CASE DIGESTED FOR 8 BAR SUBJECTS BY JAMES MAMBA.doc

8/17/2019 CASE DIGESTED FOR 8 BAR SUBJECTS BY JAMES MAMBA.doc

1/706

http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/labor-cases-digests-

2.html

LABOR 1

Q. The factory workers of Sime Darby used to work from 7:45 a.m. to 3:45

p.m. with a 30-miute paid !o ca""# "uch break. $ %&&'( Sime Darby

issued a memoradum to a"" factory workers ad)isi* them of a cha*e i

work schedu"e. The ew work schedu"e e"imiated the 30-miute paid !o

ca""# "uch break ad *a)e the workers a oe-hour upaid "uch break.

+der the ew schedu"e( the workers wi"" sti"" work for ei*ht hours per day.

The workers fi"ed a comp"ait for ufair "abor practice. Did the compaycommit ay ufair "abor practice whe it re)ised the work schedu"e,

. o( the compay did ot commit ay ufair "abor practice. The ri*ht to

fi/ the work schedu"es of the emp"oyees rests pricipa""y o their

emp"oyer. +der the o"d schedu"e( the workers cou"d be ca""ed upo to do

obs duri* their 30-miute paid "uch break. +der the ew schedu"e( the

workers were *i)e a oe-hour "uch break without ay iterruptio fromtheir emp"oyer. Thus( there is o eed to compesate the workers for this

period. Sice the ew schedu"e app"ies to a"" emp"oyees i the factory

whether uio members or ot( it is ot discrimiatory. $t caot be said

that this ew scheme preudices the workers1 ri*ht to se"f-or*ai2atio.

ece( there is o ufair "abor practice i this case.

Q. Shou"d the appea" bod be posted withi the te %0 day re*"emetary

period for fi"i* a appea" from the 6abor rbiter1s decisio,

. s a *eera" ru"e( yes. he the ud*met i)o")es a moetary award(

a appea" by the emp"oyer may be perfected o"y upo posti* of a cash or

http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/labor-cases-digests-2.htmlhttp://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/labor-cases-digests-2.htmlhttp://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/labor-cases-digests-2.htmlhttp://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/labor-cases-digests-2.html


2/706

surety bod i a amout e8ui)a"et to the moetary award i the

ud*met appea"ed from. 9omp"iace with the re8uiremet of posti* a

bod is both madatory ad imperati)e as the perfectio of a appea"

withi the re*"emetary period is urisdictioa". $ a *rowi* umber of cases( howe)er( the Supreme 9ourt has re"a/ed the stri*et app"icatio of

the ru"e coceri* the posti* of the appea" bod withi the te %0 day

re*"emetary period as a re8uiremet for the perfectio of a appea". The

Supreme 9ourt has a""owed the fi"i* of a motio for reductio of bod i

"ieu of the appea" bod withi the re*"emetary period for fi"i* a appea".

$ such case( the appea" bod may be fi"ed after the "apse of the

re*"emetary period ad after the reso"utio of the motio to reduce the

amout of the bod . (Alcosero v. NLRC, 288 SCRA 129, March 26,

1998)

Q. oberto was a dri)er of ;hi"traco who was assi*ed to the 6e*aspi

9ity-;asay 9ity route. e was dismissed from the ser)ice. e fi"ed a

comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa" before the 691s atioa" 9apita" re*io

rbitratio


3/706

cited by ;hi"traco speaks of the comp"aiat1s workp"ace( e)idet"y

showi* that the ru"e is iteded for the e/c"usi)e beefit of the worker.

This bei* the case( the worker may wai)e said beefit. =oreo)er( sice

oberto was assi*ed to 6e*aspi 9ity-;asay 9ity route( the fi"i* of thecomp"ait with the atioa" 9apita" e*io rbitratio e day( a heated ar*umet occurred betwee

=ario ad a @reek deck steward( Aakkas( which resu"ted i a scuff"e

betwee the two. Aakkas pushed =ario who fe"" hitti* his head a*aist

the stee" mo"di* of the door. =ario suffered a cut i the head. ;rior to

this icidet( Aakkas ad the other @reek workers cotiuous"y ridicu"ed

=ario. The i*ht before the icidet( Aakkas threateed to pour hot coffee

o =ario1s head. =ario reported the abuses to the ship captai but the

"atter ust b"amed =ario for oii* the ship.


4/706

)o"utary but was impe""ed by a "e*itimate desire for se"f-preser)atio.

The ship captai( as the *eera" a*et of the ship ower( cou"d be he"d

resposib"e for fai"i* to make the workp"ace safe for =ario. This is a c"ear

case of costructi)e dismissa". (Sin#a Shi Mana#a$ent Phils., !nc. v.NLRC, 288 SCRA 692, Aril 1%, 1998)

Q. ;$S$ is a du"y "icesed security a*ecy. $t hired Bscobi ad se)era"

other security *uards to work as *uards i the premises of


5/706

. o( the dismissa" was ot )a"id. Disobediece( to be a ust cause for

termiatio( must be wi""fu" ad per)erse meta" attitude rederi* the

emp"oyee1s act icosistet with proper subordiatio. wi""fu" or itetioa" disobediece ustifies dismissa" o"y whe the ru"e( order or

istructio is % reasoab"e ad "awfu"( ' sufficiet"y kow to the

emp"oyee( ad 3 coected with the duties which the emp"oyee has bee

e*a*ed to dischar*e. The reasoab"eess ad "awfu"ess of a ru"e

deped o the circumstaces of each case. easoab"eess pertais to

the kid or character of directi)es ad commads ad to the maer i

which they are ade. $ this case( the order to report to the =ai"a office

fai"s to meet this stadard. $t was *ross"y ico)eiet for the *uards who

were residets ad heads of fami"ies i


6/706

. o( the ru"i* is erroeous. The defiitio of the term !wa*e# i the

6abor 9ode e/p"icit"y ic"udes commissios. hi"e commissios are

iceti)es or forms of ecoura*emet to ispire workers to put a "itt"e moreidustry o their obs( sti"" these commissios are direct remueratios for

ser)ices redered. There is o "aw madati* that commissios be paid

o"y after the miimum wa*e has bee paid to the worker. The

estab"ishmet of a miimum wa*e o"y sets a f"oor be"ow which a

emp"oyee1s remueratio caot fa""( ot that commissios are e/c"uded

from wa*es i determii* comp"iace with the miimum wa*e "aw. (!ran

v. NLRC, 289 SCRA %'', Aril 22, 1998)

Q. $ a comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa" ad ufair "abor practices( ud*met

was redered i fa)or of


7/706

Bterprises be dec"ared )oid. $s the 69 competet to determie the

"e*a"ity of the sa"e,

. o. The power of the 69 to e/ecute its ud*met e/teds o"y topropertiesnestiona&l* &elon#in# to the ud*met debtor. $f the

property uder "e)y does ot be"o* to the ud*met debtor i the 69

case( it cou"d ot be "e)ied upo by the sheriff for the satisfactio of the

ud*met therei. B)e upo a mere prima facie showi* of owership by

the third-party c"aimat( if the third party c"aim does ot i)o")e or *rows

out of a "abor dispute( a separate actio for iucti)e re"ief a*aist such

"e)y may be maitaied i court. $f there is suspicio that the sa"e of

properties was ot i *ood faith( i.e. was made i fraud of creditors( the

69 is icompetet to make a determiatio . The task is udicia" ad

the proceedi*s must be ad)ersary. (Co +an v. NLRC, 289 SCRA %1",

Aril 22, 1998)

Q. The e*ioa" a*e rder o. F-

0%. Three corporatios fi"ed app"icatios for e/emptio as !distressed

estab"ishmets# uder @uide"ies o. 3 issued by the e*ioa" a*e


8/706

for the determiatio of miimum wa*e ad producti)ity measures. hi"e

the e*ioa" a*e


9/706

the *uards1 idirect emp"oyer uder rts. %0G( %07( ad %0& of the 6abor

9ode. osewood appea"ed c"aimi* that it had o participatio i the

i""e*a" dismissa" of the *uards. ssumi* osewood1s c"aim is true( shou"d

the "abor arbiter1s ru"i* be re)ersed,

. Ies( the "abor arbiter1s ru"i* shou"d be re)ersed. +der the 6abor

9ode( a emp"oyer is so"idari"y "iab"e for "e*a" wa*es due security

*uards 0or the erio/ o0 ti$e the* ere assi#ne/ to it by its cotracted

security a*ecy. owe)er( i the absece of proof that the emp"oyer itse"f

committed the acts costituti)e of i""e*a" dismissa" or cospired with the

security a*ecy i the performace of such acts( the emp"oyer shall not &e

lia&le for backwa*es ador separatio pay arisi* as a cose8uece of

such u"awfu" termiatio. (Roseoo/ Processin#, !nc. v. NLRC, 29

SCRA %8, Ma* 21, 1998)

Q. $ a i""e*a" dismissa" case( the 6abor rbiter uphe"d the )a"idity of a

retrechmet pro*ram imp"emeted by a mii* compay. s basis for

the ru"i*( the 6abor rbiter took !udicia" otice# of the ecoomic difficu"ties

suffered by the mii* sector. $s the ru"i* correct,

. o( the ru"i* is erroeous. Eurisprudece prescribes the miimum

stadards ecessary to pro)e the )a"idity of a retrechmet: a the "osses

e/pected must be substatia" ad ot mere"y de minimis i e/tetJ b the

substatia" "osses appreheded must be reasoab"y immietJ c theretrechmet must be reasoab"y ecessary ad "ike"y to effecti)e"y

pre)et the e/pected "ossesJ ad d the a""e*ed "osses( if a"ready icurred(

ad the e/pected immiet "osses sou*ht to be foresta""ed must be pro)ed

by sufficiet ad co)ici* e)idece. $ this case( the retrechmet


10/706

caot be cosidered )a"id o the basis of the !udicia" otice# take by the

6abor rbiter. (Anino v. NLRC, 29 SCRA %89, Ma* 21, 1998)

Q. $c"uded i a comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa" is a c"aim for i*ht shiftdifferetia"s. The emp"oyer did ot dey that the comp"aiat redered

i*ht shift work. The "abor arbiter dismissed the c"aim for i*ht shift

differetia"s because the comp"aiat a""e*ed"y fai"ed to substatiate his

c"aim for i*ht shift differetia"s. $s the ru"i* correct,

. o( the ru"i* is erroeous. The fact that the comp"aiat e*"ected to

substatiate his c"aim for i*ht shift differetia"s is ot preudicia" to his

cause. The burde of pro)i* paymet rests o the emp"oyer. The

worker1s c"aim of o-paymet of this beefit is a e*ati)e a""e*atio which

eed ot be supported by e)idece. The worker caot ade8uate"y pro)e

the fact of o-paymet of the i*ht shift differetia"s sice the pertiet

emp"oyee fi"es( payro""s( records( ad other simi"ar documets are ot i his

possessio but i the custody ad abso"ute cotro" of petitioer.


11/706

. o( the 691s decisio is u"" ad )oid. $t is a cardia" ru"e i "aw that

a decisio or ud*met is fata""y defecti)e if redered i )io"atio of a party-

"iti*at1s ri*ht to due process. The fau"t "ies with the 69 ad ot withthe appe""at worker. hi"e the ew u"es of ;rocedure of the 69

re8uire proof of ser)ice of the appea" o the other party( o-comp"iace

therewith wi"" preset o obstac"e to the perfectio of the appea" or does it

amout to a urisdictioa" defect to the 691s taki* co*i2ace thereof.

hi"e the "aw e/cuses the appe""at from otifyi* the other party of the

appea"( o reaso ca be *i)e by the 69 that wou"d e/empt it from

iformi* the "atter of the appea" ad *i)i* it a opportuity to be heard.

The case shou"d be set for further proceedi*s to afford the emp"oyer the

opportuity to be heard. (Philiine National Constrction Cororation

v. NLRC, 292 SCRA 266, l* 1, 1998)

Q. $ their aswer to a case for i""e*a" dismissa"( the emp"oyer fi"ed positio

papers supported by affida)its. Subse8uet"y( the 6abor rbiter ordered the

compay to pay wa*e differetia"s ad other beefits. They appea"ed to

the 69 by fi"i* a supp"emeta" memoradum to correct ad amp"ify

iade8uate a""e*atios ad certai omissios. $ this appea"( the seek to

itroduce ew e)idece to pro)e that there was o emp"oyee-emp"oyer

re"atioship. Shou"d the 69 admit ew e)idece,

. o. eari*s had a"ready bee schedu"ed( yet the emp"oyer chosemere"y to submit positio papers. s such( the compay had e)ery

opportuity to submit before the "abor arbiter the e)idece which they

sou*ht to adduce before the 69. (Santos v. NLRC5 l* 2', 1998)


12/706

Q. ;etitioer was emp"oyed as ccouti* =aa*er etrusted with the

e)a"uatio ad assessmet of cotacts. cotractor comp"aied that

petitioer was aski* two thousad pesos for e)ery cotract the cotractor *ets from the compay. ;etitioer admitted ha)i* accepted moey o

four differet occasios. The compay termiated petitioer o this *roud.

as she )a"id"y dismissed,

. Ies( the compay1s re"iace o petitioer1s assessmet of cotracts was

based primari"y o trust ad cofidece. er acceptace of moey( e)e if

)o"utary o the cotractor1s part( casts doubt o her ite*rity. a)i*

occupied a maa*eria" positio( petitioer maybe dismissed o the *roud

of "oss of trust ad cofidece. B)e if she was a first-time offeder( a

compay may resort to acts of se"f-defese a*aist a maa*eria" emp"oyee

who has breached their trust ad cofidece. ?urthermore( each of the

four occasios is treated as a separate offeseJ hece( mi"itati* her p"ea

of first ifractio.(4illaneva v. NLRC5 l* 2-, 1998)

Q. ;etitioers were dismissed from ser)ice after they were asked by the

compay to *o throu*h dru*-tests( as the compay recei)ed iformatio

that they were smoki* somethi* Kshabu1 iside the work premises.

;etitioers ad the compay submitted their respecti)e positio papers o

the icidet. The 6abor rbiter foud the dismissa" based o the positio

papers as )a"id which the 69 affirmed. 9a a fu""-b"ow tria" bedispesed with by the "abor arbiter,

. Ies. u"es of e)idece i courts sha"" ot be cotro""i* i ay case

brou*ht before the commissio rt. ''%( 69. The 6abor 9ode a""ows the


13/706

"abor arbiter ad 69 to decide the case based o positio papers ad

other documets. The ho"di* of a tria" is discretioary o the "abor arbiter

ad caot be demaded as a matter of ri*ht by the parties. (Sare v.

NLRC5 l* '1, 1998)

Q. super)isory emp"oyee "abor or*ai2atio was issued a charter

certificate by a atioa" federatio to which the compay1s rak ad fi"e

uio was a"so affi"iatedL with. $t fi"ed a petitio for certificatio e"ectio(

opposed by the compay because the uio was a""e*ed"y composed of

both super)isory ad rak ad fi"e emp"oyees sice both uios are

affi"iated with the same federatio. Shou"d the petitio for certificatio

e"ectios be *rated,

. Ies. The affi"iatio of two "oca" uios i a compay with the same

atioa" federatio is ot a e*atio of their idepedece as uios

sice i re"atio to the emp"oyer( the "oca" uios are cosidered as

pricipa"s whi"e the federatio is deemed as their a*et. The "oca"s are

separate from each other ad their affi"iatio with the same federatio

wou"d ot make them members of the same "abor uio. super)isory

or*ai2atio is prohibited from oii* the same federatio as that of the

rak ad fi"e or*ai2atio o"y if two coditios are preset: %. The M ?

emp"oyees are direct"y uder the authority of super)isory emp"oyees ad '.

The atioa" federatio is acti)e"y i)o")ed i uio acti)ities i the

compay. (3LS7 Me/ical Center v. La#es$a5 A#st 12, 1998)

Q. ;ri)ate respodets were emp"oyed by ;6 with a sa"ary of ;%(HG0.

They *ot a sa"ary icrease of ;400mo. for a tota" moth"y compesatio of

;'('G0 under the CBA. Subse8uet"y( GG40 was passed raisi* the


14/706

miimum wa*e of worker. Their sa"aries were adusted a*ai by addi*

;304 pursuat to the thus their tota" *ross pay amouted to ;'(5G5.

fter four moths( they were promoted ad their basic pay of ;%(HG0 was

raised to ;'(300mo. p"us the 9rder os. 5 ad G i the Apex

ruling, there is o creditabi"ity pro)isio i GG40. $t was ot the itetio

of 9o*ress to credit sa"ary icreases by reaso of 9


15/706

coteds that the he was ot )a"id"y ser)ed with summos sice the

bookkeeper caot be cosidered a a*et uder the u"es of 9ourt ad

thus the "abor arbiter e)er ac8uired urisdictio o)er respodet. Did the

"abor arbiter ac8uire urisdictio o)er respodet,

. Ies. ;rocedura" ru"es are "ibera""y costrued ad app"ied i 8uasi-udicia"

proceedi*s. Substatia" comp"iace i this case is cosidered ade8uate.

The bookkeeper ca be cosidered a a*et because his ob is ite*rated

with the corporatio. Pa&on v. NLRC, Set. 2%,1998)

Q. 9a a compay( dissatisfied with the decisio of the 6abor rbiter( fi"e a

=otio to med the >rder of the 6abor rbiter more tha a moth after the

date of issuace of the >rder,

. o. To a""ow the amedmet of the order wi"" resu"t i the circum)etio

of Sec. %7 of the u"es of ;rocedure of the 69 which pro)ide that !o

=otio for ecosideratio of ay order or decisio of the 6abor rbiter

sha"" be a""owed.# To permit this wou"d o"y a""ow the petitioer to )io"ate

the statutory %0-day period re8uiremet for appea". Scherin# E$lo*ees

La&or 7nion v. NLRC, Set. 2",1998)

Q. espodet was first hired by S=9 e*a*ed i the maufacture of

*"ass for a period of 4 moths to repair ad up*rade its furace. %0 days

after his first cotract eded( he was a*ai hired to drai aother furacefor 3 moths. $s he a proect emp"oyee,

. Ies. There are two kids of proect emp"oyees: %.Those emp"oyed i a

proect usua""y ecessary or desirab"e i the usua" trade or busiess


16/706

+>D i +T>


17/706

as the a*reemet is )o"utary ad reasoab"e( it is )a"id. (Martine v.

NLRC, cto&er 12, 1998)

Q. espodet emp"oyee was a truck dri)er who was dismissed becausehe a""e*ed"y dro)e whi"e druk after he chase a office persoe" with a

kife. The icidet resu"ted to the dama*e of the te-whee"er truck he

dro)e. The emp"oyee o"y reported the icidet o =arch %&&3( thou*h it

happeed o December %&&'. ;rior to the accidet( he was a"ready

cau*ht stea"i* diese" fue" from the compay. s a resu"t of these actios(

he was dismissed for serious miscoduct. as the dismissa" )a"id, 9a

the compay re"y o past offeses to ustify the dismissa",

. o( the re"iace by petitioer corporatio o his past offeses to ustify

his dismissa" is ua)ai"i*. The correct ru"e has a"ways bee that such

pre)ious offeses may be used as )a"id ustificatio for dismissa" from work

o"y if the ifractios are re"ated to the subse8uet offese upo which

basis the termiatio is decreed. The )ehicu"ar accidet causi* dama*e to

the truck is ot a ust cause for dismissa". The pea"ty of dismissa" is

*ross"y disproportioate to the offese of dri)i* throu*h reck"ess

imprudece resu"ti* i dama*e to property. e was "ikewise depri)ed of

due process as he was ot afforded amp"e opportuity to be heard. $f after

the thirty-day period the emp"oyee does ot *i)e his e/p"aatio of what

happeed( he must a*ai be set a otice of dismissa" stati* the particu"ar

acts costituti* the *roud for dismissa" ad a i8uiry why he did ot*i)e his e/p"aatio. (La Carlota Planters Association v. NLRC, cto&er

2-, 1998)


18/706

Q. ;6 etered ito a ser)ice a*reemet with STB66 9orp.( a

corporatio i the busiess of ob cotracti* aitoria" ser)ices. fter the

a*reemet e/pired( ;6 ca""ed for a biddi* but i the meatime a""owed

STB66 to maitai the aitoria" cotract. Subse8uet"y( ;6 set a"etter to STB66 iformi* them that the cotract wou"d o "o*er be

reewed. STB66( termiated their ser)ices( so respodet emp"oyees

fi"ed a case for i""e*a" dismissa" a*aist ;6 ad STB66. The 69

affirmed the decisio of the "abor arbiter fidi* the dismissa" i""e*a". as

there a emp"oyee-emp"oyer re"atioship e/isti* betwee ;6 ad

respodets, d were they i""e*a""y dismissed,

. o( there is o emp"oyee-emp"oyer re"atioship betwee ;6 ad the

respodets. ;6 is ot e*a*ed i "abor-o"y cotracti* e)ideced by

the ser)ice a*reemet that it wou"d be STB66 who wi"" emp"oy the

aitors. ;6 was e*a*ed i permissib"e ob cotracti* ad the

emp"oyees were emp"oyees of STB66 ot ;6. owe)er( the

emp"oyees were i""e*a""y dismissed by STB66. They were re*u"ar

emp"oyees ot proect emp"oyees. proect emp"oyee must be emp"oyed

i a proect distict( separate ad idetifiab"e from the mai busiess of the

emp"oyer ad its duratio must be determied or determiab"e. hi"e the

ser)ice a*reemet may ha)e had a specific term( STB66 disre*arded it

ad repeated"y reewed the a*reemet ad cotiued hiri* the

respodets for thirtee years. PAL. 4. NLRC, Nov. 9, 1998)

Q. Se)era" security *uards of Setie" Security( assi*ed to ;$6= were

foud to ha)e bee i""e*a""y dismissed. 9a ;$6= be made "iab"e for the

paymet of backwa*es ad separatio pay of the i""e*a""y dismissed

emp"oyees,


19/706

. Ies. "thou*h a idirect emp"oyer shou"d ot be made "iab"e without a

fidi* that it had committed or cospired i the i""e*a" dismissa"

Rosewood ruling ( i the case at bar the e/oeratio of ;$6= was otic"uded i the D$S;>S$T$CB ;>T$> of the 9ourt1s decisio despite the

fact that it was c"ear"y stated i the body of the decisio that they were

e/oerated. The decisio did ot comp"ete"y e/oerate ;$6= which( as

a idirect emp"oyer is so"idari"y "iab"e with Setie" for the comp"aiats1

upaid ser)ice iceti)e "ea)e pursuat to rt. %0G( %07 ad %0& of the

6abor 9ode. Shou"d the cotractor fai" to pay the wa*es of its emp"oyees

i accordace with "aw( the idirect emp"oyer is oit"y ad se)era""y "iab"e

with the cotractor( but such resposibi"ity shou"d be uderstood to be

"imited to the e/tet of work performed uder the cotract( i the same

maer ad e/tet that he is "iab"e to the emp"oyees direct"y emp"oyed by

him. Sentinel Secrit* v. NLRC, Nov. 16,1998)

Q. ;roducer1s


20/706

scheme costituted a cotiui* cosideratio for ser)ices redered ad

effecti)e iducemet to remai i the compay. The emp"oyees were ot

p"eadi* for the compay1s *eerosity but were demadi* their ri*hts

uder the 9


21/706

acti)e participatio i the e*otiatios did ot reder them uio officers.

CC:P! Post$i< or;ers 7nion v. NLRC, Nov. 2-,1998)

Q. case for i""e*a" dismissa" was fi"ed a*aist >r"ado ?arms @rowers ssociatio( a iforma" associatio of "adowers e*a*ed i the

productio of e/port 8ua"ity baaas. 9a a ure*istered associatio be

cosidered a emp"oyer idepedet"y of the respecti)e members it

represets,

. Ies( bei* a ure*istered associatio ad ha)i* bee formed so"e"y to

ser)e as a affecti)e medium for dea"i* co""ecti)e"y with aother compay

is ot a e"emet of a emp"oyee-emp"oyer re"atioship. The 6abor 9ode

does ot re8uire a emp"oyer to re*ister before he may come withi the

pur)iew of the said "aw. (rlan/o =ar$s >roers Association v. NLRC,

Nov. 2",1998)

Q. espodet emp"oyee was recruited for emp"oymet with @u"f 9ateri*

9ompay i Saudi as a waitress. he she was dep"oyed to Saudi( she

was made to wash dishes( cooki* pots ad utesi"s( aitoria" work ad

other ure"ated obs i %'-hour shifts without o)ertime pay. Due to the

streuous work( she was cofied i a housi* faci"ity duri* which( she

was ot paid her sa"aries. She worked a*ai after *etti* we"" but was ot

paid her compesatio. Subse8uet"y( she was hospita"i2ed ad wet

throu*h sur*ica" operatios( a*ai without compesatio. She was thedismissed o the *roud of i""ess without ay separatio pay or sa"ary

paymet for the periods she was ot a""owed to work. She fi"ed a comp"ait

before ;>B a*aist petitioer for uderpaid sa"aries ad dama*es. as


22/706

she i""e*a""y dismissed, $s the emp"oyee etit"ed to the paymet of

uderpaid sa"aries,

. She was i""e*a""y dismissed because the maer by which she wastermiated was i )io"atio of the 6abor 9ode sice her i""ess was ot

prohibited by "aw or was it preudicia" to her hea"th as we"" as that of her

co-emp"oyees rt. 'H4. er i""ess was ot e)e cota*ious 9arpa"

Tue" Sydrome. s for the time she was hospita"i2ed ad she was ot

*i)e ay compesatio( the Ko work-o pay1 ru"e does ot app"y sice

that period was due to her i""ess which was c"ear"y work-re"ated. (+rile

Ei#ht !nte#rate/ Services v. NLRC, 3ec. ', 1998)

Q. Does Sectio 4( u"e C of the 69 ew u"es of ;rocedure re8uire

the 6abor rbiter to propoud c"arificatory 8uestios to the parties i order

to determie whether a forma" heari* is ecessary,

A. +here is no le#al ?sti0ication 0or a $an/ator* interretation. A

rea/in# o0 Sec % Rle 4 o0 the Ne Rles o0 Proce/re o0 the NLRCrea/il* shos that clari0icator* estions $a* &e roon/e/ to thearties at the /iscretion o0 the LA. Asi/e 0ro$ e$lo*in# the or/@$a* hich /enotes /iscretion ne#atin# a $an/ator* or o&li#ator*e00ect, the rovision e


23/706

betwee them. $s there a emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship uder the

boudary system,

. The emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship was deemed to e/ist. Martinez v.NLRC)The re"atioship of ta/i owers ad ta/i dri)ers is the same as that betwee

eepey owers ad eepey dri)ers uder the !boudary system#. Theta/i operator e/ercises cotro" o)er the dri)er. $ =artie2 ) 69 thiscourt a"ready ru"ed that the re"atioship of ta/i owers ad ta/i dri)ers isthe same as that betwee eepey owers ad eepey dri)ers uder the!boudary system.# $ both cases the emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship wasdeemed to e/ist( )i2: !The re"atioship betwee eepey owersoperatorso oe had ad eepey dri)ers o the other uder the boudary system

is that of emp"oyer-emp"oyee ad ot of "essor-"essee./// Thus( pri)aterespodet were emp"oyees /// because they had bee e*a*ed toperform acti)ities which were usua""y ecessary or desirab"e i the usua"trade or busiess of the emp"oyer. (Pa#io +ransort Cororation vNLRC, 29% SCRA 6")

Q. =oera" da" app"ied with @ M = ;hi"s. $c. for a o)erseas

emp"oymet as a domestic he"per i iyadh NS. She was hired for a term

of ' years %&&%-%&&3 at a moth"y basic sa"ary of O'00.00. owe)er( she

was repatriated o %% Ea %&&'. +po her repatriatio she fi"ed a comp"ait

before the ;>B for i""e*a" dismissa"( o-paymet ad uderpaymet of

sa"aries. $mp"eaded as co-respodet i the comp"ait was Bmpire

$surace petitioer( i its capacity as the surety of @ M =. $s Bmpire

so"idari"y "iab"e for the paymet of the emp"oyee1s moetary c"aims,

A. Bes. Petitioner is soli/aril* lia&le ith its rincial. hen E$ireentere/ into sret*shi a#ree$ent ith > M Phils !nc it &on/ itsel0to anser 0or the /e&t or /e0alt o0 the latter. here the sret* &on/itsel0 soli/aril* ith the rincial o&li#or, the 0or$er is so /een/enton the rincial /e&tor sch that the sret* is consi/ere/ in la as&ein# the sa$e art* as the /e&tor in relation to hatever is a/?/#e/


24/706

tochin# the o&li#ation o0 the latter, an/ the lia&ilities are interovenas to &e inseara&le. +he rose o0 the reire/ &on/ is to insrethat the ri#hts o0 the overseas are violate/ &* their e$lo*er recorseol/ still &e availa&le to the$ a#ainst the local co$anies thatrecrite/ the$ 0or the 0orei#n rincial. (E$ire !nsrance Co$an* vNLRC, 29% SCRA 26')

Q. ;ri)ate respodet is Samue" 6.


25/706

. The fo""owi* re8uiremets must be met to ustify retrechmet. ?irst(

the "oss shou"d be substatia" ad ot mere"y de miimis. Secod( the "oss

must be reasoab"y immiet( percei)ed obecti)e"y ad i *ood faith bythe emp"oyer. $ other words( there shou"d be a certai de*ree of ur*ecy

for the retrechmet. Third( the retrechmet must be reasoab"y

ecessary ad "ike"y to effecti)e"y pre)et the e/pected "osses. ?ourth( the

emp"oyer shou"d ha)e take other measures prior or para""e" to

retrechmet to foresta"" "osses( so retrechmet may o"y be udertake

as a "ast resort. ?ia""y( the a""e*ed "osses if a"ready rea"i2ed( ad the

e/pected immiet "osses to be foresta""ed must be pro)e by sufficiet

e)idece. (Stainless Steel Cororation v. NLRC, 11 March 1998)

Q. Cictoria bri" was emp"oyed by ;?99$ i differet capacities from %&H'-

%&HH( uti" she wet o materity "ea)e. +po her retur i %&H&( she

disco)ered that aother perso had bee appoited to her former positio.

e)erthe"ess( she accepted aother positio as e)ideced by a cotract

which stipu"ated that her emp"oymet wou"d be probatioary for a period of

G moths. fter the period e"apsed( she cotiued to work uti" she ad her

emp"oyer etered ito aother emp"oymet cotract for a period of % year(

after which her emp"oymet was termiated. bri" fi"ed a case for i""e*a"

dismissa". ;?99$ c"aims that her appoitmet had bee fi/ed for a specific

proect( ad shou"d therefore be cosidered as causa" or cotractua"

emp"oymet uder rtic"e 'H0 of the 6abor 9ode. as bri"Ps termiatio)a"id, $s she a re*u"ar emp"oyee,

. rtic"e 'H% of the 6abor 9ode a""ows the emp"oyer to secure the ser)ices

of a emp"oyee o a probatioary basis a""owi* the emp"oyer to


26/706

termiate the "atter for ust cause or upo fai"ure to 8ua"ify i accordace

with reasoab"e stadards set forth by the emp"oyer at the time of his

emp"oymet. probatioary emp"oyee is oe who is o tria" by a

emp"oyer duri* which the emp"oyer determies whether or ot he is8ua"ified for permaet emp"oymet. ;robatioary emp"oyees(

otwithstadi* their "imited teure( are a"so etit"ed to security of teure.

Thus( e/cept for ust cause as pro)ided by "aw( or uder the emp"oymet

cotract a probatioary emp"oyee caot be termiated.

+der rtic"e 'H0 of the 6abor 9ode( there are 3 kids of

emp"oyees: re*u"ar( proect ad casua" emp"oyees. ith respect to

cotractua" emp"oyees( stipu"atios i emp"oymet cotracts pro)idi* for

term emp"oymet are )a"id whe the period was a*reed upo kowi*"y

ad )o"utari"y by the parties without force( duress or improper pressure

bei* brou*ht to bear upo the emp"oyee( ad abset ay other

circumstaces )itiati* his coset( or where is satisfactori"y appears that

the emp"oyer ad emp"oyee dea"t with each other i more or "ess e8ua"

terms.

The preset emp"oymet cotract etered ito iitia""y pro)ides

that the period of emp"oymet is for a fi/ed period. owe)er( the

succeedi* pro)isios cotradicted the same whe it pro)ided that

respodet wou"d be uder probatioary status. @i)e the ambi*uity i the

cotract( ad fo""owi* the prooucemet i Ci""aue)a ). 69 %0 Sept.

%&&H( where a cotract of emp"oymet( bei* a cotract of adhesio( is

ambi*uous( ay ambi*uity therei shou"d be costrued strict"y a*aist theparty who prepared it. ?urthermore( a"" "abor cotracts shou"d be costrued

i fa)or of the "aborer( pursuat to rtic"e %70' of the 9i)i" 9ode. Thus(

otwithstadi* the desi*atio made by ;?99$( ha)i* comp"eted the

probatioary period ad a""owed to work thereafter( bri" became a re*u"ar


27/706

emp"oyee who may be dismissed o"y for ust or authori2ed causes uder

the 6abor 9ode. ece( the dismissa"( premised o the e/piratio of the

cotract( is i""e*a". Phil. =e/eration o0 Cre/it Cooeratives v. NLRC, '

SCRA -2, 11 3ece$&er 1998)

Q. F was dismissed by her emp"oyer( ?T. +po her dismissa"( ?T

withhe"d %5 days worth of her sa"ary( ad app"ied it to a F1s persoa" "oa to

the compay1s *eera" maa*er.


28/706

does ot fa"" withi the e/c"usi)e ori*ia" urisdictio of the "abor arbiter( the

69 caot ha)e appe""ate urisdictio therei. Thus( the *arishmet of

BspioPs sa"ary was disre*arded. =oo/ +ra/ers Dose v. NLRC, '

SCRA '6, 21 3ece$&er 1998)

Q. $ a case for i""e*a" dismissa"( the 6abor rbiter foud the dismissa" of F

uustified( ad ordered the emp"oyer to reistate F with fu"" backwa*es.

> appea" by the compay( the 69 re)ersed the "abor arbiter1s decisio(

i effect fidi* the termiatio "e*a". owe)er( the 69 ordered the

emp"oyer to pay F1s wa*es from '5 Eauary %&&% date of fi"i* the appea"

with the 69 up to '3 September %&&3 promu"*atio of the 69

decisio( pursuat to rtic"e ''3 of the 6abor 9ode. +der rtic"e ''3 of

the 6abor 9ode( the emp"oyer foud to ha)e i""e*a""y dismissed a

emp"oyee is re8uired to reistate the emp"oyee either actua""y or throu*h

payro"" at the emp"oyerPs optio. Does this re8uiremet eed e/ecutio of

eforcemet, >r was the 6Ps decisio immediate"y se"f-e/ecutory,

. hi"e the iterpretatio of rtic"e ''3 has bee di)er*et( the 9ourt i

the %&&7 ;ioeer 9ase "aid dow the doctrie that heceforth a award or

order for reistatemet is se"f-e/ecutory( ad does ot re8uire a writ of

e/ecutio( much "ess a motio for its issuace. rtic"e ''4 o"y app"ies to

fia" ad e/ecutory decisios which are ot withi the co)era*e of rtic"e

''3. Thus( the emp"oyer was boud to either re-admit F or ic"ude him i

the payro""( ad iform F of its choice i order to eab"e him to actaccordi*"y. ?ai"i* to e/ercise these optios( the compay must pay his

sa"ary( which automatica""y accrued from otice of the 6Ps order uti" its

re)ersa" by the 69. !nternational Container +er$inal Services, !nc. v.

NLRC ' SCRA ''" (21 3ece$&er 1998)


29/706

Q. Bduardo ?e"ipe( emp"oyee of yudai B*ieeri* ad 9ostructio

9o.( throu*h its "oca" a*et >mafi"( perished i a accidet. yudai

deposited %4(400 =a"aysia i**it as ?e"ipePs death beefits i the=e"acca "abor office. This was doe pursuat to Sectio H of =a"aysiaPs

"abor "aw( which pro)ides that death beefits i a "ump sum e8ua" to 45

moths eari*s O'7(&0'.0' or = %4(400 sha"" be awarded( whiche)er

is "ess. ?e"ipePs widow a""e*ed that the amout shou"d be +SO'7(&0'.0'(

ad that the deposit made by yudai to the =e"acca "abor office did ot

costitute paymet. hat amout is the ?e"ipe fami"y etit"ed to,

. The ?e"ipePs are etit"ed to = %4(400( i comp"iace with the pro)isios

of =a"aysiaPs "abor "aw. mai* a*ecy caot be fau"ted for fo""owi*

app"icab"e forei* "aw. s a resu"t( >mafi" has dischar*ed its moetary

ob"i*atio to =rs. ?e"ipe. $an0il !nternational Manoer 3evt. Cor v.

NLRC, ' SCRA %"% ,22 3ece$&er 1998)

Q. F was oe of the ' emp"oyees of @adara =i"" Supp"y. $ ?ebruary

%&&5( F did ot report to work for ' weeks( ad whe he retured( he was

iformed that someoe had bee hired to rep"ace him. owe)er he was

ad)ised that he was to be readmitted i Eue of %&&G. as there a i""e*a"

dismissa",

. dmitted"y( it is uc"ear whether respodet was actua""y dismissed.owe)er( there is o idicatio that he was to be reistated. $ effect( the

offer to re-admit @ermao was mere"y a *esture used to miti*ate the

impact of his e/teded suspesio. This is cotrary to the e/p"icit

pro)isios of the 6abor 9ode( which pro)ide that o pre)eti)e suspesio


30/706

shou"d "ast more tha 30 days. s the supposed suspesio was e/pected

to "ast for more tha the period a""owed by "aw( the suspesio costitutes

a i""e*a" dismissa".

B)e assumi* that FPs absece caused difficu"ty to the compay(his dismissa" was uwarrated. @i)e the costitutioa" madate of

protectio to "abor( the ri*id ru"es of procedure may sometimes be

dispesed with to *i)e room for compassio. $ ca""i* for the protectio of

"abor( the 9ostitutio does ot codoe wro*doi* by the emp"oyee( it

e)erthe"ess ur*es a moderatio of the sactios to be app"ied( i the "i*ht

of the may disad)ata*es of "aborers. >an/ara Mill Sl* v. NLRC,

' SCRA -2, 29 3ece$&er 1998)

Q. The offices ad factory of =aster Shirt 9o. were bured( so the

compay had to cease operatios. =aa*emet ad the uio he"d a

coferece with the 9=


31/706

emp"oyees. The a*reemet is the "aw betwee the parties ad must be

eforced. The c"aim for dama*es is ua)ai"i*( i the absece of ma"ice or

bad faith. (Master Shirt Co. v. NLRC, ' SCRA 6%9, 29 3ece$&er 1998)

Than !ou to Cris, "umi, Andrew and #ten.

199- CASES

Q. $ a i""e*a" dismissa" case( the 6abor rbiter ru"ed i fa)or of the

comp"aiat ad ordered his reistatemet. The emp"oyer appea"ed.

efusi* to reistate the worker pedi* appea"( the emp"oyer c"aims that

the order of reistatemet eeds a writ of e/ecutio. The emp"oyer further

maitais that e)e if a writ of e/ecutio was issued( a time"y appea"

coup"ed by the posti* of appropriate supersedeas bod effecti)e"y

foresta""ed ad stayed the e/ecutio of the 6abor rbiter1s reistatemet

order. $s the emp"oyer1s cotetio correct,

. o( the emp"oyer1s cotetio is erroeous. The "aw as ow worded

emp"oys the phrase !sha"" immediate"y be e/ecutory# without 8ua"ificatio

emphasi2i* the eed for prompt comp"iace. The term !sha""# deotes a

imperati)e ob"i*atio ad is icosistet with the idea of discretio. The6abor rbiter1s order of reistatemet does ot eed a writ of e/ecutio. $t

is se"f-e/ecutory. The posti* of a bod by the emp"oyer sha"" ot stay the

e/ecutio for reistatemet. fter receipt of the decisio orderi*

reistatemet( the emp"oyer has the ri*ht to chose whether to re-admit the


32/706

emp"oyee to work uder the same terms ad coditios pre)ai"i* prior to

his dismissa" or to reistate the emp"oyee i the payro"". $ either istace(

the emp"oyer has to iform the emp"oyee of his choice. (Pioneer

+e


33/706

. o( the facts are ot sufficiet to support the coc"usio that there e/ists

a emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship betwee the a*et ad the compay.

The si*ificat factor i determii* the re"atioship of the parties is the

presece or absece of super)isory authority to cotro" the method ad thedetai"s of performace of the ser)ice bei* redered( ad the de*ree to

which the pricipa" may iter)ee to e/ercise such cotro". ot e)ery form

of cotro"( howe)er( may be accorded the effect of estab"ishi* a

emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship. There is a differece betwee ru"es that

mere"y ser)e as *uide"ies towards the achie)emet of the mutua""y

desired resu"t without dictati* the meas or methods to be emp"oyed i

attaii* it( ad those that cotro" or fi/ the methodo"o*y ad bid or restrict

the party hired to the use of such meas. The first( which aim o"y to

promote the resu"t( create o emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship u"ike the

secod( which address both the resu"t ad the meas used to achie)e it.

$ this case( the ru"es that the a*et shou"d fo""ow mere"y aim to promote

the resu"t desired( primari"y to coform to the re8uiremets of the $surace

9ommissio. (A=P Mtal :ene0it Association v. NLRC, 26- SCRA %-,

anar* 28, 199-)

Q. emp"oyer appea"ed from the 6abor rbiter1s decisio. $stead of

posti* cash or surety bod( the emp"oyer posted a ea" Bstate


34/706

ot o strict techica" ru"es. he the rea" property bod sufficiet"y

protects the iterests of the workers shou"d they fia""y pre)ai"( the appea"

shou"d be a""owed. (7ERMMe$orial Me/ical Center v. NLRC, 269 SCRA

-, March ', 199-)

Q. 9?T$( a c"ose fami"y corporatio owed by the a*uiat fami"y( stopped

its ta/i busiess withi 9"ark ir


35/706

corporatio i the absece of e)idece that he acted i bad faith is ot

app"icab"e. (Na#iat v. NLRC, 269 SCRA "6%, March 1', 199-)

RRR$n another %ase, the Court held :

The fictioa" )ei" of a corporatio ca be pierced by the )ery same

"aw which created it whe !the otio of the "e*a" etity is used as a meas

to perpetrate fraud( a i""e*a" act( as a )ehic"e for the e)asio of a e/isti*

ob"i*atio( ad to cofuse "e*itimate issues.# +der the 6abor 9ode( for

istace( whe a corporatio )io"ates a pro)isio dec"ared to be pea" i

ature( the pea"ty sha"" be imposed upo the *ui"ty officer or officers of the

corporatio.

To ustify so"idary "iabi"ity( there must be a a""e*atio or showi* that

the officers of the corporatio de"iberate"y or ma"icious"y desi*ed to e)ade

the fiacia" ob"i*atio of the corporatio to its emp"oyees( or a showi*

that the officers idiscrimiate"y stopped its busiess to perpetrate a

i""e*a" act( as a )ehic"e for the e)asio of e/isti* ob"i*atios( i

circum)etio of statutes( ad to cofuse "e*itimate issues. (Reahs

Cororation v. NLRC, 2-1 SCRA 2%-, Aril 1", 199-)

Q. ;urificacio was a foudi* member( a member of the


36/706

foudatio1s by-"aws. he the the other had( a !emp"oyee# usua""y

occupies o office ad *eera""y is emp"oyed ot by actio of the directors

or stockho"ders but by the maa*i* officer of the corporatio who a"so

determies the compesatio to be paid such emp"oyee. $ this case(

;urificacio was appoited by the


37/706

fi"ed a comp"ait for ufair "abor practice a*aist the compay( i.e. i""e*a"

"ockout that a""e*ed"y took p"ace after the strike ad the e"ectio( .


38/706

ser)ices were hired o"y with respect to a specific ob ad o"y whi"e the

same e/ists.

a > the basis of this set of facts( ca oorio be cosidered aidepedet cotractor,

. o( oorio was ot a idepedet cotractor but a emp"oyee of

Taa*co. e was ot compesated i terms of profits for his "abor

orser)ices "ike a idepedet cotractor. ather( he was paid o a dai"y

wa*e basis. $t is absurd to e/pect that with such humb"e resources(

oorio wou""d ha)e substatia" capita" or i)estmet i the form of too"s(

e8uipmet( ad machieries with which to coduct the busiess of

supp"yi* Taa*co with mapower ad ser)ices for maitaii* the

apartmets ad bui"di*s. The most importat re8uisite of cotro" that

determies the e/istece of a emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship is

preset. The power of cotro" refers mere"y to the e/istece of the power

ad ot to the actua" e/ercise thereof. atura""y( oorio1s work as

maiteace ma had to be performed withi the premises of Taa*co.

$t is ot far-fetched to e/pect that oorio had to obser)e the istructios

ad specificatios *i)e by Taa*co as to how his work had to be

performed. Taa*co cou"d easi"y e/ercise cotro" o oorio.

b hat kid of a emp"oyee is oorio,

. oorio is a re*u"ar emp"oyee. There are two kids of re*u"ar

emp"oyees: % those who are e*a*ed to perform acti)ities which are

usua""y ecessary or desirab"e i the usua" trade or busiess of the

emp"oyerJ ad ' those who ha)e redered at "east oe year of ser)ice(


39/706

whether cotiuous or broke( with respect to the acti)ity i which they are

emp"oyed. hiche)er stadard is app"ied( oorio 8ua"ifies as a re*u"ar

emp"oyee. oorio caot be cosidered a proect emp"oyee. $f he was

emp"oyed as a proect emp"oyee( Taa*co shou"d ha)e submitted areport of termiatio to the earest pub"ic emp"oymet office e)erytime his

emp"oymet is termiated due to comp"etio of each proect( as re8uired by

;o"icy $structio o. '0. There shou"d ha)e bee fi"ed as may reports

of termiatio as there were proects actua""y fiished. (Arora Lan/

Pro?ects Cor. v. NLRC, 266 SCRA %8, anar* 2, 199-)

Q. toio was hired by >riet B/press as crae operator subect to a 3-

moth probatioary period. fter o"y oe moth ad fi)e days( he was

dismissed. he he fi"ed a comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa"( >riet B/press

c"aimed that he was termiated for poor ob performace. >riet B/press

did ot iform toio about the stadards of work re8uired of him by which

his competecy wou"d be adud*ed. he he was dismissed( >riet

B/press did ot poit out the reasoab"e stadards of work by which he

was e)a"uated ad how he fai"ed to "i)e up to such stadards. $s the

dismissa" )a"id,

. o( the dismissa" is ot )a"id. The ser)ices of a emp"oyee hired o a

probatioary basis may be termiated whe he fai"s to 8ua"ify as a re*u"ar

emp"oyee i accordace with reasoab"e stadards made kow by the

emp"oyer to the emp"oyee at the time of his e*a*emet. toio1sdismissa" caot be sustaied o this *roud because >riet B/press

fai"ed to specify the reasoab"e stadards by which toio1s a""e*ed poor

performace was e)a"uated( much "ess to pro)e that such stadards were


40/706

made kow to him at the time of his recruitmet. (rient E


41/706

. Ies( the acceptace of retiremet beefits wi"" estop the emp"oyee from

pursui* his case.


42/706

preudicia" to his hea"th as we"" as to that of his co-emp"oyees does ot ipso

&a%to make the emp"oyee a cadidate for dismissa". (+an v. NLRC, 2-1

SCRA 216, Aril 1%, 199-)

Q. $ the proceedi*s before the 6abor rbiter( o"y the ure*istered trade

ame of the emp"oyercorporatio( !acieda 6auta(# ad its

admiistrator-maa*er were imp"eaded ad subse8uet"y he"d "iab"e for

i""e*a" dismissa". > appea"( the 69 motu proprio ic"uded the

corporate ame of the emp"oyer as oit"y ad se)era""y "iab"e for the

workers1 c"aims. There is o dispute that acieda 6auta which was

owed so"e"y by the emp"oyer-corporatio was imp"eaded ad heard. $t

was represeted by its corporate officer i the proceedi*s before the

6abor rbiter. $s the 691s actio ustified,

. Ies( the actio is ustified. $ 8uasi-udicia" proceedi*s( procedura"

ru"es *o)eri* ser)ice of summos are ot strict"y costrued. Substatia"

comp"iace thereof is sufficiet. $ "abor cases( pucti""ious adherece to

stri*et techica" ru"es may be re"a/ed i the iterest of the workerJ it

shou"d ot defeat the comp"ete ad e8uitab"e reso"utio of the ri*hts ad

ob"i*atios of the parties. ?urthermore( the 69 is *i)e the power to

correct( amed( or wai)e ay error( defect or irre*u"arity whether i the

substace or i the form of the proceedi*s before it. The o-ic"usio of

the corporate ame of the emp"oyer was a mere procedura" error which did

ot at a"" affect the urisdictio of the "abor tribua"s. (PisonArceoA#ricltral an/ 3evelo$ent Cor. v. NLRC, 2-9 SCRA '12,

Sete$&er 18, 199-)


43/706

The State is boud uder the 9ostitutio to afford fu"" protectio to "abor

ad whe cof"icti* iterests of "abor ad capita" are to be wei*hed

o the sca"es of socia" ustice

the hea)ier if"uece of the "atter shou"d be couterba"acedwith the sympathy ad compassio

the "aw accords the "ess pri)i"e*ed worker.

This is o"y fair

if the worker is to be *i)e the opportuity ad the ri*ht

to assert ad defed hisher cause

ot as a subordiate

but as part of maa*emet with which heshe ca e*otiate o e)e

p"ae.

Thus "abor is ot a mere emp"oyee of capita" but its acti)e ad e8ua"

parter.

(=entes v. NLRC, 266 SCRA 2%, anar* 2, 199-)

LABOR 2


44/706

6abor 6aw Di*ests %

'000 9SBSQ: F had bee worki* for a year as a security *uard with compay .( a sister compay of

compay 6B a otice of strike raisi* char*es of +6;ad i""e*a" dismissa" a*aist 9ompay . The 6abor rbiter ordered 9ompay to pay Fseparatio pay of moth pay for e)ery year of ser)ice. F fi"ed a motio for e/ecutio of thedecisio of the 6abor rbiter. The ehabi"itatio ecei)er of 9ompay submitted a


45/706

=aifestatio with =otio( a""e*i* that petitioer was ot yet i a positio to comp"y with thedirecti)e of the 6abor rbiter as it was sti"" uder ehabi"itatio ecei)ership by )irtue of theorder of the SB9. owe)er( the 6abor rbiter sti"" *rated the motio for e/ecutio. 9ompay coteds that the 69 shou"d ha)e deied the order of the 6 for the immediate paymet of separatio pay because of the order of the SB9 suspedi* a"" c"aims a*aist petitioer pedi* before ay court( tribua" or body. 9a the order of the SB9 stay the e/ecutio of

ud*met a*aist petitioer,

: o. "thou*h a stay of e/ecutio may be warrated by the fact that a petitioer corporatiohas bee p"aced uder rehabi"itatio recei)ership( the SB9 a"ready issued a order appro)i*the rehabi"itatio p"a of petitioer ad p"aci* it uder "i8uidatio pursuat to ;D &0'-. Sicerecei)ership proceedi*s ha)e ceased ad petitioer1s rehabi"itatio recei)er ad "i8uidator hasbee *i)e the imprimatur to proceed with corporate "i8uidatio( the cited order of the SB9 hasbee redered &un%tus o&i%io. ;etitioer1s moetary ob"i*atio to pri)ate respodet is "o*o)erdue ad thus caot de"ay the satisfactio of pri)ate respodet1s c"aim. owe)er( due toe)ets subse8uet to the fi"i* of this petitio( pri)ate respodet must preset its c"aim with therehabi"itatio recei)er ad "i8uidator i the SB9( subect to the ru"es o preferece of

credits. (Ale$ars Si&al Sons, !nc. v. NLRC, >.R. No. 11%-61, anar* 19, 2)

Q: F was emp"oyed as a 8ua"ity cotro" ispector with the duty of ispecti* 6;< cy"iders foray possib"e defects. e was dismissed whe he was a""e*ed"y cau*ht by petitioer1s compay;residet for s"eepi* o the ob( thereby )io"ati* 9ompay u"e %5-b. e was asked toe/p"ai why o discip"iary actio shou"d be take a*aist him( to which he prompt"y rep"ied.otwithstadi* his rep"y( he was termiated. as F i""e*a""y dismissed,

: Ies. ;etitioer1s c"aim that pri)ate respodet s"ept o the ob was ot substatiated by aye)idece. $ other cases( s"eepi* o the ob was foud as a )a"id *roud for dismissa"because such cases i)o")ed security *uards whose duty ecessitates that they be awake adwatchfu" at a"" times( such is ot the de*ree of discip"ie re8uired of a 8ua"ity cotro" ispector.hi"e a emp"oyer is a""owed a wide discretio i the promu"*atio of compay po"icies( suchshou"d a"ways be fair ad reasoab"e. $ this case( the dismissa" meted out o pri)aterespodet for s"eepi* o the ob appears to be too harsh a pea"ty. (4D Man0actrin#, !nc.v. NLRC, >.R. No. 1'9"-, anar* 19, 2)

Q: 9ompay I is e*a*ed i road costructio proects of the *o)ermet. $t e*a*ed theser)ices of certai workers to work o )arious proects o differet dates. Se)era" of itsworkers oied +io as members. +io fi"ed a motio for certificatio e"ectio with there*ioa" office. 9ompay I opposed stati* that the workers were proect emp"oyees ad ot8ua"ified to form part of the rak ad fi"e co""ecti)e bar*aii* uit. 6ater( 9ompay Itermiated the emp"oymet of the workers due to the comp"etio of its proects or the e/piratio

of worker1s cotracts. The affected workers c"aimed they were dismissed because of theiruio acti)itiesJ ad thus sta*ed a strike. The strike was dec"ared i""e*a" ad the workers weredeemed to ha)e "ost their emp"oymet status. ere the workers )a"id"y dismissed,

AF Bes. +he contracts o0 e$lo*$ent o0 etitioners attest to the 0act thatthe* ere hire/ 0or seci0ic ro?ects an/ their e$lo*$ent ascoter$inos ith the co$letion o0 the ro?ect 0or hich the* ha/ &een


46/706

hire/. Also, the* ere in0or$e/ in a/vance that sai/ ro?ect orn/erta;in# 0or hich the* ere hire/ ol/ en/ on a state/ or/eter$ina&le /ate. Since the or;ers ere ro?ect e$lo*ees, theire$lo*$ent le#all* en/e/ on co$letion o0 their resectivero?ects. (Association o0 +ra/e 7nions v. A&ella, >.R. No. 1"18,anar* 2%, 2.

Q: 9ompay N a""owed the temporary trasfer ho"di* of office at Na"ibo( k"a. e)erthe"ess(maority of the emp"oyees cotiued to work at its office i 6e2o k"a ad were paid theirrespecti)e sa"aries. ?rom Eue %&&' to =arch %&&3( F ad I reported to work at the 6e2o officead were ot paid their sa"aries. ?rom =arch up to the preset( they were a*ai a""owed todraw their sa"aries. $t is the assertio of 9ompay N that F ad I )o"utari"y abadoed theirwork assi*mets ad that they defied the "awfu" orders by the @eera" maa*er ad thus the6B to determie whether ecoomic causes do e/ist ustifyi* the termiatio of his emp"oymet. ith respect to rt. 'H3(the emp"oyer1s fai"ure to comp"y with the otice re8uiremet does ot costitute a deia" of dueprocess but a mere fai"ure to obser)e a procedure for the termiatio of emp"oymet whichmakes the termiatio of emp"oymet mere"y ieffectua".$f the emp"oyee1s separatio is without cause( istead of bei* *i)e separatio pay( he shou"dbe reistated. $ either case( whether he is reistated or *i)e separatio pay( he shou"d bepaid fu"" backwa*es if he has bee "aid off without writte otice at "east 30 days i ad)ace.


47/706

ith respect to dismissa"s uder 'H'( if he was dismissed for ay of the ust causes i 'H'( heshou"d ot be reistated. owe)er( he must be paid backwa*es from the time his emp"oymetwas termiated uti" it is determied that the termiatio is for a ust cause because the fai"ureto hear him reders the termiatio of his emp"oymet without "e*a" effect. (Serrano v. NLRC,>.R. No. 11-%, anar* 2-, 2)

Q: was emp"oyed as !housekeeper# with 9ompay .R.No. 119%6-, =e&rar* 1, 2)

Q: C was hired by ?9 as sa"es represetati)e. e a)ers that he was trasferred by ?9 to;=9$( a a*ecy which pro)ides ?9 with additioa" cotractua" workers. $ ;=9$( he wasreassi*ed to ?9 as sa"es represetati)e ad the "ater iformed by the persoe" maa*er of ?9 that his ser)ices were termiated. ?9 maitais that o emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioshipe/isted betwee C ad itse"f. C fi"ed comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa". ?9 a""e*es that ;=9$ is


48/706

a idepedet cotractor as the "atter is a hi*h"y capita"i2ed )eture. as C a re*u"ar emp"oyee of ?9( thereby i""e*a""y dismissed,

: Ies. ;=9$ was a "abor-o"y cotractor. "thou*h the eri doctrie stated that it was eou*hthat a cotractor had substatia" capita" to show it was a idepedet cotractor( the case of

?ui Fero/ c"arified the doctrie stati* that a idepedet busiess must udertake theperformace of the cotract accordi* to its ow maer ad method free from the cotro" of the pricipa". $ this case( ;=9$ did ot e)e ha)e substatia" capita"i2atio as o"y a sma""amout of its authori2ed capita" stock was actua""y paid-i. ?urthermore( ;=9$ did ot carry oa idepedet busiess or udertake the performace of its cotract accordi* to its owmaer ad method or was it e*a*ed to perform a specific ad specia" ob or ser)ice. $"abor-o"y cotracti*( the emp"oyees supp"ied by the cotractor perform acti)ities( which aredirect"y re"ated to the mai busiess of its pricipa". $t is c"ear that i this case( the work of petitioer as sa"es represetati)e was direct"y re"ated to the busiess of ?9. Due to C1s "e*thof ser)ice( he had attaied the status of re*u"ar emp"oyee ad thus caot be termiatedwithout ust or )a"id cause. ?9 fai"ed to pro)e that his dismissa" was for cause ad that hewas afforded procedura" due process. C is thus etit"ed to reistatemet p"us fu"" backwa*es

from his dismissa" up to actua" reistatemet. (4ino*a v. NLRC, >.R. No. 126"96, =e&rar* 2,2)

Q: < is a "ady Security @uard of 9ompay >. She was "ast assi*ed at Cicete =adri*a"9odomiium $$ "ocated i ya"a )eue( =akati. $ a memoradum( the discrimiated a*aist < i effecti* her trasfer as such was doe to comp"y with a reasoab"e re8uest. The mere ico)eiece of aew ob assi*met does ot by itse"f make the trasfer i""e*a". (SS Secrit* an/ Allie/Services, !nc. v. NLRC, >.R. No. 112-"2, =e&rar* 9, 2)

Q: 9ompay is coducts a priti* busiess i Sta. 9ru2 =akati. The 9ompay iformed its

workers that it was *oi* to trasfer its site i =akati to


49/706

busiess "osses or re)erses(# uder rtic"e 'H3 of the 6abor 9ode ic"udes the cessatio of o"ypart of a compay1s busiess. 9ompay had a"e*itimate reaso to re"ocate its p"at due tothe e/piratio of the "ease cotract i =akatiJ howe)er( it is sti"" re8uired to pay its workersseparatio pay. 9essatio of operatio ot due to serious busiess "osses is a authori2edcause for termiatioJ ad the 6abor 9ode pro)ides that such termiated emp"oyees are etit"edto separatio pay of % moth pay or at "east moth for e)ery year of ser)ice( whiche)er is

hi*her. (Cheniver 3eco Print +echnics Cororation v. NLRC, >.R. No. 1228-6, =e&rar*1-, 2)

Q: =era"co ad its uio =B ree*otiated its %&&'-%&&7 9


50/706

Q: +io = is a affi"iate of ?ederatio +. bitter disa*reemet esued betwee the?ederatio + ad the +io = cu"miati* i the "atter1s dec"aratio of *eera" autoomy fromthe former. The federatio asked the compay to stop the remittace of +io =1s share i theeducatio fuds. The federatio ca""ed a meeti* p"aci* +io = uder trusteeship ad

appoiti* a admiistrator. >fficers of +io = recei)ed "etters from the admiistratorre8uiri* them to e/p"ai why they shou"d ot be remo)ed from their office ad e/pe""ed fromuio membership. The officers were e/pe""ed from the federatio. The federatio thead)ised the compay of the e/pu"sio of the 30 uio officers ad demaded their separatiopursuat to the +io Security 9"ause i the 9


51/706

istead posted a bod i a amout ot e8ui)a"et to the moetary award. as the motio for the reductio of the bod fi"ed i time,

: Ies. That petitioer did fi"e a motio withi the period is supported by the fo""owi*:%. The motio for reductio was stamped with the !recei)ed# rubber stamp marker of the 69

ad idicated the date of fi"i* as G.7.&G.'. the "ast pa*e of their commets( respodets stated that !the motio for reductio shou"d be

fouded o meritorious *rouds.# This was foud by the S9 to be a imp"ied admittace of thereceipt of the motio. .R. No.129-61,=e&rar* 28, 2)

Q: was a eepey dri)er of F o the boudary system. Due to a cha*e i schedu"e( they didot report for work as protest. They were the rep"aced. fi"ed a comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa"

aski* for separatio pay ad other beefits. > o)ember 'G( %&&%( the "abor arbiter redered ud*met i fa)or of . F was ser)ed a copy of the decisio o pri" 3( %&&'. F fi"ed amemoradum o appea" o pri" %3( %&&'J howe)er the appea" bod was o"y fi"ed o pri" 30(%&&'. "so( such bod was foud to be spurious. $t was o"y o Eu"y '0( %&&3 that a substitutebod was issued by aother compay. Did the 69 ha)e urisdictio to hear the appea",

: o. The perfectio of a appea" withi the re*"emetary period ad i the maer prescribedby "aw is urisdictioa"( ad ocomp"iace with such "e*a" re8uiremet is fata" ad has theeffect of rederi* the ud*met fia" ad e/ecutory. ;erfectio of a appea" ic"udes the fi"i*(withi the prescribed period of the memoradum of appea" ad posti* of the appea" bod. $cases where the ud*met i)o")es a moetary award( as i this case( the appea" may beperfected o"y upo posti* of a cash or surety bod to the 69. Sice the F recei)ed the61s decisio o pri" 3( they had o"y uti" pri" %3 to fi"e their appea". The bod was postedo"y o pri" 30J beyod the re*"emetary period. The re8uiremet of posti* the bod has o"ybee re"a/ed o *rouds of substatia" ustice ad specia" circumstaces which are otattedat i this case. ?urthermore( the bod posted was ot *euie. The decisio ca o"o*er be ameded or a"tered by the "abor tribua". (Navarro v. NLRC, >.R. No. 116%6%,March 1, 2) Q: ( is a member of the ?6( emp"oyed by F i the ;ata"o 9ocout Bstate i Aamboa*a9ity. ;ursuat to GG57( the 9omprehesi)e *raria eform 6aw( the ;ata"o 9ocoutBstate was warded to the ;ata"o Bstate eform ssociatio( of which is a member ad co-ower. s a resu"t of this ac8uisitio( the ;ata"o Bstate shut dow operatios ad theemp"oymet of was se)ered. did ot recei)e separatio pay. became co-ower of the"ad ad subse8uet"y fi"ed a comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa". Shou"d F( who had beecompe""ed to cease operatios because of compu"sory ac8uisitio by the *o)ermet of his "adfor purposes of a*raria reform( be made "iab"e to pay separatio pay to ,

AF No. +he ecliar circ$stance in the case at &ar involves neither theclosre o0 an esta&lish$ent nor a re/ction in ersonnel asconte$late/ in Article 28'. +he closre conte$late/ in 28' is a


52/706

volntar* act on the art o0 the e$lo*er. +he La&or Co/e /oes notconte$late a sitation here the closre is 0orce/ on the e$lo*er.As sch, etitioners are not entitle/ to searation a* as rivatereson/ents /i/ not volntar* sht /on oerations as the* evenso#ht to &e eperatios =aa*er of his itetio to a)ai" of the optioa" retiremet p"a uder the9osecuti)e B"istmet $ceti)e ;"a 9B$;. Such was deied. < a"so app"ied for a "ea)e ofabsece ad iformed the >peratios =a*er of his itetio to a)ai" of the optioa" ear"yretiremet p"a i )iew of his '0 years of ser)ice which was "ikewise deied. ad < bothre8uested for e/tesio of their "ea)es of absece. 6ater( they disco)ered that they had beedropped from the roster of crew members. 9ompay B asserts that ad < are cotractua"emp"oyees whose emp"oymet are termiated e)ery time their cotracts e/pire. ere ad <)a"id"y dismissed,

: o. The primary stadard to determie a re*u"ar emp"oymet is the reasoab"e coectiobetwee the acti)ity performed by the emp"oyee i re"atio to the usua" busiess or trade of theemp"oyer. $ this case it is udisputed that petitioers were re*u"ar emp"oyees of pri)aterespodets. "so( as they had bee i the emp"oy of pri)ate respodets for '0 years as theywere repeated"y re-hired after the e/piratio of their respecti)e cotracts( it is c"ear that their ser)ice was ecessary ad idispesab"e to pri)ate respodet1s busiess. Therefore( theycou"d o"y be dismissed for ust ad )a"id cause. There is o showi* that they abadoed their

ob as there was o showi* of their uustified refusa" to resume emp"oymet. (Millares v.NLRC, >.R. No. 11"2%, March 1%, 2)

Q: F is a members of +io S. The B/ecuti)e


53/706

rei$&rse$ent shol/ &e char#e/ to the nions #eneral 0n/ oraccont. No /e/ction can &e $a/e 0ro$ the salaries o0 the concerne/e$lo*ees other than those $an/ate/ &* la. (>a&riel, et al v. Secretar*o0 La&or, >.R. No. 11"9%9, March 16, 2)

Q: ad < were emp"oyed by ;6 as "oad cotro""er ad check-i c"erk( respecti)e"y. >Eauary %&( %&&3( a passe*er by the ame of 9omiero checked i for the f"i*ht. $t appearsthat < ref"ected a "i*hter wei*ht of ba**a*e o 9omiero1s ticket to make it appear that thesame was withi the a""owab"e "e)e". he the aoma"y was "ater disco)ered( < wet to thecashier to pay the e/cess ba**a*e fee. 9omiero further paid the sum represeti* the e/cessba**a*e fee. < imp"icated i the aoma"y. ad < were char*ed with !fraud a*aist thecompay# ad were foud *ui"ty ad meted with the pea"ty of dismissa". The 69 foud thatthe a""e*ed defraudi* of ;61s e/cess ba**a*e re)eue was ot the hadiwork of ad that;6 fai"ed to show it suffered "oss i re)eues as a cose8uece of pri)ate respodet1s8uestioed act. as )a"id"y dismissed,

: Ies. The core of ;61s e)idece a*aist ic"uded the report of


54/706

the 9.R. No. 12%22%, March 1-, 2)

Q: was emp"oyed as a data ecoder by pri)ate respodet. ?rom %&HH uti" %&&%( she

etered ito %3 emp"oymet cotracts with pri)ate respodet( each cotract for a period of 3moths. $ September %&&%( ad %' other emp"oyees a""e*ed"y a*reed to the fi"i* of a ;9Bof the rak ad fi"e emp"oyees of pri)ate respodet. Subse8uet"y( recei)ed a termiatio"etter due to !"ow )o"ume of work.# fi"ed a comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa". as a re*u"aremp"oyee etit"ed to teuria" security,

: Ies. B)e thou*h petitioer is a proect emp"oyee( as i the case of =ara*uiot( Er. ).69( the court he"d that a proect emp"oyee or member of a work poo" may ac8uire the statusof a re*u"ar emp"oyee whe the fo""owi* cocur:

%. there is cotiuous rehiri* of proect emp"oyees e)e after the cessatio of a proect'. the tasks performed by the a""e*ed !proect emp"oyee# are )ita"( ecessary ad idispesab"e to

the usua" busiess ad trade of the emp"oyer.

was emp"oyed as a data ecoder performi* duties( which are usua""y ecessary or desirab"ei the usua" busiess or trade of the emp"oyer( cotiuous"y for a period of more tha 3 years.


55/706

is the miisteria" duty of the 6 to re"ease the moey to . (+orres v. NLRC, >.R. No. 1-1%,Aril 12, 2)

Q: > December %&HG( De 6a Sa""e +i)ersity ad De 6a Sa""e +i)ersity Bmp"oyee1s ssociatio( which is composed of re*u"ar o-academic rak ad fi"e emp"oyees etered ito a

9


56/706

disre*ard of estab"ished cotro" procedures resu"ti* i compay dama*es. as F )a"id"ydismissed,

: Ies. "thou*h F coteds that he was i)esti*ated simp"y for the offese of dri)i* without a)a"id dri)er1s "icese( it was c"ear that he was fu""y aware that he was bei* i)esti*ated for his

i)o")emet i the )ehicu"ar accidet. $t was a"so kow to him that the accidet caused the)ictim to suffer serious iuries "eadi* to e/peses which the isurace refused to co)er. Dueprocess does ot ecessari"y re8uire a heari*( as "o* as oe is *i)e reasoab"e opportuityto be heard. F1s actios c"ear"y costituted wi""fu" disobediece. "thou*h *eera""y( aemp"oyee who is dismissed for ust cause is ot etit"ed to ay fiacia" assistace( due toe8uity cosideratios as this was F1s first offese i %H years of ser)ice( he is to be *ratedseparatio pay by way of fiacia" assistace of moth1s pay for e)ery year of ser)ice. (Aarente, Sr. v. NLRC, >.R. No. 11-6"2, Aril 2-, 2)

Q: I was a compay urse for the 9ompay A. memoradum was issued by the persoe"maa*er of 9ompay A to I aski* her to e/p"ai why o actio shou"d be take a*aist her for % throwi* a stap"er at p"at maa*er i""iam 9huaJ ' for "osi* the amout of ;%(4HH

etrusted to her( 3 for aski* a co-emp"oyee to puch i her time card oe mori* whe shewas ot there. She was the p"aced o pre)eti)e suspesio. other memoradum wasset to her aski* her to e/p"ai why she fai"ed to process the T= app"icatios of her co-emp"oyees. She submitted a writte e/p"aatio as to the "oss of the ;%(4HH ad the puchi*i of her time card. third memoradum was set to her iformi* her of her termiatio fromser)ice for *ross ad habitua" e*"ect of duties( serious miscoduct( ad fraud or wi""fu" breachof trust. I c"aims that her throwi* of the stap"er at p"at maa*er i""iam 9hua was becausethe "atter had bee maki* se/ua" ad)aces o her sice her first year of emp"oymet ad thatwhe she wou"d ot accede to his re8uests( he threateed that he wou"d cause her termiatiofrom ser)ice. s to the other char*es( she c"aimed that they were ot doe with ma"ice or badfaith. as I i""e*a""y dismissed( ad if so( is she etit"ed to reco)er dama*es,

AF Bes. +he #ron/s &* hich an e$lo*er $a* vali/l* ter$inate theservices o0 an e$lo*ee $st &e strictl* constre/. +o constitteserios $iscon/ct to ?sti0* /is$issal, the acts $st &e /one inrelation to the er0or$ance o0 her /ties as ol/ sho her to &e n0itto contine or;in# 0or her e$lo*er. +he acts co$laine/ o0 /i/ notertain to her /ties as a nrse neither /i/ the* constitte serios$iscon/ct. n the estion o0 /a$a#es, altho#h B alloe/ 0or*ears to ass &e0ore co$in# ot ith her e$lo*ers se


57/706

over their e$lo*ees. (Philiine Aeols Ato$otive 7nite/ Cororatoinv. NLRC, >.R. No. 12%61-, Aril 28, 2)

Q: $seta Dept Store dismissed < due to retrechmet. owe)er istead of *i)i* the re8uired30 day otice( the compay *a)e 30 days pay ar*ui* that this is effecti)e otice. They made <

si* 8uitc"aims so that there wou"d be o more c"aims from them. The 6abor rbiter ru"ed thatthe < was i""e*a""y dismissed because they were ot afforded due process because they fai"edto pro)e retrechmet due to "osses. The 69 re)ersed the ru"i* sayi* that the dismissa"was ustified because it was due to redudacy ad ot retrechmet. The 69 howe)er didot ru"e o whether the 30 day pay was a sufficiet substitute for the 30 day otice. Thepetitioer ar*ues further that they shou"d be *i)e the chace to preset his side. as the 30days pay sufficiet rep"acemet for 30 day otice,

: o. The 9ourt ru"ed that sice the dismissa" is due to a authori2ed cause o"y otice isre8uired ad that the emp"oyee has o ri*ht to preset his side. The 30 day otice is eeded iorder to afford the emp"oyee eou*h time to "ook for work ad to *i)e the D>6B time to "ook itothe )a"idity of the authori2ed cause. 30 days pay is ot eou*h to rep"ace the oticere8uiremet because it wou"d ot ser)e the purpose of the otice. dditioa""y( backwa*es areot a se)ere puishmet because it is a cose8uece of the emp"oyer1s fai"ure to *i)e oticead due process ad the emp"oyee is therefore ot deemed termiated so he shou"d becompesated for that period. (Serrano vs NLRC, >R No 11-%, Ma* %, 2)

Q: ad < fi"ed a petitio for certificatio e"ectio. Their petitio was *rated but they "ost i thee"ectio as maority of the emp"oyees )oted for !o uio#. The e/t day( they fai"ed to report for work. They c"aim that they were barred from eteri* the premises. They fi"ed a suit for i""e*a"dismissa" ad backwa*es. The compay deied these a""e*atios ad a""e*ed that ad <refused to retur to work despite their attetio bei* ca""ed. ere ad < "e*a""y dismissed,

: o. The 9ourt ru"ed that a immediate fi"i* of a comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa" isicompatib"e with abadomet. badomet is a matter of itetio. There must be proof of de"iberate ad uustified itet to se)er the emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship. This burde restso the emp"oyer. $ this case( the emp"oyer fai"ed to do so. Sice they were i""e*a""y dismissed(the emp"oyees are etit"ed to reistatemet with fu"" backwa*es( udimiished by their eari*se"sewhere. (4illar v. NLRC, >R No 1'9'", Ma* 11, 2)

Q: schoo" emp"oys both "oca"-hire ad forei*-hire teachers. The forei*-hire teachers were*i)e a added '5 i their sa"ary ad some beefits "ike trasportatio ad housi*( shippi*costs etc. These were *i)e based o two thi*s: dis"ocatio ad "imited teure. The addedcompesatio was the schoo"1s way of remaii* competiti)e o a iteratioa" "e)e" i terms

of attracti* competet teachers. The "oca"-hire teachers( part of the uio cotested thedifferece( a dead"ock resu"ted so the teachers wet o strike. $s there discrimiatio i termsof wa*es,

: Ies( there is discrimiatio. The pricip"e !e8ua" pay for e8ua" work# shou"d app"y i thiscase. ;ersos who work with substatia""y e8ua" 8ua"ificatios( ski""( effort ad resposibi"ity(uder simi"ar coditios( shou"d be paid simi"ar sa"aries. $f a emp"oyee is paid "ess it is upothe emp"oyer to e/p"ai why the emp"oyee is treated differet"y. Dis"ocatio ad "imited teure


58/706

caot ser)e as ade8uate or )a"id bases for the differece i the sa"ary rates. The other beefits are eou*h to make up for these two factors. There is o reasoab"e distictiobetwee the work of a "oca"-hire ad a forei*-hire that wi"" ustify the differece. (!nternationalSchool Alliance o0 E/cators v. Gis$&in#, >R No 1288%", ne 1, 2)

Q: compay was foud to ha)e uderpaid their emp"oyees ad did ot pay the %3th

moth payo a routie ispectio coducted by D>6B. The re*ioa" director ordered the compay to paythe deficiecy. Subse8uet"y( the 69 affirmed the order. wai)er was si*ed by %0H of theworkers where they reduced by ha"f the amout that was due. D>6B appro)ed the wai)er sayi* that it was ot cotrary to "aw( *ood customs ad pub"ic po"icy. 6ater( petitioer fi"ed amotio for recosideratio a""e*i* udue if"uece( coercio( itimidatio( ad o assistace of couse". The motio was deied. Bduardo ietes( c"aimi* that he represeted the workers(fi"ed a positio paper with the same ar*umet. The 69 dismissed the case for fai"ure toac8uire urisdictio. e a*ai fi"ed a appea" but the appea" was deied for bei* fi"ed out of time. The appea" was fi"ed & days "ate a"o* with the appea" fee ad research fee. as theappea" was fi"ed out of time,

: Ies( the appea" was fi"ed out of time. The perfectio of a appea" withi the re*"ametaryperiod ad i the maer prescribed by "aw is madatory ad urisdictioa". o-comp"iacereders the ud*emet appea"ed fia" ad e/ecutory. appea" is perfected whe there is proof of paymet of the appea" fee ad i cases of the emp"oyer appea"i* ad there is a moetaryaward( paymet of the appea" bod. mere otice of appea" without comp"yi* with the other re8uisites sha"" ot stop the rui* of the period for perfecti* a appea". Sometimes thou*h(i the iterest of ustice( "ate appea"s ha)e bee a""owed. istace is a c"ass suit. $ thiscase there is o e)idece that there is a c"ass suit. There is o e)idece that the workers choseietes to represet them. There is o showi* that the workers are oied by a commoiterest. s there is o basis to i)a"idate the wai)er the workers si*ed( the wai)er is)a"id. (or;ers o0 Antie Electric Cooerative v. NLRC, >R No 1262, ne 8, 2)

Q: F was a radio operator o board a ship where he had a cotract for %' moths. e wasre8uired to submit himse"f to a medica" e/amiatio. ;rior to this( he had a pacemaker isertedto he"p his cardio)ascu"ar fuctioi* but he was sti"" dec"ared fit to work. > board the )esse"(he had bouts of cou*hi* ad he eeded ope heart sur*ery. e fi"ed for sickess addisabi"ity beefits with the ;>B ad these were awarded to him. $s the sickesscompesab"e,

: Ies( it is compesab"e. 9ompesabi"ity of the i""ess or death of seame eed ot deped owhether the i""ess was work coected or ot. $t is sufficiet that the i""ess occurred duri* theterm of the emp"oymet cotract. $t wi"" a"so be reca""ed that petitioers admitted that pri)aterespodetPs work as a radio officer e/posed him to differet c"imates ad upredictab"e

weather( which cou"d tri**er a heart attack or heart fai"ure. B)e assumi* that the ai"met of the worker was cotracted prior to his emp"oymet( this sti"" wou"d ot depri)e him of compesatio beefits. ?or what matters is that his wor had %ontri'uted, even in a small degree, to the development o& the disease ad i bri*i* about his e)etua" death. either is itecessary( i order to reco)er compesatio( that the emp"oyee must ha)e bee i perfecthea"th at the time he cotracted the disease.(Sea#ll ShiMana#e$ent an/ +ransort !nc. v.NLRC, >R No 12'619, ne 8, 2)


59/706

Q: F is a merchadiser of respodet compay. e withdraws stocks from the warehouse( fi/esthe prices( price-ta**i*( disp"ayi* the products ad i)etory. e was paid by the compaythrou*h a a*et. e asked for re*u"ari2atio of his status. The compay deied ayemp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship. They c"aim that they used a a*et or idepedetcotractors to se"" the merchadise. as there "abor-o"y cotracti*,

: o. The a*et is a "e*itimate idepedet cotractor. 6abor-o"y cotractor occurs o"ywhe the cotractor mere"y recruits( supp"ies or p"aces workers to perform a ob for a pricipa".The "abor-o"y cotractor does ot ha)e substatia" capita" or i)estmet ad the workersrecruited perform acti)ities direct"y re"ated to the pricipa" busiess of the emp"oyer. There ispermissib"e cotracti* o"y whe the cotractor carries a idepedet busiess adudertakes the cotract i his ow maer ad method( free from the cotro" of the pricipa"ad the cotractor has substatia" capita" or i)estmet. The a*et( ad ot the compay( a"soe/ercises cotro" o)er the petitioers. o documets were submitted to pro)e that the compaye/ercised cotro" o)er them. The a*et hired the petitioers. The a*et a"so pays thepetitioers( o e)idece was submitted showi* that it was the compay payi* them ad otthe a*et. $t was a"so the a*et who termiated their ser)ices. .R. No. 12"'', ne 16, 2)

Q: I was emp"oyed as a mechaic. e was dismissed after the compay foud out that he wasdoi* side"ie work. $t wou"d appear that "ate i the e)ei* of the day i 8uestio( the dri)er of a red 9oro""a arri)ed at the shop "ooki* for I. The dri)er said that( as prearra*ed( he was topick up I who wou"d perform a pri)ate ser)ice o the )ehic"e. he reports of the Uside"ieUwork reached maa*emet( it cofroted I ad asked for a e/p"aatio. ccordi* to pri)aterespodet( I *a)e cotradictory e/cuses( e)etua""y c"aimi* that the uauthori2ed ser)icewas for a aut. he pressed to preset his aut( it was the that I stopped reporti* for


60/706

work( fi"i* his comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa" some te moths after his a""e*ed termiatio. Iwas e)e emp"oyed by aother compay thereafter. as there abadomet of work,

: Ies. I( after bei* pressed by the respodet compay to preset the customer re*ardi*his uauthori2ed so"icitatio of side"ie work from the "atter ad whom he c"aims to be his aut(

he e)er reported back to work aymore. $t must be stressed that whi"e I a""e*es that he wasi""e*a""y dismissed from his emp"oymet by the respodets( surprisi*"y( he e)er stated ayreaso why the respodets wou"d wat to ease him out from his ob. =oreo)er( why did it takehim te %0 "o* moths to fi"e his case if ideed he was a**rie)ed by respodets. "" theabo)e facts c"ear"y poit that the fi"i* of his case is a mere afterthou*ht o the part of I. (Leonar/o v. NLRC, >.R. No. 12"'', ne 16, 2)

Q: F is a officer ad member of the ;@


61/706

the computatio made whe they did ot obect thereto but e)e fi"ed a motio to re"ease theremaii* ba"ace amouti* to ;3&H(G00.00 sti"" i the hads of the 69 to fu""y satisfy the

ud*met awards. F caot ow c"aim that they ha)e remaied upaid( especia""y cosideri*that they ha)e a"ready recei)ed the ud*met award. (P>A :rotherhoo/ Association, et al., v.NLRC, >.R. No. 1'18%, ne 19, 2).

Q: F was worki* as dri)er of passe*er eepeys. e "ost his dri)er1s "icese ad asked forpermissio to *o o )acatio "ea)e to secure a ew oe. F o"y retured after three mothswhe he was ab"e to obtaied his "icese. e was howe)er iformed that aother dri)er hada"ready take his p"ace. The compay ar*ues that the pro"o*ed absece of F costitutedabadomet. F fi"ed a case for i""e*a" dismissa". Did F1s absece costitute abadomet,

: o. To costitute abadomet( two e"emets must cocur: % the fai"ure to report for workor absece without )a"id or ustifiab"e reaso( ad ' a c"ear itetio to se)er the emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship. Such is disputed by the fact that pri)ate respodet immediate"yreported back for work ad "ost o time i fi"i* a case for i""e*a" dismissa" a*aistpetitioers. (!caat v. NLRC, >R 1''"-2, ne 2, 2)

Q: F was emp"oyed as maa*er by a compay for its ea"thcare Di)isio. $ pri" %&&G(fictitious i)oices were set to c"iets made to if"ate the *ross re)eues of the ea"thcareDi)isioJ ad okom was p"aced o pre)eti)e suspesio as iitia" fidi*s showed her to bei)o")ed i such aoma"y. F admitted the irre*u"arities ad made o e/p"aatio. She a"sofai"ed to appear duri* the heari*. fter the i)esti*atio( F1s emp"oymet was termiated. Fwas foud to ha)e bee dismissed for !fraud or wi""fu" breach# of the trust reposed o her by her emp"oyer or du"y authori2ed represetati)e. as F "e*a""y dismissed,

: Ies. $ the case at bar( petitioer1s positio demaded a hi*h de*ree of resposibi"ity(ic"udi* the uearthi* of fraudu"et ad irre*u"ar acti)ities. ;etitioer fai"ed to do such ad

her bare deia"s did ot dispro)e her *ui"t. The ordiary ru"e is that oe who has kow"ed*epecu"iar"y withi his cotro"( ad refuses to di)u"*e it( caot comp"ai if the court puts the mostufa)orab"e costructio upo his si"ece( ad ifers that a disc"osure wou"d ha)e show thefact to be as c"aimed by the opposi* party. 6oss of cofidece is oe of the ust causes for a)a"id dismissa"J ad it is eou*h that there be !some basis# for such "oss of cofidece. The*uide"ies for the app"icatio of the doctrie of "oss of cofidece as euciated i Midas Tou%h(ood Corporation( are:a....."oss of cofidece shou"d ot be simu"atedJb.....it shou"d ot be used as a subterfu*e for causes which are improper( i""e*a" or uustifiedJc.....it may ot be arbitrari"y asserted i the face of o)erwhe"mi* e)idece to the cotraryJ add.....it must be *euie( ot a mere afterthou*ht to ustify ear"ier actio take i bad faith.

emp"oyer eoys a wide "atitude i the promu"*atio of compay ru"esJ ad i this case( the

po"icies of respodet were fair ad reasoab"e. (No;o$ v. NLRC, >.R. No.1%%', l* 18,2) Q: F( ;residet of the e/c"usi)e bar*aii* a*et iitiated ree*otiatios of its 9 the same year(the uio e"ected a ew set of officers with A as the ew"y e"ected ;residet. A wated tocotiue ree*otiatio( but the compay c"aimed that the 9


62/706

bar*ai. Thereafter( the parties a*reed to disre*ard the usi*ed 9


63/706

caused by emp"oymet( subect to proof that the risk of cotracti* the same is icreased byworki* coditios.# $ other words( !for a sickess ad the resu"ti* disabi"ity or death to becompesab"e( the said sickess must be a occupatioa" disease "isted uder e/ !# the

meded u"es o Bmp"oyees1 9ompesatioJ otherwise( the c"aimat or emp"oyee coceredmust pro)e that the risk of cotracti* the disease is icreased by the worki* coditio.#$disputab"y( cardio)ascu"ar diseases( which( as herei abo)e-stated ic"ude atherosc"erotic

heart disease( atria" fibri""atio( cardiac arrhythmia( are "isted as compesab"e occupatioa"diseases i the u"es of the Bmp"oyees1 9ompesatio 9ommissio( hece( o further proof of casua" re"atio betwee the disease ad c"aimat1s work is ecessary. (Sal$one v.E$lo*ees Co$ensation Co$$ission an/ Social Secrit* S*ste$, >.R. No. 1%2'92,Sete$&er 26, 2)

1999 CASES

Q. f"i*ht sur*eo at ;6( was o duty from 4 pm uti" %'midi*ht. t aroud 7 pm( he "eft the c"iic to ha)e his dier athis residece( a 5-miute dri)e away. hi"e he was away( thec"iic recei)ed a emer*ecy ca"" for a ;6 emp"oyee sufferedfrom a heart attack. The urse o duty phoed the doctor athome to iform him of the emer*ecy( the rushed the patietto the hospita" at 7:50 pm. The doctor arri)ed at 7:5% pm. Thepatiet died the fo""owi* day. fter i)esti*atio( the doctorwas char*ed with abadomet of post whi"e o duty( ad was"ater suspeded for 3 moths. as this suspesio "e*a",

. The suspesio was i""e*a". rtic"e H3 of the 6abor 9ode orma" hours of ork pro)idesthat ea"th persoe" . . . sha"" ho"d re*u"ar office hours for ei*ht H hours a day( for fi)e 5days a week( ex%lusive o& time &or meals( V See rt. H5 - =ea" ;eriodsJ Sec. 7( u"e $( mibus u"es =ea"s ad est periods Thus( the H-hour work period does ot ic"udethe mea" break. owhere i the "aw may it be iferred that emp"oyees must take their mea"swithi the compay premises( as "o* as they retur to their posts o time. ;ri)ate respodet1sact of *oi* home to take his dier does ot costitute abadomet. Philiine Airlines,!nc. v. NLRC, '2 SCRA "82 (1999))

Q. et priter operator emp"oyed at Se"ecta was dismissed from emp"oymet for dishoestyad theft of compay property. 9osideri* that the emp"oyee mere"y took %5 hambur*er patties( a pair of boots ad a a"umium cotaier( was dismissa" the appropriate remedy,

. o. hi"e the S9 a*rees that the emp"oyer shou"d ot be re8uired to cotiuous"y emp"oysomeoe who has betrayed its trust ad cofidece( dismissa" wou"d ot be proportioate to the*ra)ity of the offese. ?urther( he is a o-cofidetia" emp"oyee. Dismissa" as a measure to


64/706

protect the iterests of espodet 9ompay is uwarrated uder the facts of this case.Suspesio wou"d ha)e sufficed. (Associate/ La&or 7nions+7CP v. NLRC, '2 SCRA -8(1999))

Q. de"i)eryma of ;etitioer 9ompay fi"ed a comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa" ad o-paymet

of basic wa*es ad certai moetary beefits. e was suspected of se""i* fruits of his emp"oyer at a hi*her price( ad pocketi* the differece. The 6 foud i fa)or of the emp"oyee adordered petitioer 9ompay to reistate him with back wa*es( sa"ary differetia"s( %3 th mothpay ad ser)ice iceti)e pay. The 69 re)ersed the decisio ad ru"ed that pri)aterespodet was ot etit"ed to reistatemet with back wa*es e/cept for the award of sa"arydifferetia"s due to uderpaymet.

. The S9 a*rees with the 6 ad he"d that pri)ate respodetwas ideed i""e*a""y dismissed. $t was o"y upo his comp"aitre*ardi* his "ow sa"ary that he was o "o*er a""owed to report

for work. This amouted to dismissa" without cause ad withoutthe re8uisite writte otice. Such circumstaces make it difficu"tto sustai ay a""e*atio of abadomet. badomet( as a

ust ad )a"id cause for termiatio( re8uires a de"iberate aduustified refusa" of

CASE DIGESTED FOR 8 BAR SUBJECTS BY JAMES MAMBA.doc

Documents

Transcript of CASE DIGESTED FOR 8 BAR SUBJECTS BY JAMES MAMBA.doc