TELL ME ABOUT LABOR LAW

Do you know that an employer has a distinct prerogative to dismiss an employee if the former
has ample reason to distrust the latter or if there is sufficient evidence to show that the employee
has been guilty of breach of trust.
Thus, in Central Azucarera de Bais v. Heirs of Zuelo Apostol, G.R. No. 215314, March 14,
2018 citing Alaska Milk Corporation, and the Estate of Wilfred Uytengsu vs. Ernesto L. Ponce,
where the Court ruled that, in order to invoke this cause, certain requirements must be complied
with, namely: (1) the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence;
and (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. In addition to
these, the case of Juliet B. Sta. Ana vs. Manila Jockey Club, Inc., G.R. No. 208459, February 15,
2017 included, as a requirement, that such loss of trust relates to the employee's performance of
duties.

Do you know that in order to determine whether a claim for damages under Article 217 a par. 4
[now Art. 224 a(4)] of the Labor Code is properly cognizable by the labor arbiter, jurisprudence
has evolved the "reasonable connection rule" which essentially states that the claim for damages
must have reasonable causal connection with any of the claims provided for in that article.
A money claim by a worker against the employer or vice-versa is within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the labor arbiter only if there is a "reasonable causal connection" between the
claim asserted and employee-employer relations. Only if there is such a connection with the
other claims (see Art. 224 a par. 1,2,3,5 and 6) can the claim for damages be considered as
arising from employer-employee relations. Absent such a link, the complaint will be cognizable
by the regular courts. (PAL v. APAP, GR No. 200088, Feb 26, 2018)

Do you know that according to Bugaoisan v. OWI Group Manila, G.R. No. 226208, February
7, 2018, the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals under Rule 65 was confined only to
the determination of whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in deciding
the issues brought before it on appeal. The Court of Appeals is allowed to consider the factual
issues only insofar as they serve as the basis of the jurisdictional error imputed to the NLRC.

Do you know that backwages is not a private compensation or damages xxx but is in furtherance
and effectuation of the public objectives of the Labor Code. Even though the practical effect is
the enrichment of the individual, the award of backwages is not in redress of a private right, but
rather, is in the nature of a command upon the employer to make public reparation for his
violation of the Labor Code.
(American Power Conversion Corporation v. Lim, G.R. No. 214291, January 11, 2018 citing
Callanta v. Carnation Philippines, Inc., 229 Phil. 279, 287 [1986])

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you know that according to PHILIPPINE SPAN ASIA CARRIERS CORPORATION
(FORMERLY SULPICIO LINES, INC.), v. PELAYO,G.R. No. 212003, February 28, 2018
"Not every inconvenience, disruption, difficulty, or disadvantage that an employee must endure
sustains a finding of constructive dismissal." It is an employer's right to investigate acts of
wrongdoing by employees. Employees involved in such investigations cannot ipso facto claim
that employers are out to get them. Their involvement in investigations will naturally entail some
inconvenience, stress, and difficulty. However, even if they might be burdened - and, in some
cases, rather heavily so - it does not necessarily mean that an employer has embarked on their
constructive dismissal.

QUESTION: What is the effect if an employee knowingly defies a return-to-work order issued
by the Secretary of Labor in national interest cases?
ANSWER: Tolentino v. PAL, G.R. No. 218984, January 24, 2018

QUESTION: What is the effect of an unconditional and categorical letter of resignation

submitted by an employee, who was fully aware of its effects and implications?
ANSWER: Pascua v. Pascua, GR No. 191460, Jan 31, 2018

QUESTION: Who has the burden to prove payment when monetary claims involves salary
differential, service incentive leave, holiday pay, 13th month pay and when it involves overtime
pay, premium pays for holidays and rest days?
ANSWER: Minsola v. New City Builders, Inc.,G.R. No. 207613, January 31, 2018

QUESTION: What is the presumption created by the DOLE's issuance of a Certificate of

Registration in favor of a contractor other than that it is not a labor only contractor?
ANSWER: Mago v. Sun Power Manufacturing Limited, G.R. No. 210961, January 24, 2018
Do you know that in Magsaysay Mitsui OSK Marine, Inc., vs. Buenaventura, G.R. No. 195878
,January 10, 2018 the Supreme Court made the following summary of the rules governing a
seafarers claim for total and permanent disability benefits:
1. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's
disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;
2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120
days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total;
3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days
with a sufficient justification (e.g., seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was
uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The
employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient
justification to extend the period; and
4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended
period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any
justification.
The Court is not unmindful of the declaration in INC Shipmanagement that "[t]he extent of his
disability (whether total or partial) is determined, not by the number of days that he could not
work, but by the disability grading the doctor recognizes based on his resulting incapacity to
work and earn his wages." Indeed, the disability benefits granted to the seafarer are not entirely
dependent on the number of treatment lapsed days. The treatment period can be extended to 240
days if the company-designated physician provided some sufficient justification. Equally
eminent, however, is the Court's pronouncement in the more recent case of Carcedo that "[t]he
determination of the fitness of a seafarer for sea duty is the province of the company-designated
physician, subject to the periods prescribed by law."

QUESTION: Is the Court of Appeals in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, involving the
assailed rulings of the NLRC, limited to the determination of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC?
ANSWER: Laya, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 205813,January 10, 2018

QUESTION: Does the acceptance of an employee of the employment offer had carried with it
his acquiescence, which implied his knowledge of the plan, of the employer's retirement
program/plan?
ANSWER: Laya, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 205813,January 10, 2018

Do you know that "an employee in the private sector who did not expressly agree to the terms of
an early retirement plan cannot be separated from the service before he reaches the age of 65
years. The employer who retires the employee prematurely is guilty of illegal dismissal, and is
liable to pay his backwages and to reinstate him without loss of seniority and other benefits,
unless the employee has meanwhile reached the mandatory retirement age under the Labor Code,
in which case he is entitled to separation pay pursuant to theterms of the plan, with legal interest
on the backwages and separation pay reckoned from the finality of the decision.(Laya, Jr. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 205813, January 10, 2018)

Do you know that to determine the voluntariness of an employee's resignation, viz.: xxx the
intention to relinquish an office must concur with the overt act of relinquishment. The act of the
employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered to determine whether in
fact, he or she intended to relinquish such employment. This procedure was clarified by the High
Court in Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines, G. R. No. 229881,
September 5, 2018 citing Fortuny Garments/Johnny Co v. Castro, 514 Phil. 317 (2005).

Do you know that illegal dismissal is different from constructive dismissal?

The High Court in Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines, G. R.
No. 229881, September 5, 2018 explained as follows: There is a difference between illegal and
constructive dismissal. Illegal dismissal is readily shown by the act of the employer in openly
seeking the termination of an employee while constructive dismissal, being a dismissal in
disguise, is not readily indicated by any similar act of the employer that would openly and
expressly show its desire and intent to terminate the employment relationship.

Do you know that the Supreme Court in Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency v. Israel, G. R. No.
200258, October 3, 2018 harmoniously interpreted and gave life to the application of the 120-
day period under the Labor Code and the POEA-Standard Employment Contract and the 240-day
period under the IRR involving disability benefits of seafarers. Thus, the High Court
explained:Hence; as it stands, the current rule provides: (1) that mere inability to work for a
period of 120 days does not entitle a seafarer to permanent and total disability benefits; (2) that
the determination of the fitness of a seafarer for sea duty is within the province of the company-
designated physician, subject to the periods prescribed by law; (3) that the company-designated
physician has an initial 120 days to determine the fitness or disability of the seafarer; and (4) that
the period of treatment may only be extended to 240 days if a sufficient justification exists such
as when further medical treatment is required or when the seafarer is uncooperative.

Do you know the concept of the words "arising out of" and "in the course of" in Employees'
Compensation? According to Guerrero v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. G. R. No.
222523, October, 3,2018 the words "arising out of' refer to the origin or cause of the accident,
and are descriptive of its character, while the words "in the course of' refer to the time, place, and
circumstances under which the accident takes place. As a matter of general proposition, an injury
or accident is said to arise "in the course of employment" when it takes place within the period of
the employment, at a place where the employee reasonably may be, and while he is fulfilling his
duties or is engaged in doing something incidental thereto. (United Philippine Lines, Inc., 746
Phil. 758, 768 [2014]).

Do you know that given its variable rulings the Supreme Court resolved the question on what
should now be the period to be followed in appealing the decisions or awards of the Voluntary
Arbitrators or Panel of Arbitrators? The period to appeal the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator
or Panel of Arbitrators under Rule 43 is fifteen (15) days.
The High Court in the En Banc case of Guagua National Colleges v. Court of Appeals, G. R.
No. 188492, August 28, 2018, explained that the 10-day period stated in Article 276 should be
understood as the period within which the party adversely affected by the ruling of the Voluntary
Arbitrators or Panel of Arbitrators may file a motion for reconsideration. Only after the
resolution of the motion for reconsideration may the aggrieved party appeal to the CA by filing
the petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within 15 days from notice pursuant
to Section 4 of Rule 43.

Do you know that in Mago v. Sun Power Manufacturing Limited, G. R. No. 210961, January
24, 2018 it was explained that the fact of registration with DOLE does not necessarily create a
presumption that Jobcrest is a legitimate and independent contractor. The Court emphasizes,
however, that the DOLE Certificate of Registration issued in favor of Jobcrest is presumed to
have been issued the regular performance of official duty.(Sr., et al. v. NLRC 4th Division, et al.,
590 Phil. 685, 707 [2008]. See) In other words, the DOLE officer who issued the certificate in
favor of Jobcrest is presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have evaluated the application for
registration in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. (DOLE DO No. 18-02,
Section 12; Gallego v. Bayer Philippines, Inc., et al., 612 Phil. 250, 263 [2009]) The petitioners
must overcome the presumption of regularity accorded to the official act of DOLE, which is no
less than the agency primarily tasked with the regulation of job contracting.(DO No. 18-A,
Section 3[1]. Id.)

Do you know that in Maricalum Mining Corporation v. Florentino, G. R. No. 221813, 222723,
August 23, 2018 it was ruled that in cases where there is no written agreement to base the
relationship on and where the various tasks performed by the worker bring complexity to the
relationship with the employer, the better approach would therefore be to adopt a two-tiered test
involving: a) the putative employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means
and methods by which the work is to be accomplished; and b) the underlying economic realities
of the activity or relationship.