midterms case doctrines and some notes

8/12/2019 Midterms Case Doctrines and Some Notes

1/24

CASE DOCTRINES- MIDTERMS

I. Preliminary Provisions

a. Penaflor v Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing

i. Termination of Employment

1.

In employee termination disputes, the employer hasthe burden of proving that the employees dismissal

was for just and valid cause.

ii. Construction of Labor Code in favor of the Workingman

1. The principle has been extended by Jurisprudence to

cover doubts in the evidence presented by the

employer and the employee.

b. Gandara Mill Supply v NLRC

i. Labor does not CONDONE WRONGDOING, it urges

moderation of the sanctions that may be imposed.(Doctrine of Compassionate Justice)

1. The rigid rules of procedure may sometimes be

dispensed to give room for compassionate justice.

2. The worker is the breadwinner of the family.

3. In calling for the protection of labor, the

Constitution does not condone wrongdoing by the

employee, it nevertheless urges moderation of the

sanctions that may be applied to him in the light of

the many disadvantages that weigh heavily on him

like an albatross on his neck.

c. TSPIC Corp v TSPIC Employees

i. CBA is the law of between the parties and they are obliged

to comply with its provisions.

ii. Diminution of benefits

1. Concept- unilateral withdrawal by the employer of

the benefits already enjoyed by the employees

2. Circumstances

a. Grant is founded on a policy

b.

Grant has ripened into practicec. Practice is consistent and deliberate

d. Not due to error in the construction or

application of a doubtful or difficult question

of law

e. Discontinuance is done unilaterally by the

employer


2/24

3. An erroneously granted benefit may be unilaterally

withdrawn without violating non diminution rule.

iii. State policy for the protection of labor. It should not be

used to oppress management and capital.

1. Fairness and justice still shall prevail.

d. Serrano v NLRC

i. Dismissal Rule

1. Absent any proof that management acted in a

malicious or arbitrary manner, the Court will not

interfere with the exercise of judgment by the

employer.

ii. There are valid causes of termination provided in the

Labor Code.

1. i.e. Redundancy

2.

But Laborer has benefits: Ex. 1 month for every 1year of service.

iii. Rule in Dismissal was for a JUST AND VALID CAUSE but

ACCOMPANIED with non-observance of due process

1. Dismissal should be upheld but Employer must be

sanctioned for non-compliance

2. This doctrine reversed the long standing doctrine

that a dismissal with valid cause accompanied by

non observance of due process is illegal.

iv.

Due process clause is a limitation of governmentalpowers.

1. No application to the exercise of private power.

v. If termination was for just and valid cause, there is a

difference with the application of NOTICE.

1. The purpose is not to put the employer in an

adversarial system- Opportunity to be heard

2. The purpose is to give him time to prepare for the

eventual loss of his job.

vi. Not all are requirements of DUE PROCESS

1.

Some are merely procedural.

2. Others are simply an application of Article 19

a. Give everyone his due, observe honesty and

good faith towards ones fellowmen.

3. The failure to give notice entitles the employer to

DAMAGES and does not make the dismissal void.

e. Yrasuegi v PAL


3/24


4/24

a. Not for serious misconduct

b. Does not reflect the moral character of the

employee.

f. PAL v NLRC

i. Management Prerogative is not Boundless

1. No abuse of disrection.

ii. Line should be drawn between policies which are purely

business related and those which affect employees.

iii. Employees have a right to participate in policymaking.

1. Affecting their rights, duties and welfare.

2. Even if the labor code was not yet in effect.

g. Brew master v. NFL

i. While an employees failure to inform and seek employers

approval of an absence which under the circumstances is

justifiable, is an omission which must be CORRECTED ANDCHASTISED, the same DOES NOT MERIT DISMISSAL FROM

SERVICE.

ii. Abandonment

1. Requires the deliberate unjustified refusal of

employee to resume his employment.

2. Elements

a. No valid reason or justifiable reason

b. A clear intention to sever the

employee/employer relationship.iii. Management Prerogatives

1. Limitation to the power to prescribe rules and

regulations

a. FAIRNESS, JUSTNESS and REASONABLENESS

iv. Equity Rule in Offense

1. In the absence of the appropriate offense which

defines an employees infraction, EQUITY dictates

that a penalty commensurate to the infraction be

imposed.

h.

ISAE v Hon. Quisumbing

i. Public policy abhors inequality and discrimination

ii. International law, which springs from general principles of

law, likewise prohibits discrimination

1. International Declaration of Human Rights

2. ICESR


5/24

3. ICEAFRD (Elimination of all forms of Racial

Discrimination)

iii. State directed to promote equality of employment

opportunities for all.

iv. Discrimination particularly in terms of wages is frowned

upon by the Labor Code

1. Statutory basis:

a. Article 135- same sex

b. Article 248- form of inducement in joining any

labor organization

2. If same position and rank, the presumption is that

these employees perform equal work.

v. Equal pay for equal work

1. Persons who work with substantially equal

qualifications and skill, effort and responsibilityunder similar conditions should be paid similar

salaries.

i. Price v Innodata

i. The EMPLOYMENT STATUS of a person is defined and

prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it

should be.

ii. TEST to determine an employment should be considered

regular or non-regular

1.

Reasonable connection between the particularactivity

iii. Fixed term employments

1. Those by nature which are seasonal or specific

projects with predetermined dates of completion;

they also include those to which the parties by free

choice have assigned a specific date of completion.

2. Decisive determinant: day certain agreed upon by

the parties for the commencement and termination

of their employment relationship.

3.

They are EXCEPTIONS rather than the General Rule

iv. i.e Deans, College Sec, Principal etc.

v. Contracts of Employment are Contracts of Adhesion.

1. If it is ambiguous, any ambiguity therein should be

construed strictly against the party who prepared it.

vi. Project employees

1. Those hired:


6/24

a. For a specific undertaking or project

b. And the completion or termination of such

project has been determined at the time of the

engagement of the employee.

vii. Policy of the State to assure the workers of security of

tenure and free them from the bondage of uncertainty of

tenure woven by some employers into their contracts of

employment.

j. Tirazona v PET INC

i. As a general rule, an employee who has been dismissed

for any of the JUST CAUSES is not entitled to separation

pay under Article 282 of the Labor Code.

ii. Equity

1. Equity is available only in the absence of law and not

as its replacementII. Recruitment and Placement of Workers

a. Stolt-Nielsen v Sulpecio

i. Money claims prescribe after 3 years from the cause of

action

ii. Actual deployment of a seafarer is a suspensive condition

for the commencement of the employment.

1. POEA Standard Employment Contract employment

shall commence upon the actual departure of the

seafarer from the airport or sea port in the port ofhire.

iii. Perfection of employment contract v Commencement of

the EE/ER relationship

1. Perfection- agreed on the object and the cause as

well as the terms

2. EE/ER- commenced had petitioner been actually

deployed from the point of hire.

b. PERT/CPM v Vinuya et al

i. Contract Substitution

1.

One of the prohibited practices which constitutes

illegal recruitment.

ii. Unexpired portion of his employment contract or for 3

months for every year of the unexpired term whichever is

less

1. RA 10022 is not ruled unconstitutional

c. Wallem v Tanawan


7/24

i. While seafarers and their employers are governed by their

mutual agreements, the POEA rules and regulations

require that the POEA SEC, which contains the standard

terms and conditions of the seafarers employment in

foreign ocean going vessels be integrated in every

seafarers contract.

ii. Company designated physicians

1. The one tasked to determine whether the seafarer

suffers from any disability or is fit to work is the

company designated physician.

a. Laborer must submit to him within 3 days

from repatriation.

b. But the findings are not binding upon the

courts as he may seek the opinion of another.

iii.

Disability benefits1. Disability benefits- even in the absence of a finding

of a company physician, the seafarer may still be

declared unfit (suffering from a permanent

disability) if he is unable to work for more than 120

dayswhich is the determining factor for the

benefits.

2. Even if the Company Phsyician declared him fir to

work but the declaration was made belatedly, then it

is still considered permanent.iv. Whoever claims benefits should establish the right by

substantial evidence

1. Contracted it during the term of employment

d. CF Sharp v Hon Undersecretary

i. The conduct of preparatory interviews is a recruitment

activity.

ii. Artcile 13(b) defines recruitment and placement

iii. It is the lack of license or authority not the fact of

payment which rendered recruitment unlawful.

iv.

Judicial review of the labor cases does not go beyond the

evaluation of the sufficiency of evidence upon which the

labor officials finding rest.

e. Sto. Tomas v. Salac

i. RA 8042 has been amended adopting the policy of close

government regulation of the recruitment and deployment

of OFWs.


8/24

ii. 8042 is a police power measure intended to regulate the

recruitment and deployment of OFWs.

iii. Persons who engage in canvassing, enlisting , contracting,

utilizing, hiring or procuring workers without the

appropriate government license are guilty of illegal

recruitment whether or not the acts are not committed.

1. And those with license who commit the prohibited

acts are guilty.

iv. Venue where the plaintiff residents

v. Liability of corporate officers are not automatic.

1. There should have been a finding that they were

remiss on their duties

f. People v Jamilosa

i. Any recruitment activity done by a non licensee or a non

holder of contracts shall be deemed illegal and punishableunder Article 39.

1. Committed in large scale if committed against 3 or

more persons.

2. Elements

a. Undertook an activity

b. Without license

c. Committed the same against 3 or more

persons.

g.

People v Valencianoi. An employee of a company or corporation may be held

liable in illegal recrtuiment in large scale if it is shown

that the employee actively consciously participated

ii. A Malum prohibitum offense- Good faith is not a defense

iii. Whether for profit or not

h. People v Chua

i. Compared to Estafa

1. Estafa is Malum in SE

2. Illegal Recruitment is not

a.

So you can be convicted with IR even if

acquitted on Estafa.

i. People v Adeser

i. A person convicted of illegal recruitment

1. Provided that the elements of estafa are present

a. A person who defrauds another by using a

fictitious name


9/24

b. Or falsely pretends to possess power,

influence etc.

c. Offended party must have relied on the false

pretense

j. Nasi Villar

i. Basic rule is that a criminal act is punishable under the

law in force at the time of the commission.

ii. Properly convicted under the Labor Code

iii. Penal laws cannot be given retroactive effect.

k. Serrano

i. 3 month clause unconstitutional

l. Tangga-an

i. Following the wording of 8042, when the illegally

dismissed has an employment contract of less than 1 year,

he shall be entitled to the unexpired portion of hiscontract.

m.Esso

i. Article 254 proscribes the issuance of an injunctive relief

only in thos cases involving or growing out of a labor

dispute. It may grant one on 218.

ii. Seamen are not regular employees.

iii. Seafarer not being a regular employee, is not entitled to

separation or termination pay.

n.

Almodieli. Redundancy, for purposes of the labor code exists where

the services of an employee are in excess of what is

reasonable demanded by the actual requirements of the

enterprise.

ii. Discretion in terminating employment

1. Much wider scope in terminating managerial

employees than rank and file.

iii. Determination of the qualification and fitness of workers

for hiring are exclusive prerogatives of management

o.

Sunace

i. Theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the knowledge of

the agent Sunace to the principal, not the other way

around.

1. Knowledge of the employer cannot be imputed to its

agent

p. Southeastern Shipping


10/24

i. Money claims from EE/ER relationship is not limited to

those recoverable under the Labor Codeapplies to OFWs

ii. Article 291 rules is the law governing the prescription of

money claims of seafarers

iii. Death of seaman during the term of employment makes

the employer liable to his heirs for the death

compensation benefits

1. But not after he died after his contract of

employment was terminated

iv. Court cannot allow claims of compensation based on

surmises

q. Catan

i. The employees injury was sustained during the lifetime

of the employment contract as no notice of termination of

the contract was given at least a month before itsexpiration.

ii. A private employment agency may be sued jointly and

solidarily with its foreign principal for violations of the

recruitment agreement.

r. Hornales

i. Where the adverse party was not given the opportunity to

cross examine affidavits, then they are rejected as

hearsay.

ii.

Bets evidence rule1. When the original has been lost, cannot be produced

without bad faith.

iii. Technicalities of law and procedure and rules in the courts

of law shall not strictly apply to proceedings before the

POEA

s. Sagun

i. In admin cases, the quantum of evidence required is

substantial evidence

1. Level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind

might accept to justify conclusion

ii. Every disputer is not automatically resolved in favor of

labor.

t. Abante v KJGS

i. While it is the company designated physician who must

declare a seaman fit to work, it does not deprive him to

seek a second opinion.


11/24

ii. POEA standard employment contract was designed

primarily for the protection of labor.

u. Eastern

i. The appellate JD was vested in the Secretary of Labor in

accordance with his power of supervision and control

III. Learners, Apprentices, Disabled, Handicap

a. Century Canning v CA

i. Registration and Approval by Tesda of Apprenticeship

Required before hiring of Apprentices

1. A condition sine qua non before an apprenticeship

program may be validly entered into.

b. Bernardo v NLRC

i. Handicapped workers who were deemed qualified to

peform the responsibilities of their positions should be

given the same terms of employment of a qualified ablebodied person.

ii. Test to determine whether an employee is regular

1. Reasonable connection between the particular

activity in relation to the usual trade or business of

the employer.

iii. Magna Carta for Disabled Objectives are not merely based

on charity but on Justice and Equal treatment of qualified

persons.

c.

General Milling and Earl Cone v Laguesmai. The Department of Labor is the agency vested with the

jurisdiction to determine the question of availability of

local workers

d. Pacific Consultants International Asia v Schonfeld

i. Elements constituting the reliable yardstick whenever the

existence of an employment relationship is in dispute.

1. Selection and management of employee

2. Payment of wages

3. Dismissal

4.

Control-not only the results done but also the means

and methods in reaching that end.

IV. Employer-Employee Relationship

a. Filamer and IAC

i. An implementing rule on labor cannot be used as a shield

by an employer as a shield to void liability under the

substantive provisions of the Civil Code.


12/24

ii. Supervision: What it includes; Failure of petitioner to set

forth such rules and guidelines

1. Supervision includes the formulation of suitable

rules and regulations for the guidance of its

employees and the issuance of proper instructions

intended for the protection of the public and

persons whom the employer has relations through

his employees

2. Liability of employer under 2180 is primary and

solidary

a. But with recourse with the employee

b. Republic v SSC and SSS and Asia Pro

i. It is the allegations in the complaint not the defenses in

the answer or MTD which the Court has JD over the

subject matterii. The power of control refers to the EXISTENCE of POWER

and not necessarily to the ACTUAL EXERCISE of THEREOF.

It is not essentially for the employer to actually supervise

the employee, it is enough that the employer has the right

to wield the power.

c. Felix v Buenaseda

i. Petitioner accepted a temporary appointment. As the SCS

noted it was not a dismissal but an expiration of the

petitioners term.ii. Residency merely is a continuation of their medical

course. Residency training amounts to a pursuit of further

education on a specific discipline.

d. Francisco v. NLRC

i. There are instances when the control test is not sufficient

to give a complete picture of the relationship between the

parties, owing to the complexity of such relationship

where several positions have been held by a worker. Also,

there are instances when the ECONOMIC REALITIES OF THE

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS help provide a comprehensive

analysis of the true classification of the individual, as an

employee, independent contractor, corporate officer of

some other capacity.

ii. Two- tiered test:


13/24


14/24

iii. The payment of vacation leave and sick leave depends onthe policy of the employer or the agreement between theemployer and employee

f. Lopez v Bodega Cityi. In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the

employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee wasfor a valid cause. However, before a case for illegaldismissal can prosper, an employer-employee relationshipmust first be established. In filing a complaint before theLabor Arbiter for illegal dismissal based on the premisethat she was an employee of respondent, it is incumbentupon petitioner to prove the employee-employerrelationship by substantial evidence.

ii. A solitary petty cash voucher does not prove that a personhad been receiving salary from another or that she hadbeen the latters employee for ten (10) years

iii.

- ID cards where the words EMPLOYEES NAME appearprinted therein do not prove employer-employeerelationship where said ID cards are issued for thepurpose of enabling certain contractors, such as singersand band performers, to enter the premises of anestablishment.

iv. - the line should be drawn between rules that merely serveas guidelines towards the achievement of the mutuallydesired result without dictating the means or methods tobe employed in attaining it, and those that control or fixthe methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to

the use of such meansthe first, which aim only topromote the result, create no employer-employeerelationship unlike the second, which address both theresult and the means used to achieve it.

v. To be considered a regular practice, the giving of thebenefits should have been done over a long period, andmust be shown to have been consistent and deliberate.

V. Tan v Lagrama

a. Control of the employer extended not only to the use of the

work area but also to the result of Lagramas work and the

manner and means by which the work is to be accomplished.b. Payment by result is a method of compensation and does not

define the method of the relation.

c. Primary method for determining regular employment is the

reasonable connection between the particular activity performed

by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the

employer.


15/24

d. 4 fold test to determine whether theres an existence of an

employer-employee relationship

i. Power of selection and engagement of employees

ii. Power to pay wages

iii. Control

iv. Dismissal

1. In this case, this was admitted

e. Calamba v NLRC (Contra to the residency rule)

i. Control test was applied- if the hospital controls both the

means and details of the process by which the physician is

to accomplish his task.

1. Specific work schedules

2. Monitored work through the nursing supervisors

3. Hospitals Code of Ethics

4.

ID, BIR, SSS5. Income tax withheld

f. Dumpit- Murillo

i. - The practice of having fixed-term contracts in theindustry does not automatically make all talent contractsvalid and compliant with labor law. The assertion that atalent contract exists does not necessarily prevent aregular employment status.

ii. - In determining whether there is an employer-employeerelationship, we have applied a four-fold test, to wit: (1)

whether the alleged employer has the power of selectionand engagement of employees; (2) whether he has controlof the employee with respect to the means and methodsby which work is to be accomplished; (3) whether he hasthe power to dismiss; and (4) whether the employee waspaid wages.

iii. - Concerning regular employment, the law provides fortwo kinds of employees, namely: (1) those who areengaged to perform activities which are usually necessaryor desirable in the usual business or trade of theemployer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one

year of service, whether continuous or broken, withrespect to the activity in which they are employed. Inother words, regular status arises from either thenature of work of the employee or the duration of hisemployment.

iv. - There should have been no force, duress or improperpressure brought to bear upon the employee; neithershould there be any other circumstance that vitiates the


16/24

employees consent. It should satisfactorily appear thatthe employer and the employee dealt with each other onmore or less equal terms with no moral dominance beingexercised by the employer over the employee. Moreover,fixed-term employment will not be considered valid

where, from the circumstances, it is apparent that periodshave been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurialsecurity by the employee.

g. Tongko v MANULIFE

i. The Insular Life Ruling that insurance agents are not

employees of the Insurance Company has been tempered.

ii. When there is the presence of:

1. Promulgation of Rules or Regulations that effectively

controlled the choice of methods of the agent

VI. Management Prerogatives

VII.

MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVESa. SCA Hygiene Products Corporation Employees v. SCA Hygiene

Productsi. - It is a well-settled rule that labor laws do not authorize

interference with the employer's judgment in the conductof its business. The hiring, firing, transfer, demotion, andpromotion of employees have been traditionally identifiedas a management prerogative subject to limitations foundin the law, a collective bargaining agreement, or in generalprinciples of fair play and justice. This is a functionassociated with the employer's inherent right to control

and manage effectively its enterprise. Even as the law issolicitous of the welfare of employees, it must also protectthe right of an employer to exercise what are clearlymanagement prerogatives. The free will of managementto conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purposecannot be denied.

ii. - This Court has recognized and affirmed the prerogativeof management to implement a job evaluation program ora re-organization for as long as it is not contrary to law,morals or public policy.

iii. - What transpired was only a promotion innomenclature. Of primordial consideration is not thenomenclature or title given to the employee, but thenature of his functions.

iv. - Based on the eight new job grade levels whichrespondent adopted after the job evaluation, Job GradeLevels 1 and 2 positions are both categorized as rank-and-file employees. Said employees continued to occupy the


17/24

same positions they were occupying prior to the jobevaluation. Moreover, their job titles remained the sameand they were not given additional duties andresponsibilities. A mere conversion from Job Grade Level 1position to Job Grade Level 2 position does not, of course,

make a daily paid rank-and- filer a monthly paid one witha concomitant conversion and promotion increase.

b. Emirate Security v. Menesei. - Managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be

exercised without abuse of discretion, bearing in mind thebasic elements of justice and fair play. It should not beused as a subterfuge by the employer to get rid of anundesirable worker. It should not be used as a subterfugeby the employer to get rid of an undesirable worker.

ii. - We cannot blame Menese for refusing Yans offer to betransferred. Not only was the transfer arbitrary and done

in bad faith, it would also result, as Menese feared, in ademotion in rank and a diminution in pay

iii. - Meneses transfer constituted a constructive dismissal asit had no justifiable basis and entailed a demotion in rankand a diminution in pay for her. For a transfer not to beconsidered a constructive dismissal, the employer must beable to show that the transfer is for a valid reason, entailsno diminution in the terms and conditions of employment,and must be unreasonably inconvenient or prejudicial tothe employee. If the employer fails to meet thesestandards, the employees transfer shall amount, at the

very least, to constructive dismissal.41 The petitioners,unfortunately for them, failed to come up to thesestandards.

c. Zafra v. CAi. - The transfer of an employee ordinarily lies within the

ambit of management prerogatives. However, a transferamounts to constructive dismissal when the transfer isunreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to theemployee, and involves a demotion in rank or diminutionof salaries, benefits, and other privileges.

ii. -In the present case, petitioners were unceremoniouslytransferred, necessitating their families relocation fromCebu to Manila. This act of management appears to bearbitrary without the usual notice that should have beendone even prior to their training abroad.

iii. - The fact that petitioners, in their application foremployment,30 agreed to be transferred or assigned toany branch31 should not be taken in isolation, but rather


18/24

in conjunction with the established company practice inPLDT. The standard operating procedure in PLDT is toinform personnel regarding the nature and location oftheir future assignments after training abroad. Underthese circumstances, the need for the dissemination of

notice of transfer to employees before sending themabroad for training should be deemed necessary and laterto have ripened into a company practice or policy thatcould no longer be peremptorily withdrawn, discontinued,or eliminated by the employer. Fairness at the workplaceand settled expectations among employees require that wehonor this practice and commend this policy.

d. PTT v. CAi. - Promotion is the advancement from one position to

another with an increase in duties and responsibilities asauthorized by law, and usually accompanied by an

increase in salary. Apparently, the indispensable elementfor there to be a promotion is that there must be anadvancement from one position to another or an upwardvertical movement of the employees rank or position. Anyincrease in salary should only be considered incidentalbut never determinative of whether or not a promotion isbestowed upon an employee.

ii. - An employee cannot be promoted, even if merely as aresult of a transfer, without his consent. A transfer thatresults in promotion or demotion, advancement orreduction or a transfer that aims to lure the employee

away from his permanent position cannot be done withoutthe employees consent. There is no law that compels anemployee to accept a promotion for the reason that apromotion is in the nature of a gift or reward, which aperson has a right to refuse. Hence, the exercise by theprivate respondents of their right cannot be considered inlaw as insubordination, or willful disobedience of a lawfulorder of the employer. As such, there was no valid causefor the private respondents dismissal.

e. Pantoja v. SCA Hygiene Productsi. - Termination of Employment; Retrenchment; Management

Prerogative; The determination of the need to phase out aparticular department and consequent reduction ofpersonnel and reorganization as a labor and cost savingdevice is a recognized management prerogative which thecourts will not generally interfere with.

ii. - As can be seen, retrenchment was utilized by respondentonly as an available option in case the affected employee


19/24

would not want to be transferred. Respondent did notproceed directly to retrench. This, to our mind, is anindication of good faith on respondents part as itexhausted other possible measures other thanretrenchment. Besides, the employers prerogative to

bring down labor costs by retrenching must be exercisedessentially as a measure of last resort, after less drasticmeans have been tried and found wanting. Giving theworkers an option to be transferred without anydiminution in rank and pay specifically belie petitionersallegation that the alleged streamlining scheme wasimplemented as a ploy to ease out employees, thus, theabsence of bad faith. Apparently, respondent implementedits streamlining or reorganization plan with good faith,not in an arbitrary manner and without prejudicing thetenurial rights of its employees.

iii.

- As long as no arbitrary or malicious action on the part ofan employer is shown, the wisdom of a business judgmentto implement a cost saving device is beyond this courtsdetermination. Work reassignment of an employee as agenuine business necessity is a valid managementprerogative

f. Ymbong v. ABS-CBNi. - Although 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646 does not require mass

media commentators and announcers such as privaterespondent to resign from their radio or TV stations butonly to go on leave for the duration of the campaign

period, we think that the company may neverthelessvalidly require them to resign as a matter of policy. In thiscase, the policy is justified on the following grounds:Working for the government and the company at the sametime is clearly disadvantageous and prejudicial to therights and interest not only of the company but the publicas well.

ii. - So long as a companys management prerogatives areexercised in good faith for the advancement of theemployers interest and not for the purpose of defeatingor circumventing the rights of the employees underspecial laws or under valid agreements, the Supreme Courtwill uphold them

iii. - Ymbongs overt act of running for councilor of Lapu-Lapu City is tantamount to resignation on his part. He wasseparated from ABS-CBN not because he was dismissed butbecause he resigned

g. SMC v. NLRC


20/24

i. -h. Duncan v. Glaxo

i. - Glaxos policy prohibiting an employee from having arelationship with an employee of a competitor company isa valid exercise of management prerogative. Glaxo has a

right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas,marketing strategies and other confidential programs andinformation from competitors, especially so that it andAstra are rival companies in the highly competitivepharmaceutical industry.

ii. - That Glaxo possesses the right to protect its economicinterests cannot be denied. No less than the Constitutionrecognizes the right of enterprises to adopt and enforcesuch a policy to protect its right to reasonable returns oninvestments and to expansion and growth. Indeed, whileour laws endeavor to give life to the constitutional policy

on social justice and the protection of labor, it does notmean that every labor dispute will be decided in favor ofthe workers. The law also recognizes that management hasrights which are also entitled to respect and enforcementin the interest of fair play

iii. - Glaxo does not impose an absolute prohibition againstrelationships between its employees and those ofcompetitor companies. Its employees are free to cultivaterelationships with and marry persons of their ownchoosing. What the company merely seeks to avoid is aconflict of interest between the employee and the

company that may arise out of such relationships.iv. - Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting, an

involuntary resignation resorted to when continuedemployment becomes impossible, unreasonable, orunlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminutionin pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility ordisdain by an employer becomes unbearable to theemployee. None of these conditions are present in theinstant case. The record does not show that Tecson wasdemoted or unduly discriminated upon by reason of suchtransfer.

i.

Star Paper v. Simboli. - Petitioners sole contention that the company did not

just want to have two (2) or more of its employees relatedbetween the third degree by affinity and/orconsanguinity is lame. That the second paragraph wasmeant to give teeth to the first paragraph of thequestioned rule is evidently not the valid reasonable


21/24

business necessity required by the law. It is significant tonote that in the case at bar, respondents were hired afterthey were found fit for the job, but were asked to resignwhen they married a co-employee. Petitioners failed toshow how the marriage of Simbol, then a Sheeting Machine

Operator, to Alma Dayrit, then an employee of theRepacking Section, could be detrimental to its businessoperations. Neither did petitioners explain how thisdetriment will happen in the case of Wilfreda Comia, thena Production Helper in the Selecting Department, whomarried Howard Comia, then a helper in the cutter-machine. The policy is premised on the mere fear thatemployees married to each other will be less efficient. Ifwe uphold the questioned rule without valid justification,the employer can create policies based on an unprovenpresumption of a perceived danger at the expense of an

employees right to security of tenureii. - The failure to prove a legitimate business concern in

imposing an employer policy cannot prejudice theemployees right to be free from arbitrary discriminationbased upon stereotypes of married persons workingtogether in one company.

iii. - In voluntary resignation, an employee is compelled bypersonal reason(s) to disassociate himself fromemploymentit is done with the intention of relinquishingan office, accompanied by the act of abandonment

j. Avon v. Luna

i.

- From the wordings of the Constitution, what is broughtabout to lay the test on whether a given agreementconstitutes an unlawful machination or combination inrestraint of trade is whether under the particularcircumstances of the case and the nature of the particularcontract involved, such contract is, or is not, againstpublic interest; Contracts requiring exclusivity are not perse voideach contract must be viewed vis--vis all thecircumstances surrounding such agreements in decidingwhether a restrictive practice should be prohibited asimposing an unreasonable restraint on competition.

ii.

- restrictions upon trade may be upheld when not contraryto public welfare and not greater than is necessary toafford a fair and reasonable protection to the party inwhose favor it is imposed.

iii. - Only those arrangements whose probable effect is toforeclose competition in a substantial share of the line ofcommerce affected can be considered as void for being


22/24

against public policy. The foreclosure effect, if any,depends on the market share involved.

k. Rivera v. Solid Bankl. -m.Tiu v. Platinum Plans

i.

- A non-involvement clause is not necessarily void forbeing in restraint of trade as long as there are reasonablelimitations as to time, trade, and place.

ii. - a contract in restraint of trade is valid provided there is alimitation upon either time or place and the restraint uponone party is not greater than the protection the otherparty requires

iii. - Courts cannot stipulate for the parties nor amend theiragreement where the same does not contravene law,morals, good customs, public order or public policy, for todo so would be to alter the real intent of the parties, and

would run contrary to the function of the courts to giveforce and effect thereto.

VIII. SIXTH ASSIGNMENTa. Kwok v PCMC

i. Corporate Policies need not be in writing1. Binding if acted within the scope2. If not, ratified by corporation

ii. He who claims must prove the same1. Its existence2. His entitlement

iii.

Evidence: Board resolutionb. Linton

i. Reduction of working hours valid to prevent serious losses

due beyond the employers control.

ii. Exercise of managements prerogative must be exercised

in Good Faith and with due regard to the rights of the

labor.

c. Bisig ng Manggagawa v NLRC

i. Employer has the burden of proving the same.

d.

Legend Hoteli. 4 elements

1. Power to select and management

2. Power to pay wages

3. Power to dismiss

4. Power to control

ii. Substantial Evidence


23/24


24/24

2. Promotion- scalar ascent

iv. Floating status- requires the dire exigency of the

employers bona fide suspension of operation

v. The client of a service contractor is not liable for

separation pay but is jointly and severally liable with the

contractors SIL

i. JPL Marketing

i. Separation pay authorized

1. Installation of labor saving devices

2. Redundancy

3. Cessation of business

4. Retrenchment

5. Employee suffering from disease

6. Valid dismissal as long as not

a.

Serious misconductb. Reflecting moral character

ii. If floating status more than 6 months, he may be

considered to be illegally dismissed

iii. 13thmonth pay and SIL is given as matter of right

iv. Difference between the Min wage and the actual salary

cannot be deemed equivalent to SIL and 13thmonth pay.

v. When to compute

1. 13thmonth pay

a.

First day of service2. SIL

a. A year after commencement of service

j. NAWASA

i. Offsetting overtime and undertime is unfair

k. Stolt Nielsen

i. No more OT pay when he was no longer rendering some

service

l.

midterms case doctrines and some notes

Documents