Labor Review - Consolidated Cases

8/12/2019 Labor Review - Consolidated Cases

1/123

University of San Carlos College of Law

LABOR LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS

The Diamond Batch

. APPLICABLE LAWSI. BASIC PRINCIPLES

ATOK BIG WEDGE COMPANY vs. GISONG.R. No. !"#$% &UGUST '% ($

)&CTS*Sometime in )e+r,ary ""(% res-ondent es,s /. Gison was engaged as

-art0time cons,ltant on retainer +asis +y -etitioner &to1 Big 2edgeCom-any% 3nc. thro,gh its then &sst. 4ice0/resident and &cting Resident5anager% R,tillo &. Torres. &s a cons,ltant on retainer +asis% res-ondentassisted -etitioner6s retained legal co,nsel with matters -ertaining to the-rosec,tion of cases against illegal s,rface occ,-ants within the areacovered +y the com-any6s mineral claims. Res-ondent was li1ewise tas1edo -erform liaison wor1 with several government agencies% which he said

was his e7-ertise.

/etitioner did not re8,ire res-ondent to re-ort to its o9ce on a reg,lar+asis% e7ce-t when occasionally re8,ested +y the management to disc,ssmatters needing his e7-ertise as a cons,ltant. &s -ayment for his services%es-ondent received a retainer fee of /:%$$$.$$ a month% which was

delivered to him either at his residence or in a local resta,rant. The -artiese7ec,ted a retainer agreement% +,t s,ch agreement was mis-laced andcan no longer +e fo,nd.The said arrangement contin,ed for the ne7t eleven years.

Sometime thereafter% since res-ondent was getting old% he re8,ested that

-etitioner ca,se his registration with the Social Sec,rity System ;SSScons,ltant. ?n )e+r,ary @% ($$:% res-ondent Aled a Com-laint withhe SSS against -etitioner for the latter6s ref,sal to ca,se his registration

with the SSS.?n the same date% 5ario D. Cera% in his ca-acity as resident manager of-etitioner% iss,ed a 5emorand,m advising res-ondent that within :$ daysrom recei-t thereof% -etitioner is terminating his retainer contract with the

com-any since his services are no longer necessary.

?n )e+r,ary (% ($$:% res-ondent Aled a Com-laint for illegal dismissal%,nfair la+or -ractice% ,nder-ayment of wages% non0-ayment of :th month-ay% vacation -ay% and sic1 leave -ay with the National La+or Relations

Commission ;NLRC


2/123



The Diamond Batch

Contrary to the concl,sion of the C&% res-ondent is not an em-loyee% m,chmore a reg,lar em-loyee of -etitioner. The a--ellate co,rt6s -remise thateg,lar em-loyees are those who -erform activities which are desira+le

and necessary for the +,siness of the em-loyer is not determinative in thiscase. 3n fact% any agreement may -rovide that one -arty shall renderservices for and in +ehalf of another% no matter how necessary for theatter6s +,siness% even witho,t +eing hired as an em-loyee. =ence%es-ondent6s length of service and -etitioner6s re-eated act of assigning

es-ondent some tas1s to +e -erformed did not res,lt to res-ondent6sentitlement to the rights and -rivileges of a reg,lar em-loyee.

),rthermore% des-ite the fact that -etitioner made ,se of the services ofes-ondent for eleven years% he still cannot +e considered as a reg,lar

em-loyee of -etitioner. &rticle ('$ of the La+or Code% in which the lowerco,rt ,sed to +,ttress its Andings that res-ondent +ecame a reg,larem-loyee of the -etitioner% is not a--lica+le in the case at +ar. 3ndeed% theCo,rt has r,led that said -rovision is not the yardstic1 for determining thee7istence of an em-loyment relationshi- +eca,se it merely disting,ishes+etween two 1inds of em-loyees% i.e.% reg,lar em-loyees and cas,alem-loyees% for -,r-oses of determining the right of an em-loyee to certain+eneAts% to oin or form a ,nion% or to sec,rity of ten,re it does not a--lywhere the e7istence of an em-loyment relationshi- is in dis-,te. 3t is%herefore% erroneo,s on the -art of the Co,rt of &--eals to rely on &rticle

('$ in determining whether an em-loyer0em-loyee relationshi- e7ists+etween res-ondent and the -etitioner

Considering that there is no em-loyer0em-loyee relationshi- +etween the

-arties% the termination of res-ondent6s services +y the -etitioner after d,enotice did not constit,te illegal dismissal warranting his reinstatement andhe -ayment of f,ll +ac1wages% allowances and other +eneAts.

SEMBLANTE et al., vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.G.R. No. "!@(!% &UGUST #% ($

)&CTS*/etitioners 5articio Sem+lante ;Sem+lante< and D,+ric1 /ilar ;/ilar< asserthat they were hired +y res-ondents0s-o,ses 4icente and 5aria L,isa Loot%he owners of Gallera de 5anda,e ;the coc1-itor violation of the coc1-it r,les and reg,lation-etitioners were denied entry into the coc1-it ,-on the instr,ctions ores-ondents% and were informed of the termination of their serviceeJective that date. This -rom-ted -etitioners to Ale a com-laint for illegadismissal against res-ondents.

La+or &r+iter ,lie C. Rendo8,e fo,nd -etitioners to +e reg,lar em-loyee

of res-ondents as they -erformed wor1 that was necessary anindis-ensa+le to the ,s,al trade or +,siness of res-ondents for a n,m+er oyears. NLRC denied the a--eal for its non0-erfection. The NLRC held thathere was no em-loyer0em-loyee relationshi- +etween -etitioners anres-ondents% res-ondents having no -art in the selection and engagemenof -etitioners% and that no se-arate individ,al contract with res-ondentwas ever e7ec,ted +y -etitioners. % the a--ellate co,rt fo,nd fores-ondents% noting that referees and +et0ta1ers in a coc1Aght need thave the 1ind of e7-ertise that is characteristic of the game to inter-remessages conveyed +y mere gest,res. =ence% -etitioners are a1in tinde-endent contractors who -ossess ,ni8,e s1ills% e7-ertise% and talent tdisting,ish them from ordinary em-loyees. ),rther% res-ondents did nos,--ly -etitioners with the tools and instr,mentalities they needed t-erform wor1. /etitioners only needed their ,ni8,e s1ills and talents t-erform their o+ as masiador and sentenciador. The C& ref,sed treconsider its Decision.

3SSU*2hether or not there is an em-loyer0em-loyee relationshi-.

SC RUL3NG*2hile res-ondents had failed to -ost their +ond within the $0day -erio-rovided a+ove% it is evident% on the other hand% that -etitioners are N?em-loyees of res-ondents% since their relationshi- fails to -ass m,ster thfo,r0fold test of em-loyment. &s fo,nd +y +oth the NLRC and the C&res-ondents had no -art in -etitionersI selection and managemen-etitionersI com-ensation was -aid o,t of the arri+a ;which is a -ercentagded,cted from the total +ets


3/123


4/123



The Diamond Batch

),rthermore% the a--lica+le foreign case law declares that a referee is annde-endent contractor whose s-ecial s1ills and inde-endent ,dgmentare re8,ired s-eciAcally for s,ch -osition and cannot -ossi+ly +e controlled+y the hiring -arty.

n addition% the fact that /B& re-eatedly hired -etitioner does not +y itself-rove that -etitioner is an em-loyee of the former. )or a hired -arty to +econsidered an em-loyee% the hiring -arty m,st have control over the

means and methods +y which the hired -arty is to -erform his wor1% whichs a+sent in this case. The contin,o,s rehiring +y /B& of -etitioner sim-lysigniAes the renewal of the contract +etween /B& and -etitioner% andhighlights the satisfactory services rendered +y -etitioner warranting s,chcontract renewal. Conversely% if /B& decides to discontin,e -etitionerIsservices at the end of the term A7ed in the contract% whether for,nsatisfactory services% or violation of the terms and conditions of thecontract% or for whatever other reason% the same merely res,lts in the non0enewal of the contract% as in the -resent case. The non0renewal of the

contract +etween the -arties does not constit,te illegal dismissal of-etitioner +y res-ondents.

LIRIO vs. GENOVIAG.R. No. !"P#P% N?45BR (:% ($

)&CTS*Res-ondent Genovia alleged he was hired as st,dio manager +y -etitionerLirio% owner of Cel1or &d Sonicmi7 Recording St,dio ;Cel1or


5/123



The Diamond Batch

correct +y -etitioner% which showed that res-ondent received a monthlysalary of /P%$$$.$$ ;/:%#$$.$$ every #th of the month andanother /:%#$$.$$ every :$th of the month< with the corres-ondingded,ctions d,e to a+sences inc,rred +y res-ondent and ;(< co-ies of -ettycash vo,chers% showing the amo,nts he received and signed for in the-ayrolls.The said doc,ments showed that -etitioner hired res-ondent as anem-loyee and he was -aid monthly wages of /P%$$$.$$. /etitioner wielded

he -ower to dismiss as res-ondent stated that he was ver+ally dismissed+y -etitioner% and res-ondent% thereafter% Aled an action for illegaldismissal against -etitioner. The -ower of control refers merely to thee7istence of the -ower. 3t is not essential for the em-loyer to act,allys,-ervise the -erformance of d,ties of the em-loyee% as it is s,9cient thathe former has a right to wield the -ower. Nevertheless% -etitioner stated in

his /osition /a-er that it was agreed that he wo,ld hel- and teaches-ondent how to ,se the st,dio e8,i-ment. 3n s,ch case% -etitioner

certainly had the -ower to chec1 on the -rogress and wor1 of res-ondent.

?n the other hand% -etitioner failed to -rove that his relationshi- withes-ondent was one of -artnershi-. S,ch claim was not s,--orted +y any

written agreement. The Co,rt notes that in the -ayroll dated ,ly :% ($$o 5arch #% ($$(% there were ded,ctions from the wages of res-ondent for

his a+sence from wor1% which negates -etitionerIs claim that the wages-aid were advances for res-ondentIs wor1 in the -artnershi-.

n termination cases% the +,rden is ,-on the em-loyer to show +ys,+stantial evidence that the termination was for lawf,l ca,se and validly

made. &rticle (PP ;+< of the La+or Code -,ts the +,rden of -roving that thedismissal of an em-loyee was for a valid or a,thoried ca,se on theem-loyer% witho,t distinction whether the em-loyer admits or does notadmit the dismissal. )or an em-loyeeIs dismissal to +e valid% ;a< thedismissal m,st +e for a valid ca,se% and ;+< the em-loyee m,st +e aJordedd,e -rocess. /roced,ral d,e -rocess re8,ires the em-loyer to f,rnish anem-loyee with two written notices +efore the latter is dismissed* ;< thenotice to a--rise the em-loyee of the -artic,lar acts or omissions for whichhis dismissal is so,ght% which is the e8,ivalent of a charge and ;(< thenotice informing the em-loyee of his dismissal% to +e iss,ed after theem-loyee has +een given reasona+le o--ort,nity to answer and to +eheard on his defense. /etitioner failed to com-ly with these legale8,irements hence% the Co,rt of &--eals correctly a9rmed the La+or

&r+iterIs Anding that res-ondent was illegally dismissed% and entitled to th-ayment of +ac1wages% and se-aration -ay in l ie, of reinstatement.

AO vs. BCC PRODUCTS SALES INC.G.R. No. !:P$$% &/R3L '% ($(

)&CTS*

/etitioner maintained that res-ondent BCC /rod,ct Sales 3nc. ;BCC< and it/resident% res-ondent Terrance Ty ;Ty


6/123



The Diamond Batch

2e cannot side with -etitioner.?,r -er,sal of the a9davit of -etitioner com-els a concl,sion similar tohat reached +y the C& and the La+or &r+iter to the eJect that the a9davit

act,ally s,--orted the contention that -etitioner had really wor1ed in BCCas S)CIs re-resentative. 3t does seem more nat,ral and more +elieva+lehat -etitionerIs a9davit was referring to his em-loyment +y S)C even

while he was re-orting to BCC as a com-troller in +ehalf of S)C. &ses-ondents -ointed o,t% it was im-la,si+le for S)C to still -ost him to

oversee and s,-ervise the collections of acco,nts receiva+les d,e fromBCC +eyond Decem+er ""# if% as he insisted% BCC had already illegallydismissed him and had even -revented him from entering the -remises ofBCC. Given the -atent animosity and strained relations +etween him andes-ondents in s,ch circ,mstances% indeed% how co,ld he still e9ciently

-erform in +ehalf of S)C the essential res-onsi+ility to Koversee ands,-ervise collectionsO at BCC S,rely% res-ondents wo,ld have vigoro,slyo+ected to any arrangement with S)C involving him.

2e note that -etitioner e7ec,ted the a9davit in 5arch ""! to ref,te astatement Ty himself made in his own a9davit dated Decem+er % ""#o the eJect that -etitioner had illegally a--ro-riated some chec1s witho,t

a,thority from BCC. /etitioner there+y so,ght to show that he had thea,thority to receive the chec1s -,rs,ant to the arrangements +etween S)Cand BCC. This showing wo,ld aid in fending oJ the criminal chargees-ondents Aled against him arising from his mishandling of the chec1s.

),rther% an a9davit dated Se-tem+er #% ($$$ +y &lfredo So% the /residentof S)C% whom -etitioner oJered as a re+,ttal witness% lent credence to

es-ondentsI denial of -etitionerIs em-loyment. So declared in thata9davit% among others% that he had 1nown -etitioner for +eing Kearlier hisetained acco,ntant having his own o9ce +,t did not hold o9ceO in S)CIs

-remises that Ty had a--roached him ;So< Kloo1ing for an acco,ntant orcom-troller to +e em-loyed +y him ;Ty< in MBCCIs distri+,tion +,sinessO ofS)CIs general merchandise% and had later as1ed him on his o-inion a+o,t-etitioner and that he ;So< had s,+se8,ently learned that KTy had alreadyem-loyed M-etitioner as his com-troller as of Se-tem+er ""#.O

The statements of So really s,--orted res-ondentsI -osition in that-etitionerIs association with S)C -rior to his s,--osed em-loyment +y BCCwent +eyond mere ac8,aintance with So. That So% who had earlier merelyretainedO -etitioner as his acco,ntant% thereafter em-loyed -etitioner as aretainedO acco,ntant after his s,--osed illegal dismissal +y BCC raised a

do,+t as to his em-loyment +y BCC% and rather conArmed res-ondentsassertion of -etitioner +eing an em-loyee of S)C while he wor1ed at BCC.

5oreover% in determining the -resence or a+sence of an em-loyeem-loyee relationshi-% the Co,rt has consistently loo1ed for the followinincidents% to wit* ;a< the selection and engagement of the em-loyee ;+the -ayment of wages ;c< the -ower of dismissal and ;d< the em-loyer-ower to control the em-loyee on the means and methods +y which the

wor1 is accom-lished. The last element% the so0called control test% is thmost im-ortant element.=ere,nder are some of the circ,mstances and incidents occ,rring whi-etitioner was s,--osedly em-loyed +y BCC that de+,n1ed his claimagainst res-ondents.3t can +e ded,ced from the 5arch ""! a9davit of -etitioner thares-ondents challenged his a,thority to deliver some #' chec1s to S)CConsidering that he contested res-ondentsI challenge +y -ointing to the7isting arrangements +etween BCC and S)C% it sho,ld +e clear thares-ondents did not e7ercise the -ower of control over him% +eca,se hthere+y acted for the +eneAt and in the interest of S)C more than of BCC.

3n addition% -etitioner -resented no doc,ment setting forth the terms of hiem-loyment +y BCC. The fail,re to -resent s,ch agreement on terms oem-loyment may +e ,nderstanda+le and e7-ected if he was a common oordinary la+orer who wo,ld not eo-ardie his em-loyment +y demandins,ch doc,ment from the em-loyer% +,t may not s8,are well with his act,astat,s as a highly ed,cated -rofessional.

/etitionerIs admission that he did not receive his salary for the thremonths of his em-loyment +y BCC% as his com-laint for illegal dismissaand non0-ayment of wages and the criminal case for estafa he later Aleagainst the res-ondents for non0-ayment of wages indicated% f,rther raisegrave do,+ts a+o,t his assertion of em-loyment +y BCC. 3f the assertiowas tr,e% we are -,led how he co,ld have remained in BCCIs em-loin that -eriod of time des-ite not +eing -aid the Arst salarof/($%$$$.$$>month. 5oreover% his name did not a--ear in the -ayroll oBCC des-ite him having a--roved the -ayroll as com-troller.

Lastly% the conf,sion a+o,t the date of his alleged illegal dismissal -rovideanother indici,m of the insincerity of -etitionerIs assertion of em-loymen+y BCC. 3n the -etition for review on certiorari% he averred that he had +ee

! F / a gUSC L&2. Batch ($:. $$ H


7/123



The Diamond Batch

+arred from entering the -remises of BCC on ?cto+er "% ""#% and th,swas illegally dismissed. et% his com-laint for illegal dismissal stated thathe had +een illegally dismissed on Decem+er (% ""# when res-ondentsIsec,rity g,ards +arred him from entering the -remises of BCC% ca,sing himo +ring his com-laint only on Decem+er ("% ""#% and after BCC had

already Aled the criminal com-laint against him. The wide ga-+etween ?cto+er "% ""# and Decem+er (% ""# cannot +e dismissed asa trivial inconsistency considering that the several incidents aJecting the

veracity of his assertion of em-loyment +y BCC earlier noted hereinrans-ired in that interval.

2ith all the grave do,+ts th,s raised against -etitionerIs claim% we neednot dwell at length on the other -roofs he -resented% li1e the a9davits ofsome of the em-loyees of BCC% the 3D% and the signed chec1s% +ills andecei-ts. S,9ce it to +e stated that s,ch other -roofs were easily

e7-laina+le +y res-ondents and +y the aforestated circ,mstances showinghim to +e the em-loyee of S)C% not of BCC.

LEGEND HOTEL V. REALUYOG.R. N?. #:#% UL '% ($(

)&CTS*This la+or case for illegal dismissal involves a -ianist em-loyed to -erformn the resta,rant of a hotel.?n &,g,st "% """% res-ondent% whose stage name was oey R. Roa% Aled acom-laint for alleged ,nfair la+or -ractice% constr,ctive illegal dismissal%

and the ,nder-ayment>non-ayment of his -remi,m -ay for holidays%se-aration -ay% service incentive leave -ay% and :th month -ay.

Res-ondent averred that he had wor1ed as a -ianist at the Legend =otelIsTanglaw Resta,rant from Se-tem+er ""( with an initial rate of/@$$.$$>night that was given to him after each nightIs -erformance thathis rate had increased to /P#$.$$>night and that d,ring his em-loyment%he co,ld not choose the time of -erformance% which had +een A7ed fromP*$$ -m to $*$$ -m for three to si7 times>wee1. =e added that the Legend=otelIs resta,rant manager had re8,ired him to conform with the ven,eIsmotif that he had +een s,+ected to the r,les on em-loyeesIe-resentation chec1s and chits% a -rivilege granted to other em-loyeeshat on ,ly "% """% the management had notiAed him that as a cost0

c,tting meas,re his services as a -ianist wo,ld no longer +e re8,ired

eJective ,ly :$% """ that he dis-,ted the e7c,se% insisting that Legen=otel had +een l,cratively o-erating as of the Aling of his com-laint anthat the loss of his em-loyment made him +ring his com-laint.M(

3n its defense% -etitioner denied the e7istence of an em-loyer0 em-loyerelationshi- with res-ondent% insisting that he had +een only a talenengaged to -rovide live m,sic at Legend =otelIs 5adison CoJee Sho- fothree ho,rs>day on two days each wee1 and stated that the econom

crisis that had hit the co,ntry constrained management to dis-ense withis services.

3SSUS*2?N there e7ists an m-loyee0m-loyer relationshi- +etween th-etitioner or the res-ondent

RUL3NG*m-loyer0em-loyee relationshi- e7isted +etween the -arties

& review of the circ,mstances reveals that res-ondent was% indeed-etitionerIs em-loyee. =e was ,ndenia+ly em-loyed as a -ianist i-etitionerIs 5adison CoJee Sho->Tanglaw Resta,rant from Se-tem+er "",ntil his services were terminated on ,ly "% """.

/etitioner co,ld not see1 ref,ge +ehind the service contract entered intwith res-ondent. 3t is the law that deAnes and governs an em-loymenrelationshi-% whose terms are not restricted to those A7ed in the writtecontract% for other factors% li1e the nat,re of the wor1 the em-loyee ha

+een called ,-on to -erform% are also considered. The law aJord-rotection to an em-loyee% and does not co,ntenance any attem-t ts,+vert its s-irit and intent. &ny sti-,lation in writing can +e ignored whethe em-loyer ,tilies the sti-,lation to de-rive the em-loyee of his sec,ritof ten,re. The ine8,ality that characteries em-loyer0em-loyee relationgenerally ti-s the scales in favor of the em-loyer% s,ch that the em-loyeeis often scarcely -rovided real and +etter o-tions.

Secondly% -etitioner arg,es that whatever rem,neration was given tres-ondent were only his talent fees that were not incl,ded in the deAnitioof wage ,nder theLa+or Code and that s,ch talent fees were +,t thconsideration for the service contract entered into +etween them.

The arg,ment is +aseless.

P F / a gUSC L&2. Batch ($:. $$ H


8/123



The Diamond Batch

Res-ondent was -aid /@$$.$$ -er three ho,rs of -erformance from P*$$-m to $*$$ -m% three to si7 nights a wee1. S,ch rate of rem,neration wasater increased to /P#$.$$ ,-on resta,rant manager 4elacoIsecommendation. There is no denying that the rem,neration denominated

as talent fees was A7ed on the +asis of his talent and s1ill and the 8,ality ofhe m,sic he -layed d,ring the ho,rs of -erformance each night% ta1ingnto acco,nt the -revailing rate for similar talents in the entertainment

nd,stry.

Res-ondentIs rem,neration% al+eit denominated as talent fees% was stillconsidered as incl,ded in the term wage in the sense and conte7t ofhe La+or Code% regardless of how -etitioner chose to designate theem,neration. &nent this% &rticle "P;f< of the La+or Code clearly states*

777 wage -aid to any em-loyee shall mean the rem,neration orearnings% however designated% ca-a+le of +eing e7-ressed in terms ofmoney% whether A7ed or ascertained on a time% tas1% -iece% or commission+asis% or other method of calc,lating the same% which is -aya+le +y anem-loyer to an em-loyee ,nder a written or ,nwritten contract ofem-loyment for wor1 done or to +e done% or for services rendered or to +eendered% and incl,des the fair and reasona+le val,e% as determined +y the

Secretary of La+or% of +oard% lodging% or other facilities c,stomarily,rnished +y the em-loyer to the em-loyee.

THE NEW PHILIPPINE SKYLANDERS, INC VS FRANCISCO N. DAKILAS/T5BR (@% ($(

)&CTS*Da1ila was em-loyed +y New /hili--ine S1ylanders as early as "'P anderminated for ca,se in &-ril ""P when the cor-oration was sold. 3n 5ay

""P% he was rehired as cons,ltant +y the -etitioners ,nder a Contract forCons,ltancy Services dated &-ril :$% ""P.

n a letter dated &-ril "% ($$P% Da1ila informed the cor-oration of hiscom-,lsory retirement eJective 5ay (% ($$P and so,ght for the -aymentof his retirement +eneAts -,rs,ant to the Collective Bargaining &greement.=owever% his re8,est was not acted ,-on. 3nstead% he was terminated fromservice eJective 5ay % ($$P.

Da1ila Aled a com-laint for constr,ctive illegal dismissal% non0-ayment oretirement +eneAts% ,nder>non0-ayment of wages and other +eneAts of reg,lar em-loyee. =e contends that the cons,ltancy contract was scheme to de-rive him of the +eneAts of reg,lariation. =e s,+mittedamong others% co-ies of his time cards% ?9cial B,siness 3tinerary Sli-sDaily &ttendance Sheets and other doc,ments in s,--ort of his claim. Thcor-oration% on the other hand% asserted that no em-loyer0em-loyerelationshi- e7isted +etween them.

3SSU*2as Da1ila an em-loyee of the cor-oration and entitled to the reliefso,ght

RUL3NG*The records reveal that +oth the L& and the NLRC% as a9rmed +y the C&have fo,nd s,+stantial evidence to show that res-ondent Da1ila was reg,lar em-loyee who was dismissed witho,t ca,se.

The L&% as s,stained +y the NLRC% declared res-ondent Da1ila to +e reg,lar em-loyee on the +asis of the ,nre+,tted doc,mentary evidencshowing that he was ,nder the cor-orationIs direct control and s,-ervisioand -erformed tas1s that were either incidental or ,s,ally desira+le annecessary in the trade or +,siness of the cor-oration for a -eriod of teyears.

There was no showing of -al-a+le error or ar+itrary disregard of evidencin the Andings of the L& and NLRC and th,s s,ch Anding was ado-ted +

the S,-reme Co,rt.

Therefore% Da1ila was an em-loyee of the cor-oration th,s entitled t+ac1wages and -ayment of his retirement +eneAts -,rs,ant to the CB&.

III. RIGHT TO HIREIV. WAGES & WAGE RATIONALIZATIONV. VIOLATION OF WAGE ORDERSVI. WAGE ENFORCEMENT & RECOVERY

A!UINAS SCHOOL, V. SPS. INTON&NU&R (!% ($

' F / a gUSC L&2. Batch ($:. $$ H


9/123



The Diamond Batch

)&CTS*n ""' res-ondent ose L,is 3nton ;ose L,is< was a grade three st,dent at&8,inas School ;&8,inas


10/123



The Diamond Batch

The GS3S 5,lti0/,r-ose Coo-erative ;G5/C< is an entity organied +y theem-loyees of the Government Service 3ns,rance System ;GS3S


11/123



The Diamond Batch

eceived only the wage of /@#.$$ daily. The minim,m -rescri+ed wage forRial at that time was /!$.$$.

Delay in the arrival of the im-orted materials from ),r,1awa Cor-orationhe com-any c,t down on overtime wor1 and -rom-ted that anyone whonsists on doing overtime wor1 wo,ld have to go home witho,t -ay fromhe com-any. These -rom-ted res-ondents to go home to Ce+, and their

Aled a case for non -ayment of minim,m wage and illegal dismissal against

-etitioner.

SSU*2?N allowances given +y -etitioner forms -art of the wage of res-ondents.

RUL3NG*n an illegal dismissal case against the -etitioner em-loyer% res-ondentem-loyees alleged that they were ,nder-aid. 3n their defence% -etitionerem-loyer alleged that res-ondent em-loyees act,ally received wageshigher than the -rescri+ed minim,m. The co,rt r,led that as a general r,le%a -arty who alleged -ayment of wages as a defence has the +,rden of-roving it. 3n la+or cases the +,rden of -roving monetary claims rest withhe em-loyer +eca,se the -ertinent -ersonnel Ales% -ayrolls % records and

other doc,ments are with the e7cl,sive control and -ossession of theem-loyer. 3n the given case -etioner aside from +are allegation failed toshow evidences of -ayment of wages higher than the -rescri+ed minim,m.

/etitioner also alleged that the facilities they -rovided sho,ld +e incl,dedn the com-,tation of wages. The co,rt r,led that +efore the val,e of

acilities can +e ded,cted from the em-loyeesI wages% the followinge8,isites m,st all +e attendant* Arst% -roof m,st +e shown that s,chacilities are c,stomarily f,rnished +y the trade second% the -rovision of

ded,cti+le facilities m,st +e vol,ntarily acce-ted in writing +y theem-loyee and Anally% facilities m,st +e charged at reasona+le val,e. 5ereavailment is not s,9cient to allow ded,ctions from the em-loyees wages.These re8,irements has not +een met in this case.2herefore% the -etition is denied.

PEOPLE"S BROADCASTING SERVICE #BOMBO RADYO PHILS., INC.$,VS. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND

EMPLOYMENT ET AL.,G.R. No. P"!#(% 5arch !% ($(

)&CTS*andeleon ,ean Aled a com-laint against /eo-leIs Broadcasting Servicfor illegal ded,ction% non0-ayment of service incentive leave% :th mont-ay% -remi,m -ay for holiday and rest day and illegal dimin,tion o+eneAts% delayed -ayment of wages and non0coverage of SSS% /&G03B3and /hilhealth +efore the De-artment of La+or and m-loyment Regiona

?9ce. ?n the +asis of the com-laint% the D?L cond,cted a -lant leveins-ection. D,ring the ins-ection% /BS denied em-loyee0em-loyerelationshi- with ,ean. 3n the 3ns-ection Re-ort )orm% the La+or 3ns-ectowrote non0dimin,tion of +eneAts. /BS was re8,ired to rectify the violationwithin Ave days from recei-t% +,t there was no rectiAcation eJected. Th,ss,mmary investigations were cond,cted.

The D?L Regional Director r,led that ,ean was an em-loyee of /BS% anwas entitled to his money claims. /BS so,ght reconsideration of thDirectorIs ?rder% +,t failed. The &cting D?L Secretary dismissed /BSa--eal on the gro,nd that it s,+mitted a Deed of &ssignment of BanDe-osit instead of -osting a cash or s,rety +ond.

2hen the matter was +ro,ght +efore the C&% where /BS claimed that it ha+een denied d,e -rocess% it was held that it was accorded d,e -rocess as had +een given the o--ort,nity to +e heard% and that the D?L Secretarhad ,risdiction over the matter% as the ,risdictional limitation im-osed +&rticle (" of the La+or Code on the -ower of the D?L Secretary ,nde&rt. (';+< of the Code had +een re-ealed +y Re-,+lic &ct No. PP:$.

3SSUS*2hat is the e7tent of the D?LIs visitorial and enforcement -ower ,ndethe La+or Code% as amended

5ay the D?L ma1e a determination of whether or not an em-loyeem-loyee relationshi- e7ists% and if so% to what e7tent

RUL3NG*Under &rt. (" of the La+or Code% the -ower of the D?L and its d,la,thoried hearing o9cers to hear and decide any matter involving threcovery of wages and other monetary claims and +eneAts was 8,aliAed +the -roviso that the com-laint not incl,de a claim for reinstatement% or thathe aggregate money claims not e7ceed /h/ #%$$$. R& PP:$% or an &c

F / a gUSC L&2. Batch ($:. $$ H


12/123



The Diamond Batch

),rther Strengthening the 4isitorial and nforcement /owers of theSecretary of La+or% did away with the /h/ #%$$$ limitation% allowing theD?L Secretary to e7ercise its visitorial and enforcement -ower for claims+eyond /h/ #%$$$. The only 8,aliAcation to this e7-anded -ower of theD?L was only that there still +e an e7isting em-loyer0em-loyeeelationshi-.

No limitation in the law was -laced ,-on the -ower of the D?L to

determine the e7istence of an em-loyer0em-loyee relationshi-. No-roced,re was laid down where the D?L wo,ld only ma1e a -reliminaryAnding% that the -ower was -rimarily held +y the NLRC. The law did not sayhat the D?L wo,ld Arst see1 the NLRCIs determination of the e7istence of

an em-loyer0em-loyee relationshi-% or that sho,ld the e7istence of theem-loyer0em-loyee relationshi- +e dis-,ted% the D?L wo,ld refer thematter to the NLRC. The D?L m,st have the -ower to determine whetheror not an em-loyer0em-loyee relationshi- e7ists% and from there to decidewhether or not to iss,e com-liance orders in accordance with &rt. (';+< ofhe La+or Code% as amended +y R& PP:$.

The D?L% in determining the e7istence of an em-loyer0em-loyeeelationshi-% has a ready set of g,idelines to follow% the same g,ide the

co,rts themselves ,se. The elements to determine the e7istence of anem-loyment relationshi- are* ;< the selection and engagement of theem-loyee ;(< the -ayment of wages ;:< the -ower of dismissal ;@< theem-loyerIs -ower to control the em-loyeeIs cond,ct. The ,se of this test isnot solely limited to the NLRC. The D?L Secretary% or his or here-resentatives% can ,tilie the same test% even in the co,rse of ins-ection%

ma1ing ,se of the same evidence that wo,ld have +een -resented +eforehe NLRC.

The determination of the e7istence of an em-loyer0em-loyee relationshi-+y the D?L m,st +e res-ected. The e7-anded visitorial and enforcement-ower of the D?L granted +y R& PP:$ wo,ld +e rendered n,gatory if thealleged em-loyer co,ld% +y the sim-le e7-edient of dis-,ting the em-loyer0em-loyee relationshi-% force the referral of the matter to the NLRC. TheCo,rt iss,ed the declaration that at least a -rima facie showing of thea+sence of an em-loyer0em-loyee relationshi- +e made to o,st the D?Lof ,risdiction. B,t it is -recisely the D?L that will +e faced with thatevidence% and it is the D?L that will weigh it% to see if the same doess,ccessf,lly ref,te the e7istence of an em-loyer0em-loyee relationshi-.

3f the D?L ma1es a Anding that there is an e7isting em-loyer0em-loyerelationshi-% it ta1es cogniance of the matter% to the e7cl,sion of thNLRC. The D?L wo,ld have no ,risdiction only if the em-loyer0em-loyerelationshi- has already +een terminated% or it a--ears% ,-on review% thano em-loyer0em-loyee relationshi- e7isted in the Arst -lace.

The Co,rt% in limiting the -ower of the D?L% gave the rationale that s,climitation wo,ld eliminate the -ros-ect of com-eting concl,sions +etwee

the D?L and the NLRC. The -ros-ect of com-eting concl,sions co,ld ,sas well have +een eliminated +y according res-ect to the D?L Andings% tthe e7cl,sion of the NLRC% and this 2e +elieve is the more -r,dent co,rsof action to ta1e. This is not to say that the determination +y the D?L +eyond 8,estion or review. S,9ce it to say% there are ,dicial remedies,ch as a -etition for certiorari ,nder R,le !# that may +e availed ofsho,ld a -arty wish to dis-,te the Andings of the D?L.

3t m,st also +e remem+ered that the -ower of the D?L to determine the7istence of an em-loyer0em-loyee relationshi- need not necessarily res,in an a9rmative Anding. The D?L may well ma1e the determination thano em-loyer0em-loyee relationshi- e7ists% th,s divesting itself o,risdiction over the case. 3t m,st not +e -recl,ded from +eing a+le treach its own concl,sions% not +y the -arties% and certainly not +y thiCo,rt.

Under &rt. (';+< of the La+or Code% as amended +y R& PP:$% the D?L f,lly em-owered to ma1e a determination as to the e7istence of aem-loyer0em-loyee relationshi- in the e7ercise of its visitorial an

enforcement -ower% s,+ect to ,dicial review% not review +y the NLRC.

There is a view that des-ite &rt. (';+< of the La+or Code% as amended +R& PP:$% there is still a threshold amo,nt set +y &rts. (" and (P of thLa+or Code when money claims are involved% i.e.% that if it is for /h/ #%$$and +elow% the ,risdiction is with the regional director of the D?L% ,nde&rt. ("% and if the amo,nt involved e7ceeds /h/ #%$$$% the ,risdiction iwith the la+or ar+iter% ,nder &rt. (P. The view states that des-ite thwording of &rt. (';+


13/123



The Diamond Batch

hat the D?L had the ,risdiction% des-ite the amo,nt of the money claimsnvolved. ),rthermore% in these cases% the ins-ection held +y the D?Legional director was -rom-ted s-eciAcally +y a com-laint. Therefore% thenitiation of a case thro,gh a com-laint does not divest the D?L Secretaryor his d,ly a,thoried re-resentative of ,risdiction ,nder &rt. (';+


14/123



The Diamond Batch

ecently +y the Co,rt in its Resol,tion dated 5arch !% ($( iss,ed in/eo-leIs Broadcasting% vi*

The determination of the e7istence of an em-loyer0em-loyeerelationshi- +y the D?L m,st +e res-ected. The e7-anded visitorialand enforcement -ower of the D?L granted +y R& PP:$ wo,ld +erendered n,gatory if the alleged em-loyer co,ld% +y the sim-lee7-edient of dis-,ting the em-loyer0em-loyee relationshi-% force thereferral of the matter to the NLRC. The Co,rt iss,ed the declaration that

at least a -rima facie showing of the a+sence of an em-loyer0em-loyeerelationshi- +e made to o,st the D?L of ,risdiction. B,t it is -reciselythe D?L that will +e faced with that evidence% and it is the D?L thatwill weigh it% to see if the same does s,ccessf,lly ref,te the e7istence ofan em-loyer0 em-loyee relationshi-.77777 7 7 MThe -ower of the D?L to determine the e7istence of anem-loyer0em-loyee relationshi- need not necessarily res,lt in ana9rmative Anding. The D?L may well ma1e the determination that noem-loyer0em-loyee relationshi- e7ists% th,s divesting itself of,risdiction over the case. 3t m,st not +e -recl,ded from +eing a+le toreach its own concl,sions% not +y the -arties% and certainly not +y thisCo,rt.Under &rt. (';+< of the La+or Code% as amended +y R& PP:$% the D?Lis f,lly em-owered to ma1e a determination as to the e7istence of anem-loyer0em-loyee relationshi- in the e7ercise of its visitorial andenforcement -ower% s,+ect to ,dicial review% not review +y the NLRC.

&lso% the e7istence of an em-loyer0em-loyee relationshi- is ,ltimately a

8,estion of fact. The determination made in this case +y the D?L% al+eit-rovisional% and as a9rmed +y the Secretary of D?L and the C& is +eyondhe am+it of a -etition for review on certiorari.

VII. WAGE PROTECTION PROVISIONS

KIMBERLY%CLARK PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. DIMAYUGAG.R. N?. PPP$#% S/T5BR '% ($$"

)&CTS*Nora% Rosemarie and 5aricar were em-loyees of Xim+erly0Clar1 /hili--ines%nc. ;-etitioner


15/123



The Diamond Batch

agreement or em-loyment contract% or an esta+lished em-loyer -olicy. Noaw or collective +argaining agreement or other a--lica+le contract% or anesta+lished com-any -olicy was e7isting d,ring res-ondentsI em-loymententitling them to the/($$%$$$ l,m-0s,m retirement -ay. /etitioner was noth,s o+liged to grant them s,ch -ay. Res-ondents nevertheless arg,e that

since other em-loyees who resigned +efore the anno,ncement of the grantof the l,m- s,m retirement -ay received the same% they ;res-ondents+on,sE witho,t 8,aliAcation. Terse anclear% the said -rovision did not state that the Christmas -ac1age shall +made to de-end on the -etitioner6s Anancial standing. 3f the -artieintended that the /:%$$$.$$ +on,s wo,ld +e de-endent on the com-anearnings% s,ch intention sho,ld have +een e7-ressed in the CB&.

3t is noteworthy that LC3 cannot insist on +,siness losses as a +asis fodisregarding its ,nderta1ing% +eca,se it still granted in ""'0($$ th:%$$$ +on,s des-ite the imminence and -ossi+ility of +,siness losseowing to the ""P Anancial crisis.

The r,le is settled that any +eneAt and s,--lement +eing enoyed +y them-loyees cannot +e red,ced% diminished% discontin,ed or eliminated +the em-loyer. The -rinci-le of non0dimin,tion of +eneAts is fo,nded on thconstit,tional mandate to -rotect the rights of wor1ers and to -romottheir welfare and to aJord la+or f,ll -rotection.

SHS PERFORATED VS. DIA&GR No. '#'@ ?cto+er :% ($$

)&CTS*/etitioner S=S /erforated 5aterials% 3nc. (SHS) is a start0,- cor-oratioorganied and e7isting ,nder the laws of the Re-,+lic of the /hili--ines anregistered with the /hili--ine conomic Wone &,thority. /etitioner2infried =artmannshenn (Hartmannshenn) is the /resident of S=S whil=inrich ohann Sch,macher (Schumacher)is the treas,rer and one of th+oard directors.

! F / a gUSC L&2. Batch ($:. $$ H


17/123


18/123



The Diamond Batch

entitled to his salary. Therefore% the withholding of res-ondentIs salary +y-etitioners is contrary to &rticle ! of the La+or Code and% th,s% ,nlawf,l.

NINA EWELRY V. MONTECILLON?45BR ('% ($

)&CTS*?n &,g,st :% ($$@% NiVa ewelry im-osed a -olicy for goldsmiths re8,iring

hem to -ost cash +onds or de-osits in varying amo,nts +,t in no casee7ceeding #Q of the latter6s salaries -er wee1. The de-osits werentended to answer for any loss or damage which NiVa ewelry may s,stain+y reason of the goldsmiths6 fa,lt or negligence in handling the goldentr,sted to them. The de-osits shall +e ret,rned ,-on com-letion of thegoldsmiths6 wor1 and after an acco,nting of the gold received.

Said res-ondents deAed same -olicy and were considered constr,ctivelydismissed +y the com-any% who only alleged that they sto--ed re-orting towor1. Res-ondents then Aled com-laint +,t same was dismissed +y theLa+or &r+iter% only awarding them their :th month -ay. They thenelevated their com-laint to the NLCR min,s the already0won :th month-ay.

&--lying &rticle : and @ of the La+or Code% the C& r,led in favor andawarding res-ondents. =ence this -etition for review

SSUS*2hether or not the re8,irement of -osting cash +onds or have the same

ded,cted from the wor1erIs salaries is -ro-er.

=LD*N?. 2hile em-loyers sho,ld generally +e given leeways in their e7ercise ofmanagement -rerogatives% we agree with the res-ondents and the C& thatn the case at +ar% the -etitioners had failed to -rove that their im-ositionof the new -olicy ,-on the goldsmiths ,nder NiVa ewelry6s em-loy falls,nder the e7ce-tions s-eciAed in &rticles : and @ of the La+or Code.

2hile the -etitioners are not a+sol,tely -recl,ded from im-osing the new-olicy% they can only do so ,-on com-liance with the re8,irements of theaw. 3n other words% the -etitioners sho,ld Arst esta+lish that the ma1ing ofded,ctions from the salaries is a,thoried +y law% or reg,lations iss,ed +yhe Secretary of La+or. ),rther% the -osting of cash +onds sho,ld +e -roven

as a recognied -ractice in the ewelry man,fact,ring +,siness% oalternatively% the -etitioners sho,ld see1 for the determination +y thSecretary of La+or thro,gh the iss,ance of a--ro-riate r,les anreg,lations that the -olicy the former see1s to im-lement is necessary odesira+le in the cond,ct of +,siness. The -etitioners failed in this res-ect. +ears stressing that witho,t -roofs that re8,iring de-osits and eJectinded,ctions are recognied -ractices% or witho,t sec,ring the Secretary oLa+or6s determination of the necessity or desira+ility of the same% th

im-osition of new -olicies relative to ded,ctions and de-osits can +e mads,+ect to a+,se +y the em-loyers. This is not what the law intends.

VIII. PAYMENT OF WAGESIX. CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

X. MINIMUM LABOR STANDARD BENEFITS

RADIO MINDANAO NETWORK, INC. AND ERIC S. CANOY VS.DOMINGO &. YBAROLA, ET AL.

G.R. N?. "'!!(. S/T5BR (% ($(

)&CTS*Res-ondents Domingo W. +arola% r. and &lfonso . Rivera% r. were hired o,ne #% "PP and ,ne % "':% res-ectively% +y R5N. They event,al+ecame acco,nt managers% soliciting advertisements and servicing vario,clients of R5N.

=owever% the res-ondentsI services were terminated as a res,lt of R5NIreorganiation>restr,ct,ring they were given their se-aration -ay /!:%(#$.$$ for +arola% and /@'%(#$.$$ for Rivera. Sometime in ($$(they e7ec,ted release>8,itclaim a9davits.

DissatisAed with their se-aration -ay% the res-ondents Aled se-aratcom-laints ;which were later consolidated< against R5N and its /residenric S. Canoy% for illegal dismissal with several money claims% incl,dinattorneyIs fees. They indicated that their monthly salary rates wer/!$%$$$.$$ for +arola and /@$%$$$.$$ for Rivera.

' F / a gUSC L&2. Batch ($:. $$ H


19/123



The Diamond Batch

La+or &r+iter /atricio Li+o0on dismissed the illegal dismissal com-laint% +,tordered the -ayment of additional se-aration -ay to the res-ondents /@"$%$!!.$$ for +arola and /@("%#P.## for Rivera.

?n a--eal +y the -etitioners to the National La+or Relations CommissionNLRC


20/123



The Diamond Batch

ecommendation of the College Co,ncil% the school is e7tending to themnew contracts for S ""'0""".

& letter dated &-ril ((% ""' was sent to -etitioner Sr. Bernadette andsigned +y some of the teachers of S/CYC% incl,ding the res-ondents-o,ses. The said letter contained the teachers6 sentiments regarding twoschool -olicies% namely* Arst% the -olicy of -enaliing the delay in encodingAnal grades and% second% the -olicy of withholding salaries of the teachers.

5eanwhile% a letter dated &-ril (% ""' ;the date% later on contested +yes-ondent Remigio 5ichael to +e ante0dated< was written +y -etitioner Sr.Bernadette to res-ondent Remigio 5ichael% reiterating the conversationhat too1 -lace +etween them the day +efore the date of the said letter&-ril ($% ""'


21/123



The Diamond Batch

:< consec,tive years of satisfactory service for those in the elementaryand secondary levels% si7 ;!< consec,tive reg,lar semesters of satisfactoryservice for those in the tertiary level% and nine ;"< consec,tive trimesters ofsatisfactory service for those in the tertiary level where collegiate co,rsesare oJered on a trimester +asis.

& -ro+ationary em-loyee or -ro+ationer is one who is on trial for anem-loyer% d,ring which the latter determines whether or not he is 8,aliAed

or -ermanent em-loyment. The -ro+ationary em-loyment is intended toaJord the em-loyer an o--ort,nity to o+serve the Atness of a -ro+ationaryem-loyee while at wor1% and to ascertain whether he will +ecome ane9cient and -rod,ctive em-loyee. 2hile the em-loyer o+serves theAtness% -ro-riety and e9ciency of a -ro+ationer to ascertain whether he is8,aliAed for -ermanent em-loyment% the -ro+ationer% on the other hand%see1s to -rove to the em-loyer that he has the 8,aliAcations to meet theeasona+le standards for -ermanent em-loyment. Th,s% the word

-ro+ationary% as ,sed to descri+e the -eriod of em-loyment% im-lies the-,r-ose of the term or -eriod% not its length.

The common -ractice is for the em-loyer and the teacher to enter into acontract% eJective for one school year. &t the end of the school year% theem-loyer has the o-tion not to renew the contract% -artic,larly consideringhe teacher6s -erformance. 3f the contract is not renewed% the em-loymentelationshi- terminates. 3f the contract is renewed% ,s,ally for another

school year% the -ro+ationary em-loyment contin,es. &gain% at the end ofhat -eriod% the -arties may o-t to renew or not to renew the contract. 3fenewed% this second renewal of the contract for another school year wo,ld

hen +e the last year since it wo,ld +e the third school year of-ro+ationary em-loyment. &t the end of this third year% the em-loyer maynow decide whether to e7tend a -ermanent a--ointment to the em-loyee%-rimarily on the +asis of the em-loyee having met the reasona+lestandards of com-etence and e9ciency set +y the em-loyer. )or the entired,ration of this three0year -eriod% the teacher remains ,nder-ro+ation. U-on the e7-iration of his contract of em-loyment% +eing sim-lyon -ro+ation% he cannot a,tomatically claim sec,rity of ten,re and com-elhe em-loyer to renew his em-loyment contract.

/etitioner school contends that it did not e7tend the contracts ofes-ondent s-o,ses. 3t claims that% altho,gh% it has sent letters to the

s-o,ses informing them that the school is e7tending to them new contracts

for the coming school year% the letters do not constit,te as act,aem-loyment contracts +,t merely oJers to teach on the said school year.Section " of the 5an,al of Reg,lations for /rivate Schools% states that*Section ".m-loyment Contract. very contract of em-loymenshall s-ecify the designation% 8,aliAcation% salary rate% the -eriod annat,re of service and its date of eJectivity% and s,ch other terms ancondition of em-loyment as may +e consistent with laws and r,lereg,lations and standards of the school. & co-y of the contract shall +

f,rnished the -ersonnel concerned.

3t is im-ortant that the contract of -ro+ationary em-loyment s-ecify th-eriod or term of its eJectivity. The fail,re to sti-,late its -recise d,ratioco,ld lead to the inference that the contract is +inding for the f,ll threeyear -ro+ationary -eriod. Therefore% the letters sent +y -etitioner SRacadio% which were void of any s-eciAcs cannot +e considered acontracts. The closest they can resem+le to are that of informcorres-ondence among the said individ,als. &s s,ch% -etitioner school hathe right not to renew the contracts of the res-ondents% the old onehaving +een e7-ired at the end of their terms.&ss,ming% arg,endo% that the em-loyment contracts +etween th-etitioner school and the res-ondent s-o,ses were renewed% this Co,Ands that there was a valid and ,st ca,se for their dismissal. The La+oCode commands that +efore an em-loyer may legally dismiss an em-loyefrom the service% the re8,irement of s,+stantial and -roced,ral d,-rocess m,st +e com-lied with. Under the re8,irement of s,+stantial d,-rocess% the gro,nds for termination of em-loyment m,st +e +ased o,st or a,thoried ca,ses.

/etitioner school charged res-ondent Remigio 5ichael of non0com-liancwith a school -olicy regarding the s,+mission of Anal test 8,estions to h-rogram coordinator for chec1ing or comment.

The -lain admissions of the charges against them were the considerationta1en into acco,nt +y the -etitioner school in their decision not to renewthe res-ondent s-o,ses6 em-loyment contracts. This is a right of the schoothat is mandated +y law and ,ris-r,dence. 3t is the -rerogative of thschool to set high standards of e9ciency for its teachers since 8,alited,cation is a mandate of the Constit,tion. &s long as the standards A7eare reasona+le and not ar+itrary% co,rts are not at li+erty to set themaside. Schools cannot +e re8,ired to ado-t standards which +arely satisfcriteria set for government recognition. The same academic freedom grant

( F / a gUSC L&2. Batch ($:. $$ H


22/123



The Diamond Batch

he school the a,tonomy to decide for itself the terms and conditions forhiring its teacher% s,+ect of co,rse to the overarching limitations ,nder theLa+or Code. The a,thority to hire is li1ewise covered and -rotected +y itsmanagement -rerogative the right of an em-loyer to reg,late all as-ectsof em-loyment% s,ch as hiring% the freedom to -rescri+e wor1 assignments%wor1ing methods% -rocess to +e followed% reg,lation regarding transfer ofem-loyees% s,-ervision of their wor1% lay0oJ and disci-line% and dismissaland recall of wor1ers.

LYNVIL FISHING ENTERPRISES vs. ARIOLA et al.G.R. No. '"P@% )BRU&R % ($(

)&CTS*The version of the -etitioners follows*

. Lynvil )ishing nter-rises% 3nc. ;Lynvil< is a com-any engaged indee-0sea Ashing% o-erating along the shores of /alawan and othero,tlying islands of the /hili--ines. 3t is o-erated and managed +yRosendo S. de Bora.

(. ?n &,g,st ""'% Lynvil received a re-ort from Romanito Clarido%one of its em-loyees% that on : ,ly ""'% he witnessed that whileon +oard the com-any vessel &nalyn 4333% Lynvil em-loyees%namely* &ndres G. &riola ;&riola


23/123



The Diamond Batch

2hether or not the em-loyees sec,rity of ten,re were violated.2hether De Bora is ointly and severally lia+le with Lynvil.

SC RUL3NG*Nonetheless% even witho,t reliance on the -rosec,torIs Anding% we And thathere was valid ca,se for res-ondentsI dismissal. 3n illegal dismissal cases%he em-loyer +ears the +,rden of -roving that the termination was for a

valid or a,thoried ca,se.

,st ca,se is re8,ired for a valid dismissal. The La+or Code -rovides that anem-loyer may terminate an em-loyment +ased on fra,d or willf,l +reach ofhe tr,st re-osed on the em-loyee. S,ch +reach is considered willf,l if it is

done intentionally% 1nowingly% and -,r-osely% witho,t ,stiAa+le e7c,se% asdisting,ished from an act done carelessly% tho,ghtlessly% heedlessly ornadvertently. 3t m,st also +e +ased on s,+stantial evidence and not on theem-loyerIs whims or ca-rices or s,s-icions otherwise% the em-loyee wo,ldeternally remain at the mercy of the em-loyer. Loss of conAdence m,st not+e indiscriminately ,sed as a shield +y the em-loyer against a claim thathe dismissal of an em-loyee was ar+itrary. &nd% in order to constit,te a,st ca,se for dismissal% the act com-lained of m,st +e wor10related andshows that the em-loyee concerned is ,nAt to contin,e wor1ing for theem-loyer. 3n addition% loss of conAdence as a ,st ca,se for termination ofem-loyment is -remised on the fact that the em-loyee concerned holds a-osition of res-onsi+ility% tr,st and conAdence or that the em-loyeeconcerned is entr,sted with conAdence with res-ect to delicate matters%s,ch as the handling or care and -rotection of the -ro-erty and assets ofhe em-loyer. The +etrayal of this tr,st is the essence of the oJense for

which an em-loyee is -enalied.

Breach of tr,st is -resent in this case. 2e agree with the r,ling of the La+or&r+iter and Co,rt of &--eals that the 8,antity of t,+s e7-ected to +eeceived was the same as that which was loaded. =owever% what is

material is the 1ind of Ash loaded and then ,nloaded. Sameness is li1ewiseneeded.

2e cannot close o,r eyes to the -ositive and clear narration of facts of thehree witnesses to the commission of 8,aliAed theft. onathan Distao% a

crew mem+er of the &nalyn 4333% stated in his letter addressed to De Boradated ' &,g,st ""'% that while the vessel was traversing San Nicolas%Cavite% he saw a small +oat a--roach them. 2hen the +oat was ne7t toheir vessel% &lcovendas went inside the stoc1room while Se+,llen -,shed

an estimated fo,r t,+s of Ash away from it. &riola% on the other handserved as the loo1o,t and negotiator of the transaction. )inally% BaVe anCalinao hel-ed in -,tting the t,+s in the small +oat. =e f,rther added thahe received /'$$.$$ as his share for the transaction. Romanito Clarido% whwas also on +oard the vessel% corro+orated the narration of Distao on aacco,nts in his (# &,g,st ""' a9davit. =e added that &lcovendas tolhim to 1ee- silent a+o,t what ha--ened on that day. Sealing tight thcredi+ility of the narration of theft is the a9davite7ec,ted +y lorde BaVe

dated : 5ay """. BaVe was one of the dismissed em-loyees whactively -artici-ated in the ta1ing of the t,+s. =e clariAed in the a9davthat the fo,r t,+s ta1en o,t of the stoc1room in fact contained Ash ta1efrom the eight t,+s. =e f,rther stated that &riola told everyone in thvessel not to say anything and instead Ale a la+or case against thmanagement. Clearly% we cannot fa,lt Lynvil and De Bora when dismissed the em-loyees.

&rt. ('$. Reg,lar and cas,al em-loyment. The -rovisions of writteagreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oraagreement of the -arties% an em-loyment shall +e deemed to +e reg,lawhere the em-loyee has +een engaged to -erform activities which ar,s,ally necessary or desira+le in the ,s,al +,siness or trade of them-loyer% e7ce-t where the em-loyment has +een A7ed for a s-eciA-roect or ,nderta1ing the com-letion or termination of which has +eedetermined at the time of the engagement of the em-loyee or where thwor1 or service to +e -erformed is seasonal in nat,re and the em-loymenis for the d,ration of the season.

&n em-loyment shall +e deemed to +e cas,al if it is not covered +y th-receding -aragra-h* /rovided% That any em-loyee who has rendered aleast one year of service% whether s,ch service is contin,o,s or +ro1enshall +e considered a reg,lar em-loyee with res-ect to the activity in whiche is em-loyed and his em-loyment shall contin,e while s,ch activite7ists.

Lynvil contends that it cannot +e g,ilty of illegal dismissal +eca,se th-rivate res-ondents were em-loyed ,nder a A7ed0term contract whice7-ired at the end of the voyage.

&ccordingly% and since the entire -,r-ose +ehind the develo-ment olegislation c,lminating in the -resent &rticle ('$ of the La+or Code clearla--ears to have +een% as already o+served% to -revent circ,mvention o

(: F / a gUSC L&2. Batch ($:. $$ H


24/123



The Diamond Batch

he em-loyee6s right to +e sec,re in his ten,re% the cla,se in said articlendiscriminately and com-letely r,ling o,t all written or oral agreementsconicting with the conce-t of reg,lar em-loyment as deAned thereinsho,ld +e constr,ed to refer to the s,+stantive evil that the Code itself hassingled o,t* agreements entered into -recisely to circ,mvent sec,rity ofen,re. 3t sho,ld have no a--lication to instances where a A7ed -eriod of

em-loyment was agreed ,-on 1nowingly and vol,ntarily +y the -arties%witho,t any force% d,ress or im-ro-er -ress,re +eing +ro,ght to +ear ,-on

he em-loyee and a+sent any other circ,mstances vitiating his consent% orwhere it satisfactorily a--ears that the em-loyer and em-loyee dealt witheach other on more or less e8,al terms with no moral dominance whatever+eing e7ercised +y the former over the latter. Unless th,s limited in its-,rview% the law wo,ld +e made to a--ly to -,r-oses other than thosee7-licitly stated +y its framers it th,s +ecomes -ointless and ar+itrary%,n,st in its eJects and a-t to lead to a+s,rd and ,nintendedconse8,ences.

Contrarily% the -rivate res-ondents contend that they +ecame reg,larem-loyees +y reason of their contin,o,s hiring and -erformance of tas1snecessary and desira+le in the ,s,al trade and +,siness of Lynvil.,ris-r,dence% laid two conditions for the validity of a A7ed0contractagreement +etween the em-loyer and em-loyee*)irst% the A7ed -eriod of em-loyment was 1nowingly and vol,ntarily agreed,-on +y the -arties witho,t any force% d,ress% or im-ro-er -ress,re +eing+ro,ght to +ear ,-on the em-loyee and a+sent any other circ,mstancesvitiating his consent or Second% it satisfactorily a--ears that the em-loyerand the em-loyee dealt with each other on more or less e8,al terms with

no moral dominance e7ercised +y the former or the latter.

Te7t,ally% the -rovision that* EN& a1o ay s,masang0ayon na magling1od atg,mawa ng mga gawain sang0ayon sa -ata1arang E-or viaeE namagm,m,la sa -agalis sa Navotas -a-,nta sa -angisdaan at -ag+a+ali1sa -ondohan ng lantsa sa Navotas% 5etro 5anilaE is for a A7ed -eriod ofem-loyment. 3n the conte7t% however% of the facts that* ;< the res-ondentswere doing tas1s necessarily to LynvilIs Ashing +,siness with -ositionsanging from ca-tain of the vessel to +odegero ;(< after the end of a tri-%hey will again +e hired for another tri- with new contracts and ;:< this

arrangement contin,ed for more than ten years% the clear intention is to goaro,nd the sec,rity of ten,re of the res-ondents as reg,lar em-loyees. &ndes-ondents are so +y the e7-ress -rovisions of the second -aragra-h of

&rticle ('$% th,s*

777 /rovided% That any em-loyee who has rendered at least one year oservice% whether s,ch service is contin,o,s or +ro1en% shall +e considerea reg,lar em-loyee with res-ect to the activity in which he is em-loyed anhis em-loyment shall contin,e while s,ch activity e7ists.

The same set of circ,mstances indicate clearly eno,gh that it was the neefor a contin,ed so,rce of income that forced the em-loyeesI acce-tance othe E-or viaeE -rovision.

=aving fo,nd that res-ondents are reg,lar em-loyees who may +ehowever% dismissed for ca,se as we have so fo,nd in this case% there is need to loo1 into the -roced,ral re8,irement of d,e -rocess in Section (R,le \\333% Boo1 4 of the R,les 3m-lementing the La+or Code. 3t is re8,irethat the em-loyer f,rnish the em-loyee with two written notices* ;< written notice served on the em-loyee s-ecifying the gro,nd or gro,nds fotermination% and giving to said em-loyee reasona+le o--ort,nity withiwhich to e7-lain his side and ;(< a written notice of termination served othe em-loyee indicating that ,-on d,e consideration of all thcirc,mstances% gro,nds have +een esta+lished to ,stify his termination.

)rom the records% there was only one written notice which re8,ireres-ondents to e7-lain within Ave ;#< days why they sho,ld not +dismissed from the service. &lcovendas was the only one who signed threcei-t of the notice. The others% as claimed +y Lynvil% ref,sed to sign. Thother em-loyees arg,e that no notice was given to them. Des-ite thinconsistencies% what is clear is that no Anal written notice or notices otermination were sent to the em-loyees.

The twin re8,irements of notice and hearing constit,te the elements oMd,e -rocess in cases of em-loyee6s dismissal. The re8,irement of noticis intended to inform the em-loyee concerned of the em-loyer6s intent tdismiss and the reason for the -ro-osed dismissal. U-on the other handthe re8,irement of hearing aJords the em-loyee an o--ort,nity to answehis em-loyer6s charges against him and accordingly% to defenhimselftherefrom +efore dismissal is eJected. ?+vio,sly% the seconwritten notice% as indis-ensa+le as the Arst% is intended to ens,re tho+servance of d,e -rocess.

&--lying the r,le to the facts at hand% we grant a monetary awarof /#$%$$$.$$ as nominal damages% this% -,rs,ant to the fresh r,ling of thCo,rt in C,lili v. astern Comm,nication /hili--ines% 3nc. D,e to the fail,r

(@ F / a gUSC L&2. Batch ($:. $$ H


25/123



The Diamond Batch

of Lynvil to follow the -roced,ral re8,irement of two0notice r,le% nominaldamages are d,e to res-ondents des-ite their dismissal for ,st ca,se.

Given the fact that their dismissal was for ,st ca,se% we cannot grant+ac1wages and se-aration -ay to res-ondents. =owever% following theAndings of the La+or &r+iter who with the e7-ertise -resided over the-roceedings +elow% which Andings were a9rmed +y the Co,rt of &--eals%we grant the :th month -ay and salary diJerential of the dismissed

em-loyees.

Whether "e #or$a is $ointly and se%erally liale with Lyn%il&s to the last iss,e% this Co,rt has r,led that in la+or cases% the cor-oratedirectors and o9cers are solidarily lia+le with the cor-oration for theermination of em-loyment of em-loyees done with malice or in +ad faith.ndeed% moral damages are recovera+le when the dismissal of an em-loyees attended +y +ad faith or fra,d or constit,tes an act o--ressive to la+or%or is done in a manner contrary to good morals% good c,stoms or -,+lic-olicy.t has also +een disc,ssed in &A& Realty "e%elopment 'orporation %!

LR'that*7 7 7 & cor-oration +eing a ,ridical entity% may act only thro,gh itsdirectors% o9cers and em-loyees. ?+ligations inc,rred +y them% acting ass,ch cor-orate agents% are not theirs +,t the direct acco,nta+ilities of thecor-oration they re-resent. Tr,e% solidary lia+ilities may at times +enc,rred +,t only when e7ce-tional circ,mstances warrant s,ch as%generally% in the following cases*. 2hen directors and tr,stees or% in a--ro-riate cases% the o9cers of a

cor-oration*777+< act in +ad faith or with gross negligence in directing the cor-orate

aJairs7 7 7

The term E+ad faithE contem-lates a Estate of mind a9rmatively o-eratingwith f,rtive design or with some motive of self0interest or will or for ,lterior-,r-ose.E2e agree with the r,ling of +oth the NLRC and the Co,rt of &--eals whenhey -rono,nced that there was no evidence on record that indicates

commission of +ad faith on the -art of De Bora. =e is the general managerof Lynvil% the one tas1ed with the s,-ervision +y the em-loyees and theo-eration of the +,siness. =owever% there is no -roof that he im-osed on

the res-ondents the E-or viaeE -rovision for -,r-ose of eJecting thes,mmary dismissal.

D.M. CONSUNI INC. vs. AMING.R. No. "(#@% &/R3L '% ($(

)&CTS*

Res-ondents &ntonio Go+res% 5agellan Dalisay% Godofredo /aragsa% mili&leta and Generoso 5elo wor1ed as car-enters in the constr,ction -roectof -etitioner D.5. Cons,ni% 3nc.% a constr,ction com-any% on severoccasions and>or at vario,s times. Their termination from em-loyment foeach -roect was re-orted to the De-artment of La+or and m-loymen;D?L


26/123



The Diamond Batch

Res-ondents re-lied that the Y,ad @0/roect at Glorietta%&yala% 5a1ati City was estimated to ta1e two years to Anish% +,t they weredismissed within the two0year -eriod. They had no -rior notice of theirermination. =ence% granting that they were -roect em-loyees% they were

still illegally dismissed for non0o+servance of -roced,ral d,e -rocess.?n ?cto+er @% """% the La+or &r+iter rendered a decision dismissinges-ondentsI com-laint. The La+or &r+iter fo,nd that res-ondents were

-roect em-loyees% that they were dismissed from the last -roect they

were assigned to when their res-ective -hases of wor1 were com-leted%and that -etitioner D.5. Cons,ni% 3nc. and David 5. Cons,ni re-orted theirermination of services to the D?L in accordance with the re8,irements ofaw.

The -etition is meritorio,s. Res-ondents were fo,nd to +e -roectem-loyees +y the La+or &r+iter% the NLRC and the Co,rt of &--eals. Their,nanimo,s Anding that res-ondents are -roect em-loyees is +inding onhe Co,rt. 3t m,st also +e -ointed o,t that res-ondents have not a--ealedrom s,ch Anding +y the Co,rt of &--eals. 3t is only the -etitioner that

a--ealed from the decision of the Co,rt of &--eals.

SSU*The main iss,e is whether or not res-ondents% as -roect em-loyees% areentitled to nominal damages for lac1 of advance notice of their dismissal.

SC RUL3NG*/rior or advance notice of termination is not -art of -roced,ral d,e -rocessf the termination of a -roect em-loyee is +ro,ght a+o,t +y the com-letion

of the contract or -hase thereof. This is +eca,se com-letion of the wor1 or-roect a,tomatically terminates the em-loyment% in which case% theem-loyer is% ,nder the law% only o+liged to render a re-ort to the D?L.Therefore% failing to give -roect em-loyees advance notice of theirermination is not a violation of -roced,ral d,e -rocess and cannot +e the

+asis for the -ayment of nominal damages.

XIII. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE

ALERT SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY vs. PASAWILANG.R. No. '(:"P% S/T5BR @% ($

)&CTS*

Res-ondents Saidali /asawilan% 2ilfredo 4erceles and 5elchor B,l,sawere all reg,lar em-loyees of &lert Sec,rity and 3nvestigation &gency% 3nc;&lert Sec,rity


27/123



The Diamond Batch

n De G,man% r. v. Commission on lections% the Co,rt% s-ea1ing of theConstit,tional g,arantee of sec,rity of ten,re to all wor1ers% r,led*

. 3t only means that an em-loyee cannot +e dismissed ;or transferredor to hire% transfer% s,s-end% lay0oJ%ecall% discharge% assign or disci-line em-loyees% or eJectively recommend

s,ch managerial actions. To the second class +elong cashiers% a,ditors%-ro-erty c,stodians% or those who% in the normal and ro,tine e7ercise of

heir f,nctions% reg,larly handle signiAcant amo,nts of money or -ro-erty.&s +ranch manager% Lo-e clearly occ,-ies a E-osition of tr,st.E =is hold onhis -osition and his stay in the service de-end on the em-loyer6s tr,st andconAdence in him and on his managerial services. &ccording to the +an1%Lo-e +etrayed this tr,st and conAdence when he iss,ed the s,+ect /?switho,t a,thority and des-ite the e7-ress directive to -,t the client6sa--lication on hold. 3n res-onse% Lo-e insists that he had s,9cienta,thority to act as he did% as this a,thority is inherent in his -osition as+an1 manager. =e -oints to his record in the -ast when he iss,ed /?swhich were honored and -aid +y the +an1 and which constit,ted thear+iter6s Eoverwhelming evidenceE in s,--ort of the Anding thatcom-lainant6s dismissal from wor1 was witho,t ,st ca,se% hence% illegal.E

he due process issue *** &s the NLRC and the C& did% we And Lo-e tohave +een aJorded d,e -rocess when he was dismissed. =e was given thee8,ired notices. 5ore im-ortantly% he was act,ally given the o--ort,nityo +e heard when he moved for reconsideration of the +an16s decision toerminate his em-loyment% it sched,led a hearing where he a--earedogether with his lawyer and a military man. This was an o--ort,nity to +e

heard that the law recognies.La+or &r+iter* 3llegal dismissalNLRC* Legal dismissal C&* Legal dismissal

ST. PAUL COLLEGE !UE&ON CITY, ET. AL., vs. ANCHETA IIG.R. No. !""$#% S/T5BR P% ($

)&CTS*RS/?NDNT Remigio 5ichael was hired +y the -etitioner St. /a,l CollegeY,eon City ;S/CYC< as a teacher in the General d,cation De-artment%with a -ro+ationary ran1% in the school year ;S< ""!0""P. This wasenewed in the following S ""P0""'. =is wife% res-ondent Cynthia% was

hired +y the same school as a -art0time teacher of the 5assComm,nication De-artment in the second semester of S ""!0""P andher a--ointment was renewed for S ""P0""'.

3n res-onse to res-ondent s-o,sesI re8,est for renewal of contrac-etitioner S/CYC thro,gh Sr. Bernadete Racadio sent each of them letter+oth dated 5arch "% ""'% informing them that the school was e7tending tthem new contracts for S ""'0""".

?n &-ril :$% ""'% Sr. Racadio endorsed the immediate termination of thteaching services of res-ondent s-o,ses for fail,re to com-ly wit

en,merated de-artmental and instr,ctional -olicies of S/CYC. ?n 5ay @""'% the s-o,ses received their letters of termination.

Both the la+or ar+iter and the National La+or Relations Commission ;NLRCdismissed the res-ondentsI com-laint for illegal dismissal. The Co,rt o&--eals ;C&< granted their -etition for certiorari and reversed the decisionof the la+or ar+iter and the NLRC.

3SSU*Did the C& err

SC RUL3NG*es.The common -ractice is for the em-loyer and the teacher to enter into contract% eJective for one school year. &t the end of the school year% them-loyer has the o-tion not to renew the contract% -artic,larly considerinthe teacherIs -erformance.

3f the contract is not renewed% the em-loyment relationshi- terminates.

the contract is renewed% ,s,ally for another school year% the -ro+ationarem-loyment contin,es. &gain% at the end of that -eriod% the -arties mao-t to renew or not to renew the contract. 3f renewed% this second renewaof the contract for another school year wo,ld then +e the last year sincit wo,ld +e the third school year of -ro+ationary em-loyment. &t the endof this third year% the em-loyer may now decide whether to e7tend -ermanent a--ointment to the em-loyee% -rimarily on the +asis of them-loyee having met the reasona+le standards of com-etence ane9ciency set +y the em-loyer. )or the entire d,ration of this three0yea-eriod% the teacher remains ,nder -ro+ation. U-on the e7-iration of hicontract of em-loyment% +eing sim-ly on -ro+ation% he cannoa,tomatically claim sec,rity of ten,re and com-el the em-loyer to renewhis em-loyment contract.7 7 7

:: F / a gUSC L&2. Batch ($:. $$ H


34/123



The Diamond Batch

t is im-ortant that the contract of -ro+ationary em-loyment s-ecify the-eriod or term of its eJectivity. The fail,re to sti-,late its -recise d,rationco,ld lead to the inference that the contract is +inding for the f,ll three0year -ro+ationary -eriod. Therefore% the letters sent +y -etitioner Sr.Racadio% which were void of any s-eciAcs cannot +e considered ascontracts. The closest they can resem+le to are that of informalcorres-ondence among the said individ,als. &s s,ch% -etitioner school hashe right not to renew the contracts of the res-ondents% the old ones

having +een e7-ired at the end of their terms. ;St. /a,l College Y,eonCity% et. al. vs. Remigio 5ichael &. &ncheta 33% G.R. No. !""$#% Se-t. P%($


35/123



The Diamond Batch

nvestigator of the +an1 amo,nted to gross and ha+it,al neglect of d,ties,nder &rticle ('( ;+< of the La+or Code. =e not only failed to -erform whathe was em-loyed to do% +,t also did so re-etitively and ha+it,ally% ca,singmillions of -esos in damage to /NB. Th,s% /NB acted within the +o,nds ofhe law +y meting o,t the -enalty of dismissal% which it deemed

a--ro-riate given the circ,mstances.

That there is no -roof that /adao derived any +eneAt from the scheme is

mmaterial. 2hat is cr,cial is that his gross and ha+it,al negligenceca,sed great damage to his em-loyer. /adao was aware that there wassomething irreg,lar a+o,t the -ractices +eing im-lemented +y hiss,-eriors% +,t he went along with% +ecame -art of% and -artici-ated in thescheme.

Dismissed em-loyees se-aration -ay. /adao is not entitled to Anancialassistance. The r,le regarding se-aration -ay as a meas,re of social,stice is that it shall +e -aid only in those instances where the em-loyee isvalidly dismissed for ca,ses other than serio,s miscond,ct% willf,ldiso+edience% gross and ha+it,al neglect of d,ty% fra,d or willf,l +reach ofr,st% commission of a crime against the em-loyer or his family% or thoseeecting on his moral character. 3n this case% /adao was g,ilty of gross

and ha+it,al neglect of d,ties.

Termination of em-loyment when com-any tolerated violation of com-any-olicy. The C& was correct in stating that when the violation of com-any-olicy or +reach of com-any r,les and reg,lations is tolerated +ymanagement% it cannot serve as a +asis for termination. This -rinci-le%

however% only a--lies when the +reach or violation is one which neitheramo,nts to nor involves fra,d or illegal activities. 3n s,ch a case% onecannot evade lia+ility or c,l-a+ility +ased on o+edience to the cor-oratechain of command. 3n this case% /adao% in a97ing his signat,re on thera,d,lent re-orts% attested to the falsehoods contained therein. 5oreover%

+y doing so% he re-eatedly failed to -erform his d,ties as a creditnvestigator. Th,s% the termination of his em-loyment is ,stiAed.

TAMSONS ENTERPRISES INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALSG.R. No. "(''% N?45BR !% ($

)&CTS*

?n Se-tem+er % ($$!% Rosemarie L. Sy was hired +y Tamson6s as &ssistanto the /resident. Des-ite the title% she did not act as s,ch +eca,se% -einstr,ction of the com-any /resident% she was directed to act as -ayroo9cer% tho,gh she act,ally wor1ed as a -ayroll cler1. ?n )e+r,ary (@($$P% fo,r days +efore she com-leted her si7th month of wor1ing iTamson6s% Sy was informed that her services wo,ld +e terminated d,e tine9ciency. She was as1ed to sign a letter of resignation and 8,itclaimShe was told not to re-ort for wor1 anymore +eca,se her services were n

longer needed.

D,ring her -re0em-loyment interview% Lee had nice comments a+o,t hegood wor1 e7-erience and ed,cational +ac1gro,nd. She was ass,red of long0term em-loyment with +eneAts. Thro,gho,t her em-loyment% shearnestly -erformed her d,ties% had a -erfect attendance record% wor1eeven d,ring +rowno,ts and ty-hoons% and wo,ld often wor1 overtime ,sto Anish her wor1.

3SSU*2?N her dismissal was valid.

SC RUL3NG*/ro+ationary em-loyment sec,rity of ten,re. 3t is settled that even -ro+ationary em-loyees do not enoy -ermanent stat,s% they are accordethe constit,tional -rotection of sec,rity of ten,re. This means they maonly +e terminated for a ,st ca,se or when they otherwise fail to 8,alify areg,lar em-loyees in accordance with reasona+le standards made 1nowto them +y the em-loyer at the time of their engagement. 3n this case% th

,stiAcation given +y the -etitioners for SyIs dismissal was her allegefail,re to 8,alify +y the com-anyIs standard. ?ther than the generallegation that said standards were made 1nown to her at the time of heem-loyment% however% no evidence% doc,mentary or otherwise% wa-resented to s,+stantiate the same. Neither was there any -erformanceval,ation -resented to -rove that indeed hers was ,nsatisfactory. =encefor fail,re of the -etitioners to s,--ort their claim of ,nsatisfactor-erformance +y Sy% the SC held that SyIs em-loyment was ,n,stterminated to -revent her from ac8,iring a reg,lar stat,s in circ,mventioof the law on sec,rity of ten,re.

/ro+ationary em-loyment termination. ven on the ass,m-tion that Sindeed failed to meet the standards set +y the -etitioner0em-loyer anmade 1nown to the former at the time of her engagement% still% th

:# F / a gUSC L&2. Batch ($:. $$ H


36/123



The Diamond Batch

ermination was awed for fail,re to give the re8,ired notice to Sy. Section(% R,le 3% Boo1 43 of the 3m-lementing R,les -rovides that* K3f theermination is +ro,ght a+o,t +y the com-letion of a contract or -hasehereof% or +y fail,re of an em-loyee to meet the standards of the em-loyern the case of -ro+ationary em-loyment% it shall +e s,9cient that a writtennotice is served the em-loyee% within a reasona+le time from the eJectivedate of termination.O

CONCEPCION vs. MINE' IMPORT CORP.G.R. No. #:#!"% &NU&R (@% ($(

)&CTS*Res-ondent 5ine7 3m-ort07-ort Cor-oration is engaged in the retail ofsemi0-recio,s stones% selling them in 1ios1s or stalls installed in vario,ssho--ing centers within 5etro 5anila. 3t em-loyed -etitioner Conce-cionnitially as a salesgirl and then made her a s,-ervisor. ?ne day% -etitionerdetermined their total for three days to +e /#$%"(.$$. The ne7t day%-etitioner -honed the assistant manager to re-ort that the said amo,ntwas missing% e7-laining how she and her salesgirls had -laced the wra--edamo,nt at the +ottom of the ca+inet the night +efore% and how she hado,nd ,-on re-orting to wor1 that morning that the contents of the ca+inet

were in disarray and the money already missing.

2hile -etitioner was giving a detailed statement on the theft to thesec,rity investigator of the sho--ing center% her s,-eriors arrived with a-oliceman who immediately -laced her ,nder arrest and +ro,ght her to the-olice station where she was investigated and detained for a day./etitioner com-lained against the res-ondents for illegal dismissal in theDe-artment of La+or and m-loyment. 5ine7 Aled a com-laint for8,aliAed theft against the -etitioner in the ?9ce of the City /rosec,tor in5anila.

SC RUL3NG*m-loyee dismissal ,st ca,se loss of conAdence. To dismiss an em-loyee%he law re8,ires the e7istence of a ,st and valid ca,se. &rticle ('( of the

La+or Code en,merates the ,st ca,ses for termination +y the em-loyer. 3ts ,nfair to re8,ire an em-loyer to Arst +e morally certain of the g,ilt of theem-loyee +y awaiting a conviction +efore terminating him when there isalready s,9cient showing of the wrongdoing. Re8,iring that certainty may

-rove too late for the em-loyer% whose loss may -otentially +e +eyonre-air. 3n the -resent case% no less than the D? Secretary fo,nd -ro+a+lca,se for 8,aliAed theft against Conce-cion. That Anding was eno,gh t,stify her termination for loss of conAdence.

3ndeed% the em-loyer is not e7-ected to +e as strict and rigoro,s as a ,dgin a criminal trial in weighing all the -ro+a+ilities of g,ilt +efore terminatinthe em-loyee. Unli1e a criminal case% which necessitates a moral certaint

of g,ilt d,e to the loss of the -ersonal li+erty of the acc,sed +eing thiss,e% a case concerning an em-loyee s,s-ected of wrongdoing leads onlto his termination as a conse8,ence. The 8,ant,m of -roof re8,ired foconvicting an acc,sed is th,s higher ] -roof of g,ilt +eyond reasona+ldo,+t ] than the 8,ant,m -rescri+ed for dismissing an em-loyee ]s,+stantial evidence.

m-loyee dismissal d,e -rocess. ven if there is a ,st or valid ca,se foterminating an em-loyee% it is necessary to com-ly with the re8,irementof d,e -rocess -rior to the termination. The -etitioner -lainly demonstratehow 8,ic1ly and s,mmarily her dismissal was carried o,t witho,t Arsre8,iring her to e7-lain anything in her defense as demanded ,ndeSection ( ;d< of R,le 3 of the 3m-lementing R,les of Boo1 43 of the La+oCode. 3nstead% the res-ondents forthwith had her arrested and investigate+y the -olice a,thorities for 8,aliAed theft. This% we thin1% was a denial oher right to d,e -rocess of law% consisting in the o--ort,nity to +e hearand to defend herself. 3n &ga+on v. NLRC the Co,rt said* K2here thdismissal is for a ,st ca,se% as in the instant case% the lac1 of stat,tory d,-rocess sho,ld not n,llify the dismissal% or render it illegal% or ineJect,a

=owever% the em-loyer sho,ld indemnify the em-loyee for the violation ohis stat,tory rights% as r,led in Reta v. National La+or RelationCommission.O

MORALES vs. HARBOUR CENTRE PORT TERMINAL INC.G.R. No. P@($'&NU&R (#% ($(

)&CTS*/etitioner 5orales was a Division 5anager of the &cco,nting De-artment ores-ondent =ar+o,r Centre /ort Terminal% 3nc. ;=C/T3


37/123



The Diamond Batch

eassignment was a clear demotion since the -osition to which he wasransferred was not even incl,ded in =C/T36s -lantilla. 3n res-onse to

5orales6 grievance that he had +een eJectively -laced on oatingstat,s% Singson iss,ed a inter0o9ce memorand,m to the eJect thattransfer of em-loyees is a management -rerogative.E )or the whole of the

ens,ing month 5orales was a+sent from wor1 and>or tardy. &s aconse8,ence% Singson iss,ed to 5orales the following inter0o9cememoranda* )irst 2arning% Second 2arning and a Notice to Re-ort for 2or1

and )inal 2arning.n the meantime% 5orales Aled a com-laint against =C/T3 for constr,ctivedismissal. =e alleged that s,+se8,ent to its transfer to its new o9ces%=C/T3 had s,s-ended all the -rivileges enoyed +y its 5anagers% DivisionChiefs and Section =eads.

=C/T3 arg,ed that 5orales a+andoned his em-loyment and was notconstr,ctively dismissed.

SC RUL3NG*Constr,ctive dismissal change in -osition. Constr,ctive dismissal e7istswhere there is cessation of wor1 +eca,se Kcontin,ed em-loyment isendered im-ossi+le% ,nreasona+le or ,nli1ely% as an oJer involving a

demotion in ran1 or a dimin,tion in -ayO and other +eneAts. &-tly called adismissal in disg,ise of an act amo,nting to dismissal +,t made to a--earas if it were not% constr,ctive dismissal may% li1ewise% e7ist if an act of cleardiscrimination% insensi+ility% or disdain +y an em-loyer +ecomes so,n+eara+le on the -art of the em-loyee that it co,ld foreclose any choice+y him e7ce-t to forego his contin,ed em-loyment.3n cases of a transfer of

an em-loyee% the r,le is settled that the em-loyer is charged with the+,rden of -roving that its cond,ct and action are for valid and legitimategro,nds s,ch as gen,ine +,siness necessity and that the transfer is not,nreasona+le% inconvenient or -re,dicial to the em-loyee. 3f the em-loyercannot overcome this +,rden of -roof% the em-loyeeIs transfer shall +eantamo,nt to ,nlawf,l constr,ctive dismissal.

Dismissal a+andonment. &s a ,st and valid gro,nd for dismissal% at anyate% a+andonment re8,ires the deli+erate% ,n,stiAed ref,sal of the

em-loyee to res,me his em-loyment% witho,t any intention ofet,rning. Since an em-loyee li1e 5orales who ta1es ste-s to -rotest his

dismissal cannot logically +e said to have a+andoned his wor1% it is asettled doctrine that the Aling of a com-laint for illegal dismissal isnconsistent with a+andonment of em-loyment.

MANSION PRINTING CENTER vs. BITARA, R.G.R. No. !'($% &NU&R (#% ($(

)&CTS*/etitioner 5ansion /rinting Center is engaged in the -rinting of 8,ality selfadhesive la+els and the li1e. Res-ondent Bitara was the com-any6s so

driver tas1ed to -ic10,- raw materials% collect acco,nt receiva+les andeliver the -rod,cts within the delivery sched,les. /etitioner noted hha+it,al tardiness and a+senteeism. /etitioner iss,ed several memorandto res-ondent re8,iring the latter to s,+mit written e7-lanations* Arst% as twhy no administrative sanction sho,ld +e im-osed on him for his ha+it,atardiness and then several months later% after BitaraIs a-ology and a faile,nderta1ing to adhere to the attendance -olicies% why his services sho,not +e terminated. The last memoranda was -ersonally handed to him% +,the latter% after reading the directive% ref,sed to ac1nowledge recei-thereof. =e did not s,+mit any e7-lanation and% thereafter% never re-ortefor wor1. &s a conse8,ence% Davis Cheng% General 5anager% -ersonalserved another 5emorand,m ;Notice of Termination< ,-on him informinhim that the com-any fo,nd him grossly negligent of his d,ties% for whicreason% his services were terminated. Res-ondent met with thmanagement re8,esting for reconsideration of his termination. =oweveafter hearing his -osition% the management decided to im-lement the las5emorand,m. Res-ondent Aled a com-laint for illegal dismissal.

SC RUL3NG*m-loyee dismissal gross negligence ha+it,al neglect. Gross negligenchas +een deAned as the Kwant of care in the -erformance of oneIs d,tiesand ha+it,al neglect has +een deAned as Kre-eated fail,re to -erformoneIs d,ties for a -eriod of time% de-ending ,-on the circ,mstancesThese are not overly technical terms% which% in the Arst -lace% are e7-resssanctioned +y the La+or Code of the /hili--ines% to wit* &RT. ('Termination +y em-loyer. &n em-loyer may terminate an em-loyment foany of the following ca,ses* M777;+< Gross and ha+it,al neglect +y them-loyee of his d,ties M777 Diosdado Bitara was dismissed from servicd,e to ha+it,al tardiness and a+senteeism% and for having contin,edisregarding attendance -olicies des-ite his ,nderta1ing to re-ort on time=is wee1ly time record for the Arst 8,arter of the year ($$$ revealed thahe came late " times o,t of the @P times he re-orted for wor1. =e alsinc,rred " a+sences o,t of the !! wor1ing days d,ring the 8,arter. =i

:P F / a gUSC L&2. Batch ($:. $$ H


38/123



The Diamond Batch

a+sences witho,t -rior notice and a--roval from 5arch 0!% ($$$ wereconsidered to +e the most serio,s infraction of all +eca,se of its adverseeJect on +,siness o-erations. The S,-reme Co,rt held that even in thea+sence of a written com-any r,le deAning gross and ha+it,al neglect ofd,ties% BitaraIs omissions 8,alify as s,ch warranting his dismissal from theservice.Dismissal -roced,ral d,e -rocess. /roced,ral d,e -rocess entailscom-liance with the two0notice r,le in dismissing an em-loyee% to wit* ;her letter of resignation% at least thirty ;:$< days -rior to the o9ciaAling of the certiAcate of candidacy either for national or local election.777 777 777:.),rther% any em-loyee who intends to oin a -olitical gro,->-arty or eve

with no -olitical a9liation +,t who intends to o-enly and aggressivecam-aign for a candidate or gro,- of candidates ;e.g.% -,+lics-ea1ing>endorsing candidate% recr,iting cam-aign wor1ers% etc.< m,st Ala re8,est for leave of a+sence s,+ect to management6s a--roval. )or th-artic,lar reason% the em-loyee sho,ld Ale the leave re8,est at least thirt;:$< days

Labor Review - Consolidated Cases

Documents

Transcript of Labor Review - Consolidated Cases