ISSUE
Whether or not the respondents are regular or
seasonal employees of Hacienda Bino?
RULING
Regular employees. The primary standard for
determining regular employment is the reasonable
connection between the particular activity performed
by the employee in relation to the usual trade or
business of the employer. There is no doubt that the
90
respondents were performing work necessary and
desirable in the usual trade or business of an
employer. Hence, they can properly be classified as
regular employees.
For respondents to be excluded from those classified
as regular employees, it is not enough that they
perform work or services that are seasonal in nature.
They must have been employed only for the duration
of one season. While the records sufficiently show that
the respondents work in the hacienda was seasonal in
nature, there was, however, no proof that they were
hired for the duration of one season only. In fact, the
payrolls,[30] submitted in evidence by the petitioners,
show that they availed the services of the respondents
since 1991. Absent any proof to the contrary, the
general rule of regular employment should, therefore,
stand. It bears stressing that the employer has the
burden of proving the lawfulness of his employees
dismissal.
GAPAYAO V. FULO
G.R. No. 193493, June 13, 2013, Sereno
Jaime Fulo (deceased), a laborer in the agricultural
landholdings, a harvester in the abaca plantation, and
a repairman/utility worker in several business
establishments owned by petitioner, died of "acute
renal failure secondary to 1st degree burn 70%
secondary electrocution" while doing repairs at the
residence and business establishment of petitioner.
Private respondent filed a claim for social security
benefits with the SSS, However, upon verification and
evaluation, it was discovered that the deceased was
not a registered member of the SSS. The latter
demanded that petitioner remit the social security
contributions of the deceased, but petitioner denied
that the deceased was his employee.
ISSUE
Whether or not there exists between the deceased
Jaime Fulo and petitioner an employer-employee
relationship that would merit an award of benefits in
favor of private respondent under social security laws
RULING
Yes. Farm workers generally fall under the definition of
seasonal employees. We have consistently held that
seasonal employees may be considered as regular
employees. 56 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. 57 They are in regular
employment because of the nature of their job, and not
because of the length of time they have worked.
For regular employees to be considered as such, the
primary standard used is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity they perform
and the usual trade or March 18, 2005, work was not
business of the ISSUE Panganiban dependent on the
employer. Are the employees "[Respondent] avers completion or
considered regular that he started working termination of any
Pakyaw workers are employees? with [Petitioner] project; that since his
considered employees Filsystems, Inc., a work was not
for as long as their HELD corporation engaged in dependent on any
employers exercise Yes. However, the construction business, project, his
control over them. It designation must be on June 12, 1989; that employment with the
should be qualified. They are he was initially hired by [petitioner-]company
remembered that the regular [petitioner] company as was continuous and
control test merely seasonal an ‘installer’; that he without interruption for
calls for the existence employees. was later promoted to the past ten (10)
of the right to control, To exclude the mobile crane operator years;that on October
and not necessarily the asserted “seasonal” and was stationed at 1, 1999, he was
exercise thereof. 69 It employee from those the company premises; dismissed from his
is not essential that the classified as regular that his employment allegedly
employer actually employees, the because he was a
supervises the employer must show project employee. He
performance of duties that: (1) the employee filed a pro forma
by the employee. It is must be performing complaint for illegal
enough that the former work or services that dismissal.
has a right to wield the are seasonal in nature;
power. and (2) he had been "The
employed for the [petitioner-]company
UNIVERSAL ROBINA duration of the season. however claims that
SUGAR MILLING complainant was hired
CORP. (URSUMCO ) Hence, when the as a project employee
V. ACIBO “seasonal” workers are in the company’s
G.R. No. 186439, continuously and various projects; that
January 15, 2014, repeatedly hired to his employment
Brion perform the same tasks contracts showed that
or activities for several he was a project
URSUMCO hired seasons or even after worker with specific
employees on different the cessation of the project assignments;
capacities,i.e., drivers, season, this length of that after completion of
crane operators, time may likewise each project
bucket hookers, serve as badge of assignment, his
welders, mechanics, regular employment. employment was
laboratory attendants Even though likewise terminated
and aides, steel denominated as and the same was
workers, laborers, “seasonal workers”, if correspondingly
carpenters and these workers are reported to the
masons, among called to work from DOLE.Labor Arbiter
others. At the start of time to time and are dismissed the
their respective only temporarily laid off complaint for lack of
engagements, the during the off-season, merit. The CA
employees signed the law does not concluded that
contracts of consider them respondent was a
employment for a separated from the regular employee of
period of one (1) service during the off- petitioners.
month or for a given season period. The law
season. URSUMCO simply considers these ISSUE
repeatedly hired them seasonal workers on Whether Roger Puente
to perform the same leave until re- is a project employee.
duties and, for every employed.
engagement, required RULING
the latter to sign new FILIPINAS PRE- In general, the factual
employment contracts FABRICATED findings of the Court of
for the same duration BUILDING SYSTEMS Appeals are binding on
of one month or a (FILSYSTEMS) V. the Supreme Court.
given season. PUENTE
91
One exception to this undertaking the duration of any phase LOCATION : Meralco
rule, however, is completion or of the project or on the Ave., Ortigas Center,
when the factual termination of which completion of the Pasig City;
findings of the former has been determined construction projects. ASSIGNMENT : Lifting
are contrary to those at the time of the Furthermore, & Hauling of Materials
of the trial court (or engagement of the petitioners regularly
the lower employee or where submitted to the labor Evidently, although the
administrative body, the work or services to department reports of employment contract
as the case may be). be performed is the termination of did not state a particular
The question of seasonal in nature services of project date, it did specify that
whether respondent and the employment workers. Such the termination of the
is a regular or a is for the duration of compliance with the parties’ employment
project employee is the season.” With reportorial requirement relationship was to be
essentially factual in particular reference to confirms that on a "day certain" -- the
nature; nonetheless, the construction respondent was a day when the phase of
the Court is industry, to which project work termed "Lifting &
constrained to resolve Petitioner Filsystems employee.Respondent’ Hauling of Materials" for
it due to the belongs, Department s Complaint specified the "World Finance
incongruent findings (of Labor and the address of Plaza" project would be
of the NLRC and the Employment) Order Filsystems, as "69 completed. Thus,
CA.The Labor Code No. 19,11 Series of INDUSTRIA ROAD, respondent cannot be
defines regular, 1993, which make it B.BAYAN Q.C.," but considered to have
project and casual clear that a project specified his place of been a regular
employees as follows: employee is one work as "PROJECT TO employee. He was a
“ART. 280. Regular whose "employment PROJECT." These project employee.
and Casual has been fixed for a statements, coupled
Employment. - The specific project or with the other pieces of That he was employed
provision of written undertaking the evidence presented by with Petitioner
agreement to the completion or petitioners, convinces Filsystems for ten years
contrary termination of which the Court that -- in various projects did
notwithstanding and has been determined contrary to the not ipso facto make him
regardless of the oral at the time of the subsequent claims of a regular employee,
agreement of the engagement of the respondent -- he considering that the
parties, an employee or where performed his work at definition of regular
employment shall be the work or services to the project site, not at employment in Article
deemed to be regular be performed is the company’s 280 of the Labor Code
where the employee seasonal in nature premises. makes a specific
has been engaged to and the employment Respondent’s exception with respect
perform activities is for the duration of employment contract to project employment.
which are usually the season." In D.M. provides as follows: "x The mere rehiring of
necessary or Consunji, Inc. v. xx employment, under respondent on a
desirable in the usual NLRC, this Court has this contract is good project-to-project basis
business or trade of ruled that "the length only for the duration of did not confer upon him
the employer, except of service of a project the project unless regular employment
where the employee is not the employee’s services is status. "The practice
employment has controlling test of terminated due to was dictated by the
been fixed for a employment tenure completion of the practical consideration
specific project or but whether or phase of work/section that experienced
not ‘the employment employment of Puente of the project or piece construction workers
has been fixed for a attest to the fact that he of work to which are more preferred." It
specific project or was hired for specific employee is assigned: did not change his
undertaking the projects. His status as a project
completion or employment was "We agree clearly that employee.
termination of which coterminous with the employment is on a
has been determined completion of the Project to Project Basis SAINT MARY'S
at the time of the projects for which he and that upon UNIVERSITY V.
engagement of the had been hired. Those termination of services COURT OF APPEALS
employee.’" contracts expressly there is no separation
provided that his tenure pay: POSITION : Mobil
In the present case, of employment Crane Operator;
the contracts of depended on the PROJECT NAME :
World Finance Plaza;
92
G.R. NO. 157788, satisfactorily dismissed. Furthermore, the
March 08, 2005, completed three probationary period
Quisumbing consecutive years of RULING shall not be more than
service qualify as No. Section 93 of the six consecutive regular
Respondent Marcelo permanent or regular 1992 Manual of semesters of
Donelo started employees.On appeal Regulations for satisfactory service for
teaching on a by respondent, the Private Schools, those in the tertiary
contractual basis at National Labor provides that full-time level. Thus, the
St. Mary's University Relations Commission teachers who have following requisites
in 1992. In 1995, he (NLRC) reversed the satisfactorily must concur before a
was issued an Decision of the Labor completed their private school teacher
appointment as an Arbiter and ordered probationary period acquires permanent
Assistant Professor I. the reinstatement of shall be considered status: (1) the teacher
He was promoted to respondent without regular or permanent.6 is a full-time teacher;
Assistant Professor loss of seniority rights (2) the teacher must
III. He taught until the and privileges with full have rendered three
first semester of backwages from the consecutive years of All teaching personnel
school year 1999- time his salaries were service; and who do not meet the
2000 when the school withheld until actual (3) such service must foregoing qualifications
discontinued giving reinstatement.4 It held have been satisfactory. are considered part-
him teaching that respondent was a time.
assignments. full-time teacher as he Section 45 of the 1992
Respondent filed a did not appear to have Manual of Regulations With respondent’s
complaint for illegal other regular for Private Schools teaching load of twelve
dismissal against the remunerative provides that full-time units or less, he could
university. Petitioner employment and was academic personnel not claim he worked for
St. Mary's University paid on a regular are those meeting all the number of hours
showed that monthly basis the following daily as prescribed by
respondent was regardless of the requirements: Section 45 of the
merely a part-time number of teaching a. Who possess at Manual. Furthermore,
instructor and, except hours. As a full- time least the minimum the records also
for three semesters, teacher and having academic qualifications indubitably show he
carried a load of less taught for more than 3 prescribed by the was employed
than eighteen units. years, respondent Department under this elsewhere from 1993 to
Petitioner argued that qualified as a Manual for all 1996. Since there is no
respondent never permanent or regular academic personnel; showing that
attained permanent or employee of the b. Who are paid respondent worked on a
regular status for he university. Petitioner monthly or hourly, full-time basis for at
was not a full-time sought for based on the regular least three years, he
teacher. Further, reconsideration and teaching loads as could not have acquired
petitioner showed that pointed out that provided for in the a permanent status.11 A
respondent was respondent was also policies, rules and part-time employee
under investigation by working for the standards of the does not attain
the university for Provincial Department and the permanent status no
giving grades to Government of Nueva school; matter how long he has
students who did not Vizcaya from 1993 to c. Whose total working served the school.12
attend classes. The 1996. Nevertheless, day of not more than And as a part-timer, his
Labor Arbiter ruled the NLRC denied eight hours a day is services could be
that respondent was petitioner's Motion for devoted to the school; terminated by the
lawfully dismissed Reconsideration. d. Who have no other school without being
because he had not Aggrieved, petitioner remunerative held liable for illegal
attained permanent or elevated the matter to occupation elsewhere dismissal.
regular status the Court of Appeals, requiring regular hours Yet, this is not to say
pursuant to the which affirmed the of work that will conflict that part-time teachers
Manual of Decision of the NLRC. with the working hours may not have security
Regulations for in the school; of tenure. The school
Private Schools. The ISSUE andcralawlibrary could not lawfully
Labor Arbiter held Whether or not private e. Who are not terminate a part-timer
that only full- time respondent is a teaching full-time in any before the end of the
teachers with regular permanent regular other educational agreed period without
loads of at least 18 employee, full time, institution. just cause. But once the
units, who have and was illegally
93
period, semester, or stating that he was employed only on consist of the
term ends, there is no being employed only a"por viaje" or per trip following:
obligation on the part on a ‘’por viaje’’ basis basis and that his 1) those engaged to
of the school to renew and that his employment would be perform activities
the contract of employment would be terminated at the end which are usually
employment for the terminated at the end of the trip for which he necessary or desirable
next period, semester, of the trip for which he was being hired. in the usual business
or term. was being hired. or trade of the
ISSUE employer; and
That petitioner did not He was promoted to WON Eustoqia was a 2) those who have
give any teaching Boat Captain but was regular employee rendered at least one
assignment to the later demoted to WON deep year of service
respondent during a Radio Operator. As a -sea fishing whether such service
given term or Radio Operator, he is a seasonal is continuous or
semester, even if monitored the daily industry broken.
factually true, did not activities in their office WON
amount to an and recorded in the Eustoqia was In a span of 12 years,
actionable violation of duty logbook the illegally Eustoquia worked for
respondent's rights. It names of the callers dismissed petitioner first as a
did not amount to and time of their calls. Chief Mate, then Boat
illegal dismissal of the RULING Captain, and later as
part-time teacher. On 3 July 2000, Yes, Eustoquia was a Radio Operator. His
Estoquia failed to regular employee. job was directly related
POSEIDON record a 7:25 a.m. call to the deep-sea fishing
FISHING/TERRY DE in one of the Article 280 draws a business of petitioner
JESUS V. NLRC logbooks. When he line between regular Poseidon. His work
G.R. No. 168052, reviewed the two and casual was, therefore,
February 20. 2006, logbooks, he noticed employment. The necessary and
Chico Nazario that he was not able provision enumerates important to the
to record the said call two (2) kinds of business of his
Petitioner Poseidon in one of the logbooks employees, the employer. Such being
Fishing is a fishing so he immediately regular employees the scenario involved,
company engaged in recorded the 7:25 and the casual Eustoquia is
the deep-sea fishing a.m. call after the 7:30 employees. The considered a regular
industry with Terry de a.m. entry. regular employees employee.
Jesus as the manager. There is nothing in the the employee has been
In the morning of 4 contract that says performing the job for at
Jimmy S. Estoquia July 2000, petitioner complainant is a least one year, even if
was employed as detected the error in casual, seasonal or a the performance is not
Chief Mate in January the entry in the project worker. The continuous or merely
1988 and after five logbook. Estoquia was date July 1 to 31, 1998 intermittent, the law
years. The contract asked to prepare an under the heading deems the repeated
with Eustoqia per the incident report to "Pagdating" had been and continuing need for
"Kasunduan", there explain the reason for placed there merely to its performance as
was a provision the said oversight. On indicate the possible sufficient evidence of
the same day, date of arrival of the the necessity, if not
Poseidon’s secretary vessel and is not an indispensability of that
summoned Estoquia indication of the status activity to the business.
to get his separation of employment of the
pay. crew of the vessel. In the case at bar, the
act of hiring and re-
Estoquia filed a The test to determine hiring in various
complaint for illegal whether employment is capacities is a mere
dismissal with the regular or not is the gambit employed by
Labor Arbiter. reasonable connection petitioner to thwart the
between the particular tenurial protection of
Poseidon and Terry activity performed by private respondent.
de Jesus asserted the employee in Such pattern of re-hiring
that Estoquia was a relation to the usual and the recurring need
contractual or a business or trade of for his services are
casual employee the employer. And, if testament to the

94
necessity and indispensable to the Yes, Eustoqia was other minor
indispensability of usual business or trade illegally dismissed. assignments and
such services to of the employer, then activities. After two
petitioners’ business or the employee must be There is no sufficient weeks, PLDT decided
trade. deemed a regular evidence on record to to pay her the
employee. prove Eustoqia’s minimum wage.
No, the activity of negligence, gross or
catching fish is a Eustoquia’s functions simple, in the On February 15, 1991,
continuous process were usually necessary performance of his PLDT saw no further
and could hardly be or desirable in the duties to warrant a need for Arceos
considered as usual business or trade reduction of six services and decided
seasonal in nature. of petitioner fishing months salary and be to fire her but, through
company and he was summarily dismissed. the intervention of one
Project employees is hired continuously for At best, the simple employee, she was
defined as those 12 years for the same negligence is recommended for an
workers hired: nature of tasks. Hence, punishable only with on-the-job training on
(1) for a specific project he was of regular admonition or minor traffic work.
or undertaking, and employee. suspension for a day When she failed to
(2) the completion or or two. assimilate traffic
termination of such procedures, the
project has been His dismissal was company transferred
determined at the time without valid cause her to auxiliary
of the engagement of and where illegal services, a minor
the employee. dismissal is proven, facility. Subsequently,
the worker is entitled Arceo took the pre-
The principal test for to back wages and qualifying exams for
determining whether other similar benefits the position of
particular employees without deductions or telephone operator two
are "project conditions. more times but again
employees" as failed in both attempts.
distinguished from PLDT v. ROSALINA Finally, on October 13,
"regular employees," is ARCEO 1991, PLDT
whether or not the G.R. No. 149985, May discharged Arceo from
"project employees" 5, 2006 employment. She then
were assigned to carry filed a case for illegal
out a "specific project In May 1990, dismissal before the
or undertaking," the respondent Rosalina labor arbiter. The latter
duration and scope of Arceo (Arceo) applied ruled in her favor.
which were specified for the position of Arceo was reinstated
at the time the telephone operator as casual employee
employees were with petitioner PLDT with a minimum wage
engaged for that Tarlac Exchange. of P106 per day. On
project. She, however, failed September 3, 1996 or
the pre-employment more than three years
In this case, Eustoquia qualifying after her
was never informed examination. Having reinstatement, Arceo
that he will be failed the test, Arceo filed a complaint for
assigned to a "specific requested PLDT to unfair labor practice,
project or undertaking” allow her to work at underpayment of
at the time of their the latters office even salary, underpayment
engagement. without pay. PLDT of overtime pay,
agreed and assigned holiday pay, rest day
Once a project or work her to its commercial pay and other
pool employee has section where she monetary claims. She
been: (1) continuously, was made to perform alleged in her
as opposed to various tasks like complaint that, since
intermittently, re-hired photocopying her reinstatement, she
by the same employer documents, sorting had yet to be
for the same tasks or out telephone bills and regularized and had
nature of tasks; and notices of yet to receive the
(2) these tasks are disconnection, and benefits due to a
vital, necessary and
95
regular employee. determining we are constrained to
Labor arbiter ruled what Under the first criterion, confirm her
that Arceo was constitutes respondent is qualified regularization in that
already qualified to regular to be a regular position.
become a regular employment, employee. Her work,
employee. NLRC what is consisting mainly of FULACHE V. ABS-CBN
affirmed. PLDT went considered photocopying G.R. No. 183810,
to the CA via a [as] the documents, sorting out January 21, 2010, Brion
petition for certiorari. reasonable telephone bills and
CA also affirmed and connection disconnection notices, Petitioners are
declared that, between the was certainly employees performing
particular necessary or desirable manual works for
It is activity to the business of respondent. They were
doctrinaire performed by PLDT. But even if the dismissed without just
that in contrary were true, the cause; as a
the employee that the employment uncontested fact is that consequence thereof,
in relation to subsists or the position she rendered service they filed for illegal
the usual still exists. Even if for more than one year dismissal and invoked
business or Arceo had rendered as a casual employee. their rights under the
trade of the more than one year of Hence, under the CBA. As a defense,
employer, i.e. service as a casual second criterion, she is respondent contended
if the work is employee, PLDT still eligible to become that petitioners were
usually insisted that this fact a regular employee. not its employees, but
necessary or alone would not “talents.” Thus, they
desirable in automatically make her Petitioners argument cannot be entitled to
the usual a regular employee that respondents the benefits stipulated
business or since her position had position has been in the CBA for rank
trade of the long been abolished. abolished, if indeed and file employees.
employer. xxx PLDT also argues that true, does not
And even it would be an even preclude Arceos ISSUE
granting the greater error if Arceo becoming a regular Whether or not
argument of were to be regularized employee. The order to petitioners are aregular
petitioner that as a telephone reinstate her also employees.
the nature of operator since she included the alternative
Arceos work is repeatedly failed the to reinstate her to a RULING
casual or qualifying exams for position equivalent Yes. they are ABS-
temporary, still that position. thereto. Thus, PLDT CBNs regular
she had been can still regularize her employees entitled to
converted into ISSUE in an equivalent the benefits and
a regular Is Arceo eligible to position. privileges of regular
employee by become a regular employees. These
virtue of the employee of PLDT? Under Article 280, any benefits and privileges
proviso in the employee who has arise from entitlements
second HELD rendered at least one under the law
paragraph of Yes. Under Art 280 of year of service shall be (specifically, the Labor
Article 280 for the LC, a regular considered a regular Code and its related
having worked employee is employee with respect laws), and from their
with PLDT for (1) one who is either to the activity in which employment contract
more than one engaged to perform he is employed and his as regular ABS-CBN
(1) year. activities that are employment shall employees, part of
necessary or desirable continue while such which is the CBA if
PLDT argues that in the usual trade or activity exists. For they fall within the
while Article 280 of the business of the PLDTs failure to show coverage of this
Labor Code employer or (2) a that the activity agreement.
regularizes a casual casual employee who undertaken by Arceo
employee who has has rendered at least has been discontinued, Petitioners are
rendered at least one one year of service, members of the
year of service whether continuous or appropriate bargaining
(whether continuous or broken, with respect to unit because they are
broken) the proviso is the activity in which he regular rank-and-file
subject to the condition is employed. employees and do not

96
belong to any of the March 30, 2011 rule, unschooled. G.R. No. 192394, July 3,
excluded categories. However, this fact 2013, Villarama
Specifically, nothing Respondent is a alone is not a valid
in the records shows GOCC while petitioner reason for bestowing Petitioner started
that they are is a legitimate labor special treatment on working for PNCC.
supervisory or organization. Among them or for invalidating Based on PNCC’s
confidential [respondent’s] a contract of "Personnel Action Form
employees; neither geothermal projects is employment. Project Appointment for Project
are they casual nor the Leyte Geothermal employment contracts Employment", he was
probationary Power Project located are not lopsided designated as “Clerk II
employees. Most at the Greater agreements in favor of Accounting”at NAIA II. It
importantly, the Tongonan Geothermal only one party thereto. also stated “Project
labor arbiters Reservation in Leyte. The employer’s interest employment starting on
decision of January Thus, the [respondent] is equally important as April 26, 1996 to July
17, 2002 affirmed all hired and employed that of the employee[s’] 25, 1996.” Petitioner’s
the way up to the CA hundreds of for theirs is the interest employment, however,
level ruled against employees on a that propels economic did not end on July 25,
ABS-CBNs contractual basis, activity. While it may be 1996, but was
submission that they whereby, their true that it is the extended. He was
are independent employment was only employer who drafts rehired several times.
contractors. Thus, as good up to the project employment Despite the termination
regular rank-and-file completion or contracts with its of his employment on
employees, they fall termination of the business interest as October 19, 2000,
within CBA coverage project and would overriding petitioner claims that his
under the CBAs automatically expire consideration, such superior instructed him
express terms and upon the completion contracts do not, of to report for work the
are entitled to its of such project. necessity, prejudice the following day, intimating
benefits. Majority of the employee. Neither is to him that he will again
employees hired by the employee left be employed for the
LEYTE [respondent] in its helpless by a succeeding SM
GEOTHERMAL Leyte Geothermal prejudicial employment projects. For purposes
POWER Power Projects had contract. After all, of reemployment, he
PROGRESSIVE become members of under the law, the then underwent a
EMPLOYEES UNION petitioner. In view of interest of the worker is medical examination
– ALU – TUCP vs. that circumstance, the paramount. Union’s which allegedly
PHILIPPINE petitioner demands own admission, both revealed that he had
NATIONAL OIL from the [respondent] parties had executed pneumonitis. He took a
COMPANY – for recognition of it as the contracts freely and 14-day sick leave.
ENERGY the collective voluntarily without Then
DEVELOPMENT bargaining agent of force, duress or acts
CORPORATION said employees and tending to vitiate the
G.R. No. 170351, for a CBA worker[s’] consent.
negotiation with it. Thus, we see no
However, the HELD reason not to honor
[respondent] did not YES. By entering into and give effect to the
heed such demands of such a contract, an terms and conditions
the petitioner. employee is deemed to stipulated therein. The
Sometime in 1998 understand that his litmus test to determine
when the project was employment is whether an individual is
about to be completed, coterminous with the a project employee lies
the [respondent] project. He may not in setting a fixed period
proceeded to serve expect to be employed of employment
Notices of Termination continuously beyond involving a specific
of Employment upon the completion of the undertaking which
the employees who project. It is of judicial completion or
are members of the notice that project termination has been
petitioner. employees engaged for determined at the time
manual services or of the particular
ISSUE those for special skills employee’s
WON they are project like those of carpenters engagement.
employees or masons, are, as a
PASOS V. PNCC
97
he was required to assigned to several employer for the same tasks or
take a 60-day leave other projects and nature of tasks; and (2)
of absence because there were intervals in DOCTRINE: Once a these tasks are vital,
of Koch’s disease. He between said projects project or work pool necessary and
applied for sick leave since he enjoys employee has been: indispensable to the
but he was told he security of tenure. (1) continuously, as usual business or
was not entitled to opposed to trade of the employer,
sick leave because - Failure of an intermittently, rehired then the employee
he was not a regular employer to file by the same employer
employee. termination reports must be deemed a illegally dismissed, the
after every project regular employee, corporation countered
ISSUE completion proves pursuant to Article 280 that their contracts
Is petitioner a regular that an employee is of the Labor Code and showed that they were
employee? not a project jurisprudence. To rule fixed term employees
employee. otherwise would allow for a specific
HELD circumvention of labor undertaking which was
Yes. PNCC did not report laws in industries not to work on a particular
-This Court is the termination of falling within the ambit order of a customer for
convinced however petitioner’s supposed of Policy Instruction No. a specific period. Their
that although he project employment 20/Department Order severance from
started as a project for the NAIA II Project No. 19, hence allowing employment then was
employee, he to the DOLE. the prevention of due to the expiration of
eventually became a Department Order No. acquisition of tenurial their contracts.
regular employee of 19, or the “Guidelines security by project or
PNCC. In the case at Governing the work pool employees ISSUE
bar, petitioner worked Employment of who have already Whether or not
continuously for more Workers in the gained the status of petitioners were illegally
than two years after Construction regular employees by dismissed
the supposed three- Industry,” requires the employers conduct.
month duration of his employers to submit a HELD
project employment report of an FACTS: Yes.
for the NAIA II employee’s Petitioners Malicdem
Project. While his termination to the and Flores were hired The test to determine
appointment for said nearest public by respondent whether employment is
project allowed such employment office corporation as extruder regular or not is the
extension since it every time an operators in 2006 They reasonable connection
specifically provided employee’s were responsible for between the particular
that in case his employment is the bagging of filament activity performed by
“services are still terminated due to a yarn, the quality of pp the employee in relation
needed beyond the completion of a yarn package and the to the usual business or
validity of [the] project. cleanliness of the work trade of the employer. If
contract, the place area. Their the employee has been
Company shall MACARTHUR employment contracts performing the job for at
extend [his] services”. MALICDEM AND were for a period of least one year, even if
HERMENIGILDO one (1) year. Every the performance is not
While for first three FLORES year thereafter, they continuous or merely
months, petitioner v.MARULAS would sign a intermittent, the law
can be considered a INDUSTRIAL Resignation/Quitclaim deems the repeated
project employee of CORPORATION AND in favor of Marulas a and continuing need for
PNCC, his MIKE MANCILLA day after their contracts its performance as
employment G.R. No. 204406, ended, and then sign sufficient evidence of
thereafter, when his February 26, 2014, another contract for the necessity, if not
services were Mendoza one (1) year until such indispensability of that
extended without any time that they were told activity to the business.
specification of as to TOPIC:Effect of not to report to work
the duration, made continuous re-hiring of anymore. They were It is clear then that there
him a regular a project employee for asked to sign a paper was deliberate intent on
employee of PNCC. the same tasks that acknowledging the the part of the employer
And his status as a are vital, necessary completion of their to prevent the
regular employee and indispensable to contractual status. regularization of
was not affected by the usual trade or Claiming that they were petitioners. To begin
the fact that he was business of the
98
with, there is no actual Even granting that burdensome for the residential houses,
project. The only petitioners were employer, who condominium units and
stipulations in the project employees, depends on the commercial buildings.
contracts were the they can still be availability of projects, Petitioner Antonio P.
dates of their considered as regular to carry him as a Javalera is the
effectivity, the duties as they were permanent employee President and General
and responsibilities of continuously hired by and pay him wages Manager of Exodus.
the petitioners as the same employer for even if there are no
extruder operators, the the same position as projects for him to On February 1, 1999,
rights and obligations extruder operators. work on.The rationale Exodus obtained from
of the parties, and the Being responsible for behind this is that Dutch Boy Philippines,
petitioners the operation of once the project is Inc. (Dutch Boy) a
compensation and machines that completed it would be contractfor the painting
allowances. As there produced sacks, their unjust to require the of the Imperial Sky
was no specific project work was vital and employer to maintain Garden located at
or undertaking to indispensable the these employees in Ongpin Street,
speak of, the business of the their payroll. Binondo, Manila. On
respondents cannot employer. July 28, 1999, Dutch
invoke the exception in EXODUS Boy awarded another
Article 280 of the The respondents INTERNATIONAL contractto Exodus for
Labor Code. This is a cannot use the CONSTRUCTION the painting of Pacific
clear attempt to alleged expiration of CORPORATION and Plaza Towers in Fort
frustrate the the employment ANTONIO P. Bonifacio, Taguig City.
regularization of the contracts of the JAVALERA v. In the furtherance of its
petitioners and to petitioners as a shield GUILLERMO business, Exodus
circumvent the law. of their illegal acts. BISCOCHO, hired respondents as
The project FERNANDO painters on different
employment contracts PEREDA, dates with the
that the petitioners FERDINAND corresponding wages.
were made to sign MARIANO,
every year since the GREGORIO BELLITA Guillermo Biscocho
start of their and MIGUEL (Guillermo) was
employment were only BOBILLO assigned at the
a stratagem to violate G.R. No. 166109, Imperial Sky Garden
their security of tenure February 23, 2011, Del from February 8, 1999
in the company. Castillo to February 8, 2000.
Fernando Pereda
The respondents Petitioner Exodus (Fernando) worked in
invocation of William International the same project from
Uy Construction Corp. Construction February 8, 1999 to
v. Trinidad is Corporation (Exodus) June 17, 2000.
misplaced because it is a duly licensed Likewise, Ferdinand
is applicable only in labor contractor for Mariano (Ferdinand)
cases involving the the painting of worked there from
tenure of project April 12, 1999 to
employees in the February 17, 2000. All Pacific Plaza Towers on
construction industry. of them were then March 10, 2000.
It is widely known that transferred to Pacific
in the construction Plaza Towers. Gregorio On November 27, 2000,
industry, a project S. Bellita (Gregorio) Guillermo, Fernando,
employees work was assigned to work Ferdinand, and Miguel
depends on the at the house of Mr. filed a complaintfor
availability of projects, Teofilo Yap in Ayala illegal dismissal and
necessarily the Alabang, Muntinlupa non-payment of holiday
duration of his City from May 20, 1999 pay, service incentive
employment. It is not to December 4, 1999. leave pay, 13th month
permanent but Afterwards he was pay and night-shift
coterminous with the transferred to Pacific differential pay. On
work to which he is Plaza Towers. Miguel December 1, 2000,
assigned. It would be B. Bobillo (Miguel) was Gregorio also filed a
extremely hired and assigned at complaint stating that

99
he was dismissed from for work. It is a settled rule that
the service on ISSUE "[m]ere absence or
September 12, 2000 WON respondents were On March 21, 2002, the failure to report for
while Guillermo, illegally dismissed. Labor Arbiter rendered work x xx is not
Fernando, Ferdinand, a Decisionexonerating enough to amount to
and Miguel were orally RULING petitioners from the abandonment of work."
notified of their There was no charge of illegal "Abandonment is the
dismissal from the dismissal in this case, dismissal as deliberate and
service on November hence, there is no respondents chose not unjustified refusal of an
25, 2000. question that can be to report for work. The employee to resume
entertained regarding Labor Arbiter ruled that his employment."
its legality or illegality. respondents should be
As found by the Labor reinstated but without Respondents must be
Arbiter, there was no any backwages. reinstated and paid
evidence that However, she allowed their holiday pay,
respondents were the claims for holiday service incentive leave
dismissed nor were pay, service incentive pay, and 13th month
they prevented from leave pay and 13th pay.
returning to their work. month pay.
It was only Clearly therefore, there
respondents’ Petitioners sought was no dismissal,
unsubstantiated recourse to the NLRC much less illegal, and
conclusion that they limiting their appeal to there was also no
were dismissed. As a the award of service abandonment of job to
matter of fact, incentive leave pay, speak of. The Labor
respondents could not 13th month pay, Arbiter is therefore
name the particular holiday pay and 10% correct in ordering that
person who effected attorney’s fees in the respondents be
their dismissal and sum of P70,183.23. On reinstated but without
under what particular January 17, 2003, the any backwages.
circumstances. NLRC dismissed the However, petitioners
appeal. Aggrieved, are of the position that
The Labor Arbiter is petitioners filed with the the reinstatement of
also correct in ruling CA a petition for respondents to their
that there was no certiorari. On August former positions, which
abandonment on the 10, 2004, the CA were no longer
part of respondents dismissed the petition existing, is impossible,
that would justify their and affirmed the highly unfair and
dismissal from their findings of the Labor unjust. The project was
employment. Arbiter and the NLRC. already completed by
However, in addition to petitioners on
Petitioners denied When he reported for the reliefs awarded to September 28, 2001.
respondents’ work the following day, respondents in the Thus the completion of
allegations. As regards he was reprimanded for March 21, 2002 the project left them
Gregorio, petitioners being Absent Without Decision of the Labor with no more work to
averred that on Official Leave (AWOL). Arbiter which was do. Having completed
September 15, 2000, Because of the affirmed by the NLRC their tasks, their
he absented himself reprimand, he worked in a Resolution dated positions automatically
from work and applied only half-day and January 17, 2003, the ceased to exist.
as a painter with SAEI- thereafter was unheard petitioners were Consequently, there
EEI which is the of until the filing of the directed by the CA to were no more
general building instant complaint. solidarily pay full positions where they
contractor of Pacific Fernando, Ferdinand, backwages, inclusive of can be reinstated as
Plaza Towers. Since and Miguel were all benefits the painters.
then, he never caught eating during respondents should
reported back to work. working hours on have received had they Petitioners are
November 25, 2000 for not been dismissed. misguided. They forgot
Guillermo absented which they were that there are two
himself from work reprimanded by their types of employees in
without leave on foreman. Since then the construction
November 27, 2000. they no longer reported industry. The first is

10
0
referred to as project project. payment of holiday under the
employees or those pay, service incentive
employed in The second category leave pay, and 13th
connection with a is where respondents month pay. Petitioners
particular construction are classified. As such as the employer of
project or phase they are regular respondents and
thereof and such employees of having complete
employment is petitioners. It is clear control over the records
coterminous with from the records of of the company could
each project or phase the case that when have easily rebutted
of the project to which one project is the monetary claims
they are assigned. completed, against it. All that they
The second is known respondents were had to do was to
as non-project automatically present the vouchers or
employees or those transferred to the next payrolls showing
employed without project awarded to payment of the same.
reference to any petitioners. There However, they decided
particular construction was no employment not to provide the said
project or phase of a agreement documentary evidence.
given to respondents 2. The tasks Our conclusion
which clearly spelled performed by therefore is that they
out the duration of the alleged never paid said
their employment, the "project benefits and therefore
specific work to be employee" are they must be ordered
performed and that vital, necessary to settle their obligation
such is made clear to and with the respondents.
them at the time of indespensable
hiring. It is now too late to the usual The CA erred when it
for petitioners to claim business or ordered reinstatement
that respondents are trade of the of respondents with
project employees employer." payment of full
whose employment is backwages. In cases
coterminous with each In this case, the where there is no
project or phase of the evidence on record evidence of dismissal,
project to which they shows that the remedy is
are assigned. respondents were reinstatement but
employed and without backwages. In
Nonetheless, assigned continuously this case, both the
assuming that to the various projects Labor Arbiter and the
respondents were of petitioners. As NLRC made a finding
initially hired as project painters, they that there was no
employees, petitioners performed activities dismissal much less an
must be reminded of which were necessary illegal one.
our ruling in and desirable in the
Maraguinot, Jr. v. usual business of D.M. CONSUNJI, INC.
National Labor petitioners, who are V. ANTONIO GOBRES
Relations Commission engaged in G.R. No. 169170,
that "[a] project subcontracting jobs for August 8, 2010
employee xxx may painting of residential
acquire the status of a units, condominium Doctrine: If the
regular employee and commercial termination of project
when the following buildings. As regular employees is brought
[factors] concur: employees, about by the
1. There is a respondents are completion of the
continuous entitled to be reinstated contract or phase
rehiring of without loss of seniority thereof, no prior notice
project rights. is required. An
employees employer need not
even after Respondents are also comply with the twin-
cessation of a entitled to their money notice rule unless
project; and claims such as the termination is due to a
Just or Legal Cause
10
1
Labor Code. The only dismissal, and non-
notice required is for payment of 13th As project employees,
the employer to notify month pay, five (5) respondents’
the DOLE of the days service incentive termination is
employee’s leave pay, damages governed by Section 1
termination from the and attorney’s fees. (c) and Section 2 (III),
employment for each Rule XXIII
project. The Labor Arbiter, the (Termination of
NLRC and the Court Employment), Book V
FACTS: of Appeals all found of the Omnibus Rules
Respondents Antonio that respondents, as Implementing the
Gobres, Magellan project employees, Labor Code.In this
Dalisay, were validly case, the Labor
GodofredoParagsa, terminated due to the Arbiter, the NLRC and
Emilio Aleta and completion of the the Court of Appeals
GenerosoMelo phases of work for all found that
worked as carpenters which their services respondents were
in the construction were engaged. validly terminated due
projects of petitioner to the completion of
D.M. Consunji, Inc., a However, the Court of the phases of work
construction Appeals held that
company, on several respondents were
occasions and/or at entitled to nominal
various times. Their damages, because
termination from petitioner failed to give
employment for each them advance notice
project was reported of their termination.
to the Department of The appellate court
Labor and cited the case of
Employment (DOLE), Agabon v. NLRC as
in accordance with basis for the award of
Policy Instruction No. nominal damages.
20, which was later
superseded by ISSUE
Department Order Is prior notice of
No. 19, series of termination required to
1993. be sent to the
employee before an
Respondents’ last employer could
assignment was at terminate him based
Quad 4-Project in on completion of the
Glorietta, Ayala, project for which he
Makati, where they was hired? -NO
started working on
September 1, 1998. RULING
On October 14, 1998, Unlike in Agabon,
respondents saw their respondents, in this
names included in the case, were not
Notice of Termination terminated for just
posted on the bulletin cause under Article
board at the project 282 of the Labor
premises. Code. Dismissal
Respondents filed a based on just causes
Complaint with the contemplate acts or
Arbitration Branch of omissions attributable
the National Labor to the employee.
Relations Instead, respondents
Commission (NLRC) were terminated due
against petitioner to the completion of
D.M. Consunji, Inc. the phases of work for
and David M. which their services
Consunji for illegal were engaged.
10
2
for which respondents’ services were engaged. The
above rule clearly states, “If the termination is brought
about by the completion of the contract or phase
thereof, no prior notice is required.”
Cioco, Jr. v. C.E. Construction Corporation explained
that this is because completion of the work or project
automatically terminates the employment, in which
case, the employer is, under the law, only obliged to
render a report to the DOLE on the termination of the
employment.
YOLANDA M. MERCADO v. AMA COMPUTER
COLLEGE-PARAAQUE CITY, INC.
G.R. No. 183572, April 13, 2010, Brion
The petitioners were faculty members who started
teaching at AMACC. AMACC implemented new faculty
screening guidelines, set forth in its Guidelines on the
Implementation of AMACC Faculty Plantilla. Pursuant
to said guidelines, entitlement to salary increase was
determined. The petitioners failed to obtain a passing
rating based on the performance standard, and hence,
were not entitled to said increase. This prompted them
to file with the NLRC complaint for underpayment of
wages, inter alia.
AMACC countered that Petitioners were under a
contracted term and under a non-tenured appointment
and were still within the three-year probationary period
for teachers. Their contracts were not renewed for the
following term because they failed to pass the
Performance Appraisal System for Teachers (PAST)
while others failed to comply with the other
requirements for regularization, promotion, or increase
in salary.
ISSUE
Should the teachers’ probationary status be
disregarded simply because the contracts were fixed-
term?
HELD
NO. “To be sure, nothing is illegitimate in defining the
school-teacher relationship in this manner. The school,
however, cannot forget that its system of fixed-term
contract is a system that operates during the
probationary period and for this reason is subject to
the terms of Article 281 of the Labor Code. Unless this
reconciliation is made, the requirements of this Article
on probationary status would be fully negated as the
school may freely choose not to renew contracts
simply because their terms have expired.The
inevitable effect of course is to wreck the scheme that
the Constitution and the Labor Code established to
balance relationships between labor and
management.”
“Given the clear constitutional and statutory intents, we
cannot but conclude that in a situation where the
probationary status overlaps with a fixed-term
contract not specifically used for the fixed term it
100
offers, Article 281 should assume primacy and the
fixed-period character of the contract must give way.
This conclusion is immeasurably strengthened by the
petitioners and the AMACCs hardly concealed
expectation that the employment on probation could
lead to permanent status, and that the contracts are
renewable unless the petitioners fail to pass the
schools standards.”
“If the school were to apply the probationary standards
(as in fact it says it did in the present case), these
standards must not only be reasonable but must have
also been communicated to the teachers at the start of
the probationary period, or at the very least, at the start
of the period when they were to be applied. These
terms, in addition to those expressly provided by the
Labor Code, would serve as the just cause for the
termination of the probationary contract. As explained
above, the details of this finding of just cause must be
communicated to the affected teachers as a matter of
due process.”
“While we can grant that the standards were duly
communicated to the petitioners and could be applied
beginning the 1st trimester of the school year 2000-
2001, glaring and very basic gaps in the schools
evidence still exist. The exact terms of the standards
were never introduced as evidence; neither does the
evidence show how these standards were applied to
the petitioners.[48] Without these pieces of evidence
(effectively, the finding of just cause for the non-
renewal of the petitioners contracts), we have nothing
to consider and pass upon as valid or invalid for each
of the petitioners. Inevitably, the non-renewal (or
effectively, the termination of employment of
employees on probationary status) lacks the
supporting finding of just cause that the law requires
and, hence, is illegal.”
COLEGIO DEL SANTISIMO ROSARIO AND SR.
ZENAIDA S. MOFADA, OP v. EMMANUEL ROJO
GR. No. 170388, September 04, 2013, Del Castillo
Colegio del Santisimo Rosario (CSR) hired respondent
as a high school teacher on probationary basis for the
school years 1992-1993, 1993-19947 and 1994-1995.
On April 5, 1995, CSR, through Mofada, decided not to
renew respondent’s services.
Thus, on July 13, 1995, 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 of satisfactory
services shall be considered permanent.”
On the other hand, petitioners argued that respondent
knew that his renew or not to renew CBA with effect up to postgraduate degrees.
Teacher’s Contract for the contract. If 1999 which provided The two enrolled in
school year 1994- renewed, this second that UE shall extend graduate studies but
1995 with CSR renewal of the contract only semester-to- failed to finish it. UE
would expire on for another school year semester appointments extended probationary
March 31, 1995. would then be the last to college faculty staffs appointments to Bueno
Accordingly, year – since it would be who did not possess and Pepanio. The
respondent was not the third school year – the minimum Dean of the UE
dismissed but his of probationary qualifications. UE hired College of Arts and
probationary contract employment. the two respondents on Sciences, sent notices
merely expired and a semester-to- to probationary faculty
was not renewed. At the end of this third semester basis to members, reminding
Petitioners also year, the employer may teach in its college. them of the expiration
claimed that the “three now decide whether to They could not qualify of the probationary
years” mentioned in extend a permanent for probationary or status of those lacking
paragraph 75 of the appointment to the regular status because in postgraduate
1970 Manual refer to employee, primarily on they lacked qualification. Pepanio
“36 months,” not three the basis of the replied that she was
school years. And employee having met enrolled at the PUP
since respondent the reasonable while Bueno later
served for only three standards of wrote UE, demanding
school years of 10 competence and that it consider her a
months each or 30 efficiency set by the regular employee
months, then he had employer. For the based on her six-and-
not yet served the entire duration of this a-half-year service.
“three years” or 36 three-year period, the Pepanio cited her 3.5
months mentioned in teacher remains under years service.
paragraph 75 of the probation. Respondents filed
1970 Manual. cases of illegal
Upon the expiration of dismissal against the
ISSUE his contract of school before the LA.
Whether or not Rojo employment, being
has acquired simply on probation, he ISSUE
permanent status cannot automatically Whether or not UE
claim security of tenure illegally dismissed
HELD and compel the Bueno and Pepanio.
Yes. The common employer to renew his
practice is for the employment contract. It HELD
employer and the is when the yearly No. The policy
teacher to enter into a contract is renewed for requiring postgraduate
contract, effective for the third time that degrees of college
one school year. At the Section 93 of the teachers was provided
end of the school year, manual becomes in the Manual of
the employer has the operative, and the Regulations as early
option not to renew the teacher then is entitled as 1992. The
contract, particularly to regular or permanent requirement of a
considering the employment status. masteral degree for
teacher’s performance. tertiary education
UNIVERSITY OF THE teachers is not
If the contract is not EAST V. PEPANIO unreasonable. The
renewed, the G.R. No. 193897, operation of
employment January 23, 2013 educational institutions
relationship involves public
terminates. If the DECS required college interest. The
contract is renewed, faculty members to government has a right
usually for another have a master's degree to ensure that only
school year, the as a minimum qualified persons, in
probationary educational possession of
employment qualification for sufficient academic
continues. Again, at acquiring regular knowledge and
the end of that period, status. In 1994, UE and teaching skills, are
the parties may opt to its union executed a
101
allowed to teach in appointments to the Labor Code provides, probation period, the
such institutions. standards set by the “Probationary college or university,
Government law and the university. employment shall not being the employer, has
regulation in this field exceed six (6) months the sole prerogative to
of human activity is HERRERA-MANAOIS from the date the make a decision on
desirable for V. employee started whether or not to re–
protecting, not only ST. SCHOLASTICA’S
working, unless it is hire the probationer.
the students, but the COLLEGE covered by an The probationer cannot
public as well from ill- G.R. No. 188914, apprenticeship automatically assert the
prepared teachers, December 11, 2013, agreement stipulating a acquisition of security of
who are lacking in the Sereno longer period. The tenure and force the
required scientific or services of an employer to renew the
technical knowledge. SSC, situated in the employee who has employment contract. In
They may be required City of Manila, is a been engaged on a the case at bar,
to take an private educational probationary basis may Manaois failed to
examination or to institution offering be terminated for a just comply with the stated
possess postgraduate elementary, cause or when he fails academic qualifications
degrees as secondary, and to qualify as a regular (Holder of a master’s
prerequisite to tertiary education. employee in degree, to teach largely
employment. Manaoisapplied for a accordance with in his major field)
Respondents were position as full–time reasonable standards required for the position
each given only instructor for school made known by the of a permanent full–time
semester-to- year 2000–2001. She employer to the faculty member.
semester mentioned in her employee at the time of
appointments from application letter that his engagement. An SECURIT
the beginning of their she had been taking employee who is
employment with UE the course Master of allowed to work after a Y OF
precisely because Arts in English probationary period TENURE
they lacked the Studies, Major in shall be considered a
required master's Creative Writing, at regular employee.” SALAS V. ABOITIZ
degree. It was only the University of the ONE
when UE and the Philippines, Diliman At this juncture, we G.R. No. 178236, June
faculty union signed (UP); that she was reiterate the rule that 27, 2008, Nachura
their 2001 CBA that completing her mere completion of the
the school extended master’s thesis; and three–year probation, Salas was hired as an
petitioners a that her oral defense even with an above– assistant utility man by
conditional was scheduled for average performance, Aboitiz who eventually
probationary status June 2000.Her does not guarantee became material
subject to their application was that the employee will controller after a few
obtaining a master's approved and automatically acquire a years. He was tasked
degree within their herprobationary permanent employment with monitoring and
probationary period. It employment status. It is settled maintaining the
is clear, therefore, continued for a total of jurisprudence that the availability and supply
that the parties three consecutive probationer can only of Quickbox needed by
intended to subject years.Upon qualify upon fulfillment Aboitiz in its day-to-day
respondents' completion of the reasonable operations. Some time
permanent status standards set for in
of her third year of permanent employment
probationary ISSUE as a member of the
employment, she Whether the teaching personnel. In
received a letter from completion of a line with academic
the Dean of College master’s degree is freedom and
and Chairperson of the required in order for a constitutional
Promotions and tertiary level educator autonomy, an institution
Permanency Board to earn the status of of higher learning has
officially informing her permanency in a the discretion and
of the board’s decision private educational prerogative to impose
not to renew her institution? standards on its
contract because of teachers and determine
her failure to finish her HELD whether these have
master’s degree. Yes.Art. 281.of the been met. Upon
conclusion of the
102
2003, Salas ran out of ups with Eric was tardy for a total of respondent reported
Quickboxes – he Saclamitao regarding 190 times and was for work but petitioner
failed to promptly the request; and that absent without leave Escobia told him not to
inform his immediate he even talked to the for a total of nine and work, and to return
supervisor of the non- supplier to facilitate a half days. He was later in the afternoon
delivery of the the immediate delivery ordered to render for a hearing. When he
requisitioned items of the Quickbox. It overtime service in returned, a copy of an
thus hampering the cannot be gainsaid order to comply with a Office Memorandum
operations of Aboitiz. that Salas exerted job order deadline, but was served on him.
After due notices and efforts to avoid a stock he refused to do so. Petitioners aver that
an administrative out of Quickbox. The following day Galit was
hearing conducted, Accordingly, he dismissed due to the and tardiness because
he was dismissed for cannot be held liable following offenses: (1) respondent was not
neglect of duty and for gross negligence. tardiness constituting subjected to any penalty
wilful breach of trust. neglect of duty; (2) is bereft of legal basis.
Salas filed a His failure to notify his serious misconduct; The petitioners did not
complaint for illegal supervisor did not and (3) insubordination impose any punishment
dismissal. amount to gross or willful disobedience. for the numerous
neglect of duty or to Respondent absences and tardiness
ISSUE willful breach of trust, subsequently filed a of respondent. Thus,
Does the single act which would justify his complaint for illegal said infractions can be
(omission) of an dismissal from dismissal and money used collectively by
employee constitute service. Salas, as claims before the petitioners as a ground
gross neglect so as to material controller was National Labor for dismissal.
warrant the penalty of tasked with monitoring Relations Commission
dismissal? and maintaining the (NLRC). The CA found SAN MIGUEL
availability and supply that it was not the CORPORATION V.
RULING of Quickbox. There tardiness and NLRC
No. Gross negligence appears nothing to absences committed by G.R. Nos. 146121-22,
connotes want or suggest that Salas respondent, but his April 16, 2008, Tinga
absence of or failure position was a highly refusal to render
to exercise slight care or even primarily overtime work which It appears that per
or diligence, or the confidential position, caused the termination company records,
entire absence of so that he can be of his employment. respondent (Ernesto M.
care. It evinces a removed for loss of Itfurther ruled that the Ibias) was
thoughtless disregard trust and confidence basis for computing his AWOP( Absent without
of consequences by the employer. No backwages should be permission) on the
without exerting any just cause exists to his daily salary at the following dates in 1997:
effort to avoid them. warrant Salas time of his dismissal 2, 4 and 11
To warrant removal dismissal. which was PhP 230, January; 26, 28 and 29
from service, the Consequently, he is and that his backwages April; and 5, 7, 8, 13,
negligence should not entitled to should be computed 21, 22,
merely be gross, but reinstatement to his from the time of his 28 and 29 May. For his
also habitual. former position dismissal up to the absences on 2, 4 and
Undoubtedly, it was without loss of finality of the CA’s 11 January and 28 and
Salas duty, as seniority rights, and to decision 29 April, he was given a
material controller, to payment of written warning[7] dated
monitor and maintain backwages. ISSUES 9 May 1997 that he had
the availability and Whether there was just already incurred five (5)
supply of Quickbox RB MICHAEL PRESS cause to terminate the AWOPs and that further
needed by Aboitiz in V. GALIT employment of absences would be
its day-to-day G.R. No. 153510, respondent subject to disciplinary
operations, and on February 13, 2008, RULING action. For his
June 4, 2003, Aboitiz Velasco Respondent did not absences on 28 and 29
had run out of Large adduce any evidence April and 7 and 8 May,
Quickbox. However, Respondent was to show waiver or respondent was alleged
records show that employed by condonation on the part to have falsified his
Salas made a petitioner R.B. of petitioners. Thus the medical consultation
requisition for Michael Press as an finding of the CA that card by stating therein
Quickbox as early as offset machine petitioners cannot use that he was granted sick
May 21, 2003; that he operator. During his the previous absences leave by the plant clinic
made several follow- employment, Galit
103
on said dates when in What the lower imposition. Thus, in upheld his cause in his
truth he was not. After tribunals perceived as the implementation of conflicts with the
the completion of the laxity, we consider as its rules and policies, employer. Such
investigation, SMC leniency. SMCs the employer has the favoritism, however,
concluded that tendency to excuse choice to do so strictly has not blinded the
respondent committed justified absences or not, since this is Court to rule that
the offenses of actually redounded to inherent in its right to justice is in every case
excessive AWOPs and the benefit of control and manage for the deserving, to be
falsification of respondent since the its business dispensed in the light
company records or imposition of the effectively. of the established facts
documents, and corresponding penalty Consequently, and applicable law and
accordingly dismissed would have been management has the doctrine.
him. The dismissal deleterious to him. In prerogative to impose
was rendered without a world where no sanctions lighter than All told, we find that
having the respondent work-no pay is the those specifically SMC acted well within
previously suspended rule of thumb, several prescribed by its rules, its rights when it
for prior violations days of suspension or to condone dismissed respondent
would be difficult for completely the for his numerous
ISSUE an ordinary working violations of its erring absences. Respondent
Whether or not the man like respondent. employees. Of course, was afforded due
dismissal was correct He should be thankful this prerogative must process and was
that SMC did not be exercised free of validly dismissed for
HELD exact from him almost grave abuse of cause.
YES, Respondents 70 days suspension discretion, bearing in
dismissal was well before he was finally mind the requirements LBC EXPRESS v.
within the purview of dismissed from work. of justice and fair play. MATEO
SMCs management Indeed, we have G.R. No. 168215, June
prerogative. In any case, when previously stated: 9, 2009, Corona
SMC imposed the
penalty of dismissal Management also has Doctrine: To justify a
for the 12th and 13th its own rights, which, dismissal, there must
AWOPs, it was acting as such, are entitled be gross and habitual
well within its rights as to respect and negiligence. However,
an employer. An enforcement in the the habituality may be
employer has the interest of simple fair dispensed with if the
prerogative to play. Out of its negligence is so gross
prescribe reasonable concern for those with that there was
rules and regulations [fewer] privileges in substiantial loss in the
necessary for the life, the Supreme company. An
proper conduct of its Court has inclined employer cannot
business, to provide more often than not legally be compelled to
certain disciplinary toward the worker and continue with
measures in order to the employment of a off packages coming
implement said rules person admittedly from various LBC
and to assure that the guilty of gross airposts. He parked his
same would be negligence in the motorcycle directly in
complied with. An performance of his front of the LBC office,
employer enjoys a duties. switched off the engine
wide latitude of and took the key with
discretion in the James Mateo, him. He returned
promulgation of designated as a promptly within three to
policies, rules and customer associate, five minutes but the
regulations on work- was a regular motorcycle was gone.
related activities of the employee of LBC After investigation, he
employees. Express (LBC). His job received a notice of
was to deliver and pick- termination from LBC.
It is axiomatic that up packages to and He was barred from
appropriate from LBC and its reporting for work.
disciplinary sanction is customers. One day,
within the purview of Mateo arrived at LBC’s ISSUE
management Escolta office, to drop Whether Mateo was

104
grossly negligent in the Citibank on grounds of ISSUE of the appeal, then the
performance of his (1) serious misconduct, Whether or not employee is entitled to
duties (2) willful breach of the Genuino is entitled to the compensation
trust reposed upon her payment of such received for actual
RULING by the bank, and (3) salaries. services rendered
YES. Mateo was commission of a crime without need of refund.
undisputedly negligent against the bank. She HELD Considering that
when he left the filed before the Labor No, since the Genuino was not
motorcycle along Arbiter a Complaint for dismissal was valid. reinstated to work or
Escolta, Manila without illegal suspension and Citibank had valid placed on payroll
locking it despite clear, illegal dismissal with grounds to dismiss reinstatement, and her
specific instructions to damages and prayer Genuino on ground of dismissal is based on
do so. It proved that he for temporary loss of confidence. a just cause, then she
did not exercise even restraining order and/or The NLRC's order for is not entitled to be
the slightest degree of writ of preliminary payroll reinstatement paid the salaries.
care during that very injunction. The LA is set aside. The
short time. Mateo found there was illegal employee shall either EDUARDO BUGHAW,
deliberately did not dismissal and ordered be admitted back to JR. v. TREASURE
heed the employer’s for Genuino’s work under the same ISLAND INDUSTRIAL
very important reinstatement. The terms and conditions CORPORATION
precautionary measure NLRC reversed the prevailing prior to his G.R. No. 173151, March
to ensure the safety of Labor Arbiter's decision dismissal or 28, 2008, Chico Nazario
company property. with the following separation or, at the
Although Mateo’s modification: (1) option of the Petitioner was
infraction was not DECLARING the employer, merely employed as
habitual, we must take dismissal of the reinstated in the production worker by
into account the complainant valid but payroll. The posting of respondent.
substantial amount (2) ORDERING the a bond by the Respondent was
lost. In this case, LBC respondent bank to pay employer shall not receiving information
lost a motorcycle with the salaries due to the stay the execution for that many of its
a book value of complainant from the reinstatement employees were using
P46,000 which by any date it reinstated provided herein. If the prohibited drugs during
means could not be complainant in the decision of the labor working hours and
considered a trivial payroll as found by the arbiter is later within the company
amount. Labor Arbiter up to and reversed on appeal premises. Petitioner
until the date of its upon the finding that was impleaded by one
MARILOU S. (NLRC) decision. CA the ground for Loberanes in the crime
GENUINO v. NLRC affirmed NLRC. dismissal is valid, then by claiming that part of
G.R. Nos. 142732-33, the employer has the the money used for
December 4, 2007, right to require the buying illegal drugs
Velasco dismissed employee was given by him. A
on payroll notice was given by
Genuino was reinstatement to respondent company
employed by Citibank refund the salaries to petitioner to explain
as Treasury Sales s/he received while why no disciplinary
Division Head with the the case was pending action be taken against
rank of Assistant Vice- appeal, or it can be him. Notwithstanding
President. Citibank deducted from the such petitioner failed to
sent Genuino a letter accrued benefits that appear before the
charging her with the dismissed respondent’s legal
"knowledge and/or employee was entitled counsel on the
involvement" in to receive from his/her scheduled hearing
transactions "which employer under date and to explain his
were irregular or even existing laws, side on the matter.
fraudulent” and was collective bargaining Petitioner was then
informed she was agreement provisions, terminated without
under preventive and company notice. Hence he filed
suspension. Later, practices. However, if an illegal dismissal
after investigation and the employee was against his employer.
administrative hearing, reinstated to work
Genuino's employment during the pendency ISSUE
was terminated by
105
Whether petitioner was fold, the substantive merely wanted to Moreno’s dismissal
illegally dismissed and the procedural improve her family’s from employment in
aspects. Not only poor financial accordance with the
HELD must the dismissal be conditions. A Special school manual, but
YES. Under the for a just or authorized Grievance Committee Dean Espejo dissented
Labor Code, the cause, the was then formed in and called only for a
requirements for the rudimentary order to investigate and suspension for one
lawful dismissal of an requirements of due make semester. Moreno was
employee are two- process - notice and recommendations terminated in her work.
hearing must, likewise, process. regarding Moreno’s Moreno instituted with
be observed before an case. Moreno admitted the NLRC a complaint
employee may be MORENO v. SAN she did not formally for illegal termination
dismissed. Without the SEBASTIAN disclose her teaching against SSC-R.
concurrence of the G.R. No. 175283, loads at the College of
two, the termination March 28, 2008, March the Holy Spirit and at ISSUE
would, in the eyes of 28, 2008 the Centro Escolar Whether or not the
the law, be illegal, for University; that the dismissal of Moreno
employment is a Jackqui R. Moren is an Dean of her college was proper and legal?
property right of which employee, a teaching was aware of her
one cannot be fellow in San Sebastian external teaching HELD
deprived of without College (SSC-R). loads; that she went No. The misconduct of
due process. While Moreno was first beyond the maximum Moreno falls below the
there is no dispute that appointed as a full-time limit for an outside required level of
respondent fully college faculty load; that she did not gravity that would
complied with the first- member. Then, Moreno deny teaching part-time warrant dismissal as a
notice requirement became a member of in the aforementioned penalty. Under Art.
apprising petitioner of the permanent college schools; and that she 282(a) of the Labor
the cause of his faculty. The SSC-R HR did not wish to resign Code, willful
impending termination conducted a formal because she felt she disobedience of the
and giving him the investigation regarding deserved a second employer’s lawful
opportunity to explain Moreno’s unauthorized chance. The grievance orders as a just cause
his side, we find that it external teaching committee issued its for termination of
failed to satisfy the engagements and HR resolution which employment envisages
need for a second found out that Moreno unanimously found that the concurrence of at
notice informing indeed had she violated the least two requisites: (1)
petitioner that he was unauthorized teaching prohibition against a the employee’s
being dismissed from assignments at the full-time faculty having assailed conduct must
employment. Centro Escolar an unauthorized have been willful or
University and at the external teaching load. intentional, the
Further, the Agabon College of the Holy The majority of the willfulness being
doctrine enunciates Spirit, Manila. Moreno grievance committee characterized by a
the rule that if the received a MEMO from members "wrongful and perverse
dismissal was for just the Dean of her recommended attitude"; and (2) the
cause but procedural college, requiring her to order violated must
due process was not explain the reports have been reasonable,
observed, the regarding her lawful, made known to
dismissal should be unauthorized teaching the employee and
upheld. Where the engagements. The said must pertain to the
dismissal is for just activities allegedly duties which he has
cause, as in the instant violated Section 2.2 of been engaged to
case, the lack of Article II of SSC-R’s discharge. SSC-R
statutory due process Faculty Manual. failed to adduce any
should not nullify the Moreno admitted her concrete evidence to
dismissal or render it failure to secure any prove that Moreno
illegal or ineffectual. written permission indeed harbored
However, the before she taught in perverse or corrupt
employer should other schools. Moreno motivations in violating
indemnify the further stated that it the school policy. Even
employee for the was never her intention if dismissal for cause is
violation of his right to to jeopardize her work the prescribed penalty
procedural due in SSC-R and that she for the misconduct

106
committed, it is offenses (1) delayed which the employer merely failed to exercise
disproportionate to submission of process must adequately prove, the standard care
the offense. The reports, for which he especially when it is the required of a territory
Court deems it was subjected to a basis for termination. representative to
appropriate to impose one-day suspension In this case, petitioner carefully count the
the penalty of without pay, effective had not been able to number of product
suspension of 1 year 24 November 1998; identify an act of samples delivered to
on Moreno. and (2) cheating in his dishonesty, him in August and
ROL test, for which he misappropriation, or September 1998.
JANSENN was subjected again any illicit act, which the Moreover, petitioner
PHARMACEUTICA v. to a one-day respondent may have failed to observe
SILAYRO suspension. Petitioner committed in procedural due process
G.R. No. 172528, then terminated the connection with the in connection with the
February 26, 2008, services of erroneously reported aforementioned charge.
Chico Nazario respondent. Petitioner product samples. While Section 2(d) of Rule 1 of
found respondent respondent was The Implementing
Petitioner is the guilty of dishonesty in admittedly negligent in Rules of Book VI states
division of Johnson & accomplishing the filling out his August that:
Johnson Philippines report on the number and September 1998
Inc. engaged in the of product samples in DCR, his errors alone For termination of
sale and manufacture his possession and are insufficient employment based on
of pharmaceutical failing to return the evidence of a dishonest just causes as defined
products. Petitioner company vehicle and purpose. Since fraud in Article 282 of the
employed respondent his other implies willfulness or Labor Code:
as Territory/Medical accountabilities in wrongful intent, the (i) A written notice
Representative. violation of Sections innocent non- served on the employee
During his 9.2.9 and 9.2.4 of the disclosure of or specifying the ground or
employment, Code of Conduct. inadvertent errors in grounds for termination,
respondent received Petitioner also found declaring facts by the and giving said
from petitioner respondent to be a employee to the employee reasonable
several awards and habitual offender employer will not opportunity within
citations. On the dark whose previous constitute a just cause which to explain his
side, however, offenses included: for the dismissal of the side.
respondent was also (1) Granting employee. In addition, (ii) A hearing or
investigated for, and unauthorized the subsequent acts of conference during
in some cases found premium/free goods to respondent belie a which the employee
guilty of, several customer in 1994; (2) design to concerned, with the
administrative Unauthorized pull-out misappropriate product assistance of counsel if
charges. Petitioner of stocks from samples. So as to he so desires is given
issued a Notice of customer in 1994; escape any liability, opportunity to
Disciplinary Action (3) Delay in respondent could have respond to the
finding respondent submission of easily just submitted for
guilty of the following audit only the number
reports despite oral sufficient grounds of product samples
admonition and written existed for the which he reported.
reprimand in 1998; dismissal of the Instead, respondent
and (4) Dishonesty in respondent brought all the product
accomplishing other samples in his custody
accountable RULING during the audit and,
documents or No. In termination afterwards, honestly
instruments (in cases, the burden of admitted to his
connection with the proof rests with the negligence. Negligence
ROL test) in 1998. employer to show that is defined as the failure
Respondent filed a the dismissal is for just to exercise the
Complaint against and valid cause. standard of care that a
petitioner and its Failure to do so would reasonably prudent
officers for illegal necessarily mean that person would have
dismissal. the dismissal was not exercised in a similar
justified and therefore situation. To this Court,
ISSUE was illegal. Dishonesty respondent did not
Whether or not is a serious charge, commit any willful
violation, rather he
107
charge, present his parties clarified the opt to exercise their evidence found the
evidence, or rebut confusion caused by rights to due process complainants guilty
the evidence the petitioner’s and request to furnish and were subsequently
presented against premature notice and a copy of the formal terminated.
him. agreed that written complain,
(iii) A written notice respondent would statement of ISSUE:
of termination served surrender his witness/es and Whether PLDT
on the employee, accountabilities as preliminary violated the
indicating that upon soon as the petitioner investigations and/or requirements of due
due consideration of gave its instructions. report/s conducted on process under the
all the circumstances, Since petitioner’s the aforesaid incident, Labor Code when it
grounds have been ostensible compliance if any. PLDT findings dismissed said
established to justify with the procedural based on the available
his termination. requirements of notice employees without alternative of either
and hearing took heeding their request filing a written answer to
From the aforecited place before an for the conduct of a the charges or
provision, it is implicit offense was even formal hearing as requesting for
that these committed, provided for under opportunity to be heard
requirements afford respondent was PLDT Systems and defend himself with
the employee an robbed of his rights to Practice No. 94-016 the assistance of his
opportunity to explain explain his side, to and prior to submission counsel or union
his side, respond to present his evidence of their respective representative, if he so
the charge, present and rebut what was answers to the charges desires.
his or her evidence presented against against them.
and rebut the him, rights ensured by Suico, et al. exercised
evidence presented the proper observance RULING their option under
against him or her. of procedural due The procedure adopted Systems Practice No.
process. by PLDT in dismissing 94-016 by requesting
The superficial Suico, et al. fell short of that a formal hearing be
compliance with two SUICO V. NLRC the requirements of conducted and that they
notices and a hearing G.R. No. 146762, due process. PLDT be given copies of
in this case cannot be January 30, 2007, complied with the two- sworn statements and
considered valid Austria-Martinez notice requirement of other pertinent
where these notices due process. The first documents to enable
were issued and the Suico, Ceniza, Dacut notices sent to Suico, them to prepare for the
hearing made before (complainants were et al. set out in detail hearing. This option is
an offense was even regular employees of the nature and part of their right to due
committed. The first Philippine Long circumstances of the process. PLDT is bound
notice, issued on 24 Distance Telephone violations imputed to to comply with the
November 1998, was Company (PLDT) them, required them to Systems Practice.
premature since Cebu Jones explain their side and Company policies or
respondent was Exchange and expressly warned them practices are binding on
obliged to return his members of of the possibility of their the parties. Some can
accountabilities only Manggagawa ng dismissal should their ripen into an obligation
on 25 November Komunikasyon ng explanation be found on the part of the
1998. As Pilipinas (MKP). MKP wanting. The last employer, such as
respondent’s launched a strike notices informed Suico, those which confer
preventive against PLDT. et al. of the decision to benefits on employees
suspension began on Complainants terminate their or regulate the
25 November 1998, participated in the employment and cited procedures and
he was still strike by picketing the the evidence upon requirements for their
performing his duties PLDT. PLDT sent 2 which the decision was termination
as territory notices to Suico et.al, based. These two
representative the for the acts of violation notices would have PEREZ v. PT&T
day before, which that happen during the sufficed had it not been G.R. No. 152048, April
required the use of strike. But the for the existence of 7, 2009, Corona
the company car and complainant failed to Systems Practice No.
other company provide the required 94-016. Under Systems Petitioners Felix Perez
equipment. During written explanation the Practice No. 94-016, and Amante Doria were
the administrative acts charged to them. PLDT granted its employed by
hearing on 3 They replied employee the respondent Philippine
December 1998, both informing, that they
108
Telegraph and employee ample similar petitioner and
Telephone Company. opportunity to be circumstances misappropriating the
They later received a heard and to defend justify it. said proceeds and also
memorandum himself with the (c) the ample renting out the tractor
dismissing them from assistance of his opportunity to be to be used on another
the service for having representative if he so heard standard in farm. Due to this, he
falsified company desires. The omnibus the Labor Code was suspended for 30
documents, prompting rules implementing prevails over the days through a letter
them to file a complaint the Labor Code, on hearing or informing him of such
for illegal dismissal on the other hand, conference suspension and after
the ground that they require a hearing and requirement in the 30 days he received
were dismissed on the conference during implementing rules another letter informing
same date that they which the employee and regulations. him that he was
received the said concerned is given the dismissed from work.
memorandum. opportunity to respond Note: Petitioners in
Petitioners argue that to the charge, present this case, however, ISSUE
due process was not his evidence or rebut were found to be WON petitioner
observed in the the evidence illegally dismissed as observed due process
absence of a hearing presented against there was no just in dismissing
in which they could him. We reaffirm the cause for the respondent
have explained their time-honored doctrine termination of their
side. that, in case of employment. RULING
conflict, the law No, petitioner did not
ISSUE prevails over the BACOLOD-TALISAY comply due to the fact
Is a hearing (or administrative REALTY AND that in validly
conference) regulations DEVELOPMENT dismissing and
mandatory in cases implementing it. CORPORATION, et employee two notices
involving the dismissal al. v. ROMEODELA are mandatory 1) a
of an employee? The following are the CRUZ first notice to apprise
guiding principles in G.R. No. 179563 him of his fault, and 2)
RULING connection with the a second notice to him
No. We note a marked hearing requirement in Respondent as an that his employment is
difference in the dismissal cases: employee of the being terminated.
standards of due (a) ample petitioner made the
process to be followed opportunity to be following: payroll In the present case the
as prescribed in the heard means any paddling, selling first letter only
Labor Code and its meaningful canepoints without the informed him of the
implementing rules. opportunity (verbal knowledge and suspension and did
The Labor Code, on or written) given to consent of the not effectively apprise
one hand, provides the employee to him of
that an employer must answer the charges his fault nor is given ASSURANCE, INC.,
provide the against him and chance to present his AND/OR JOCELYN
submit evidence in side or be heard. RETIZOS
support of his G.R. No. 185335, June
defense, whether in Although the petitioner 13, 2012, Mendoza
a hearing, did terminate him for a
conference or some just cause, but the Vallota worked with
other fair, just and procedure was not PGAI on May 16, 1995
reasonable way. followed. as a Junior Programmer
(b) a formal assigned to the EDP
hearing or PRUDENTIAL Department reporting
conference GUARANTEE AND directly to his head
becomes mandatory ASSURANCE Gerald Dy Victory, until
only when EMPLOYEE LABOR his replacement by
requested by the UNION AND SANDY Jocelyn Retizos
employee in writing T. VALLOTA V. sometime in 1997. In
or substantial NATIONAL LABOR Aug. 2005, Vallota was
evidentiary disputes RELATIONS elected to the Board of
exist or a company COMMISSION, Directors of the union.
rule or practice PRUDENTIAL
requires it, or when GUARANTEE AND On Nov. 11, 2005,

109
PGAI’s HR Manager 2. Were the presence of such files
Atty. Rillo invited union requirements of To be a valid ground was part of an attempt
president Mike Apostol procedural due for dismissal, loss of to defraud his
to his office to inform process for trust and confidence employer or to use the
him that an on-the-spot termination must be based on a files for a purpose
security check in the IT observed? willful breach of trust other than that for
Department will be and founded on which they were
conducted. PGAI HELD clearly established intended. If anything,
network administrator (1) No. Vallota’s facts. A breach is the presence of the
Angelo Gutierrez position as Junior willful if it is done files reveals some
conducted an Programmer is intentionally, degree of
inspection but did not analogous to the knowingly and carelessness or
find anything unusual second class of purposely, without neglect in his failure to
with Vallota’s positions of trust and justifiable excuse, as delete them, but it is
computed but Retizos confidence. The act distinguished from an an extremely
insisted and took over alleged to have caused act done carelessly, farfetched conclusion
the inspection until she the loss of trust and thoughtlessly, bordering on paranoia
found a folder named confidence of PGAI in heedlessly or to state that it is part of
MAA, a copy of which Vallota was the inadvertently. It must a larger conspiracy
was saved and later presence in his rest on substantial involving corporate
printed but no copy computers hard drive of grounds and not on espionage. If anything,
was given to Vallota. a folder named MAA the employer’s the presence of the
allegedly containing arbitrariness, whims, files would merely
On Nov. 14, 2005, files with information on caprices or suspicion; merit the development
Vallota received a MAA Mutual Life otherwise, the of some suspicion on
memorandum directing Philippines, a domestic employee would the part of the
him to explain within corporation selling life remain eternally at the employer, but should
72 hours why highly insurance policies to mercy of the not amount to a loss of
confidential files were the buying public, and employer. Further, in trust and confidence
stored in his computer files relating to PGAIs order to constitute a such as to justify the
and placed him under internal affairs. just cause for termination of his
a 30-day preventive dismissal, the act employment.
suspension which was complained of must
extended for another be work-related and (2) The following are
30 days. The union show that the the guiding principles
requested that a employee concerned in connection with the
grievance committee is unfit to continue hearing requirement in
be convened and that working for the dismissal cases:
the contents of the employer. Such (a) ample
computers of other IT ground for dismissal opportunity to be
personnel be similarly has never been heard means any
produced but this was intended to afford an meaningful
ignored and a notice of occasion for abuse opportunity (verbal
termination was given because of its or written) given to
to Vallota on the subjective nature. the employee to
ground of loss of trust answer the
and confidence, There was no other charges against
prompting the union evidence presented to him and submit
and Vallota to file a prove fraud in the evidence in
complaint for illegal manner of securing or support of his
dismissal. The LA, the obtaining the files defense, whether
NLRC, and the CA found in Vallota’s in a hearing,
held that there was computer. In fact, conference or
illegal dismissal. aside from the some other fair,
Hence, this petition. presence of these files just and
in Vallota’s hard drive, reasonable way.
ISSUES there was no other (b) a formal
1. Was Vallota evidence to prove any hearing or
validly dismissed gross misconduct on conference
on the ground of his part. There was no becomes
loss of trust and proof either that the mandatory only
confidence? when requested by
110
 the employee in conference in general or in specific In a complaint dated
writing or requirement in the detail as a cause for August 10, 2007,
substantial implementing termination of respondent Efren I.
evidentiary rules and employment. A cause Sagad charged the
disputes exist or regulations. analogous to serious petitioner Sampaguita
a company rule misconduct is a Auto Transport
or practice In this case, the two- voluntary and/or willful Corporation (company)
requires it, or notice requirement act or omission with illegal dismissal
when similar was complied with. attesting to an and damages plus
circumstances PGAI issued to Vallota employee’s moral attorney's fees.
justify it. a written Notice of depravity. Theft
(c) the ample Charges & committed by an Sagad alleged that on
opportunity to be Preventive employee against a May 14, 2006, the
heard standard in Suspension (Ref. person other than his company hired him as
the Labor Code No. AC-05- employer, if proven by a regular bus driver,
prevails over the 02) dated November substantial evidence, is not as a probationary
hearing or 14, 2005. After an a cause analogous to employee as the
exchange of serious misconduct. company claimed. He
memoranda, PGAI of his fellow employee, Previous infractions disowned his
then informed Vallota Luis Braga (Braga). may be cited as purported signature on
of his dismissal in its Fermin was then given justification for the contract of
decision dated a Show Cause dismissing an probationary
December 21, 2005. Memorandum, employee only if they Employment submitted
requiring him to explain are related to the in evidence by the
However, the Union why the cellphone was subsequent offense. company. He
and Vallota requested found inside his locker. However, it must be maintained that his
a conference or a In compliance noted that such a signature was forged.
convening of a therewith, he submitted discussion was He further alleged that
grievance committee, an affidavit the unnecessary since the on November 5, 2006,
such formal hearing following day, theft, taken in isolation he was dismissed by
became mandatory. explaining that he only from Fermin’s other the company for
After PGAI failed to hid the phone as a violations, was in itself allegedly conniving
affirmatively respond practical joke and had a valid cause for the with conductor Vitola in
to such request, it every intention of termination of his issuing tickets outside
follows that the returning it to Braga. employment. their assigned route.
hearing requirement
was not complied with After conducting an SAMPAGUITA AUTO The company
and, therefore, Vallota investigation, TRANSPORT countered that it
was denied his right to COSMOS found CORPORATION employed Sagad as a
procedural due Fermin guilty of v. NATIONAL LABOR probationary bus driver
process. stealing Bragas phone RELATIONS (evidenced by a
in violation of company COMMMISSION and probationary
The petition was rules and regulations. EFREN I. SAGAD employment contract6)
granted. Consequently, on 2 G.R. No. 197384, from May 14, 2006 to
October 2003, the January 30, 2013, Brion October 14, 2006; he
COSMOS BOTTLING company terminated was duly informed of
CO. V. FERMIN Fermin from his corresponding
G.R. No. 194303, June employment after 27 duties and
20, 2012, Sereno years of service. responsibilities. He
was further informed
Wilson B. Fermin ISSUE that during the
(Fermin) was a forklift Whether or not the probationary period,
operator at Cosmos termination is valid. his attendance,
Bottling Corporation performance and work
(COSMOS), where he RULING attitude shall be
started his Yes. Article 282(e) of evaluated to determine
employment on 27 the Labor Code talks of whether he would
August 1976 On 16 other analogous qualify for regular
December 2002, he causes or those which employment. For this
was accused of are susceptible of purpose and as a
stealing the cellphone comparison to another matter of company

111
policy, an evaluator Sagad was dismissed,
was deployed on a not as a probationary
company bus (in the employee, but as one
guise of a passenger) who had attained
to observe the regular status. The
driver’s work company’s evidence
performance and on Sagad’s purported
attitude. hiring as a
probationary
Allegedly, on employee is
September 21, 2006, inconclusive. To start
an evaluator boarded with, Sagad denied
Sagad’s bus. The that he entered into a
evaluator described probationary
Sagad’s manner of employment contract
driving as "reckless with the company,
driver, arguing that the
nakikipaggitgitan, signature on the
nakikipaghabulan, supposed contract
nagsasakay sa gitna was not his. He also
ng kalsada, denied receiving the
sumusubsob ang alleged notice
pasahero. Sagad terminating
disputed the
evaluator’s
observations. In an
explanation (rendered
in Filipino), he
claimed that he could
not have been driving
as reported because
his wife (who was
pregnant) and one of
his children were with
him on the bus. He
admitted though that
at one time, he
chased an
"Everlasting" bus to
serve warning on its
driver not to block his
bus when he was
overtaking. He also
admitted that once in
a while, he sped up to
make up for lost time
in making trips.

On October 15, 2006,

upon conclusion of
the evaluation, the
company terminated
Sagad’s employment
for his failure to
qualify as a regular
employee.

ISSUE
Whether or not Sagad
is a regular employee

RULING
112
his probationary employment. The same thing is true
with his purported letter asking that he be given
another chance to work for the company. He asserts
that not only is the letter not in his handwriting, the
signature on the letter was also not his.
The records indicate that he was retained even beyond
the expiration of his supposed probationary
employment on October 14, 2006. As the NLRC noted,
Sagad claimed that he was dismissed by the company
on November 5, 2006, after he was accused of
conniving with conductor Vitola in issuing tickets
outside their assigned route.
The company never refuted this particular assertion of
Sagad and its silence can only mean that Sagad
remained in employment until November 4, 2006,
thereby attaining regular status as of that date. Under
the law, "an employee who is allowed to work after a
probationary period shall be considered a regular
employee.
NATHANIEL N. DONGON v. RAPID MOVERS
AND FORWARDERS CO., INC., AND/OR
NICANOR E. JAO, JR.
G.R. No. 163431, August 28, 2013, Bersamin
Dongon is a truck helper leadman in Rapid Movers
and Forwarders. Dongon’s area of assignment is in
Tanduay Otis Warehouse where he and his driver
Villaruz tried to get the goods to be distributed to
clients. To get the clearance for the release of goods,
Dongon lent his ID card to Villaruz. But, the security
guard noticed the misrepresentation, accosted them,
and reported the matter to the management of
Tanduay. Dongon was dismissed from work due to
willful disobedience. He now claims that he was
illegally dismissed from work.
He argues that the dismissal as a penalty is too harsh
and disproportionate to his supposed violation. Said
violation was only his first infraction and was even
committed in good faith without malice. Rapid Movers
and Forwarders argues that they rightly exercised their
power to dismiss petitioner on the ground of violation
of the company’s manual of discipline.
The LA dismissed the complaint. NLRC reversed the
LA. The CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
ISSUE
Was the dismissal of Dongon legal?
HELD
NO. Dongon was illegally dismissed. The SC held that
the disobedience attributed to Dongon could not be
justly characterized as willful within the contemplation
of the law. Wilfullness must be attended by a wrongful
and perverse mental attitude rendering the employee’s
act inconsistent with proper subordination. Dongon did
not benefit from it nor was the business of respondent
prejudiced. The Court believed Dongon’s explanation
that his deed had been
110
intended to benefit Rapid Movers and Forwarders. The
SC also took into consideration the fact that Dongon
had served respondent for seven long unblemished
years, thus, arriving at a conclusion that his dismissal
was plainly unwarranted.
The SC reiterated that an employer is given wide
latitude of discretion in managing its own affairs. But
the exercise of management prerogative is not
limitless, but hemmed in by good faith and due
consideration of the rights of employees.
ALILEM CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC. v.
BANDIOLA, JR.
G.R. No. 173489, February 25, 2013
Respondent was employed by petitioner as
bookkeeper. Petitioner's Board of Directors (the Board)
received a letter from a certain Napoleon Gao-ay
(Napoleon) reporting the alleged immoral coaduct and
unbecoming behavior of respondent by having an illicit
relationship with Napoleon’s sister, Thelma G. Palma
(Thelma). This prompted the Board to conduct a
preliminary investigation. In its Summary Investigation
Report, the Ad Hoc Committee concluded that
respondent was involved in an extra-marital affair with
Thelma. Respondent was informed of Board
Resolution embodying the Board’s decision to
terminate his services as bookkeeper of petitioner,
effective July 31, 1997, without any compensation or
benefit except the unpaid balance of his regular salary
for services actually rendered. Aggrieved, respondent
filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal against petitioner
before the NLRC.
ISSUE
W/N respondent's dismissal from employment is valid
HELD
YES. 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 employer’s
rules and application of the dignity and responsibility,
has so plainly and completely been bared.
While respondent’s 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 petitioner’s 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 to illness. When she one’s duties. Habitual
respondent because of reported back to work, RULING neglect imparts
his immoral conduct. she submitted the Yes. repeated failure to
necessary medical Michelle’s four perform one’s duties
CAVITE certificates. absences were not for a period of time,
Nonetheless, Cavite habitual; "totality of depending on the
APPAREL, Apparel suspended infractions" doctrine circumstances. Under
Michelle for six (6) days not applicable. Neglect these standards and
INCORPORATED (June 1-7, 2000). When of duty, to be a ground the circumstances
ADRIANO TIMOTEO Michelle returned on for dismissal under obtaining in the case,
v. MICHELLE June 8, 2000, Cavite Article 282 of the Labor we agree with the CA
MARQUEZ Apparel terminated her Code, must be both that Michelle is not
G.R. No. 172044, employment for gross and habitual. guilty of gross and
February 06, 2013 habitual absenteeism. Gross negligence habitual neglect of
Michelle filed a implies want of care in duties.
On August 22, 1994, complaint for illegal the performance of
Cavite Apparel hired dismissal with prayer Even assuming that
Michelle as a regular for reinstatement, she failed to present a
employee in its backwages and medical certificate for
Finishing Department. attorney’s fees with the her sick leave on May
Michelle enjoyed, NLRC. 8, 2000, the records
among other benefits, are bereft of any
vacation and sick The NLRC noted that indication that apart
leaves of seven (7) for Michelle’s first three from the four
days each per annum. absences, she had occasions when she
Prior to her dismissal already been penalized did not report for work,
on June 8, 2000, ranging from a written Michelle had been
Michelle committed the warning to six days cited for any infraction
following infractions suspension. These, the since she started her
(with their NLRC declared, should employment with the
corresponding have precluded Cavite company in 1994.
penalties): Apparel from using Four absences in her
a. First Offense: Michelle’s past six years of service, to
Absence without absences as bases to our mind, cannot be
leave (AWOL) on impose on her the considered gross and
December 6, 1999 – penalty of dismissal, habitual neglect of
written warning considering her six duty, especially so
b. Second years of service with since the absences
Offense: the company. It were spread out over
AWOL on likewise considered the a six-month period.
January 12, penalty of dismissal too
2000 severe. The NLRC thus Michelle’s penalty of
– stern warning with concluded that Michelle dismissal too harsh or
three (3) days had been illegally not proportionate to
suspension dismissed and ordered the infractions she
c. Third Offense: her reinstatement with committed
AWOL on April 27, backwages. The Court Michelle might have
2000 – suspension of Appeals affirmed the been guilty of violating
for six (6) days. ruling of the NLRC. company rules on
leaves of absence and
On May 8, 2000, ISSUE employee discipline,
Michelle got sick and Whether Michelle was still we find the penalty
did not report for work. illegally dismissed, of dismissal imposed
When she returned, specifically: on her unjustified
she submitted a a) Whether under the
medical certificate. Michelle’s circumstances. As
Cavite Apparel, AWOLs were earlier mentioned,
however, denied habitual Michelle had been in
receipt of the b) Whether the Cavite Apparel’s
certificate. Michelle did dismissal imposed by employ for six years,
not report for work on Cavite Apparel too with no derogatory
May 15-27, 2000 due harsh of a penalty
111
record other than the VERDE and the second class
four absences without G.R. NO. 173012, June consists of cashiers, Legend sent notice to
official leave in 13, 2012 auditors, property the Department of
question, not to custodians or those Labor and Employment
mention that she had On April 1, 1978, Valle who, in the normal and of its intention to
already been Verde hired Esguerra routine exercise of their retrench and terminate
penalized for the first as Head Food functions, regularly the employment of
three absences, the Checker. In 1999, she handle significant thirty-four (34) of its
most serious penalty was promoted to Cost amounts of money or employees, which
being a six-day Control Supervisor. property. include petitioners, in
suspension for her On January 15, 2000, the Project
third absence on April the Couples for Christ Esguerra held the Development Division.
27, 2000. held a seminar at the position of Cost Control Legend explained that it
country club. Esguerra Supervisor and had the would be retrenching its
While previous was tasked to oversee duty to remit to the employees on a last-in-
infractions may be the seminar held in accounting department first-out basis. The
used to support an the two function the cash sales following day Legend
employee’s dismissal rooms the Ballroom proceeds from every sent the 34 employees
from work in and the Tanay Room. transaction she was their respective notices
connection with a assigned to. This is not of retrenchment, stating
subsequent similar The Valle Verde a routine task that a the same reasons for
offense, we cautioned Management found regular employee may their retrenchment. It
employers in an out the following day perform; it is related to also offered the
earlier case that that only the proceeds the handling of employees the following
although they enjoy a from the Tanay Room business expenditures options, to wit:
wide latitude of had been remitted to or finances. For this 1. Temporary
discretion in the the accounting reason, Esguerra retrenchment/lay-off
formulation of work- department. There occupies a position of for a period not to
related policies, rules were also trust and confidence a exceed six months
and regulations, their unauthorized charges position enumerated in within which we shall
directives and the of food on the account the second class of explore your possible
implementation of of Judge Rodolfo positions of trust. Any reassignment to other
their policies must be Bonifacio, one of the breach of the trust departments or
fair and reasonable; participants. imposed upon her can affiliates, after six
at the very least, be a valid cause for months and
penalties must be On March 6, 2000, dismissal. redeployment and/or
commensurate to the Valle Verde sent a
offense involved and memorandum to RUBEN ANDRADA
to the degree of the Esguerra VS. NLRC
infraction. requiring her to show G.R. No. 173231,
cause as to why no December 28, 2007,
ESGUERRA v. VALLE disciplinary a Velasco
ction should be taken employment.
against her for the Petitioners Ruben
non- remittance of the ISSUE Andrada, Jovencio
Ballrooms sales. Whether the dismissal Poblete, Filamer
Esguerra was placed is valid. Alfonso, Harvey
under preventive Cayetano, Vicente
suspension with pay, HELD Mantala, Jr., Bernaldo
pending investigation. We now dwell on the delos Santos, and
In her letter-response, substantive aspect of Joven Pabustan were
Esguerra denied Esguerras dismissal. hired on various dates
having committed any We have held that from 1995 up to 1997
misappropriation. Valle there are two (2) and worked as
Verde found classes of positions of architects, draftsmen,
Esguerras explanation trust the first class operators, engineers,
unsatisfactory and, consists of managerial and surveyors in the
on July 26, 2000, employees, or those Subic Legend Resorts
issued a second vested with the power and Casino, Inc.
memorandum to lay down (Legend) Project
terminating Esguerras management policies; Development Division
on various projects.
112
 matching are rated 13th-month pay, reasonably imminent the employer pays the
unsuccessful, ex-gratia, meal as perceived retrenched employees
permanent allowance, unused objectively and in separation pay
retrenchment takes vacation leave credits, good faith by the equivalent to one
place and and tax refund. employer; (2) the month pay or at least
separation pay is Petitioners, in turn, employer serves month pay for every
released. signed quitclaims but written notice both to year of service,
2. Permanent reserved their right to the employees and whichever is higher.
retrenchment and sue Legend. the DOLE at least one The Court later added
payment of month prior to the the requirements that
separation pay and Subsequently, 14 of intended date of the employer must
other benefits after the 34 retrenched retrenchment; and (3) use fair and
the thirty (30) days employees filed a reasonable criteria in however not enough for
notice has lapsed; complaint for illegal ascertaining who would a company to merely
or dismissal and money be dismissed and x x x declare that positions
3. Immediate claims against Legend retained among the have become
retrenchment and and its officials. employees and that the redundant. It must
payment of Complainants alleged retrenchment must be produce adequate proof
separation pay, that they were illegally undertaken in good tantamount to
benefits and one dismissed because faith. Except for the substantial evidence of
months salary in Legend, after giving written notice to the such redundancy to
lieu of notice to retrenchment as the affected employees justify the dismissal of
allow you to look for reason for their and the DOLE, non- the affected employees.
other employment termination, created compliance with any of
opportunities. new positions similar these requirements JUVY M. MANATAD
to those they had just render[s] the vs. PHILIPPINE
Legend gave said vacated. Legend, on retrenchment illegal. TELEGRAPH AND
employees a period the other hand, TELEPHONE
of one week or until invoked management In the present case, CORPORATION
January 14, 1998 to prerogative when it Legend glaringly failed G.R. No. 172363, March
choose their option, terminated the to show its financial 7, 2008, Chico Nazario
with option number 2 retrenched condition prior to and at
(permanent employees; and said the time it enforced its In September 1988,
retrenchment) as the that complainants retrenchment program. petitioner was
default choice in case voluntarily signed It failed to submit employed by
they failed to express quitclaims so that they audited financial respondent Philippine
their preferences. were already barred statements regarding Telegraph and
from suing Legend. its alleged financial Telephone Corporation
Curiously, on the losses. Though Legend (PT&T) as junior clerk.
same day, the Labor ISSUE complied with the She was later promoted
and Employment Whether petitioners notice requirements as Account Executive,
Center of the Subic were legally dismissed. and the payment of the position she held
Bay Metropolitan separation benefits to until she was
Authority advertised HELD the retrenched temporarily laid off from
that Legend NO. A company’s employees, its failure employment on
International Resorts, exercise of its to establish the basis 1 September 1998.
Inc. was in need of management for the retrenchment of Petitioners temporary
employees for prerogatives is not its employees separation from
positions similar to absolute. It cannot constrains us to employment was
those vacated by exercise its declare the pursuant to the
petitioners. prerogative in a cruel, retrenchment illegal. Temporary Staff
repressive, or Reduction Program
After informing the despotic manner. The Legend also failed to adopted by respondent
retrenched requirements for establish redundancy. due to serious business
employees of their retrenchment are: (1) Retrenchment and reverses. Petitioner
retrenchment or it is undertaken to redundancy are two received a letter from
option, Legend paid prevent losses, which different concepts; they respondent inviting her
the retrenched are not merely de are not synonymous to avail herself of its
employees their minimis, but and therefore should Staff Reduction
salaries up to substantial, serious, not be used Program Package until
February 6, 1998, actual, and real, or if interchangeably. It is full payment of the
separation pay, pro- only expected, are
113
separation package. implemented by employer who bears
However, she did not respondent was the onus, being in the Where appropriate
opt to avail herself of invalid and petitioner’s nature of affirmative and where conditions
the said package. separation was illegal. defense. are in accord with law
Later on, petitioner NLRC affirmed the and jurisprudence, the
received a Notice of decision of the Labor For a valid Court has authorized
Retrenchment from Arbiter. On appeal, retrenchment, the valid reductions in the
respondent the Court of Appeals following requisites work force to forestall
permanently reversed the decision must be complied business losses, the
dismissing her from of the NLRC. with: (a) the hemorrhaging of
employment. retrenchment is capital, or even to
ISSUE necessary to prevent recognize an obvious
Consequently, Whether or not the losses and such reduction in the
petitioner filed a retrenchment program losses are proven; (b) volume of business
Complaint for illegal implemented by written notice to the which has rendered
dismissal against respondent was valid. employees and to the certain employees
respondent before the DOLE at least one redundant.
Labor Arbiter. She HELD month prior to the
alleged that the Yes. The Court finds intended date of LINTON COMMERCIAL
retrenchment program that respondent was retrenchment; and CO., INC. v. HELLERA
adopted by respondent fully justified in (c) payment of G.R. No. 163147,
was illegal for it was implementing a separation pay October 10, 2007, Tinga
gaining profits for the retrenchment equivalent to one-
period of July 1997 to program. month pay or at least Linton is a domestic
June 1998. On the one-half month pay corporation engaged
other hand, Retrenchment is the for every year of in the business of
respondent asserted termination of service, whichever is importation,
that petitioner was employment initiated higher. wholesale, retail and
separated from service by the employer fabrication of steel and
pursuant to a valid through no fault of the Since respondent was its by-products. Linton
retrenchment employees and undergoing business issued a memorandum
implemented by the without prejudice to reverses, not only for 5 addressed to its
company, due to huge the latter, resorted to a single fiscal year, employees informing
business losses by management but for several years them of the company's
suffered by during periods of prior to and even after decision to suspend its
respondent, it was business recession; the program, it was operations from 18
constrained to arrest industrial depression; justified in December 1997 to 5
escalating operating or seasonal implementing a January 1998 due to
costs by downsizing its fluctuations, during retrenchment the currency crisis that
workforce. lulls occasioned by program. affected its business
lack of orders, operations. Linton ISSUE
The Labor Arbiter shortage of materials, issued another Whether or not there
rendered a Decision in conversion of the memorandum 8 was an illegal reduction
favor of petitioner plant for a new informing them that of work.
ruling that the production program, effective 12 January
retrenchment program or the introduction of 1998, it would RULING
new methods or more implement a new Yes. A close
efficient machinery or compressed workweek examination of
automation. of three (3) days on a petitioners' financial
Retrenchment is a rotation basis. In other reports for 1997-1998
valid management words, each worker shows that, while the
prerogative. It is, would be working on a company suffered a
however, subject to rotation basis for three loss of P3, 645,422.00
faithful compliance working days only in 1997, it retained a
with the substantive instead for six days a considerable amount of
and procedural week. Aggrieved, sixty- earnings 45 and
requirements laid eight (68) workers operating income. A
down by law and (workers) filed a year of financial losses
jurisprudence. In the Complaint for illegal would not warrant the
discharge of these reduction of workdays. immolation of the
requirements, it is the welfare of the

114
employees, which in during the effectivity of distinction between that the employee's
this case was done the compressed redundancy and services are no longer
through a reduced workweek, which retrenchment, and necessary or
workweek that resulted spanned more than the their requisites as sustainable for being
in an unsettling maximum period. On valid grounds for redundant is an
diminution of the the other hand, for dismissal. exercise of business
periodic pay for a retrenchment to be judgment of the
protracted period. justified, any claim of FACTS employer. The wisdom
Permitting reduction of actual or potential AMA dismissed or soundness of this
work and pay at the business losses must several regular judgment is not
slightest indication of satisfy the following employees “due to the subject to
losses would be standards: (1) the prevailing economic discretionary review of
contrary to the State's losses incurred are condition of our the Labor Arbiter and
policy to afford substantial and not de economy” and that the NLRC, provided
protection to labor and minimis; (2) the losses their employment is there is no violation of
provide full are actual or “no longer necessary law and no showing
employment. Certainly, reasonably imminent; for the reason that that it was prompted
management has the (3) the retrenchment is function can be by an arbitrary or
prerogative to come up reasonably necessary handled by the other malicious act. In other
with measures to and is likely to be existing staff”. AMA words, it is not enough
ensure profitability or effective in preventing defends the legality of for a company to
loss minimization. the expected losses; the dismissal on the merely declare that it
However, such and (4) the alleged ground of redundancy has become
privilege is not losses, if already and/or retrenchment. “overmanned”. It must
absolute. Management incurred, or the produce adequate
prerogative must be expected imminent ISSUE proof of such
exercised in good faith losses sought to be Is redundancy the redundancy to justify
and with due regard to forestalled, are proven same as retrenchment? the dismissal of the
the rights of labor. by sufficient and affected employees.
convincing evidence. HELD
To date, no definite 50 Linton failed to No. The existence of Retrenchment, on the
guidelines have yet comply with these redundancy or other hand, is the
been set to determine standards. retrenchment is a termination of
whether the alleged question of fact. AMA employment effected
losses are sufficient to AMA COMPUTER failed to sufficiently by management
justify the reduction of COLLEGE V. GARCIA prove either of the during periods of
work hours. If the G.R. No. 166703, April two. business recession,
standards set in 14, 2008, Chico- industrial depression,
determining the Nazario Redundancy exists seasonal fluctuations,
justifiability of financial when the service lack of work or
losses under Article NOTE: The doctrine in capability of the considerable reduction
283 (i.e., this case focuses only workforce is in excess in the volume of the
retrenchment) or on the of what is reasonably employer's business.
Article 286 (i.e., needed to meet the Resorted to by an
suspension of work) of demands of the employer to avoid or
the Labor Code were business enterprise. minimize business
to be considered, Among the requisites losses, it is a
petitioners would end of a valid redundancy management
up failing to meet the program are: (1) the prerogative
standards. On the one good faith of the consistently
hand, Article 286 employer in abolishing recognized by the
applies only when the redundant Court. The necessary
there is a bona fide position; and (2) fair conditions for the
suspension of the and reasonable company losses to
employer's operation criteria in ascertaining justify retrenchment
of a business or what positions are to are as follows:
undertaking for a be declared (1) the losses
period not exceeding redundant and incurred are
six (6) months. 49 accordingly abolished. substantial and not
Records show that de minimis;
Linton continued its The determination (2) the losses are
business operations
115
 actual or losses, if acts relate to the necessary
reasonably already workers’ right to self- arrangements.17 In
imminent; incurred, or organization and to the order to meet the
(3) the the expected observance of foregoing purpose,
retrenchment is imminent Collective Bargaining service of the written
reasonably losses sought Agreement without notice must be made
necessary and is to be which relation the acts, individually upon each
likely to be effective forestalled, no matter how unfair, and every employee of
in preventing the are proven by are not deemed unfair the company.
expected losses; sufficient and labor practices. Nevertheless, the
and convincing validity of termination
(4) the evidence. With regard to the of services can exist
alleged notice requirement, the independently of the
election. Labor Arbiter found, procedural infirmity in
GSWU-NAFLU-KMU and it was upheld by the dismissal.
v. NLRC (2) Whether or not the the NLRC and the
G.R. No. 165757, written notice posted by Court of Appeals, that BECTON DICKINSON
October 17, 2006, [Galaxie] on the the written notice of PHILS. INC. and
Carpio Morales company bulletin board closure or cessation of WILFREDO JOAQUIN
sufficiently complies Galaxie’s business G.R. Nos. 159969 &
On September 8, with the notice operations was posted 160116, November 15,
1999, petitioners requirement under on the company 2005,
Galaxie Steel Workers Article 283 of the Labor bulletin board one Garcia
Union and Galaxie Code. month prior to its
employees filed a effectivity. The mere In 1989, Becton, Phils.
complaint for illegal RULING posting on the had two (2) main
dismissal, unfair labor Galaxie’s documentary company bulletin board divisions, namely: (a)
practice, and money evidence shows that it does not, however, the Medical Division;
claims against had been experiencing meet the requirement and (b) the
Galaxie. The Labor serious financial losses under Article 283 of Diagnostics Division.
Arbiter, by Decision of at the time it closed "serving a written Jesus Fargas headed
October 30, 2000, business operations; notice on the workers." the Medical Division,
declared valid supported by The purpose of the while the position of
Galaxie’s closure of substantial evidence written notice is to head of the
business but consisting of the inform the employees Diagnostics Division
nevertheless ordered it audited financial of the specific date of was vacant. Also
to pay petitioner- statements showing termination or closure vacant was the
employees separation that Galaxie of business operations, position of Country
pay, pro-rata 13th continuously incurred and must be served Manager of Becton,
month pay, and losses from 1997 up to upon them at least one Phils. On September
vacation and sick mid-1999. True, the month before the date 12, 1989, private
leave credits. union was seeking the of effectivity to give respondent Reinerio Z.
holding of a certification them sufficient time to Esmaquel started his
On appeal, the NLRC election at the time that make the stint with Becton,
upheld the Labor Galaxie closed its Phils. as Director of
Arbiter’s decision but it business operation, but Sales and Marketing
reversed too the award that, without more, was of the Diagnostics
for separation pay, the not sufficient to Division. He held this
closure of Galaxie’s attribute anti- unionism position until March
business being due to against Galaxie. 1998. As Sales and
serious business Petitioners failed to Marketing Director of
losses. present concrete the company’s
evidence supporting Diagnostics Division,
ISSUE their claim of unfair respondent reported to
(1) Whether or not labor practice. Unfair Becton, Asia’s Vice
[Galaxie] is guilty of labor practice refers to President of
unfair labor practice in acts that violate the Diagnostics Sector. He
closing its business workers’ right to was in charge of the
operations shortly after organize, and are overall supervision of
petitioner union filed defined in Articles 248 twenty-three (23)
for certification and 261 of the Labor employees working
Code. The prohibited
116
under the sales and respondent as the to the companys Redundancy in an
marketing Director of Sales. As operations, as well as employer’s personnel
organization. In such, respondent was to the customers of force necessarily or
March, 1998, Jesus responsible for the Becton, Phils., Joaquin even ordinarily refers to
Fargas was promoted whole sales force for sought respondents duplication of work.
to the position of all products of the assistance to address That no other person
Country Manager for company. Under the serious problems of the was holding the same
Becton, Phils. foregoing company, and to orient position that private
Respondent, on the reorganization, the him in the mechanics respondent held prior to
other hand, was Sales Division was of the companys sales the termination of his
appointed Business responsible for in- and marketing efforts in services, does not show
Director thereof, market sales or the the Philippines. that his position had not
reporting, this time, to sale of all the products become redundant.
the Country Manager of the company to the Then, on that fateful Indeed, in any well
instead of the Vice distributors. The day of July 10, 2001 or organized business
President of distributors who buy barely two enterprise, it would be
Diagnostics Sector of the products at (2) months from surprising to find
Becton, Asia. wholesale, in turn, are Joaquins assumption duplication of work and
Respondent was the ones selling the of his position as two (2) or more people
responsible for sales products to the end Country Manager, doing the work of one
and marketing of users. The company Becton, Phils. served person. We believe that
Infectious Disease is, however, generally upon respondent a redundancy, for
Diagnostic, responsible for the notice of terminationof purposes of the Labor
Immunocytometry sale promotions of the employment effective Code, exists where the
System, and company’s products to August 10, 2001, on services of an
Instrument Service for the end users. the ground that his employee are in excess
the Asia Pacific position has been of what is reasonably
Region. He held this Eventually, declared redundant. demanded by the actual
position up to respondent was also requirements of the
December, 1999. appointed one of the Respondent was enterprise. Succinctly
members of the terminated and put, a position is
In January, 2000, Becton Dickinson required to sign a redundant where it is
Becton, Phils. (BD) Philippines Release and Quitclaim, superfluous, and
[14]
reorganized under the Leadership Team, a otherwise, his superfluity of a position
concept of Go To group within Becton, separation pay and or positions may be the
Market. For purposes Phils., which was retirement benefits will outcome of a number of
of selling its products, responsible for the be withheld. factors, such as
Becton, Phils. had formulation of policies Respondent found no overhiring of workers,
organized two (2) and rules of the other alternative but to decrease in volume of
divisions, namely, the company. give in, and reluctantly business, or dropping
Sales Division and signed the document.
the Marketing In November, 2000,
Division, and pursuant to its ISSUE
designated established policies Whether or not private
and guidelines for nine (9) terminated respondent Esmaquel
terminating employees were also is illegally dismissed.
employees, Becton, paid retirement
Phils. retrenched nine benefits. RULING
(9) employees, giving Yes. Petitioner’s utterly
them separation On May 16, 2001, failed to establish by
benefits in accordance Becton, Asia substantial evidence
with such guidelines. announced the that indeed,
Its very own Country appointment of respondents position in
Manager, Jesus petitioner Wilfredo the company became
Fargas, was among Joaquin, a former redundant due to
those whose services Filipino citizen who concrete and real
were terminated. later acquired factors recognized by
Accordingly, each of American citizenship, law and relevant
them received as the new Country jurisprudence.
separation benefits. In Manager of Becton, Redundancy is one of
addition thereto, the Phils. Being a stranger the authorized causes
of dismissal.
117
of a particular product means of livelihood in they qualify for backwages, actual
line or service activity the meantime, retirement or damages, moral and
previously constitutes enough resignation benefits exemplary damages,
manufactured or pressure upon anyone under the retirement and attorney’s fees.
undertaken by the who is asked to sign a plan. Petitioner and Labor Arbiter
enterprise. release and quitclaim respondents could not dismissed the
in exchange of some agree on the complaint. NLRC held
Furthermore, the amount of money amounts. The latter that petitioner’s
managerial which may be way then filed separate serious financial
prerogative to transfer below what he may be complaints8 for illegal difficulties
personnel must be entitled to based on retrenchment with necessitated the
exercised without company practice and prayer for the retrenchment of
grave abuse of policy or by law. payment of respondents.
discretion, bearing in ISSUE would appear
mind the basic It may likewise be Whether or not to be seriously
elements of justice noted that what petitioner undertook a in question.
and fair play. Having respondent received valid retrenchment as it 2. Second
the right should not when he signed the was already actually ly, the
be confused with the Release and sufferingserious substantial loss
manner in which that Quitclaim was less financial losses apprehended
right is exercised. than half of what he is must be
Thus, it cannot be entitled to under the HELD reasonably
used as a subterfuge circumstances, as Retrenchment is one of imminent, as
by the employer to rid correctly computed by the authorized causes such
himself of an the Labor Arbiter in recognized by the imminence can
undesirable worker. his March 26, 2002 Labor Code for the be perceived
decision. This is dismissal of objectively and
A lowly employee or a another reason why employees. It is a in good faith by
sales manager, as in the Court cannot rely management the employer.
the present case, who upon such Release prerogative resorted to There should,
is confronted with the and Quitclaim to by employers to in other words,
same dilemma of validly bar respondent avoid or minimize be a certain
whether signing a from thereafter business losses. The degree of
release and quitclaim claiming additional Court has laid down urgency for the
and accept what the benefits from the following standards retrenchment,
company offers them, petitioner Becton, that a company must which is after
or refusing to sign Phils.. meet to justify all a drastic
and walk out without retrenchment and to recourse with
receiving anything, ORIENTAL foil abuse: serious
may do succumb to PETROLEUM v. 1. Firstly, consequences
the same pressure, FUENTES the losses for the
being very well aware GR. No. 151818, expected livelihood of the
that it is going to take October 14, 2005 should be employees
quite a while before substantial and retired or
he can recover Petitioner Oriental not merely de otherwise laid-
whatever he is Petroleum and minimis in off.
entitled to, because it Minerals Corporation, extent. If the 3. thirdly,
is only after a through its Senior loss it must be
protracted legal battle Vice President for purportedly reasonably
starting from the labor Operations and sought to be necessary and
arbiter level, all the Administration, Apollo forestalled by likely to
way to this Court, can P. Madrid, informed retrenchment effectively
he receive anything at respondents of its is clearly prevent the
all. The Court retrenchment program shown to be expected
understands that as a consequence of insubstantial losses.
such a risk of not which respondents and 4. Lastly,
receiving anything would be terminated inconsequentia but certainly not
whatsoever, coupled from employment. l in character, the least
with the probability of They were also the bonafide important,
not immediately advised that they nature of the alleged losses
getting any gainful would receive greater retrenchment if already
employment or separation benefits if
118
 realized, and losses with sufficient ent as
the expected FASAP v. PAL supporting evidence. percei
imminent G.R. No. 178083, July Its failure to prove ved
losses sought 22, 2008, Ynares these reverses or objecti
to be Santiago losses necessarily vely
forestalled, means that the and in
must be Petitioner is the EBR employees dismissal good
proved by of respondent’s flight was not justified. Any faith
sufficient and attendants and claim of actual or by the
convincing stewards. Due to its potential business emplo
evidence. alleged financial loss, losses must satisfy yer;
respondent made a certain established
Financial statements, retrenchment scheme, standards, all of which (2) Th
in themselves, do not thereby, terminating must concur, before at the
suffice to meet the many of the any reduction of emplo
stringent requirement employees, including personnel becomes yer
of the law that the members of petitioner legal. These are: served
losses must be union. As a (1) Th written
substantial, continuing consequence, at notice
and without any petitioner filed for retren both
immediate prospect of illegal dismissal on the chme to the
abating. Retrenchment ground that the nt is emplo
being a measure of retrenchment scheme reaso yees
last resort, petitioner of the respondent is nably and to
should have been able illegal. neces the
to demonstrate that it sary Depart
expected no ISSUE and ment
abatement of its losses Whether or not the likely of
in the coming years. retrenchment scheme to Labor
Petitioner having failed by PAL is valid preve and
in this regard, we find nt Emplo
that the Court of RULING busin yment
Appeals did not err in No. while it is true that ess at
dismissing as the exercise of this losse least
unimpressive and right is a prerogative s one
insufficient petitioner’s of management, there which month
audited financial must be faithful , if prior
statements. compliance with alrea to the
substantive and dy intend
procedural incurr ed
requirements of the ed, date
law and jurisprudence, are of
for retrenchment not retren
strikes at the very merel chmen
heart of the workers y de t;
employment, the minim
lifeblood upon which is, but (3) Th
he and his family owe subst at the
their survival. antial, emplo
Retrenchment is only seriou yer
a measure of last s, pays
resort, when other actual the
less drastic means and retren
have been tried and real, ched
found to be or if emplo
inadequate. only yees
expec separ
The burden clearly ted, ation
falls upon the are pay
employer to prove reaso equiva
economic or business nably lent to
immin one
119
(1) oyer however, it cannot be disregarding seniority
mont exerci assumed that it has and loyalty in the
h pay ses likewise brought PAL to evaluation of overall
or at its the brink of bankruptcy. employee performance.
least prero Likewise, the fact that
one- gative PAL underwent GENERAL MILLING
half () to corporate rehabilitation CORPORATION v.
mont retren does not automatically VIOLETA L. VIAJAR
h pay ch justify the retrenchment G.R. No. 181738,
for emplo of its cabin crew January 30, 2013
every yees personnel.
year in Violeta Viajar received
of good Moreover, in assessing a Letter-Memorandum
servi faith the overall from General Milling
ce, for performance of each Corporation (GMC)
which the cabin crew personnel, informing her that her
ever advan PAL only considered services are no longer
is ceme the year 1997. This needed because her
highe nt of makes the evaluation position as Purchasing
r; its of each cabin Staff was deemed
intere attendants efficiency redundant. When Viajar
(4) T st and rating capricious and reported for work on
hat not to prejudicial to PAL October 31, 2003, a
the defeat employees covered by month prior the
empl or it. By discarding the effectivity from her
circum the cabin crew personnels severance from GMC,
vent employ previous years of the guard on duty
the ees, service and taking into prevented her from
employ such consideration only one entering the companys
ees as years worth of job premises. She was also
right to status, performance for asked to sign an
securit efficien evaluation, PAL Application for
y of cy, virtually did away with Retirement and
tenure; seniorit the concept of Benefits. Viajar refused
and, y, seniority, loyalty and to sign. Thus, she filed
physic past efficiency, and a complaint for illegal
(5) Th al treated all cabin dismissal. The Labor
at the fitness, attendants as if they Arbiter ruled in favor of
emplo age, were on equal footing, GMC and held that the
yer and with no one more latter acted in good
used financi senior than the other. faith in terminating
fair al
and hardshi In sum, PALs
reason p for retrenchment program
able certain is illegal because it was
criteria worker based on wrongful
in s.[45] premise (Plan 14,
ascert which in reality turned
aining In the instant case, out to be Plan 22,
who PAL failed to resulting in
would substantiate its claim of retrenchment of more
be actual and imminent cabin attendants than
dismis substantial losses was necessary) and in
sed which would justify the a set of criteria or
and retrenchment of more rating variables that is
who than 1,400 of its cabin unfair and
would crew personnel. unreasonable when
be Although the Philippine implemented. It failed
retaine economy was gravely to take into account
d affected by the Asian each cabin attendants
among financial crisis, respective service
record, thereby
120
Viajar. On appeal, the 12, 2006, Tinga nue od of
NLRC affirmed LAs d Susp
decision. Viajar filed a Decorion was a empl ensio
petition before the regular employee of oym n ---
Court of Appeals. The Maricalum Mining. ent No
CA granted the Because of his pose prev
petition. Thus, GMC alleged s a entiv
filed this instant insubordination for serio e
petition for review failure to attend a us susp
before the Supreme meeting, he was and ensio
Court. placed under immi n
preventive nent shall
ISSUE suspension. He was thre last
Whether or not Viajar also not allowed to at to longe
was validly report for work the the r
terminated from GMC following day. [See life than
Ruling for other or thirty
HELD relevant facts and prop (30)
The petition is denied. dates] erty days.
Art. 283 of the Labor of XXX
Code provides that ISSUE the
redundancy is one of Was the suspension empl
the authorized causes justified? oyer In this case, Decorion
for dismissal. It is or was suspended only
imperative that the HELD his because he failed to
employer must No. co- attend a meeting
comply with the work called by his
requirements for a Sections 8 and 9 of ers. supervisor. There is no
valid implementation Rule XXIII, Book V of evidence to indicate
of the companys the Implementing Sect that his failure to
redundancy program, Rules provide as ion attend the meeting
to wit: (a) the follows: 9. prejudiced his
employer must serve Secti Peri employer or that his
a written notice to the on 8. presence in the conducted on June 5,
affected employees Prev company’s premises 1996, 55 days had
and the DOLE at entiv posed a serious threat already passed.
least one (1) month e to his employer and co- Another 48 days went
before the intended susp workers. The by before he filed a
date of retrenchment; ensi preventive suspension complaint for illegal
(b) the employer must on. was clearly unjustified. dismissal on July 23,
pay the employees a --- 1996. Thus, at the time
separation pay The What is more, Decorion filed a
equivalent to at least empl Decorion’s suspension complaint for illegal
one month pay or at oyer persisted beyond the dismissal, he had
least one month pay may 30-day period allowed already been
for every year of plac by the Implementing suspended for a total of
service, whichever is e the Rules. XXX . The Court 103 days.
higher; (c) the work ruled that preventive
employer must er suspension which lasts Decorions preventive
abolish the redundant conc beyond the maximum suspension had already
positions in good erne period allowed by the ripened into
faith; and (d) the d Implementing Rules constructive dismissal
employer must set unde amounts to at that time. While
fair and reasonable r constructive dismissal. actual dismissal and
criteria in ascertaining prev constructive dismissal
which positions are entiv Similarly, from the time do take place in
redundant and may e Decorion was placed different fashion, the
be abolished. susp under preventive legal consequences
ensi suspension on April 11, they generate are
MARICALUM MINING on if 1996 up to the time a identical.
V. DECORION his grievance meeting was
G.R. No. 158637, April conti
121
UNIWIDE SALES Apduhan: (1) answer directly the private respondent
WAREHOUSE CLUB summarizing the allegations attributed to thinking that she was
VS. NLRC various reported her; and constructively
G.R. No. 154503, incidents signifying (3) Memorandum dismissed, filed a case
February 29, 2008 unsatisfactory seeking from the for illegal dismissal
performance on the private respondent an before the Labor
TOPIC: Constructive latter's part which explanation regarding Arbiter (LA). On
Dismissal; include the the incidents reported August 8, 1998,
Abandonment commingling of good by Uniwide Apduhan sent a letter
DOCTRINE: Case law and damaged items, employees and addressed to private
defines constructive sale of a voluminous security personnel for respondent, which the
dismissal as a quantity of damaged alleged irregularities latter received on even
cessation of work toys and ready-to- wear committed by the date, advising private
because continued items at unreasonable private respondent respondent to report
employment is prices, and failure to such as allowing the for work, as she had
rendered impossible, submit inventory entry of unauthorized been absent since
unreasonable or reports; (2) persons inside a August 1, 1998; and
unlikely; when there is Memorandum satting restricted area during warning her that upon
a demotion in rank or that the answers given non-office hours, her failure to do so,
diminution in pay or were all hypothetical falsification of or she shall be
both; or when a clear and did not inducing another considered to have
discrimination, employee to falsify abandoned her job.
insensibility, or disdain personnel or company
by an employer records, sleeping and On September 1,
becomes unbearable allowing a non- 1998, Apduhan issued
to the employee. employee to sleep a Memorandum
inside the private stating that since
The test of office, unauthorized private respondent
constructive dismissal search and bringing was unable to attend
is whether a out of company the scheduled August
reasonable person in records, purchase of 12, 1998 hearing, the
the employee's damaged home case was evaluated on
position would have furnishing items the basis of the
felt compelled to give without the approval evidence on record;
up his position under from superior, taking and enumerating the
the circumstances. It is advantage of buying pieces of evidence of
an act amounting to damaged items in the irregularities and
dismissal but made to large quantity, violations of company
appear as if it were alteration of approval rules committed by
not. In fact, the slips for the purchase private respondent,
employee who is of damaged items and the latter's defenses
constructively abandonment of work. and the corresponding
dismissed may be findings by Uniwide.
allowed to keep on In a letter, private Kawada was
coming to work. respondent answered thereafter terminated
Constructive dismissal the allegations made from her employment
is therefore a dismissal against her. On on the grounds of
in disguise. The law August 2, 1998, violations of Company
recognizes and Apduhan issued a Rules, Abandonment
resolves this situation Memorandum, of Work and loss of
in favor of employees advising Kawada of a trust and confidence.
in order to protect their hearing scheduled on
rights and interests August 12, 1998 and ISSUE
from the coercive acts warning her that Whether or not
of the employer. failure to appear shall respondent was
constitute as waiver constructively
FACTS and the case shall be dismissed.
Amalia Kawada, a Full submitted for decision
Assistant Store based on available HELD
Manager received 3 papers and evidence. No. The Court finds
Memorandums issued On August 3, 1998, that private
by the Store Manager
122
respondent's
allegation of
harassment is a
specious statement
which contains
nothing but empty
imputation of a fact
that could hardly be
given any evidentiary
weight by this Court.
Private respondent's
bare allegations of
constructive
dismissal, when
uncorroborated by the
evidence on record,
cannot be given
credence.

123
The right to impose disciplinary sanctions upon an
employee for just and valid cause, as well as the
authority to determine the existence of said cause in
accordance with the norms of due process, pertains in
the first place to the employer. Precisely, petitioners
gave private respondent successive memoranda so as
to give the latter an opportunity to controvert the
charges against her. Clearly, the memoranda are not
forms of harassment, but petitioners' compliance with
the requirements of due process.
On petitioners' claim of abandonment by private
respondent, well-settled is the rule that to constitute
abandonment of work, two elements must concur: (1)
the employee must have failed to report for work or
must have been absent without valid or justifiable
reason, and (2) there must have been a clear intention
on the part of the employee to sever the employer-
employee relationship manifested by some overt act.
The employer has the burden of proof to show the
employee's deliberate and unjustified refusal to
resume his employment without any intention of
returning. Mere absence is not sufficient. There must
be an unequivocal intent on the part of the employee
to discontinue his employment.
Private respondent's failure to report for work despite
the August 8, 1998 letter sent by Apduhan to private
respondent advising the latter to report for work is not
sufficient to constitute abandonment. It is a settled rule
that failure to report for work after a notice to return to
work has been served does not necessarily constitute
abandonment.
Private respondent mistakenly believed that the
successive memoranda sent to her from March 1998
to June 1998 constituted discrimination, insensibility or
disdain which was tantamount to constructive
dismissal. Thus, private respondent filed a case for
constructive dismissal against petitioners and
consequently stopped reporting for work.
The Court finds that petitioners were not able to
establish that private respondent deliberately refused
to continue her employment without justifiable reason.
To repeat, the Court will not make a drastic conclusion
that private respondent chose to abandon her work on
the basis of her mistaken belief that she had been
constructively dismissed by Uniwide.
Nonetheless, the Court agrees with the findings of the
LA that the termination of private respondent was
grounded on the existence of just cause under Article
282 (c) of the Labor Code or willful breach by the
employee of the trust reposed on him by his employer
or a duly authorized representative.
Private respondent occupies a managerial position. As
a managerial employee, mere existence of a basis for
believing that such employee has breached the trust of
his employer would suffice for his dismissal.
120
NORKIS TRADING CO. INC. and/or MANUEL
GASPAR E. ALBOS, JR. v.
MELVIN GNILO
G.R. No. 159730, February 11, 2008, Austria-Martinez
Melvin R. Gnilo (respondent) was initially hired by
Norkis Trading Co., Inc. (petitioner Norkis) as Norkis
Installment Collector (NIC) in April 1988. Manuel
Gaspar E. Albos, Jr. (petitioner Albos) is the Senior
Vice-President of petitioner Norkis. Respondent held
various positions in the company until he was
appointed as Credit and Collection Manager of Magna
Financial Services Group, Inc.-Legaspi Branch,
petitioner Norkis’s sister company, in charge of the
areas of Albay and Catanduanes with travel and
transportation allowances and a service car.
A special audit team was conducted in respondent's
office in Legaspi, Albay from March 13 to April 5, 2000
when it was found out that respondent forwarded the
monthly collection reports of the NICs under his
supervision without checking the veracity of the same.
It appeared that the monthly collection highlights for
the months of April to September 1999 submitted by
respondent to the top management were all overstated
particularly the account handled by NIC Dennis Cadag.
Respondent was then charged by petitioners' Inquiry
Assistance Panel (Panel) with negligence of basic
duties and responsibilities resulting in loss of trust and
confidence and laxity in directing and supervising his
own subordinates. During the investigation,
respondent admitted that he was negligent for failing to
regularly check the report of each NIC under his
supervision; that he only checked at random the NIC's
monthly collection highlight reports; and that as a
leader, he is responsible for the actions of his
subordinates. He however denied being lax in
supervising his subordinates, as he imposed discipline
on them if the need arose.
On May 30, 2000, petitioner Norkis through its Human
Resource Manager issued a memorandum placing
respondent under 15 days suspension without pay,
travel and transportation allowance, effective upon
receipt thereof. Respondent filed a letter protesting his
suspension and seeking a review of the penalty
imposed.
Another memorandum4 dated June 30, 2000 was
issued to respondent requiring him to report on July 5,
2000 to the head office of petitioner Norkis in
Mandaluyong City for a re-training or a possible new
assignment without prejudice to his request for a
reconsideration or an appeal of his suspension. He
was then assigned to the Marketing Division directly
reporting to petitioner Albos.
In a letter5 dated July 27, 2000, respondent requested
petitioner Albos that he be assigned as Sales Engineer
or to any position commensurate with his
qualifications. the LA decision to the to review the records
However, on July 28, National Labor The general rule is that and the arguments of
2000, respondent was Relations Commission the factual findings of the parties to resolve
formally appointed as (NLRC), which the NLRC, as affirmed the factual issues and
Marketing Assistant to reversed the LA’s by the CA, are render substantial
petitioner Albos, which decision. It held that accorded high respect justice to the parties.
position respondent the transfer of and finality unless the
subsequently respondent from the factual findings and Well-settled is the rule
assumed. However, on position of Credit and conclusions of the LA that it is the
October 4, 2000, Collection Manager to clash with those of the prerogative of the
respondent filed with Marketing Assistant NLRC and the CA, as it employer to transfer
the Labor Arbiter (LA) resulted in his appears in this case. and reassign
a complaint for illegal demotion in rank from Thus we have employees for valid
suspension, Manager to a mere reasons and according
constructive dismissal, rank and file employee, to the requirement of
non-payment of which was tantamount its business. An owner
allowance, to constructive of a business
vacation/sick leave, dismissal and therefore enterprise is given
damages and illegal. considerable leeway in
attorney's fees against managing his
petitioners. Petitioners filed a business. Our law
petition for certiorari recognizes certain
On March 30, 2001, with the CA. rights, collectively
the LA rendered his Subsequently, they called management
decision6 dismissing also filed a Motion for prerogative as inherent
the complaint for lack the Issuance of a in the management of
of merit. The LA found Temporary Restraining business enterprises.
that the position of Order or a Writ of The right of employees
Credit and Collection Preliminary Injunction, to security of tenure
Manager held by as respondent had filed does not give them
respondent involved a a Motion for the vested rights to their
high degree of Issuance of a Writ of positions to the extent
responsibility requiring Execution with the of depriving
trust and confidence; NLRC. On August 25, management of its
that his failure to 2003, the CA denied prerogative to change
observe the required petitioners’ Motion for their assignments or to
procedure in the Reconsideration. transfer them.
preparation of reports, Managerial
which resulted in the Issue: prerogatives, however,
overstated collection WON private are subject to
reports continuously respondent limitations provided by
for more than six was law, collective
months, was sufficient constructively bargaining
to breach the trust and dismissed. agreements, and
confidence of general principles of
petitioners and was a Ruling: fair play and justice.
valid ground for Petitioners contend that
termination; that factual findings of The employer bears
instead of terminating quasi- judicial the burden of showing
him, petitioners merely agencies, while that the transfer is not
imposed a 15-day generally accorded unreasonable,
suspension which was finality, may be inconvenient or
not illegal; and that reviewed by this Court prejudicial to the
petitioners exercised when the findings of employee; and does
their inherent the NLRC and the LA not involve a demotion
prerogative as an are contradictory; that in rank or a diminution
employer when they in the exercise of its of his salaries,
appointed respondent equity jurisdiction, this privileges and other
as a Marketing Court may look into the benefits.18Should the
Assistant. records of the case to employer fail to
re-examine the overcome this burden
Respondent appealed questioned findings.
121
of proof, the and usually unconditionally same negligent act of
employee’s transfer accompanied by an accepted his formal respondent.
shall be tantamount increase in appointment as
to constructive salary."23Conversely, Marketing Assistant on Petition denied
dismissal. demotion involves a August 3, 2000, we
situation in which an note that in a letter RODELIA FUNGO V.
Constructive employee is relegated dated July 27, 2000 LOURDES SCHOOL
dismissal is defined to a subordinate or addressed to petitioner OF MANDALUYONG
as a quitting because less important position Albos when he learned G.R. No. 152531, July
continued constituting a that he would be 27, 2007
employment is reduction to a lower assigned as a
rendered impossible, grade or rank, with a Marketing Assistant, Doctrine: Resignation is
unreasonable or corresponding respondent had the voluntary act of
unlikely; when there decrease in duties expressed reservations employees who are
is a demotion in rank and responsibilities, on such assignment compelled by personal
or a diminution of and usually and asked that he reasons to disassociate
pay.20 Likewise, accompanied by a instead be assigned as themselves from their
constructive dismissal decrease in salary. Sales Engineer or to employment. It must be
exists when an act of any position done with the intention
clear discrimination, In this case, while the commensurate to his of relinquishing an
insensibility or disdain transfer of respondent qualifications. office, accompanied by
by an employer from Credit and Respondent could not the act of abandonment.
becomes unbearable Collection Manager to be faulted for accepting Resignation is
to the employee, Marketing Assistant the position of a inconsistent with the
leaving him with no did not result in the Marketing Assistant, filing of the complaint.
option but to forego reduction of his salary, since he did so and
his continued there was a reduction stayed put in order to There is constructive
employment.21 in his duties and compare and evaluate dismissal if an act of
responsibilities which his position. However, clear discrimination,
A transfer is defined amounted to a he experienced not insensibility, or disdain
as a "movement from demotion tantamount only a demotion in his by an employer
one position to to a constructive duties and becomes so unbearable
another which is of dismissal as correctly responsibilities, an on the part of the
equivalent rank, level held by the NLRC and undignified treatment employee that it would
or salary, without the CA. by his immediate foreclose any choice by
break in service."22 superior, which him except to forego
Promotion, on the As Credit and prompted him to file her continued
other hand, is the Collection Manager, this case. employment.
"advancement from respondent was
one position to clothed with all the We note that the
another with an duties and alleged overstated
increase in duties and responsibilities of a collection reports of
responsibilities as managerial employee. three NICs under
authorized by law, On the other hand, the respondent's
work of supervision submitted
a Marketing Assistant necessity. Moreover, in 1997, were already
is clerical in nature, petitioners failed to mentioned in the IAP
which does not involve refute respondent’s report of the 1999
the exercise of any claim that as Credit and incident for which
discretion. Collection Manager, he respondent was meted
was provided with a the penalty of 15- day
There is constructive service car which was suspension without
dismissal when an no longer available to salary, travel and
employee's functions, him as Marketing transportation
which were originally Assistant; thus, such allowance; thus, the
supervisory in nature, was a reduction in his same could no longer
were reduced; and benefit. be used to justify his
such reduction is not transfer. Moreover,
grounded on valid respondent's demotion,
grounds such as Anent petitioners' claim which was a punitive
genuine business that respondent action, was, in effect, a
second penalty for the
122
 was in financial Labor Arbiter a
FACTS Petitioner then wrote predicament, complaint for illegal
Rodelia S. Fungo, respondent Fr. petitioner submitted dismissal with prayer
petitioner, alleged in Bustamante her resignation letter for reinstatement and
her petition that she questioning the on the very same day. payment of backwages
was employed as performance rating Subsequently, she and other benefits, as
secretary of given to her husband. received her well as for an award of
respondent Fr. She attached to her separation pay. moral and exemplary
Servillano B. letter documents damages and
Bustamante, rector of containing the On January 28, 1997, attorneys fees.
Lourdes School of summary of efficiency petitioner filed with the Petitioner
Mandaluyong. ratings of all the alleged therein that she To be a valid ground for
Respondent Fr. teachers. She was forced to resign dismissal, loss of trust
Bustamante retrieved these and to accept her and confidence must be
authorized her to file documents from the separation pay; and based on a willful
and keep confidential filing cabinet. that Fr. Remirez took breach of trust and
documents in his advantage of her founded on clearly
office. He entrusted to On March 8, 1996 economic plight, established facts. Loss
her the duplicate keys petitioner received a compelling her to of confidence must not
of the filing cabinet letter from respondent submit her resignation be indiscriminately used
and she was allowed Fr. Bustamante letter within 30 minutes. as a shield by the
to take any document requiring her to employer against a
therefrom whenever explain in writing why The LA found that claim that the dismissal
she had to bring she should not be petitioner was of an employee was
some matters to his dismissed from constructively arbitrary. And, in order
attention. employment for willful dismissed. This was to constitute a just
breach of trust reversed by the NRLC cause for dismissal, the
In January 1996, reposed on her. holding that petitioner act complained of must
petitioners husband, voluntarily resigned. be work-related and
Nicolas Fungo, an On March 11, 1996, When her motion for shows that the
elementary school petitioner filed her reconsideration was employee concerned is
teacher in the same written explanation. denied, petitioner went unfit to continue working
school, was to CA which dismissed for the employer
dismissed from the Petitioner further the petition. With her
service because of alleged in her petition motion for In Nokom v. National
his low performance that in the morning of reconsideration being Labor Relations
rating. According to April 1, 1996, Fr. denied, petitioner Commission, we set the
petitioner, her Manuel Remirez, the elevated the case to guidelines for the
husband’s services school treasurer, the SC. application of loss of
were terminated summoned her to his confidence as a just
because of his office. Thereupon, he ISSUE cause for dismissing an
statement during a compelled her to WON the petitioner employee from the
faculty meeting that tender her resignation was constructively service, thus:
the Mission and within 30 minutes, dismissed from the a. loss of
Vision Statement of otherwise, she will not service. - YES confidence
the school is not receive her separation should not be
being practiced. He pay. Petitioner RULING simulated;
was also one of those pleaded for one day Respondents argue b. it should not be
who signed a letter deferment so she that petitioners act of used as a
asking the Provincial could consult her retrieving the document subterfuge for
Minister of the aunt, Milagros Tadeo, from the files inside the causes which are
Capuchins in the former assistant rector’s office was improper, illegal or
Philippines to appoint principal on improper and unjustified;
Fr. Miguel Peralta academics for the constituted a willful c. it may not be
either as rector or elementary breach of the trust arbitrarily asserted
vice rector of the department of the reposed upon her by in the face of
school. Fr. Peralta is same school. Fr. Bustamante. Such overwhelming
a close rival of However, Fr. Remirez breach of trust is a just evidence to the
respondent Fr. denied her plea. cause for terminating contrary; and
Bustamante since Considering that her her services. d. it must be
their seminary days. husband was jobless genuine, not a
and that her family
123
 mere afterthought her resignation within Clearly, her consent that the nature of
to justify earlier 30 minutes. He was vitiated. Indeed, it petitioners work
action taken in threatened her that if is very unlikely that requires constant
bad faith. she would not resign, petitioner, who worked interaction with Fr.
her separation pay in the school for Bustamante, their
In the instant case, Fr. would be forfeited. almost fifteen working relationship
Bustamante entrusted These circumstances (15) years, would has been strained.
to petitioner various glaringly show that simply resign Thus, the payment of
documents in his respondents wanted voluntarily. Her receipt separation pay and
office. She could take to terminate her of the benefits could other benefits in lieu of
any document from the employment, but they be considered as an reinstatement is in
filing cabinet inside his made it appear that act of self- order.
office. While she she voluntarily preservation, taking
retrieved documents resigned. into consideration the THE UNIVERSITY OF
pertaining to the financial predicament THE IMMACULATE
efficiency ratings of all Resignation is the she and her family CONCEPTION V.
teachers in the school voluntary act of were then facing. NLRC
for the year 1990- employees who are Thus, we rule that G.R. No. 181146,
1991, such act did not compelled by personal petitioner was January 26, 2011,
constitute a breach of reasons to constructively Carpio
trust and confidence disassociate dismissed from her
since she did not show themselves from their employment. Private respondent
those documents to employment. It must Teodora C. Axalan is a
any other person be done with the Under Article 279 of regular faculty member
except to Fr. intention of the Labor Code, an in the Petitioner
Bustamante himself. relinquishing an office, employee who is Uiversity holding the
Significantly, he did accompanied by the unjustly dismissed position of Associate
not dispute the fact act of abandonment. It from work shall be Professor II. From 18
that petitioner had would have been entitled to November to 22
access to the records. illogical therefore for reinstatement without November 2002,
the petitioner to resign loss of seniority rights Axalan attended a
When petitioner asked and then file a and other privileges seminar in Quezon
Fr. Bustamante why complaint for illegal and to his full City on website
her husbands dismissal. Resignation backwages, inclusive development. Axalan
performance rating is inconsistent with the of allowances, and to then received a
was low, Fr. Remirez filing of the complaint. his other benefits or memorandum from
summoned her to his their monetary Dean Maria Rosa
office and urged her to There is constructive equivalent computed Celestial asking her to
tender dismissal if an act of from the time his explain in writing why
clear discrimination, compensation was she should not be
insensibility, or disdain withheld from him up dismissed for having
by an employer to the time of his been absent without
becomes so actual reinstatement. official leave. In her
unbearable on the Considering, however, letter, Axalan claimed
part of the employee that
that it would foreclose she held online classes dismissed?
any choice by him while attending the
except to forego her seminar. She explained H
continued that she was under the E
employment. impression that faculty L
members would not be D
An examination of the marked absent even if
records of this case they were not N
convinced us that physically present in O
petitioner was indeed the classroom as long .
made to resign as they conducted
against her will with online classes. “Constructive dismissal
threat that she will not occurs when there is
be given her ISSUE cessation of work
separation pay should Was Axalan because continued
she fail to do so. constructively employment is rendered

124
impossible, unreasonable. We ROBINSONS was merely
unreasonable, or are convinced that investigated. However,
unlikely as when there Axalan was validly GALLERIA/ROBINSO the NLRC reversed
is a demotion in rank suspended for cause NS SUPERMARKET this ruling, stating that
or diminution in pay or and in accord with CORPORATION Ranchez was illegally
when a clear procedural due and/or JESS dismissed and that
discrimination, process.” MANUEL v. IRENE R. Robinson's should
insensibility, or disdain RANCHEZ reinstate her. It held
by an employer “The Court recognizes G.R. No. 177937, that Ranchez was
becomes unbearable the right of employers January 19, 2011 deprived of due
to the employee to discipline its process when she was
leaving the latter with employees for serious Respondent Ranchez strip- searched and
no other option but to violations of company was a probationary sent to jail for two
quit.” rules after affording the employee for 5 weeks because such
latter due process and months. She was amounted to
“In this case however, if the evidence hired as a cashier by constructive dismissal,
there was no cessation warrants. The Robinsons sometime making it impossible
of employment university, after within that period. Two for the respondent to
relations between affording Axalan due weeks after she was continue under the
the parties. It is process and finding her hired, she reported employment. Even
unrefuted that Axalan guilty of incurring the loss of cash which though she was merely
promptly resumed AWOL on two separate she had placed in the a probationary
teaching at the occasions, acted well company locker. She employee, the lapse of
university right after within the bounds of offered to pay for the the probationary
the expiration of the labor laws in imposing lost amount but the contract did not
suspension period. In the penalty of six- Operations Manager amount to a valid
other words, Axalan month suspension of Robinsons had her dismissal because
never quit. Hence, without pay for each strip-searched then there was already an
Axalan cannot claim incidence of AWOL.” reported her to the unwarranted
that she was left with police even though constructive dismissal
no choice but to quit, a “As a learning they found nothing on beforehand.
crucial element in a institution, the her person. An
finding of constructive university cannot be information for ISSUE
dismissal. Thus, expected to take lightly Qualified Theft was Whether respondent
Axalan cannot be absences without filed with the Quezon was legally terminated
deemed to have been official leave among its City Regional Trial from employment by
constructively employees, more so Court. She was petitioners.
dismissed.” among its faculty detained for 2 weeks
members even if they for failure to HELD
“Note that on the first happen to be union immediately post bail. NO. The petition is
AWOL incident, the officers. To do so Weeks later, unmeritorious.
university even would send the respondent Ranchez
offered to drop the wrong signal to filed a complaint for There is probationary
AWOL charge the studentry and the illegal dismissal and employment when the
against Axalan if she rest of its teaching staff damages. A year employee upon his
would only write a that irresponsibility is later, Robinsons sent engagement is made
letter of contrition. widely tolerated in the to respondent by mail to undergo a trial
But academe.” a notice of termination period during which
Axalan adamantly and/or notice of the employer
expiration of determines his fitness
refused knowing fully probationary to qualify for regular
well that the employment. employment based on
administrative case reasonable standards
would take its course The Labor Arbiter made known to him at
leading to possible dismissed the the time of
sanctions. She cannot complaint for illegal engagement.
now be heard that the dismissal, alleging
imposition of the that at the time of A probationary
penalty of six-month filing respondent employee, like a
suspension without Ranchez had not yet regular employee,
pay for each AWOL been terminated. She enjoys security of
charge is
125
tenure. However, in employee may also conjunctively. work. It was then that
cases of probationary be terminated for he found out to his
employment, aside failure to qualify as a In this case, since dismay that the resort
from just or regular employee in respondent was a was far from finished.
authorized causes of accordance with probationary employee However, he was
termination, an reasonable standards at the time she was instructed to supervise
additional ground is made known by the constructively construction and speak
provided under Article employer to the dismissed by with potential guests.
281 of the Labor employee at the time petitioners, she is He also undertook the
Code,i.e., the of the entitled to separation overall preparation of
probationary pay and backwages. the guestrooms and
engagement.Thus, the procedural due Reinstatement of staff for the opening of
services of an process.The haphazard respondent is no longer the hotel, even
employee who has manner in the viable considering the performing menial
been engaged on investigation of the circumstances. tasks. As Johnson
probationary basis missing cash, which remained unpaid since
may be terminated for was left to the DREAMLAND HOTEL August 2007 and he
any of the following: determination of the V. JOHNSON has loaned all his
police authorities and G.R. No. 191455, money to petitioners,
(1) a just or the Prosecutor's Office, March 12, 2014 he asked for his salary
(2) an authorized left respondent with no after the resort was
cause; and choice but to cry foul. Prentice and Johnson opened but the
(3) when he fails to Administrative entered into an petitioners refused.
qualify as a regular investigation was not Employment Johnson became very
employee in conducted by petitioner Agreement, which alarmed with the
accordance with Supermarket.On the stipulates among situation. After another
reasonable standards same day that the others, that Johnson embarrassment was
prescribed by the missing money was shall serve as handed out by
employer. reported by respondent Operations Manager of petitioner Prentice in
to her immediate Dreamland from front of the staff, which
Article 277(b) of the superior, the company August 1, 2007 and highlighted his lack of
Labor Code mandates already pre- judged her shall serve as such for real authority in the
that the employer shall guilt without proper a period of three (3) hotel and the disdain
furnish the worker, investigation, and years. From the start of for him by petitioners,
whose employment is instantly reported her to August 2007, as respondent Johnson
sought to be the police as the stipulated in the was forced to submit
terminated, a written suspected thief, which Employment his resignation.
notice containing a resulted in her Agreement, respondent
statement of the languishing in jail for Johnson already ISSUE
causes of termination, two weeks. reported for Whether or not Johnson
and shall afford the voluntarily resigned.
latter ample The due process
opportunity to be requirements under the HELD
heard and to defend Labor Code are No. Although the resort
himself with the mandatory and may did not open until
assistance of a not be replaced with approximately 8th
representative if he so police investigation or October 2007,
desires, in accordance court proceedings. An Johnson's employment
with company rules illegally or began, as per
and regulations constructively Employment
pursuant to the dismissed employee, Agreement, on 1st
guidelines set by the respondent is entitled August 2007. During
Department of Labor to: (1) either the interim period,
and Employment. reinstatement, if viable, Johnson was
or separation pay, if frequently instructed
In the instant case, reinstatement is no by Prentice to
based on the facts on longer viable; and (2) supervise the
record, petitioners backwages. These two construction staff and
failed to accord reliefs are separate and speak with potential
respondent distinct from each other future guests who
substantive and and are awarded visited the site out of

126
curiosity. The compensation. Since Bargaining Agreement thereafter become
petitioners maintain Johnson was (CBA), which provided members, must
that they have paid constructively for a Union shop and maintain union
the amount of dismissed, he was maintenance of membership as a
P7,200.00 to Johnson illegally dismissed. membership shop.The condition for continued
for his three weeks of Thus, an illegally Union discovered some employment until they
service from October dismissed employee irregularly recorded are promoted or
8, 2007 until is entitled to two entries, unaccounted transferred out of the
November 3, 2007, reliefs: backwages expenses and bargaining unit or the
the date of Johnson's and reinstatement. disbursements, and agreement is
resignation, which The two reliefs uncollected loans from terminated.
Johnson did not provided are separate the Union funds by
controvert. Even so, and distinct. In respondents Pizarro, In terminating the
the amount the instances where Braza, and employment of an
petitioners paid to reinstatement is no Castueras.Despite their employee by enforcing
Johnson as his three- longer feasible explanations, the union security
week salary is because of strained respondents Pizarro, clause, the employer
significantly deficient relations between the Braza, and Castueras needs only to determine
as Johnson's monthly employee and the were expelled from the and prove that: (1) the
salary as stipulated in employer, separation Union.the Union, union security clause is
their contract is pay is granted. In Invoking the Security applicable; (2) the union
P60,000.00. Thus, effect, an illegally Clause of the CBA, the is requesting for the
the amount which dismissed employee Club dismissed upon enforcement of the
Johnson should have is entitled to either demand of the Union union security provision
been paid is reinstatement, if the respondents in the CBA; and (3)
P45,000.00 and not viable, or separation Pizarro, Braza, and there is sufficient
P7,200.00. In light of pay if reinstatement is Castueras in view of evidence to support the
this deficiency, there no longer viable, and their expulsion from the unions decision to expel
is more reason to backwages. The Union. the employee from the
believe that the accepted doctrine is union. These requisites
petitioners withheld that separation pay ISSUE constitute just cause for
the salary of Johnson may avail in lieu of Whether or not the terminating an
without a valid reinstatement if respondents’ dismissal employee based on the
reason. It only goes reinstatement is no from the Club was CBAs union security
to show that while it longer practical or in proper? provision.
was Johnson who the best interest of the
tendered his parties. Separation RULING The three respondents
resignation, it was pay in lieu of Yes. One cause for were expelled from and
due to the petitioners reinstatement may termination is dismissal by the Union after due
acts that he was likewise be awarded if from employment due investigation for acts of
constrained to resign. the employee decides to the enforcement of dishonesty and
The petitioners not to be reinstated. the union security malversation of Union
cannot expect Under the doctrine of clause in the CBA. funds. In accordance
Johnson to tolerate strained relations, the Here, Art. II of the CBA with the
working for them payment of separation on Union security
without any pay is considered an contains the provisions
acceptable alternative non-profit corporation on the Union shop and
to reinstatement when with principal office at maintenance of
the latter option is no Country Club Drive, membership shop.
longer desirable or Ayala Alabang, There is union shop
viable. Muntinlupa City. when all new regular
Respondents are employees are required
ALABANG COUNTRY Alabang Country Club to join the union within
CLUB V. NLRC Independent a certain period as a
G.R. No. 170287, Employees Union condition for their
February 14, 2008, (Union),the exclusive continued employment.
Velasco bargaining agent of the There is maintenance
Clubs rank-and-file of membership shop
Petitioner Alabang employees. The Club when employees who
Country Club, Inc. and the Union entered are union members as
(Club) is a domestic into a Collective of the effective date of
the agreement, or who
127
CBA, the Union ng Manggagawa or union security union or company.
properly requested NLM), NLM filed a provision in the CBA;
the Club to enforce case for intra union and (3) there is GENERAL MILLING
the Union security dispute. The med sufficient evidence to CORP. V. CASIO
provision in their CBA arbiter decided in support the union's G.R. No. 149552,
and terminate said favour of FPSILU and decision to expel the March 10, 2010,
respondents. Then, in ordered the officers employee from the Leonardo de Castro
compliance with the and members of NLM The labor union Ilaw at case, the CBA between
Unions request, the to return the P90,000 Buklod ng Mangagawa GMC and IBM-Local 31
Club reviewed the union dues (IBM) was the sole and included a maintenance
documents submitted erroneously collected exclusive bargaining of membership and
by the Union, from employees. agent of the rank and closed shop clause as
requested said FPSILU sought the file employees of GMC. can be gleaned from
respondents to dismissal of The union entered into Sections 3 and 6 of
submit written petitioners on the a CBA with GMC. The Article II. IBM-Local 31,
explanations, and grounds of disloyalty effectivity of the said by written request, can
thereafter afforded and thus invoking the CBA was retroactive to ask GMC to terminate
them reasonable union security clause. August 1, 1991. The the employment of the
opportunity to present FPSI effected the CBA contained a employee/worker who
their side. After it had dismissal. Petitioners security provision. failed to maintain its
determined that there assail the legality of Gabiana, the IBM good standing as a
was sufficient their dismissal based Regional Director, union member. Union
evidence that said on the said Union furnished Casio, et al. security clauses are
respondents Security Clause. with copies of the recognized and
malversed Union Affidavits of 2 GMC explicitly allowed under
funds, the Club ISSUE employees, charging Article 248(e) of the
dismissed them from Is the dismissal valid? Casio, et al. with "acts Labor Code It is State
their employment inimical to the interest policy to promote
conformably with Sec. RULING of the union." Gabiana unionism to enable
4(f) of the CBA. Yes. In terminating the then wrote a letter workers to negotiate
employment of an addressed to Eduardo with management on an
Considering the employee by Cabahug (Cabahug), even playing field and
foregoing enforcing the Union GMC Vice-President with more
circumstances, we Security Clause, the for Engineering and persuasiveness than if
are constrained to employer needs only Plant Administration, they were to individually
rule that there is to determine and informing the company and separately bargain
sufficient cause for prove that: (1) the of the expulsion of with the employer. For
the three respondents union security clause Casio, et al. from the this reason, the law has
termination from is applicable; (2) the union pursuant to the allowed stipulations for
employment. union is requesting for Resolution. Gabiana union shop and closed
the enforcement of the likewise requested that shop as means of
INGUILLO V. FIRST union security Casio, et al. "be encouraging workers to
PHILIPPINE SCALES provision in the CBA; immediately dismissed join and support the
G.R. No. 165407 June and (3) there is from their work for the union of their choice in
5, 2009, Peralta sufficient evidence to interest of industrial the protection of their
support the union's peace in the plant” rights and interest vis--
FPSI (Employer – decision to expel the pursuan to the security vis the employer In
respondent employee from the provision in the CBA. terminating the
corporation) and FPSI union or company. employment of an
Labor Union entered ISSUE employee by enforcing
into a collective In terminating the Whether the dismissal the union security
bargaining employment of an from employment due clause, the employer
agreement. It employee by to the enforcement of needs only to determine
provided for a union enforcing the Union the union security and prove that: (1) the
security clause. Security Clause, the clause in the CBA is union security clause is
During the lifetime of employer needs only legal? applicable; (2) the union
the CBA Inguillo to determine and is requesting for the
(petitioner) and prove that: (1) the RULING enforcement of the
several other FPSI union security clause The dismissal is illegal. union security provision
employees joined is applicable; (2) the There is no question in the CBA; and (3)
another union union is requesting for that in the present there is sufficient
(Nagkakaisang Lakas the enforcement of the
128
evidence to support It is similarly Preparation Machine work for one (1)
the decision of the undisputed that IBM- Operator beginning month. Pula reported
union to expel the Local 31, through June 1993. On 27 back for work on 13
employee from the Gabiana, the IBM November 1999, Pula, June 2000, armed with
union. These Regional Director for then aged 34, suffered a certification from his
requisites constitute Visayas and a heart attack and physician that he was
just cause for Mindanao, twice was rushed to the fit to work. However,
terminating an requested GMC, in hospital, where he Pula claimed that he
employee based on the letters dated was confined for was not given any post
the union security March 10 and 19, around a week. Pulas or assignment, but
provision of the CBA. 1992, to terminate the wife duly notified instead, on 20 June
[26] There is no employment of Casio, Crayons of her 2000, he was asked to
question that in the et al. as a necessary husbands medical resign with an offer
present case, the CBA consequence of their condition. from Crayons of P12,
between GMC and expulsion from the Subsequently, on 25 000 as financial
IBM-Local 31 included union. It is the third February 2000, Pula assistance. Pula
a maintenance of requisite that there is underwent an refused the offer and
membership and sufficient evidence to Angiogram Test at the instead filed a
closed shop clause as support the decision Philippine Heart complaint for illegal
can be gleaned from of IBM-Local 31 to Center under the dismissal.
Sections 3 and 6 of expel Casio, et al. supervision of a Dr.
Article II. IBM-Local which appears to be Recto, who advised ISSUE
31, by written request, lacking in this case. him to take a two- Whether or not the
can ask GMC to week leave from work. dismissal without
terminate the Irrefragably, GMC Following the certification issued by
employment of the cannot dispense with angiogram procedure, a competent public
employee/worker who the requirements of respondent was health authority was
failed to maintain its notice and hearing certified as fit to work proper
good standing as a before dismissing by Dr. Recto. On 11
union member. Casio, et al. even April 2000, Pula HELD
when said dismissal is returned to work, but No. For a dismissal on
pursuant to the closed 13 days later, he was the ground of disease
shop provision in the taken to the company to be considered valid,
CBA. The rights of an clinic after two requisites must
employee to be complaining of concur: (a) the
informed of the dizziness. Diagnosed employee must be
charges against him as having suffered a suffering from a
and to reasonable relapse, he was disease which cannot
opportunity to present advised by his be cured within six
his side in a physician to take a months and his
controversy with either leave of absence from continued
the company or his employment is only where there is a
own union are not prohibited by law or prior certification from a
wiped away by a prejudicial to his health competent public
union security clause or to the health of his authority that the
or a union shop co-employees; and (b) disease afflicting the
clause in a collective a certification to that employee sought to be
bargaining agreement. effect must be issued dismissed is of such
by a competent public nature or at such stage
CRAYONS health authority. The that it cannot be cured
PROCESSING, INC V. burden falls upon the within six (6) months
FELIPE PULA employer to establish even with proper
these requisites, and in medical treatment that
G.R. No. 167727, July the absence of such the latter could be
30, 2007, Tinga certification, the validly terminated from
dismissal must his job.
Petitioner Crayons necessarily be declared
Processing, Inc. illegal. Without the required
(Crayons) employed certification, the
respondent Felipe As succinctly stressed characterization or even
Pula (Pula) as a in Tan v. NLRC, it is diagnosis of the disease

129
would primarily be would still be unable to terminated the retirement/insurance
shaped according to justify his dismissal on services of petitioner plans with Philippine
the interests of the the ground of ill health and that during their American Life and
parties rather than the or disease, without the mandatory General Insurance
studied analysis of the necessary certificate conference, he even Company (Philam Life)
appropriate medical from a competent told the latter that he for all its employees in
professionals. The public health authority. could go back to work anticipation of its
requirement of a anytime but petitioner possible closure and
medical certificate VILLARUEL v. YEO clearly manifested that the concomitant
under Article 284 HAN GUAN he was no longer severance of its
cannot be dispensed G.R. No. 169191, June interested in returning personnel.
with; otherwise, it 1, 2011, Peralta to work and instead Respondent Mark
would sanction the asked for separation Oropeza is the
unilateral and arbitrary Doctrine: Since pay. president and major
determination by the petitioner was not stockholder of the
employer of the gravity terminated from his ISSUE bank. Padillo suffered
or extent of the employment and, Whether or not a mild stroke due to
employee's illness and instead, is deemed to petitioner is entitled to hypertension which
thus defeat the public have resigned SepPay consequently impaired
policy in the protection therefrom, he is not his ability to effectively
of labor. entitled to separation RULING pursue his work. He
pay under the NO. A plain reading of wrote a letter
The NLRCs conclusion provisions of the Labor the provision clearly addressed to Oropeza
that no such Code. presupposes that it is expressing his
certification was the employer who intention to avail of an
required since Pula Respondent averred terminates the early retirement
had effectively been that petitioner was services of the package. Despite
absented due to illness hired as machine employee found to be several follow- ups, his
for more than six (6) operator from March suffering from any request remained
months is unsupported 1993 until he stopped disease and whose unheeded. Not having
by jurisprudence and working sometime in continued received his claimed
plainly contrary to the February 1999 on the employment is retirement benefits,
language of the ground that he was prohibited by law or is Padillo filed with the
Implementing Rules. suffering from illness; prejudicial to his NLRC a complaint for
The indefensibility of after his recovery, health as well as to the recovery of unpaid
such conclusion is petitioner was directed the health of his co- retirement benefits.
further heightened by to report for work, but employees. It does
the fact that Pula was he never showed up. not contemplate a The Labor Arbiter
able to obtain two Respondent claimed situation where it is dismissed Padillo’s
different medical that he never the employee who complaint on the
certifications attesting severs his or her ground that the latter
to his fitness to employment ties. did not qualify to
resume work. receive any benefits
PADILLO v. RURAL under Article 300 of
Assuming that the BANK OF the Labor Code as he
burden did fall on Pula NABUNTURAN, INC. was only fifty-five (55)
to establish that he G.R. No. 199338, years old when he
was fit to return to January 21, 2013, resigned, while the law
work, those two Perlas-Bernabe specifically provides
medical certifications for an optional
stand as incontestable Petitioner, the late retirement age of sixty
in the absence of Eleazar Padillo (60) and compulsory
contrary evidence of (Padillo), was an retirement age of sixty-
similar nature from employee of five (65). The NLRC
Crayons. Then again, respondent Rural reversed the Labor
the burden lies solely Bank of Nabunturan, Arbiter’s ruling. The
on Crayons to prove Inc. (Bank) as its SA CA reversed the
that Pula was unfit to Bookkeeper. Due to NLRC’s ruling but with
return to work.[32] liquidity problems in modification. It directed
Even absent the 2003, the Bank took the respondents to pay
certifications favorable out Padillo the amount of
to Pula, Crayons
130
P50,000.00 as claim for retirement illegal nor can it be if the suspension of
financial assistance benefits under the considered as unfair operations lasts for
exclusive of the Labor Code? labor practice. Even as more than 6 months.
P100,000.00 Philam we declare the validity Thus is bred the issue
Life Plan benefit. HELD of the lay-off, we regarding the
No. In the absence of cannot say that MMC responsibility of MMC
ISSUE any applicable has no obligation at all toward its employees.
Whether or not agreement, an to the laid-off
Padillo is entitled to employees. The validity Under Article 283, the
employee must (1) (60) year age of its act of suspending employer can lawfully
retire when he is at requirement given that its operations does not close shop anytime as
least sixty (60) years he was only fifty-five excuse it from paying long as cessation of or
of age and (2) serve at (55) years old when he separation pay. Article withdrawal from
least (5) years in the retired. Therefore, 286 of the Labor Code business operations is
company to entitle without prejudice to the allows the bona fide bona fide in character
him/her to a retirement proceeds due under suspension of and not impelled by a
benefit of at least one- the Philam Life Plan, operations for a period motive to defeat or
half (1/2) month salary petitioners’ claim for not exceeding six (6) circumvent the tenurial
for every year of retirement benefits months.During the rights of employees,
service, with a fraction must be denied. suspension, an and as long as he pays
of at least six (6) employee is not his employees their
months being MANILA MINING deemed terminated. termination pay in the
considered as one CORP. EMPLOYEES As a matter of fact, the amount corresponding
whole year. Notably, ASSOCIATION- employee is entitled to to their length of
these age and tenure FEDERATION OF be reinstated once the service. The cessation
requirements are FREE WORKERS employer resumes of operations, in the
cumulative and non- CHAPTER, SAMUEL operations within the 6- case at bar is of such
compliance with one G. ZUIGA v. MANILA month period. nature. It was proven
negates the MINING CORP. However, Article 286 is that MMC stopped its
employee’s entitlement G.R. Nos. 178222-23, silent with respect to operations precisely
to the retirement September 29, 2010, the rights of the due to failure to secure
benefits under Article Perez employee permit to operate a
300 of the Labor Code tailings pond.
altogether. Respondent is a Separation pay must
mining corporation. nonetheless be given
In this case, it is Due to its failure to to the separated
undisputed that there obtain the necessary employees.
exists no retirement permit with the DENR-
plan, collective EMB’s to operate the NIPPON HOUSING
bargaining agreement mining business, it PHILS. VS. LEYNES
or any other equivalent temporary lay-off G.R. No. 177816,
contract between the private complainant for August 3, 2011
parties which set out a period exceeding 6
the terms and months resulting in Nippon Housing is
condition for the their constructive engaged in the
retirement of dismissal. The Union business of providing
employees, with the attributes bad faith on building maintenance
sole exception of the the part of MMC in From its original
Philam Life Plan which implementing the ventured into building
premiums had already temporary lay-off, management and
been paid by the Bank. hence this case. gained Bay Gardens
Condominium Project
Unfortunately, while ISSUE (the Project) of the Bay
Padillo was able to Whether or not the Gardens Condominium
comply with the five (5) layoff is illegal Corporation (BGCC)
year tenure Whether or not the as its first and only
requirement – as he employees are entitled building maintenance
served for twenty-nine to a separation pay client. They hired
(29) years – he, respondent Maiah
however, fell short with HELD Angela Leynes on 26
respect to the sixty The lay-off is neither March 2001 for the

131
position of Property intention to resign.
Manager, with a However, she sent
salary of P40,000.00 another letter
per month. Her expressing her
responsibilities intention to return to
include surveying the work and to call off
requirements of the her planned
government and the resignation. However,
client for said project, she received a letter
the formulation of from the management
house rules and to report instead to the
regulations, the main office as one in a
preparation of the “floating status”
annual operating and because someone
capital expenditure already occupies her
budget, hiring and post. Aggrieved,
deployment of Leynes filed a
manpower, salary complaint against
and position petitioner for illegal
determination as well dismissal, unpaid
as the assignment of salaries, benefits,
the schedules and damages and
responsibilities of attorney's fees. The
employees. Leynes Labor arbiter found
had a that the petitioner’s
misunderstanding act of putting Leynes
with the building on a floating status
engineer of the was equivalent to
project (Cantuba) and termination without
barred the latter’s just cause. The NLRC
entry to the site. The ruled that NHPI's
Engr. also accused
the former of conceit,
pride and poor
managerial skills.
Takada, the NHPI's
Vice President issued
a memorandum
attributing the incident
to "simple personal
differences" and
directing Leynes to
allow Engr. Cantuba
to report back for
work. Disappointed
with this management
decision, she
submitted a letter to
NHPI’s President
(Ota) asking for an
emergency leave of
absence for the
supposed purpose of
coordinating with her
lawyer regarding her
resignation letter.
NHPI offered the
Property Manager
position to Engr.
Carlos Jose as a
consequence Leynes'
signification of her
132
placement of Leynes on floating status was
necessitated by the client's contractually guaranteed
right to request for her relief. However, this was later
on reversed by the CA, hence, this present petition
before the SC.
ISSUE
Whether or not Leynes’ floating status is tantamount to
constructive dismissal.
RULING
No, the placement of Leynes on a floating status due
to redundancy is valid. The record, moreover, shows
that NHPI simply placed her on floating status "until
such time that another project could be secured" for
her. The rule is settled, however, that "off-detailing" is
not equivalent to dismissal, so long as such status
does not continue beyond a reasonable time and that it
is only when such a "floating status" lasts for more
than six months that the employee may be considered
to have been constructively dismissed. A complaint for
illegal dismissal filed prior to the lapse of said six-
month and/or the actual dismissal of the employee is
generally considered as prematurely filed. Since the
petitioner has no other client for the building
management side of its business, it acted within its
prerogatives when it eventually terminated Leynes'
services on the ground of redundancy. One of the
recognized authorized causes for the termination of
employment, redundancy exists when the service
capability of the workforce is in excess of what is
reasonably needed to meet the demands of the
business enterprise.
SKM ARTCRAFT CORPORATION vs. BAUCA
G.R. No. 171282, November 27, 2013, Villarama
The 23 respondents were employed by petitioner SKM
Art Craft Corporation which is engaged in the
handicraft business. On April 18, 2000, around 1:12
a.m., a fire occurred at the inspection and
receiving/repair/packing area of petitioner’s premises
in Intramuros, Manila. The fire investigation report
stated that the structure and the beach rubber building
were totally damaged. Also burned were four container
vans and a trailer truck. The estimated damage
was P22 million. On May 8, 2000, petitioner informed
respondents that it will suspend its operations for six
months, effective May 9, 2000. On May 16, 2000, only
eight days after receiving notice of the suspension of
petitioner’s operations, the 23 respondents (and other
co-workers) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. They
alleged that there was discrimination in choosing the
workers to be laid off and that petitioner had
discovered that most of them were members of a
newly-organized union.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondents were illegally dismissed
130
RULING
Yes. Although petitioner’s suspension of operations is
valid because the fire caused substantial losses to
petitioner and damaged its factory, it failed to prove
that its suspension of operations is bona fide. The list
of materials burned was not the only evidence
submitted by petitioner. It was corroborated by pictures
and the fire investigation report, and they constitute
substantial evidence of petitioner’s losses.
Under Article 286 of the Labor Code, the bona fide
suspension of the operations of a business or
undertaking for a period not exceeding six months
shall not terminate employment. Article 286 provides:
ART. 286. When employment not deemed terminated.
– The bona fide suspension of the operations of a
business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six
(6) months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a
military or civic duty shall not terminate employment.
In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the
employee to his former position without loss of
seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his
work not later than one (1) month from the resumption
of operations of his employer or from his relief from the
military or civic duty.
Under Article 286 of the Labor Code, the bona fide
suspension of the operation of a business or
undertaking for a period not exceeding six months
shall not terminate employment. Consequently, when
the bona fide suspension of the operation of a
business or undertaking exceeds six months, then the
employment of the employee shall be deemed
terminated. By the same token and applying said rule
by analogy, if the employee was forced to remain
without work or assignment for a period exceeding six
months, then he is in effect constructively dismissed.
Indeed, petitioner’s manifestation dated October 2,
2001 that it is willing to admit respondents if they
return to work was belatedly made, almost one year
after petitioner’s suspension of operations expired in
November 2000. We find that petitioner no longer
recalled, nor wanted to recall, respondents after six
months.
JACKBILT INDUSTRIES V. JACKBILT EMPLOYEES
UNION
G.R. Nos. 171618-19, March 20, 2009, Corona
Due to the adverse effects of the Asian economic crisis
on the construction industry, petitioner decided to
temporarily stop its business of producing concrete
hollow blocks, compelling most of its employees to go
on leave for six months. Respondent union
immediately protested the temporary shutdown.
Because its collective bargaining agreement with
petitioner was expiring during the period of the
shutdown, respondent claimed that petitioner halted
production to avoid its duty to bargain collectively. The
shutdown was
allegedly motivated by
anti-union sentiments.
Accordingly,
respondent went on
strike. Its officers and
members picketed
petitioner’s main gates
and deliberately
prevented persons and
vehicles from going
into and out of the
compound.
Petitioner filed a employees who commit
petition for injunction
with a prayer for the
issuance of a TRO in
the NLRC. NLRC
issued a TRO directing
the respondents to
refrain from preventing
access to petitioner’s
property. The union
violated such order.
The union officers and
members were then
required to explain but
they refused to do so.
Thus, they were
dismissed.
Respondents then filed
a complaint before the
LA. The labor arbiter
dismissed the
complaints for illegal
lockout and unfair
labor practice for lack
of merit. However,
because petitioner did
not file a petition to
declare the strike
illegal before
terminating
respondent’s officers
and employees, it was
found guilty of illegal
dismissal. NLRC only
modified the monetary
award. CA held that
the temporary
shutdown was moved
by anti-union
sentiments. Petitioner
was therefore guilty of
unfair labor practice.
Petitioner asserts that
the filing of a petition
to declare the strike
illegal was
unnecessary since the
NLRC, in its July 17,
1998 decision, had in the course of a proceeded to the
already found that strike. Petitioner clearly barangay office to
respondent committed had the legal right to show support for an
illegal acts in the terminate respondent’s officer of the Union
course of the strike. officers and charged with oral
employees. defamation by PINA’s
ISSUE personnel manager.
Whether or not the ESCARIO v. NLRC As a result of the
filing of a petition with G.R. No. 160302, walkout, PINA
the labor arbiter to September 27, 2010, preventively
declare a strike illegal Bersamin suspended all officers
is a condition sine qua of the Union and
non for the valid Officers and members terminated the officers
termination of of Malayang Samahan of the Union after a
ng mga Manggagawa month. The Union later
an illegal act in the sa Balanced Foods conducted a strike but
course of such strike walked out of the the same was declared
premises of to be an illegal strike
RULING Pinakamasarap by the Labor Arbiter.
Not a condition sine Corporation (PINA) and The NLRC sustained
qua non. Article 264(e) the finding of the
of the Labor Code illegality of the strike,
prohibits any person but ruled that the union
engaged in picketing members should not
from obstructing the be considered to have
free ingress to and abandoned their
egress from the employment on the
employer’s premises. ground that mere
Since respondent was participation of a union
found by the NLRC to member in an illegal
have prevented the strike does not mean
free entry into and exit loss of employment.
of vehicles from Petitioners were
petitioner’s compound, ordered reinstated.
respondent’s officers
and employees clearly ISSUE
committed illegal acts Is payment of
in the course of the separation pay in lieu
strike. The use of of reinstatement
unlawful means in the allowed?
course of a strike
renders such strike RULING
illegal. Therefore, Yes. The absence
pursuant to the from an order of
principle of reinstatement of an
conclusiveness of alternative relief should
judgment, strike was the employer or a
ipso facto illegal. The supervening event not
filing of a petition to within the control of the
declare the strike illegal employee prevent
was thus unnecessary. reinstatement negates
Consequently, we the very purpose of the
uphold the legality of order. The judgment
the dismissal of favorable to the
respondent’s officers employee is thereby
and employees. Article reduced to a mere
264 of the Labor Code paper victory, for it is
further provides that an all too easy for the
employer may employer to simply
terminate employees refuse to have the
found to have employee back. To
committed illegal acts
131
safeguard the spirit of the employer is registered with DOLE. with the requirements
social justice that the prejudiced by the thereof. On May 3,
Court has advocated workers continued Both the Union officers 1995, PHIMCO filed a
in favor of the working employment; (f) facts and union members petition for preliminary
man, therefore, the that make execution were terminated injunction and TRO
right to reinstatement unjust or inequitable before the NLRC which
is to be considered have supervened; or ISSUE issued an ex-parte TRO
renounced or waived (g) strained relations WON the termination effective for 20 days
only when the between the employer was valid until June 5, 1995.
employee and employee.
unjustifiably or RULING On June 23, 1995,
unreasonably refuses Here, PINA Only the termination of PHIMCO sent a letter to
to return to work upon manifested that the union officers were said 36 union members
being so ordered or reinstatement of the to be valid even though directing them to
after the employer petitioners would not it was conducted by explain within 24-hours
has offered to be feasible because: labor union not why they should not be
reinstate him. (a) it would inflict registered with DOLE dismissed for the illegal
disruption and as the law provides that acts they committed
However, separation oppression upon the union officers are held during the strike. On
pay is made an employer; (b) to be liable in cases of June 26, 1995, they
alternative relief in petitioners [had] illegal strikes and that were informed of their
lieu of reinstatement stayed away for more the union members dismissal. On July 6,
in certain than 15 years; participating in a illegal 1995,
circumstances, like: (c) its machines had strike may only be
(a) when depreciated and had terminated only if they
reinstatement can no been replaced with committed the said
longer be effected in newer, better ones; illegal and/or prohibited
view of the passage and (d) it now sold acts during the strike.
of a long period of goods through
time or because of independent Although there was
the realities of the distributors, thereby picture of violence and
situation; (b) abolishing the other prohibited acts
reinstatement is positions related to committed by the
inimical to the sales and distribution. members, they were
employers interest; not individually
(c) reinstatement is The appropriate identified nor is their
no longer feasible; (d) amount for separation illegal/prohibited acts
reinstatement does pay is one month per identified.
not serve the best year of service.
interests of the PHIMCO INDUSTRIES
parties involved; (e) ABARIA VS. NLRC INC. V. PHIMCO
G.R. No. 154113 armbands and INDUSTRIES LABOR
marching around the ASSOCIATION (PILA),
Due to a violation to hospital with their AND ERLINDA
the constitution and placards, posters and VASQUEZ, ET AL.
by-laws of the streamers), however G.R. No. 170830,
Federation to which for the span of 5 August 11, 2010, Brion
they belong to, the months prohibited acts
officers of the said were committed by the When the last CBA
union are temporarily strikers such as between PHIMCO and
suspended from their blocking the ingress PILA was about to
office and membership and egress of the expire, PHIMCO and
pending investigation. hospital and violence PILA negotiated for its
substantiated with renewal but this
The next day said pictures. resulted in a deadlock
union together with on economic issues,
some of its members Later it was found and mainly due to
launch a series of proven that the said disagreements on
mass action through "union" conducting the salary increases and
"picketing" (wearing strike is not a legitimate benefits. On April 21,
red and black labor organization 1995, PILA staged a
strike after complying
132
PILA filed a complaint movement was in terminated, not only Rodolfo Mojico,
for ULP and illegal circles, very close to when he actually Romeo Caramanza,
dismissal. On July 7, the gates, with the commits an illegal act Reynaldo Ganitano,
1995, Acting Labor strikers in a hand-to- during a strike, but Alberto Basconcillo,
Secretary Brillantes shoulder formation also if he knowingly and Ramon Falcis
assumed jurisdiction without a break in participates in an stand to be dismissed
over the dispute and their ranks, thus illegal strike. Erlinda as participating union
ordered all striking preventing non- Vazquez, Ricardo officers, pursuant to
employees (except striking workers and Sacristan, Leonida Article 264(a),
those terminated) to vehicles from coming Catalan, Maximo paragraph 3, of the
return to work within in and getting out. Pedro, Nathaniela Labor Code.
24 hours. On the Supported by actual Dimaculangan,
same day, PILA blocking benches and (2) Yes. PHIMCO the petitioners and that
ended its strike. obstructions, what the failed to observe there was no dismissal
union demonstrated procedural due process because they would be
On Aug. 28, 1995, was a very persuasive since the employees allowed to use the
PHIMCOM filed a and quietly were not given an vehicles once they pay
petition to declare the intimidating strategy ample opportunity to be their arrears. A
strike illegal claiming whose chief aim was heard and to defend reasonable sanction
that the strikers to paralyze the themselves. The short was deemed to be an
prevented ingress to operations of the interval of time appropriate penalty.
and egress from the company, not solely between the first and
PHIMCO compound, by the work stoppage second notice speaks Petitioners appealed the
thereby paralyzing of the participating for itself. decision to the NLRC,
PHIMCO’s workers, but by which agreed with the
operations. LA found excluding the CAONG V. Labor Arbiter. The CA
the strike illegal. company officials and REGUALOS also affirmed. It ruled
NLRC reversed the non-striking G.R. No. 179428, that the employer-
decision. Meanwhile, employees from January 26, 2011, employee relationship
the LA declared the access to and exit Nachura of the parties was not
dismissal illegal. The from the company severed but merely
NLRC consolidated premises. No doubt, Petitioners Caong, suspended because
the two cases and the strike caused the Tresquio and Daluyon Regualos refused to
ruled totally in the company operations were employed as allow petitioners to drive
union’s favor. CA considerable damage, jeepney drivers by the jeepneys when they
affirmed. MR was as the NLRC itself Respondent Regualos failed to pay their
denied. Hence, this recognized when it under a boundary obligations.
petition. ruled out the agreement. They filed
reinstatement of the separate complaints for ISSUE
ISSUE dismissed strikers. illegal dismissal against Whether the petitioners
1. Was the strike Regualos who barred were illegally dismissed
illegal? The effects of illegal them from driving the
2. Was there strikes, outlined in jeepneys due to HELD
illegal Article 264 of the deficiencies in their It is already settled that
dismissal? Labor Code, make a boundary payments. the relationship
distinction between However, Regualos between jeepney
HELD participating workers told them that they owners/operators and
(1) Yes. Despite the and union officers. could resume their use jeepney drivers under
validity of the purpose The services of an of the vehicles after the boundary system is
of a strike and ordinary striking they pay their arrears. that of employer-
compliance with the worker cannot be employee and not of
procedural terminated for mere Regualos alleged that lessor-lessee. The fact
requirements, a strike participation in an the petitioners were that the drivers do not
may still be held illegal strike; proof lessees of his vehicles receive fixed wages but
illegal where the must be adduced and not his employees. only get the amount in
means employed are showing that he or Thus, the Labor Arbiter excess of the so-called
illegal falling within she committed illegal had no jurisdiction. The "boundary" that they
the prohibitions under acts during the strike. Labor Arbiter ruled that pay to the
Art. 264(e) of the The services of a there was an employer- owner/operator is not
Labor Code. While participating union employee relationship sufficient to negate the
the picket was officer, on the other between Regualos and relationship between
moving, the hand, may be
133
them as employer and relationship between illegally dismissed, Code, provide that an
employee. him and petitioners. In alleging that they were order of reinstatement
fact, it was made clear employed on a month- by the Labor Arbiter is
The Labor Arbiter, the that petitioners could to-month basis and immediately executory
NLRC, and the CA put an end to the that they were even pending appeal.
uniformly declared that suspension if they terminated as a result
petitioners were not only pay their recent of the expiration of In authorizing
dismissed from arrears. As it was, the their contracts of execution pending
employment but suspension dragged employment. appeal of the
merely suspended on for years because reinstatement aspect
pending payment of of petitioners stubborn The Labor Arbiter of a decision of the
their arrears. Findings refusal to pay. It would issued a Writ of Labor Arbiter
of fact of the CA, have been different if Execution directing reinstating a dismissed
particularly where they petitioners complied the Sheriff to effect or separated
are in absolute with the condition and respondent's employee, the law
agreement with those respondent still reinstatement. itself has laid down a
of the NLRC and the refused to readmit Consistent with its compassionate policy
Labor Arbiter, are them to work. Then stand that physical which, once more,
accorded not only there would have reinstatement was no vivifies and enhances
respect but even been a clear act of longer possible, the provisions of the
finality, and are dismissal. But such petitioner reinstated 1987 Constitution on
deemed binding upon was not the case. respondents into its labor and the working
this Court so long as Instead of paying, payroll, conditioned on man.
they are supported by petitioners even filed a the NLRC's ruling on
substantial evidence. complaint for illegal its motion to be Payment of separation
dismissal against allowed to pay pay as a substitute for
We have no reason to respondent. separation pay in lieu reinstatement is
deviate from such of reinstatement. allowed only under
findings. Indeed, COMPOSITE exceptional
petitioners suspension ENTERPRISES, INC. RULING circumstances, viz: (1)
cannot be categorized v. EMILIO M. Article 223 (3rd when reasons exist
as dismissal, CAPAROSO and paragraph) of the which are not
considering that there JOEVE QUINDIPAN Labor Code, as attributable to the fault
was no intent on the G.R. No. 159919, amended by Section or are beyond the
part of respondent to August 8, 2007, Austria 12 of Republic Act control of the
sever the employer- Martinez (R.A.) No. 6715,34 employer, such as
employee and Section 2 of the when the employer --
Petitioner is engaged NLRC Interim Rules who is in severe
in the distribution on Appeals under financial strait, has
and/or supply of R.A. No. 6715, suffered serious
confectioneries to Amending the Labor business
various retail losses, and has ceased In this case, petitioner
establishments within operations -- sought to justify the
the Philippines. Emilio implements payment of separation
Caparoso and Joeve retrenchment, or pay instead of
P. Quindipan abolishes the position reinstatement on the
(respondents) were due to the installation basis of its
employed as its of labor-saving devices; implementation of a
deliverymen until they (2) when the illegally retrenchment program
were terminated on dismissed employee for "serious and
October 8, 1999. has contracted a persistent financial
disease and his difficulties."However,
Respondents filed a reinstatement will petitioner only
complaint for illegal endanger the safety of submitted as evidence
dismissal against his co-employees; or, the notice of its
petitioner with the (3) where a strained intention to implement a
National Labor relationship exists retrenchment program,
Relations Commission between the employer which it sent to the
(NLRC). Petitioner and the dismissed Department of Labor
denied that employee. and Employment on
respondents were July 25, 2000. It did not

134
submit its financial respondents when she The LA ruled that Is the petitioner entitled
statements duly gave an unsolicited petitioner's dismissal to reinstatement?
audited by an advice to the members was illegal. Petitioner
independent external of the EXCOM during a filed a Partial Appeal HELD
auditor. Its failure to do Committee Meeting. with the NLRC for YES. We find for the
so seriously casts The EXCOM had reinstatement and the petitioner on the issue
doubt on its claim of allegedly decided to payment of full of reinstatement.
losses and insistence demote Dela Torre, her backwages. She
on the payment of immediate subordinate, argued that the Article 279 of the
separation pay. from her position as decision of the Labor Labor Code provides
Administrative Arbiter did not show a the law on
SAGUM v. COURT OF Secretary to a Clerk. case of irretrievable reinstatement, viz.:
APPEALS Petitioner commented estrangement Article 279. Security of
G.R. No. 158759, May that it would be illegal between her and Tenure. -- In cases of
26, 2005, Puno to demote an private respondents regular employment,
employee.On August as to preclude her the employer shall not
Petitioner was hired as 31, 1996, after the reinstatement. She terminate the services
a Recording/Filing expiration of her thirty- also questioned the of an employee except
Clerk in June 1980. By day suspension, denial of her claim for for a just cause or
her efficiency, loyalty petitioner called up damages. Private when authorized by
and dedication to the private respondent respondents, on the this Title. An employee
service, she was Mendoza to ask when other hand, moved for who is unjustly
promoted as she could go back to a reversal of the dismissed from work
Membership Secretary work. The latter told her decision and the shall be entitled to
in April 1981, Acting that she could not dismissal of the case. reinstatement without
Executive Secretary in report for work loss of seniority rights
February 1986, and anymore and advised The NLRC reversed and other privileges
Executive Secretary in her to wait for a call. the decision of the and to his full
September 1986. As On the same day, a Labor Arbiter. The backwages, inclusive
Executive Secretary, Memo was issued to Court of Appeals of allowances, and to
she has served eleven petitioner dismissing found the decision of his other benefits or
(11) National her effective the Labor Arbiter to be their monetary
Presidents. After eight September 1, 1996 on more conformable equivalent computed
(8) years, or on the ground of gross with the evidence and from the time his
September 17, 1994, negligence and loss of the law and granted compensation was
petitioner was trust and confidence. the petition and said: withheld from him up
appointed as Office Petitioner filed a case considering that the to the time of his actual
Manager in concurrent for illegal dismissal. dismissal was without reinstatement.
capacity as Executive basis, reinstatement
Secretary. On July 30, with payment of The existence of
1996, petitioner was backwages is in order. strained relations is a
preventively However, due to the factual finding and
suspended for thirty strained relations should be initially
(30) days. She was which would not bring raised, argued and
served two (2) written harmony between the proven before the
notices demanding her parties brought about Labor Arbiter.
explanation for the by the litigation and Petitioner is correct
imputed offenses and private respondents' that the finding of
indiscretions, consistent stand that strained relations does
subjected to an there was a just cause not have any basis on
administrative for petitioner Sagum's the records. Indeed,
investigation, and dismissal for loss of nowhere was the issue
dismissed by private trust and confidence raised in private
respondent institute on and gross negligence, respondents' pleadings
September 1, 1996 for we find that before the Labor
gross negligence and separation pay should Arbiter and the NLRC.
loss of trust and be awarded as an Sieving through the
confidence. alternative to records, private
reinstatement. respondents first
Petitioner states that raised the issue in their
she again earned the ISSUE Comment to
ire of private
135
Petitioner's Motion for the principle of complaint for illegal They already were
Partial strained relations dismissal and was warned of termination
Reconsideration cannot be applied decided in their favor if the same act was
before the Court indiscriminately. by the Labor Arbiter. repeated, still, they
of Appeals. In Otherwise, an illegally Riviera appealed to the disregarded the
Globe-Mackay Cable dismissed employee NLRC contending just warning.
and Radio can never be cause for the dismissal
Corporation v. NLRC, reinstated because because of petitioner’s ISSUE
we emphasized that invariably, abandonment of work. Whether the Agabons
some hostility is terminated by the NLRC ruled there was were illegally dismissed
engendered between employer, as when the just cause and
litigants. As a rule, no latter committed an petitioners were not RULING
strained relations anti-social and entitled to backwages No, there was valid
should arise from a oppressive abuse of its and separation pay. dismissal but there
valid and legal act of right to investigate and The CA in turn ruled was violation of
asserting one's right; dismiss an employee. that the dismissal was statutory due process.
otherwise, an In the case at bar, we not illegal because they
employee who asserts are not convinced that have abandoned their Procedurally, (1) if the
his right could be private respondents work but ordered the dismissal is based on
easily separated from acted in a wanton or payment of money a just cause under
the service by merely oppressive manner. claims. Article 282, the
paying his separation The measures employer must give
pay on the pretext that undertaken were The Agabons claim, the employee two
his relationship with relevant to the among others that written notices and a
his employer had company-wide audit Riviera violated the hearing or opportunity
already become and investigation requirements of notice to be heard if
strained. conducted within the and hearing when the requested by the
institute. The latter did not send employee before
In the case at bar, suspension of written letters of terminating the
there are no hard facts petitioner without prior termination to their employment: a notice
upon which to base investigation is akin to addresses. Riviera specifying the grounds
the application of the preventive suspension claims that the for which dismissal is
doctrine of strained which was necessary Agabons abandoned sought a hearing or an
relationship. Petitioner pending investigation of their work. More than opportunity to be heard
is correct that mere company records which once, they and after hearing or
persistency in she had access to. subcontracted opportunity to be
argument does not installation works for heard, a notice of the
amount to proof,and to JENNY M. AGABON other companies. decision to dismiss;
deny an employee's and VIRGILIO C. and (2) if the dismissal
right to be reinstated AGABON v. is based on authorized
on the basis of the NATIONAL LABOR causes under Articles
mere consistency of RELATIONS 283 and 284, the
the employer's stand COMMISSION employer must give
that the dismissal was (NLRC), RIVIERA the employee and the
for cause is to make a HOME Department of Labor
mockery of the right of IMPROVEMENTS, and Employment
reinstatement under INC. and VICENTE written notices 30 days
Article 279 of the ANGELES prior to the effectivity
Labor Code. G.R. No. 15869, of his separation.
November 17, 2004
Be that as it may, we From the foregoing
reject petitioner's claim Petitioners were rules four possible
for moral and employed by Riviera situations may be
exemplary damages. Home as gypsum derived: (1) the
The award of moral board and cornice dismissal is for a just
and exemplary installers from January cause under Article
damages is proper 1992 to February 23, 282 of the Labor Code,
when an illegally 1999 when they were for an authorized
dismissed employee dismissed for cause under Article
had been harassed abandonment of work. 283, or for health
and arbitrarily Petitioners filed a reasons under Article

136
284, and due process to work for another underpayment of dismissal for an
was observed; (2) the company. Private wages and authorized cause under
dismissal is without respondent, however, nonpayment of service Article 283 does not
just or authorized did not follow the incentive leave and necessarily imply
cause but due notice requirements 13th month pay against delinquency or
process was and instead argued JAKA and its HRD culpability on the part of
observed; (3) the that sending notices to Manager, Rosana the employee. Instead,
dismissal is without the last known Castelo. After due the dismissal process is
just or authorized addresses would have proceedings, the initiated by the
cause and there was been useless because Labor Arbiter employer’s exercise of
no due process; and they did not reside rendered a decision his management
(4) the dismissal is for there anymore. declaring the prerogative, i.e. when
just or authorized Unfortunately for the termination illegal and the employer opts to
cause but due private respondent, ordering JAKA and its install labor saving
process was not this is not a valid HRD Manager to devices, when he
observed. excuse because the reinstate respondents decides to cease
law mandates the twin with full backwages, business operations or
In the fourth situation, notice requirements to and separation pay if when, as in this case,
the dismissal should the employee's last reinstatement is not he undertakes to
be upheld. While the known address. Thus, possible. implement a
procedural infirmity it should be held liable retrenchment program.
cannot be cured, it for non-compliance ISSUE
should not invalidate with the procedural What are the legal The clear-cut distinction
the dismissal. requirements of due implications of a between a dismissal for
However, the process. situation where an just cause under Article
employer should be employee is dismissed 282 and a dismissal for
held liable for non- JAKA FOOD for cause but such authorized cause under
compliance with the PROCESSING dismissal was effected Article 283 is further
procedural CORPORATION v. without the employer’s reinforced by the fact
requirements of due DARWIN PACOT, compliance with the that in the first, payment
process. ROBERT notice requirement of separation pay, as a
PAROHINOG, DAVID under the Labor Code rule, is not required,
he present case BISNAR, MARLON while in the second, the
squarely falls under DOMINGO, RHOEL RULING law requires payment of
the fourth situation. LESCANO and We note that there are separation pay.
The dismissal should JONATHAN divergent implications
be upheld because it CAGABCAB of a dismissal for just
was established that G.R. No. 151378, cause under Article
the petitioners March 28, 2005 282, on one hand, and
abandoned their jobs a dismissal for
Respondents Darwin complying with the authorized cause under
Pacot, Robert requirement under Article 283, on the
Parohinog, David Article 283 of the Labor other.
Bisnar, Marlon Code regarding the A dismissal for just
Domingo, Rhoel service of a written cause under Article 282
Lescano and Jonathan notice upon the implies that the
Cagabcab were earlier employees and the employee concerned
hired by petitioner Department of Labor has committed, or is
JAKA Foods and Employment at guilty of, some violation
Processing least one (1) month against the employer,
Corporation (JAKA, for before the intended i.e. the employee has
short) until the latter date of termination. committed some
terminated their serious misconduct, is
employment on August In time, respondents guilty of some fraud
29, 1997 because the separately filed with the against the employer,
corporation was "in regional Arbitration or he has neglected his
dire financial straits". It Branch of the National duties. Thus, it can be
is not disputed, Labor Relations said that the employee
however, that the Commission (NLRC) himself initiated the
termination was complaints for illegal dismissal process.
effected without JAKA dismissal,
On another breath, a
137
For these reasons, Likewise, it is INDUSTRIAL TIMBER Relations
there ought to be a established that JAKA V. ABABON Commission2 that the
difference in failed to comply with G.R. No. 164518, closure of ITC’s
treatment when the the notice requirement January 25, 2006, Butuan Plant was valid
ground for dismissal under the same Ynares Santiago should not have been
is one of the just Article. Considering applied in the instant
causes under Article the factual They insist that the cases which pertain to
282, and when based circumstances in the holding in ITC’s Stanply Plant.
on one of the instant case and the International Timber They further claim that
authorized causes above ratiocination, Corporation v. the findings by the
under Article 283. we, therefore, deem it National Labor Labor Arbiter that
proper to fix the there was a shortage of 1990. Several months
Accordingly, it is wise indemnity at raw materials; that the prior to the closure, ITC
to hold that: (1) if the P50,000.00. wood processing plaint experienced diminished
dismissal is based on permit has expired; that income due to high
a just cause under NOTE: Not related to the lease contract with production costs, erratic
Article 282 but the the topic concerned, IPGC was terminated; supply of raw materials,
employer failed to but still is a helpful and that ITC and IPGC depressed prices, and
comply with the piece of knowledge: were not business poor market conditions
notice requirement, We likewise find the conduits, were all for its wood products. It
the sanction to be Court of Appeals to debunked by the appears that ITC had
imposed upon him have been in error NLRC. given its employees all
should be tempered when it ordered JAKA benefits in accord with
because the to pay respondents While we ruled in this the CBA upon their
dismissal process separation pay case that the sanction termination.
was, in effect, equivalent to one (1) should be stiffer in a
initiated by an act month salary for every dismissal based on SANGWOO
imputable to the year of service. This is authorized cause PHILIPPINES, INC.
employee; and (2) if because in Reahs where the employer AND/OR SANG IK
the dismissal is based Corporation vs. failed to comply with JANG, JISSO JANG,
on an authorized NLRC, we made the the notice requirement WISSO JANG AND
cause under Article following declaration: than a dismissal based NORBERTO TADEO V.
283 but the employer on just cause with the SANGWOO
failed to comply with "The rule, therefore, is same procedural PHILIPPINES, INC.
the notice that in all cases of infirmity, however, in EMPLOYEE UNION –
requirement, the business closure or instances where the OLALIA
sanction should be cessation of operation execution of a decision G.R. No. 173154, G.R.
stiffer because the or undertaking of the becomes impossible, No. 173229, December
dismissal process employer, the affected unjust, or too 9, 2013, Perlas
was initiated by the employee is entitled to burdensome, Bernabe
employer’s exercise separation pay. This is modification of the
of his management consistent with the decision becomes On July 25, 2003,
prerogative. state policy of treating necessary in order to during the collective
labor as a primary harmonize the bargaining agreement
The records before us social economic force, disposition with the (CBA) negotiations
reveal that, indeed, affording full prevailing between Sangwoo
JAKA was suffering protection to its rights circumstances. Philippines, Inc.
from serious business as well as its welfare. Employees Union –
losses at the time it The exception is when In the case at bar, Olalia (SPEU) and
terminated the closure of there was valid Sangwoo Philippines,
respondents’ business or cessation authorized cause Inc.(SPI), the latter filed
employment. It is, of operations is due to considering the closure with the Department of
therefore, established serious business or cessation of ITC’s Labor and Employment
that there was ground losses or financial business which was (DOLE) a letter-notice
for respondents’ reverses; duly proved, done in good faith and of temporary
dismissal, i.e., in which case, the due to circumstances suspension of
retrenchment, which right of affected beyond ITC’s control. operations for one (1)
is one of the employees to Moreover, ITC had month, beginning
authorized causes separation pay is lost ceased to generate any September 15, 2003,
enumerated under for obvious reasons. income since its due to lack of orders
Article 283 of the xxx". closure on August 17, from its buyers. SPEU
Labor Code.
138
was furnished a copy posted, in financial assistance to employer. Ours is a
of the said letter. conspicuous places each of the minority system of laws, and
Negotiations on the within the company employees. The CA the law in protecting
CBA, however, premises, notices of held that the minority the rights of the
continued and on its permanent closure employees were not working man,
September 10, 2003, and cessation of entitled to separation authorizes neither the
the parties signed a business operations, pay considering that oppression nor the
handwritten effective March 16, the company’s closure self-destruction of the
Memorandum of 2004, due to serious was due to serious employer.
Agreement, which, economic losses and business losses but
among others, financial reverses. still ordered SPI to (b) NO. Article 297 of
specified the The DOLE was pay the minority the Labor Code
employees’ wages and furnished a copy of employees P15, provides that before
benefits for the next said notice together 000.00 each. any employee is
two (2) years, and that with a separate letter terminated due to
in the event of a notifying it of the ISSUE closure of business, it
temporary shutdown, company’s permanent (a) Whether or not the must give a one (1)
all machineries and closure. SPEU was minority employees month prior written
raw materials would also furnished with a are entitled to notice to the employee
not be taken out of the copy of the notice of separation pay; and and to the DOLE. In
SPI premises. permanent closure. (b) Whether or not SPI this relation, case law
Forthwith, SPI offered complied with the instructs that it is the
On September 15, separation benefits of notice requirement of personal right of the
2003, SPI temporarily one-half (½) month Article 297 (formerly employee to be
ceased operations. pay for every year of Article 283) of the personally informed of
Thereafter, it service to each of its Labor Code. his proposed dismissal
successively filed two employees. 234 as well as the reasons
(2) letters with the employees of SPI HELD therefor; and such
DOLE, copy furnished accepted the offer, (a) NO. Article [297] requirement of notice
SPEU, for the received the said of the Labor Code is not a mere
extension of the sums and executed does not obligate an technicality or formality
temporary shutdown quitclaims. Those who employer to pay which the employer
until March 15, 2004. refused the offer, i.e., separation benefits may dispense with. To
Meanwhile, SPEU filed the minority when the closure is this end, jurisprudence
a complaint for unfair employees, were due to serious losses. states that an
labor practice, illegal nevertheless given To require an employer’s act of
closure, illegal until March 25, 2004 employer to be posting notices to this
dismissal, damages to accept their checks generous when it is no effect in conspicuous
and attorney’s fees and correspondingly, longer in a position to areas in the workplace
before the Regional execute quitclaims. do so, in our view, is not enough. Verily,
Arbitration Branch IV However, the minority would be unduly for something as
of the NLRC. employees did not oppressive, unjust, significant as the
Subsequently, SPI claim the said checks. and unfair to the involuntary
loss of one’s premises. As earlier
The Labor Arbiter employment, nothing explained, SPI was
ruled in favor of SPI less than an required to serve written
and the NLRC individually-addressed notices of termination to
sustained the ruling. notice of dismissal its employees, which it,
But the NLRC opined supplied to each however, failed to do.It
that since SPI already worker is proper. is well to stress that
gave separation while SPI had a valid
benefits to 234 of its The Court finds that the ground to terminate its
employees, the LA, NLRC, and CA employees, i.e., closure
minority employees erred in ruling that SPI of business, its failure to
should not be denied complied with the comply with the proper
of the same. On notice requirement procedure for
appeal to the CA, SPI when it merely posted terminationrenders
sent a Formal Offer of various copies of its itliable to pay the
Settlement to SPEU, notice of closure in employee nominal
offering the amount of conspicuous places damages for such
P15, 000.00 as within the business omission. Based on

139
existing jurisprudence, with damages against Bank be ordered The applicable modern
an employer which has petitioner bank. Upon forever released from definition of full
a valid cause for learning of the filing of liability under said backwages is now
dismissing its the complaint, the bank judgment. found in Millares v.
employee but conducts terminated the services National Labor
the dismissal with of Sadac. He was ISSUE Relations Commission
procedural infirmity is removed form his office How do you compute 305 SCRA 500 (1999),
liable to pay the and was disentitled to for the full backwages where although the
employee nominal any compensation and of an illegally issue in Millares
damages in the other benefits. dismissed employee? concerned separation
amount of P30,000.00 pay – separation pay
if the ground for The Labor Arbiter HELD and backwages both
dismissal is a just dismissed the The Labor Code have employee’s wage
cause, or the amount complaint for lack of under Article 279 rate at their foundation.
of P50,000.00 if the merit. On appeal, the mandates that an
ground for dismissal is NLRC reversed the employee’s full The base figure to be
an authorized Labor Arbiter and backwages shall be used in the
cause.35 However, declared respondent inclusive of computation of
case law exhorts that Sadac’s dismissal as allowances and other backwages is pegged
in instances where the illegal. Petitioner Bank benefits or their at the wage rate at the
payment of such filed Special Civil monetary equivalent. time of the employee’s
damages becomes Action for Certiorari dismissal, inclusive of
impossible, unjust, or before the SC assailing For backwages to be regular allowances
too burdensome, the NLRC Resolution In awarded to an illegally that the employee had
modification becomes the SC’s Decision9 of dismissed employee, been receiving such as
necessary in order to 13 June 1997, it held should not, as a the emergency living
harmonize the respondent Sadac’s general rule, be allowances and the
disposition with the dismissal illegal. diminished or reduced 13th month pay
prevailing by the earnings mandated under the
circumstances. Pursuant thereto, derived by him law. Also, the
respondent Sadac filed elsewhere during the “backwages” actually
EQUITABLE with the Labor Arbiter a period of his illegal refers to backwages
BANKING Motion for Execution dismissal. without qualifications
CORPORATION vs. thereof. Likewise, and deductions.
RICARDO SADAC petitioner Bank filed a Backwages in general
G.R. No. 164772, June Manifestation and are granted on CARLOS v. COURT OF
8, 2006, Chico Nazario Motion praying that the grounds of equity for APPEALS
award in favor of earnings which a G.R. No. 168096,
Respondent Sadac respondent Sadac be worker or employee August 28, 2007, Chico-
was appointed Vice computed and that has lost due to his Nazario, J:
President of the Legal after payment is made, illegal dismissal. It is
Department of petitioner not private Petitioner ABC
petitioner Bank and compensation or Security is a domestic
subsequently General damages but is corporation engaged in
Counsel thereof. A awarded in the business of job
letter was sent to the furtherance and contracting by
chairman of the board effectuation of the providing security
of directors of public objective of the services to its clientele.
petitioner company Labor Code. Nor is it a Petitioner Honest Care
accusing respondent redress of a private Janitorial is a domestic
of abusive conduct. On right but rather in the corporation likewise
that basis, the bank nature of a command engaged in job
instructed the delivery to the employer to contracting janitorial
of all materials under make public services. Private
his custody. Sadac reparation for respondents were
requested for a dismissing an employed by petitioner
hearing and employee either due ABC Security as
investigation but the to the former’s security guards and
same remained unlawful act or bad were assigned to
unheeded, prompting faith. Greenvalley Country
him to file a complaint Club at the time they
for illegal dismissal
140
were allegedly dismissed but challenged the legality Is Natividad entitled to
separated from voluntarily resigned of his dismissal before payment of backwages
employment. from their respective the Labor Arbiter. The during the period of his
petitioners averred employments. Labor Arbiter dismissed detention?
that private the complaint. NLRC
respondents were not ISSUE affirmed the decision HELD
Whether or not private between the parties, on appeal. However, Yes. The payment of
respondents were separation pay upon appeal to the CA, backwages is
illegally dismissed by equivalent to one the dismissal was generally granted on
petitioners. month's salary for upheld but awarded the ground of equity. It
every year of service backwages because of is a form of relief that
RULING shall be granted. the TCMC’s failure to restores the income
Yes. Resignation is the award for separation observe the proper that was lost by reason
voluntary act of pay equivalent to one- procedure for of the unlawful
employees who are month pay for every dismissal. dismissal; the grant
compelled by personal year of service shall be thereof is intended to
reasons to dissociate computed from the time ISSUE restore the earnings
themselves from their the private respondents that would have
employment. It must were illegally separated accrued to the
be done with the from their employment dismissed employee
intention of up to the finality of this during the period of
relinquishing an office, Court's Decision in the dismissal until it is
accompanied by the instant petition. determined that the
act of abandonment. termination of
17 It is illogical for TOMAS CLAUDIO employment is for a
private respondents to MEMORIAL COLLEGE just cause. It is not
resign and then file a (TCMC) V COURT OF private compensation
complaint for illegal APPEALS (CA) or damages but is
dismissal. G.R. No. 152568, awarded in furtherance
February 16, 2004, and effectuation of the
An employee who is Callejo public objective of the
unjustly dismissed Labor Code. Nor is it a
from work shall be Natividad, a regular redress of a private
entitled to employee of TCMC, right but rather in the
reinstatement without was arrested without nature of a command
loss of seniority rights warrant for an alleged to the employer to
and other privileges violation of the make public reparation
and to full back wages, Dangerous Drugs Act. for dismissing an
inclusive of Pending preliminary employee either due to
allowances, and to investigation, TCMC the formers unlawful
other benefits or their dismissed Natividad. act or bad faith.
monetary equivalents The prosecutor
computed from the dismissed the The award of
time compensation complaint against backwages is not
was withheld up to the Natividad for lack of conditioned on the
time of actual probable cause. employee’s ability or
reinstatement. inability to, in the
Natividad was again interim, earn any
Undoubtedly, private arrested for the second income. Although
respondents are and third time. The Natividad was charged
entitled to the payment prosecutor dismissed for an offense three
of full backwages, that the second complaint times; the prosecutor
is, without deducting for lack of probable found no probable
their earnings cause, while the third cause on the first two
elsewhere during the complaint is still charges. He is not yet
periods of their illegal undergoing preliminary been convicted by final
dismissal. However, investigation. Natividad judgment under the
where, as in this case, posted a bail bond for third charge, thus, he
reinstatement is no his release. is presumed innocent
longer feasible due to until his guilt is proved
strained relations Subsequently, he beyond reasonable

141
doubt. Petitioners appealed
the decision with the
CHRONICLE National Labor
SECURITIES V. NLRC Relations Commission
November 25, 2004, (NLRC), which
Ynares Santiago affirmed the labor
arbiter's decision.
Sometime in Petitioners contend
September 1993, that contrary to
petitioners hired established
private respondent jurisprudence, the
Neal H. Cruz, who Labor Arbiter's
was then the computation of the
executive editor of amount due to the
the Today newpaper, private respondent
as the publicist and was principally based
the editor in chief of on the mistaken
its national daily premise that
broadsheet, the complainant was
Manila Chronicle. As entitled to backwages
compensation for his even beyond the
services, private closure and cessation
respondent received of petitioners'
a monthly newspaper business
compensation of on January 19, 1998.
P60,000.00 plus a Petitioners argue that
brand new car. this should not be the
case
Thereafter, private
respondent quit his
job with Today to
assume the duties
and responsibilities
as the editor in chief
of the Manila
Chronicle. Private
respondent went
about the task of
improving the over-all
image of the Manila
Chronicle. However,
due to private
respondent's role in
the publication of a
controversial article
that was carried by
the newspaper
sometime in July
1994, petitioners
terminated his
services.
Consequently, private
respondent filed a
complaint for illegal
dismissal against
herein petitioners.
Labor Arbiter Ariel C.
Santos rendered a
decision7 holding that
private respondent
Neal Cruz was
illegally dismissed.
142
because the amount of backwages should only be
computed from the date of illegal dismissal up to the
time when reinstatement was still possible.
Reinstatement could not have been possible beyond
the date of the closure of the Manila Chronicle on
January 19, 1998. Therefore, backwages should only
be computed from September 15, 1994, the effectivity
of private respondents termination by the petitioners
until the date when the Manila Chronicle ceased
publication. Petitioners further contend that they only
had one newspaper business and, with the closure of
the same, the reinstatement of private respondent
Neal Cruz to his former position as Editor-In-Chief
became a physical and legal impossibility. Private
respondent could not claim that he should have been
appointed to another position with the petitioners
because he was hired solely for his editorial skills.
There is simply no equivalent or substantially
equivalent position to which private respondent could
be assigned in petitioners' organization.
ISSUE
Whether or not the basis of computation of backwages
by the NLRC is correct.
RULING
There is no question that petitioners illegally dismissed
private respondent Neal Cruz. Even petitioners
themselves are no longer questioning the findings of
the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC on this aspect.
Petitioners main concern in this petition is the proper
computation of backwages to be awarded to the
private respondent who is rightfully entitled to the
payment of backwages, the only question that remains
is how much? Backwages, in general, are granted on
grounds of equity for earnings which a worker or
employee has lost due to his illegal dismissal. It
represents compensation that should be earned but
was not collected because an employer has unjustly
dismissed an employee.33 Thus, the payment of
backwages is a form of relief that restores the income
that was lost by reason of unlawful dismissal.
Article 279 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as
amended, provides that:
An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work
shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his
other benefits or their monetary equivalent
computed from the time his compensation was
withheld from him up to the time of his actual
reinstatement. (Underscoring supplied)
Under Republic Act No. 6715, employees who are
illegally dismissed are entitled to full backwages,
among others, computed from the time their actual
compensation was withheld from them up to the time
of their actual reinstatement. If reinstatement is no
longer possible, the backwages shall be computed
140
from the time of their illegal termination up to the
finality of the decision.
In the case at bar, the Manila Chronicle ceased
publication on January 19, 1998. The cessation of
publication was a permanent one and it was
precipitated by the paper's dire financial condition
which was aggravated by a crippling strike causing it to
finally shut down. Petitioners' closure of their
newspaper business was made on legal and valid
grounds. It was never resorted to as a means to
deprive the private respondent of the opportunity to be
reinstated to his former position. To allow the
computation of the backwages due the private
respondent to be based on a period beyond January
19, 1998 would be an injustice to the petitioners.
Our power to exact retribution from erring employers
for cases of illegal dismissal should not go beyond
what is recognized as just and fair under the
circumstances. While we are inclined more often than
not toward the worker and uphold his cause in his
conflicts with his employer, such favoritism has not
blinded us to the rule that justice is in every case for
the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the
established facts and the applicable law and doctrine.
INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING
CORPORATION v. REYNALDO BENEDICTO
G.R. NO. 152843, July 20, 2006, Corona
Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation is a
government-owned and controlled corporation. It is
engaged in the business of mass media
communications. Reynaldo Benedicto was appointed
by Ceferino Basilio, the general manager then of
petitioner, as marketing manager. In a letter dated
October 11, 1994 signed by Tomas Gomez III, at that
time the president of petitioner, Benedicto was
terminated from his position. Benedicto filed a
complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal and
damages. He alleged that after his appointment, he
was able to increase the televiewing, listening and
audience ratings of petitioner which resulted in its
improved competitive financial strength. 11 He claimed
that he successfully initiated, pursued and
consummated an advertising contract with VTV
Corporation for a period of five years involving the
amount of P600 million.12 However, on October 11,
1994, he was terminated from his position without just
or authorized cause. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
Benedicto finding that he was indeed illegally
dismissed. Finding the award excessive, petitioner, on
October 15, 1998, filed with the NLRC its
memorandum on appeal with motion to re-compute the
award on which the appeal bond was to be based. The
NLRC dismissed the appeal and ruled that petitioner
failed to perfect its appeal since it did not file the
appeal bond within the reglementary period. The CA
affirmed the NLRC's decision.
ISSUE Whether or not
Benedicto was illegally Assistant Manager for every year of HELD
dismissed. (Sales Head) of service to respondent, An employee
[petitioner Philippine the same being dismissed for any of
RULING Commercial contrary to law and the just causes
Yes. The labor arbiter International Bank (PCI jurisprudence. (The enumerated under
found that Benedicto Bank now Equitable Court is tasked to Article 282 of the
was an employee (the PCI Bank)], Tacloban determine the propriety Labor Code is not, as
marketing manager) of City Branch when he of awarding separation a rule, entitled to
petitioner. He also was dismissed from his pay to an employee separation pay. As an
determined that there work. Before he was despite the finding of exception, allowing the
was no just or terminated, he received lawful dismissal.) grant of separation pay
authorized cause for a Memorandum or some other financial
Benedicto's concerning the irregular assistance to an
termination. Neither clearing of PNB-Naval employee dismissed
did petitioner comply Check of Sixtu Chu, the for just causes is
with the two-notice Bank’s valued client. based on equity. The
requirement for valid He denied the Court has granted
termination under the allegations. During the separation pay as a
law. He therefore actual investigation measure of social
concluded that conducted by justice even when an
Benedicto was illegally [petitioner] Bank, employee has been
dismissed. several transactions validly dismissed, as
violative of the Bank’s long as the dismissal
These factual findings Policies and Rules and was not due to serious
of the NLRC, Regulations were misconduct or
confirmed by the CA, [uncovered] by the reflective of personal
are binding on us Fact-Finding integrity or morality.
since they are Committee. Said
supported by transactions placed the We hold that
substantial evidence. Bank at risk in the henceforth separation
Petitioner, aside from amount of pay shall be allowed
merely stating that P23,044,527.88 and as a measure of social
Benedicto's were consummated in justice only in those
appointment was the span of only one (1) instances where the
unauthorized, did not month. He was asked employee is validly
extensively deal with to explain the dismissed for causes
the issue of whether irregularities. other than serious
Benedicto was in fact Subsequently, he was misconduct or those
its employee. Besides, terminated. Abad reflecting on his moral
it is estopped from instituted a Complaint character. Where the
denying such fact for Illegal Dismissal. reason for the valid
considering its Labor Arbiter ruled in dismissal is, for
admission that its favor of the bank. example, habitual
former President, NLRC and CA affirmed intoxication or an
Tomas Gomez III, and held that the offense involving moral
wrote him a letter of dismissal of Abad was turpitude, like theft or
termination on October valid. However, the CA illicit sexual relations
11, 1994.37 Petitioner, awarded separation with a fellow worker,
furthermore, never pay equivalent to one the employer may not
contested the finding half (1/2) month pay for be required to give the
of illegal dismissal. every year of service, dismissed employee
Accordingly, there are in accordance with the separation pay, or
no strong reasons for social justice policy in financial assistance, or
us to again delve into favor of the working whatever other name it
the facts. class. is called, on the
ground of social
PCIB vs. ABAD ISSUE justice.
G.R. No. 158045, WON the Court of
February 28, 2005 Appeals grossly erred Under the San Miguel
in awarding separation test, separation pay
Anastacio D. Abad pay equivalent to one- may be awarded,
was the senior half (1/2) month’s pay
141
provided that the committed by the "required the use of resulted in respondent’s
dismissal does not fall underprivileged. At judgment and loss of confidence in
under either of two best it may mitigate discretion." him. Unlike other just
circumstances: (1) the penalty but it causes for dismissal,
there was serious certainly will not Arlyn of course trust in an employee,
misconduct, or (2) the condone the offense. incorrectly assumes once lost is difficult, if
dismissal reflected on that mere rank- and-file not impossible, to
the employee’s moral BAGO V. NLRC employees cannot be regain.
character. The G.R. No. 170001, April dismissed on the
dismissal in the 4, 2007, Carpio Morales ground of loss of MILAGROS
present case was due confidence. PANUNCILLO v. CAP
to loss of trust and Petitioner is an Jurisprudence holds PHILIPPINES, INC.
confidence, not employee of the otherwise albeit it 515 SCRA 323 (2007)
serious misconduct. private respondents. requires "a higher proof
The branch manager of involvement" in the
While he violated the of the latter dismissed questioned acts.
bank’s policy, rules the petitioner on
and regulations, there account of her act of But even assuming
was no indication that falsely accusing her of further that Arlyn may
his actions were having an affair with not be dismissed for
perpetrated for his the asst. branch loss of confidence, she
self-interest or for an manager. Petitioner can, on the ground of
unlawful purpose. On wrote a sorry letter, fraud or betrayal of
the contrary, and as admitting her faults trust, following Article
the facts indicate,his and asking for 282 of the Labor Code
actions were reconsideration but to which provides that:
motivated by a desire no avail. She then An employer may
to accommodate a filed a case for illegal terminate an employee
valued client of the dismissal. She for any of the following
bank. contends, inter alia, causes:
that she is a rank and xxxx
The policy of social file employee who (c) Fraud or willful
justice is not intended cannot simply be breach by the
to countenance dismissed without just employee of the trust
wrongdoing simply or authorized cause. reposed in him by his
because it is employer or duly
ISSUE authorized
Whether or not the collates and representative;
dismissal is valid. encode[s] policies, xxxx
endorsements and (e) Other causes
RULING official receipts; analogous to the
Yes. Arlyn’s claim that 2. Generates printed foregoing.39
she is an ordinary production, As for the propriety of
rank-and-file collection, statistical dismissal as a penalty
employee, hence, she and receivable in light of Arlyn’s eight
cannot be dismissed reports for years of service during
for loss of trust and submission to the which, so she claims,
confidence does not Head Office; she committed no
lie. The observation of 3. Reconciles and infraction, the doctrines
the Court of Appeals finalizes production established in Salvador
that "[h]er work is of and collection v. Philippine Mining
such nature as to reports; Service Corp.,45 to wit:
require a substantial 4. Maintains the To be sure, length of
amount of trust and computer hardware service is taken into
confidence on the part and software; and consideration in
of x x x her employer" 5. Performs other imposing the penalty to
is well- taken in light of related functions as be meted an erring
her following functions, may be assigned to employee. However,
as enumerated by the her by her superior the case at bar
NLRC: from time to time involves dishonesty
1. Batches, which functions and pilferage by
petitioner which
142
Milagros Panuncillo
was hired as Office HELD
Senior Clerk by CAP Panuncillo’s repeated
Philippines Inc. In violation of Section
order to secure the 8.4 of CAP Philippines
education of her son, Inc’s Code of
Panuncillo procured Discipline, she
an educational plan violated the trust and
which she had fully confidence of CAP
paid but which she Philippines Inc. and its
later sold to Josefina customers. To allow
Pernes for P37,000. her to continue with
Before the actual her employment puts
transfer of the plan CAP Philippines Inc.
could be effected, under the risk of
however, Panuncillo being embroiled in
pledged it for P50,000 unnecessary lawsuits
to John Chua who, from customers
however, sold it to similarly situated as
Benito Bonghanoy. Josefina, et al.
Bonghanoy in turn Clearly, CAP
sold the plan to Philippines Inc.
Gaudioso R. Uy for exercised its
P60,000. Having management
gotten wind of the prerogative when it
transactions dismissed Panuncillo.
subsequent to her Under the Labor
purchase of the plan, Code, the employer
Josefina informed may terminate an
CAP Philippines Inc. employment on the
that Panuncillo had ground of serious
"swindled" her but misconduct or willful
that she was willing to disobedience by the
settle the case employee of the lawful
amicably as long as orders of his employer
Panuncillo will pay or representative in
the amount involved connection with his
and the interest. CAP work. Infractions of
Philippines Inc. company rules and
terminated the regulations have been
services of declared to belong to
Panuncillo. this category and thus
Panuncillo sought are valid causes for
reconsideration of her termination of
dismissal. Acting on employment by the
Panuncillo’s motion employer. The
for reconsideration, employer cannot be
CAP Philippines Inc. compelled to continue
denied the same. the employment of a
Panuncillo thus filed a person who was found
complaint for illegal guilty of maliciously
dismissal, 13th month committing acts which
pay, service incentive are detrimental to his
leave pay, damages interests. It will be
and attorney’s fees highly prejudicial to
against CAP the interests of the
Philippines Inc. employer to impose
on him the charges
ISSUE that warranted his
Whether or not dismissal from
Milagros has been employment. Indeed,
illegally dismissed it will demoralize the
143
rank and file if the
undeserving, if not
undesirable, remain in
the service. It may
encourage him to do
even worse and will
render a mockery of
the rules of discipline
that employees are
required to observe.
This Court was more
emphatic in holding
Employees-herein
petitioners were
allegedly caught in the
act of sniffing shabu.
After due notice, PAL
dismissed petitioners.
The Labor Arbiter ruled
in favor of employees.
NLRC reversed the
said LA’s decision.
Prior to the
promulgation of the
Labor Arbiters decision,
the Securities and
Exchange Commission
(SEC) placed PAL,
which was suffering
from severe financial
losses, under an
Interim Rehabilitation
Receiver, who was
subsequently replaced
by a Permanent
Rehabilitation
Receiver.
ISSUES
(1) Can petitioners
collect their wages
during the period
between the LA’s order
of reinstatement
pending appeal and the
NLRC decision
overturning that of the
LA?
(2) Is the impossibility
to comply with the
reinstatement order
due to corporate
rehabilitation provides
a reasonable
justification for the
failure to exercise the
options under Article
223 of the Labor Code?
HELD
that in protecting the
rights of the laborer, it
cannot authorize the
oppression or self-
destruction of the
employer.
GARCIA V.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES
G.R. No. 164856,
January 20, 2009,
Carpio Morales
(1) Yes. The Court
reaffirms the prevailing
principle that even if the
order of reinstatement
of the Labor Arbiter is
reversed on appeal, it is
obligatory on the part of
the employer to
reinstate and pay the
wages of the dismissed
employee during the
period of appeal until
reversal by the higher
court. It settles the view
that the Labor Arbiter's
order of reinstatement is
immediately executory
and the employer has to
either re-admit them to
work under the same
terms and conditions
prevailing prior to their
dismissal, or to reinstate
them in the payroll, and
that failing to exercise
the options in the
alternative, employer
must pay the
employees salaries.
(2) Yes. After the labor
arbiters decision is
reversed by a higher
tribunal, the employee
may be barred from
collecting the accrued
wages xxx The test is
two-fold:
(1) there must be actual
delay or the fact that the
order of reinstatement
pending appeal was not
executed prior to its
reversal; and (2) the
delay must not be due
to the employers
unjustified act or
omission.
It is settled that upon entitled to their LANSANGAN v.
appointment by the ISLRIZ accrued salaries
SEC of a rehabilitation TRADING/VICTOR during the period AMKOR
receiver, all actions for HUGO LU vs. between the Labor
claims before any CAPADA Arbiter’s order of TECHNOLOGY
court, tribunal or board G.R. No. 168501, reinstatement pending PHILIPPINES, INC.
against the corporation January 31, 2011 appeal and the G.R. No. 177026,
shall ipso jure be resolution of the January 30, 2009,
suspended. XXX Four of the National Labor Carpio Morales
Respondent was, respondents were Relations Commission
during the period drivers while the other (NLRC) overturning An anonymous e-mail
material to the case, 5 are helpers of Islriz that of the Labor was sent to the
effectively deprived of Trading, a gravel and Arbiter. Otherwise General Manager of
the alternative choices sand business owned stated, even if the Amkor Technology
under Article 223 of and operated by order of reinstatement Philippines
the Labor Code, not petitioner Victor Hugo of the Labor Arbiter is (respondent) detailing
only by virtue of the Lu. Claiming that they reversed on appeal, allegations of
statutory injunction but were illegally the employer is still malfeasance on the
also in view of the dismissed, obliged to reinstate part of its supervisory
interim relinquishment respondents filed a and pay the wages of employees Lunesa
of management control Complaint for illegal the employee during Lansangan and Rosita
to give way to the full dismissal and non- the period of appeal Cendaña (petitioners)
exercise of the powers payment of overtime until reversal by a for "stealing company
of the rehabilitation pay, holiday pay, rest higher court or time." Respondent
receiver. Had there day pay, allowances tribunal. In this case, thus investigated the
been no need to and separation pay respondents are matter, requiring
rehabilitate, against petitioner. On entitled to their petitioners to submit
respondent may have his part, petitioner accrued salaries from their written
opted for actual imputed abandonment the time petitioner explanation. In
physical reinstatement of work against received a copy of the handwritten letters,
pending appeal to respondents. LA ruled Decision of the Labor petitioners admitted
optimize the utilization that Petitioner is guilty Arbiter declaring their wrongdoing.
of resources. Then of illegal dismissal. respondents’ Respondent thereupon
again, though the termination illegal and terminated petitioners
management may On appeal the NLRC ordering their for "extremely serious
think this wise, the reversed the decision reinstatement up to offenses" as defined in
rehabilitation receiver of the LA. Undeterred, the date of the NLRC its Code of Discipline,
may decide otherwise, petitioner brought the resolution overturning prompting petitioners
not to mention the matter to the CA that of the Labor to file a complaint for
subsistence of the through Petition for Arbiter. illegal dismissal
injunction on claims. Certiorari the CA against it.
quoted the Order of a measure of equitable
Labor Arbiter Castillon Labor Arbiter Arthur L. and compassionate
and agreed with her Amansec, by Decision relief" owing mainly to
ratiocination. Hence of October 20, 2004,5 petitioners’ prior
this Petition. dismissed petitioners’ unblemished
complaint, he having employment records,
ISSUE found them guilty of show of remorse,
Whether or not the dishonesty punishable harshness of the
respondents may as a serious form of penalty and defective
collect their wages misconduct and fraud attendance monitoring
during the period or breach of trust under system of respondent.
between the LA’s Article 282 of the Labor
order of reinstatement Code. Respondent assailed
pending appeal and the reinstatement
the NLRC Resolution The Arbiter, however, aspect of the Arbiter’s
overturning that of the ordered the order before the
LA. reinstatement of National Labor
petitioners to their Relations Commission
HELD former positions (NLRC). In the
Employees are without backwages "as meantime, petitioners,
without appealing the
144
Arbiter’s finding them 2006, while affirming recalling that it was Bank in its Banaue
guilty of "dishonesty as the finding that only respondent which Branch in Quezon City.
a form of serious petitioners were guilty assailed the Arbiter’s
misconduct and fraud of misconduct and the decision to the NLRC On April 15, 1996,
or breach of trust," like, ordered – to solely question Area Head and Vice-
moved for the respondent to "pay the propriety of the President Eulallo S.
issuance of a "writ of petitioners their order for Rodriguez reported to
reinstatement." corresponding reinstatement, and it the bank’s Internal
backwages. succeeded. Audit and Credit
After a series of Review Division that
oppositions, motions ISSUE The Arbiter found bank client Clariza L.
and orders, the Arbiter WON petitioners petitioners’ dismissal Mercado -The Red
issued an alias writ of committed serious to be valid. Such Shop has incurred
execution following misconduct, fraud, finding had, as stated Past Due Domestic
which respondent’s dishonest and breach earlier, become final, Bills Purchased (BP) of
bank account at of trust petitioners not having P34,260,000. After
Equitable-PCI Bank appealed it. conducting a diligence
was garnished. RULING WHEREFORE, the audit, the division
Respondent thereupon The decision of the petition is DENIED. reported to the Audit
moved for the quashal Arbiter finding that and Examination
of the alias writ of petitioners committed ELIZABETH D. Committee that
execution and lifting of "dishonesty as a form PALTENG V. UNITED Palteng committed
the notice of of serious misconduct COCONUT several offenses under
garnishment, which and fraud, or breach of PLANTERS BANK the Employee
the Arbiter denied by trust" had become final, G.R. No. 172199, Discipline Code in
Order of January 26, petitioners not having February 27, 2009 connection with
2005, drawing appealed the same Mercado’s Past Due
respondent to appeal before the NLRC as in DOCTRINE: Domestic BP. It also
to the NLRC. fact they even moved Reinstatement and recommended that the
for the execution of the payment of matter be referred to
After consolidating reinstatement aspect backwages are the Committee on
respondent’s appeal of the decision. It distinct and separate Employee Discipline
from the Labor bears reliefs. The award of for proper disposition.
Arbiter’s order of one does not bar the
reinstatement and other. Backwages On August 14, 1996,
subsequent may be awarded Palteng was required
appeal/order denying without reinstatement, to explain why no
the quashal of the alias and reinstatement disciplinary action
writ of execution and may be ordered should be taken
lifting of the notice of without awarding against her. In
garnishment, the backwages. response, Palteng
NLRC, by Resolution explained that while
of June 30, 2005, The Court, despite she admitted
granted respondent’s ordering reinstatement committing a major
appeals by deleting or payment of offense that may
the reinstatement separation pay in lieu cause her dismissal,
aspect of the Arbiter’s of reinstatement, has she claimed that it was
decision and setting not awarded an honest mistake.
aside the Arbiter’s backwages as penalty
Alias Writ of Execution for the misconduct or After hearing and
and Notice of infraction committed investigation, the
Garnishment. by the employee. committee
recommended
Petitioners’ motion for FACTS Palteng’s dismissal.
reconsideration of the Petitioner Elizabeth D. On October 25, 1996,
NLRC Resolution Palteng was the Palteng was dismissed
having been denied, Senior Assistant with forfeiture of all
they filed a petition for Manager/Branch benefits.
certiorari before the Operations Officer of
Court of Appeals respondent United Palteng filed a
which, by Decision10 Coconut Planters complaint for illegal
of September 19,
145
dismissal seeking payment of separation without backwages, is Alsons-SPFL (the
reinstatement to her pay with full proper. Union) is the exclusive
former position backwages, and bargaining agent of the
without loss of recovery of her C. ALCANTARA & Companys rank and
seniority rights with monetary claims with SONS, INC V. CA ET file employees. The
full backwages, or in damages. AL. Company and the
the alternative, G.R. No. 155109. Union entered into a
However, in the event September 29, 2010, Collective Bargaining
LA found her dismissal that reinstatement is no Abad Agreement (CBA) that
as illegal and ordered longer possible, the bound them to hold no
payment of separation employee may be C. Alcantara & Sons, strike and no lockout in
pay in lieu or given separation pay Inc., (the Company) is the course of its life. At
reinstatement with instead. a domestic corporation some point the parties
payment of full engaged in the began negotiating the
backwages from Notably, reinstatement manufacture and economic provisions of
dismissal to finality of and payment of processing of plywood. their CBA but this
judgment and backwages are distinct Nagkahiusang ended in a deadlock,
damages. and separate reliefs. Mamumuo sa prompting the Union to
The award of one does file a notice of strike.
NLRC affirmed with not bar the other. After efforts at
the order that Backwages may be conciliation by the
damages be deleted. awarded without Department of Labor
reinstatement, and and Employment
CA affirmed decision reinstatement may be (DOLE) failed, the
and modified payment ordered without Union conducted a
of backwages from the awarding backwages. strike vote that
date of dismissal to resulted in an
promulgation of Labor In a number of cases, overwhelming majority
Arbiter’s decision only. the Court, despite of its members
ordering reinstatement favoring it. The Union
ISSUE or payment of reported the strike vote
Whether the award of separation pay in lieu to the DOLE and, after
backwages, if any, of reinstatement, has the observance of the
should be counted not awarded mandatory cooling-off
from the time petitioner backwages as penalty period, went on strike.
was illegally dismissed for the misconduct or
until the promulgation infraction committed by ISSUE
of the Labor Arbiter’s the employee. Is the strike invalid
Decision on December notwithstanding
6, 1999, or until the In the case at bar, compliance with
finality of the decision. petitioner admitted that procedural
- NONE AT ALL. she granted the BP requirements under
accommodation the Labor Code?
HELD against Mercado’s
Settled is the rule that personal checks H
an employee who is beyond and outside her E
illegally dismissed authority. The Labor L
from work is entitled to Arbiter, the NLRC and D
reinstatement without the Court of Appeals all
loss of seniority rights, found her to have Y
and other privileges as committed an “error of E
well as to full judgment,” “honest S
backwages, inclusive mistake,” “honest .
of allowances, and to mistake” vis-à-vis a
other benefits or their “major offense.” “A strike may be
monetary equivalent regarded as invalid
computed from the Since petitioner was although the labor
time his compensation not faultless in regard union has complied
was withheld from him to the offenses imputed with the strict
up to the time of his against her, we hold requirements for
actual reinstatement. that the award of staging one as
separation pay only,
146
provided in Article and part in an illegal shown that
263 of the Labor the strike. It must be
Code when the same prefer such a union member, unions known as Cebu
is held contrary to an ential clearly identified, North Road Investment
existing agreement, use of performed an illegal act (CNRI) and the First
such as a no strike volunt or acts during the Fund Access (FFA),
clause or conclusive ary strike.” which opened accounts
arbitration clause.[19] mode with Metrobank under
Here, the CBA s in ABOC v. fictitious names and
between the parties settlin METROPOLITAN used Metrobanks
contained a no strike, g disputes, BANK AND TRUST premises, equipment
no lockout provision includi COMPANY and facilities in their
that enjoined both the ng G.R. Nos. 170542-43 lending business.
Union and the concili and G.R. No. 176460,
Company from ation, December 13, 2010 During the investigation
resorting to the use of and conducted by
economic weapons shall Aboc, the Regional Metrobank on January
available to them enforc Operations Coordinator 15, 1998, it was
under the law and to e their of Metrobank in Cebu discovered that Aboc
instead take recourse mutua City, for nine years, solicited investors
to voluntary l maintained an including its clients for
arbitration in settling compl unblemished said credit union. He
their disputes.” iance employment record also induced bank
there until he received an clients to withdraw their
“No law or public with inter-office letter on accounts and invest
policy prohibits the to January 29, 1998, them in CNRI.
Union and the foster requiring him to explain
Company from indust in writing the charges Metrobank required
mutually waiving the rial that he had actively Aboc to submit a written
strike and lockout peace participated in the explanation why he
maces available to . lending activities of his should not be dismissed
them to give way to immediate supervisor, for cause and attend a
voluntary “Since the Union’s Wynster Y. Chua conference in which he
arbitration.Indeed, no strike has been (Chua), the Branch was allowed to bring a
less than the 1987 declared illegal, the Manager of Metrobank counsel of his own
Constitution Union officers can, in where he was choice. He submitted
recognizes in Section accordance with law assigned. his written explanation
3, Article XIII, be terminated from and he attended the
preferential use of employment for their Aboc wrote a letter to conference.
voluntary means to actions. This includes Metrobank explaining
settle disputes.” the shop stewards. that he had no interest Thereafter, Metrobank
Thus: They cannot be whatsoever in the found that Aboc's
The shielded from the lending business of actions constituted
State coverage of Article Chua because it was serious misconduct and
shall 264 of the Labor Code solely owned by the a breach of trust and
prom since the Union latter. He admitted, confidence. On
ote appointed them as however, that he did February 12, 1998,
the such and placed them some acts for Chua in Metrobank terminated
princi in positions of connection with his his services.
ple of leadership and power lending activity. He did
share over the men in their so because he could ISSUE
d respective work units. not say no to Chua Whether or not Aboc
respo As regards the rank because of the latters was legally dismissed.
nsibili and file Union influence and
ty members, Article 264 ascendancy over him. HELD
betw of the Labor Code Yes. Article 282 states:
een provides that Metrobank, on the
work termination from other hand, replied that "ART. 282.
ers employment is not Aboc and other TERMINATION
and warranted by the mere employees organized BY
empl fact that a union two unregistered credit EMPLO
oyers member has taken
147
YER. - (a) Se just cause or Metrobank, to
An rious authorized cause. An withdraw her UNISA
emplo misco employee's dismissal account with
yer nduct due to serious Metrobank and invest
may or misconduct and loss it with their credit
termin willful of trust and union.
ate an disob confidence must be
emplo edien supported by PRINCE TRANSPORT
yment ce by substantial evidence. V. GARCIA
for any the Substantial evidence G.R. No. 167291,
of the emplo is that amount of January 12, 2011
followi yee of relevant evidence as a
ng the reasonable mind Prince Transport, Inc.
cause lawful might accept as (PTI), is a company
s order adequate to support a engaged in the
s of conclusion, even if business of
his other minds, equally transporting
emplo reasonable, might passengers by land;
yer or conceivably opine respondents were
repre otherwise. hired either as drivers,
sentat conductors, mechanics
ive in In the case at bench, or inspectors, except
conne Metrobank's evidence for respondent
ction clearly shows that the Diosdado Garcia
with acts of Aboc in (Garcia), who was
his helping Chua organize assigned as
work; the CNRI and FFA Operations Manager.
credit unions and in Sometime in October
xxx the operations thereof 2007 the commissions
(c) constituted serious received by the
Fraud misconduct or breach respondents were
or of trust and reduced to 7 to 9%
willful confidence. from 8 to 10%. This led
breac respondents and other
h by Abocs highly irregular employees of PTI to
the participation in the hold a series of
emplo lending business of meetings to discuss
yee of CNRI and FFA the protection of their
the jeopardized the interests as
trust business of employees. Ranato
repos Metrobank. CNRI and Claros, president of
ed in FFA were practically PTI, made known to
him competing with the Garcia his objections
by his business of to the formation of a
emplo Metrobank by union and in order to
yer or soliciting investors block the continued
duly including clients of formation of the union,
autho the bank for their PTI caused the
rized credit unions. Aboc transfer of all union
repre admitted that he was members and
sentat able to induce sympathizers to one of
ive; Nerinilda, the widow its sub-companies,
of a former branch Lubas Transport
xxx" accountant of (Lubas). The
business of Lubas of its operations and
deteriorated because of respondents' loss of
In termination cases, the refusal of PTI to employment. Hence,
the burden of proof maintain and repair the the respondent-
rests on the employer units being used employees filed
to show that the therein, which resulted complaints against PTI
dismissal was for a in the virtual stoppage for illegal dismissal and

148
unfair labor practice.
PTI contended that it
has nothing to do with
the management and
operations of Lubas as
well as the control and
supervision of the
latter's employees.
ISSUE
Whether or not the
order to reinstate
respondents was valid
considering that the
issue of reinstatement
was never brought up
before the CA and
respondents never
questioned the award
of separation pay.
HELD
YES. It is clear from
the complaints filed by
respondents that they
are seeking
reinstatement. Section
2 (c), Rule 7 of the
Rules of Court
provides that a employment based on
pleading shall specify
the relief sought, but
may add a general
prayer for such further
or other reliefs as may
be deemed just and
equitable. Under this
rule, a court can grant
the relief warranted by
the allegation and the
proof even if it is not
specifically sought by
the injured party; the
inclusion of a general
prayer may justify the
grant of a remedy
different from or
together with the
specific remedy
sought, if the facts
alleged in the
complaint and the
evidence introduced
so warrant. The
general prayer is
broad enough “to
justify extension of a
remedy different from
or together with the
specific remedy
sought.” Even without
the prayer for a
specific remedy, proper in prison for 2 weeks. March 9, 1998.In
relief may be granted On March 12, 1998, dismissing the
by the court if the facts petitioners sent to complaint for illegal
alleged in the complaint respondent by mail a dismissal, the Labor
and the evidence notice of termination Arbiter ratiocinated
introduced so warrant. and/or notice of that at the time
The court shall grant expiration of respondent filed the
relief warranted by the probationary complaint for illegal
allegations and the employment dated dismissal, she was not
proof even if no such yet dismissed by
relief is prayed for. The petitioners.
prayer in the complaint
for other reliefs ISSUE
equitable and just in Whether respondent
the premises justifies was constructively and
the grant of a relief not illegally dismissed by
otherwise specifically petitioner?
prayed for. In the
instant case, aside RULING
from their specific Yes. There is
prayer for probationary
reinstatement, employment when the
respondents, in their employee upon his
separate complaints, engagement is made
prayed for such reliefs to undergo a trial
which are deemed just period during which
and equitable. the employer
determines his fitness
ROBINSONS to qualify for regular
GALLERIA/ROBINSON reasonable standards
S SUPERMARKET made known to him at
CORP. V. RANCHEZ the time of
G.R. No. 177937, engagement. A
January 19, 2011, probationary
Nachura employee, like a
regular employee,
Respondent was a enjoys security of
probationary employee tenure. However, in
of petitioner Robinsons cases of probationary
Galleria/Robinsons employment, aside
Supermarket from just or authorized
Corporation (petitioner causes of termination,
Supermarket) for a an additional ground is
period of five (5) provided under Article
months. Two weeks 281 of the Labor Code,
after she was hired, i.e., the probationary
respondent reported to employee may also be
her supervisor the loss terminated for failure to
of cash amounting to qualify as a regular
Twenty Thousand Two employee in
Hundred Ninety- Nine accordance with
Pesos (P20,299.00) reasonable standards
which she had placed made known by the
inside the company employer to the
locker.An information employee at the time
for Qualified Theft was of the engagement. In
filed against the instant case, based
her.Respondent filed a on the facts on record,
complaint for illegal petitioners failed to
dismissal and accord respondent
damages, and was put
149
substantive and considered PFIZER informed committed a serious but
procedural due independent of the Velasco of its reversible error when it
process. The administrative aspect. "Management ordered Pfizer to pay
haphazard manner in Thus, employers Decision" terminating Velasco wages from the
the investigation of should not rely solely her employment. On 5 date of the Labor
the missing cash, on the findings of the December 2003, the Arbiter’s decision
which was left to the Prosecutors Office. Labor Arbiter rendered ordering her
determination of the They are mandated to its decision declaring reinstatement until
police authorities and conduct their own the dismissal of November 23, 2005,
the Prosecutors separate investigation, Velasco illegal, when the Court of
Office, left respondent and to accord the ordering her Appeals rendered its
with no choice but to employee every reinstatement with decision declaring
cry foul. opportunity to defend backwages and further Velasco’s dismissal
Administrative himself. Furthermore, awarding moral and valid.
investigation was not respondent was not exemplary damages
conducted by represented by with attorney’s fees. RULING
petitioner counsel when she Pfizer argues the No. The petition is
Supermarket. On the was strip-searched validity of respondent’s without merit.
same day that the inside the company dismissal from The provision of Article
missing money was premises or during the employment having 223 is clear that an
reported by police investigation, found that it was in award [by the Labor
respondent to her and in the preliminary accordance with the Arbiter] for
immediate superior, investigation before two notice rule reinstatement shall be
the company already the Prosecutors pursuant to the due immediately executory
pre-judged her guilt Office. process requirement even pending appeal
without proper and with just cause. and the posting of a
investigation, and Respondent was bond by the employer
instantly reported her constructively Respondent Velasco shall not stay the
to the police as the dismissed by filed a Motion for execution for
suspected thief, petitioner Reconsideration reinstatement. In the
which resulted in her Supermarket effective wherein the Court of case at bar, PFIZER did
languishing in jail for October 30, 1997. It Appeals affirmed the not immediately admit
two weeks. was unreasonable for validity of respondent’s respondent back to
petitioners to charge dismissal from work which, according
As correctly pointed her with abandonment employment but to the law, should have
out by the NLRC, the for not reporting for modified its earlier been done as soon as
due process work upon her release ruling by directing an order or award of
requirements under in jail. It would be the PFIZER to pay reinstatement is handed
the Labor Code are height of callousness respondent her wages down by the Labor
mandatory and may to expect her to return from the date of the Arbiter without need for
not be supplanted by to work after suffering Labor Arbiter’s the issuance of a writ of
police investigation or in jail for two weeks. Decision dated execution.
court proceedings. Work had been December 5, 2003 up
The criminal aspect of rendered to the Court of Appeals
the case is unreasonable, Decision dated
unlikely, and definitely was advised to November 23, 2005.
impossible, undergo bed rest,
considering the resulting to an On the other hand,
treatment that was extended leave of PFIZER filed the
accorded respondent absence. She was instant petition
by petitioners. served two show cause assailing the
noticed for violation of aforementioned Court
PFIZER V. VELASCO company rules and was of Appeals Resolutions.
G.R. No. March 9, effectively placed under PFIZER further assert
2011, Leonardo-De preventive suspension. that Velasco should
Castro Velasco filed a reimburse the wages
complaint for illegal received while the case
Geraldine L. Velasco, suspension with money was pending on
an employee of claims. She then appeal.
PFIZER, INC., having received a "Third ISSUE
a high risk pregnancy, Show-cause Notice”. Whether or not the
Court of Appeals
150
PFIZER makes much had before, it is plain PFIZER further
of respondent’s non- from the text of implores the Court to
compliance with its PFIZER’s June 27, annul the award of
return- to-work 2005 letter that such backwages and
directive by reinstatement was not separation pay as well
downplaying the "under the same as to require
reasons forwarded by terms and conditions" respondent to refund
respondent as less as her previous the amount that she
than sufficient to employment, was able to collect by
justify her purported considering that way of garnishment
refusal to be PFIZER ordered from PFIZER as her
reinstated. In respondent to report accrued salaries since
PFIZER’s view, the to its main office in it was proven on
return-to-work order it Makati City while appeal that the
sent to respondent knowing fully well that dismissal was valid.
was adequate to respondent’s previous
satisfy the job had her stationed The Court reaffirms
jurisprudential in Baguio City the prevailing principle
requisites concerning (respondent’s place of that even if the order
the reinstatement of residence) and it was of reinstatement of the
an illegally dismissed still necessary for Labor Arbiter is
employee. respondent to be reversed on appeal, it
briefed regarding her is obligatory on the
To reiterate, under work assignments and part of the employer to
Article 223 of the responsibilities, reinstate and pay the
Labor Code, an including her wages of the
employee entitled to relocation benefits. dismissed employee
reinstatement "shall during the period of
either be admitted The Court is cognizant appeal until reversal
back to work under of the prerogative of by the higher court.
the same terms and management to
conditions prevailing transfer an employee
prior to his dismissal from one office to
or separation or, at another within the
the option of the business
employer, merely establishment,
reinstated in the provided that there is
payroll." It is no demotion in rank or
established in diminution of his
jurisprudence that salary, benefits and
reinstatement means other privileges and
restoration to a state the action is not
or condition from motivated by
which one had been discrimination, made
removed or in bad faith, or
separated. To begin effected as a form of
with, the return-to- punishment or
work order PFIZER demotion without
sent respondent is sufficient cause. The
silent with regard to June 27, 2005 return-
the position or the to-work directive
exact nature of implying that
employment that it respondent was being
wanted respondent to relocated to PFIZER’s
take up as of July 1, Makati main office
2005. Even if we would necessarily
assume that the job cause hardship to
awaiting respondent respondent, a married
in the new location is woman with a family
of the same to support residing in
designation and pay Baguio City.
category as what she
151
LUNA V. ALLADO CONSTRUCTION
G.R. No. 175251, May 30, 2011, Leonardo de Castro
Petitioner alleges that he was given a travel order
dated to proceed to respondents main office in Davao
City for reassignment. Upon arrival at the office, he
was asked to sign several sets of "Contract of Project
Employment". He refused. Thus, he was not given a
reassignment or any other work. These incidents
prompted him to file the complaint.
Respondents, on the other hand, alleged that
petitioner applied for a leave of absence which was
granted. Upon expiration of his leave, he was advised
to report to the company’s project in Sarangani
Province. However, he refused and claimed instead
that he had been dismissed illegally.
Finding that petitioner is deemed resigned, the Labor
Arbiter (LA) dismissed petitioners complaint for illegal
dismissal, but ordered respondent to pay the former
the amount ofP18,000.00 by way of financial
assistance.
Respondents appealed with the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) which reversed the
decision of the LA, declared respondents guilty of
illegal dismissal, and ordered them to pay petitioner
one-month salary for every year of service as
separation pay. Respondents moved for
reconsideration but their motion was denied.
Respondents elevated their cause to the CAviaa
petition forcertiorariunder Rule 65. The CA granted
respondents petition forcertiorariand deleted the award
of financial assistance. Further, the CA held that it was
grave abuse of discretion for the NLRC to rule on the
issue of illegal dismissal when such issue was not
raised on appeal.
ISSUES
Whether the NLRC could still review issues not
brought during the appeal.
RULING
The 2002 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, which was
in effect at the time respondents appealed the Labor
Arbiters decision, provided that the NLRC shall limit
itself only to the specific issues that were elevated for
review. Here, the NLRC passed upon the issue of
illegal dismissal although this was not brought up in
the appeal. Therefore, by considering the arguments
and issues in the reply/opposition to appeal which
were not properly raised by timely appeal nor
comprehended within the scope of the issue raised in
petitioners appeal, public respondent committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
ROMEO VILLARUEL v. YEO HAN GUAN
G.R. No. 169191, June 1, 2011, Peralta
Petitioner alleged that in June 1963, he was employed
as a machine operator by Ribonette Manufacturing
Company owned and managed by herein respondent
Yeo Han Guan. Petitioner further alleged that on
October 5, 1998, he got sick and was confined in a
hospital; on December 12, 1998, he reported for work
but was no longer permitted to go back because of his
illness; he asked that respondent allow him to continue
working but be assigned a lighter kind of work but his
request was denied; instead, he was offered a sum of
P15,000.00 as his separation pay; however, the said
amount corresponds only to the period between 1993
and 1999; petitioner prayed that he be granted
separation pay computed from his first day of
employment in June 1963, but respondent refused.
Aside from separation pay, petitioner prayed for the
payment of service incentive leave for three years as
well as attorney's fees.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner was entitled to separation
pay
HELD
NO. The Court agrees with the CA in its observation of
the following circumstances as proof that respondent
did not terminate petitioner's employment: first, the
only cause of action in petitioner's original complaint is
that he was offered a very low separation pay; second,
there was no allegation of illegal dismissal, both in
petitioner's original and amended complaints and
position paper; and, third, there was no prayer for
reinstatement.
In consonance with the above findings, the Court finds
that petitioner was the one who initiated the severance
of his employment relations with respondent. It is
evident from the various pleadings filed by petitioner
that he never intended to return to his employment
with respondent on the ground that his health is failing.
Indeed, petitioner did not ask for reinstatement. In fact,
he rejected respondent's offer for him to return to work.
This is tantamount to resignation.
Resignation is defined as the voluntary act of an
employee who finds himself in a situation where he
believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in
favor of the exigency of the service and he has no
other choice but to disassociate himself from his
employment.
It may not be amiss to point out at this juncture that
aside from Article 284 of the Labor Code, the award of
separation pay is also authorized in the situations dealt
with in Article 283[16] of the same Code and under
Section 4 (b), Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of the said Code[17] where
there is illegal dismissal and reinstatement is no longer
feasible. By way of exception, this Court has allowed
grants of separation pay to stand as a measure of
social justice where the employee is validly dismissed 1997) until the decision of the LA (October 15, 1998).
for causes other than serious misconduct or those
reflecting on his moral character.[18] However, there is
no provision in the Labor Code which grants
separation pay to voluntarily resigning employees. In
fact, the rule is that an employee who voluntarily
resigns from employment is not entitled to separation
pay, except when it is stipulated in the employment
contract or CBA, or it is sanctioned by established
employer practice or policy. In the present case,
neither the abovementioned provisions of the Labor
Code and its implementing rules and regulations nor
the exceptions apply because petitioner was not
dismissed from his employment and there is no
evidence to show that payment of separation pay is
stipulated in his employment contract or sanctioned by
established practice or policy of herein respondent, his
employer.

Since petitioner was not terminated from his

employment and, instead, is deemed to have resigned
therefrom, he is not entitled to separation pay under
the provisions of the Labor Code.

The foregoing notwithstanding, this Court, in a number

of cases, has granted financial assistance to separated
employees as a measure of social and compassionate
justice and as an equitable concession.

NACAR VS. GALLERY FRAMES

G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, Peralta

Doctrine: On illegal dismissal cases, backwages will

be computed from the date of illegal dismissal until the
date of the decision of the Labor Arbiter. But if the
employer appeals, then the end date shall be
extended until the day when the appellate court’s
decision shall become final. Hence, as a
consequence, the liability of the employer, if he loses
on appeal, will increase.

Nacar filed a labor case against Gallery Frames

alleging he was dismissed without cause on January
24, 1997. On October 15, 1998, the Labor Arbiter (LA)
found Gallery Frames guilty of illegal dismissal hence
the Arbiter awarded Nacar damages consisting of
backwages and separation pay.

Gallery Frames appealed all the way to the Supreme

Court (SC). The Supreme Court affirmed the decision
of the Labor Arbiter and the decision became final on
May 27, 2002.

After the finality of the SC decision, Nacar filed a

motion before the LA for recomputation as he alleged
that his backwages should be computed from the time
of his illegal dismissal (January 24, 1997) until the
finality of the SC decision (May 27, 2002) with interest.
The LA denied the motion as he ruled that the
reckoning point of the computation should only be from
the time Nacar was illegally dismissed (January 24,

150
 proper to accord the same disposition and
ISSUE consequently directs
Whether or not the LA is correct the deletion of the and five (5) months and
award of back wages in since [his] employment
RULING favor of Pionilla, is not covered by
NO. Refer to the doctrine. This is just but a risk that notwithstanding the another fixed term
the employer cannot avoid when it continued to seek illegality of the employment contract,
recourses against the Labor Arbiter’s decision. This is dismissal. [Kemplin’s] employment
also in accordance with Article 279 of the Labor after the expiration of
Code. UNITED TOURIST his fixed term
PROMOTIONS v. employment is already
INTEGRATED MICROELECTRONICS, INC. HARLAND B. regular. Therefore, he is
v. PIONILLA KEMPLIN (Security of guaranteed security of
G.R. No. 200222, August 28, 2013, Perlas-Bernabe Tenure) tenure and can only be
G.R. No. 205453, removed from service
Petitioner IMI employed respondent Adonis Pionilla February 05, 2014, for cause and after
as one of its production worker. Pionilla was later on Reyes compliance with due
dismissed for violating company rules and regulations process. This is
which prohibits lending one's ID since the same is United Tourist notwithstanding [UTP
considered a breach of its security rules. It was Promotions employed and Jersey’s] insistence
reported that Pionilla was seen escorting a lady to Kemplin to be its that they merely
board the company shuttle bus at a terminal, and that President for a period tolerated [Kemplin’s]
the lady was wearing a company ID – which serves of five years, to "consultancy" for
as a free pass for shuttle bus passengers – even if commence on March 1, humanitarian reasons.
she was just a job applicant at IMI. Pionilla admitted 2002 and to end on
that he lent his ID to the lady who turned out to be his March 1, 2007, In this case, [UTP and
relative. It was also admitted by Pionilla that at the “renewable for the Jersey] failed to prove
time of the incident, he had two Ids in his name as he same period, subject to the existence of just
lost his original ID but was able to secure a temporary new terms and cause for his
ID later on. As Pionilla and his relative were about to conditions”. Kemplin termination. The
board the shuttle bus, they were both holding continued to render his pendency of a criminal
separate Ids, both in his name. The day after the services to UTP even suit against an
incident, Pionilla received a notice requiring him to after his fixed term employee, does not, by
explain the incident and a committee was contract of employment itself, sufficiently
subsequently formed to investigate the matter. expired. Records show establish a ground for
Subsequently IMI found Pionilla guilty and was that on May 12, 2009, an employer to
dismissed from service. Kemplin, signing as terminate the former. It
President of UTP, also bears stressing
ISSUE entered into that the letter failed to
Whether or not Pionilla was illegally dismissed and advertisement categorically indicate
hence entitled to reinstatement and full back wages agreements with Pizza which of the policies of
Hut and M. Lhuillier. UTP did Kemplin violate
HELD Kemplin then filed for to warrant his dismissal
An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either illegal dismissal against from service. Further,
reinstatement, if viable or separation pay if petitioner Kemplin was never
reinstatement is no longer viable and backwages. In given the chance to
certain cases, however, the Court has ordered ISSUE refute the charges
reinstatement of the employee without backwages Whether or not against him as no
considering the fact that (1) the dismissal of the Kemplin is a hearing and
employee would be too harsh a penalty and, (2) the regular investigation were
employer was in good faith in terminating the employee conducted. Corollarily,
employee. Whether or not in the absence of a
Kemplin was hearing and
The Court observed that: (a) the penalty of dismissal illegally investigation, the
was too harsh of a penalty to be imposed against dismissed existence of just cause
Pionilla for his infractions; and (b) IMI was in good to terminate Kemplin
faith when it dismissed Pionilla as his dereliction of its HELD could not have been
policy on ID usage was honestly perceived to be a YES. Considering that sufficiently established.
threat to the company's security. In this respect, since he continued working
these circumstances trigger the application of the as President for UTP The Court is well aware
exception to the rule on backwages, the Court finds it for about one (1) year that reinstatement is the

151
rule and, for the R.A. 7730. The and the NLRC. If the
exception of "strained DISPUTE provision is explicit Secretary of Labor
relations" to apply, it SETTLE that the visitorial and proceeds to exercise
should be proved that enforcement power of his visitorial and
it is likely that, if
MENT the DOLE comes into enforcement powers
reinstated, an play only “in cases absent the first
atmosphere of PEOPLE’S when the relationship requisite, his office
antipathy and BROADCASTING V. of employer- confers jurisdiction on
antagonism would be SECRETARY OF employee still exists.” itself which it cannot
generated as to LABOR This clause signifies otherwise acquire.
adversely affect the G.R. No. 179652, May that the employer- Nevertheless, a mere
efficiency and 8, 2009 employee relationship assertion of absence
productivity of the must have existed of employer-employee
employee concerned. Jandeleon Juezan even before the relationship does not
Under the doctrine of filed a complaint emergence of the deprive the DOLE of
strained relations, the before the DOLE controversy. jurisdiction over the
payment of separation against Bombo Radyo Necessarily, the claim. At least a prima
pay is considered an Phils for illegal DOLE’s power does facie showing of such
acceptable alternative deduction, non- not apply in two absence of
to reinstatement when payment of service instances, namely: (i) relationship, as in this
the latter option is no incentive leave, 13th where the employer- case, is needed to
longer desirable or month pay, premium employee relationship preclude the DOLE
viable. pay for holiday and has ceased; and (ii) from the exercise of its
rest day and illegal where no such power.
diminution of benefits, relationship has ever
delayed payment of existed. The existence UPDATE: The case is
wages and non- of an employer- heard again by the
coverage of SSS, employee relationship court. From the 2008
PAG-IBIG and is a statutory decision, PAO filed a
Philhealth. On the prerequisite to and a Motion for Clarification
basis of the complaint, limitation on the power of Decision (with
the DOLE conducted of the Secretary of Leave of Court). The
a plant level Labor, one which the PAO sought to clarify
inspection. After the legislative branch is as to the visitorial and
conduct of summary entitled to impose. enforcement power of
investigations, the The rationale DOLE can be
DOLE Regional underlying this considered as co-
Director held that limitation is to extensive with the
Juezan was an eliminate the prospect power to determine the
employee of Bombo of competing existence of an Er-Ee
Radyo, and therefore conclusions of the relationship. In March
entitled to money Secretary of Labor 6, 2012, the Court
claims. Bombo Radyo resolved the
appealed the decision, second motion for the power was primarily
but DOLE dismissed reconsideration held by the NLRC. The
the same. CA affirmed overturning the first law did not say that the
such dismissal. decision. DOLE would first seek
the NLRCs
ISSUE Revised Ruling: determination of the
Whether or not the existence of an
Secretary of Labor No limitation in the law employer-employee
has the power to was placed upon the relationship, or that
determine the power of the DOLE to should the existence of
existence of an determine the the employer-employee
employer-employee existence of an relationship be
relationship and employer- employee disputed, the DOLE
settled the dispute. relationship. No would refer the matter
procedure was laid to the NLRC. The DOLE
RULING down where the DOLE must have the power to
NO. Art. 128 (b) of the would only make a determine whether or
Labor Code, as preliminary finding, that not an employer-
amended by
152
employee relationship that no employer- be assisted by non- CBL, provides, to wit:
exists, and from there employee relationship union members, and
to decide whether or existed in the first committed acts of Section 4(a). Any
not to issue place. disloyalty which are member may be
compliance orders in inimical to the interest DISMISSED and/or
accordance with Art. DIOKNO vs. CACDAC of FLAMES. In their EXPELLED from the
128(b) of the Labor G.R. No. 168475, July campaign, they UNION, after due
Code, as amended by 4, 2007, Chico Nazario allegedly colluded with process and
RA 7730. the officers of the investigation, by a two-
The First Line Meralco Savings and thirds (2/3) vote of the
The determination of Association of Meralco Loan Association Executive Board, for
the existence of an Supervisory Employees (MESALA) and the any of the following
employer- employee (FLAMES) is a Meralco Mutual Aid causes:
relationship by the legitimate labor and Benefits
DOLE must be organization which is Association (6) Acting in a manner
respected. The the supervisory union (MEMABA) and harmful to the interest
expanded visitorial and of Meralco. Petitioners exerted undue and welfare of the
enforcement power of and private influence on the UNION and/or its
the DOLE granted by respondents are members of FLAMES. MEMBERS.
RA 7730 would be members of FLAMES. COMELEC issued a
rendered nugatory if FLAMES Executive Decision, declaring Issue:
the alleged employer Board created the private respondents Whether or not private
could, by the simple Committee on Election officially disqualified to respondents were
expedient of disputing (COMELEC) for the run and/or to validly disqualified
the employer- conduct of its union participate in the
employee relationship, elections. FLAMES elections. Held:
force the referral of the Subsequently, private The COMELEC also No. First, Article IV,
matter to the NLRC. respondents filed their resolved to exclude Section 4(a)(6) of the
The Court issued the respective certificates their names from the FLAMES CBL,
declaration that at of candidacy. list of candidates in embraces exclusively
least a prima facie the polls or precincts, the case of dismissal
showing of the Petitioners filed a and further declared and/or expulsion of
absence of an Petition with the that any vote cast in members from the
employer-employee COMELEC seeking the their favor shall not be union. Even a cursory
relationship be made disqualification of counted. According to reading of the
to oust the DOLE of private respondents. the COMELEC, provision does not tell
jurisdiction. But it is Petitioners alleged that private respondents us that the same is to
precisely the DOLE private respondents violated Article IV, be automatically or
that will be faced with allowed themselves to Section 4(a)(6) of the directly applied in the
that evidence, and it is FLAMES Constitution disqualification of a
the DOLE that will and By-Laws (CBL) by candidate from union
weigh it, to see if the allowing non- elections, which is the
same does members to aid them matter at bar. It cannot
successfully refute the in their campaign. be denied that the
existence of an Their acts of COMELEC
employer-employee solicitation for support erroneously relied on
relationship. from non-union Article IV, Section 4(a)
members were (6) because the same
If the DOLE makes a deemed inimical to the does not contemplate
finding that there is an interest of FLAMES. the situation of private
existing employer- respondents Daya, et
employee relationship, The provision relied al. The latter are not
it takes cognizance of upon by the sought to be expelled
the matter, to the COMELEC in or dismissed by the
exclusion of the NLRC. disqualifying private Executive Board. They
The DOLE would have respondents applies were brought before
no jurisdiction only if to a case of the COMELEC to be
the employer- expulsion of members disqualified as
employee relationship from the union. In full, candidates in the 7
has already been Article IV, Section 4 May 2003 elections.
terminated, or it (a) (6) of the FLAMES
appears, upon review,
153
Second, the that the dismissal and a case of guards by Jaguar.
aforecited provision expulsion of a disenfranchisement on They were assigned at
evidently enunciates member from the the part of the member- the premises of Delta
with clarity the union should be after voters of FLAMES. By in Libis, Quezon City.
procedural course due process and wrongfully excluding Caranyagan and
that should be taken investigation, the them from the 7 May Tamayo were
to dismiss and expel same to be exercised 2003 elections, the terminated by Jaguar.
a member from by two-thirds (2/3) options afforded to the Allegedly their
FLAMES. The CBL is vote of the Executive union members were dismissals were
succinct in stating clipped. Hence, the arbitrary and illegal.
Board for any of the their conclusion. If, mandate of the union Sales, Moron,
cause mentioned indeed, there was a cannot be said to have Fetalvero and Silva
therein. The violation by private been rightfully remained with Jaguar.
unmistakable directive respondents Daya, et determined. The factual All the guard-
is that in cases of al., of the FLAMES irregularities in the employees, claim for
expulsion and CBL that could be a FLAMES elections monetary benefits. In
dismissal, due process ground for their clearly provide proper addition to these
must be observed as expulsion and/or bases for the money claims,
laid down in the CBL. dismissal from the annulment of the union Caranyagan and
union, which in turn elections of 7 May Tamayo argue that
Third, nevertheless, could possibly be made 2003. they were entitled to
even if we maintain a a ground for their separation pay and
lenient stance and disqualification from the JAGUAR SECURITY back wages, for the
consider the elections, the V. SALES time they were illegally
applicability of Article procedural G.R. No. 162420, April dismissed until finality
IV, Section 4(a)(6) in requirements for their 22, 2008, Austria of the decision.
the disqualification of expulsion should have Martinez Furthermore, all
private respondents been observed. In any respondents claim for
Daya, et al., from the event, therefore, Petitioner Jaguar moral and exemplary
elections of 7 May whether the case Security and damages. Respondent
2003, still, the involves dismissal Investigation Agency security guards
disqualification made and/or expulsion from (Jaguar) is a private instituted the instant
by the COMELEC the union or corporation engaged in labor case before the
pursuant to the subject disqualification from the the business of labor arbiter. The LA
provision was a rank elections, the proper providing security dismissed the charges
disregard of the clear procedure must be services to its clients, of illegal dismissal on
due process observed. The one of whom is Delta the part of the
requirement embodied disqualification ruled by Milling Industries, Inc. complainants Tamayo
therein. Nowhere do the COMELEC (Delta). Private and Caranyagan for
we find that private against private respondents Sales, lack of merit but
respondents Daya, et respondents Daya, et Tamayo, Caranyagan, ordering respondents.,
al. were investigated al., must not be allowed Silva, Jr., Moron and to jointly and severally
by the Executive to abridge a clear Fetalvero were hired as pay all the six
Board. Neither do we procedural policy security complainants money
see the observance of established in the claims for their
the voting requirement FLAMES CBL. If we services. Petitioner
as regards private uphold the COMELEC, Jaguar filed a partial
respondents Daya, et we are countenancing appeal questioning the
al. In all respects, they a clear case of denial failure of public
were denied due of due process which is respondent NLRC to
process. anathema to the resolve its cross-claim
Constitution of the against Delta as the
Fourth, the Court of Philippines which party ultimately liable
Appeals, the BLR safeguards the right to for payment of the
Director, and the Med- due process. monetary award to the
Arbiter uniformly found security guards. The
that due process was Fifth, from another NLRC dismissed the
wanting in the angle, the erroneous appeal, holding that it
disqualification order disqualification of was not the proper
of the COMELEC. private respondents forum to raise the
We are in accord with Daya, et al., constituted issue. Petitioner filed a

154
petition for certiorari ISSUE International Limited between the parties and
with the CA. CA Whether petitioner (PIL), an Australian no issue is involved
dismissed the petition may claim corporation, Pioneer which may be resolved
for lack of merit. reimbursement from Concrete Philippines, by reference to the
Delta Milling through a Inc. (PCPI), and Labor Code, other labor
Petitioner insists that cross-claim filed with Pioneer Philippines statutes or any
its cross-claim should the labor court. Holdings, Inc. (PPHI). collective bargaining
have been ruled upon Todaro has just agreement, it is the
in the labor case as RULING resigned from another Regional Trial Court
the filing of a cross- In the present case, company when PIL that has jurisdiction. In
claim is allowed there exists no contacted Todaro and the present case, no
under Section 3 of the employer- employee asked him if he was employer-employee
NLRC Rules of relationship between available to join them in relationship exists
Procedure which petitioner and Delta connection with their between petitioners and
provides for the Milling. In its cross- intention to establish a respondent. In fact, in
suppletory application claim, petitioner is not ready- mix concrete his complaint, private
of the Rules of Court. seeking any relief plant and other related respondent is not
Petitioner argues that under the Labor Code operations in the seeking any relief under
the claim arose out of but merely Philippines. the Labor Code, but
the transaction or reimbursement of the Subsequently, PIL and seeks payment of
occurrence that is the monetary benefits Todaro came to an damages on account of
subject matter of the claims awarded and to agreement wherein the petitioners' alleged
original action. be paid to the guard former consented to breach of their
Petitioner further employees. There is engage the services of obligation under their
argues that as no labor dispute the latter as a agreement to employ
principal, Delta Milling involved in the cross- consultant for two to him. It is settled that
Industries, Inc. (Delta claim against Delta three months, after an action for breach
Milling) is liable for Milling. Rather, the which, he would be of contractual
the awarded wage cross-claim involves a employed as the obligation is intrinsically
increases, pursuant civil dispute between manager of PIL's a civil dispute. In the
to Wage Order Nos. petitioner and Delta ready-mix concrete alternative, respondent
NCR- 04, NCR-05 Milling. Petitioner's operations should the seeks redress on the
and NCR-06; and in cross- claim is within company decide to basis of the provisions
line with the ruling in the realm of civil law, invest in the of Articles 19 and 21 of
Eagle Security and jurisdiction over it Philippines. the Civil Code. Hence, it
Agency, Inc. v. belongs to the regular Subsequently, PIL is clear that the present
National Labor courts. Moreover, the started its operations in action is within the
Relations liability of Delta Milling the Philippines. realm of civil law, and
Commission, to reimburse petitioner However, it refused to jurisdiction over it
petitioner should be will only arise if and comply with its belongs to the regular
reimbursed of any when petitioner undertaking to employ courts.
payments to be actually pays its Todaro on a permanent
made. employees the basis. Petitioners TEGIMENTA
adjudged liabilities. moved to dismiss the CHEMICAL V.
Payment, which complaint on the BUENSALIDA
means not only the ground that RTC has
delivery of money but PIONEER no jurisdiction over the
also the performance, subject matter as the
in any other manner, CONCRETE same is within the
of the obligation, is the jurisdiction of the
operative fact which PHILIPPINES, NLRC.
will entitle either of the v. TODARO
solidary debtors to G.R. No. 154830, June ISSUE
seek reimbursement 8, 2007 Which court has
for the share which Austria-Martinez jurisdiction over the
corresponds to each of dispute?
the debtors. In this Antonio Todaro filed
case, it appears that with the Makati RTC a RULING
petitioner has yet to complaint for Sum of The RTC has
pay the guard Money and Damages jurisdiction. Where no
employees. against Pioneer employer- employee
relationship exists
155
G.R. No. 176466 shopping L. CORTEZ, JR. V. MALUNES, ET AL.
PIGLAS NFWU-KMU G.R. No. 175460, April
Respondent was an RULING AND SAMMY 14, 2008, Chico-Nazario
employee of the No, the law upon For purposes of CBA, LRT but the striking
petitioner, during his which petitioner stand MTO’s rank and file PIGLAS members still
work he received and states "a party having employees formed the refused to accede to the
injury on his finger, more than one cause Pinag-isnag Lakas ng order. Thus, the LRTA
which caused him to of action against the Manggagawa sa Metro, formally informed MTO
be hospitalized, their other party arising out Inc. – National that it issued a board
principal first of the same Federation of Labor resolution which
shouldered the relationship shall (PIGLAS). Meanwhile, allowed LRTA’s MOA to
expenses then it was include all of them in its managerial and expire, directed the
charged on petitioner one complaint or supervisory employees LRTA to take over the
which later on petition." (Section 1 created their own operations and
charged to (b), Rule 3 of the union, Supervisory maintenance of the LRT
respondent. NLRC Rules of Employees Association Line so MTO sent
Procedure). of Metro (SEAM). termination notices to its
Respondent filed with employees.
the petitioner his In the present case MTO and PIGLAS
application to obtain this is not applicable entered into a CBA. PIGLAS members
the benefits in his because of the fact SEAM similarly thereafter filed a
SSS and PhilHealth, that at the time when negotiated with MTO complaint against MTO
but the petitioner the first complaint was under a separate CBA. and the LRTA for illegal
allegedly failed to file filed, the second Disgruntled with dismissal, ULP for union
such and complaint cannot be PIGLAS, some rank- busting, damages, and
respondents claim for currently filed because and-file employees attorney’s fees. The LA
reimbursement of his it has not yet formed another union declared the dismissal
hospital expenses happened yet, with the umbrella of the illegal. NLRC denied the
was also denied by therefore it would Philippine Transport appeal for non-
the petitioner since it have been impossible Group Workers perfection since MTO
was filed out of time for the respondent to Organization failed to post the
with SSS. Thus, he file a case of illegal – Trade Union required bond. MR was
filed in Davao a case dismissal prior the re- Congress of the PH denied. CA affirmed.
for illegal deduction. assignment made by (PTGWO-TUCP), Hence, this petition.
the petitioner. which negotiated with
Petitioner then management for ISSUE
pending resolution of There is no violation certification as the new Was the availment for
the first case re- of forum-shopping bargaining agent. The the extraordinary
assigned respondent because the two intra-union dispute was remedy of certiorari
to Manila in a night- action is based on a settled through a proper?
shift which is alleged different set of facts certification election
to be a schedule and different causes where PIGLAS won. HELD
whose income is of action the first is PIGLAS then No. The rule is, for the
unstable and is grounded upon the renegotiated the CBA writ to issue, it must be
irregular contrary to illegal collection made demanding higher shown that there is no
which being granted by the petitioner benefits. appeal, nor any plain,
to him in his current against respondent speedy and adequate
work with the and the second is On July 25, 2000, due remedy in the ordinary
petitioner. Thus, he based on the re- to a bargaining course of law. A motion
filed in Manila a case assignment which is deadlock, PIGLAS filed for reconsideration is a
for illegal dismissal. being alleged to be a a notice of strike then condition sine qua non
constructive dismissal staged a strike. Sec. of for the filing of a petition
Petitioner now sought and as a means of DOLE then issued an for certiorari. Its
to dismiss the harassment, ruling on order or assumption of purpose is to grant an
complaint as he either case would not jurisdiction/return to opportunity for the court
alleged that affect the resolution work but the striking to correct any actual or
respondent is guilty of nor conflict with the employees refused to perceived error
forum-shopping other. receive a copy of the attributed to it by the re-
order, hence, they were examination of the legal
ISSUE METRO TRANSIT posted in the stations and factual
WON respondent is ORGANIZATION, INC. and terminals of the circumstances of the
guilty of forum- AND JOSE
156
case. The rationale of reconsideration would Bacolod) a request for Execution" For Being a
the rule rests upon the have aptly furnished a payroll inspection of Blatant and Dangerous
presumption that the plain, speedy, and Hacienda Valentin Violation of Due
court or administrative adequate remedy. As Balabag owned by Process, claiming that
body which issued the a rule, the CA, in the Alberta Yanson she did not receive any
assailed order or exercise of its original (petitioner). DOLE form of
resolution may amend jurisdiction, will not Bacolod conducted an communication, or
the same, if given the take cognizance of a inspection of participate in any
chance to correct its petition for certiorari petitioner's proceeding relative to
mistake or error. under Rule 65, unless establishment and the subject matter of
the lower court has issued a Notice of the writ of execution.
In the case at bar, been given the Inspection Report,
MTO directly went to opportunity to correct finding petitioner liable Petitioner filed with
the Court of Appeals the error imputed to it. for the following public respondent a
on certiorari without MTO’s failure to file a violations of labor Verified Appeal and
filing a motion for motion for standard laws and Supplement to the
reconsideration with reconsideration directing her to correct Verified Appeal,
the NLRC. The motion against the assailed the same. posting therewith an
for Resolution of the appeal bond of
NLRC rendered its In a Compliance P1,000.00 in money
petition for certiorari Order dated August order and attaching
before the appellate 12, 1998, DOLE thereto a Motion to be
court as fatally Bacolod directed Allowed to Post
defective. petitioner to pay, Minimal Bond with
within five (5) Motion for
This case does not fall days,P9,084.00 to Reduction of Bond.
under any of the each of the 41 Public respondent
recognized exceptions respondents or a total dismissed her appeal.
to the filing of a of P372,444.00, and
motion for to submit proof of ISSUE
reconsideration, to wit: payment thereof. It Whether or not CA
(1) when the issue also required was correct in holding
raised is purely of law; petitioner to correct that public respondent
(2) when public existing violations of did not commit grave
interest is involved; (3) occupational safety abuse of discretion in
in case of urgency; or and health standards. rejecting the appeal of
when the questions petitioner due to the
raised are the same Petitioner filed with insufficiency of her
as those that have DOLE Bacolod a appeal bond.
already been squarely Double Verified
argued and Special Appearance RULING
exhaustively passed to Oppose "Writ of
upon by the lower Yes. As held in Allied Order No. 7-A, Series of
court. Investigation Bureau, 1995, implementing
Inc. v. Secretary of Article 128(b), thus:
HACIENDA Labor and
VALENTIN- Employment, the CA Section 9. Cash or
BALABAG V. held that public surety bond; when
SECRETARY OF respondent did not required. - In case the
LABOR commit grave abuse of order involves a
G.R. No. 159026, discretion in holding monetary award, an
February 11, 2008, that petitioner failed to appeal by the employer
Austria Martinez perfect her appeal due may be perfected only
to the insufficiency of upon the posting of a
Mardy Cabigo and 40 her bond. cash or surety bond
other workers (private issued by a duly
respondents) filed with Under Department accredited bonding
the Department of Order No. 18-02 company. The bond
Labor and (Implementing Rules), should be in the
Employment-Bacolod Series of 2002, amount equivalent to
District Office (DOLE amending Department the monetary award

157
indicated in the was no clear intention The petitioner, a The late Alexander J.
order. on the respondents corporation engaged in
part to sever the the manufacture of G.I.
Under the foregoing employer-employee wire and nails,
Implementing Rules, it relationship. employed respondent
is plain that public Considering that Perfecto Balogo (the
respondent has no intention is a mental respondent) since
authority to accept an state, the petitioner September 1, 1979 in
appeal under a must show that the its wire drawing
reduced bond. respondents overt department. The
acts point unerringly petitioner alleged that
PENTAGON STEEL to his intent not to the respondent
CORP. V. CA work anymore. That absented himself from
G.R. No. 174141, June abandonment is work on August 7, 2002
26, 2009, Brion negated finds support without giving prior
in a long line of cases notice of his absence.
where the immediate As a result, the
filing of a complaint for petitioner sent him a
illegal dismissal was letter by registered mail
coupled with a prayer dated August 12, 2002,
for reinstatement; the written in Filipino,
filing of the complaint requiring an
for illegal dismissal is explanation for his
proof enough of the absence. The petitioner
desire to return to sent another letter to
work.The prayer for the respondent on
reinstatement, as in August 21, 2002, also
this case, speaks by registered mail,
against any intent to informing him that he
sever the employer- had been absent
employee relationship. without official leave
We additionally take (AWOL) from August 7,
note of the undisputed 2002 to August 21,
fact that the 2002.
respondent had been
in the petitioners The respondent alleged
employ for 23 years. that on August 6, 2002,
Prior to his dismissal, he contracted flu
the respondents associated with
service record was diarrhea and suffered
unblemished having loose bowel movement
had no record of due to the infection.
infraction of company The respondent
rules. abandonment maintained that his
after the respondents illness had prevented
long years of service him from reporting for
and the consequent work for ten (10) days.
surrender of benefits When the respondent
earned from years of finally reported for work
hard work are highly on August 17, 2002,
unlikely. Under the the petitioner refused to
given facts, no basis take him back despite
in reason exists for the medical certificate
the petitioners theory he submitted. On
that the respondent August 19, 2002, the
abandoned his job. respondent again
reported for work,
MASMUD v. NLRC exhibiting a note from
G.R. No. 183385, his doctor indicating
February 13, 2009, that he was fit to work.
Nachura The petitioner,
158
Masmud (Alexander),
the husband of
Evangelina Masmud
(Evangelina) filed a
complaint against First
Victory Shipping
Services and
Angelakos (Hellas)
S.A. on July 9, 2003
for non- payment of
permanent disability
benefits, medical
expenses, sickness
allowance, moral and
exemplary damages,
and attorney's fees.
Alexander engaged
the services of Atty.
Rolando B. Go, Jr.
(Atty. Go) as his
counsel. In
consideration of Atty.
Go's legal services,
Alexander agreed to
pay attorney's fees on
a contingent basis, as
follows: twenty percent
(20%) of total
monetary claims as
settled or paid and an
additional ten percent
(10%) in case of
appeal.
however, did not allow
him to resume work on
the same date. Issue:
whether or not
respondent abandoned
his job. Respondent did
not abandon his job
First, the respondent
had a valid reason for
absenting himself from
work. The respondent
presented a medical
certificate from his
doctor attesting to the
fact that he was sick
with flu associated with
diarrhea or loose bowel
movement which
prevented him from
reporting for work for 10
days. The petitioner
never effectively refuted
the respondents reason
for his absence.
Second, there
On November 21, modification. lawyer is as much memorandum, charged
2003, LA rendered a Thereafter, Alexander‘s entitled to judicial of loitering and warned.
Decision granting employer appealed to protection against He was at first
the Supreme Court. injustice or imposition suspended but informed
monetary claimsof of fraud on the part of by Uy that his services
Alexander. On February 6, 2006, his client as the client is had been terminated
Alexander's employer the Court issued a against abuse on the part and that he should draft
filed an appeal before Resolution dismissing of his counsel. The duty his resignation letter,
the NLRC. During the the case for lack of of the court is not alone to drawing respondent to
pendency of the merit.On January 10, ensure that a lawyer file a complaint for
proceedings before 2005, the LA directed acts in a proper and illegal dismissal.
the NLRC, Alexander the NLRC Cashier to lawful manner, but also
died. After explaining release the amount of to see that a lawyer is
the terms of the P3,454,079.20 to paid his just fees. With
lawyer's fees to Evangelina. Out of the his capital consisting of
Evangelina, Atty. Go said amount, his brains and with his
caused her Evangelina paid Atty. skill acquired at
substitution as Go the sum of tremendous cost not
complainant. On April P680,000.00. only in money but in
30, 2004, the NLRC Dissatisfied, Atty. Go expenditure of time and
rendered a Decision filed a motion to energy, he is entitled to
dismissing the appeal record and enforce the protection of any
of Alexander's the attorney's lien judicial tribunal against
employer. On appeal alleging that any attempt on the part
before the CA, the Evangelina reneged of his client to escape
decision of the LA on their contingent payment of his just
was affirmed with fee compensation. It would
agreement. prevailing party. It may be ironic if after putting
Evangelina paid only not be used as the forth the best in him to
the amount of standard in fixing the secure justice for his
P680,000.00, amount payable to the client; he himself would
equivalent to 20% of lawyer by his client for not get his due.
the award as the legal services he
attorney's fees, thus, rendered. In this NEGROS METAL
leaving a balance of regard, Section 24, CORPORATION VS.
10%, plus the award Rule 138 of the Rules ARMELIO LAMAYO
pertaining to the of Court should be G.R. No. 186557,
counsel as attorney's observed in August 25, 2010
fees. determining Atty. Go’s
compensation. Armelo J. Lamayo
ISSUE Considering that Atty. (respondent) began
Should the legal Go successfully working for Negros
compensation of a represented his client, Metal Corporation
lawyer in a labor it is only proper that he (petitioner or the
proceeding be based should receive company) in
on Article 111 of the adequate September 1999 as a
Labor Code compensation for his machinist.
efforts. Even as we
HELD agree with the Sometime in May 2002,
NO. Contrary to reduction of the award company manager,
Evangelina’s proposition, of attorney's fees by called his attention why
Article 111 of the Labor the CA, the fact that a he was using the
Code deals with the lawyer plays a vital role grinder there to which
extraordinary concept in the administration of he replied that since
ofattorney’s fees. It justice emphasizes the the machine there was
regulates the amount need to secure to him bigger, he would finish
recoverable as his honorarium lawfully his work faster.
attorney's fees in the earned as a means to
nature of damages preserve the decorum Respondents
sustained by and and respectability of explanation was found
awarded to the the legal profession. A unsatisfactory hence,
he was, via
159
 being invoked by hand, respondent earlier, moved for the
In lieu of a position petitioner does not argues that the execution of the
paper, petitioner expressly state that petitioner is barred NLRC’s November 30,
submitted a termination disputes from questioning the 2005 Decision and the
Manifestation are included in the manner by which his respondents paid him
contending that the ambit of what may be backwages and the full amount of the
complaint should be brought before the separation pay were monetary award
dismissed because company's grievance computed as he had,
the Labor Arbiter had machinery. thereunder shortly after amount of P23,521.67
no jurisdiction over it the writ of execution in favor of the
since, under their TIMOTEO H. was issued. complainant TIMOTEO
Collective Bargaining SARONA vs. H. SARONA without
Agreement (CBA), NATIONAL LABOR ISSUES prejudice to the
such matters must RELATIONS Whether the full outcome of the petition
first be brought before COMMISSION, satisfaction of the with the CA."
the company's ROYALE SECURITY award under the
grievance machinery. AGENCY NLRC’s November 30, The prevailing party’s
(FORMERLY 2005 Decision bars the receipt of the full
ISSUE SCEPTRE petitioner from amount of the judgment
W/N grievance SECURITY AGENCY) questioning the validity award pursuant to a writ
machinery procedure and CESAR S. TAN thereof of execution issued by
should have been G.R. No. 185280, Whether the the labor arbiter does
followed first before January 18, 2012 petitioner’s backwages not close or terminate
respondents should be limited to his the case if such receipt
complaint for illegal Petitioner was hired in salary for three (3) is qualified as without
dismissal could be 1976 by Sceptre as a months prejudice to the
given due course security guard. In outcome of the petition
2003, he was asked to RULING for certiorari pending
RULING resign as a Because his receipt with the CA. Simply put,
NO. Under Art. 217, it requirement for his of the proceeds of the the execution of the
is clear that a labor application for a award under the final and executory
arbiter has original position at Royale. NLRC’s November 30, decision or resolution of
and exclusive Shortly thereafter, 2005 Decision is the NLRC shall proceed
jurisdiction over however, he was qualified and without despite the pendency
termination disputes. dismissed. Petitioner prejudice to the CA’s of a petition for
On the other hand, filed a complaint for resolution of his certiorari, unless it is
under Article 261, a illegal dismissal, in petition for certiorari, restrained by the proper
voluntary arbitrator which he prayed for the petitioner is not court.
has original and piercing the corporate barred from
exclusive jurisdiction veil of Sceptre and exercising his right to It is well-settled, even
over grievances Royale in connection elevate the decision axiomatic, that if
arising from the with computing for his of the CA to this reinstatement is not
interpretation or separation pay. The Court. possible, the period
enforcement of Labor Arbiter ruled in covered in the
company policies. petitioner’s favor but The petitioner’s receipt computation of
refused to pierce the of the monetary award backwages is from the
As a general rule corporate veil. adjudicated by the time the employee
then, termination Petitioner filed a reply NLRC is not absolute, was unlawfully
disputes should be to the respondents’ unconditional and terminated until the
brought before a labor Memorandum of unqualified. The finality of the decision
arbiter, except when Appeal. As the filing of petitioner’s May 3, finding illegal
the parties, under Art. an appeal is the 2007 Motion for dismissal.
262, unmistakably prescribed remedy, Release contains a
express that they the NLRC dismissed reservation, stating in With respect to the
agree to submit the the petitioner’s efforts his prayer that: "it is petitioner’s backwages,
same to voluntary to reverse the Labor respectfully prayed that this Court cannot
arbitration. Arbiter’s decision, the respondents and/or subscribe to the view
essentially saying that Great Domestic that it should be limited
In the present case, petitioner has already Insurance Co. be to an amount equivalent
the CBA provision on waived his right to ordered to to three (3) months of
grievance machinery question the latter’s RELEASE/GIVE the his salary. Backwages
decision. On the other
160
is a remedy affording In case separation satisfaction of the performed work for the
the employee a way to pay is awarded and November 30, 2005 company until
recover what he has reinstatement is no Decision shall be sometime in November
lost by reason of the longer feasible, deducted accordingly. 1999, when he figured
unlawful dismissal. In backwages shall be in an accident that
awarding backwages, computed from the NOTE: I did not compelled him to go
the primordial time of illegal include issue on back to Australia while
consideration is the dismissal up to the piercing the corporate recuperating from his
income that should finality of the decision veil as I am not sure if injuries. While in
have accrued to the should separation pay it is important to the Australia, he was
employee from the not be paid in the subject of dispute informed by
time that he was meantime. It is the settlement respondent Ganzon
dismissed up to his employee’s actual that his services were
reinstatement and the receipt of the full McBurnie v. Ganzon, no longer needed
length of service prior amount of his EGI-Managers, Inc. because their intended
to his dismissal is separation pay that G.R. Nos. 178034 & project would no
definitely will effectively 178117, G R. Nos. longer push through.
inconsequential. terminate the 186984-85,
employment of an October 17, 2013, The respondents
If reinstatement is no illegally dismissed Reyes opposed the
longer possible, employee. Otherwise, complaint, contending
backwages should be the employer- On October 4, 2002, that their agreement
computed from the employee relationship McBurnie, an with McBurnie was to
time the employee was subsists and the Australian national, jointly invest in and
terminated until the illegally dismissed instituted a complaint establish a company
finality of the decision, employee is entitled to for illegal dismissal for the management of
finding the dismissal backwages, taking and other monetary hotels. They did not
unlawful. into account the claims against the intend to create an
increases and other respondents. employer- employee
benefits, including the McBurnie claimed that relationship, and the
13th month pay, that on May 11, 1999, he execution of the
were received by his signed a five-year employment contract
co-employees who employment that was being invoked
are not dismissed. It is agreement with the by McBurnie was
the obligation of the company EGI as an solely for the purpose
employer to pay an Executive Vice- of allowing McBurnie
illegally dismissed President who shall to obtain an alien work
employee or worker oversee the permit in the
the whole amount of management of the Philippines. At the
the salaries or wages, company’s hotels and time McBurnie left for
plus all other benefits resorts within the Australia for
and bonuses and Philippines. He
general increases, to his medical treatment, moral and exemplary
which he would have he had not yet obtained damages, and (c)
been normally entitled a work permit. attorney’s fees
had he not been equivalent to 10% of the
dismissed and had not In a Decision dated total monetary award.
stopped working. September 30, 2004,
the LA declared Feeling aggrieved, the
In fine, this Court McBurnie as having respondents appealed
holds Royale liable to been illegally dismissed the LA’s Decision to the
pay the petitioner from employment, and NLRC. On November 5,
backwages to be thus entitled to receive 2004, they filed their
computed from his from the respondents Memorandum of Appeal
dismissal on October the following amounts: and Motion to Reduce
1, 2003 until the (a) US$985,162.00 as Bond, and posted an
finality of this decision. salary and benefits for appeal bond in the
Nonetheless, the the unexpired term of amount of P100,000.00.
amount received by their employment
the petitioner from the contract, On March 31, 2005, the
respondents in (b) P2,000,000.00 as NLRC denied the

161
motion to reduce bond, clear that the posting of their obligation to ongoing.
explaining that "in a cash or surety bond satisfy their
cases involving by the employer is the employees’ just and MPH replied and told
monetary award, an essential and exclusive lawful claims. respondent to report to
employer seeking to means by which an his new assignment for
appeal the [LA’s] employer’s appeal may To begin with, the the time being, without
decision to the be perfected. x x x. Court rectifies its prior prejudice to the
Commission is pronouncement – the resolution of the
unconditionally Moreover, the filing of unqualified statement grievance involving the
required by Art. 223, the bond is not only that even an appellant transfer. He adamantly
Labor Code to post mandatory but a who seeks a reduction refused to assume his
bond in the amount jurisdictional of an appeal bond new post at the
equivalent to the requirement as well, before the NLRC is Seasons Coffee Shop
monetary award x x x." that must be complied expected to post a and instead continued
Thus, the NLRC with in order to confer cash or surety bond to report to his
required from the jurisdiction upon the securing the full previous assignment at
respondents the NLRC. Non-compliance amount of the Rotisserie. Thus, MPH
posting of an therewith renders the judgment award within sent him several
additional bond in the decision of the Labor the 10-day memoranda on various
amount of Arbiter final and reglementary period to dates, requiring him to
P54,083,910.00. executory. This perfect the appeal. explain in writing why
requirement is intended he should not be
ISSUE to assure the workers MANILA PAVILION penalized for the
This case concerns that if they prevail in HOTEL VS. DELADA following offenses:
the sufficiency of the the case, they will G.R. No. 189947, serious misconduct;
appeal bond that was receive the money January 25, 2012, willful disobedience of
posted by the judgment in their favor Sereno the lawful orders of the
respondents. upon the dismissal of employer; gross
the employer’s appeal. Delada was the Union insubordination; gross
HELD It is intended to President of the and habitual neglect of
The present rule on discourage employers Manila Pavilion duties; and willful
the matter is Section 6, from using an appeal to Supervisors breach of trust.
Rule VI of the 2011 delay or evade Association at MPH. Despite the notices
NLRC Rules of He was originally from MPH, Delada
Procedure, which was assigned as Head persistently rebuffed
substantially the same Waiter of Rotisserie, a orders for him to report
provision in effect at fine-dining restaurant to his new assignment.
the time of the operated by petitioner. According to him,
respondents’ appeal to Pursuant to a since the grievance
the NLRC. supervisory personnel machinery under their
reorganization CBA had already been
The posting of a bond program, MPH initiated, his transfer
is indispensable to the reassigned him as must be held in
perfection of an appeal Head Waiter of abeyance. Thus, on 9
in cases involving Seasons Coffee Shop, May 2007, MPH
monetary awards from another restaurant initiated administrative
the decision of the operated by petitioner proceedings against
Labor Arbiter. The at the same hotel. him.
lawmakers clearly Respondent declined
intended to make the the inter-outlet ISSUE
bond a mandatory transfer and instead Whether MPH retained
requisite for the asked for a grievance the authority to
perfection of an appeal meeting on the matter, continue with the
by the employer as pursuant to their administrative case
inferred from the Collective Bargaining against Delada for
provision that an Agreement (CBA). He insubordination and
appeal by the also requested his willful disobedience of
employer may be retention as Head the transfer order
perfected "only upon Waiter of Rotisserie
the posting of a cash while the grievance RULING
or surety bond." The procedure was Accordingly, we rule in
word "only" makes it
162
this case that MPH
did not lose its
authority to discipline
respondent for his
continued refusal to
report to his new
assignment. In
relation to this point,
we recall our
Decision in Allied
Banking Corporation
v. Court of Appeals.

163
In Allied Banking Corporation, employer Allied Bank
reassigned respondent Galanida from its Cebu City
branch to its Bacolod and Tagbilaran branches. He
refused to follow the transfer order and instead filed a
Complaint before the Labor Arbiter for constructive
dismissal. While the case was pending, Allied Bank
insisted that he report to his new assignment. When he
continued to refuse, it directed him to explain in writing
why no disciplinary action should be meted out to him.
Due to his continued refusal to report to his new
assignment, Allied Bank eventually terminated his
services. When the issue of whether he could validly
refuse to obey the transfer orders was brought before
this Court, we ruled thus:
The refusal to obey a valid transfer order constitutes
willful disobedience of a lawful order of an employer.
Employees may object to, negotiate and seek redress
against employers for rules or orders that they regard
as unjust or illegal. However, until and unless these
rules or orders are declared illegal or improper by
competent authority, the employees ignore or disobey
them at their peril. For Galanida’s continued refusal to
obey Allied Bank's transfer orders, we hold that the
bank dismissed Galanida for just cause in accordance
with Article 282(a) of the Labor Code. Galanida is thus
not entitled to reinstatement or to separation pay.
(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted).
It is important to note what the PVA said on Delada’s
defiance of the transfer order:
In fact, Delada cannot hide under the legal cloak of the
grievance machinery of the CBA or the voluntary
arbitration proceedings to disobey a valid order of
transfer from the management of the hotel. While it is
true that Delada’s transfer to Seasons is the subject of
the grievance machinery in accordance with the
provisions of their CBA, Delada is expected to comply
first with the said lawful directive while awaiting the
results of the decision in the grievance proceedings.
This issue falls squarely in the case of Allied Banking
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals x x x.
Pursuant to Allied Banking, unless the order of MPH is
rendered invalid, there is a presumption of the validity
of that order. Since the PVA eventually ruled that the
transfer order was a valid exercise of management
prerogative, we hereby reverse the Decision and the
Resolution of the CA affirming the Decision of the PVA
in this respect. MPH had the authority to continue with
the administrative proceedings for insubordination and
willful disobedience against Delada and to impose on
him the penalty of suspension. As a consequence,
petitioner is not liable to pay back wages and other
benefits for the period corresponding to the penalty of
90-day suspension.
UNILEVER PHILIPPINES, INC. v. MARIA RUBY M.
RIVERA
G.R. No. 201701, June 3, 2013
160
Rivera was employed as Unilever's Area Activation
Executive for Area 9 South in the cities of Cotabato
and Davao.
Sometime in 2007, Unilever’s internal auditor
conducted a random audit and found out that there
were fictitious billings and fabricated receipts
supposedly from Ventureslink amounting to
P11,200,000.00. It was also discovered that some
funds were diverted from the original intended projects.
Upon further verification, It was found that the fund
deviations were upon the instruction of Rivera.
On July 16, 2007, Unilever issued a show-cause notice
to Rivera asking her to explain the following charges,
to wit: a) Conversion and Misappropriation of
Resources; b) Breach of Fiduciary Trust; c) Policy
Breaches; and d) Integrity Issues.
Rivera admitted the fund diversions, but explained that
such actions were mere resourceful utilization of
budget because of the difficulty of procuring funds from
the head office. She insisted that the diverted funds
were all utilized in the company’s promotional ventures
in her area of coverage.
Unilever found Rivera guilty of serious breach of the
company’s Code of Business Principles compelling it
to sever their professional relations.
ISSUE
Whether or not a validly dismissed employee, like
Rivera, is entitled to an award of separation pay
RULING
As a general rule, an employee who has been
dismissed for any of the just causes enumerated under
Article 282 of the Labor Code is not entitled to a
separation pay.
In this case, Rivera was dismissed from work because
she intentionally circumvented a strict company policy,
manipulated another entity to carry out her instructions
without the company’s knowledge and approval, and
directed the diversion of funds, which she even
admitted doing under the guise of shortening the
laborious process of securing funds for promotional
activities from the head office. These transgressions
were serious offenses that warranted her dismissal
from employment and proved that her termination from
work was for a just cause. Hence, she is not entitled to
a separation pay.
More importantly, Rivera did not appeal the March 31,
2009 ruling of the NLRC disallowing the award of
separation pay to her. It was Unilever who elevated the
case to the CA. It is axiomatic that a party who does
not appeal, or file a petition for certiorari, is not entitled
to any affirmative relief. Due process prevents the
grant of additional awards to parties who did not
appeal. An appellee respondents filed unreasonable; or (3) employees’ consent
who is not an appellant separate complaints for the terms of the waiver had been vitiated by
may assign errors in illegal dismissal against are contrary to law, mistake or fraud. The
his brief where his PCMC. Respondents public order, public law looks with disfavor
purpose is to maintain primarily relied on the policy, morals, or good upon quitclaims and
the judgment, but he Supreme Court’s customs or prejudicial releases by employees
cannot seek decision in Philippine to a third person with a pressured into signing
modification or Carpet Employees right recognized by law. by unscrupulous
reversal of the Association (PHILCEA) The instant case falls employers minded to
judgment or claim v. Hon. Sto. Tomas under the first situation. evade legal
affirmative relief unless (Philcea case), as to responsibilities. The
he has also appealed. the validity of the As the ground for circumstances show
It was, therefore, company’s termination of that petitioner’s
erroneous for the CA retrenchment program. employment was misrepresentation led
to grant an affirmative They further explained illegal, the quitclaims its employees,
relief to Rivera who did that PCMC did not, in are deemed illegal as specifically
not ask for it. fact, suffer losses the respondents herein, to
shown by its acts prior believe that the
PHILIPPINE to and subsequent to company was suffering
their termination. They losses which
CARPET also insisted that their necessitated the
acceptance of implementation of the
MANUFACTURING separation pay and voluntary retirement
CORPORATION v. signing of quitclaim is and retrenchment
TAGYAMON not a bar to the pursuit programs, and
G.R. No. 191475, of illegal dismissal eventually the
December 11, 2013 case. execution of the deeds
of release, waiver and
Petitioner Philippine ISSUE quitclaim.
Carpet Manufacturing W/N the respondents'
Corporation (PCMC) is acceptance of PRINCE
a corporation separation pay and TRANSPORT, Inc.
registered in the signing of quitclaim is a and Mr. RENATO
Philippines engaged in bar to the pursuit of CLAROS v.
the business of illegal dismissal case DIOSDADO GARCIA
manufacturing wool et al.
and yarn carpets and HELD G.R. No. 167291,
rugs. Respondents NO. "As a rule, deeds January 12, 2011
were its regular and of release and
permanent employees, quitclaim cannot bar Respondents, former
but were affected by employees from employees of Prince
petitioner’s demanding benefits to Transport transferred
retrenchment and which they are legally to a sub-company
voluntary retirement entitled or from Lubas Transport, filed
programs. contesting the legality various complaints
of their dismissal. The charging petitioners
Thru a memorandum acceptance of those with illegal dismissal,
of dismissal, they were benefits would not unfair labor practice
informed that in view of amount to estoppel." and illegal deductions
a slump in the market To excuse and praying for the
demand for products respondents from award of premium pay
due to the un- complying with the for holiday and rest
competitiveness of the terms of their waivers, day, holiday pay,
company's price, the they must locate their service leave pay, 13th
company is case within any of three month pay, moral and
constrained to reduce narrow grounds: (1) the exemplary damages
the number of its employer used fraud or and attorney's fees.
workforce. Claiming deceit in obtaining the The Labor Arbiter ruled
that they were waivers; (2) the that petitioners are not
aggrieved by PCMC’s consideration the guilty of unfair labor
decision to terminate employer paid is practice in the absence
their employment, incredible and
161
of evidence to show which granted
that they violated respondents' petition.
respondents’ right to The CA ruled that
self- organization. petitioners are guilty
The Labor Arbiter of unfair labor
also held that Lubas practice; that Lubas is
is the respondents’ a mere
employer and that it instrumentality, agent
(Lubas) is an entity conduit or adjunct of
which is separate, PTI; and that
distinct and petitioners’ act of
independent from transferring
PTI. Nonetheless, the respondents’
Labor Arbiter found employment to Lubas
that Lubas is guilty of is indicative of their
illegally dismissing intent to frustrate the
respondents from efforts of respondents
their employment. to organize
themselves into a
Respondents filed a union. Petitioners filed
Partial Appeal with a Motion for
the NLRC praying, Reconsideration, but
among others, that the CA denied it.
PTI should also be
held equally liable as ISSUES
Lubas. The NLRC a. Whether the Court
modified the Decision of Appeals should
of the Labor Arbiter. have respected the
Respondents filed a findings of the Labor
Motion for Arbiter, which was
Reconsideration, but affirmed by the NLRC
the NLRC denied it. b. Whether the
Respondents then petition filed with the
filed a special civil CA is fatally defective,
action for certiorari because the attached
with the CA assailing verification and
the Decision and certificate against
Resolution of the forum shopping was
NLRC. The CA signed only by
rendered the herein respondent Garcia
assailed Decision
c. Whether the CA positions, considering
should not have given that the issue of
due course to the reinstatement was
petition filed before it never brought up
with respect to some before it and
of the respondents, respondents never
considering that these questioned the award
respondents did not of separation pay to
sign the verification them
attached to the
Memorandum of RULING
Partial Appeal earlier a. No. The power of the
filed with the NLRC CA to review NLRC
d. Whether the CA decisions via a petition
erred and committed for certiorari under Rule
grave abuse of 65 of the Rules of
discretion when it Court has been settled
ordered petitioners to as early as this Court’s
reinstate respondents decision in St. Martin
to their former Funeral Homes v.
162
NLRC. In said case,
the Court held that the
proper vehicle for such
review is a special civil
action for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the
said Rules, and that the
case should be filed
with the CA in strict
observance of the
doctrine of hierarchy of
courts. Moreover, it is
already settled that
under Section 9 of
Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7902,
the CA — pursuant to
the exercise of its
original jurisdiction over
petitions for certiorari
— is specifically given
the power to pass upon
the evidence, if and
when necessary, to
resolve factual issues.
Firstly, petitioners posit
that the petition filed
with the CA is fatally
defective, because the
attached verification
and certificate against
forum shopping was
signed only by
respondent Garcia.
b. No. While the
general rule is that the
certificate of non-forum
shopping must be
signed by all the
plaintiffs in a case and
the signature of only
one of them is
insufficient, the Court
has stressed that the
rules on forum
shopping, which were
designed to promote
and facilitate the
orderly administration
of justice, should not be
interpreted with such
absolute literalness as
to subvert its own
ultimate and legitimate
objective. Strict
compliance with the
provision regarding the
certificate of non-forum
shopping underscores
its mandatory nature in
that the certification
cannot be altogether
dispensed with or its
requirements
completely disregarded.
It does not, however,
prohibit substantial
compliance therewith
under justifiable
circumstances,
considering especially
that although it is
obligatory, it is not
jurisdictional.
In a number of cases,
the Court has
consistently held that
when all the petitioners
share a common
interest and invoke a
common cause of
action or defense, the
signature of only one of
them in the certification
against forum shopping
substantially complies
with the rules. In the
present case, there is
no question that
respondents share a
common interest and
invoke a common cause
of action. Hence, the
signature of respondent
Garcia is a sufficient
compliance with the rule
governing certificates of
non-forum shopping. In
the first place, some of
the respondents
actually executed a
Special Power of
Attorney authorizing
Garcia as their justify a court in the facts alleged in the
attorney-in-fact in refusing to allow and complaint and the
filing a petition for act on a case. Hence, evidence introduced
certiorari with the CA. the failure of some of so warrant. The court
the respondents to shall grant relief
c. No. With respect sign the verification warranted by the
to the absence of attached to their allegations and the
some of the workers’ Memorandum of proof even if no such
signatures in the Appeal filed with the relief is prayed for.
verification, the NLRC is not fatal to The prayer in the
verification their cause of action. complaint for other
requirement is reliefs equitable and
deemed substantially d. No. It is clear from just in the premises
complied with when the complaints filed by justifies the grant of a
some of the parties respondents that they relief not otherwise
who undoubtedly are seeking specifically prayed for.
have sufficient reinstatement. In the instant case,
knowledge and belief aside from their
to swear to the truth In any case, Section 2 specific prayer for
of the allegations in (c), Rule 7 of the reinstatement,
the petition had Rules of Court respondents, in their
signed the same. provides that a separate complaints,
Such verification is pleading shall specify prayed for such reliefs
deemed a sufficient the relief sought, but which are deemed just
assurance that the may add a general and equitable.
matters alleged in the prayer for such further
petition have been or other reliefs as may
made in good faith or be deemed just and
are true and correct, equitable. Under this
and not merely rule, a court can grant
speculative. the relief warranted by
Moreover, the allegation and the
respondents' Partial proof even if it is not
Appeal shows that specifically sought by
the appeal stipulated the injured party; the
as complainants- inclusion of a general
appellants "Rizal prayer may justify the
Beato, et al.", grant of a remedy
meaning that there different from or
were more than one together with the
appellant who were specific remedy
all workers of sought, if the facts
petitioners. alleged in the
complaint and the
In any case, the evidence introduced
settled rule is that a so warrant.
pleading which is
required by the Rules Moreover, in BPI
of Court to be Family Bank v.
verified, may be given Buenaventura, this
due course even Court ruled that the
without a verification general prayer is
if the circumstances broad enough "to
warrant the justify extension of a
suspension of the remedy different from
rules in the interest of or together with the
justice. Indeed, the specific remedy
absence of a sought." Even without
verification is not the prayer for a
jurisdictional, but only specific remedy,
a formal defect, which proper relief may be
does not of itself granted by the court if
163
NOTE: I did not include issues on piercing the
corporate veil and unfair labor practice as I am not
sure whether they’re important to the subject of
dispute settlement