labor relation law case digest

8/9/2019 Labor Relation Law Case Digest

1/63

Labor Law Digests 1

2000 CASES

Q: X had been working for a year as a security guard with co!any A"# asister co!any of co!any $" %e was hired on &anuary 1# 1'(( as he was

aong those absorbed by co!any $ when it took o)er the security

contracts of its sister co!any A" %e was forced by co!any $ to sign a new

!robationary contract for * os+ and on August 1# 1'((# his e!,oyent was

terinated for a,,eged,y s,ee!ing on !ost and -uarre,ing with a co.worker"

/as $ a regu,ar e!,oyee and thereby i,,ega,,y disissed

A: es" $s e!,oyent with co!any $ was 3ust a continuation of his

e!,oyent with co!any A" 4he Court cannot sanction the !ractice ofco!anies that e5ects the transfer of its e!,oyees to another entity whose

owners are the sae# in order to de!ri)e sub3ect e!,oyees of the bene6ts

he is entit,ed to under the ,aw" 7e)erthe,ess# $ attained the status of a

regu,ar e!,oyee with co!any $ u!on co!,etion of his si8.onth !eriod of

!robation" %e started working on &anuary 90# 1'((+ and the end of the !eriod

of !robation was on &u,y 2# 1'((" /hen he was disissed on August 1# he

was a,ready a regu,ar e!,oyee with a security of tenure" ;ri)ate

res!ondents a,,eged )io,ations were 6rst infractions and do not aount to

)a,id grounds for terinating e!,oyent" C# ?">" 10920# &anuary 1'# 2000@

Q: BDD.C/ is a union whose C$A with the co!any A e8!ired" During

renegotiations# the anageent !ane, arri)ed ,ate causing the union !ane,

to wa,k out" 4he anageent addressed a ,etter of a!o,ogy to the union and

re-uested for negotiations to resue" 4he union !ane, did not show u!

des!ite ,etters fro anageent ad)ising the forer of the C$A eetings"

Conse-uent,y# the union struck" A co!,aint was 6,ed by ?o,den Donuts to

dec,are the strike i,,ega," Counse, for the union strikers !,eaded for a

co!roise whereu!on a 2 out of 2*2 ebers agreed to a co!roise

sett,eent whereby they sha,, be !aid se!aration !ay in e8change for the

disissa, of the criina, and unfair ,abor !ractice cases 6,ed by !etitioners

against the" Cou,d the union co!roise or wai)e the rights to security of

tenure and oney c,ais of its inority ebers# without the ,atters

consent


2/63

A: 7o" Absent a showing of the unions s!ecia, authority to co!roise the

indi)idua, c,ais of !ri)ate res!ondents for reinstateent and backwages#

there is no )a,id wai)er of the aforesaid rights" 4he 3udgent of the Labor

Arbiter u!ho,ding the disissa, of !ri)ate res!ondents based on the

co!roise agreeent does not ha)e the e5ect of res 3udicata those who

did not agree thereto since the re-uireent of identity of !arties is notsatis6ed" A 3udgent u!on a co!roise agreeent is conc,usi)e on,y u!on

!arties thereto and their !ri)ies" ;ri)ate res!ondents ha)e not wai)ed their

right to security of tenure nor can they be barred fro entit,eent of their

indi)idua, c,ais" Since there was no e)idence that !ri)ate res!ondents

coitted any i,,ega, act# !etitioners fai,ure to reinstate the after the

sett,eent of the strike aounts to i,,ega, disissa,"


3/63


4/63

Q: Co!any a,,owed the te!orary transfer ho,ding of oKce at a,ibo#

Ak,an" 7e)erthe,ess# a3ority of the e!,oyees continued to work at its

oKce in Leo Ak,an and were !aid their res!ecti)e sa,aries" ro &une 1''2 to

Barch 1''9# X and re!orted to work at the Leo oKce and were not !aidtheir sa,aries" ro Barch u! to the !resent# they were again a,,owed to

draw their sa,aries" =t is the assertion of Co!any that X and )o,untari,y

abandoned their work assignents and that they de6ed the ,awfu, orders by

the ?enera, anager and thus the $oard of Directors !assed a reso,ution

resisting and denying X and s c,ais under the !rinci!,e of Mno work# no

!ay"N X and inter!ose that the transfer to a,ibo was i,,ega," Are X and

entit,ed to c,ai their un!aid wages fro &une 1''2 to Barch 1''9

A: 7o" ;etitioner was ab,e to show that !ri)ate res!ondents did not render

ser)ices during the stated !eriod" X and e)en aditted that they did not

re!ort at the a,ibo oKce# as Leo reained to be their oKce where they

continuous,y re!orted" =t was not for X and to dec,are the anageents

act of transferring the oKce to a,ibo as an i,,ega, act as there was no

a,,egation of !roof that such was ade in bad faith or with a,ice" ;ri)ate

res!ondents were disissed by !etitioner e5ecti)e &anuary 1''2 and were

acce!ted back# sub3ect to the condition of Mno work# no !ayN e5ecti)e Barch

1''9 which is why they were a,,owed to draw their sa,aries again" " 121I9'# &anuary 2# 2000@

Q: A was hired by =setann De!artent Store as a security checker to

a!!rehend sho!,ifters" As a cost.cutting easure# !ri)ate res!ondent

decided to !hase out its security section and engage the ser)ices of an

inde!endent security agency" A was then terinated !ro!ting hi to 6,e a

co!,aint for i,,ega, disissa," 7L>C ordered !etitioner to be gi)en

se!aration !ay ho,ding that the !hase.out of the security section was a

,egitiate business decision" %owe)er# A was denied the right to be gi)en

written notice before terination of his e!,oyent" /hat is the e5ect of)io,ation of the notice re-uireent when terination is based on an

authoried cause

A: 4he disissa, is ine5ectua," =n terination of e!,oyent under Art" 2(9#

the )io,ation of notice re-uireent is not a denia, of due !rocess as the


5/63

!ur!ose is not to a5ord the e!,oyee an o!!ortunity to be heard on any

charge against hi# for there is none" 4he !ur!ose is to gi)e hi tie to

!re!are for the e)entua, ,oss of his 3ob and the DFLE to deterine whether

econoic causes do e8ist 3ustifying the terination of his e!,oyent" /ith

res!ect to Art" 2(9# the e!,oyers fai,ure to co!,y with the notice

re-uireent does not constitute a denia, of due !rocess but a ere fai,ure toobser)e a !rocedure for the terination of e!,oyent which akes the

terination of e!,oyent ere,y ine5ectua,"

=f the e!,oyees se!aration is without cause# instead of being gi)en

se!aration !ay# he shou,d be reinstated" =n either case# whether he is

reinstated or gi)en se!aration !ay# he shou,d be !aid fu,, backwages if he has

been ,aid o5 without written notice at ,east 90 days in ad)ance"

/ith res!ect to disissa,s under 2(2# if he was disissed for any of the 3ust

causes in 2(2# he shou,d not be reinstated" %owe)er# he ust be !aid

backwages fro the tie his e!,oyent was terinated unti, it isdeterined that the terination is for a 3ust cause because the fai,ure to hear

hi renders the terination of his e!,oyent without ,ega, e5ect" " 7o" 110I0# &anuary 2# 2000@

Q: A was e!,oyed as Mhousekee!erN with Co!any $" %e a,so owned a car.

for.hire which he rented to $ who o!erated the car as a ta8i" Fne day# $

a!!roached the front desk c,erk at !etitioners hote, re-uesting a co,,ectib,e

of ;2000 be added to a certain orean guests# Br" %us bi,," Br" %u ,ater

co!,ained that he was o)erbi,,ed" A e8!,ained his side being the front desksu!er)isor and owner of the car" E)entua,,y# Co!any $s sta5 con6red the

error and refunded the aount to the orean" Co!any $ terinated the

ser)ices of A on the ground of ,oss of con6dence for the ,atters a,icious

intent to defraud a guest of the hote," /as A i,,ega,,y disissed

A: es" Co!any $ fai,ed to !ro)e by a!,e e)idence that A intended to

defraud Br" %u" 4he front desk c,erk aditted being the one res!onsib,e for

entering the ;2000 in Br" %us stateent of account" A,so# $ aditted

a!!roaching the front desk c,erk to deand !ayent of the trans!ortationfee as he was hired by Br" %us grou! for two days be,ie)ing in good faith that

Br" %u owed hi ;2000" As there is no )a,id and 3ust cause# he is entit,ed to

reinstateent without ,oss of seniority rights !,us fu,, backwages and other

bene6ts withhe,d fro hi u! to the tie of his actua, reinstateent" C# ?">" 7o" 12*1# &anuary 2(# 2000@


6/63

Q: nion A and Co!any $ were faced with a bargaining dead,ock" 4he union

then 6,ed a notice of strike with the 7CB$" Later# the union conducted a

strike )ote aong its ebers and the resu,ts were subitted to the A,,iance

of 7ationa,ist and ?enuine ,abor Frganiation for subission to the 7CB$#

but which was not ade" 4he union went on strike without the re!ort of the

strike )ote subitted to the 7CB$" Co!any $ 6,ed a !etition to dec,are thestrike i,,ega, a,,eging that the union barricaded gates of Co!any $ and

coitted acts of )io,ence# threats and coercion" 4ria, on the erits was

conducted wherein Co!any $ !resented witnesses and e)idence# nion A

did not !resent any witness but instead re,ied on their Beorandu

contending that res!ondents e)idence are inadissib,e" /as the strike

i,,ega,

A: es" ai,ure to subit the strike )ote to the 7CB$ iediate,y akes the

strikek i,,ega," 4he i,,ega,ity of the strike is further aKred by the acts of)io,ence# threats and coercion coitted during the strike" 4he

re-uireents of !rocedura, due !rocess were co!,ied with as both !arties

were a,,owed to !resent their witnesses and e)idence# a,though !etitioner

o!ted instead to 6,e a eorandu" C# ?">" 7o" 11'I*# ebruary 1# 2000@

Q: J was hired by >C as sa,es re!resentati)e" %e a)ers that he was

transferred by >C to ;BC=# an agency which !ro)ides >C with additiona,

contractua, workers" =n ;BC=# he was reassigned to >C as sa,es

re!resentati)e and then ,ater infored by the !ersonne, anager of >C that

his ser)ices were terinated" >C aintains that no e!,oyer.e!,oyee

re,ationshi! e8isted between J and itse,f" J 6,ed co!,aint for i,,ega,

disissa," >C a,,eges that ;BC= is an inde!endent contractor as the ,atter is

a high,y ca!ita,ied )enture" /as J a regu,ar e!,oyee of >C# thereby

i,,ega,,y disissed

A: es" ;BC= was a ,abor.on,y contractor" A,though the 7eri doctrine stated

that it was enough that a contractor had substantia, ca!ita, to show it was an

inde!endent contractor# the case of u3i Xero8 c,ari6ed the doctrine stating

that an inde!endent business ust undertake the !erforance of the

contract according to its own anner and ethod free fro the contro, of the

!rinci!a," =n this case# ;BC= did not e)en ha)e substantia, ca!ita,iation as

on,y a sa,, aount of its authoried ca!ita, stock was actua,,y !aid.in"


7/63


8/63

to the new site" Are the e!,oyees entit,ed to se!aration !ay by )irtue of

their refusa, to transfer to the business in $atangas"

A: es" A,though there is no co!,ete disso,ution of !etitioners undertaking#

but a ere re,ocation+ the !hrase# Mc,osure or cessation of o!eration of an

estab,ishent not due to serious business ,osses or re)erses#N under Artic,e

2(9 of the Labor Code inc,udes the cessation of on,y !art of a co!anys

business" Co!any / had a,egitiate reason to re,ocate its !,ant due to the

e8!iration of the ,ease contract in Bakati+ howe)er# it is sti,, re-uired to !ay

its workers se!aration !ay" Cessation of o!eration not due to serious

business ,osses is an authoried cause for terination+ and the Labor Code

!ro)ides that such terinated e!,oyees are entit,ed to se!aration !ay of 1

onth !ay or at ,east G onth for e)ery year of ser)ice# whiche)er is higher"

" 7o" 122(*# ebruary

1# 2000@

Q: Bera,co and its union BE/A renegotiated its 1''2.1'' C$A insofar as the

,ast two.year !eriod was concerned" 4he Secretary of Labor assued

3urisdiction and granted the arbitra, awards" 4here was no -uestion that

these arbitra, awards were to be gi)en retroacti)e e5ect" %owe)er# the

!arties dis!ute the reckoning !eriod when retroaction sha,, coence"

Bera,co c,ais that the award shou,d retroact on,y fro such tie that the

Secretary of Labor rendered the award" 4he union argues that the awards

shou,d retroact to such tie granted by the Secretary who has !,enary anddiscretionary !ower to deterine the e5ecti)ity of the arbitra, award" 4he

union cited the case of St" Lukes and Bindanao 4erina, where the Secretary

ordered the retroaction of the C$A to the date of e8!iration of the !re)ious

C$A" /hen shou,d the arbitra, award retroact

A: Labor ,aws are si,ent as to when an arbitra, award in a ,abor dis!ute where

the Secretary has assued 3urisdiction by )irtue of Art" 2*9 " 7o" 12'(# ebruary 22# 2000@


9/63

Q: A# $ and C were dri)ers of Co!any Q dri)ing the ,atters ta8icabs e)ery

other day on a 2I hour work schedu,e under the boundary syste where

!etitioners earn an a)erage of ;I00 dai,y and !ri)ate res!ondent regu,ar,y

deducts an aount for the washing of the ta8i units" A# $ and C decided tofor a ,abor union" Later# Co!any Q refused to ,et !etitioners dri)e their

ta8icabs" A# $ and C 6,ed with the ,abor arbiter a co!,aint for L;# i,,ega,

disissa,# and i,,ega, deductions" 4he 7L>C found for A# $ and C stating that

disissa, ust be for 3ust cause and after due !rocess" Co!any QOs 6rst

otion for reconsideration was denied" =t 6,ed another B># which was then

granted" Shou,d the 7L>C ha)e granted the second B>

A: 7o" Co!any Q e8hausted adinistrati)e reedies a)ai,ab,e to it by

seeking an B>" 4he rationa,e for a,,owing on,y one B> fro the sae !arty is

to assist the !arties in obtaining an e8!editious and ine8!ensi)e sett,eent

of ,abor cases" 4he 7L>C shou,d ha)e recognied that the re,ationshi!

between 3ee!ney.owners and 3ee!ney dri)ers under the boundary syste is

that of ee.er and not that of ,essor.,essee" 4he fact that the dri)ers do not

recei)e 68ed wages is not suKcient to withdraw the re,ationshi! f9o that of

er and ee" 4herefore the terination of A# $ and Cs e!,oyent shou,d

ha)e be e5ectuated in accordance with ,aw" /ith regard to the aount

deducted for washing# such was not i,,ega, as such is indeed a !ractice in the

ta8i industry and is dictated by fair !,ay" " 7o" 11'2*(#

ebruary 29# 2000@

Q: nion B is an aK,iate of ederation " A bitter disagreeent ensued

between the ederation and the nion B cu,inating in the ,atters

dec,aration of genera, autonoy fro the forer" 4he federation asked the

co!any to sto! the reittance of nion Bs share in the education funds"

4he federation ca,,ed a eeting !,acing nion B under trusteeshi! and

a!!ointing an adinistrator" FKcers of nion B recei)ed ,etters fro the

adinistrator re-uiring the to e8!,ain why they shou,d not be reo)ed fro

their oKce and e8!e,,ed fro union ebershi!" 4he oKcers were e8!e,,ed

fro the federation" 4he federation then ad)ised the co!any of thee8!u,sion of the 90 union oKcers and deanded their se!aration !ursuant to

the nion Security C,ause in the C$A" 4he ederation 6,ed a notice of strike

with the 7CB$ to co!e, the co!any to e5ect the iediate terination of

the e8!e,,ed union oKcers" nder the !ressure of a strike# the co!any

terinated the 90 union oKcers fro e!,oyent" nion B 6,ed a notice of

strike on the grounds of discriination+ interference+ ass disissa, of union


10/63

oKcers and sho! stewards+ threats# coercion and intiidation+ and union

busting" Bebers of nion B !rayed for the sus!ension of the e5ects of their

terination" Secretary Dri,on disissed the !etition stating it was a intra.

uion atter" Later# ( union sho! stewards were !,aced under !re)enti)e

sus!ension" 4he union ebers staged a wa,k.out and oKcia,,y dec,ared a

strike that afternoon" 4he strike was attended by )io,ence" /as the disissa,of the union oKcers i,,ega,

A: es" 4he charges against res!ondent co!any !roceeded ain,y fro the

terination of the union oKcers u!on the deand of the federation !ursuant

to the union security c,ause" A,though the union security c,ause ay be

)a,id,y enforced# such ust co!,y with due !rocess" =n this case# the union

oKcers were e8!e,,ed for a,,eged,y coitting acts of dis,oya,ty to the

federation" 4he co!any did not in-uire into the cause of the e8!u,sion and

ere,y re,ied u!on the federations a,,egations" 4he issue is not a !ure,yintra.union atter as it was ,ater on con)erted into a terination dis!ute

when the co!any disissed the !etitioners fro work without the bene6t of

a se!arate notice and hearing" As to the act of disaK,iation by the ,oca,

union+ it is sett,ed that a ,oca, union has the right to disaK,iate fro its

other union in the absence of s!eci6c !ro)isions in the federations

constitution !rohibiting such" 4here was no such !ro)ision in federation

L?/;s constitution"

Q: =n the abo)e case# was the strike i,,ega,

A: 7o" As to the ,ega,ity of the strike+ it was based on the terination dis!ute

and !etitioners be,ie)ed in good faith that in disissing the# the co!any

was gui,ty of L;" 4he no.strike# no ,ockout !ro)ision in the C$A can on,y be

in)oked when the strike is econoic" As to the )io,ence# both !arties agreed

that the )io,ence was not attributed to the striking e!,oyees a,one as the

co!any itse,f hired en to !acify the strikers" Such )io,ence cannot be a

ground for dec,aring the strike i,,ega," aos# ?">" 7o" 119'0#ebruary 2(# 2000@

Q: 4he LA ordered !etitioner to !ay res!ondents the su of ;*# (**"I1"

;etitioner a!!ea,ed to the 7L>C with a otion for the reduction of the

su!ersedeas to ;100#000 and thereafter !osted a cash bond of ;100#000"


11/63

4he 7L>C disissed the a!!ea, for insuKciency of the bond" ;etitioner said

the Star Ange, doctrine shou,d a!!,y where the a!!ea, ay be !erfected after

that !eriod u!on !osting of a cash or surety bond" %owe)er# the 7L>C

disagreed stating that in this case# the !etitioner did not 6,e a otion for

reduction of bond within the !eriod but instead !osted a bond in an aount

not e-ui)a,ent to the onetary award" /as the otion for the reduction ofthe bond 6,ed in tie

A: es" 4hat !etitioner did 6,e a otion within the !eriod is su!!orted by the

fo,,owing:

1" 4he otion for reduction was sta!ed with the Mrecei)edN rubber sta!

arker of the 7L>C and indicated the date of 6,ing as *""'*"

2" $oth the otion and the a!!ea, eorandu were sent to res!ondents

in one en)e,o!e and sent by registered ai, under >eg" >ecei!t 9*"

9" 4he sae !erson notaried both the otion and the a!!ea, on the sae

date"

I" Fn the ,ast !age of their coents# res!ondents stated that Mthe otion

for reduction shou,d be founded on eritorious grounds"N 4his was found by

the SC to be an i!,ied adittance of the recei!t of the otion" $esides#

res!ondents cou,d 3ust as we,, ha)e stated in their coents that no otion

was 6,ed" " 7o"12'*1#

ebruary 2(# 2000@

Q: A was a 3ee!ney dri)er of X on the boundary syste" Due to a change in

schedu,e# they did not re!ort for work as !rotest" 4hey were then re!,aced"

A 6,ed a co!,aint for i,,ega, disissa, asking for se!aration !ay and other

bene6ts" Fn 7o)eber 2*# 1''1# the ,abor arbiter rendered 3udgent in

fa)or of A" X was ser)ed a co!y of the decision on A!ri, 9# 1''2" X 6,ed a

eorandu on a!!ea, on A!ri, 19# 1''2+ howe)er the a!!ea, bond was

on,y 6,ed on A!ri, 90# 1''2" A,so# such bond was found to be s!urious" =t was

on,y on &u,y 20# 1''9 that a substitute bond was issued by another co!any"

Did the 7L>C ha)e 3urisdiction to hear the a!!ea,

A: 7o" 4he !erfection of an a!!ea, within the reg,eentary !eriod and in the

anner !rescribed by ,aw is 3urisdictiona,# and nonco!,iance with such ,ega,

re-uireent is fata, and has the e5ect of rendering the 3udgent 6na, and

e8ecutory" ;erfection of an a!!ea, inc,udes the 6,ing# within the !rescribed


12/63

!eriod of the eorandu of a!!ea, and !osting of the a!!ea, bond" =n

cases where the 3udgent in)o,)es a onetary award# as in this case# the

a!!ea, ay be !erfected on,y u!on !osting of a cash or surety bond to the

7L>C" Since the X recei)ed the LAs decision on A!ri, 9# they had on,y unti,

A!ri, 19 to 6,e their a!!ea," 4he bond was !osted on,y on A!ri, 90+ beyond

the reg,eentary !eriod" 4he re-uireent of !osting the bond has on,y beenre,a8ed on grounds of substantia, 3ustice and s!ecia, circustances which are

not attendant in this case" urtherore# the bond !osted was not genuine"

4he decision can no ,onger be aended nor a,tered by the ,abor tribuna,"

" 7o" 11*I*I# Barch 1# 2000@

Q: A# is a eber of the 7L# e!,oyed by X in the ;ata,on Coconut Estate in

Paboanga City" ;ursuant to >A **# the Co!rehensi)e Agrarian >efor

Law# the ;ata,on Cocount Estate was warded to the ;ata,on Estate >efor

Association# of which A is a eber and co.owner" As a resu,t of thisac-uisition# the ;ata,on Estate shut down o!erations and the e!,oyent of

A was se)ered" A did not recei)e se!aration !ay" A becae co.owner of the

,and and subse-uent,y 6,ed a co!,aint for i,,ega, disissa," Shou,d X# who

had been co!e,,ed to cease o!erations because of co!u,sory ac-uisition

by the go)ernent of his ,and for !ur!oses of agrarian refor# be ade ,iab,e

to !ay se!aration !ay to A

A: 7o" 4he !ecu,iar circustance in the case at bar in)o,)es neither the

c,osure of an estab,ishent nor a reduction in !ersonne, as conte!,ated inArtic,e 2(9" 4he c,osure conte!,ated in 2(9 is a )o,untary act on the !art of

the e!,oyer" 4he Labor Code does not conte!,ate a situation where the

c,osure is forced u!on the e!,oyer" As such# !etitioners are not entit,ed to

se!aration !ay as !ri)ate res!ondents did not )o,untary shut down

o!erations as they e)en sought to be e8e!ted fro the co)erage of >A

**" " 7o" 121(# Barch 2# 2000@

Q: A and $ were e!,oyed by Co!any E" A a!!,ied for a ,ea)e of absence

and infored the F!erations Banager of his intention to a)ai, of the o!tiona,retireent !,an under the Consecuti)e En,istent =ncenti)e ;,an


13/63

e!,oyent are terinated e)ery tie their contracts e8!ire" /ere A and $

)a,id,y disissed

A: 7o" 4he !riary standard to deterine a regu,ar e!,oyent is the

reasonab,e connection between the acti)ity !erfored by the e!,oyee in

re,ation to the usua, business or trade of the e!,oyer" =n this case it is

undis!uted that !etitioners were regu,ar e!,oyees of !ri)ate res!ondents"

A,so# as they had been in the e!,oy of !ri)ate res!ondents for 20 years as

they were re!eated,y re.hired after the e8!iration of their res!ecti)e

contracts# it is c,ear that their ser)ice was necessary and indis!ensab,e to

!ri)ate res!ondents business" 4herefore# they cou,d on,y be disissed for

3ust and )a,id cause" 4here is no showing that they abandoned their 3ob as

there was no showing of their un3usti6ed refusa, to resue e!,oyent"

" 7o" 1102I# Barch 1I# 2000@

Q: X is a ebers of nion S" 4he E8ecuti)e $oard of nion S decided to

retain the ser)ices of their counse, in connection with negotiations for a new

C$A" A genera, ebershi! eeting was ca,,ed where a3ority of union

ebers a!!ro)ed a reso,ution con6ring the decision to engage the

ser)ices of the unions counse,# Atty" Lacsina" 4he reso,ution !ro)ided that

10 of the tota, econoic bene6ts that ay be secured be gi)en to the

counse, at attorneys fees" A,so it contained an authoriation for So,idbank

Cor!oration to check.o5 said attorneys fees fro the 6rst ,u! su of

!ayent of bene6ts under the new C$A" X issued a co!,aint for i,,ega,deduction" Bay the union )a,id,y deduct attorneys fees fro Xs sa,ary

A: 7o" Artic,e 2I1 has 9 re-uisites for the )a,idity of the s!ecia, assessent

for unions incidenta, e8!enses# attorneys fees and re!resentation e8!enses"

4hey are:

1" authoriation by a written reso,ution of a3ority of a,, the ebers at

the genera, ebershi! eeting ca,,ed for the !ur!ose

2" secretarys record of the inutes of the eeting

9" indi)idua, written authoriation for check.o5 du,y signed by the

e!,oyees concerned"

Such re-uireents were not co!,ied with# as there were no indi)idua,

written check o5 authoriations+ thus# the e!,oyer cannot ,ega,,y deduct

thus the assessent" 4he union shou,d be ade to shou,der the e8!enses


14/63

incurred for the ser)ices of a ,awyer and according,y# reiburseent shou,d

be charged to the unions genera, fund or account" 7o deduction can be

ade fro the sa,aries of the concerned e!,oyees other than those

andated by ,aw"


15/63

bene6ts thereunder" As for the C$A# Co!any X aintains that the force and

e5ect of the C$As ters are ,iited to on,y three years and cannot e8tend to

ters and conditions which ceased to ha)e force and e5ect" Are the

assertions of Co!any X correct

A: 7o" As to its 6rst assertion# shou,d be ab,e to c,ai bene6ts under the

C$A" 4he bene6ts under the C$A shou,d be e8tended to those who on,y

becae such after it e8!ired# to e8c,ude the wou,d constitute undue

discriination" =n fact# when a C$A is entered into by the union re!resenting

the e!,oyees and the e!,oyer# e)en the non.union ebers are entit,ed

to the bene6ts of the contract" As to its assertion that the C$As ters are

,iited to on,y three years# it is c,ear fro Art" 29 that unti, a new C$A has

been e8ecuted by and between the !arties# they are duty bound to kee! the

status -uo and to continue in fu,, force and e5ect the ters and conditions of

the e8isting agreeent" =n the case at bar# no new agreeent was enteredbetween the !arties !ending a!!ea, of the decision in the 7L>C"

Conse-uent,y# the e!,oyees wou,d be de!ri)ed of a substantia, aount of

onetary bene6ts if the ters and conditions of the C$A were not to reain

in force and e5ect which runs counter to the intent of the Labor Code to curb

,abor unrest and !roote industria, !eace" C# ?">" 7o" 12I22I# Barch 1# 2000@

Q: A was e!,oyed as a data encoder by !ri)ate res!ondent" ro 1'(( unti,

1''1# she entered into 19 e!,oyent contracts with !ri)ate res!ondent#each contract for a !eriod of 9 onths" =n Se!teber 1''1# A and 12 other

e!,oyees a,,eged,y agreed to the 6,ing of a ;CE of the rank and 6,e

e!,oyees of !ri)ate res!ondent" Subse-uent,y# A recei)ed a terination

,etter due to M,ow )o,ue of work"N A 6,ed a co!,aint for i,,ega, disissa,"

/as A a regu,ar e!,oyee entit,ed to tenuria, security

A: es" E)en though !etitioner is a !ro3ect e!,oyee# as in the case of

Baraguinot# &r" )" 7L>C# the court he,d that a !ro3ect e!,oyee or eber of

a work !oo, ay ac-uire the status of a regu,ar e!,oyee when the fo,,owingconcur:

1" there is continuous rehiring of !ro3ect e!,oyees e)en after the

cessation of a !ro3ect

2" the tasks !erfored by the a,,eged M!ro3ect e!,oyeeN are )ita,#

necessary and indis!ensab,e to the usua, business and trade of the e!,oyer"


16/63

A was e!,oyed as a data encoder !erforing duties# which are usua,,y

necessary or desirab,e in the usua, business or trade of the e!,oyer#

continuous,y for a !eriod of ore than 9 years" $eing a regu,ar e!,oyee# A

is entit,ed to security of tenure and cou,d on,y be disissed for a 3ust and

authoried cause+ ,ow )o,ue of work is not a )a,id cause for disissa, under

Arts" 2(2 or 2(9" %a)ing worked for ore than 9 years# A is a,so entit,ed toser)ice incenti)e ,ea)e bene6ts fro 1'(' unti, her actua, reinstateent

since such is deandab,e after one year of ser)ice# whether continuous or

broken" " 7o" 11I9I# Barch 91# 2000@

Q: A was e!,oyed as a security guard by Co!any X" During a routinary

eeting of the security guards# A stood u! and shouted at the !residing

oKcer" She was then sus!ended for 1 days" Later# she recei)ed a ,etter

that she was reassigned and re-uired to re!ort to res!ondents Bani,a oKce"

%er ser)ices were terinated for abandonent when she fai,ed to re!ort forwork in her new assignent" 4he Labor Arbiter found for !etitioner" ;ri)ate

res!ondent a!!ea,ed to the 7L>C# which denied the a!!ea," 4he decision

ha)ing becoe 6na,# the LA issued a writ of e8ecution on the reinstateent

as!ect# but it was not i!,eented as the onetary as!ect reained to be

deterined" Later# 7L>C sheri5 issued a notice of ?arnishent ser)ed on

!ri)ate res!ondents de!osit account with the ;7$" 4he LA directed the ;7$

to re,ease the aount" Beanwhi,e# Co!any X 6,ed with the LA a otion to

-uash the writ of e8ecution on the ground that there has been a change in

the situation of the !arties which wou,d ake the e8ecution ine-uitab,e" =t

contended that A acce!ted e!,oyent fro another security agency

without !re)ious,y resigning fro res!ondents agency" Shou,d the Labor

Arbiter sti,, order the re,ease of the 3udgent award

A: es" E8ecution is the 6na, stage of ,itigation# the end of the suit" =t cannot

be frustrated e8ce!t for serious reasons deanded by 3ustice and e-uity" =t is

the inisteria, duty of the court to issue a writ of e8ecution to enforce the

3udgent" Co!any Xs contention that there has been a change in the

situation of the !arties is without erit" =t has been he,d that back wages

awarded to an i,,ega,,y disissed e!,oyee sha,, not be diinished or

reduced by the earnings by hi e,sewhere during the !eriod of his i,,ega,

disissa," 4he decision is 6na, and the tota, aount re!resenting the sa,ary

di5erentia,s and back wages awarded to the !etitioner has been garnished

fro the account of res!ondent agency with no o!!osition or resistance"

4herefore# it is the inisteria, duty of the LA to re,ease the oney to A"

" 7o" 1001I# A!ri, 12# 2000@


17/63

Q: Fn Deceber 1'(*# De La Sa,,e ni)ersity and De La Sa,,e ni)ersity

E!,oyees Association# which is co!osed of regu,ar non.acadeic rank and

6,e e!,oyees entered into a C$A" During the freedo !eriod of such C$A#

the nion initiated negotiations# which turned out to be unsuccessfu," Afterse)era, conci,iation eetings# out of 11 issues were reso,)ed by the !arties"

A !artia, C$A was e8ecuted" 4he !arties then entered into a Subission

Agreeent identifying the reaining issues for arbitration" =n reso,)ing the

issues# the JA inc,uded the co!uter o!erators fro the sco!e of the C$A

and e8c,uded the e!,oyees of the Co,,ege of St" $eni,de" Did the JA act

!ro!er,y in ru,ing as such

A: es" Co!uter o!erators were !resent,y doing c,erica, and routinary work

and had nothing to do with the setting of anageent !o,icies for the

uni)ersity" 4he access they ha)e to inforation to the ni)ersitys o!erations

are not necessari,y con6dentia," 4he e8!ress e8c,usion of the co!uter

o!erators in the !ast does not !ose a bar to re.negotiation for future inc,usion

of the said e!,oyees in the bargaining unit" A,so# as to the e!,oyees of

the CS$# they were !ro!er,y e8c,uded at the two education institutions ha)e

their own se!arate 3uridica, !ersona,ity" " 7o" 10'002# A!ri, 12# 2000@

Q: A recei)ed a ,etter ca,,ing to his attention his conduct during a Sa,es and

Barketing Christas gathering where she a,,eged,y ade utterances of

obscene# insu,ting and o5ensi)e words towards the S;Cs Banageent

Coittee" A was gi)en two days to e8!,ain why no disci!,inary action

shou,d be taken against hi and he was thereafter !,aced on !re)enti)e

sus!ension" A re!,ied stating that such utterances were on,y ade in

reference to a decision taken by the anageent coittee on the Cua Li

Case and not to any s!eci6c !erson" A was thereafter infored in a ,etter that

his e!,oyent was terinated" /as A )a,id,y disissed

A: 7o" As disissa, was brought about by utterances ade during an

infora, Christas gathering" or isconduct to warrant disissa,# it ust

be in connection with the e!,oyees work" =n this case# the a,,eged

isconduct was neither in connection with e!,oyees work# as As

utterances are not unusua, in infora, gatherings# neither was it of such

serious and gra)e character" urtherore# As outburst was in reaction to the

decision of the anageent in a certain case and was not intended to a,ign


18/63

on the !erson of the res!ondent co!anys !resident and genera, anager"

4he co!any itse,f did not see to consider the o5ense serious to warrant an

iediate in)estigation" =t is a,so !ro)ided in the co!anys ru,es and

regu,ations that for conduct such as that of A# a 6rst o5ense wou,d on,y

warrant a M)erba, reinderN and not disissa," "

7o"12109# A!ri, 12# 2000@"

Q: X was e!,oyed by Co!any C as assistant echanic" X dro)e Co!any

Cs truck to insta,, a !ane, sign and accidenta,,y sideswi!ed a ten year o,d gir,

whose in3uries incurred hos!ita,iation e8!enses of u! to ;1'#9I"I" Such

aount was not reibursed by insurance as X had no dri)ers ,icense at the

tie of the accident+ therefore Co!any C shou,dered the e8!enses"

Co!any C conducted an in)estigation where X was gi)en the o!!ortunity to

defend hise,f" X was then disissed for )io,ating the co!any ru,es and

regu,ation for b,atant disregard of estab,ished contro, !rocedures resu,ting inco!any daages" /as X )a,id,y disissed

A: es" A,though X contends that he was in)estigated si!,y for the o5ense

of dri)ing without a )a,id dri)ers ,icense# it was c,ear that he was fu,,y aware

that he was being in)estigated for his in)o,)eent in the )ehicu,ar accident"

=t was a,so known to hi that the accident caused the )icti to su5er serious

in3uries ,eading to e8!enses which the insurance refused to co)er" Due

!rocess does not necessari,y re-uire a hearing# as ,ong as one is gi)en

reasonab,e o!!ortunity to be heard" Xs actions c,ear,y constituted wi,,fu,disobedience" A,though genera,,y# an e!,oyee who is disissed for 3ust

cause is not entit,ed to any 6nancia, assistance# due to e-uity considerations

as this was Xs 6rst o5ense in 1( years of ser)ice# he is to be granted

se!aration !ay by way of 6nancia, assistance of G onths !ay for e)ery

year of ser)ice" C# ?">" 7o" 11*2# A!ri, 2# 2000@

Q: was a co!any nurse for the Co!any P" A eorandu was issued

by the !ersonne, anager of Co!any P to asking her to e8!,ain why no

action shou,d be taken against her for


19/63

ser)ice for gross and habitua, neg,ect of duties# serious isconduct# and

fraud or wi,,fu, breach of trust" c,ais that her throwing of the sta!,er at

!,ant anager /i,,ia Chua was because the ,atter had been aking se8ua,

ad)ances on her since her 6rst year of e!,oyent and that when she wou,d

not accede to his re-uests# he threatened that he wou,d cause her

terination fro ser)ice" As to the other charges# she c,aied that they werenot done with a,ice or bad faith" /as i,,ega,,y disissed# and if so# is she

entit,ed to reco)er daages

A: es" 4he grounds by which an e!,oyer ay )a,id,y terinate the ser)ices

of an e!,oyee ust be strict,y construed" 4o constitute serious isconduct

to 3ustify disissa,# the acts ust be done in re,ation to the !erforance of

her duties as wou,d show her to be un6t to continue working for her

e!,oyer" 4he acts co!,ained of did not !ertain to her duties as a nurse

neither did they constitute serious isconduct" Fn the -uestion of daages#a,though a,,owed four years to !ass before coing out with her e!,oyers

se8ua, i!ositions+ the tie to do so aditted,y )aries de!ending u!on the

needs# circustances and eotiona, thresho,d of each !erson" =t is c,ear that

has su5ered an8iety# s,ee!,ess nights# besirched re!utation and socia,

hui,iation by reason of the act co!,ained of" 4hus# she shou,d be entit,ed

to ora, and e8e!,ary daages for the o!!ressi)e anner with which

!etitioners e5ected her disissa, and to ser)e as a warning to oKcers who

take ad)antage of their ascendancy o)er their e!,oyees" " 7o" 12I*1# A!ri, 2(# 2000@

Q: =setann De!t Store disissed $ due to retrenchent" %owe)er instead of

gi)ing the re-uired 90 day notice# the co!any ga)e 90 days !ay arguing

that this is e5ecti)e notice" 4hey ade $ sign -uitc,ais so that there wou,d

be no ore c,ais fro the" 4he Labor Arbiter ru,ed that the $ was i,,ega,,y

disissed because they were not a5orded due !rocess because they fai,ed to

!ro)e retrenchent due to ,osses" 4he 7L>C re)ersed the ru,ing saying that

the disissa, was 3usti6ed because it was due to redundancy and not

retrenchent" 4he 7L>C howe)er did not ru,e on whether the 90 day !ay

was a suKcient substitute for the 90 day notice" 4he !etitioner argues

further that they shou,d be gi)en the chance to !resent his side" /as the 90

days !ay suKcient re!,aceent for 90 day notice

A: 7o" 4he Court ru,ed that since the disissa, is due to an authoried cause

on,y notice is re-uired and that the e!,oyee has no right to !resent his side"

4he 90 day notice is needed in order to a5ord the e!,oyee enough tie to


20/63

,ook for work and to gi)e the DFLE tie to ,ook into the )a,idity of the

authoried cause" 90 days !ay is not enough to re!,ace the notice

re-uireent because it wou,d not ser)e the !ur!ose of the notice"

Additiona,,y# backwages are not a se)ere !unishent because it is a

conse-uence of the e!,oyers fai,ure to gi)e notice and due !rocess and

the e!,oyee is therefore not deeed terinated so he shou,d beco!ensated for that !eriod" C# ?> 7o 110I0# Bay I# 2000@

Q: A and $ 6,ed a !etition for certi6cation e,ection" 4heir !etition was

granted but they ,ost in the e,ection as a3ority of the e!,oyees )oted for

Mno unionN" 4he ne8t day# they fai,ed to re!ort for work" 4hey c,ai that they

were barred fro entering the !reises" 4hey 6,ed a suit for i,,ega, disissa,

and backwages" 4he co!any denied these a,,egations and a,,eged that A

and $ refused to return to work des!ite their attention being ca,,ed" /ere A

and $ ,ega,,y disissed

A: 7o" 4he Court ru,ed that an iediate 6,ing of a co!,aint for i,,ega,

disissa, is inco!atib,e with abandonent" Abandonent is a atter of

intention" 4here ust be !roof of de,iberate and un3usti6ed intent to se)er

the e!,oyer.e!,oyee re,ationshi!" 4his burden rests on the e!,oyer" =n

this case# the e!,oyer fai,ed to do so" Since they were i,,ega,,y disissed#

the e!,oyees are entit,ed to reinstateent with fu,, backwages#

undiinished by their earnings e,sewhere"


21/63

e8!,ain why the e!,oyee is treated di5erent,y" Dis,ocation and ,iited

tenure cannot ser)e as ade-uate or )a,id bases for the di5erence in the

sa,ary rates" 4he other bene6ts are enough to ake u! for these two factors"

4here is no reasonab,e distinction between the work of a ,oca,.hire and a

foreign.hire that wi,, 3ustify the di5erence" C# ?> 7o 1200*2# &une (# 2000@

Q: X was a radio o!erator on board a shi! where he had a contract for 12

onths" %e was re-uired to subit hise,f to a edica, e8aination" ;rior

to this# he had a !aceaker inserted to he,! his cardio)ascu,ar functioning

but he was sti,, dec,ared 6t to work" Fn board the )esse,# he had bouts of


22/63

coughing and he needed o!en heart surgery" %e 6,ed for sickness and

disabi,ity bene6ts with the ;FEA and these were awarded to hi" =s the

sickness co!ensab,e

A: es# it is co!ensab,e" Co!ensabi,ity of the i,,ness or death of seaen

need not de!end on whether the i,,ness was work connected or not" =t is

suKcient that the i,,ness occurred during the ter of the e!,oyent

contract" =t wi,, a,so be reca,,ed that !etitioners aditted that !ri)ate

res!ondentOs work as a radio oKcer e8!osed hi to di5erent c,iates and

un!redictab,e weather# which cou,d trigger a heart attack or heart fai,ure"

E)en assuing that the ai,ent of the worker was contracted !rior to his

e!,oyent# this sti,, wou,d not de!ri)e hi of co!ensation bene6ts" or

what atters is that his work had contributed# e)en in a sa,, degree# to the

de)e,o!ent of the disease and in bringing about his e)entua, death"

7either is it necessary# in order to reco)er co!ensation# that the e!,oyeeust ha)e been in !erfect hea,th at the tie he contracted the disease"

C# ?> 7o 129*1'# &une (#

2000@

Q: X is a erchandiser of res!ondent co!any" %e withdraws stocks fro

the warehouse# 68es the !rices# !rice.tagging# dis!,aying the !roducts and

in)entory" %e was !aid by the co!any through an agent" %e asked for

regu,ariation of his status" 4he co!any denied any e!,oyer.e!,oyee

re,ationshi!" 4hey c,ai that they used an agent or inde!endent contractorsto se,, the erchandise" /as there ,abor.on,y contracting

A: 7o" 4he agent is a ,egitiate inde!endent contractor" Labor.on,y

contractor occurs on,y when the contractor ere,y recruits# su!!,ies or !,aces

workers to !erfor a 3ob for a !rinci!a," 4he ,abor.on,y contractor does not

ha)e substantia, ca!ita, or in)estent and the workers recruited !erfor

acti)ities direct,y re,ated to the !rinci!a, business of the e!,oyer" 4here is

!erissib,e contracting on,y when the contractor carries an inde!endent

business and undertakes the contract in his own anner and ethod# freefro the contro, of the !rinci!a, and the contractor has substantia, ca!ita, or

in)estent" 4he agent# and not the co!any# a,so e8ercises contro, o)er the

!etitioners" 7o docuents were subitted to !ro)e that the co!any

e8ercised contro, o)er the" 4he agent hired the !etitioners" 4he agent a,so

!ays the !etitioners# no e)idence was subitted showing that it was the

co!any !aying the and not the agent" =t was a,so the agent who

terinated their ser)ices" $y !etitioning for regu,ariation# the !etitioners


23/63

concede that they are not regu,ar e!,oyees" " 7o" 12909# &une 1*# 2000@

Q: was e!,oyed as a echanic" %e was disissed after the co!any

found out that he was doing side,ine work" =t wou,d a!!ear that ,ate in the

e)ening of the day in -uestion# the dri)er of a red Coro,,a arri)ed at the sho!,ooking for " 4he dri)er said that# as !rearranged# he was to !ick u! who

wou,d !erfor a !ri)ate ser)ice on the )ehic,e" /hen re!orts of the Tside,ineT

work reached anageent# it confronted and asked for an e8!,anation"

According to !ri)ate res!ondent# ga)e contradictory e8cuses# e)entua,,y

c,aiing that the unauthoried ser)ice was for an aunt" /hen !ressed to

!resent his aunt# it was then that sto!!ed re!orting for work# 6,ing his

co!,aint for i,,ega, disissa, soe ten onths after his a,,eged terination"


24/63

was e)en e!,oyed by another co!any thereafter" /as there

abandonent of work

A: es" # after being !ressed by the res!ondent co!any to !resent the

custoer regarding his unauthoried so,icitation of side,ine work fro the

,atter and who he c,ais to be his aunt# he ne)er re!orted back to work

anyore" =t ust be stressed that whi,e a,,eges that he was i,,ega,,y

disissed fro his e!,oyent by the res!ondents# sur!rising,y# he ne)er

stated any reason why the res!ondents wou,d want to ease hi out fro his

3ob" Boreo)er# why did it take hi ten " 7o" 12909# &une 1*# 2000@

Q: X is an oKcer and eber of the ;?A $rotherhood Association# a du,y

registered ,abor organiation# and is a security guard e!,oyed by ;SJS=A"

%e was infored that his ser)ices were being terinated" %e contended that

!rior to such disissa,# they were harassed by ;SJS=A oKcers to withdraw

their ebershi! fro the ;?A $rotherhood Association" A,though ;SJS=A

denied the charge of i,,ega, disissa,# the Labor Arbiter dec,ared ;SJS=A and

its res!onsib,e oKcers gui,ty of L; and dec,ared that !etitioners were

constructi)e,y disissed# thereby ordering res!ondent to reinstate X to his

forer !osition with backwages u! to the tie of actua, reinstateent"

%owe)er# X was !aid onetary award for backwages !ursuant to an ear,ierdecision of the 7L>C ,iiting it to three years where he assented to the

co!utation ade by the 7L>C reducing the backwages to three years" 7o

B">" was 6,ed" =n fact# X e)en 6,ed a otion to re,ease the reaining ba,ance

to satisfy the 3udgent awards" X 6,ed a otion for c,ari6cation of the

reso,ution reiterating their !rayer for the inc,usion of their backwages fro

tie they were terinated u! to the !resent


25/63

;9'(#*00"00 sti,, in the hands of the 7L>C to fu,,y satisfy the 3udgent

awards" X cannot now c,ai that they ha)e reained un!aid# es!ecia,,y

considering that they ha)e a,ready recei)ed the 3udgent award" C# ?">" 7o" 1910(I# &une 1'# 2000@"

Q: X was working as dri)er of !assenger 3ee!neys" %e ,ost his dri)ers ,icense

and asked for !erission to go on )acation ,ea)e to secure a new one" X on,y

returned after three onths when he was ab,e to obtained his ,icense" %e

was howe)er infored that another dri)er had a,ready taken his !,ace" 4he

co!any argues that the !ro,onged absence of X constituted abandonent"

X 6,ed a case for i,,ega, disissa," Did Xs absence constitute abandonent

A: 7o" 4o constitute abandonent# two e,eents ust concur:


26/63

a!!,ication of the doctrine of ,oss of con6dence as enunciated in Bidas 4ouch

ood Cor!oration# are:

a""""",oss of con6dence shou,d not be siu,ated+

b"""""it shou,d not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are i!ro!er#

i,,ega, or un3usti6ed+

c"""""it ay not be arbitrari,y asserted in the face of o)erwhe,ing e)idence to

the contrary+ and

d"""""it ust be genuine# not a ere afterthought to 3ustify ear,ier action taken

in bad faith"

An e!,oyer en3oys a wide ,atitude in the !rou,gation of co!any ru,es+

and in this case# the !o,icies of res!ondent were fair and reasonab,e" " 7o"1I00I9# &u,y 1(# 2000@

Q: X# ;resident of the e8c,usi)e bargaining agent initiated renegotiations of its

C$A with the co!any for the ,ast two years of the C$As year ,ifetie fro

1'('.1''I" Fn the sae year# the union e,ected a new set of oKcers with P

as the new,y e,ected ;resident" P wanted to continue renegotiation# but the

co!any c,aied that the C$A was a,ready !re!ared for signing" 4he C$A

was subitted to a referendu which was re3ected by the union ebers"

Later# the union noti6ed the 7CB$ of its intention to strike due to the

co!anys refusa, to bargain" 4hereafter# the !arties agreed to disregard the

unsigned C$A and to start negotiation on a new 6)e.year C$A" 4he unionsubitted its !ro!osa,s to !etitioner# which noti6ed the union that the sae

was subitted to its $oard of 4rustees" Beanwhi,e# Ps work schedu,e was

changed# which she !rotested and re-uested to be subitted to a grie)ance

achinery under the o,d C$A" Due to the co!anys inaction# the union 6,ed

a notice of strike" Later# P was disissed for a,,eged insubordination" $oth

!arties again discussed the ground ru,es for the C$A renegotiations+ howe)er

the co!any sto!!ed negotiations after a,,eged,y recei)ing inforation that

a new grou! of e!,oyees had 6,ed a ;etition for Certi6cation E,ections" 4he

union he,d a stike and the Secretary assued 3urisdiction ordering a,, striking

workers to return to work" A,, were readitted e8ce!t P"

1" =s the co!any gui,ty of unfair ,abor !ractice by refusing to bargain with

the union when it uni,atera,,y sus!ended the ongoing negotiations for a new

C$A u!on ere inforation that a !etition for certi6cation has been 6,ed by

another ,egitiate ,abor organiation

2" Does the terination of the union !resident aount to an interference of

the e!,oyees right to se,f.organiation


27/63

A:

1" 7o" 4he duty to bargain co,,ecti)e,y inc,udes the utua, ob,igation to

eet and con)ene !ro!t,y and e8!editious,y in good faith for the !ur!ose

of negotiating an agreeent" ;etitioner fai,ed to ake a tie,y re!,y to the

unions !ro!osa,s# thereby )io,ating the !ro!er !rocedure in co,,ecti)e

bargaining as !ro)ided in Artic,e 20" =n order to a,,ow the e!,oyer to

)a,id,y sus!end the bargaining !rocess# there ust be a )a,id ;CE raising a

,egitiate re!resentation issue" =n this case# the !etition was 6,ed outside the

*0.day freedo !eriod+ therefore there was no ,egitiate re!resentation

issue and the 6,ing of the ;CE did not constitute a bar to the ongoing

negotiation"

2" es" 4he disissa, was in )io,ation of the e!,oyees right to se,f.

organiation" 4he disissa, ust be ade !ursuant to the tenets of e-uity

and fair !,ay+ wherein the e!,oyers right to terinate the ser)ices of an

e!,oyee ust be e8ercised in good faith+ furtherore# it ust not aount

to interfering with# restraining or coercing e!,oyees in their right to se,f.

organiation" 4he factua, backdro! of the Abas terination re)ea,s that

such was done in order to stri! the union of a ,eader" Aditted,y#

anageent has the !rerogati)e to disci!,ine its e!,oyees for

insubordination" $ut when the e8ercise of such anageent right tends to

interfere with the e!,oyees right to se,f.organiation# it aounts to union.

busting and is therefore a !rohibited act" " 1I1I1# Se!teber 1(#

2000@

Q: X was e!,oyed as sewer by a cor!oration engaged in the business of

sewing costues# gowns and casua, and fora, dresses" E)entua,,y# she

started to fee, chest !ains" She then 6,ed a ,ea)e of absence fro work as the

chest !ains becae unbearab,e" After sub3ecting herse,f to edica,

e8aination# she was found to be su5ering fro Atherosc,erotic heart

disease# Atria, ibri,,ation# Cardiac Arrhythia" !on recoendation of her

doctor# she resigned fro her work ho!ing that with a uch.needed

co!,ete rest# she wi,, be cured" She ,ater 6,ed a disabi,ity c,ai with theSSS fro the E!,oyees Co!ensation und# under ;residentia, Decree 7o"

*2*# as aended" /as the sickness co!ensab,e

A: es# the i,,ness is co!ensab,e" nder the Labor Code# as aended# the

,aw a!!,icab,e to the case at bar# in order for the e!,oyee to be entit,ed to


28/63

sickness or death bene6ts# the sickness or death resu,ting therefro ust be

or ust ha)e resu,ted fro either u,es of the E!,oyees

Co!ensation Coission# hence# no further !roof of casua, re,ation

between the disease and c,aiants work is necessary" " 7o"1I29'2# Se!teber 2*# 2000@

1''' CASES

Q" A Right surgeon at ;AL# was on duty fro I ! unti, 12 idnight" At

around !# he ,eft the c,inic to ha)e his dinner at his residence# a .inutedri)e away" /hi,e he was away# the c,inic recei)ed an eergency ca,, for a

;AL e!,oyee su5ered fro a heart attack" 4he nurse on duty !honed the

doctor at hoe to infor hi of the eergency# then rushed the !atient to

the hos!ita, at :0 !" 4he doctor arri)ed at :1 !" 4he !atient died the

fo,,owing day" After in)estigation# the doctor was charged with abandonent

of !ost whi,e on duty# and was ,ater sus!ended for 9 onths" /as this

sus!ension ,ega,

A" 4he sus!ension was i,,ega," Artic,e (9 of the Labor Code


29/63

!osts on tie" ;ri)ate res!ondents act of going hoe to take his dinner does

not constitute abandonent" C# 902 SC>A (2

C re)ersed the decision and ru,ed that!ri)ate res!ondent was not entit,ed to reinstateent with back wages e8ce!t

for the award of sa,ary di5erentia,s due to under!ayent"

A" 4he SC agrees with the LA and he,d that !ri)ate res!ondent was indeed

i,,ega,,y disissed" =t was on,y u!on his co!,aint regarding his ,ow sa,ary

that he was no ,onger a,,owed to re!ort for work" 4his aounted to disissa,

without cause and without the re-uisite written notice" Such circustances

ake it diKcu,t to sustain any a,,egation of abandonent" Abandonent# as

a 3ust and )a,id cause for terination# re-uires a de,iberate and un3usti6edrefusa, of an e!,oyee to resue his work# cou!,ed with a c,ear absence of

any intention of returning to his or her work"

/ith regard to the sa,ary di5erentia,s granted# !etitioners c,ai e8e!tion

under >A *2 ationa,iation Act@ and the >u,es =!,eenting /age

Frder 7os" 7C>.01 and 7C>.01.A# as we,, as /age Frder 7os" 7C>.02 and

7C>.02.A" %owe)er# regard,ess of the factua, circustances in this case# the


30/63

SC was not con)inced as the !etitioners cou,d not e)en show any a!!ro)ed

a!!,ication for e8e!tion# as re-uired by the a!!,icab,e guide,ines issued by

the Coission" C# 909 SC>A I'


31/63

C# 909 SC>A I1


32/63

coitted gra)e abuse of discretion" LAs decision reinstated" C+ &u,y 29# 1'''@

Q" San Bigue, Cor!oration shut down soe of its !,ants and dec,ared

!ositions as redundant# in order to strea,ine o!erations due to 6nancia,

,osses" Conse-uent,y# the union 6,ed se)era, grie)ance cases for the said

retrenched e!,oyees# and sought the rede!,oyent of said e!,oyees toother di)isions of the co!any" ?rie)ance !roceedings were conducted

!ursuant to the !artiesO Co,,ecti)e $argaining Agreeent" 4he !rocedure

out,ined in the C$A re-uired the sett,eent of grie)ances on 9 ,e)e,s .

de!artent anager# !,ant anager# and a conci,iation board" During the

!roceedings# any e!,oyees were rede!,oyed# soe acce!ted ear,y

retireent" San Bigue, infored the union that the reaining e!,oyees

wou,d be terinated# if they cou,d not be rede!,oyed" Subse-uent,y# the

union 6,ed a notice of strike with the 7CB$ of the DFLE due to a bargaining

dead,ock and gross )io,ation of the C$A such as non.co!,iance with the

grie)ance !rocedure" Fn the other hand# San Bigue, 6,ed a co!,aint withthe 7L>C to disiss the notice of strike" Can the union ho,d a strike on the

grounds re,ied u!on

A" 4he grounds re,ied u!on by the union are non.strikeab,e" A strike or ,ockout

ay on,y be dec,ared in cases of bargaining dead,ocks and L;" Jio,ations of


33/63

the C$A# e8ce!t Ragranta,icious refusa, to co!,y with econoic

!ro)isions sha,, not be strikeab,e" C# 90I SC>A II(# 10 Barch 1'''@


34/63

Q: S was e!,oyed under an e!,oyent contract that wi,, be e5ecti)e for a

!eriod of 1 year# un,ess sooner terinated" 4he 6rst !eriod was for si8

onths terinab,e at the o!tion of the e!,oyer" 4he second !eriod was a,so

for si8 onths but !robationary in character" After working for si8 onths# S

was ade to sign a 9.onth !robationary e!,oyent and ,ater e8tended by

another 9.onth !eriod" After a tota, e!,oyent of one year# S was

disissed on grounds of terination of contract e!,oyent" S 6,ed a

co!,aint for i,,ega, disissa," /as S )a,id,y disissed

A: es" =n both !eriods# the co!any did not s!ecify the criteria for the

terination or retention of the ser)ices of S" =f the contract was rea,,y for a

68ed ter# the e!,oyer shou,d not ha)e been gi)en the discretion to disiss

S during the one year !eriod of e!,oyent for reasons other than the 3ust

and authoried causes under the Labor Code" =n e5ect# the e!,oyer

theoried that the one.year !eriod of e!,oyent was !robationary" =t was

not brought to ,ight that S was infored at the start of his e!,oyent of the

reasonab,e standards under which he wou,d -ua,ify as a regu,ar e!,oyee" =n

the case of $rent# the Court u!he,d the !rinci!,e that when the !eriod was

i!osed to !rec,ude the ac-uisition of tenuria, security# they shou,d be

disregarded for being contrary to !ub,ic o!inion" =t was c,ear that S was hired

as a regu,ar e!,oyee and his work was necessary and direct,y re,ated to the

business of the co!any" S is considered as a regu,ar e!,oyee of theco!any" At any rate# e)en assuing that the origina, e!,oyent was

!robationary# the fact that he was a,,owed to work beyond the si8.onth

!robationary !eriod con)erts hi to a regu,ar e!,oyee under Artic,e 2(1 of

the Labor Code" S was reinstated with backwages fro the tie of disissa,

to !ayro,, reinstateent"


35/63

A: es" =,,ega, recruitent is coitted when the A 1(0# 2 Barch 1'''@

Q: At the tie A=; 6,ed a !etition for certi6cation e,ection# there was an

e8isting C$A between the co!any and CCEA# the incubent bargaining

agent for a,, the rank and 6,e e!,oyees" 4his !etition was o!!osed by CCEA

on the ground of the contract bar ru,e" A=; 6,ed a notice of strike citing

union busting and unfair ,abor !ractice as grounds" 4he union !roceeded to

stage a strike# in the course of which# i,,ega, acts were !er!etrated" /hen

A=; ignored the 4>F en3oining the union ebers to refrain fro b,ockingthe road# the co!any disissed se)era, e!,oyees on the ground of i,,ega,

strike and i,,ega, acts !er!etrated in connection with the strike" A=; is

-uestioning the ,ega,ity of the disissa, of se)era, A=; eber e!,oyees"

/as the strike i,,ega, /as the disissa, of the A=; eber e!,oyees

)a,id

A: 4he Court was not !ersuaded by the a,,egation of union busting" 4he strike

staged by A=; was a union.recognition.strike" 4he !etition for certi6cation

e,ection C# 90 SC>A 21'# 2 Barch 1'''@


36/63

Q: 4he origina, owners of AAC were dri)en by ounting 6nancia, ,oses to se,,

the a3ority rights of the co!any to ;%" 4o thwart further ,osses# ;%

i!,eented a re.organiationa, !,an" /orkers occu!ying redundant

!ositions that were abo,ished were terinated" ;% du,y !aid their se!aration

!ay and other bene6ts" Si8 of the union ebers who were terinated 6,ed

a case for i,,ega, terination a,,eging that the retrenchent !rogra was asubterfuge for union busting" 4hey c,aied that they were sing,ed out for

their acti)e !artici!ation in union acti)ities" 4hey a,so asserted that AAC was

not bankru!t# as it has engaged in an aggressi)e schee of contractua,

hiring" /ere the union ebers )a,id,y disissed

A: es" 4he condition of business ,osses is nora,,y shown by audited

6nancia, docuents" =t is the Courts ru,ing that 6nancia, stateents ust be

!re!ared and signed by inde!endent auditors" =n the instant case# the

e!,oyees ne)er contested the )eracity of the audited 6nancia, docuents!resented by AAC to the Labor Arbiter# neither did they ob3ect to the

docuents adissibi,ity" =t is on,y necessary that the e!,oyees show that

its ,osses increased through a !eriod of tie and that the condition of the

co!any is not ,ike,y to i!ro)e in the near future" 4he a,,egation of union

busting is a,so bereft of !roof" 4he records show that the !osition on 1 other

non.union ebers were abo,ished due to business ,oses"

4he Court genera,,y ho,ds -uitc,ais to be contrary to !ub,ic !o,icy"

et as in the instant case# as there is no showing that the -uitc,ais were

e8ecuted in duress# they are binding on the !arties"


37/63

of the e!,oyees wages" Citing 3uris!rudence# he conc,uded that the

a,,owances shou,d be inc,uded in the co!utation of the e!,oyees base

!ay in deterining the se!aration !ay" 4he 7L>C did not share the )iew of

the Labor Arbiter" =t found that the a,,owances were contingency.based and

thus not inc,uded = their sa,aries" Did the sub3ect a,,owances for !art of the

!etitioners wage

A: 7o" M/ageN# as de6ned by the Labor Code# ay inc,ude any deterination

by the Secretary of Labor in a!!ro!riate instances the Mfair and reasonab,e

)a,ue of board# ,odging and other faci,ities custoari,y furnished by an

e!,oyer to his e!,oyees"N 4he Court agrees with the FS? that the sub3ect

a,,owances were te!orary and not regu,ar,y recei)ed by the !etitioners" 4he

a,,owance gi)en to the e!,oyees in the instant case do not re!resent such

fair and reasonab,e )a,ue because the a,,owance were gi)en by the co!any

in ,ieu of actua, housing and trans!ortation needs whereas the $is,iga,,owance was gi)en in consideration of being assigned to the hosti,e

en)ironent then !re)ai,ing in $is,ig+ !etitioners continuous en3oyent of

the dis!uted a,,owances was based on contingencies the occurrence of which

terinated such en3oyent"


38/63

technica, ru,es of !rocedure and e)idence in the ad3udication of cases"

%owe)er# the ,ibera,ity of !rocedure is sub3ect to ,iitations i!osed by basic

re-uireents of due !rocess" 4he e)idence !resented before the 7L>C ust

at ,east ha)e a odicu of adissibi,ity for it to be gi)en soe !robati)e

)a,ue" 4he !rint outs ,ikewise fai,ed to show that A was a,,owed due !rocess

before his disissa," 4he ,aw re-uires an e!,oyer to furnish the e!,oyeetwo written notices before terination of his e!,oyent ay be ordered"

4hese re-uireents were not obser)ed in this case" ; 6,ed their res!ecti)e

co!,aints for i,,ega, disissa,# unfair ,abor !ractice# and !ayent ofse!aration !ay" 4he Labor Arbiter he,d that the order of the SEC

sus!ending a,, action for c,ais against >; does not co)er the c,ais of

!ri)ate res!ondents in the ,abor cases because said c,ais and the ,iabi,ity of

>; as the e!,oyer sti,, has to be deterined# thus carrying no dissi!ation of

the assets of !etitioners" Are ,abor c,ais inc,uded in the sus!ension order of

the SEC

A: es" 4he ,aw is c,ear: a,, c,ais for actions sha,, be sus!ended according,y"

7o e8ce!tion in fa)or of ,abor c,ais is entioned in the ,aw" A,,owing ,aborcases to !roceed c,ear,y defeats the !ur!ose of the autoatic stay and

se)ere,y encubers the anageent coittees tie and resources"

4he !referentia, right of workers and e!,oyees under Artic,e 110 of

the Labor Code ay be in)oked on,y u!on the institution of inso,)ency or

3udicia, ,i-uidation !roceedings" 4he !ur!ose of rehabi,itation !roceedings is

!recise,y to enab,e the co!any to gain a new ,ease on ,ife and thereby a,,ow

creditors to be !aid their c,ais fro its earnings" =n inso,)ency !roceedings#

the co!any sto!s o!erations and the c,ais of creditors are satis6ed fro

the assets of the inso,)ent co!any" 4he !resent case in)o,)es rehabi,itation#

not the ,i-uidation# of >; Cor!oration" %ence the !reference of credit grantedto workers is not a!!,icab,e" 4he ,abor c,ais 6,ed by the e!,oyees wi,,

te!orari,y be sus!ended during the !eriod of the rehabi,itation !,an"

ubberwor,d ;hi,i!!ines )" 7ationa, Labor >e,ations Coission# 90 SC>A

21# 1I A!ri, 1'''@


39/63

Q: S was e!,oyed by &JAC Cor!oration in 1'*'" %e retired on 1''2 when he

was *2 years o,d" Subse-uent,y# S brought a co!,aint for retireent

bene6ts and ser)ice incenti)e ,ea)e !ay before the 7L>C against the

cor!oration" 4he Labor Arbiter granted retireent !ay to S under >A *I1"

4he cor!oration cha,,enged this decision asserting that S retired a,ost a

year !rior to the e5ecti)ity of the said ,aw A *I1 shou,d not be a!!,ied retroacti)e,y" /as S

entit,ed to the retireent bene6ts under >A *I1

A: 7o" 4he Court he,d in a !re)ious case that >A *I1 granting retireent

bene6ts is undoubted,y a socia, ,egis,ation" 4here shou,d be ,itt,e doubt about

the fact that the ,aw can a!!,y to ,abor contracts sti,, e8isting at the tie the

statute has taken e5ect# and that its bene6ts can be reckoned not on,y fro

the date of the ,aws enactent but retroacti)e,y to the tie said

e!,oyent contract ha)e started" 4he aforecited doctrine was e,aboratedu!on by enuerating the circustances which ust concur before the ,aw

cou,d be gi)en retroacti)e e5ect: A *I1 cou,d not be gi)en retroacti)e e5ect in his

fa)or" egistration and other

!ertinent docuents" Fn the sae day CF;;E> was issued by the DFLE a

Certi6cate of >egistration" /as the ;CE du,y 6,ed

A: es" =n a !re)ious case# the Court he,d that a !arty is esto!!ed to

cha,,enge the !ersona,ity of a cor!oration after ha)ing acknow,edged the

sae by entering into a contract with it" =n the !resent case# AL

acknow,edged the ,ega, e8istence of 7ALs aK,iate by entering into an

agreeent with 7AL" AL a)er that their agreeent with 7AL on the


40/63

ho,ding of a certi6cation e,ection with a sus!ensi)e condition was not

co!,ied with" Considering# howe)er# that 7AL was ab,e to subit the

docuents re-uired by the agreeent# such co!,iance retroacted to the

date the agreeent was signed"

4he order of the Bed.Arbiter granting the !etition for the certi6catione,ection has becoe 6na, in )iew of ALs fai,ure to a!!ea, there fro" nder

the Labor Code# a !arty has the right to a!!ea, an order a,,owing or granting

a !etition for certi6cation e,ection" $ut the right of a!!ea, ay on,y be

e8ercised within 10 ca,endar days fro the recei!t of the order"


41/63

!o,ice oKcer but on,y tot hose which# a,though not on oKcia, ,ine of duty# are

nonethe,ess basica,,y !o,ice ser)ice in character" 4herefore# death bene6ts

under the ECC shou,d not be granted"


42/63

reinstateent@ unti, he cou,d actua,,y be reinstated" 4he 7L>C granted the

/rit of E8ecution" Did the 7L>C coitted a gra)e abuse of discretion in

odifying the aending the 6na, and e8ecutory order of the FKce of the

;resident# and in enforcing by ere otion the 6na, 3udgent of the FKce of

the ;resident des!ite the ,a!se of se)en years

A: 7o" ;>= cannot ,ega,,y in)oke in this case the strict a!!,ication of the ru,e

,iiting e8ecution of 3udgent by ere otion within a !eriod of years

on,y" 4here ha)e been cases where the Court a,,owed e8ecution by ere

otion e)en after the ,a!se of years" 4heir coon denoinator in those

instances was the de,ay caused or occasion by the actions of the 3udgent

debtor andor those incurred for his bene6t" =n the instant case# ;>= undu,y

de,ayed the fu,, i!,eentation of the 6na, decision of the FKce of the

;resident by Ring nuerous di,atory a!!ea,s and !ersistent,y refusing to

reinstate !ri)ate res!ondent ;E" 4echnica,ities ha)e no roo in ,abor caseswhere the >u,es of Court are a!!,ied on,y in a su!!,etory anner and on,y to

e5ectuate the ob3ecti)es of the Labor Code# and not to defeat the"

;>= can no ,onger assai, the !ro!riety of the 6na, decision of the FKce

of the ;resident issued way back in Bay 1'(" 4he 6na,ity of a decision is a

3urisdictiona, e)ent that cannot be ade to de!end on the con)enience of a

!arty" Fnce a decision attains 6na,ity# it becoes the ,aw of the case whether

or not the decision is erroneous" abbit $us Lines# =nc" )" 7L>C and

E)ange,ista# 90* SC>A 11# 21 A!ri, 1'''@

Q: According to the !rosecution# the accused# >C# in)ited and con)inced

se)era, !eo!,e to work with her as a factory worker abroad" >C !roised to

!rocess the necessary !a!ers for a !,aceent fee of ;(# 000"00" /hen the

agreed date of de!arture cae# >C fai,ed to show u!" 4he recruits went to the

;FEA who issued a certi6cation that >C had no ,icense to recruit o)erseas

workers" 4he recruits then went to the !o,ice and 6,ed a co!,iant for i,,ega,

recruitent in ,arge.sca,e" >C )eheent,y denied recruiting the co!,ainants

and dec,ared that she ere,y tried to he,! the work abroad at the

insistence of the co!,ainants" =s >C gui,ty of i,,ega, recruitent

A: es" Large.sca,e i,,ega, recruitent has the fo,,owing e,eents:


43/63

that the foregoing e,eents were !resent in this case" 4here is no -uestion

that >C did not ha)e a ,icense to engage in he recruitent of workers# as she

herse,f aditted# and that the crie was coitted against ore than three

!ersons" 4he e)idence on record be,ies her arguent that she did not engage

in the recruitent and !,aceent of workers" 4he testionies of the recruits

une-ui)oca,,y !ro)e that >C !roised the three 3obs abroad !ro)ided theywou,d !ay the !,aceent fee" 4he fact that each of the !aid the down

!ayent is e)idence by the recei!ts issued and signed by >C" C re)ersed the decision of the Labor

Arbiter for gross insuKciency of e)idence to sustain the decision# reanding

the case to the Labor Arbiter for the rece!tion of further e)idence" /as the

reand of the case to the Labor Arbiter !ro!er

A: 7o" 4he reand of the case to the Labor Arbiter for the rece!tion of

e)idence has no ,ega, or actua, basis" Sub3ect to the re-uireents of due!rocess# !roceedings before the Labor Arbiter are genera,,y non.,itigious#

because technica, ru,es and !rocedures of ordinary courts of ,aw do not

strict,y a!!,y" 4hus# a fora, or tria,.ty!e hearing is not a,ways essentia," =n

the absence of any !a,!ab,e error# arbitrariness or !artia,ity# the ethod

ado!ted by the Labor Arbiter to decide a case ust be res!ected by the

7L>C"

AA was not de!ri)ed of due !rocess of ,aw# the essence of which is si!,y the

o!!ortunity to be heard" =t ust be stressed that a,, the !arties to the case

were gi)en e-ua, o!!ortunities to air their res!ecti)e !ositions before the

Labor Arbiter" 4hat AA fai,ed to fu,,y air his !osition by his own inaction orneg,igence does not constitute de!ri)ation of due !rocess"


44/63

warehouse in Quebec# Canada" According to the coroner# the !robab,e cause

of death was as!hy8iation by hanging" /hen ALs body was Rown to Bani,a#

his father noted that the body bore se)era, bruises" 4hey subitted the

cada)er to the 7$= for an auto!sy" Considering that the 6ndings of the 7$=

were a,, inconsistent with suicide# the father 6,ed a c,ai with the ;FEA" 4he

;FEA disissed the co!,iant of the father based on the so,id e)idence ofthe e!,oyer.shi!!ing co!any" Fn a!!ea,# the 7L>C aKred the ru,ing of

the ;FEA" A!!arent,y# both ,abor bodies anchored their conc,usion on the fact

that had there been fou, !,ay in)o,)ed in ALs death# the Z2# 000"00 in his

!ocket wou,d ha)e been taken" /as the father of AL entit,ed to his sons

death bene6ts

A: es" 4he e!,oyer fai,ed to ascertain the circustances surrounding ALs

death# which was its duty to undertake as ALs e!,oyer" Such wi,,fu, neg,ect

cannot but indicate that a through in)estigation wou,d ha)e yie,ded a resu,tad)erse to the e!,oyer" 4he records are bereft of any substantia, e)idence

showing that res!ondent e!,oyer successfu,,y discharged its burden of

!ro)ing that AL coitted suicide# so as to e)ade its ,iabi,ity for death

bene6ts under ;FEAs Standard E!,oyent Contract for i,i!ino Seaan"

4he records of this case are reanded to the ;FEA for the co!utation of the

death bene6ts to be awarded to the father of AL" odrigue

to a non.custoer.contact !osition because of the negati)e feedback on his

anner of !ro)iding ser)ices to the hote, guests" A eorandu was ,ater

issued transferring hi to the ,inen roo as an attendant" %e resisted the

transfer and did not assue his new !ost at the ,inen roo" 4he hote,

terinated his e!,oyent on the ground of insubordination" 4he Labor

Arbiter dec,ared the disissa, to be ,ega," Fn a!!ea,# the 7L>C re)ersed the

decision of the Labor Arbiter dec,aring that the intended transfer was in the

nature of a disci!,inary action" 4he hote, anageent contends that the

e!,oyees continuous refusa, to re!ort to his new work assignent

constituted gross insubordination" /as the transfer of the e!,oyee a )a,id

e8ercise of its anageent !rerogati)e

A: es" Disobedience to be a 3ust cause for disissa, en)isages the

concurrence of at ,east two re-uisites [


45/63

reasonab,e# ,awfu,# ade known to the e!,oyee and ust !ertain to the

duties which he has been engaged to discharge" =t is the e!,oyers

!rerogati)e# based on its assessent and !erce!tion of the e!,oyees

-ua,i6cation# a!titude and co!etence# to o)e hi around in the )arious

areas of its business o!erations in order to ascertain where the e!,oyee wi,,

function with utost eKciency and a8iu !roducti)ity or bene6t to theco!any"

De,iberate disregard of co!any ru,es or de6ance of anageent

!rerogati)e cannot be countenanced" nti, and un,ess the ru,es or orders are

dec,ared to be i,,ega, or i!ro!er by co!etent authority# the e!,oyees

ignore or disobey the at their !eri," =n the case at bat# the e!,oyee was

re!eated,y reinded not on,y by anageent but a,so by his union to re!ort

to work station but to no a)ai,"


46/63

!rohibitu# not a,u in se# and that the fact a,one that a !erson )io,ated

the ,aw warrants her con)iction" Any c,ai of ,ack of criina, intent is

una)ai,ing" C# 90 SC>A 191# 1 Bay 1'''@

Q: Adira, %ote, hired $a,ani as a Cost Contro,,er" She recei)ed a eo fro

the Banaging Director ca,,ing her attention to se)era, )io,ation of hote, ru,es

she had )io,ated such as using the !hone for !ersona, ca,,s and entertaining

)isitors during oKce hours# to the detrient of her regu,ar work" 4he

e!,oyee denied the charges ,e)e,ed against her and she subitted a ,etter

of resignation" Conse-uent,y# she recei)ed a,, sa,aries# bene6ts and


47/63

se!aration !ay# and e8ecuted a -uitc,ai in fa)or of the hote," Did the

e!,oyee )o,untari,y resign

A: es# this is a case if )o,untary resignation" 4he e!,oyee c,ais that she

was constructi)e,y disissed fro her oKce as its ,ocation was transferred

fro under the ste!s of the stairs to the kitchen" Such transfer caused her

enta, torture# which forced her to resign" %owe)er# it was not shown that

her transfer was !ro!ted by i,, wi,, of anageent" =ndeed# the resident

anager of the hote, swore that the transfer a5ected not on,y the Cost

Contro, oKce but a,so the other oKces" 4he transfer on,y in)o,)ed a change

in ,ocation of the oKce" =t does not in)o,)e a change in the e!,oyees

!osition" E)en a transfer in !osition is )a,id when based on sound 3udgent#

unattended by deotion in rank or diinution of !ay or bad faith" ea,ty Co!any ecei!t

and >e,ease in fa)or of the aritie agencies whi,e the case was !ending in

;FEA# that aKred the 6ndings of the ;FEA that his i,,ness was work.

connected" % su!!osed,y acknow,edged recei!t of a certain aount in

co!,ete and 6na, sett,eent of a,, his wages# bene6ts and c,ais" 4he

aritie agencies assert that the signed >ecei!t is a -uitc,ai that re,eases

the fro any ,iabi,ity whatsoe)er" =s the agreeent )a,id

A: 7o# the ,aw does not consider as )a,id any agreeent to recei)e ,ess

co!ensation than what a worker is entit,ed to reco)er nor !re)ent hi fro

deanding bene6ts to which he is entit,ed" =t is a!!a,,ing that % wou,d sett,e

for a eas,y consideration of ;1# 000 which is gross,y inade-uate# that is

cou,d not ha)e gi)en rise to a )a,id wai)er on the !art of the disad)antaged

e!,oyee"


48/63

=n order that a -uitc,ai ay be )a,id# the re-uisites are: C#

90 SC>A 1('# 1( Bay 1'''@

Q: 4he ?enera, Banger of the 4o,, way recei)ed re!orts that certain security

!ersonne, are in)o,)ed in u,cting acti)ities" Acting on the co!,aint# the

anager a,ong with !o,ice oKcers staged an entra!ent" Ange,es# security

guard on duty in one of the e8its was caught in Ragrante de,icto recei)ing

bribe oney fro an underco)er !assenger !retending to i,,ega,,y trans!ort

dogs" A notice of disissa, on the ground of serious isconduct was issued"

After fora, in)estigations# disissa, was ad)ised and Ange,es was infored

of his disissa," Ange,es c,aied that the entra!ent was asterinded by

the anager as a reta,iation for his being critica, of the anagers

adinistration" %e now c,ais se!aration !ay" =s he entit,ed to se!aration

!ay

A: An e!,oyee who is disissed for 3ust cause is genera,,y not entit,ed to

se!aration !ay" =n soe cases# the Court awards se!aration !ay to a ,ega,,y

disissed e!,oyee on the grounds of e-uity and socia, 3ustice" 4his is not

a,,owed# though# when the e!,oyee has been disissed for serious

isconduct or other causes reRecting on his ora, character" 4he act of

acce!ting bribe oney constituted serious isconduct that warrants the

disissa, fro the ser)ice"


49/63

subordinates hand and shou,der# caressing her na!e and te,,ing other !eo!,e

that S was the one who hugged and kissed or that she res!onded to the

se8ua, ad)ances are unauthoried acts that daaged her honor"N =t referred

to the anua, of the ;hi,i!!ine Dai,y =n-uirer in de6ning se8ua, harassent#

which de6ned se8ua, harassent as Munwe,coe or unin)ited se8ua,

ad)ances# re-uests for se8ua, fa)ors and other )erba, or !hysica, conduct ofse8ua, nature with any of the fo,,owing e,eents"""A ( in

deterining whether or not he actua,,y coitted se8ua, harassent" /as C

correct,y charged with se8ua, harassent 3ustifying his sus!ension

A: es" >A ( was not yet in e5ect at the tie of the occurrence of the act

co!,ained of" =4 was sti,, being de,iberated u!on in Congress" As a ru,e#

,aws sha,, ha)e no retroacti)e e5ect un,ess otherwise !ro)ided" %ence# the

Labor Arbiter had to re,y on the BEC re!ort and the coon connotation of

se8ua, harassent as it is genera,,y understood by the !ub,ic" A,so# as a

anageria, e!,oyee# is bound by ore e8acting work ethics" /hen such

ora, !er)ersity is !er!etrated against a subordinate# there is a 3usti6ab,e

ground for disissa, based on ,oss of trust and con6dence" e,ations" 4he $L> subse-uent,y disissed the a!!ea,"

=s the DFLE Secretary correct in endorsing the case

A: es" E8ainations of union accounts are e8!ress,y c,assi6ed by the >u,esof ;rocedure on Bed.Arbitration# and a di5erent !rocess is !ro)ided for the

reso,ution of the sae" According to Art" 22* of the Labor Code# the $L> has

a!!e,,ate 3urisdiction o)er the atter# so the DFLE Secretary was correct in

its endorseent of the case"


50/63

Q: Q and L were su!er)isors whose 3obs in)o,)ed the o)erseeing of the

withdrawa, and sorting of sacks of sugar" =n one transaction in)o,)ing 0#000

C,ass C sacks# ,arge nubers of sacks were is!,aced# and sacks of other

c,asses were i8ed in with the ,ot" As they were su!er)ising other o!erations

at the tie# Q and L were ,a8 with their duties to see that the sacks were

!ro!er,y segregated and de,i)ered" As a resu,t# a ,arge nuber of sacks wassto,en fro the co!any" Q and L were subse-uent,y 6red for gross

neg,igence" Are they )a,id,y disissed

A: 7F" /hi,e Quiba and Lagrana were !artia,,y res!onsib,e for the

unfortunate incident# their neg,igence is not gross or habitua,# and as such

does not erit outright disissa," 4hus# they wou,d be entit,ed to

reinstateent# but the e!,oyees ha)e acce!ted the 7L>Cs 3udgeent for

se!aration !ay instead due to the aniosity between the !arties" e6neries Cor!" )" 7L>C# 90( SC>A ''# &une 1'''@

Q: > worked as the dri)er of 4# the owner of ,tra Ji,,a ood %aus" During the

Bay 1''2 e,ections# he acted as a !o,, watcher for Lakas.7CD and did not

re!ort for work for two days" or the !ast years# the 4 ga)e > 19th o" ;ay"

%e a,,eged that he was an e!,oyee of ,tra Ji,,a ood %aus# and as such# he

was entit,ed to the bene6ts accorded to e!,oyees under the Labor Code"

/hat is > entit,ed to

A: ?eniston is a !ersona, dri)er of 4io# and as such# the co!any is not

ob,iged to grant o)ertie !ay# ho,iday !ay# !reiu !ay and ser)ice

incenti)e ,ea)e# inc,uding 19th o" !ay" %owe)er# since 4 aditted that she

has gi)en > 19th o" !ay e)ery Deceber# it is but 3ust to award > such

bene6t" 7ECF# sent ,etters to the co!any anageent

re-uesting se!aration bene6ts for her ' years of faithfu, ser)ice to the

co!any" 7ear,y four onths ,ater# E# then ;ersonne, FKcer of S>7ECF#fo,,owed u! and ade a re)iew of Qs case" Subse-uent,y# Q 6,ed a

co!,aint for i,,ega, disissa,# based ,arge,y on the re!ort of E acting in fa)or

of Q" 4he co!,aint was barred by !rescri!tion# but because of what had

ha!!ened# E was terinated for ha)ing !ro)ided Q with the Mwea!ons and

aunitionN to wage a war against the coo!erati)e" urtherore# the $oard

of S>7ECF conc,uded that ad)ancing the interest of Q instead of the


51/63

co!any# es!ecia,,y since she di)u,ged the contents of her interna,

eorandu to Q# were iniica, to the co!any and erited disissa,"

/as E i,,ega,,y disissed

A: ES" E was a ;ersonne, FKcer# ho,ding a anageria, !osition that is

considered )ested with a certain aount of discretion and inde!endent

3udgeent" She was si!,y doing her 3ob when she re)iewed Quintos case#

and she is not !roscribed fro taking the side of ,abor when she akes

recoendations as to what ust be done in each situation" A,so# there is

no e)idence that Quinto got the co!y of the interna, eorandu direct,y

fro Escu,ano [ she cou,d ha)e ac-uired it fro other sources" As such# Es

actions do not -ua,ify as breach of con6dence or serious isconduct"

A *1 was !assed creating a new c,assi6cation of e!,oyee# the

su!er)isory e!,oyee# as not being a eber of the rank and 6,e but a,so

not considered a anageria, e!,oyee" At around this tie# the su!er)isory

e!,oyees of Seirara Coa, decided to for their own union and inter)ene in

the certi6cation e,ections" %owe)er# the co!any 6,ed a otion to dis-ua,ify

the su!er)isory e!,oyees fro !artici!ating in the certi6cation e,ections# as

their functions were anageria, in nature" Shou,d they be a,,owed to

!artici!ate in the certi6cation e,ections

A: es# they shou,d be a,,owed" 4he said e!,oyees fa,, under the category of

su!er)isory e!,oyees" 7othing in the co!any !o,icies a,ters the nature

and duty of these su!er)isory e!,oyees to anageria," 4here is no showing

that the !ower to disci!,ine erring e!,oyees is )ested in their iediate

su!er)isors" As such# they fa,, outside of the restriction on anageria,

e!,oyees fro 3oining unions and !artici!ating in certi6cation e,ections"

C ru,ed that Artic,e 2(0 was

not contro,,ing as co!,ainants were hired as an accoodation to the

recoendation of ci)ic oriented !ersona,ities whose e!,oyents were

co)ered by E!,oyent Contracts with s!ecia, !ro)isions on duration of

contract as s!eci6ed under Art" (0" %ence# the ters of the contract was be


52/63

the ,aw between the !arties" Co!,ainants a,,ege that the contracts ser)ed

to !rec,ude the a!!,ication of Artic,e 2(0 and to bar the fro becoing

regu,ar e!,oyees" Co!any subits that co!,ainants were hired as

s!ecia, workers under Art" (0 of the Labor Code and they ne)er so,icited the

ser)ices of !etitioners" /ere co!,ainants regu,ar e!,oyees

A: es" 4he enactent of >A 2# the Bagna Carta for Disab,ed ;ersons#

3ustify the a!!,ication of Art" 2(0 of the Labor Code" Such ,aw andates that

a -ua,i6ed disab,ed e!,oyee shou,d be gi)en the sae ters and conditions

of e!,oyent as a -ua,i6ed ab,e bodies !erson" 4he fact that co!,ainants

were -ua,i6ed disab,ed !ersons reo)es the e!,oyent contracts fro the

abit of Art" 2(0# since the Bagna Carta accords the the rights of -ua,i6ed

ab,e.bodied !ersons" 4he task of co!,ainants was necessary and desirab,e

in the usua, trade of the e!,oyer and therefore they shou,d be deeed

regu,ar e!,oyees" A (I# August # 1'''@


53/63

Q: B was e!,oyed by !etitioner as a truck dri)er" Fne day# he was accused

of ta!ering with the M)a,eN sheet and he was subse-uent,y barred fro

entering co!any !reises" B 6,ed a co!,aint of i,,ega, disissa, against

!ri)ate res!ondent before the 7L>C" A co!y of the suons was sent to!etitioners

labor relation law case digest

Documents