Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008-2015)Labor Law

RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT

ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. All eight private complainants consistently declared that Ochoa promised them employment overseas after they submit their bio-data, birth certificates, passports and payment for placement and medical fees. - People of the Philippines vs. Rosario "Rose" Ochoa, G.R. No. 173792, August 31, 2011

OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT

The subsequently executed side agreement of an overseas contract worker with her foreign employer which reduced his salary below the amount approved by the POEAis void because it is against our existing laws, morals and public policy.The said side agreement cannot supersede the terms of the standard employment contract approved by the POEA. Consequently, the solidary liability of respondent with petitioners foreign employer for the money claims continues although she was forced to sign another contract.It is the terms of the original POEA-approved employment contract that shall govern the relationship of petitioner with the respondent recruitment agency and the foreign employer. - Santosa B. Datuman vs. First Cosmopolitan Manpower and Promotion Services, Inc., G.R. No. 156029, November 14, 2008

LABOR STANDARDS

WAGES (Non-Diminution of Benefits)

It is a jurisprudential rule that where there is an established employer practice of regularly, knowingly and voluntarily granting benefits to employees over a significant period of time, despite the lack of a legal or contractual obligation on the part of the employer to do so, the grant of such benefits ripens into a vested right of the employees and can no longer be unilaterally reduced or withdrawn by the employer. - Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Felipe E. Patag and Bienvenido C. Flora, G.R. No. 152928, June 18, 2009

DISABILITY BENEFITS

Respondents disability can only be assessed by the company-designated physician.If the company-designated physician declares him fit to work, then the seaman is bound by such declaration. In order to claim disability benefits under the Standard Employment Contract, it is the company-designated physician who must proclaim that the seaman suffered a permanent disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of the latters employment. - Magsaysay Maritime Corp. and/or Conrado N. Dela Cruz and ODF Jell Asa vs. Jaime M. Velasquez and the Honorable Court Of Appeals, G.R. No. 179802, November 14, 2008

The petitioners are mistaken in their notion that only the POEA SEC should be considered in resolving the issue involving a seafarer. The applicability of the Labor Code provisions on permanent disability, particularly Article 192(c)(1), to seafarers, is already a settled matter. Section 29 of the 1996 POEA Standard Employment Contract itself provides that "all rights and obligations of the parties to the Contract, including the annexes thereof, shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, international conventions, treaties and covenants where the Philippines is a signatory." Even without this provision, a contract of labor is so impressed with public interest that the New Civil Code expressly subjects it to the "special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects." - Philasia Shipping Agency Corporation and/or Intermodal Shipping, Inc. vs. Andres G. Tomacruz, G.R. No. 181180, August 15, 2012

The statement of Dr. Ong was not a categorical attestation as to the actual fitness of Medel to resume his occupation as a seafarer. Plainly, after Medel underwent cranioplasty to repair the fracture in his skull, it is not farfetched to assume that he still needed additional time for his wound to heal and to recuperate in order to restore himself to his former state of health. To our mind, the medical certificate of Dr. Lim and not of Dr. Ong is the definitive declaration on the physical condition of Medel. Unfortunately for petitioners, however, this declaration was issued beyond the 240-day period pursuant to Section 2 in Rule X of the Implementing Rules of Book IV of the Labor Code (Amended Rules on Employees Compensation). Hence, Medel has right to the disability benefits. - Fair Shipping Corp., and/or Kohyu Marine Co., Ltd. vs. Joselito T. Medel, G.R. No. 177907, August 29, 2012

The initial treatment period of 120 days where the seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work making him entitled to basic wage during this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days under the conditions prescribed by law, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists.

The provisions of the POEA SEC, the Labor Code, and its implementing rules and regulations, are to be read hand in hand when determining the disability benefits due a seafarer. - Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. and Celtic Pacific Ship Management Co., Ltd., vs.Benjamin D. Penales, G.R. No. 162809, September 5, 2012

RETIREMENT BENEFITS

A perusal of Article XIV of the CBA readily shows that retirement benefits shall be gran-ted only to those employees who, after rendering at least ten (10) years of continuous services, would retire upon reaching the mandatory retirement age, or would avail of optional voluntary retirement. Nowhere can it be deduced from the CBA that those employees whose employment was terminated through one of the authorized causes are entitled to retirement benefits. In fact, Section 3 of the said article specifically provides that retrenched employees shall be given two (2) months pay for every year of service. Section 3 shows the intention of the parties to exclude retrenched employees, like herein petitioners, from receiving retirement benefits under the existing retirement plan as set forth in Section. - Flavio S. Suarez, Jr., Renato A. De Asis, Francisco G. Adorable, et al. vs. National Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 150180, October 17, 2008

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

The law makes the principal responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if the principal itself directly hired or employed the employees. - Iligan Cement Corporation vs. Iliascor Employees And Workers Union- Southern Philippines Federation Of Labor (IEWU-SPFL), and its Officers And Members, G.R. No. 158956, April 24, 2009

In order to safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the word project to prevent employees from attaining the status of regular employees, employers claiming that their workers are project employees should not only prove that the duration and scope of the employment was specified at the time they were engaged, but also that there was indeed a project. The project could either be (1) a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the employer company, but which is distinct and separate, and identifiable as such, from the other undertakings of the company; or (2) a particular job or undertaking that is not within the regular business of the corporation. As it was with regard to the distinction between a regular and casual employee, the purpose of this requirement is to delineate whether or not the employer is in constant need of the services of the specified employee. If the particular job or undertaking is within the regular or usual business of the employer company and it is not identifiably distinct or separate from the other undertakings of the company, there is clearly a constant necessity for the performance of the task in question, and therefore said job or undertaking should not be considered a project. - GMA Network, Inc. vs. Carlos P. Pabriga, Geoffrey F. Arias, Kirby N. Campo, Arnold L. Lagahit, and Armando A. Catubig, G.R. No. 176419, November 27, 2013

DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT

The right of an employer to dismiss an employee on account of loss of trust and confidence must not be exercised whimsically and the employer must clearly and convincingly prove by substantial evidence the facts and incidents upon which loss of confidence in the employee may be fairly made to rest; otherwise, the latters dismissal will be rendered illegal. - San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Wiliam L. Friend Jr., G.R. No. 153983, May 26, 2009

Where there is divergence in the findings and conclusions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), on the one hand, from those of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals, on the other, the Supreme Court is constrained to examine the evidence, to determine which findings and conclusion are more conformable with the evidentiary facts.

Managerial prerogatives are subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and general principles of fair play and justice.

Redundancy, for purposes of the Labor Code, exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. - Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Angel U. Del Villar, G.R. No.163091, October 6, 2010

Loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised from the fact that an employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence, but in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer.

As a general rule, employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of managerial personnel or those who, while not of similar rank, perform functions which by their nature require the employers full trust and confidence.

Grave abuse of discretion is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism. - Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Aida M. Quijano, G.R. No.123294, October 20, 2010

The only criterion to guide the exercise of its management prerogative is that the policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees must always be fair and reasonable and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed, commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction. - The Coca-Cola Export Corporation vs. Clarita P. Gacayan, G.R. No.149433, December 15, 2010

The determination of whether or not an employees services are still needed or sustainable properly belongs to the employer. Provided there is no violation of law or a showing that the employer was prompted by an arbitrary or malicious act, the soundness or wisdom of this exercise of business judgment is not subject to the discretionary review of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. - Nelson A. Culili vs. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., Salvador Hizon (President and Chief Executive Officer), Emiliano Jurado (Chairman of the Board), VIRGILIO GARCIA (Vice President) and Stella Garcia (Assistant Vice President), G.R. No. 165381, February 9, 2011

She, ironically a Senior Financial Accountant tasked with ensuring financial reportorial/regulatory compliance from others, repeatedly submitted tampered or altered receipts to support her claim for meal reimbursements, in gross violation of the rules and regulations of petitioner company, such acts warrants dismissal. - The Coca-Cola Export Corporation vs. Clarita P. Gacayan, G.R. No. 149433, June 22, 2011

Although the Supreme Court has, more often than not, been inclined towards the workers and has upheld their cause in their conflicts with the employers, such inclination has not blinded it to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law and doctrine. An employee who resigns and executes a quitclaim in favor of the employer is generally stopped from filing any further money claims against the employer arising from the employment. - Ma. Joy Teresa O. Bilbao vs. Saudi Arabian Airlines, G.R. No. 183915, December 14, 2011

The NLRC and the Court of Appeals found that the union members/employees were not given work starting April 14, 1997 and that more than six months have elapsed after the union members were laid off when the next vessel was serviced at the Minterbro pier on December 22 to 28, 1997. In Sebuguero, the Court ruled on a case regarding lay-off or temporary retrenchment, which subsequently resulted to the separation from employment of the concerned employee as it lasted for more than six months. Article 283 of the Labor Code covers retrenchment. This provision, however, speaks of a permanent retrenchment as opposed to a temporary layoff as is the case here. There is no specific provision of law which treats of a temporary retrenchment or layoff and provides for the requisites in effecting it or a period or duration therefor. These employees cannot forever be temporarily laid- off. To remedy this situation or fill the hiatus, Article 286 may be applied but only by analogy to set a specific period that employees may remain temporarily laid-off or in floating status Six months is the period set by law that the operation of a business or undertaking may he suspended thereby suspending the employment of the employees concerned. The temporary lay-off wherein the employees likewise cease to work should also not last longer than six months. After six months, the employees should either be recalled to work or permanently retrenched following the requirements of the law, and that failing to comply with this would be tantamount to dismissing the employees and the employer would thus he liable for such dismissal. As the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that Sebuguero applies to this case, the consequences arrived at in Sebuguero also apply. Layoff is essentially retrenchment and under Article 283 of the Labor Code a retrenched employee is entitled to separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary or one-half (12) month salary per year of service, whichever is higher. - Minadanao Terminal And Brokerage Service, Inc. and/ or Fortunato De Castro vs. Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Minterbo Southern Philippines Federation of Labor, et al., G.R. No. 174300, December 5, 2012

In all cases involving termination of employment, the burden of proving the existence of the just causes rests upon the employer. What can be gathered from a thorough review of the records of this case is that the inadequacies of the respondent as a teacher did not stem from a reckless disregard of the welfare of her students or of the issues raised by the School regarding her teaching. Far from being tainted with bad faith, respondents failings appeared to have resulted from her lack of necessary skills, in-depth knowledge, and expertise to teach the Filipino language at the standards required of her by the School. The Court finds that the petitioners had sufficiently proved the charge of gross inefficiency, which warranted the dismissal of Santos from the School. - International School Manila and/or Brian Mccauley vs. International School Alliance Of Educators (ISAE) and Members represented by Raquel David Ching, President, Evangeline Santos, Joselyn Rucio and Methelyn Filler, G.R. No. 167286, February 5, 2014

DUE PROCESSTwin-notice Requirement

The essential elements of procedural due process are the twin requirements of notice and hearing. Otherwise, the dismissal of an employee will be tainted with illegality. Those requirements cannot be dispensed with even when the dismissal is pursuant to the closed shop provision in the CBA. Thus, the rights of an employee to be informed of the charges against him and to reasonable opportunity to present his side in a controversy with either the company or his own union are not wiped away by a union security clause or a union shop clause in a collective bargaining agreement. - General Milling Corporation vs. Ernesto Casio, et al., G.R. No. 149552, March 10, 2010

REINSTATEMENT

Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, an employee entitled to reinstatement "shall either be admitted back to workunder the same terms and conditionsprevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll." - Pfizer, Inc. and/or Rey Gerardo Bacarro, and/or Ferdinand Cortes, and/or Alfred Magallon, and/or Aristotle Arce vs. Geraldine Velasco, G.R. No. 177467, March 9, 2011

CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL

Constructive dismissalis an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to an employee.

For abandonment to be a valid ground for dismissal, two elements must then be satisfied:(1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. - Virginia Sugue et. al. vs. Triumph International (Phils.), Inc., G.R. No. 164804/G.R. No. 164784, January 30, 2009

SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION

SSS LAW

The degree of proof required under P.D. 626 is merely substantial evidence, which means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.Accordingly, the claimant must show, at least by substantial evidence, that the development of the disease was brought about largely by the conditions present in the nature of the job.What the law requires is a reasonable work connection, not a direct causal relation. However, for humanitarian reasons, as the petitioner pursued his claim all the way to the Court as an indigent litigant, and due to his advancing age, what had already been given him should no longer be taken away from him. - Alexander B. Gatus vs. Social Security System, G.R. No. 174725, January 26, 2011

GSIS LAW

Services in the MMSU, PHIVIDEC and as OIC ViceGovernor of Ilocos Norte cannot be credited because, aside from having been rendered parttime in said agencies, the said positions were without compensation as defined in Section 2(i) of RA No. 8291. - Simeon M. Valdez vs. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 146175. June 30, 2008

The GSIS et al.s contention that under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8291, which provides that all laws or any law or parts of law specifically inconsistent with it are deemed repealed or modified, thus, all provisions of the Teves Retirement Law that are inconsistent with Republic Act No. 8291 are deemed repealed or modified cannot stand. This is because, unless the intention to revoke is clear and manifest, the abrogation or repeal of a law cannot be assumed.The repealing clause contained in Republic Act No. 8291 is not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the statutes that are intended to be repealed. - Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) et al. vs. Commission on Audit (COA), Amorsonia B. Escarda, Ma. Cristina D. Dimagiba, and Reynaldo P. Ventura, G. R. No. 162372, October 19, 2011

LABOR RELATIONS

RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION

No substantial distinction Under the CBA Between Regular Employees Hired After Probationary Status and Regular Employees Hired After the Merger. They belong to the same bargaining unit being represented by the Union.They both enjoy benefits that the Union was able to secure for them under the CBA.When they both entered the employ of BPI, the CBA and the Union Shop Clause therein were already in effect and neither of them had the opportunity to express their preference for unionism or not. - Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI UNIBANK, G.R. No. 164301, August 10, 2010

RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Standard Chartered argues that maternity benefits, under this provision, can only be given to its own employees and not to spouses of male employees. However, a reading of Section 1 shows that at the time the CBA was signed there was already an existing group hospitalization insurance plan and Standard Chartered was committing under the CBA to continue the same.

In determining the coverage of the benefits under the said plan, it is the provision of the plan itself that govern. In the said plan, the term dependent includes a members spouse who is not more than 65 years of age. The plan further provides that unless dependents are excluded in any particular Insurance Schedule the term insured person shall be deemed to include any dependent insured under the Policy. In other words, dependents enjoy the same benefits as the insured person unless they are expressly excluded in the Insurance Schedule of benefits. The Court notes that there is nothing in the Insurance Schedules or the plan itself which excludes dependents from availing of the maternity benefits granted under the plan. - Standard Chartered Bank vs. Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU), G.R. No. 165550, October 08, 2008

Right of an Employee not to join a Union is not Absolute and Must Give Way to the Collective Good of All Members of the Bargaining Unit. Time and again, this Court has ruled that the individual employees right not to join a union may be validly restricted by a union security clause in a CBAand such union security clause is not a violation of the employees constitutional right to freedom of association. - Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI UNIBANK, G.R. No. 164301, August 10, 2010

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE

The University is guilty of refusal to bargain amounting to an unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code. Indeed there was a requirement on both parties of the performance of the mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement. There was nothing in the March 19, 2001 and July 6, 2001 orders of Director Maraan and Cacdac which restrained or enjoined compliance by the parties with their obligations under the CBA and under the law. The issue of union leadership is distinct and separate from the duty to bargain. - De La Salle University vs. De La Salle University Employees Association (DLSUEA-NAFTEU), G.R. No. 169254, August 23, 2012

As there was no bad faith on the part of the company in its bargaining with the union, deadlock was possible and did occur. Thus, because of the unresolved issue on wage increase, there was actually a complete stoppage of the ongoing negotiations between the parties and the union filed a Notice of Strike. A mutual declaration would neither add to nor subtract from the reality of the deadlock then existing between the parties. Thus, the absence of the parties mutual declaration of deadlock does not mean that there was no deadlock. At most, it would have been simply a recognition of the prevailing status quo between the parties. - Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No. 170007, April 7, 2014

PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION

PROCEDURAL RULES AND TECHNICALITIES

Failure to attach all pleadings and documents, by itself, is not a sufficient ground to dismiss a petition. Lapses in the literal observation of a procedural rule will be overlooked when they do not involve public policy, when they arose from an honest mistake or unforeseen accident, and when they have not prejudiced the adverse party or deprived the court of its authority.

When there is enough basis on which a proper evaluation of the merits of petitioners case may be had, the Court may dispense with the time consuming procedure of remand in order to prevent further delays in the disposition of the case.

The essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard, and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held. Even assuming that an employee was not fully heard during the employers investigation, it is his fault if the same is due to his misguided insistence on having a trial type hearing despite established jurisprudence stating that the mere opportunity to be heard would suffice as due process in administrative proceedings. - Leandro M. Alcantara vs. The Philippine Commercial and International Bank, G.R. No.151349, October 20, 2010

APPEAL

While the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been relaxed in certain cases, this can only be done where there was substantial compliance of the NLRC Rules of Procedure or where the appellants, at the very least, exhibited willingness to pay by posting a partial bond or where the failure to comply with the requirements for perfection of appeal was justified.

Here, the negligence and/or ignorance of the rules of petitioners former counsel is not sufficient justification for their failure to comply with the posting of the bond within the reglementary period. Neither can petitioners subsequent but belated posting of the bond be considered as substantial compliance warranting the relaxation of the rules in the interest of justice. - Philux, Inc. And Max Kienle vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Patricia Perjes, G.R. No. 151854, September 03, 2008

The NLRC shall, in cases of perfected appeals, limit itself to reviewing those issues which are raised on appeal. As a consequence thereof, any other issues which were not included in the appeal shall become final and executory. - Rodolfo Luna vs. Allado Construction Co., Inc., and/or Ramon Allado, G.R. No. 175251, May 30, 2011

An appeal is only a statutory privilege and it may only be exercised in the manner provided by law. Nevertheless, in certain cases, we had occasion to declare that while the rule treats the filing of a cash or surety bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from, as a jurisdictional requirement to perfect an appeal, the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards is sometimes given a liberal interpretation in line with the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits. - Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation vs. Cayetano Pacana Iii, Noe U. Dacer, Johnny B. Racaza, Leonardo S. Orevillo, Araceli T. Libre, Genovevo E. Romitman, Porferia M. Valmores, Meneleo G. Lactuan, Dionisio G. Bangga, Francisco D. Manga, Nestor A. Amplayo, Leilani B. Gasataya, Loreta G. Lactuan, Ricardo B. Pido, Resigolo M. Nacua and Anacleto C. Remedio, G.R. No. 171673, May 30, 2011Page 3 of 9