Labrel Midterms and Finals
Labrel Midterms and Finals
Labrel Midterms and Finals
renewal of their respective collective they want to come in has been held to be
bargaining contracts which were then due an unfair labor practice, as an active
to expire on September 30, 1957. The interference with the right of collective
parties negotiated on the labor demands bargaining through dealing with the
but with no satisfactory result due to a employees individually instead of through
stalemate on the matter of salary their collective bargaining
increases. The Unions demanded from the representatives.
Companies final counter-proposals on
their economic demands, particularly on Indeed, it is an unfair labor
salary increases. Instead of giving counter- practice for an employer operating under
proposals, the Companies presented facts a collective bargaining agreement to
and figures and requested the Unions to negotiate or to attempt to negotiate with
submit a workable formula which would his employees individually in connection
justify their own proposals. Forthwith the with changes in the agreement.
Unions voted to declare a strike in protest
against what they considered the CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER OF
Companies' unfair labor practices. The CONCERNED EMPLOYEES-UNIFIED
Companies through their acting manager, FILIPINO SERVICE WORKERS v. HON.
sent to each of the strikers a letter to BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA
desist to the strike. G.R. No. 118915
February 4, 1997
Issue: Whether the Companies are guilty Hermosisima, JR. J.
of unfair labor practice in sending out
individually to the strikers the letters? Facts: Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Abdullah
issued an Order which granted union's
HELD: Yes, the act of an employer in petition for certification election. CMC
notifying absent employees individually appealed the Order to the Office of the
during a strike following unproductive Secretary by questioning the legal status
efforts at collective bargaining that the of respondent union's affiliation with the
plant would be operated the next day and Alliance of Filipino Workers. Respondent
that their jobs were open for them should union, presented economic proposals for
Labor Relations 5
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
granted. The Union thereupon filed a prima facie the concurrence of two things,
complaint before for unfair labor practice namely: (1) gross violation of the CBA; and
and unjust discrimination in matters of (2) the violation pertains to the economic
promotion. provisions of the CBA.
Union objected to the said discontinuance notion that since the privilege of
of commutation or conversion to cash of commutation or conversion to cash of the
the unenjoyed sick leave. unenjoyed portion of the sick leave with
pay benefits is found in Section 1, Article
Upon failure of the parties to VIII, only the regular non-intermittent
amicably settle the issue, the Union workers and no other can avail of the said
brought the matter for voluntary privilege because of the proviso found in
arbitration before the National the last sentence thereof.
Conciliation and Mediation Board.
Issue: Whether intermittent workers are PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE
entitled to commutation of their CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR
unenjoyed sick leave with pay benefits? RELATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. No. 118978
Held: Yes, a collective bargaining May 23, 1997
agreement, as used in Article 252 of the Regalado, J.
Labor Code, refers to a contract executed
upon request of either the employer or Facts: PT&T Union-ALU was charging
the exclusive bargaining representative petitioner PT&T with unfair labor practice
incorporating the agreement reached. acts and underpayment of statutory and
contractual benefits claimed to be due
It is thus erroneous for petitioner pursuant to Wage Orders. PT&T denied
to isolate Section 1, Article VIII of the 1989 the charges. Labor Arbiter issued an order
CBA from the other related section on sick to PT&T to pay respondent their salary
leave with pay benefits, in its attempt to differentials in accordance to the Wage
justify the discontinuance or withdrawal Orders and/or their CBA. PT&T appealed
of the privilege. The manner they were to NLRC but NLRC dismissed the appeal
deprived of the privilege previously for lack of merit.
recognized and extended to them, is not
only tainted with arbitrariness but Issue: Whether the PT&T shall be
likewise discriminatory in nature. obligated to pay both the CBA and
Petitioner-company is of the mistaken statutory Wage Orders increase?
Labor Relations 8
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Held: No, the common provisions of given under agreement fall short in
Wage Orders, state that: “All increases in amount of those fixed by law, the
wages and/or allowances granted or paid difference must be made up by the
by employers shall be credited as employer.
compliance with the minimum wage and
allowance adjustments prescribed herein, RFM CORP FLOUR DIVISION v. KAMPI-
provided that where the increases are less NAFLU-KMU
than the applicable amount provided in GR No. 162324
this Order, the employer shall pay the February 4, 2009
difference. Such increases shall not Carpio- Morales, J.
include anniversary wage increases
provided in collective bargaining Facts: Petitioner and respondent entered
agreements unless the agreements into a Collective Bargaining Agreement.
expressly provide otherwise.” Under the CBA, RFM agreed to make
payment to all daily paid employees on
The CBA between the parties Black Saturday, November 1 and
reveal sufficiently the parties' intention to December 31 if declared as special
consider salary increases provided in the holidays by the national government.
CBA to be creditable to wage increases During the first year of the effectivity of
that are or may be mandated within the the CBAs in 2000, December 31 which fell
applicable period by law. on a Sunday was declared by the national
government as a special holiday.
In Filipinas Golf and Country Club, Respondent unions thus claimed payment
Inc., vs. National Labor Relations of their members’ salaries, invoking the
Commission, 176 SCRA 625, we have said CBA provision. RFM refused the claims for
that such agreements merely create an payment, averring that December 31,
equivalence between legal and 2000 was not compensable as it was a rest
contractual imperatives, rendering both day.
obligations susceptible performance by
compliance with either, subject only to The controversy resulted in a
the condition that where the increases deadlock, drawing the parties to submit
Labor Relations 9
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Held: Yes, for failing to exhaust all the G.R. No. 113907
steps in the grievance machinery and February 28, 2000
arbitration proceedings provided in the Purisima, J.
Collective Bargaining Agreement, the
notice of strike should have been Facts: Petitioner, Malayang Samahan ng
dismissed by the NLRC. mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield, Inc, is
an affiliate of the private respondent,
In the case under consideration, United Lumber and General Workers of
the grounds relied upon by the private the Philippines. The two established a
respondent union are non-strikeable. The collective bargaining agreement between
issues which may lend substance to the MSMG and M. Greenfield, Inc.
notice of strike filed by the private
respondent union are: collective A local union election was held
bargaining deadlock and petitioners under the auspices of the ULGWP wherein
alleged violation of the collective the herein petitioner, Beda Magdalena
bargaining agreement. Villanueva, and the other union officers
were proclaimed as winners. Minutes of
Collective Bargaining Deadlock is the said election were duly filed with the
defined as the situation between the labor Bureau of Labor Relations. However, a
and the management of the company Petition for Impeachment was filed with
where there is failure in the collective the national federation ULGWP by the
bargaining negotiations resulting in a defeated candidates in the
stalemate. This situation, is non-existent aforementioned election.
in the present case since there is a Board
assigned of the grievance machinery to The federation conducted an audit
resolve the conflicting views of the of the local union funds. The investigation
parties. did not yield any unfavourable result and
the local union officers were cleared of
MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MGA the charges of anomaly in the custody,
MANGGAGAWA SA M GREENFIELD v. handling and disposition of the union
RAMOS funds.
Labor Relations 11
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Facts: Far East Bank was absorbed by the In this case, the presence of a
Bank of the Philippine Islands. Now BPI Union Shop Clause in the CBA between
has an existing Union Shop Clause BPI and BPI Union must be respected.
Labor Relations 12
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Bersamin, J.
Issue: Whether petitioner’s denial of
CORPORATION jurisprudence?
Facts: The parties’ CBA provides for the which is not sanctioned by law. The CBA
hospitalization insurance benefits for the has provided for MMPC’s limited liability
occasions, three members of MMPSEU, be paid to the hospital and doctor by the
dependents. MMPC paid only a portion of covered employees will not receive more
Labor Relations 14
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
than what is due them; neither is MMPC Sicaltek agreed that SEU-ADFLO will
under any obligation to give more than withdraw the labor case in exchange for
what is due under the CBA. the company’s voluntary recognition of
SEU-ADFLO as the sole bargaining agent of
Moreover, since the subject CBA its employees.
provision is an insurance contract, the
rights and obligations of the parties must ADFLO then prepared a motion to
be determined in accordance with the dismiss the labor case, but petitioners
general principles of insurance law. Being refused to sign it. This prompted
in the nature of a non-life insurance petitioners to disaffiliate from SEU-ADFLO.
contract and essentially a contract of They formed another union, the Sicaltek
indemnity, the CBA provision obligates Workers Union, and filed a petition for
MMPC to indemnify the covered certification election. The petition was,
employees’ medical expenses incurred by however, dismissed due to the earlier
their dependents but only up to the certification order by the Med-Arbiter.
extent of the expenses actually incurred.
SEU-ADFLO, through its new
OLVIDO v. COURT OF APPEALS President, respondent, forthwith
G.R. Nos. 141166-67 demanded that Sicaltek dismiss
October 15, 2007 petitioners as provided in the Modified
Quisumbing, J. Union Shop Provision in the CBA.
Petitioners countered that the demand
Facts: Suico and Macasinag with the for their dismissal was pure harassment
assistance of respondent president of filed since the certification issue between the
a complaint for illegal lay-off, illegal two unions was still pending at the time.
deduction, non-payment of overtime pay,
premium pay and other benefits. Issue: Whether the Petitioners are
Entitled to back wages?
In the meantime SEU-ADFLO filed a
petition for certification election during Held: No, we have recently ruled under
the certification proceedings ADFLO and Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended
Labor Relations 15
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
by Republic Act No. 6715. It is now the new CBA and authorization for the
provided in the Labor Code that an Company to deduct union dues.
employee who is unjustly dismissed from
work shall be entitled to reinstatement Subsequently however, members
without loss of seniority rights and other of the Union submitted documents to the
privileges and to his full backwages, Company stating that although they have
inclusive of allowances computed from ratified the new CBA, they are
the time his compensation was withheld withdrawing or disauthorizing the
from him up to the time of his actual deduction of any amount from their CBA
reinstatement. Thus, where reinstatement lump sum.
is adjudged, the award of back wages and
other benefits continues beyond the date On account of the above-
of the Labor Arbiter's decision ordering mentioned disauthorization, the
reinstatement and extends up to the time Company, being in a quandary as to whom
said order of reinstatement is actually to remit the payment of the questioned
carried out. amount, filed an action for interpleader
with the Bureau of Labor Relations in
Facts: FPSI and First Philippine Scales the Union Security Clause, the employer
Industries Labor Union entered into a needs only to determine and prove that:
Collective Bargaining Agreement. During (1) the union security clause is applicable;
the lifetime of the CBA, several FPSI (2) the union is requesting for the
executive board and members of the provision in the CBA; and (3) there is
decision to expel the employee from the Atty. Proculo P. Fuentes, sent a
union or company. letter to the management of PRI
demanding the termination of employees
We hold that all the requisites who allegedly campaigned for and signed
have been sufficiently met and FPSI was the Petition for Certification Election of
justified in enforcing the Union Security the Federation of Free Workers Union
Clause. (FFW) during the effectivity of the CBA.
NAMAPRI-SPFL considered said act of
To safeguard the rights of the campaigning for and signing the petition
employees, the dismissals pursuant to for certification election of FFW as an act
union security clauses are valid and legal, of disloyalty and a valid basis for
subject only to the requirement of due termination for a cause in accordance
process, that is, notice and hearing prior with its Constitution and By-Laws, and the
to dismissal. terms and conditions of the CBA.
Issue: Whether there was just cause to
Facts: Respondents were regular rank- instance of the incumbent union pursuant
and-file employees of PRI and bona fide to the Union Security Clause of the CBA.
members of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Citing Article 253 of the Labor Code PRI
PRI Southern Philippines Federation of contends that as parties to the CBA, they
Labor (NAMAPRI-SPFL), which is the are enjoined to keep the status quo and
collective bargaining agent for the rank- continue in full force and effect the terms
and-file employees of petitioner PRI. PRI and conditions of the existing CBA during
has a collective bargaining agreement the 60-day period and/or until a new
with NAMAPRI-SPFL for a period of five (5) agreement is reached by the parties.
BRILLANTES dispute?
Facts: Petitioner and private respondent parties acknowledge that during the
CBA. Some items in the new CBA were them had the unlimited opportunity to
issues, meetings were conducted. Because the Company and the Union during the
the parties failed to reach any significant life of this Agreement, each voluntarily
progress, petitioner declared a deadlock and unqualifiedly waives the right and
and filed a notice of strike. each agrees that the other shall not be
obligated to bargain collectively with
Labor Relations 20
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
respect to any subject or matter referred practice and is meant to inculcate among
to in this Agreement even though such officers and employees of the element of
subject or matter may not have been trust that is paramount.
within the knowledge or contemplation of
either or both parties at the time they Issue: Whether No NDP policy conforms
negotiated or signed this Agreement. to the CBA?
Held: A CBA refers to the negotiated
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. contract between a legitimate labor
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS organization and the employer concerning
EMPLOYEES UNION- METRO MANILA wages, hours of work and all other terms
G.R. No. 175678 and conditions of employment in a
August 22, 2012 bargaining unit. As in all other contracts,
Peralta, J. there must be clear indications that the
parties reached a meeting of the minds.
Facts: Respondent BPIEU-MM and Therefore, the terms and conditions of a
petitioner BPI have an existing CBA. The CBA constitute the law between the
CBA provides for loan benefits and parties.
relatively low interest rates. Thereafter,
petitioner issued a "no negative data bank The CBA in this case contains no
policy" for the implementation of the provision on the "no negative data bank
manpower loans which the respondent policy" as a prerequisite in the
objected to, thus, resulting into labor- entitlement of the benefits it set forth for
management dialogues. Unsatisfied with the employees. In fact, a close reading of
the result of those dialogues, respondent the CBA would show that the terms and
brought the matter to the grievance conditions contained therein relative to
machinery, the issue, not having been the availment of the loans are plain and
resolved raised it to the Voluntary clear, thus, all they need is the proper
Arbitrator. implementation in order to reach their
Petitioner’s allege that the "No objective. The CA was, therefore, correct
NDB policy" is a reasonable requirement when it ruled that, although it can be said
that is consistent with sound banking that petitioner is authorized to issue rules
Labor Relations 21
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
and regulations under the CBA, the The PPHI also disputes what it
additional rules and regulations, however, considers as the Union's strained
must not impose new conditions which interpretation of the CBA exception of
are not contemplated in the CBA and "Negotiated Contracts" as applicable to
should be within the realm of airline contracts only.
reasonableness.
Issue: Whether the excepted “ negotiated
NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN contracts” and “special rates” are only
HOTEL RESTAURANT AND ALLIED applicable to airline contracts?
INDUSTRIES v. PHILIPPINE PLAZA
HOLDINGS, INC., Held: No, A collective bargaining
G.R. No. 177524, agreement, as used in Article 252 of the
July 23, 2014 Labor Code, is a contract executed at the
Brion, J. request of either the employer or the
employees' exclusive bargaining
Facts: The PPHI and the Union executed representative with respect to wages,
the "Third Rank-and-File Collective hours of work and all other terms and
Bargaining Agreement as Amended”. The conditions of employment, including
CBA provided, among others, for the proposals for adjusting any grievances or
collection, of a ten percent service charge questions under such agreement.
on the sale of food, beverage,
transportation, laundry and rooms. As a contract and the governing
law between the parties, the general rules
The Union's Service Charge of statutory construction apply in the
Committee informed the Union President, interpretation of its provisions. Only
through an audit report of uncollected when the words used are ambiguous and
service charges for the last quarter of doubtful or leading to several
1998. Through a letter, the PPHI admitted interpretations of the parties' agreement
liability. The PPHI denied the rest of the that a resort to interpretation and
Union's claims. construction is called for. No service
charges were due from the specified
Labor Relations 22
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
entries; they either fall within the CBA- their sole and exclusive bargaining
excepted "Negotiated Contracts" and representative. GAW Trading Inc. received
"Special Rates" or did not involve "a sale the Letter of ALU as acknowledged
of food, beverage, etc." thereunder indicating its recognition of
ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining
Notably, the CBA does not agent .
specifically define the terms "negotiated
contracts" and "special rates." The Southern Philippines
Nonetheless, the CBA likewise does not Federation of Labor together with
explicitly limit the use of these terms to Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa GAW
specified transactions. With particular undertook a strike after it failed to get the
reference to "negotiated contracts," the management of GAW Trading Inc. to sit
CBA does not confine its application to for a conference respecting its demands.
"airline contracts" as argued by the Union.
Thus, as correctly declared by the CA, the Issue: Whether the Collective Bargaining
term "negotiated contracts" should be Agreement applies?
read as applying to all types of negotiated
contracts and not to "airlines contracts" Held: No, the collective bargaining
only. This is in line with the basic rule of agreement in question is indeed defective.
construction. We have previously held that the
mechanics of collective bargaining are set
Facts: The associated Labor Unions thru designation provided for by the Labor
Trading, Inc. that majority of the latter's representation; and (3) a demand to
Port Checkers Workers Union and Marina selling corporation. As such, when Marina
Management Employees to meet and rehired the ERI/MPSI employees, it had all
forge an Agreement. the right to consider them as new ones.
On the other hand, ERI/MPSI, to whom
The MPSI then requested the years of service had been rendered by its
Secretary of Labor and Employment to suddenly jobless employees, had the
immediately assume jurisdiction over the corresponding obligation to grant them
dispute to prevent paralyzation of the what is theirs under the law and the
vital operations of the Port of Manila. collective bargaining agreement. After all,
a collective bargaining agreement is the
Issue: Whether the Marina assumed the law between the parties.
liability for paying the benefit of the
employees concerned? METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST
COMPANY EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU-TUCP
Held: No, by absorbing ERI/MPSI v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
employees and honoring the terms and COMMISSION
conditions in the collective bargaining G.R. No. 102636
agreement between ERI/MPSI and the September 10, 1993
employees, Marina did not assume the Vitug, J.
responsibility of ERI/MPSI to pay
separation pay to its employees. As Facts: The bank entered into a collective
correctly put by public respondent, bargaining agreement with the MBTCEU.
Paragraph 7, insofar as it refers to Barely a month later Republic Act 6727
employees' benefits, should be applied took effect. Pursuant to the provisions,
prospectively with respect to Marina. This the bank gave the P25 increase per day to
conclusion is supported by Paragraph 14 its probationary employees and to those
of Permit No. 104286 granted to Marina. who had been promoted to regular or
permanent status. The bank refused to
It should be recalled, however, give the same increase to its regular
there is no law that requires the employees.
purchaser to absorb the employees of the
Labor Relations 25
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
upon its certification after there was a bound also all the other rival unions
change in the sole bargaining existing in the bargaining units in
representative of all Benguet employees? question. BBWU was the agent of the
employees, not of the other unions which
Held: No, the new bargaining possess distinct personalities.
representative of Benguet employees
cannot be made liable for the damage NATIONAL BREWERY AND ALLIED
caused by the previous strike which was INDUSTRIES LABOR UNION OF THE
orchestrated by the previous bargaining PHILIPPINES v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY,
representative. Benguet’s reliance on the INC.,
‘substitutionary doctrine’ is misplaced. G.R. No. L-19017
December 27, 1963
The “substitutionary” doctrine only Bautista Angelo, J.
provides that the employees cannot
revoke the validly executed collective Facts: The National Brewery and Allied
bargaining contract with their employer Industries Labor Union of the Philippines
by the simple expedient of changing their filed against the San Miguel Brewery, Inc.
bargaining agent. It only means that the a complaint alleging that said union and
employees, thru their new bargaining the company entered into a collective
agent, cannot renege on their collective bargaining agreement which provides:
bargaining contract, except of course to “The Company agrees to pay the basic
negotiate with management for the daily rates of those workers within the
shortening thereof. bargaining unit who may participate in the
Labor Day parade held on May 1st of
The “substitutionary” doctrine every year”
cannot be invoked to support the
contention that a newly certified Plaintiff’s mother union decided to
collective bargaining agent automatically hold its Labor Day parade in the morning
assumes all the personal undertakings. where about 600 members of the union
When BBWU bound itself and its officers joined and participated. The company
not to strike, it could not have validly knew about the members’ participation
Labor Relations 27
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
but when the union demanded the The situation would be different if
payment to said members, the company the purpose of the action were merely to
refused to honor its obligation in bad collect wages that ordinarily accrue to
faith. members of the union because of work or
services rendered in connection with their
The company is of the view that employment. Not so when the wages
since the provision regarding payment is accrue mainly on the strength of an
of the basic daily wage to the members of agreement entered into between the
the union contained in the collective union and the company, as is the instant
bargaining agreement runs to the benefit case.
of the members concerned said provision
confers a right which is unique and The action then may be brought in
personal to the employees with the result the name of the union that has obliged
that they are the ones who are the real itself to secure those wages for its
parties in interest with regard to the members. In this sense, the cases cited by
collection of their individual basic wages. the company are inapplicable.
Issue: Whether the Court of First Instance NEW PACIFIC TIMBER SUPPLY COMPANY,
have jurisdiction over the case and can CO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
the union sue in behalf of its members? COMMISSION
G.R. No. 124224
Held: Yes, the Supreme Court held that March 17, 2000
the complaint filed by the union comes Kapunan, J.
under the jurisdiction of the court a quo
for the same is based upon the collective Facts: The National Federation of Labor
bargaining agreement concluded between was certified as the sole and exclusive
the union and the company. The basis of bargaining representative. As such, NFL
the right which is sought to be enforced is started to negotiate for better terms and
the agreement itself and not the wages to conditions of employment for the
be collected. employees in the bargaining unit which it
represented. However, the same was
Labor Relations 28
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
unit for a three-year term. Before the force and effect until a new CBA has been
expiration of the subject CBA, the Union entered into by the parties.
sent a draft CBA proposal to GMC, with a
request for counter-proposals from the Article 253 mandates the parties
latter. In view of GMC’s failure to comply to keep the status quo and to continue in
with said request, the Union commenced full force and effect the terms and
the complaint for unfair labor practice conditions of the existing agreement
which was dismissed for lack of merit. The during the 60-day period prior to the
decision of the NLRC was, however, expiration of the old CBA and/or until a
reversed by the CA, thus, the complaint new agreement is reached by the parties.
for unfair labor practice was dismissed by In the same manner that it does not
the said court. provide for any exception nor qualification
on which economic provisions of the
GMC’s failure to make a timely existing agreement are to retain its force
reply to the proposals presented by the and effect, the law does not distinguish
union is indicative of its utter lack of between a CBA duly agreed upon by the
interest in bargaining with the union. Its parties and an imposed CBA like the one
excuse that it felt the union no longer under consideration.
represented the worker, was mainly
dilatory as it turned out to be utterly FVC LABOR UNION-PHILIPPINE
baseless. TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS
ORGANIZATION v. SAMA-SAMANG
Issue: Whether the imposed CBA has full NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA SA FVC-
force and effect? SOLIDARITY OF INDEPENDENT AND
GENERAL LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Held: Considering that no new CBA had G.R. No. 176249
been, in the meantime, agreed upon by November 27, 2009
GMC and the Union, pursuant to Article Brion, J.
253 of the Labor Code the provisions of Facts: FVCLU-PTGWO is the recognized
the imposed CBA continues to have full bargaining agent of the rank-and-file
employees of the FVC Philippines
Labor Relations 30
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Incorporated. It signed a five-year CBA Agreement entered into within six (6)
with the company. At the end of the third months from the date of expiry of the
year of the five-year term and pursuant to term of such other provisions as fixed in
the CBA, FVCLU-PTGWO and the company such Collective Bargaining Agreement,
entered into a re-negotiation of the CBA. shall retroact to the day immediately
following such date. If any such
9 days before the expiration of the agreement is entered into beyond six
originally-agreed CBA term, SANAMA- months, the parties shall agree on the
SIGLO filed before DOLE a petition for duration of retroactivity thereof. In case
certification election for the same rank- of a deadlock in the renegotiation of the
and-file covered by FVCLU-PTGWO. collective bargaining agreement, the
parties may exercise their rights under
FVCLU-PTGWO moved to dismiss this Code.
the petition on the ground that the
certification election petition was filed By express provision of the Article
outside the freedom period or outside the 253-A, the exclusive bargaining status
60 days before the expiration of the CBA. cannot go beyond five years and the
representation status is a legal matter not
The DOLE Acting Secretary held for the workplace parties to agree upon.
that the amended CBA, had been ratified
by members of the bargaining unit some Despite an agreement for a CBA
of whom later organized themselves as with a life of more than five years, either
SANAMA-SIGLO. as an original provision or by amendment,
the bargaining unions exclusive bargaining
Issue: Whether the amendment of the status is effective only for five years and
CBA extending its term carry with it an can be challenged within sixty (60) days
extension of the union’s exclusive prior to the expiration of the CBAs first
bargaining status? five years.
Facts: The petitioner Union of the Filipino Held: No, this case was certified when
Employees, the sole and exclusive existing rules prescribed that, it is
bargaining agent of all rank-and-file incumbent upon the Commission en banc
employees of Nestle Philippines, filed a to decide or resolve a certified dispute.
Notice of Strike at the DOLE raising the However, R.A. 6715 took effect during the
issues of CBA deadlock and unfair labor pendency of this case. Aside from vesting
practice. Private respondent assailed the upon each division the power to
legal personality of the proponents of the adjudicate cases filed before the
said notice of strike to represent the Commission, said Act further provides
Nestle employees, before the NCMB. that the divisions of the Commission shall
have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
Thereafter, Company terminated cases within their respective territorial
from employment all UFE Union officers, jurisdiction.
and all the members of the negotiating
panel for instigating and knowingly In view of the enactment of
participating in a strike. Republic Act 6715, the aforementioned
rules requiring the Commission en banc to
The union filed a complaint for decide or resolve a certified dispute have
illegal dismissal. Subsequently, company accordingly been repealed. Moreover, it is
concluded separate CBAs. Assailing the to be emphasized and it is a matter of
validity of these agreements, the union judicial notice that since the effectivity of
filed a case of ULP against the company R.A. 6715, many cases have already been
with the NLRC-NCR Arbitration Branch decided by the 5 divisions of the NLRC.
Efforts to resolve the dispute amicably We find no legal justification in
were taken by the NCMB but yielded entertaining petitioner’s claim considering
negative result. that the clear intent of the amendatory
Labor Relations 32
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
provision is to expedite the disposition of the CBA to the date of expiration of the
labor cases filed before the Commission. previous CBS. The Court ratiocinated thus:
In the absence of a specific provision of
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. THE law prohibiting retroactive of the
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR effectivity of arbitral awards issued by the
G.R. No. 127598 Secretary pursuant to article 263(g) of the
January 27, 1999 Labor Code, public respondent is deemed
Martinez, J. vested with the plenary and discretionary
powers to determine the effectivity
Facts: The court directed the parties to thereof.
execute a CBA incorporating the terms
involving wages. Dissatisfied, some In general, a CBA negotiated within
members of the union filed a motion for six months after the expiration of the
intervention/reconsideration. Petitioner existing CBA retroacts to the day
warns that is the wage increase of immediately following such date and if
Php2,000.00 per month as ordered is agreed thereafter, the effectivity depends
allowed, it would pass the cost covering on the agreement of the parties. On the
such increase to the consumers through other hand, the law is silent as to the
an increase rate of electricity. On the retroactivity of a CBA arbitral award or
retroactivity of the CBA arbitral award, the that granted not by virtue of the mutual
parties reckon the period as when agreement of the parties but by
retroaction shall commence. intervention of the government. In the
absence of a CBA, the Secretary’s
Issue: Whether the retroactivity of arbitral determination of the date of retroactivity
awards shall commence at such time as as part of his discretionary powers over
granted by Secretary? arbitral awards shall control.
Held: Yes, a deadlock developed during MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY vs. HON.
CBA negotiations between management SECRETARY OF LABOR
unions. The Secretary assumed G.R. No. 127598
jurisdiction and ordered the retroaction of February 22, 2000
Labor Relations 33
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO, ET AL. VS. ISSUE: Whether the Companies are guilty
INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO, ET AL. of ULP?
G.R. No. L-25291 January 30, 1971
HELD: YES. Indeed, it is an unfair labor
Facts: The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., practice for an employer operating under
Employees Association-NATU, FGU a collective bargaining agreement to
Insurance Group Workers & Employees negotiate or to attempt to negotiate with
Association-NATU, and Insular Life his employees individually in connection
Building Employees Association-NATU with changes in the agreement. And the
(hereinafter referred to as the Unions), basis of the prohibition regarding
while still members of the Federation of individual bargaining with the strikers is
Free Workers (FFW), entered into that although the union is on strike, the
separate collective bargaining agreements employer is still under obligation to
with the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. bargain with the union as the employees'
and the FGU Insurance Group (hereinafter bargaining representative (Melo Photo
referred to as the Companies). Supply Corporation vs. National Labor
Relations Board, 321 U.S. 332).
The Unions jointly submitted proposals to
the Companies for a modified renewal of Indeed, some such similar actions are
their respective collective bargaining illegal as constituting unwarranted acts of
contracts which were then due to expire interference. Thus, the act of a company
on September 30, 1957. The parties president in writing letters to the strikers,
mutually agreed and to make whatever urging their return to work on terms
benefits could be agreed upon inconsistent with their union membership,
retroactively effective October 1, 1957. was adjudged as constituting interference
Labor Relations 35
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
with the exercise of his employees' right security supervisors. Their services,
to collective bargaining (Lighter however, were severed in October 1991
Publishing, CCA 7th, 133 F2d 621). without valid cause and without due
process. Petitioners claimed that their
De Leon vs NLRC (2001) 358 SCRA 274 dismissal was part of respondents' design
to bust their newly-organized union which
FACTS: On August 23, 1980, Fortune sought to enforce their rights under the
Tobacco Corporation (FTC) and Fortune Labor Standards law.
Integrated Services, Inc. (FISI) entered into
a contract for security services where the Issue: W/N there was unfair labor practice
latter undertook to provide security commited
guards for the protection and security of
the former. The petitioners were among HELD: Yes. Respondent FTC is liable.
those engaged as security guards An examination of the FACTS of this case
pursuant to the contract. reveals that there is sufficient ground to
conclude that respondents were guilty of
On October 15, 1991, FTC terminated the interfering with the right of petitioners to
contract for security services which self-organization which constitutes unfair
resulted in the displacement of some five labor practice under Article 248 of the
hundred eighty-two (582) security guards Labor Code.
assigned by FISI/MISI to FTC, including the
petitioners. Petitioners alleged that they The records show that the two
were regular employees of FTC which was corporations had identical stockholders
also using the corporate names Fortune and the same business address. FISI also
Integrated Services, Inc. and Magnum had no other clients except FTC and other
Integrated Services, Inc. They were companies belonging to the Lucio Tan
assigned to work as security guards at the group of companies. Moreover, the early
company's main factory plant, its tobacco payslips of petitioners show that their
redrying plant and warehouse. They salaries were initially paid by FTC. To
averred that they performed their duties enforce their rightful benefits under the
under the control and supervision of FTC's laws on Labor Standards, petitioners
Labor Relations 36
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
formed a union which was later certified pretext that the result was on appeal,
as bargaining agent of all the security refused to sit down with the union for the
guards. purpose of entering into a collective
bargaining agreement. Moreover, the
The test of whether an employer has workers including NATIONAL FEDERATION
interfered with and coerced employees OF SUGARCANE WORKERS-FOOD AND
within the meaning of section (a) (1) is GENERAL TRADE herein were not given
whether the employer has engaged in work for more than one month. In
conduct which it may reasonably be said protest, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
tends to interfere with the free exercise of SUGARCANE WORKERS-FOOD AND
employees' rights under section 3 of the GENERAL TRADE staged a strike which was
Act, and it is not necessary that there be however settled upon the signing of a
direct evidence that any employee was in Memorandum of Agreement.
fact intimidated or coerced by statements
of threats of the employer if there is a Moreover, starting September 1991,
reasonable inference that anti-union HACIENDA FATIMA did not any more give
conduct of the employer does have an work assignments to the NATIONAL
adverse effect on self-organization and FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE WORKERS-
collective bargaining. FOOD AND GENERAL TRADE forcing the
union to stage a strike on January 2, 1992.
Hacienda Fatima vs. National Federation But due to the conciliation efforts by the
of Sugarcane Workers- Food and General DOLE, another Memorandum of
Trade Agreement was signed by the NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE WORKERS-
FACTS: It would appear that HACIENDA FOOD AND GENERAL TRADE and
FATIMA did not look with favor workers' HACIENDA FATIMA.
having organized themselves into a union.
Thus, when complainant union was Issue: Whether or not HACIENDA FATIMA
certified as the collective bargaining is guilty of unfair labor practice.
representative in the certification
elections, HACIENDA FATIMA under the
Labor Relations 37
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
HELD: YES. The NLRC also found herein FACTS: Garcia et.al. charged Prince
HACIENDA FATIMA guilty of unfair labor Transport with illegal dismissal, unfair
practice. It ruled as follows: labor practice and illegal deductions. They
alleged that they were hired either as
"Indeed, from HACIENDA FATIMA refusal drivers, conductors, mechanics or
to bargain, to their acts of economic inspectors, except for respondent
inducements resulting in the promotion of Diosdado Garcia (Garcia). In addition to
those who withdrew from the union, the their regular monthly income, they also
use of armed guards to prevent the received commissions equivalent to 8 to
organizers to come in, and the dismissal of 10% of their wages
union officials and members, one cannot
but conclude that HACIENDA FATIMA did Thereafter, the commissions were
not want a union in their hacienda—a reduced to 7 to 9%. Claros, the president
clear interference in the right of the of PTI made known to Garcia his objection
workers to self-organization." to the formation of a union.
We uphold the CA's affirmation of the Eventually, Garcia et.al. formed a union
above findings. Indeed, factual findings of for their mutual aid and protection. In
labor officials, who are deemed to have order to block the continued formation of
acquired expertise in matters within their the union, PTI caused the transfer of all
respective jurisdictions, are generally union members and sympathizers to one
accorded not only respect but even of its sub-companies, Lubas Transport
finality. Their findings are binding on the (Lubas).
Supreme Court. Verily, their conclusions
are accorded great weight upon appeal, PTI denied the in the complaints
especially when supported by substantial contending that Garcia et.al. were no
evidence. longer their employees, since they all
transferred to Lubas. PTI contends that it
PRINCE TRANSPORT, Inc. (PTI) vs. has nothing to do with the management
DIOSDADO GARCIA et.al. and operations of Lubas.
Labor Relations 38
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
ISSUE: W/N there was unfair labor bargaining agent of the Divine Word
practice University. The union submitted its
proposals on March 7, 1985. The
HELD. Yes, In the case at bench, University’s reply requested that a
petitioners are being accused of violations preliminary conference be HELD on May
of paragraphs (a), (c), and (e) of Article 28, 1985. Before the conference the VP of
257 (formerly Article 248) of the Labor the union resigned and withdrew the
Code. proposals hence the PC was cancelled.
Indeed, such were all orchestrated to After three years, the affiliate of the
restrict respondents’ free exercise of their union, Associated Labor Union, requested
right to self-organization. Petitioner’s a conference with the University for the
actions prior and immediately before the purposes of continuing the bargaining
scheduled certification election, while negotiations. Not having heard from the
seemingly innocuous, unduly meddled in university, a follow up request was sent
the affairs of its employees in selecting and warned the university from
their exclusive bargaining representative. interference. The university maintained it
The fact and peculiar timing of the field silence.
trip sponsored by petitioners for its
employees not affiliated with THS-GQ The union thereafter filed a notice of
Union, although a positive enticement, strike on the grounds of bargaining
was undoubtedly extraneous influence deadlock and ULP, refusal to bargain,
designed to impede respondents in their discrimination and coercion. Conferences
quest to be certified. were HELD after the filing of the notice of
strike and the parties came to an
DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN agreement.
VS SECRETARY OF LABOR
The union then submitted proposals
FACTS: On Sept 6, 1984 the med-arbiter which were again ignored by the
certified the Divine Word University university. Marathon conciliations were
Employees Union as the sole and exclusive HELD to no avail.
Labor Relations 40
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
the employer was ordered to reinstate whimsicality. Beloncio was merely trying
her. her best to make a hotel bus boy do his
work promptly and courteously so as to
ISSUES: Is petitioner union is guilty of ULP serve hotel customers in the coffee shop
by reason of the arbitrary use of the union expeditiously and cheerfully. Union
security clause in the CBA? membership does not entitle waiters,
janitors, and other workers to be sloppy in
HELD: Yes. The Hotel would not have their work, inattentive to customers, and
compelled Beloncio to go on forced leave disrespectful to supervisors. The Union
were it not for the union's insistence and should have disciplined its erring and
demand to the extent that because of the troublesome members instead of causing
failure of the hotel to dismiss Beloncio as so much hardship to a member who was
requested, the union filed a notice of only doing her work for the best interests
strike with the Ministry of Labor and of the employer, all its employees, and
Employment on the issue of unfair labor the general public whom they serve.
practice. Although the CBA contained a
union security clause or closed-shop General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free
agreement, it is, however, stressed that Workers Union v. Coca Cola Bottlers
such are also governed by law and by
principles of justice, fair play, and legality. FACTS: Sometime in the late 1990s, CCBPI
Union security clauses cannot be used by experienced a significant decline in
union officials against an employer, much profitability due to the Asian economic
less their own members, except with a crisis, decrease in sales, and tougher
high sense of responsibility, competition. To curb the negative effects
fairness, prudence, and judiciousness. on the company, it implemented three (3)
A union member may not be expelled waves of an Early Retirement Program.
from her union, and consequently from Meanwhile, there was an inter-office
her job, for personal or impetuous memorandum sent to all of CCBPI's Plant
reasons or for causes foreign to the Human Resources Managers/Personnel
closed-shop agreement and in a manner Officers, including those of the CCBPI
characterized by arbitrariness and General Santos Plant (CCBPI Gen San)
Labor Relations 42
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
mandating them to put on hold "all strike and certifying the dispute to the
requests for hiring to fill in vacancies in NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
both regular and temporary positions in
[the] Head Office and in the Plants." ISSUE: Whether CCBPI's contracting-out of
Because several employees availed of the jobs to JLBP amounted to unfair labor
early retirement program, vacancies were practice.
created in some departments, including
the production department of CCBPI Gen HELD: No. An examination of the issues
San, where members of petitioner Union raised by petitioner reveals that they are
worked. This prompted petitioner to questions of fact. Factual findings of the
negotiate with the Labor Management NLRC, an administrative agency deemed
Committee for filling up the vacancies to have acquired expertise in matters
with permanent employees. No resolution within its jurisdiction, are generally
was reached on the matter. accorded not only respect but finality
especially when such factual findings are
On January 21, 2002, petitioner filed with affirmed by the CA.
the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board (NCMB) a Notice of Strike on the The SC found no reversible error in the
ground of alleged unfair labor practice assailed Decision.
committed by CCBPI Gen San for
contracting-out services regularly Article 248 of the Labor Code provides:
performed by union members ("union ART. 248. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OF
busting"). However, parties failed to EMPLOYERS. - It shall be unlawful for an
amicably settle. employer to commit any of the following
unfair labor practices:
CCBPI filed a Petition for Assumption of x x x(c) To contract out services or
Jurisdiction with the Office of the functions being performed by union
Secretary of Labor and Employment. On members when such will interfere with,
July 26, 2002, the Secretary of Labor restrain or coerce employees in the
issued an Order enjoining the threatened exercise of their right to self-organization;
xxx
Labor Relations 43
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Unfair labor practice refers to "acts that On 3 March 2000, the Union filed with the
violate the workers' right to organize." Department of Labor and Employment
The prohibited acts are related to the (DOLE) all the requirements for its
workers' right to self-organization and to registration. The Union acquired its
the observance of a CBA. Without that legitimate registration status on 30 March
element, the acts, even if unfair, are not 2000. Subsequently, it submitted letters
unfair labor practices. to MMC relating its intention to bargain
collectively. On 11 July 2001, the Union
Both the NLRC and the CA found that submitted its Collective Bargaining
petitioner was unable to prove its charge Agreement (CBA) proposal to MMC.
of unfair labor practice. It was the Union
that had the burden of adducing The labor arbiter ruled in favor of MMC
substantial evidence to support its and HELD that the temporary shutdown of
allegations of unfair labor practice, which the mining operation, as well as the
burden it failed to discharge. temporary lay-off of the employees, is
valid.
Manila Mining Corp. Employees v. Manila
Mining Corp Issue: Whether the suspension of the
negotiation for a CBA constitutes unfair
FACTS: Respondent Manila Mining labor practice.
Corporation (MMC) is a publicly-listed
corporation engaged in large-scale mining HELD: No. Despite all efforts exerted by
for gold and copper ore. MMC is required MMC, it did not succeed in obtaining the
by law to maintain a tailings containment consent of the residents of the community
facility to store the waste material where the tailings pond would operate,
generated by its mining operations. one of the conditions imposed by DENR-
Consequently, MMC constructed several EMB in granting its application for a
tailings dams to treat and store its waste permanent permit. It is precisely MMCs
materials. faultless failure to secure a permit which
caused the temporary shutdown of its
mining operations.
Labor Relations 44
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Neither did the striking workers observe The Union, led by petitioners Arquilao
the strike vote by secret ballot, cooling-off Bacolod and Rene Arao, picketed the
period and reporting requirements. premises of the Philippine Eagle
Protectors to show their displeasure on
LAPANDAY WORKERS UNION, et al. VS. the hiring of the guards. It accused the
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS company of unfair labor practices
COMMISSION & DEVELOPMENT consisting of coercion of employees,
CORPORATION intimidation of union members and union-
busting.
FACTS:
Private respondents are sister companies On October 3, 1988, a strike vote was
engaged in the production of bananas. canducted among the members of the
Their agricultural establishments are Union and those in favor of the strike won
located in Davao City. overwhelming support from the workers.
The result of the strike vote was then
On the other hand, petitioner Lapanday submitted to the NCMB.
Workers' Union (Union) is the duly
certified bargaining agent of the rank and ISSUE: Whether the strike legal?
file employees of private respondents.
Records show that petitioner Union has a HELD: NO. We rule that strike conducted
CBA with private respondents. A few by the union on October 12, 1988 is
months before the expiration of their CBA, plainly illegal as it was HELD within th
private respondents initiated certain seven (7) day waiting period provided for
management policies which disrupted the by paragraph (f), Article 263 of the Labor
relationship of the parties. Code, as amended.
They were warned that failure to submit passage to and from the employer’s
their explanations within the prescribed premises for lawful purposes. The
period would be construed as waiver of sanction provided in par. (a) of Art. 264
their right to be heard. The company thereof is so severe that “any worker or
directive was apparently triggered by union officer who knowingly participates
some violent incidents that took place in the commission of illegal acts during a
while the strike was in progress. Strikers strike may be declared to have lost his
reportedly blocked all points of ingress employment status.
and egress of the company premises in GREPALIFE submitted before the Labor
Makati City thus preventing GREPALIFE Arbiter several affidavits of its employees
employees reporting for work from which de la Rosa did not refute. With
entering their respective offices. These these documents, two (2) specifically
employees and third persons doing described the incidents that transpired
business with the company, including during the strike that the Union’s Officers
lessees of the GREPALIFE building, were and Employees had participated and
allegedly forced by the strikers to submit employed such illegal acts.
their cars/vehicles, bags and other
belongings to illegal search. Thus, declaring the staged strike illegal
and from that will not constitute ULP.
Issue: Whether or not the strike was a Assoc. Of Independent Unions in the
valid exercise Phils. Vs. NLRC
HELD: No. The strike was not valid FACTS: Joel Densing, Henedino
Mirafuentes, Christopher Patentes, and
The right to strike, while constitutionally Andres Tejana, the petitioners herein,
recognized, is not without legal were casual employees of respondent
constrictions. The Labor Code is emphatic CENAPRO Chemicals Corporation. In the
against the use of violence, coercion and said company, the collective bargaining
intimidation during a strike and to this representative of all rank and file
end prohibits the obstruction of free employees was CENAPRO Employees
Labor Relations 48
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
HELD: The workers did not stage a mass FACTS: The Union submitted to the
leave. The accusation is for engaging in a Company its proposals for the
mass leave tantamount to an illegal strike. renegotiation of the non-representation
The term “Mass Leave” has been left aspects of their CBA. As there was a
undefined by the Labor Code. Plainly, the standstill on several issues, the parties
legislature intended that the term’s submitted their dispute to the National
ordinary sense be used. “Mass” is defined Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB)
Labor Relations 50
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
for preventive mediation. The conciliation The company assailed the CA decision
proceedings failed. decreasing the penalty of the union
On July 13, 1998, the Union filed a Notice officers while the Union and its dismissed
of Strike with the NCMB for unfair labor officers assailed the decision declaring the
practice due to the alleged acts of strike illegal.
“restraint and coercion of union members
and interference with their right to self- ISSUE: Whether or not the Union’s strike
organization” committed by the Company is illegal.
to wit:
HELD: YES. Article 263 of the Labor Code,
Preventing employees from displaying outline the following procedural
Union flags and CBA’s slogans. requirements for a valid strike.
Utilizing security guards to harass In the case at bar, the Union staged the
employees who participate in Union strike on the same day that it filed its
activities by requiring the guards to take second notice of strike. The Union
down the names of employees who violated the seven-day strike ban. This
participate in the Union activities.6 requirement should be observed to give
the Department of Labor and Employment
The Union filed a second Notice of Strike8 (DOLE) an opportunity to verify whether
with the NCMB on the grounds of: a) the projected strike really carries the
union busting, for the alleged refusal of approval of the majority of the union
the Company to turn over union funds; members.
and b) the mass promotion of union
members during the CBA negotiation, Toyota Motor Phis Workers Assn.
allegedly aimed at excluding them from (TMPCWA) vs. NLRC 537 SCRA 171 (2007)
the bargaining unit during the CBA
negotiation. On the same day, the Union FACTS: Toyota challenged the Order made
went on strike. by the DOLE Secretary declaring the Union
as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
of all the Toyota rank and file employees.
Labor Relations 51
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
In the meantime, the Union submitted its committed on May 23 and 28, 2001
CBA proposals to Toyota, but the latter should be HELD as illegal strikes.
refused to negotiate in view of its pending
appeal. Consequently, the Union filed a HELD: YES. The alleged protest rallies in
notice of strike on January 16, 2001 based front of the offices of BLR and DOLE
on Toyotas refusal to bargain. Secretary and at the Toyota plants
constituted illegal strikes
Toyota filed a petition to declare the
strike illegal. The DOLE Secretary issued A strike means any temporary stoppage of
an Order directing all striking workers to work by the concerted action of
return to work at their regular shifts by employees as a result of an industrial or
April 16, 2001. On the other hand, it labor dispute. A labor dispute, in turn,
ordered Toyota to accept the returning includes any controversy or matter
employees under the same terms and concerning terms or conditions of
conditions obtaining prior to the strike or employment or the association or
at its option, put them under payroll representation of persons in negotiating,
reinstatement. The parties were also fixing, maintaining, changing, or arranging
enjoined from committing acts that may the terms and conditions of employment,
worsen the situation. The Union ended regardless of whether the disputants
the strike on April 12, 2001. The union stand in the proximate relation of the
members and officers tried to return to employer and the employee.
work on April 16, 2001 but were told that
Toyota opted for payroll-reinstatement With respect to the strikes committed
authorized by the Order of the DOLE from March 17 to April 12, 2001, those
Secretary. were initially legal as the legal
requirements were met.
Issue: Whether the Union officers and
members act of holding the protest rallies However, on March 28 to April 12, 2001,
in front of the BLR office and the Office of the Union barricaded the gates of the
the Secretary of Labor and Employment Bicutan and Sta. Rosa plants and blocked
on February 22 and 23, 2001 and those the free ingress to and egress from the
Labor Relations 52
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
FACTS: Respondent union filed petition After respondent union was certified as
for certification election. The Med-Arbiter the bargaining agent of CMC, it invited the
granted the petition for certification employer hospital to the bargaining table
election. Respondent Capitol Medical by submitting its economic proposal for a
Center (CMC) appealed to the Office of CBA. However, CMC refused to negotiate
the Secretary. But the Order granting the with respondent union and instead
certification election was affirmed. challenged the latter’s legal personality
through a petition for cancellation of the
Subsequently, elections were HELD with certificate of registration which eventually
respondent union garnering 204 votes, reached this Court. The decision affirming
168 in favor of no union and 8 spoiled the legal status of respondent union
ballots out of a total of 380 votes cast. should have left CMC with no other
Labor Relations 53
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Petitioners failed to present sufficient Biflex Phils Labor Union v. Fiflex Int’l and
proof to support the allegation of illegal Mig.
lock-out. No evidence was adduced by the
Union to show that the Bank really FACTS: Petitioners in this case were the
refused them employment during the officers of Biflex (Phils.) Inc. Labor Union
pendency of the strike. As to the and Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing
allegation that the Bank was interfering Labor Union.
with and restraining the employees in the
Labor Relations 55
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
On October 24, 1990, the labor sector Employees who have no labor dispute
staged a welga ng bayan to protest the with their employer but who, on a day
accelerating prices of oil. On even date, they are scheduled to work, refuse to
petitioner-unions, led by their officers, work and instead join a welga ng bayan
herein petitioners, staged a work commit an illegal work stoppage.
stoppage which lasted for several days,
prompting respondents to file on October Even if petitioners' joining the welga ng
31, 1990 a petition to declare the work bayan were considered merely as an
stoppage illegal for failure to comply with exercise of their freedom of expression,
procedural requirements. freedom of assembly or freedom to
petition the government for redress of
Petitioners further assert that grievances, the exercise of such rights is
respondents were "slighted" by the not absolute. For the protection of other
workers' no-show, and as a punishment, significant state interests such as the
the workers as well as petitioners were "right of enterprises to reasonable returns
barred from entering the company on investments, and to expansion and
premises. growth" enshrined in the 1987
Constitution must also be considered,
ISSUE: Whether or not the staged strike is otherwise, oppression or self-destruction
illegal and a ground for the lost of of capital in order to promote the
employment status of the union officers interests of labor would be sanctioned.
There being no showing that petitioners
HELD: YES Stoppage of work due to welga notified respondents of their intention, or
ng bayan is in the nature of a general that they were allowed by respondents, to
strike, an extended sympathy strike. It join the welga ng bayan on October 24,
affects numerous employers including 1990, their work stoppage is beyond legal
those who do not have a dispute with protection.
their employees regarding their terms and
conditions of employment. Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast v.
NLRC
Labor Relations 56
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
FACTS: Petitioner and Nagkakaisang Lakas unfair labor practice, union busting and
ng Manggagawa sa Stayfast (NLMS-Olalia) illegal lockout against respondent
sought to be the exclusive bargaining company and its General Manager, Maria
agent of the employees of respondent Almeida, in the NLRC.
company, Stayfast Philippines, Inc. A
certification election was conducted. ISSUE: Whether the strike valid?
For garnering 109 of 223 votes, the Med- HELD: NO, according to the NLRC, the
Arbiter who supervised the certification actuations of petitioner were patently
election issued an Order certifying NLMS- illegal because the sit-down strike staged
Olalia as the sole and exclusive bargaining on July 21, 1997 was made barely a week
agent of all rank and file employees of after petitioner withdrew its notice of
respondent company. strike, with prejudice, on account of the
concessions agreed upon by the parties.
Petitioner appealed the Order of the Med- Petitioner filed no new notice of strike
Arbiter to the Secretary of Labor of that could have supported its charges of
Employment which denied the same. discriminatory acts and unfair labor
Petitioner elevated the matter via petition practice.
for certiorari to this Court.
Petitioner’s case rests on the alleged
NLMS-Olalia demanded to collectively discriminatory acts of respondent
bargain with respondent company. The company against petitioner’s officers and
latter rejected petitioner’s demand, members. However, both the Labor
insisting that it would negotiate a Arbiter and the NLRC HELD that there was
collective bargaining agreement only with no sufficient proof of respondent
whichever union is finally certified as the company’s alleged discriminatory acts.
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the Thus, petitioner’s unfair labor practice,
workers. union-busting and unlawful lockout claims
do not hold water. Moreover, the
Consequently, on July 23, 1997, petitioner established FACTS as found by the NLRC
staged a strike and filed a complaint for are as follows: the "sit-down strike" made
Labor Relations 57
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
termination of employment rests with the On August 16, 1954 a day before the date
employer. Failure to discharge this set for the second conference, MARITIMA
evidentiary burden would necessarily concluded with another labor union, the
mean that the dismissal was not justified Marine Officers Association of the
and, therefore, illegal. Unsubstantiated Philippines (MOAP) a collective bargaining
suspicions, accusations, and conclusions agreement covering the Maritima officers
of employers do not provide for legal and engineers. The second conference
justification for dismissing employees. In was HELD as scheduled, but the parties
case of doubt, such cases should be were unable to come to any settlement of
resolved in favor of labor, pursuant to the their disputes.
social justice policy of labor laws and the
Constitution. PHILIPPINE MARINE OFFICERS' GUILD
pertains to three (3) alleged unfair labor
Phil. Marine Officers Guild v. Compania practices committed by MARITIMA.
Maritima
Issue: Whether or not PHILIPPINE MARINE
FACTS: The respondents Compañia OFFICERS' GUILD committed unfair labor
Maritima, Philippine Steamship practices.
Navigation Company and Madrigal
Shipping Company [hereinafter referred HELD: NO. PHILIPPINE MARINE OFFICERS'
to as MARITIMA, PHILSTEAM, and GUILD did not commit unfair labor
MADRIGAL, respectively, and as practices.
COMPANIES jointly] are domestic
corporations engaged in the operation of The court found that the slaying of
motor ships and vessels in the different Modesto Rodriguez was manifestly
ports of the Philippines, while the committed without the concurrence of
petitioner, Philippine Marine Officers' the will of Alarcon as it has not been
Guild (hereinafter referred to as PMOG), is proved that he participated or agreed
a labor organization composed of marine with the criminal design of the actual
officers and engineers. killer. As has been heretofore stated, the
presence of Alarcon in the scene of the
Labor Relations 59
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
commotion was for the purpose of the individual ship owners with the
performing his duty as security guard of Department of Labor Davao Office.
the Compañia Maritima, and not to kill or
harm anybody. The Chief of the Labor Operations Section
of the Davao Office requested for a
Accordingly, it cannot be said that in this conference to solve the conflict. Both
particular connection MARITIMA parties reached a covenant stating the
interfered with the freedom of the strikers withdrawal of the Notice of Strike, as well
to pursue union activities. as the observance of the status quo
regarding the jobs incident to the
United Seamen’s Union of the Phils businesses of the DSA and the withdrawal
(USUP) v. Davao Shipowners Assn (DSA) of the civil case of the DMA against the
USUP.
FACTS: On August 4, 1959, USUP
demanded from DSA union recognition, The shipping companies filed a petition
union security, standardization of wages for writ of injunction, as a necessity due to
and other benefits. irreparable damage to properties due to
“coercion, violence and illegal picketing”.
In response, the ship owners (DSA)
brought to the attention of the USUP the The USUP filed an unfair labor practice
existence of a CBA with the Davao Marine (ULP) case against the ship owners and
Association (DMA), where all of the DSA, alleging that the ship owners
crewmen of their launches belonged. DSA interfered, and continued to interfere
suggested to the USUP that they first take with their right to self-organization by
the necessary steps for certification as the discrimination against employees.
collective bargaining agent, as the ship
owners were bound by the CBA. Issue:
Did CIR gravely abused its discretion by
However, even before receiving the ship declaring the strike as illegal?
owner’s response to its demands, the
USUP had filed a Notice of Strike against
Labor Relations 60
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
HELD: The Supreme Court found that the right of the union (referring to the DMA)
USUP’s Notice of Strike was but a direct to notification and to ask reconsideration
offshoot of the “losing effort” to compel of any action of the Employer in the
the DSA and the ship owners to recognize premises."
USUP as the sole collective bargaining
agent of the employees, to the exclusion Allied Banking Corp v. NLRC
of the DMA as the existing collective G.R. No. 116128
bargaining agent of the DSA. July 12, 1996
First, the Court noted that the USUP filed FACTS: The dispute between petitioner
its Notice of Strike even before its receipt and respondent Union started when their
of the ship owner’s answers to its set of collective bargaining agreement which
demands, thereby showing that the USUP was to expire on June 30, 1984 came up
was already set on continuing the strike for renewal. They failed to reach an
with or without the answer of the ship amicable settlement particularly on the
owners. This, according to the Court was a wage increase issue. Respondent Union
clear showing that USUP was aware of the thereupon filed a notice of strike with the
existence of DMA as a valid collective Bureau of Labor Relations.
bargaining agent, operating as a legal bar
to entertaining USUP’s demands. On December 16, 1984, then Minister of
Labor and Employment, Blas Ople
Second, the Court stated that USUP assumed jurisdiction over the dispute
completely disturbed the status quo the pursuant to Article 263 (g) of the Labor
return to normal and original operating Code of the Philippines, as amended.
practices through the strike that was done
by USUP. By striking, USUP impaired The parties failed to break the deadlock
existing CBA between the ship owners and and so, Minister Ople issued an Order,
the DMA which recognized "the right of dated January 31, 1985, directing them to
the Employer to hire, promote and incorporate in their collective agreement
transfer and for legal cause suspend, lay- the awards granted.
off or discharge employees subject to the
Labor Relations 61
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
reported the strike vote to the DOLE and, recourse to voluntary arbitration in
after the observance of the mandatory settling their disputes.
cooling-off period, went on strike.
No law or public policy prohibits the
The company filed a petition for the Union and the Company from mutually
issuance of a writ of preliminary waiving the strike and lockout maces
injunction with prayer for the issuance of available to them to give way to voluntary
a TRO with the NLRC to enjoin the strikers arbitration. Indeed, no less than the 1987
from intimidating, threatening, molesting, Constitution recognizes in Section 3,
and impeding by barricade the entry of Article XIII, preferential use of voluntary
non-striking employees at the Companys means to settle disputes. The Court finds
premises. However, several attempts to no compelling reason to depart from the
implement the writ failed. findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC,
and the CA regarding the illegality of the
ISSUES: Whether or not the Union staged strike. Social justice is not one-sided. It
an illegal strike (YES) cannot be used as a badge for not
complying with a lawful agreement.
HELD: Yes. A strike may be regarded as
invalid although the labor union has CLUB FILIPINO, INC. v. BENJAMIN
complied with the strict requirements for BAUTISTA
staging one as provided in Article 263 of G.R. No. 168406
the Labor Code when the same is HELD January 14, 2015
contrary to an existing agreement, such as
a no strike clause or conclusive arbitration FACTS: Before CLUFEA and Club Filipino,
clause. Here, the CBA between the parties Inc.’s last collective bargaining agreement
contained a no strike, no lockout provision expired and within the 60-day freedom
that enjoined both the Union and the period, CLUFEA had made several
Company from resorting to the use of demands on Club Filipino, Inc. to
economic weapons available to them negotiate a new agreement. Club Filipino,
under the law and to instead take Inc., however, replied that its Board of
Labor Relations 63
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Directors could not muster a quorum to Issue: Whether Union Members who
negotiate with CLUFEA. participated in an illegal strike be awarded
of separation pay?
CLUFEA then formally submitted its
proposals to Club Filipino Inc.’s HELD: In an action for declaration of illegal
negotiating panel. Still, Club Filipino, Inc. strike, the cause of action is premised on a
failed to negotiate. To compel Club union or a labor organization’s conduct of
Filipino, Inc. to negotiate with it, CLUFEA a strike without compliance with the
filed before the National Conciliation and statutory requirements.
Mediation Board (NCMB) a request for
preventive mediation. On the other hand, in an action for illegal
dismissal, the cause of action is premised
The negotiating panels of CLUFEA and on an employer’s alleged dismissal of an
Club Filipino, Inc. finally met on April 5, employee without a just or authorized
2001. However, the meeting ended with cause as provided under Articles 282, 283,
the parties’ respective panels declaring a and 284 of the Labor Code.
deadlock in negotiation.
In respondents’ action for illegal dismissal,
Thus, CLUFEA filed with the NCMB a respondents were found to have been
Notice of Strike on the ground of dismissed by virtue of a valid
bargaining deadlock. Club Filipino, Inc. retrenchment program. The NLRC then
filed before the National Capital Regional ordered that they be paid separation pay
Arbitration Branch of the National Labor based on the parties’ collective bargaining
Relations Commission (NLRC) a Petition to agreement.
Declare [CLUFEA’s] Strike Illegal.
According to Club Filipino, Inc., CLUFEA In petitioner Club Filipino, Inc.’s action for
failed to file a Notice of Strike and to declaration of illegal strike, the Labor
conduct a strike vote, in violation of the Arbiter’s finding that respondents
legal requirements for staging a strike. conducted an illegal strike resulted in
their dismissal. Respondents were
ordered to receive separation pay "similar
Labor Relations 64
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
in terms with those offered to the FACTS: In July 1990, San Miguel
employees affected by the retrenchment Corporation, alleging the need to
program of the club." streamline its operations due to financial
losses, shut down some of its plants and
Thus, to prevent double compensation, declared 55 positions as redundant.
the Court of Appeals ordered that those Consequently, the private respondent
who already retired and received their union filed several grievance cases for the
benefits may no longer claim full said retrenched employees, praying for
backwages, benefits, and separation pay the redeployment of the said employees
under the decision in the illegal strike to the other divisions of the company.
case. This is with respect to respondents
Benjamin Bautista and Laureno Fegalquin During the grievance proceedings,
who already executed their quitclaims. however, most of the employees were
redeployed, while others accepted early
In the present case where the recipients retirement. In a meeting on October 26,
are responsible union officers who have 1990, petitioner informed private
regularly acted in behalf of their members respondent union that if by October 30,
in the discharge of their union duties and 1990, the remaining 17 employees could
where there is no direct evidence of not yet be redeployed, their services
coercion or vitiation of consent, we would be terminated on November 2,
believe we can safely conclude that the 1990. The said meeting adjourned when
petitioners Bautista and Fegalquin fully Mr. Daniel S. L. Borbon II, a representative
knew that they entered into when they of the union, declared that there was
accepted their retirement benefits and nothing more to discuss in view of the
when they executed their quitclaims. deadlock.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a valid Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corp v. NLRC
notice of strike.
FACTS: Respondent National Labor Union-
HELD: Collective Bargaining Deadlock is Trade Union Congress of the Philippines
defined as the situation between the labor (NLU-TUCP), a national federation of labor
and the management of the company unions, filed with the then Ministry of
where there is failure in the collective Labor and Employment, in behalf of its
bargaining negotiations resulting in a local chapter, the Filipino Pipe Workers
stalemate. This situation, is non-existent Union-National Labor Union (FPWU-NLU,
in the present case since there is a Board hereinafter referred to as Union), a notice
assigned on the third level (Step 3) of the of strike signed by its national president,
grievance machinery to resolve the Atty. Eulogio R. Lerum, against the
conflicting views of the parties. Instead of petitioner, Filipino Pipe and Foundry
asking the Conciliation Board composed of Corporation, alleging as grounds therefor
five representatives each from the union busting and non-implementation of
company and the union, to decide the the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
conflict, petitioner declared a deadlock,
and thereafter, filed a notice of strike. For The initial conciliation conference was set
failing to exhaust all the steps in the on February 24, 1986 but due to lack of
grievance machinery and arbitration notice thereof to petitioner company, as
proceedings provided in the Collective well as the failure of FPWU-NLU to furnish
Bargaining Agreement, the notice of strike the latter a copy of the notice of strike,
should have been dismissed by the NLRC the initial conciliation conference was re-
and private respondent union ordered to set to March 3, 1986.
proceed with the grievance and
arbitration proceedings. In the case of On April 8, 1986, petitioner company
Liberal Labor Union vs. Phil. Can Co., the interposed before the Arbitration Branch
court declared as illegal the strike staged of the then Ministry of Labor and
by the union for not complying with the Employment, a petition to declare the
grievance procedure provided in the strike illegal.
collective bargaining agreement
Labor Relations 66
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
the strong probability that there was no characterized as having been made in
strike vote taken. good faith.
ISSUE: Whether the strike valid? Indeed, there is no finding in this case that
petitioner was guilty of the alleged unfair
HELD: NO. Even assuming that a strike labor practices as charged by the Union.
vote had been taken, we agree with
petitioner that the Union nevertheless People’s Indl & Comml. V. PICC
failed to observe the required seven-day
strike ban from the date the strike vote FACTS: FFW filed a case for unfair labor
should have been reported to the DOLE practice (ULP) against People’s Industrial
up to the time the Union staged the strike and Commercial Corp. (PICC).
on June 17, 1986. As the records will bear The Federation of Tenants and Labor
out, the private respondent had clearly Organization (FTLO) entered into a CBA
acted in bad faith when it went on strike. with PICC. Thereafter, an election of union
officers of FTLO Rizal Chapter was
Annex F of the petition (June 13, 1986 conducted.
Minutes of Conciliation Proceedings)
attached to the records of the case, shows Ernesto Pagayatan, as president, filed a
that at the time the strike was staged, notice of strike, alleging as cause the
conciliation meetings were going on. In employer's refusal to bargain. PICC
fact, said Annex F reveals that the parties dismissed Ernesto Pagayatan and his
met in a conciliation meeting on June 13, companions from employment.
1986 and agreed to meet further on June
17, 1986 at 2:00 P.M. (Please see Annex Petitioner-union, through its president,
F). Instead of meeting with petitioner on signified the intention to return to work.
the scheduled conciliation meeting on None of the strikers, however, were
June 17, 1986 as agreed upon, private allowed to work.
respondent went on strike. Certainly, this
act of the private respondent cannot be
Labor Relations 68
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
FTLO filed a case for unfair labor practice Manufacturing Employees Associations
in staging an illegal strike after they were FTUP and its members, with unfair labor
already dismissed from the company. practice for declaring a strike on October
5, 1963 and picketing the company's
Issue: Was the strike conducted by the premises without filing a notice of strike in
employees valid (due to ULP)? spite of the existence of a no strike, no
lockout clause and grievance procedure in
the collective bargaining agreement
HELD: Yes. We do not agree with the entered into between the petitioner and
finding of the Hearing Officer that the the Union.
strike was staged to force recognition.
Since the strike of the union was in In their answer, the Union and its
response to what it was warranted in members denied the charge and, alleged
believing in good faith to be unfair labor that the Union requested the
practice on the part of the management, management for a grievance conference,
said strike did not result in the but the company, through its General
termination of the striking members' Manager, refused and instead handed the
status as employees. Union's President a memorandum
dismissing him from work and told the
It is not even required that there be in fact Union members not to report for work,
an unfair labor practice committed by the which is in violation of the no lockout and
employer. It suffices, if such a belief in no strike clause of the contract.
good faith is entertained by labor as the
inducing factor for staging a strike. Issue: Whether the strike declared by the
Union on October 5, 1963, is legal or not?
PHILIPPINE METAL FOUNDRIES INC., v.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS HELD: The strike declared by the Union in
G.R. No. L-34948-49 this case cannot be considered a violation
May 15, 1979 of the "no strike" clause of the Collective
FACTS: Petitioner, in its complaint dated Bargaining Agreement because it was due
November 21, 1963 charged the Regal to the unfair labor practice of the
Labor Relations 69
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
ISSUE: Whether or not the strike was the Union reached a deadlock in their
illegal because of the no-strike clause (NO) negotiations for a new collective
bargaining agreement. On August 28,
HELD: No. It is non-economic in nature. 1995, the Union filed a Notice of Strike
Much more than an economic issue, the with the National Conciliation and
said practice of the Corporation was a Mediation Board (NCMB). The Acting
blatant violation of the CBA —and unfair DOLESec intervened and assumed
labor practice on the part of the employer jurisdiction over the dispute and thus
under Article 248(i) of the Labor Code. enjoined any strike or lockout, whether
actual or intended, between the parties.
All told, the strike staged by the
petitioners was a legal one even though it Despite the assumption Order, the Union
may have been called to offset what the struck on September 14, 1995. Two (2)
strikers believed in good faith to be unfair days later, Notice of the Return-to-Work
labor practices on the part of the Order was sent to the striking Union
employer (Ferrer, et al. vs. Court of members but still some of them refused
Industrial Relations, et al., 17 SCRA 352 to heed the order and continued with
[1966]). Verily, such presumption of their picket. On September 23, 1995,
legality prevails even if the allegations of violence erupted in the picket lines. The
unfair labor practices are subsequently service bus ferrying non-striking workers
found out to be untrue. was stoned, causing injuries to its
passengers. Thereafter, complaints for
TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTORS threats, defamation, illegal detention and
EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW, et al. vs CA and physical injuries were filed against the
TEMIC TELEFUNKEN MICROELECTRONICS, strikers.
(PHILS.), INC.
G.R. NOS. 143013-14 The Company thereafter issued letters of
December 18, 2000 termination for cause to the workers who
did not report back to work despite the
FACTS: The labor dispute started on Notice of Assumption and Return-to-Work
August 25, 1995 when the Company and Orders.
Labor Relations 71
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
the UNION and remain employed as absolute, but subject to exceptions. One
confidential employees or resign from of these exceptions is when the Secretary
their confidential positions and remain of Labor assumes jurisdiction over labor
members of the UNION. disputes involving industries indispensable
to the national interest under Article
UNION filed another notice of strike, this 263(g) of the Labor Code
time citing as a reason the UNIVERSITYs
termination of the individual respondents. When the Secretary of Labor ordered the
UNIVERSITY to suspend the effect of the
ISSUE: Whether or not the Secretary of termination of the individual respondents,
Labor, after assuming jurisdiction over a the Secretary did not exceed her
labor dispute involving an employer and jurisdiction, nor did the Secretary gravely
the certified bargaining agent of a group abuse the same. It must be pointed out
of employees in the workplace, may that one of the substantive evils which
legally order said employer to reinstate Article 263(g) of the Labor Code seeks to
employees terminated by the employer curb is the exacerbation of a labor dispute
even if those terminated employees are to the further detriment of the national
not part of the bargaining unit. interest.
HELD: Yes. In Metrolab Industries, Inc. v. The act of the UNIVERSITY of dismissing
Roldan-Confessor, this Court declared that the individual respondents from their
it recognizes the exercise of management employment became the impetus for the
prerogatives and it often declines to UNION to declare a second notice of
interfere with the legitimate business strike. It is not a question anymore of
decisions of the employer. This is in whether or not the terminated
keeping with the general principle employees, the individual respondents
embodied in Article XIII, Section 3 of the herein, are part of the bargaining unit.
Constitution, which is further echoed in Any act committed during the pendency
Article 211 of the Labor Code.However, as of the dispute that tends to give rise to
expressed in PAL v. National Labor further contentious issues or increase the
Relations Commission, this privilege is not tensions between the parties should be
Labor Relations 73
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
by the parties, hence, it has the force and After a few months, despite the dismissal
effect of a valid contract obligation. of their petition, the Union sent a letter to
the Hotel informing the latter of its desire
Yes. In labor cases pending before the to negotiate for a collective bargaining
Commission or the Labor Arbiter [in this agreement. The Hotel, however, refused
case, the Secretary of Labor], the rules of to negotiate with the Union, citing the
evidence prevailing in courts of law or earlier dismissal of the Union’s petition for
equity are not controlling. Rules of certification by DOLE.
procedure and evidence are not applied in
a very rigid and technical sense in labor Failing to settle the issue, the Union
cases. Hence, the Labor Arbiter is not staged a strike against the Hotel.
precluded from accepting and evaluating Numerous confrontations followed,
evidence other than, and even contrary further straining the relationship between
to, what is stated in the CBA. Therefore, the Union and the Hotel.
the agreement binds Cirtek and can be
proven by mere presentation of the The Hotel claims that the strike was illegal
minutes. In short, the parol evidence rule and dismissed some employees for their
is not applicable to labor cases. participation in the allegedly illegal
concerted activity. The Union, on the
Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union other hand, accused the Hotel of illegally
v. CA dismissing the workers.
FACTS: On November 11, 1996, the Union The Secretary of Labor Trajano issued an
filed a petition for a certification election Order directing the striking officers and
so that it may be declared the exclusive members of the Union to return to work
bargaining representative of the Hotel’s within twenty-four (24) hours and the
employees for the purpose of collective Hotel to accept them back under the same
bargaining. The petition was dismissed by terms and conditions prevailing prior to
the Department of Labor and Employment the strike.
(DOLE).
Labor Relations 75
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
After receiving the above order the reason for payroll reinstatement in lieu of
members of the Union reported for work, actual reinstatement.
but the Hotel refused to accept them.
Under Article 263(g), all workers must
Acting Secretary of Labor Español immediately return to work and all
modified the one earlier issued by employers must readmit all of them under
Secretary Trajano and instead directed the same terms and conditions prevailing
that the strikers be reinstated only in the before the strike or lockout.
payroll.
The Court pointed out that the law uses
The union alleged that the Secretary of the precise phrase of “under the same
Labor committed grave abuse of terms and conditions,” revealing that it
discretion for modifying its earlier order contemplates only actual reinstatement.
and requiring instead the reinstatement This is in keeping with the rationale that
of the employees in the payroll. any work stoppage or slowdown in that
particular industry can be inimical to the
Issue: Was it proper for the employees be national economy.
reinstated only in the payroll? (NO)
The Court reiterates that Article 263(g)
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the was not written to protect labor from the
Secretary of Labor committed grave excesses of management, nor was it
abused of discretion in ordering payroll written to ease management from
reinstatement in lieu of actual expenses, which it normally incurs during
reinstatement. a work stoppage or slowdown. This law
was written as a means to be used by the
In this case, there is no compelling reason State to protect itself from an emergency
that called for payroll reinstatement as an or crisis. It is not for labor, nor is it for
alternative remedy. management.
A strained relationship between the
striking employees and management is no It is, therefore, evident from the foregoing
that the Secretary’s subsequent order for
Labor Relations 76
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
abandonment/boycott lasted for three Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, as
days, from April 3 to 5, 2000. amended, also considers it a prohibited
activity to declare a strike during the
Issue: Whether the protest rally and pendency of cases involving the same
concerted work abandonment/boycott grounds for the same strike. There is no
staged by the respondents violated the dispute that when respondents conducted
Order dated January 18, 2000 of the their mass actions on April 3 to 6, 2000,
Secretary of Labor? the proceedings before the Secretary of
Labor were still pending as both parties
HELD: Yes, applying pertinent legal filed motions for reconsideration of the
provisions and jurisprudence, we rule that March 24, 2000 Order. Clearly,
the protest actions undertaken by the respondents knowingly violated the
Union officials and members are not valid aforesaid provision by holding a strike in
and proper exercises of their right to the guise of mass demonstration
assemble and ask government for redress simultaneous with concerted work
of their complaints, but are illegal strikes abandonment/boycott.
in breach of the Labor Code. The Unions
position is weakened by the lack of permit Solidbank v. Solidbank Union et. al.
from the City of Manila to hold rallies.
They were in reality temporary stoppages FACTS: Sometime in October 1999,
of work perpetrated through the petitioner Solidbank and respondent
concerted action of the employees who Solidbank Employees Union (Union) were
deliberately failed to report for work on set to renegotiate the economic
the convenient excuse that they will hold provisions of their Collective Bargaining
a rally. Agreement (CBA) to cover the remaining
two years thereof. Negotiations
The right to strike, while constitutionally commenced but seeing that an agreement
recognized, is not without legal was unlikely, the Union declared a
constrictions. Article 264 (a) of the Labor deadlock and filed a Notice of Strike. In
Code. view of the impending actual strike, then
Secretary of Labor and Employment
Labor Relations 78
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Moreover, it is explicit from the directive the land on which the plant was located
of the Secretary in his January 18, 2000 would be sold to another company, 60%
Order that the Union and its members of which would be owned by Philtread
shall refrain from committing any and all and 40% by Siam Tyre.
acts that might exacerbate the situation,
which certainly includes concerted MSF then asked the workers Union to
actions. desist from picketing outside its plant. As
the workers Union refused MSF’s request,
The right to strike, while constitutionally petitioner filed a complaint for injunction
recognized, is not without legal with damages before the RTC. Worker’s
constrictions. Article 264 (a) of the Labor Union moved to dismiss the complaint
Code. alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of
the trial court. MSF asserts that its status
MSF Tire and Rubber v. CA as an “innocent bystander” with respect
to the labor dispute between Philtread
FACTS: The Union filed a notice of strike and the Union entitles it to a writ of
in the NCMB charging (Phildtread) with injunction from the civil courts.
unfair labor practice. Thereafter, they
picketed and assembled outside the gate Issue: WON petitioner has shown a clear
of Philtread’s plant. Philtread, on the legal right to the issuance of a writ of
other hand, filed a notice of lockout. injunction under the “innocent bystander”
Subsequently, the Secretary of Labor rule.
assumed jurisdiction over the labor
dispute and certified it for compulsory HELD: No. The corporate fiction may be
arbitration. During the pendency of the disregarded where it is used to defeat
labor dispute, Philtread entered into a public convenience, justify wrong, protect
Memorandum of Agreement with Siam fraud, defend crime, or where the
Tyre whereby its plant and equipment corporation is used as a mere alter-ego or
would be sold to a new company, herein business conduit, it is not these standards
petitioner, 80% of which would be owned but those of the innocent bystander rule
by Siam Tyre and 20% by Philtread, while which govern whether or not petitioner is
Labor Relations 80
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
offer to compensate the members of its Held: While in cases of illegal dismissal,
sales force who will be adversely affected the employer bears the burden of proving
by the implementation of the CDS by that the dismissal is for a valid or
paying them a so-called "back adjustment authorized cause, the employee must first
commission" to make up for the establish by substantial evidence the fact
commissions they might lose as a result of of dismissal.
the CDS proves the company's good faith
and lack of intention to bust their union. The records do not show that LABADAN
was dismissed from the service. They in
Lilia Labadan v. Forest Hills Academy fact show that despite LABADAN’s
absence from July 2001 to March 2002
Facts: LABADAN filed a complaint against which, by her own admission, exceeded
Forest Hills and its administrator Naomi her approved leave, she was still
Cabaluna for illegal dismissal, non- considered a member of the Forest Hills
payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, faculty which retained her in its payroll.
allowances, 13th month pay, service
incentive leave, illegal deductions, and Javier v. Fly Ace Corporation
damages.
Facts: Javier filed a complaint against Fly
In her Position Paper, LABADAN alleged Ace before the NLRC for underpayment of
that she was allowed to go on leave from salaries and other labor standard benefits.
Forest Hills, and albeit she had exceeded
her approved leave period, its extension He alleged that during his employment, he
was impliedly approved by the school was not issued an identification card and
principal because she received no warning pay slips by the company. He reported for
or reprimand and was in fact retained in work but he was no longer allowed to
the payroll up to 2002. enter the company premises. Javier was
terminated from his employment without
Issue: Whether or not FOREST HILLS notice; and that he was neither given the
ACADEMY dismissed LABADAN illegally. opportunity to refute the cause/s of his
dismissal from work.
Labor Relations 84
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Issue: Who has the burden of proving the serious and imminent threat to the lives
fact of dismissal first? of his co-workers and to the property of
the corporation and its employees.
Held: In this case, Javier needs to show by
substantial evidence that he was indeed
an employee of the company against Alleging that his dismissal from service
which he claims illegal dismissal. He must was illegal, respondent filed a Complaint
also prove the fact of dismissal first. on September 29, 1999 against petitioner
and its President, Regan Sy.
In sum, the rule of thumb remains: the
onus probandi falls on petitioner to Issue: Whether or not the respondent
establish or substantiate such claim by the herein was illegally dismissed.
requisite quantum of evidence. Whoever
claims entitlement to the benefits Held: We agree with the Labor Arbiter’s
provided by law should establish his or conclusion that respondent’s misconduct
her right thereto x x x. Sadly, Javier failed on August 19, 1999 does not warrant the
to adduce substantial evidence as basis imposition of the ultimate sanction of
for the grant of relief. dismissal. Undeniably, the altercation
between respondent and Barrios was
Supreme Steel Pipe Corp v. Berdaje nipped in the bud by the timely
intervention of other employees. The
Facts:When respondent reported back to momentary work stoppage did not pose a
work a month after, he was served with a threat to the safety or peace of mind of
Notice dated September 8, 1999, the workers. Neither did such disorderly
terminating his employment effective behavior cause substantial prejudice to
September 23, 1999. Petitioner SSPC had the business of respondent SSPC.
taken into account the August 19, 1999
incident as well as respondent’s "previous Time and again, we have held that it is
infractions of company rules." Petitioner cruel and unjust to impose the drastic
SSPC declared that respondent’s penalty of dismissal if not commensurate
continued employment would pose to the gravity of the misdeed.
Labor Relations 85
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Alex Gurango v. Best Chemicals and (4) Gurango filed with the MCTC a
Plastics Inc. complaint against Albao, Cordero and
Pablis for slight physical injury;
Facts: BCPI dismissed Gurango effective (5) the Labor Arbiter found Gurango’s
20 May 2003. BCPI stated that: Gurango statement credible and unblemished;
committed Offenses under the Company’s (6) the Labor Arbiter found Albao’s
Code of Discipline xxx Based on the statement contradictory;
foregoing, and in view of the gravity of the (7) the Labor Arbiter stated, "I am
offenses that you have committed which convinced Albao lied in his statement";
constitute gross misconduct, the Company (8) the NLRC found that Gurango did not
is constrained to terminate your start a fight;
employment for cause effective May 20, (9) the NLRC found Albao’s statement
2003, at the close of business hours. unbelievable and exaggerated; and
(10) the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the
Gurango filed with the NLRC a complaint findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter and
against BCPI and Hong for illegal dismissal. the NLRC is baseless.
Held: The surrounding circumstances Facts: Del Rosario was informed of her
show that Gurango did not engage in a termination from the service. Northwest
fistfight: stated that based on the results of the
(1) in his 9 May 2003 letter to BCPI, investigation, Del Rosario and Gamboa
Juanitas corroborated Gurango’s version had engaged in a fight on board the
of the facts; aircraft, even if there had been no actual
(2) nobody corroborated Albao’s version physical contact between them; and that
of the facts; because fighting was strictly prohibited by
(3) in his medical report, Dr. Aguinaldo Northwest to the point that fighting could
found that Gurango suffered physical entail dismissal from the service even if
injuries; committed for the first time, Northwest
Labor Relations 86
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
considered her dismissal from the service Cesar Naguit v. San Miguel Corp
justified and in accordance with the Rules
of Conduct for Employees. Facts: Petitioner claims that the
altercation sprung from an event when
Issue: Was Del Rosario's dismissal from Regala distributed libellous materials
the service valid? against the union which Petitioner is a
union steward. Upon investigation of the
Held: Based on the foregoing, the incident Respondent Company’s Human Resource
involving Del Rosario and Gamboa could Department, petitioner chose to remain
not be justly considered as akin to the silent and did not address the charges
fight contemplated by Northwest. In the against him. He was later terminated.
eyes of the NLRC, Del Rosario and
Gamboa were arguing but not fighting. Issue: Whether or not Petitioner had been
The understanding of fight as one that illegally dismissed and is entitled to
required physical combat was absent reinstatement and full back wages.
during the incident of May 18, 1998.
Moreover, the claim of Morales that Del Held: The settled rule is that fighting
Rosario challenged Gamboa to a brawl within company premises is a valid ground
(sabunutan) could not be given credence for the dismissal of an employee.
by virtue of its being self-serving in favor Moreover, the act of assaulting another
of Northwest, and of its being an apparent employee is serious misconduct which
afterthought on the part of Morales justifies the termination of employment.
during the investigation of the incident, Where the totality of the evidence was
without Del Rosario having the sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the
opportunity to contest Morales' employees, the law warrants their
statement. In that context, the dismissal without making any distinction
investigation then served only as between a first offender and a habitual
Northwest's means to establish that the delinquent.
grounds of a valid dismissal based on
serious misconduct really existed.
Labor Relations 87
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Issue: Whether the termination was valid. evidence to show that he had custody of
the common fund which was used for his
Held: The actions of Tirazona reflected an own benefit; that he incurred the ire of his
obdurate character that is arrogant, superiors for testifying in support of
uncompromising, and hostile. By Asterio Tansiongco, a former Director of
immediately and unreasonably adopting Personnel who was dismissed by VGC; and
an adverse stance against PET, she sought that one of Tansiongco’s accusers was
to impose her will on the company and Dario Velasquez, the brother of Cesar
placed her own interests above those of Velasquez, one of the locker boys who
her employer. Her motive for her actions complained against him.
was rendered even more questionable by
her exorbitant and arbitrary demand for Issue: Whether or not PEHID was legally
P2,000,000.00 payable within five days dismissed based on alleged misconduct
from demand. Her attitude towards her through misappropriation.
employer was clearly inconsistent with
her position of trust and confidence. Her Held: Clearly, based on the grounds of
poor character became even more termination provided under Article 282 of
evident when she read what was the Labor Code and the VGC Rules and
supposed to be a confidential letter of the Regulations, the common denominator
legal counsel of PET to PET thereof to constitute gross misconduct as
officers/directors expressing his legal a ground for a valid termination of the
opinion on Tirazonas administrative case. employee, is that – it is committed in
PET was, therefore, fully justified in connection with the latter’s work or
terminating Tirazonas employment for employment. In the instant case, as
loss of trust and confidence. previously pointed out, the alleged
VILLAMOR GOLF CLUB’s misappropriation
Villamor Golf Club v. Pehid or malversation was committed, assuming
it to be true, against the common funds of
Facts: Pehid averred that he was the Locker Room personnel, which did not
dismissed without just cause and due belong nor sanctioned by VGC. A fortiori,
process of law; that there was no basis or
Labor Relations 89
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
VGC was not prejudiced or damaged by Held: The charge of drug abuse inside the
the loss or misappropriation thereof. companys premises and during working
hours against petitioner constitutes
Bughaw Jr. v. Treasure Island serious misconduct, which is one of the
just causes for termination. Misconduct is
Facts: Notwithstanding said Memo, improper or wrong conduct. It is the
petitioner failed to appear before the transgression of some established and
respondents legal counsel on the definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
scheduled hearing date and to explain his dereliction of duty, willful in character,
side on the matter. and implies wrongful intent and not
merely an error in judgment. The
Consequently, respondent, in a third misconduct to be serious within the
letter[8] dated 21 August 2001 addressed meaning of the Act must be of such a
to petitioner, terminated the latters grave and aggravated character and not
employment retroactive to 11 June 2001 merely trivial or unimportant. Such
for using illegal drugs within company misconduct, however serious, must
premises during working hours, and for nevertheless, in connection with the work
refusal to attend the administrative of the employee, constitute just cause for
hearing and submit written explanation his separation.[27] This Court took judicial
on the charges hurled against him. notice of scientific findings that drug
abuse can damage the mental faculties of
On 20 July 2001, petitioner filed a the user. It is beyond question therefore
complaint[9] for illegal dismissal against that any employee under the influence of
respondent and its President, Emmanuel drugs cannot possibly continue doing his
Ong. duties without posing a serious threat to
the lives and property of his co-workers
Issue: WHETHER PETITIONER WAS and even his employer.
ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM
EMPLOYMENT Plantation Bay Resort and Spa v. Dubrico
Facts: Respondent Dubrico failed to take
the drug test conducted on September
Labor Relations 90
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
believe that Aquino bought the Toyota Held: From the foregoing, it is quite clear
Town Ace for ₱190,000.00 when in fact, that the evidence presented in this case
Aquino paid ₱200,000.00 for the vehicle. did not reach the level required to find
The company was completely in the dark respondent Mongcal guilty of conspiring
about the actual purchase price until it to commit theft of company property.
learned about the irregularity and Indeed, respondent Mongcal loaded the
commenced an investigation. dump truck with aggregates at 2:30
o'clock in the morning despite the lack of
Sargasso Construction and Development a trip ticket, but petitioner utterly failed to
v. NLRC rebut Mongcal's explanation that it was
Facts: later as payloader operator at its not unusual for them to perform such
crusher site at Sitio Lapak, La Castellana, tasks even at an early hour, because truck
Negros Occidental; that on 29 June 1995, drivers tried to reach the delivery quotas
or two (2) months and eleven (11) days that petitioner had set. This was never
after complainant was hired, he was denied or rebutted by petitioner in any of
caught together with another its pleadings. Petitioner merely harped on
respondent's employee, Aldrin Rasote, a the fact that no trip ticket was issued for
dump truck driver, stealing crushed that particular delivery. However, even if
aggregate belonging to respondent petitioner established that it was
company; that complainant operated his company policy to have trip tickets for
payloader on the unholy hour of 2:00 every delivery of aggregates, it failed to
o'clock in the early morning and loaded prove that it was the payload operators
the crushed aggregate unto the dump like respondent Mongcal who had the
truck; that this act of loading crushed duty of requiring dump truck drivers to
aggregates during this particular date and show their trip tickets before the trucks
time was unauthorized, as there was no could be loaded with aggregates.
memorandum nor instruction from the Petitioner failed to prove that respondent
management for complainant to perform Mongcal was involved at all or agreed
his job on that particular day. with the scheme to steal aggregates from
petitioner. There was no showing
Issue: Was there a valid dismissal? whatsoever, that respondent Mongcal
Labor Relations 92
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
had any knowledge that Aldrin Rasote had is entitled to financial assistance on the
the intention of stealing company ground of equity.
property.
Held: Caragdags dismissal was due to
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hyatt v. several instances of willful disobedience
Magsalin to the reasonable rules and regulations
prescribed by his employer. The Voluntary
Facts:When Mike Moral, the manager of Arbitrator pointed out that according to
Hyatts Cafe Al Fresco and Caragdags the hotels Code of Discipline, an employee
immediate superior, was about to counsel who commits three different acts of
two staff members, Larry Lacambacal and misconduct within a twelve (12)-month
Allan Alvaro, at the training room, period commits serious misconduct. He
Caragdag suddenly opened the door and stressed that Caragdags infractions were
yelled at the two with an enraged look. In not even spread in a period of twelve (12)
a disturbing voice he said, Ang titigas months, but rather in a period of a little
talaga ng ulo nyo.Sinabi ko na sa inyo na over a month. Records show the various
huwag kayong makikipagusap sa violations of the hotels rules and
management habang ongoing pa ang regulations were committed by Caragdag.
kaso! (You are very stubborn. I told you He was suspended for violating the hotel
not to speak to management while the policy on bag inspection and body frisking.
case is ongoing!) Moral asked Caragdag He was likewise suspended for
what the problem was and informed him threatening and intimidating a superior
that he was simply talking to his staff. while the latter was counseling his
Moral also told Caragdag that he did not staff.He was again suspended for leaving
have the right to interrupt and intimidate his work assignment without permission.
him during his counseling session with his Evidently, Caragdags acts constitute
staff. serious misconduct.
Collegio de San Juan de Letran- Calamba Held: Her alleged failure to report for
v. Villa work exactly on April 1, 1996 is not
equivalent to "failure to return for work,"
Facts: BELEN P. VILLAS alleged that she a sanctionable offense under the Faculty
intended to utilize the first semester of Manual. As correctly pointed out by the
her study leave to finish her masteral VA, COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN –
degree at the Philippine Women’s CALAMBA failed to establish that there
University (PWU). Unfortunately, it did was a distinct and definite assignment
not push through so she took up an Old that needed to be done personally by
Testament course in a school of religion BELEN P. VILLAS, and specifically on April
and at the same time utilized her free 1, 1996, which she failed to do on said
hours selling insurance and cookware to date. Although we give credence to
augment her family’s income. However, COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN –
during the second semester of her study CALAMBA’s argument that a private high
leave, she studied and passed 12 units of school teacher still has work at the end of
education subjects at the Golden Gate the schoolyear – to assist in the
Colleges in Batangas City. In response to graduation preparations – and in the
the letters sent her by COLEGIO DE SAN beginning of the school year – to assist in
JUAN DE LETRAN – CALAMBA to justify the enrollment – such tasks cannot be
her study leave, she submitted a considered a teacher’s main duties, the
certification from Golden Gate Colleges failure to perform which would be
and a letter explaining why she took up an tantamount to dereliction of duty or
Old Testament course instead of enrolling abandonment. Besides, there is no
in her masteral class during the first disagreement that BELEN P. VILLAS
semester. reported for work on May 15, 1996 at
which time COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE
Issue: Whether or not VILLAS is guilty of LETRAN – CALAMBA could have asked her
serious misconduct to warrant valid to assist in the enrollment period. At
termination. most, BELEN P. VILLAS failed to help out
during the preparations for graduation
and this, to us, was not a significant
Labor Relations 94
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
reason for terminating or dismissing her character, and implies wrongful intent and
from her job not mere error in judgment. The
misconduct to be serious must be of such
Samson v. NLRC grave and aggravated character and not
Facts: Samson’s dismissal was brought merely trivial and unimportant. Such
about by the utterances he made during misconduct, however serious, must,
an informal Christmas gathering of nevertheless, be in connection with the
respondent company’s Sales and employees work to constitute just cause
Marketing Division. He was heard to have for his separation.
uttered, "Si EDT (referring to Epitacio D.
Titong, General Manager and President of In this case, the alleged misconduct of
respondent company), bullshit yan," petitioner, when viewed in its context, is
"sabihin mo kay EDT yan" and "sabihin mo not of such serious and grave character as
kay EDT, bullshit yan," while making the to warrant his dismissal.
"dirty finger" gesture. He likewise told his
co-employees that the forthcoming Punzal v. ESTI Technologies
national sales conference of respondent
company would be a "very bloody one." Facts: Geisert obtained a copy of the
email and asked petitioner for an
Issue: Is uttering invectives tantamount to explanation. She replied that she had no
gross misconduct that will justify malicious intention in sending the second
dismissal? e-mail message and that she "never
expected such kind of words can be called
Held: It was improper for the NLRC to rule as ‘acts of discourtesy or disrespect.’"
that such as of Samson is tantamount to Geisert and Remurado found her
gross misconduct justifying his dismissal. explanation "not acceptable" and
terminating her services, effective
Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct. immediately.
It is the transgression of some established
and definite rule of action, a forbidden Petitioner filed before the National Labor
act, a dereliction of duty, willful in Relations Commission (NLRC) a
Labor Relations 95
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
violation does not merit yet a disciplinary refused to heed his instructions and sent
action and is only an aggravating an e-mail to him stating that she would go
circumstance to Arenas’ other violations. on with its presentation. Such an act of
insubordination resulted in the
GTE Directories v. Sanchez management's loss of trust and
confidence in her.
Facts: Clarifying that this was merely a
case of miscommunication and that she Lores Realty Enterprises v. Pacia
had no intention to disregard the order to
postpone the implementation of the new Facts: Pacia received a notice of
training process, Cabansay submitted two termination stating, among others, that
memoranda dated April 8 and 11, 2002. she was being dismissed because of her
willful disobedience and their loss of trust
However, on April 11, 2002, the same day and confidence in her.
she submitted her second explanation,
Cabansay received a memorandum from Pacia then filed a Complaint for Unfair
the HR Department/Office of the Labor Practice due to Harassment,
President notifying her that she had been Constructive Dismissal, Moral and
terminated from the service effective Exemplary Damages against LREI and
immediately for having committed an act Sumulong. Subsequently, Pacia filed an
of insubordination resulting in the Amended Complaint to include the
management's loss of trust and charges of illegal dismissal and non-
confidence in her. payment of salaries.
Held: NO. They found that Ballesteros Held: Pacia’s initial reluctance to prepare
made a lawful order to postpone the the checks, however, which was
implementation of the new training seemingly an act of disrespect and
process, yet respondent incorrigibly defiance, was for honest and well
Labor Relations 97
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
intentioned reasons. Protecting LREI and Held: NO. There could be no doubt that
Sumulong from liability under the the switching of the two orders for the
Bouncing Checks Law was foremost in her delivery of gasoline intended for
mind. It was not wrongful or willful. Concepcion and Fernandez was made by
Neither can it be considered an obstinate Bautista, and such act was undoubtedly
defiance of company authority. The Court repugnant to the regulations of the
takes into consideration that Pacia, respondent company. Record also shows
despite her initial reluctance, eventually that the regulation of the company with
did prepare the checks on the same day respect to making deliveries and giving
she was tasked to do it. preference to those who come first were
at times relaxed upon instruction of the
Tide Water Association Oil Co. v. Victory management. So, it could not be said that
Employees and Laborer’s Assocation invariably the aforementioned regulations
of the company were strictly in all
Facts: Guillermo Bautista was a checker of occasions observed.
the respondent company for a period of
eighteen years, more or less. Bautista was Dr. Phylis Rio et. al. v. Colegio De Sta.
instructed to deliver 7502 gallons of Rosa-Makati
gasoline to the Concepcion, and, another
750 gallons to Aquilino Fernandez in Facts: Petitioner was made to answer for
accordance with the "first come, first the following: (1) nine (9) students have
served" rule. medical records for school years during
which they were not in the school yet,
Instead of making delivery first to thus could not have been the subject of
Concepcion, Fernandez was given medical examination/evaluation; (2)
preference to receive the gasoline ahead seventy-nine (79) students of several
of Concepcion. The arrangement was classes/sections during certain school
made with the knowledge of his superior. years were not given any medical/health
evaluation/examination; and (3) failure to
Issue: Whether the dismissal valid? conduct medical/health examination on
all students of several classes of different
Labor Relations 98
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
grade levels for the school year 2001- Facts: It appears from his employment
2002. records, however, that Arsenio has
repeatedly violated the Company Code of
Petitioner denied the charges through a Employee Discipline and has exhibited
letter to respondent on 2 August 2002. On poor performance in the latter part of his
9 August 2002 petitioner filed a complaint employment. He was suspended for
for constructive dismissal and illegal excessive absences.
suspension against respondents Colegio
de Sta. Rosa-Makati and Gustilo before An investigation was conducted due to his
the Labor Arbiter. unauthorized and unexcused absences.
Petitioner was required to appear at the
Issue: Whether or not there was illegal investigation and to present his evidence
dismissal. in support of his defense. However,
despite receipt of such notice, petitioner
Held: No. Dr. Phylis was legally did not participate in the investigation.
terminated. Respondent Colegio de Sta.
Rosa-Makati had enough reason to, as it Issue: Is Arsenio’s dismissal from
did, terminate the services of petitioner. employment proper?
Based on Article 282 of the Labor Code, in Held: Petitioner’s unauthorized absences
relation to Section 94 of the 1992 Manual as well as tardiness are habitual despite
of Regulations for Private Schools, having been penalized for past infractions.
petitioner was legally dismissed on the A series of irregularities when put
ground of gross inefficiency and together may constitute serious
incompetence, and negligence in the misconduct. We also held that gross
keeping of school or student records, or neglect of duty becomes serious in
tampering with or falsification of records. character due to frequency of instances.
Serious misconduct is said to be a
Arsenio Quiambao v. Manila Electric transgression of some established and
Company definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction of duty, willful in character,
Labor Relations 99
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
and indicative of wrongful intent and not respondent even wrote petitioner Cheng a
mere error of judgment. letter dated 29 November 1999 where he
admitted that his tardiness has affected
Mansion Printing Center v. Bitara Jr. the delivery schedules of the company,
offered an apology, and undertook to
Facts: Mansion engaged the services of henceforth report for duty on time.
Bitara as a helper (kargador). Respondent Despite this undertaking, he continued to
was later promoted as the company’s sole either absent himself from work or report
driver tasked , among others, to deliver late during the first quarter of 2000.
the products to the clients within the
delivery schedules. Essencia Manarpiis v. Texan Philippines
Petitioners aver that the timely delivery of Facts: Texan Philippines, Inc. (TPI) is
the products to the clients is one of the engaged in the importation, distribution
foremost considerations material to the and marketing of imported fragrances and
operation of the business. It being so, they aroma and other specialized products and
closely monitored the attendance of services. It hired Essencia Q. Manarpiis
respondent. They noted his habitual (petitioner) as Sales and Marketing
tardiness and absenteeism. Manager. She was later dismissed on July
25, 2000 when she received a notice of
Issue: Was there gross and habitual termination on the ground of dishonesty,
neglect of duty on the part of Bitara, loss of confidence based on alleged
warranting his dismissal from service. collusion in defrauding the company
financed. Another ground was also for
Held: In the present case, however, abandonment of work. Claiming
petitioners have repeatedly called the insurmountable losses, respondents
attention of respondent concerning his served a written notice addressed to all
habitual tardiness. The Memorandum their employees that TPI will cease
dated 23 June 1999 of petitioner Cheng operations by August 31, 2000.
required him to explain his tardiness. Also
in connection with a similar infraction,
Labor Relations 100
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal Facts: Belga who was pregnant
dismissal, non-payment of overtime pay, experienced labor pains and gave birth on
holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, the same day. On March 22, 2001, or two
unexpired vacation leave and 13th month days after giving birth, Tropical
pay and with prayer for moral and actual summoned Belga to report for work but
damages. the latter replied that she could not
comply because of her situation. Belga
Issue: Whether Petitioner was illegally requested that the conference be moved
dismissed. to April 4, 2001 as her newborn was
scheduled for check-up on April 2, 2001.
Held: Yes. Petitioner was dismissed When Belga attended the clarificatory
without just or authorized cause, and that conference on April 4, 2001, she was
the announced cessation of business informed of her dismissal effective that
operations was a mere subterfuge for day.
getting rid of petitioner. The CA’s finding
of serious business losses is not borne by Issue: Is dismissal too harsh in this case?
the evidence on record. The financial
statements supposedly bearing the stamp Held: Belgas failure to formally inform
mark of BIR were not signed by an Tropical of her pregnancy can not be
independent auditor. Besides, the non- considered as grave misconduct directly
compliance with the requirements under connected to her work as to constitute
Article 283 of the Labor Code, as just cause for her separation.
amended, gains relevance in this case not
for the purpose of proving the illegality of The charge of disobedience for Belgas
the company closure or cessation of failure to comply with the memoranda
business, which did not materialize, but as must likewise fail. Disobedience, as a just
an indication of bad faith on the part of cause for termination, must be willful or
respondents in hastily terminating intentional. Willfulness is characterized by
petitioner’s employment. a wrongful and perverse mental attitude
rendering the employees act inconsistent
Lakpue Drug v. Balga with proper subordination. In the instant
Labor Relations 101
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
case, the memoranda were given to Belga forgery; misuse, abuse or defalcation of
two days after she had given birth. It was funds form market development
thus physically impossible for Belga to program."
report for work and explain her absence,
as ordered. Issue: Whether the dismissal based on
loss of confidence valid?
Hormillosa v. Coca Cola
Held: There is a high degree of trust and
Facts: Hormillosa was employed as a route confidence reposed on route salesman,
salesman by Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. and when confidence is breached, the
(CBPI). His duties included, among others, employer may take proper disciplinary
selling CBPI’s soft drink products, either action on them. The work of a salesman
on cash or on credit basis; receiving exposes him to voluminous financial
payments from proceeds of the sale or transactions involving his employer’s
payments of past due or current accounts; goods. The life of the soft drinks company
issuing sales invoices; and receiving empty depends not so much on the bottling or
bottles and cases of soft drinks (empties). production of the product since this is
primarily done by automatic machines
CBPI District Sales Supervisor, Tiosayco, and personnel who are easily supervised
conducted a verification and audit of the but upon mobile and far-ranging salesmen
accounts handled by Hormillosa. He who go from store to store all over the
discovered transactions in violation of country or region. Salesmen are highly
CCBPI Employee Code of Disciplinary Rules individualistic personnel who have to be
and Regulations, specifically "Fictitious trusted and left essentially on their own. A
sales transactions; Falsification of high degree of confidence is reposed on
company records/ data/ documents/ them because they are entrusted with
invoices/ reports; fictitious issuances of funds or properties of their employer.
TCS/ COL (Temporary Credit Sales/
Container on Loan); non-issuance or mis- In the case at bench, the cause for the
issuance of invoices and receipts as well dismissal from employment of Hormillosa
as commercial documents to dealers; clearly falls under Article 282 of the Labor
Labor Relations 102
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Code. Therefore, he is not entitled to any clients. Hence, respondent was justified in
separation pay. dismissing petitioner on the ground of
breach of trust. As long as there is some
De Leon Cruz v. BPI basis for such loss of confidence, such as
when the employer has reasonable
Facts: Petitioner was hired by Far East ground to believe that the employee
Bank and Trust Company (now BPI) in concerned is responsible for the
1989. After 13 years of continuous purported misconduct, and the nature of
service, respondent terminated petitioner his participation therein renders him
on grounds of gross negligence and unworthy of the trust and confidence
breach of trust. Petitioner's dismissal was demanded of his position, a managerial
brought about by the fraud perpetrated employee may be dismissed.
against three depositors.
Mapili v. Phil Rabbit Bus Line
On April 19, 2002, BPI Vice-President
Edwin S. Ragos issued a memorandum3 Facts: Petitioner was preventively
directing petitioner to explain within 24 suspended and was directed to appear in
hours the aforementioned unauthorized an administrative investigation.
pre-terminations/withdrawals of US dollar Thereafter, a formal hearing was
deposits at the BPI Ayala Avenue Branch. conducted during which petitioner was
given an opportunity to present and
Issue: Whether petitioner was validly explain his side. Consequently, through a
terminated. memorandum, petitioner was terminated
from employment for committing a
Held: Petitioner was remiss in the serious irregularity by extending a free
performance of her duty to approve the ride to a passenger in violation of
pre-termination of certificates of deposits company rules. Notably, that was already
by legitimate depositors or their duly- the third time that petitioner committed
authorized representatives, resulting in said violation.
prejudice to the bank, which reimbursed
the monetary loss suffered by the affected
Labor Relations 103
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Petitioner filed with the NLRC a Complaint According to Century Iron, Bañas worked
for illegal dismissal against PRBLI, Nisce, as an inventory comptroller. Sometime in
and Ricardo Paras (Paras), PRBLI's General 2002, Century Iron received letters of
Manager. complaint from its gas suppliers regarding
alleged massive shortage of empty gas
Issue: WHETHER THERE IS A VALID cylinders. In the investigation that Century
GROUND FOR DISMISSAL. Iron conducted in response to the letters,
it found that Bañas failed to make a report
Held: Based on this testimony, it is quite of the missing cylinders. Century Iron
apparent that petitioner was aware that required Bañas to explain within 48 hours
the infraction he committed constituted a from receipt of its letter why no
grave offense but he still persisted in disciplinary action should be taken against
committing the same out of gratitude to him for loss of trust and confidence and
the passenger. Hence, as correctly found for gross and habitual neglect of duty.
by the CA, there was deliberate intent on
the part of the petitioner to commit the ISSUE: Whether or not Bañas occupied a
violation in order to repay a personal debt position of trust and confidence, or was
at the expense of the company. routinely charged with the care and
Petitioner chose to violate company rules custody of Century Iron’s money or
for his benefit without regard to his property
responsibilities to the company. Also, if
not for the inspector who discovered the HELD: No. The CA properly affirmed the
incident, the company would have been NLRC’s ruling that Bañas was a rank-and-
defrauded by the amount of fare. file employee who was not charged with
the care and custody of Century Iron’s
Century Iron Works v. Banas money or property.
FACTS: Bañas responded to his dismissal The ruling of the CA, finding no grave
by filing a complaint for illegal dismissal abuse of discretion in the LA and the NLRC
with prayer for reinstatement and money rulings and are supported by substantial
claims. evidence, is, to our mind, correct.
Labor Relations 104
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
The evidence on record supports the On August 25, 1994, respondent filed with
holding that Bañas was an ordinary the Philippine Overseas and Employment
employee. There is no indication that the Agency (POEA) a complaint for illegal
NLRC’s decision was unfair or arbitrary. It dismissal with claims for salaries and
properly relied on Century Iron’s other benefits for the unexpired portion
numerous memoranda where Bañas was of his contract as well as unremitted
identified as an inventory clerk. It allotments and damages.
correctly observed that Century Iron
unequivocably declared that Bañas was an ISSUE: Whether or not respondent was
inventory clerk in its July 29, 2002 validly terminated
termination report with the Department
of Labor and Employment. HELD: No. Petitioner's claim that it has a
wider latitude of discretion in terminating
Phil. Transmarine Carriers v. Carilla respondent, since the latter was a
managerial employee, is not plausible.
FACTS: Their approved POEA contract It is well settled in these jurisdiction that
provided that respondent would get a confidential and managerial employees
basic monthly pay of US$1700.00, fixed cannot be arbitrarily dismissed at any
monthly overtime of US$765.00, master's time, and without cause as reasonably
allowance of US$170.00 and leave with established in an appropriate
pay of six days per month or US$340.00 or investigation.
a total of US$2,975.00 a month. Such employees, too, are entitled to
security of tenure, fair standards of
On November 29, 1993, respondent employment and the protection of labor
boarded the vessel in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, laws. Managerial employees, no less than
Africa. On June 6, 1994, while the vessel rank-and-file laborers, are entitled to due
was in Bombay, India, respondent was process.
dismissed and repatriated to the
Philippines. Tirazona v. CA
Facts: Private respondents Ken Kubota,
Mamoru Ono and Junichi Hirose are all
Labor Relations 105
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Japanese nationals, the first being the is an established principle that loss of
President and the latter two being the confidence must be premised on the fact
directors of PET. that the employee concerned holds a
On 21 July 1999, PET employed Ma. position of trust and confidence.
Wenelita S. Tirazona (Tirazona) as This situation obtains where a person is
Administrative Manager. Being the top- entrusted with confidence on delicate
ranking Filipino Manager, she acted as the matters, such as care and protection,
liaison between the Japanese handling or custody of the employer’s
management and the Filipino staff. property.
On 15 January 2002, Fe Balonzo, a rank-
and-file employee, wrote a letter that was But, in order to constitute a just cause for
addressed to nobody in particular, but dismissal, the act complained of must be
was later acquired by PET management. "work-related" such as would show the
employee concerned to be unfit to
Issue: Whether or not Tirazona was legally continue working for the employer.
dismissed from employment. Besides, for loss of confidence to be a
valid ground for dismissal, such loss of
Held: confidence must arise from particular
In employee termination cases, the well- proven facts.
entrenched policy is that no worker shall
be dismissed except for a just or Eats Cetera Food Services v. Letran
authorized cause provided by law and
after due process. Clearly, dismissals have Facts: On November 20, 2002, when she
two facets: first, the legality of the act of reported for duty, Espadero discovered
dismissal, which constitutes substantive that her time card was already punched
due process; and second, the legality in in. After asking around, she found out that
the manner of dismissal, which a certain Joselito Cahayagan was the one
constitutes procedural due process. who punched in her time card. Espadero,
Under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, however, failed to report the incident to
loss of trust and confidence is one of the her supervisor, Clarissa Reduca.
just causes for dismissing an employee. It
Labor Relations 106
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
The records of the case are rife with proof HELD: NO. Petitioner failed to prove that
that the supervisors committed acts which Gran was justifiably dismissed due to
are inimical to the interests and stability, incompetence, insubordination, or willful
not only of management, but of the disobedience. In Prieto, this Court ruled
company itself. They did so, through that "[i]t is presumed that before their
deceitful means and methods. deployment, the petitioners were
The detailed account of what transpired subjected to trade tests required by law to
between August 12 to 16, 2002 by be conducted by the recruiting agency to
Asuncion, Calderon, the witnesses and the insure employment of only technically
supervisors themselves were not only qualified workers for the foreign
substantial proof of the grave infraction principal."
committed by them but indubitable proof
of their anomalous acts. According to petitioner, the Prieto ruling
is not applicable because in the case at
EDI Staffbuilders Intl. v. NLRC hand, Gran misrepresented himself in his
curriculum vitae as a Computer Specialist;
FACTS: ESI is another recruitment agency thus, he was not qualified for the job for
which collaborated with EDI to process which he was hired.
the documentation and deployment of
private respondent to Saudi Arabia. Torreda v. Toshiba Info Equip.
Private respondent Gran was an OFW Facts: On July 22, 1998, Sepulveda opened
recruited by EDI, and deployed by ESI to Torreda’s personal computer and read his
work for OAB, in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Lotus Notes mail and other personal files,
Arabia. OAB informed EDI that, from the specifically the report he had sent to
Labor Relations 108
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Tanaka about her. She reprimanded aggravated character and not merely
Torreda and told him that he should not trivial and unimportant.
send mails to Tanaka without her
approval. Upset over Sepulveda’s Sebugero v. NLRC
actuations, Torreda reported the incident
via electronic mail. He complained that Facts: The 16 petitioners are among the
Sepulveda had no right to open the 36 regular employees of GTI Sportswear
computer because it was his, and it who were initially under "temporary lay-
contained his personal files. He told off", yet were no longer recalled after the
Tanaka that Sepulveda used to open the lapse of 6 months.Believing that their
employees’ computers; hence, she could "temporary lay-off" was a ploy to dismiss
no longer be trusted. them because of their union activities,
they filed a case for illegal dismissal, unfair
Issue: Whether or not TORREDA labor practice, and underpayment of
committed serious misconduct that wages with the Labor Arbiter's office.
warrants dismissal from employment.
Issue: may Sebugero et.al. claim the
Held: YES. TORREDA’s dismissal is proper awards they pray for?
since he committed serious misconduct.
Indeed, an employee may be dismissed Held: The SC settled that where the
from employment for acts punishable by dismissal of an employee is in fact for a
dismissal under Article 282(a) of the Labor just and valid cause, and is so proven, but
Code. Misconduct has been defined as he or she was not accorded with due
improper or wrong conduct. It is the process, the dismissal must be sanctioned.
transgression of some established and In this case, the petitioners are entitled to
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a Atty's fees. Redundancy exists where the
dereliction of duty, willful in character, services of an employee are in excess of
and implies wrongful intent and not mere what is reasonably As to redundancy:
error of judgment. The misconduct to be demanded by the actual requirements of
serious must be of such grave and the enterprise. A position is redundant
where it is superfluous, and superfluity of
Labor Relations 109
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
a position or positions may be the ETPI was indeed incurring losses. Culili
outcome of a number of factors, such as further alleged that his functions as a
overhiring of workers, decreased volume Senior Technician could not be considered
of business, or dropping of a particular a superfluity because his tasks were
product line or service activity previously crucial and critical to ETPI’s business.
manufactured or undertaken by the Under our laws, an employee may be
enterprise. terminated for reasons involving
measures taken by the employer due to
Nelson Culili v. Eastern Telecom business necessities.
Facts: As a result, Culili’s position was This Court has been consistent in holding
abolished due to redundancy and his that the determination of whether or not
functions were absorbed by Andre an employee’s services are still needed or
Andrada, another employee already with sustainable properly belongs to the
the Business and Consumer Accounts employer. Provided there is no violation
Department. of law or a showing that the employer was
prompted by an arbitrary or malicious act,
In a letter, ETPI, informed Culili of his the soundness or wisdom of this exercise
termination from employment effective of business judgment is not subject to the
April 8, 1999. On February 8, 2000, Culili discretionary review of the Labor Arbiter
filed a complaint against ETPI and its and the NLRC.
officers for illegal dismissal
General Milling Corporation v. Viajar
Issue: W/N petitioner there was illegal
dismissal. No. Facts: GMC alleged that it has been
gradually downsizing its Vismin (Visayas-
Held: Culili asserted that he was illegally Mindanao) Operations in Cebu where a
dismissed because there was no valid sizeable number of positions became
cause to terminate his employment. He redundant over a period of time.
claimed that ETPI failed to prove that his In her Position Paper, Viajar alleged that
position had become redundant and that she was employed by GMC on August 6,
Labor Relations 110
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Under the facts and circumstances of the holiday pay, service incentive leave pay,
present case, the grant of a lesser amount and 13th month pay.
of separation pay to private respondent Petitioner maintains that he was illegally
was done, not by reason of discrimination, dismissed as Asiakonstrukt failed to prove
but rather, out of sheer financial that it was suffering business losses to
bankruptcy — a fact that is not controlled warrant a valid retrenchment of its
by management prerogatives. employees; and Asiakonstrukt belatedly
submitted financial statements were not
Stated differently, the total cessation of shown to be newly found evidence and
operation due to mind-boggling losses unavailable during the proceedings before
was a supervening fact that prevented the the Labor Arbiter to thus cast doubts as to
company from continuing to grant the their veracity.
more generous amount of separation pay.
The fact that North Davao at the point of Issue: Whether or not petitioner was
its forced closure voluntarily paid any illegally dismissed.
separation benefits at all — although not
required by law — and 12.5-days’ worth Held: Retrenchment is the termination of
at that, should have elicited employment initiated by the employer
administration instead of condemnation. through no fault of and without prejudice
to the employees, it is resorted to during
periods of business recession, industrial
Virgilio Anabe v. Asia Konstruct depression, or seasonal fluctuations or
during lulls occasioned by lack of orders,
Facts: By notice dated September 8, 1999, shortage of materials, conversion of the
he was advised that his services would be, plant for a new production program or the
as he was in fact, terminated effective introduction of new methods or more
October 8, 1999 on the ground of efficient machinery or of automation. It is
retrenchment. Petitioner thus filed on a management prerogative resorted to, to
February 10, 2000 a complaint for illegal avoid or minimize business losses, and is
dismissal and illegal deduction and recognized by Article 283 of the Labor
payment of overtime pay, premium pay, Code.
Labor Relations 114
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
It is manifestly clear that petitioner was On the other hand, respondent averred
very much aware of the imminence and that petitioner was hired as machine
possibility of business losses owing to the operator from March 1993 until he
1997 financial crisis. stopped working sometime in February
1999 on the ground that he was suffering
Romeo Villaruel v. Yeo Han Guan from illness; after his recovery, petitioner
was directed to report for work, but he
FACTS: Petitioner alleged that in June never showed up. Respondent was later
1963, he was employed as a machine caught by surprise when petitioner filed
operator by Ribonette Manufacturing the instant case for recovery of separation
Company, an enterprise engaged in the pay.
business of manufacturing and selling PVC
pipes and is owned and managed by ISSUE: is Villaruel entitled to separation
herein respondent Yeo Han pay?
Guan.Petitioner further alleged that in
October 1998, he got sick and was HELD: YES, but only financial assistance as
confined in a hospital; In December 1998, a measure of social justice
he reported for work but was no longer Article 284 of the Labor Code reads:
Labor Relations 118
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
An employer may terminate the services other choice but to disassociate himself
of an employee who has been found to be from his employment
suffering from any disease and whose
continued employment is prohibited by Wuerth Philippines Inc. v. Ynson
law or is prejudicial to his health as well as
to the health of his co-employees: Facts: Respondent suffered a stroke, and
Provided, That he is paid separation pay on the succeeding days, he was confined
equivalent to at least 1 month salary or to at the Davao Doctor's Hospital. He
½ month salary for every year of service immediately informed petitioner about his
whichever is greater, a fraction of at least ailment.
six months being considered as 1 whole
year. Respondent sent an e-mail7 to petitioner,
informing the latter that he can return to
A plain reading of the abovequoted work but in view of the recommendation
provision clearly presupposes that it is the of doctors that he should continue with
employer who terminates the services of his rehabilitation until July, he requested
the employee found to be suffering from that administrative work be given to him
any disease and whose continued while in Davao City, until completion of his
employment is prohibited by law or is therapy.
prejudicial to his health as well as to the
health of his co-employees. It does not Issue: W/N respondent may be
contemplate a situation where it is the terminated due to his illness. Yes.
employee who severs his or her
employment ties. Held: We agree. With regard to disease as
a ground for termination, Article 284 of
Resignation is defined as the voluntary act the Labor Code provides that an employer
of an employee who finds himself in a may terminate the services of an
situation where he believes that personal employee who has been found to be
reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of suffering from any disease and whose
the exigency of the service and he has no continued employment is prohibited by
Labor Relations 119
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
law or is prejudicial to his health, as well Later, Uy asked them to sign probationary
as to the health of his co-employees. contracts with FGMC either as sewers or
cutters, to exclude them from the new
Thus, as of June 4, 2003, respondent company's bargaining unit.
would have been capable of returning to
work. However, despite notices sent by HELD: The petition has no merit. Jose Uy
the petitioner requiring respondent to signed the agreement as President and
attend an investigation set on July 14, General Manager of both Paramount
2003. Despite the completion of his Gloves Phils. Inc. and FGMC. Therefore, he
treatment, respondent failed to attend is estopped from disclaiming any liability
the investigations set on July 25, 2003 and under it. The probationary employment
August 18, 2003. Thus, his unexplained contracts which the private respondents
absence in the proceedings should be were made to sign on May 23, 1988, a
construed as waiver of his right to be week after the execution of the merger
present therein in order to adduce agreement on March 16, 1988, violated
evidence that would have justified his the terms of the merger agreement and
continued absence from work. the employees' right to security of tenure.
executed a Release and Waiver which could have operated as a just cause for
they acknowledged before Atty. Nolasco the termination of employment was not
Discipulo, Hearing Officer of the Butuan material. The change in ownership of the
City District Office of the Department of management was done bona fide and the
Labor and Employment (DOLE). petitioners did not for any moment before
the filing of their complaints raise any
The new owner caused the publication of doubt on the motive for the change. On
a notice for the hiring of workers, the contrary, upon being informed thereof
indicating therein who of the separated and of their eventual termination from
employees could be accepted on employment, they freely and voluntarily
probationary basis. The petitioners then accepted their separation pay and other
filed their applications for employment. benefits and individually executed the
Except for Rosario Cuarto, they were hired Release or Waiver which they
on probationary basis for six months as acknowledged before no less than a
patchers or tapers, but were compensated hearing officer of the DOLE.
on piece-rate or task basis.
JRS Business v. NLRC
Issue: Whether there was a closing or
cessation of business operations which FACTS: In September 1988, Dela Cerna,
could have operated as a just cause for petitioner's Internal Auditor, conducted
the termination of employment. an audit of its Davao office. The audit
revealed a shortage totalling P145,564.33
Held:Yes. In the case at bar, there was arising from undeposited cash sales and
only a change of ownership of Super unexplained cash shortages from charge
Mahogany Plywood Corporation which sales. On the basis that it was the
resulted in a change of ownership. In responsibility of petitioner to deposit the
short, the corporation itself, as a distinct proceeds of sales with the office cashier,
and separate juridical entity, continues to Munoz, petitioner's Treasurer, called
exist. private respondent's attention to the cash
The issue of whether there was a closing shortage. He was directed to explain in
or cessation of business operations which writing within 72 hours from receipt of
Labor Relations 121
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
the notice why he should not be relieved purchased by her husband from Hongkong
from his position. and Shanghai Banking Corporation.
Upon verification, it was uncovered that
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner the demand draft was deposited on 10
violated the maximum 30 day preventive June 1988 with FCDU Savings Account
suspension under the Labor Code? (S/A) No. 1083-4, an account under the
name of Sonia Alfiscar (Alfiscar). Further
HELD: Yes. Sections 3 and 4, Rule XIV, investigation revealed that the demand
Book V of the Omnibus Rules draft, together with four (4) other checks,
Implementing the Labor Code, was made to appear as only one deposit
Termination of Employment. Petitioner covered by HSBC Check No. 979120 for
having violated the maximum 30-day One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-two
preventive suspension under Section 4, Dollars (US$1,232.00).
Rule XIV, Book of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code, a sanction ISSUE: Whether or not a preventive
is imposed on him in consonance with our suspension is necessary
ruling in Great Pacific Life Assurance
Corporation v. National Labor Relations HELD: NO. Petitioners insist that
Commission, 187 SCRA 694 (1990). respondent bank never lost trust and
Petitioner must indemnify private confidence in them as it did not place
respondent in the amount of One them under preventive suspension, and
Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00). more tellingly, it even promoted them
after the labor arbiter had ordered their
Cadiz v. CA reinstatement.
his co-workers." The bank points out that certain unfounded score of inefficient
the Alfiscar account, through which the performance of duty.
anomalous transactions were coursed,
was no longer active at the time the fraud Issue: Whether or not private respondent
was discovered. was constructively dismissed.
Clearly, the bank had reason to conclude
that the imminence of the threat posed by Held: Yes, constructive dismissal as a
the employees was not as vital as it would cessation of work because continued
have been had the dubious account still employment is rendered impossible,
been open. unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a
demotion in rank or diminution in pay or
McMer Corporation Inc. v. NLRC both; or when a clear discrimination,
insensibility, or disdain by an employer
Facts: According to private respondent, becomes unbearable to the employee.
for quite some time, he and petitioners,
specifically Macario D. Roque, Jr. (Roque) The test of constructive dismissal is
and Cecilia R. Alvestir (Alvestir), McMer’s whether a reasonable person in the
General Manager and President, employee’s position would have felt
respectively, have been on a cold war compelled to give up his position under
brought often by the disagreement in the the circumstances. It is an act amounting
design and implementation of company to dismissal but made to appear as if it
policies and procedures. were not. Constructive dismissal is,
therefore, a dismissal in disguise. As such,
However, the subsisting rift between him the law recognizes and resolves this
and petitioners heightened on July 10, situation in favor of employees in order to
2007 when petitioner McMer started protect their rights and interests from the
verbally and maliciously imputing against coercive acts of the employer. In fact, the
Ms. Ginalita C. Guiao, Department Head employee who is constructively dismissed
III, Logistics Department, and another may be allowed to keep on coming to
officer of the Logistics Department, Ms. work.
Marissa A. Rebulado, Department Head I,
Labor Relations 123
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Bebina Salvaloza v. NLRC, Gulf Pacific the available posts under its existing
Agency et. al. contracts are less than the number of
guards in its roster.
Facts: In his position paper,6 Gregorio
alleged that, in August 1996, he was It also happens in instances where
employed by Gulf Pacific as a security contracts for security services stipulate
guard, working from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 that the client may request the agency for
p.m., Mondays to Sundays, receiving a the replacement of the guards assigned to
monthly salary of ₱4,000.00. He stated it even for want of cause, such that the
that he was assigned to several replaced security guard may be placed on
establishments, working continuously for temporary "off-detail" if there are no
almost five (5) years until his alleged available posts under the agency’s existing
termination in August 2001. According to contracts.
him, he reported daily to Gulf Pacific,
waiting for his new assignment, but he Nippon Housing Inc et. al. v. Maia Reyes
was not given any because there was no
position available for him. His last visit to Facts: Having gained the Bay Gardens
Gulf Pacific’s office was in February 2002, Condominium Project (the Project) of the
but still no assignment was given to him. Bay Gardens Condominium Corporation
(BGCC) as its first and only building
Issue: Is there constructive dismissal? maintenance client, NHPI hired
respondent Maiah Angela Leynes (Leynes)
Held: Temporary "off-detail" or "floating as Property Manager.
status" is the period of time when security
guards are in between assignments or On 22 February 2002, Leynes was further
when they are made to wait after being served by petitioner Yasuhiro Kawata and
relieved from a previous post until they Noboyushi Hisada, NHPIs Senior Manager
are transferred to a new one. It takes and Janitorial Manager,with a letter and
place when the security agency’s clients memorandum from Reyes, relieving her
decide not to renew their contracts with from her position and directing her to
the agency, resulting in a situation where
Labor Relations 124
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
report to NHPIs main office while she was Property Manager position available to
on floating status. Leynes.
HELD: NO. Petitioners failed to prove with Facts: Petitioner was a regular employee
convincing evidence a bona fide (salesman) of private respondent San
suspension of their operations in 1994, Miguel Corporation (SMC), Magnolia
1995 and even in January 1996 due to Division, assigned to its Baguio Sales
acute economic losses in their operations. Office.
We find that, based on the records, the On June 2, 1988, petitioner submitted to
petitioners merely downscaled their private respondent Conrad B. Yumang III,
operations in 1995, and did not suspend then Regional Sales Supervisor, an
the same because of economic difficulties. accident report. In a memorandum dated
The respondents continued to work at the July 5, 1988, petitioner was relieved by
Nasipit Processing Plant although each of private respondent SMC of the duties and
them received a monthly pay of only responsibilities as tetra salesman of the
P600.00. The petitioners dismissed the Baguio Sales Office.
respondents when the latter refused to On August 15, 1988, petitioner was served
report for work. a letter of termination.
We agree with the NLRC and the CA that Issue: Did the employer give due process
the petitioners' claim of suspending in the termination of the employee?
operations in 1994 and 1995 was merely (Yes)
an afterthought to justify their dismissal
of the respondents. It must be stressed Held: During the investigation, it appears
that the petitioners obstinately refused to that he knew all the time that the
heed and agree to the respondents' just investigation involves his administrative
demands to pay their monetary benefits responsibility to his superior. In no
and backlog wages amounting to uncertain terms he admitted the gravity of
P1,800,000.00, which ultimately led to the his offense and asked that a heavy penalty
latter's dismissal from employment. should be imposed on him. Due process
contemplates freedom from arbitrariness.
Mendoza v. NLRC What it requires is fairness or justice; the
substance' rather than the form being
Labor Relations 126
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
paramount. When a party has been given constitute serious misconduct and willful
the opportunity to be heard, then he was disobedience justifying his dismissal.
afforded due process. The misconduct must be related to the
performance of his duties and of such
Villeno v. NLRC grave character rendering him unfit to
continue working for the employer. As
Facts: The petitioner without seeking regards willful disobedience, at least two
permission left the vessel purportedly to (2) requisites must concur: (1) the
settle a marital problem. Before leaving employee's assailed conduct must have
he disconnected the ship's steering line been willful or intentional, the willfulness
cable so that the vessel could not leave being characterized by a "wrongful and
port without him. His explanation was perverse attitude;" and, (2) the order
that he wanted to prevent pranksters violated must have been reasonable,
from toying around with the steering lawful, made known to the employee and
wheel as what had happened in the past. must pertain to the duties which he had
When he returned to the port he was been engaged to discharge.
prevented by a representative of
respondent corporation from boarding Citibank NA v. Gatchalian
the vessel. It turned out that the vessel
had hired another electrician to reconnect Facts: Petitioner bank received thirty-one
the steering line cable. The consequence (31) applications from alleged APBCI
of petitioner's actuation was that the employees1 for the issuance of Citibank
departure of the vessel was further credit cards, popularly known as
delayed. Mastercard. Petitioner bank's policy is for
new and unsigned credit cards to be
Issue: W/N his dismissal was valid. Yes. released only to the cardholders
concerned or their duly authorized
Held: The crux of the controversy now is representatives. However, a Citibank
whether petitioner's act of disconnecting employee may himself take delivery of
the steering line cable and disembarking new and unsigned credit cards after
from the vessel without permission accomplishing a Card Pull-Out Request
Labor Relations 127
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Form wherein the employee assumes the good record with the company will not
responsibility of delivering the same to justify his dismissal.
the cardholder concerned. Company’s contentions- Moya, who was
exercising supervision and control over
Issue: Whether Llonillo was guilty of gross the employees as a department head,
negligence which warrants her dismissal failed to exercise the diligence required of
him to see to it that the machine
Held: Yes. Llonillo committed gross operator, Melandro Autor, properly
negligence in the performance of her operated the machine. This act is
duty. The law requires that an employee's considered as a gross and habitual neglect
negligence, to be a valid ground for of duty which caused actual losses to the
dismissal, must be both gross and company.
habitual. Gross negligence implies a want
or absence of or failure to exercise slight ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner
care or diligence, or the entire absence of employee is entitled to separation pay
care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of based on his length of service. (NO)
consequences without exerting any effort
to avoid them. HELD: No. Petitioner is not entitled to
separation pay. Payment of separation
Reynaldo Moya v. First Solid Rubber pay cannot be justified by his length of
service. It must be stressed that Moya was
FACTS: Moya’s contentions- Through his not an ordinary rank-and-file employee.
Reply, added that his termination fell He was holding a supervisory rank being
short of any of the just causes of serious an Officer-in-Charge of the Tire Curing
misconduct, gross and habitual neglect of Department. The position, naturally one
duties and willful breach of trust. He of trust, required of him abiding honesty
pointed out that the company failed to as compared to ordinary rank-and-file
prove that his act fell within the purview employees. When he made a false report
of improper or wrong misconduct, and attributing the damage of five tires to
that a single act of negligence as machine failure, he breached the trust
compared to eleven years of service of
Labor Relations 128
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
and confidence reposed upon him by the from July to November of that year.
company. Complainant Fuertes failure to meet his
sales quota which caused his demotion
Leonardo v NLRC and the subsequent withdrawal of his
allowance is fully supported by Exhibit "4"
FACTS: Reynaldo’s denied the charge; it showing that his performance for the
was simply carrying out a policy designed months of July 1991 to November 1991 is
to encourage work efficiency and below par.
competitiveness by giving out extra
allowances and choice assignments to Cathedral School of Technology v. NLRC
employees who meet the required quota.
Failure to maintain such quota simply Facts: After sometime she decided not be
means loss of the assignment and extra a nun instead she worked as library aide
allowances. for the said school. But due to
unfavorable behavior and attitude of the
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was private respondent, as according to
constructively dismissed. complaints received against her, her
attention was called but instead of
HELD: No. Constructive dismissal is an heeding the advice of her superior she
involuntary resignation resorted to by an was arrogant to accept her fault.
employee when his continued
employment becomes impossible, Because of her unlikely behavior she was
unreasonable, or unlikely or when there is given a 30-day notice of termination until
demotion in rank or diminution in pay, or such time she was not allowed to enter
when a clear determination, insensibility the school premises. Aggrieved, she filed
or disdain by the employer becomes for illegal dismissal against petitioner
unbearable. before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter as
affirmed by the NLRC ruled in her favor
Private respondents’ justification is well- assailing that the dismissal was illegal due
illustrated in the record. He was unable to to lack of due process.
meet his quota for five months in 1991,
Labor Relations 129
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Issue: Whether or not lack of due process low performance rating and the negative
is a valid ground for illegal dismissal? feedback from her team members
regarding her work attitude. The letter
Held: The Court held, the existence of an also notified her that she was being
employer-employee relationship is relieved of her other functions except the
essentially a factual question and the development of the new Access program.
respondent commission's findings thereon
are accorded great weight and respect Subsequently, on August 16, 1999, Galay
and even finality when the same are was terminated for alleged loss of
supported by substantial evidence. confidence. Thereafter, she filed with the
We find no reason to overrule the same. Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal
An evaluative review of the records of this dismissal and nonpayment of service
case nonetheless supports a finding of a incentive leave and 13th month pay
just cause for termination. The reason for against petitioners.
which private respondent's services were
terminated, namely, her unreasonable Issue: Was there just cause in the
behavior and unpleasant deportment in termination of Galay?
dealing with the people she closely works
with in the course of her employment, is Held: An employee who cannot get along
analogous to the other "just causes" with his co-employees is detrimental to
enumerated under the Labor Code, as the company for he can upset and strain
amended: the working environment. Without the
necessary teamwork and synergy, the
Heavylift Manila Inc. v. NLRC organization cannot function well. Thus,
management has the prerogative to take
Facts: Heavylift, a maritime agency, thru a the necessary action to correct the
letter signed by petitioner Josephine situation and protect its organization.
Evangelio, Administrative and Finance When personal differences between
Manager of Heavylift, informed employees and management affect the
respondent Ma. Dottie Galay, Heavylift work environment, the peace of the
Insurance and Provisions Assistant, of her company is affected.
Labor Relations 130
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Thus, an employee’s attitude problem is a Held: yes, this Court, after a review of the
valid ground for his termination. It is a NLRC finding that respondent did not
situation analogous to loss of trust and commit serious misconduct, finds
confidence that must be duly proved by otherwise. While the labor arbiter did not
the employer. Similarly, compliance with explicitly rule that respondent committed
the twin requirement of notice and serious misconduct, his decision leads to
hearing must also be proven by the that conclusion, for the documentary
employer. evidence which it cites as basis to prove
her work inefficiency shows, upon close
Citibank NA v. NLRC examination, also her commission of
serious misconduct.
Facts: Sometime in the early part of 1993,
as a result of the reorganization, the bank These performance appraisals, however,
declared certain officers and employees, did not merely show that respondent was
or their positions/functions, redundant. not able to meet performance targets.
Among these affected was complainant More relevantly, they also consistently
Paragas. However, to accommodate the noted significant behavioral and
union officers’ request, complainant’s attitudinal problems in respondent.
employment was not terminated but was
assigned to Records Management Unit of Mendoza vs. HMS Credit
the Quality Assurance Division as bank
statement retriever, a filing clerk job FACTS: During her employment, she
described by complainant as "non-brainer simultaneously serviced three other
job." respondent companies. Respondent Luisa
was the Managing Director of HMS Credit,
Issue: whether or not the actuations of while respondent Felipe was the company
Paragas for which petitioner had officer to whom Mendoza directly
dismissed her are on the ground of reported. Respondents maintain that
Serious Misconduct? Mendoza was hired on the basis of her
qualification as a Certified Public
Accountant (CPA), which turned out to be
Labor Relations 131
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
a misrepresentation. Not only did she fail employment. In illegal dismissal cases,
to disclose knowledge of the resignations fundamental is the rule that when an
of two HMS Group officers, Labasan and employer interposes the defense of
de la Cruz, and their subsequent transfer resignation, on him necessarily rests the
to a competitor company, but she also burden to prove that the employee
had a hand in pirating them. She allegedly indeed voluntarily resigned.
told them that if they had lost their trust
in her, it would be best for them to part Quevedo v. Benguet Electric Cooperative,
ways. Accordingly, they purportedly asked Inc.
her to propose an amount representing
her entitlement to separation benefits. Facts: Before 1999, BENECO started
automating its operations, rendering
ISSUE: Whether Mendoza resigned superfluous functions performed by some
voluntarily? employees, including petitioners. Instead
of terminating petitioners’ employment
HELD: Resignation — the formal outright for redundancy and paying them
pronouncement or relinquishment of a the statutory benefits, BENECO offered
position or office — is the voluntary act of petitioners the option to retire under a
an employee who is in a situation where newly created optional retirement
he believes that personal reasons cannot program (Early Voluntary Retirement
be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of [EVR]) guaranteeing petitioners bigger
the service, and he has then no other benefits.
choice but to disassociate himself from
employment. After unsuccessfully requesting BENECO
to retain their services, petitioners
The intent to relinquish must concur with accepted BENECO’s offer, received
the overt act of relinquishment; hence, payments, and released BENECO from
the acts of the employee before and after further liability in individually executed
the alleged resignation must be contracts. In September 2000, nearly four
considered in determining whether he in months after leaving BENECO, petitioners
fact intended to terminate his sued BENECO at the National Labor
Labor Relations 132
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Relations Commission (NLRC) Arbitration On May 16, 2001, Becton, Asia announced
Branch, Cordillera Administrative Region, the appointment of petitioner Wilfredo
Baguio City for illegal dismissal. Joaquin, a former Filipino citizen who later
acquired American citizenship, as the new
Issue: Is BENECO liable for illegal Country Manager of Becton, Phils.
dismissal?
Being a stranger to the company’s
Held: Retirement from service is operations, as well as to the customers of
contractual (i.e.based on the bilateral Becton, Phils., Joaquin sought
agreement of the employer and respondent’s assistance to address serious
employee), while termination of problems of the company, and to orient
employment is statutory (i.e. governed by him in the mechanics of the company’s
the Labor Code and other related laws as sales and marketing efforts in the
to its grounds, benefits and procedure). Philippines.
The benefits resulting from termination
vary, depending on the cause. For Issue: W/N the termination is valid. No.
retirement, Article 287 of the Labor Code
gives leeway to the parties to stipulate Held: The record supports the finding that
above a floor of benefits. the Company and Joaquin disregarded
Petitioners’ Retirement from Service was totally the Company’s guidelines in
Voluntary declaring [respondent’s] position
redundant. There is no clear proof that
Becton Dickinson Phils v. NLRC [respondent’s] services are in excess of
the Company’s reasonable demands and
Facts: The "Self-Managed Team" was requirements; and that there is no other
composed of seven (7) members alternative available to the Company
consisting of four (4) Filipinos and three except to dismiss.
(3) foreigners. Respondent was named
one of the four (4) Filipino members of Lourdes Domingo v. Rogelio Rayala
the said team.
Labor Relations 133
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
The fact that a particular act does not CTA. She again requested Ruby to
conform to the traditional moral views of accompany her.
a certain sectarian institution is not
sufficient reason to qualify such act as Forthwith, respondent approached Ruby,
immoral unless it, likewise, does not asked her what she was looking for and
conform to public and secular standards. stepped out of the office. When he
More importantly, there must be returned, Ruby said she found what she
substantial evidence to establish that was looking for and left. Respondent then
premarital sexual relations and pregnancy approached complainant saying, me gusto
out of wedlock is considered disgraceful akong gawin sa iyo kahapon pa.
or immoral. Thereupon, he tried to grab her.
Atty. Susan Aquino v. Hon. Ernesto Issue: was there sexual harassment?
Acosta
Held: No. Administrative complaints
Facts: In her affidavit-complaint, against members of the judiciary are
complainant alleged several instances viewed by this Court with utmost care, for
when respondent judge sexually harassed proceedings of this nature affect not only
her. the reputation of the respondents
In the morning of February 14, 2001, concerned, but the integrity of the entire
respondent called complainant, judiciary as well.
requesting her to go to his office. She then
asked Ruby Lanuza, a clerk in the Records We have reviewed carefully the records of
Section, to accompany her.Fortunately, this case and found no convincing
when they reached his chambers, evidence to sustain complainants charges.
respondent had left. What we perceive to have been
committed by respondent judge are
The last incident happened the next day. casual gestures of friendship and
At around 8:30 a.m., respondent called camaraderie, nothing more, nothing less.
complainant and asked her to see him in In kissing complainant, we find no
his office to discuss the Senate bill on the indication that respondent was motivated
Labor Relations 136
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
by malice or lewd design. Evidently, she HELD: No, this Court has previously
misunderstood his actuations and defined immoral conduct as "that conduct
construed them as work-related sexual which is willful, flagrant, or shameless,
harassment under R.A. 7877. and which shows a moral indifference to
As aptly stated by the Investigating the opinion of the good and respectable
Justice: members of the community. In
"A mere casual buss on the cheek is not a disbarment cases, this Court has ruled
sexual conduct or favor and does not fall that the mere fact of sexual relations
within the purview of sexual harassment between two unmarried adults is not
under R.A. No. 7877. sufficient to warrant administrative
sanction for such illicit behavior. Whether
Toledo vs. Atty. Toledo a lawyer’s sexual congress with a woman
not his wife or without the benefit of
FACTS: Complainants accused respondent marriage should be characterized as
of immorality. They allege that they have "grossly immoral conduct" will depend on
personal knowledge of the fact that the surrounding circumstances.
respondent is living with his common-law
wife, Normita, whom he allegedly treats Inguillo v. First Phil Scales
as a "maid servant." They further allege
that during the hearings of their cases, Facts: The first Union filed a petition with
respondent was seen with a woman, not First Phil. seeking the termination of the
Normita, who was always at his side, and services of certain employees including
they were very sweet to each other. They Inguillo. Inguillo filed a complaint against
also attribute his unruly and bullying First Phil. for illegal withholding of salary
behavior to his being a drunkard with a and for damages with the NLRC. First Phil.
fondness for the "night life." terminated the services of the employees.
Thus, a complaint for illegal dismissal was
ISSUE: Whether petitioner Toledo is liable filed against them.
for gross immoral conduct?
Labor Relations 137
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Issue: Whether the termination instigated be relieved from his post, and that
by the Union on the account of union immediate disciplinary action against him
security clause legal? be taken.
Held: Under the Labor Code, there are Respondent ccnducted an investigation.
several provisions under which an Petitioner was later to claim that he was
employee may be validly terminated, i.e.: suspended by respondent following his
1. just causes under Art. 282 argument with Alcantara.
2. authorized causes under Art. 283
3. termination due to disease under Art. Issue: W/N there was constructive
284 dismissal.
4. termination by the employee or
resignation Art. 285 Held: This Court finds that, indeed,
petitioner was constructively dismissed.
While these causes did not mention as a Verily, a floating status requires the dire
ground for termination the enforcement exigency of the employer's bona fide
of the Union Security Clause (USC) in the suspension of operation of a business or
CBA, the dismissal from employment undertaking. In security services, this
based on the same is recognized and happens when the security agency’s
accepted in our jurisdiction. clients which do not renew their contracts
are more than those that do and the new
Pido v. NLRC ones that the agency gets.
Facts: Federito B. Pido was a guard Also, in instances when contracts for
observing the elevators in Ayala Museum. security services stipulate that the client
Alcantara filed a complaint for Gross may request the agency for the
Misconduct, claiming that when he replacement of the guards assigned to it
directed petitioner to present his security even for want of cause, the replaced
license, petitioner angrily and on top of security guard may be placed on
his voice questioned his authority. And temporary "off-detail" if there are no
Alcantara recommended that petitioner
Labor Relations 138
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
King of Kings Transport v. Mamac HELD: There was failure to observe the
requirements of due process.
FACTS: He was one of the few people who Due process under the Labor Code
established Damayan ng mga involves two aspects: first, substantive––
Manggagawa, Tsuper at Conductor- the valid and authorized causes of
Transport Workers Union. Pending the termination of employment under the
union’s certification election, respondent Labor Code; and second, procedural––the
was transferred to KKTI. manner of dismissal.
The KKTI employees later organized the
Kaisahan ng mga Kawani sa King of Kings The first written notice to be served on
(KKKK) which was registered with DOLE. the employees should contain the specific
Respondent was elected KKKK president. causes or grounds for termination against
them, and a directive that the employees
Upon audit of the October 28, 2001 are given the opportunity to submit their
Conductor’s Report of respondent, KKTI written explanation within a reasonable
noted an irregularity. It discovered that period. “Reasonable opportunity” under
respondent declared several sold tickets the Omnibus Rules means every kind of
as returned tickets causing KKTI to lose an assistance that management must accord
income of eight hundred and ninety to the employees to enable them to
pesos. While no irregularity report was prepare adequately for their defense.
prepared on the October 28, 2001
incident, KKTI nevertheless asked Magro Placement v. Hernandez
respondent to explain the discrepancy. In
his letter, respondent said that the FACTS: Hernandez was hired as Auto
erroneous declaration in his October 28, Electrician of (Al Yamama) in Jeddah,
2001 Trip Report was unintentional. K.S.A. for a two-year contract thus, he
resigned from Toyota. Because of lack of
Labor Relations 139
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
equipment or tools, the work became the employee, otherwise, the notice does
harder. not comply with the rules.
Al Yamama failed to satisfy the two-notice
After 10 days, his employer took his requirement. Without prior notice or
passport and brought him to Orbit. His explanation, Al Yamama took
employer told the agency that Hernandez respondent's passport and simply brought
did not know his job as electrician. him to petitioner's foreign principal, Orbit,
Hernandez explained that since he used to and told the latter that respondent did
repair Japanese cars only, he needed time not know his job as electrician.
to adjust to American cars. Respondent Respondent heard his employer's
further stated that he was willing to complaint against him at that instance
continue his job. When respondent was only.
subjected to a trade test using an
American car, he failed. Genuino v. NLRC
ISSUE: WON Hernandez was accorded Facts: Genuino was employed by Citibank
procedural due process before his sometime in January 1992 as Treasury
separation from work. Sales Division Head with the rank of
Assistant Vice-President. In the same
HELD: NO. In dismissing an employee, the letter, Genuino was informed she was
employer has the burden of proving that under preventive suspension. Genuino’s
the dismissed worker has been served two counsel replied through a letter dated
notices: (1) the first to inform the September 17, 1993, demanding for a bill
employee of the particular acts or of particulars regarding the charges
omissions for which the employer seeks against Genuino. Genuino’s employment
his dismissal; and (2) the second to inform was terminated by Citibank on grounds of
the employee of his employer’s decision (1) serious misconduct, (2) willful breach
to terminate him. The first notice must of the trust reposed upon her by the bank,
state that the employer seeks dismissal and (3) commission of a crime against the
for the act or omission charged against bank
Labor Relations 140
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Issue: Whether the dismissal is for a just Resources; b) Breach of Fiduciary Trust; c)
cause and with the observance of due Policy Breaches; and d) Integrity Issues.
process.
ISSUES: Whether or not there was a
Held: Genuino was dismissed for just violation of procedural due process in
cause but without the observance of due cases of termination of employment
process. The Labor Arbiter found that based on just causes (YES)
Citibank failed to adequately notify
Genuino of the charges against her. On HELD: Yes. In this case, Unilever was not
the contrary, the NLRC held that “the direct and specific in its first notice to
function of a ‘notice to explain’ is only to Rivera. The words it used were couched in
state the basic facts of the employer’s general terms and were in no way
charges informative of the charges against her
that may result in her dismissal from
Unilever v. Ma. Ruby Rivera employment. Evidently, there was a
violation of her right to statutory due
FACTS She was primarily tasked with process warranting the payment of
managing the sales, distribution and indemnity in the form of nominal
promotional activities in her area and damages. Hence, the Court finds no
supervising Ventureslink, a third party compelling reason to reverse the award of
service provider for the company’s nominal damages in her favor. As a
activation projects. Sometime in 2007, general rule, an employee who has been
Unilever’s internal auditor conducted a dismissed for any of the just causes
random audit and found out that there enumerated under Article 28215of the
were fictitious billings and fabricated Labor Code is not entitled to a separation
receipts supposedly from Ventureslink pay.16 Section 7, Rule I, Book VI of the
and that the fund deviations were upon Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
the instruction of Rivera. Unilever issued a Code provides:
show-cause notice to Rivera asking her to
explain the following charges, to wit: a)
Conversion and Misappropriation of
Labor Relations 141
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Dolores Esguerra v. Valle Verde Country due process notice and hearing must,
Club likewise, be observed. Without the
concurrence of the two, the termination
FACTS: Esguerra was tasked to oversee would be illegal.
the seminar. The Valle Verde
Management found out the following day Wenphil v. NLRC
that only the proceeds from the Tanay
Room had been remitted to the Facts: He thereafter became the assistant
accounting department. There were also head of the Backroom department of the
unauthorized charges of food. To resolve same branch. Mallare had an altercation
the issue, Valle Verde conducted an with a co-employee, Job Barrameda, as a
investigation. Valle Verde sent a result of which he and Barrameda were
memorandum to Esguerra requiring her to suspended and subsequently Mallare was
show cause as to why no disciplinary advised of his dismissal from the service in
action should be taken against her for the accordance with their Personnel Manual.
non-remittance. The notice of dismissal was served on
private respondent on May 25, 1985.
ISSUE: Whether Esguerra was illegally
dismissed? Thus private respondent filed a complaint
against petitioner for unfair labor practice,
HELD: No, the Court fail to find any illegal suspension and illegal dismissal.
irregularities in the service of notice to After submitting their respective position
Esguerra. Esguerras allegation that the papers to the Labor Arbiter and as the
notice was insufficient since it failed to hearing could not be conducted due to
contain any intention to terminate her is repeated absence of counsel for
incorrect. Under the Labor Code, the respondent, the case was submitted for
requirements for the lawful dismissal of resolution. Thereafter a decision was
an employee are two-fold: the substantive rendered by the Labor Arbiter on
and the procedural aspects. Not only must December 3, 1986 dismissing the
the dismissal be for a just or authorized complaint for lack of merit.
cause, the rudimentary requirements of
Labor Relations 142
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
The claim of petitioner that a formal HELD: The Wenphil doctrine stated that it
investigation was not necessary because was unjust to require an employer to
the incident which gave rise to the reinstate an employee if, although
termination of private respondent was termination is made with cause, if due
witnessed by his co- employees and process was not satisfied. The remedy was
supervisors is without merit. The basic to order the payment to the employees of
requirement of due process is that which full backwages from the time of his
hears before it condemns, which proceeds dismissal until the court finds that the
upon inquiry and renders judgment only dismissal was for a just cause. But his
after trial. dismissal must be upheld and he should
Serrano v. NLRC not be reinstated. This is because the
dismissal is ineffectual. In termination of
FACTS: As a cost-cutting measure, private employment under Art. 283, the violation
respondent decided to phase out its of notice requirements is not a denial of
Labor Relations 143
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
HELD: YES. The burden of proof rests on Facts: Petitioners maintain that they
the employer to establish that the should be considered regular employees,
dismissal is for cause in view of the because their task as money sorters and
security of tenure that employees enjoy counters was necessary and desirable to
under the Constitution and the Labor the business of respondent bank. They
Code. The employer’s evidence must further allege that their contracts served
clearly and convincingly show the facts on merely to preclude the application of
which the loss of confidence in the Article 280 and to bar them from
employee may be fairly made to rest. It becoming regular employees.
must be adequately proven by substantial
evidence. Respondents failed to discharge Private respondent, on the other hand,
this burden. submits that petitioners were hired only
as “special workers and should not in any
Labor Relations 145
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
way be considered as part of the regular smuggle out of the company premises 60
complement of the Bank.” Rather, they kilos of scrap iron worth ₱840 aboard
were “special” workers under Article 80 of respondents’ Isuzu Cargo Aluminum Van
the Labor Code. with Plate Number PHP 271 that was then
assigned to him. When questioned,
Issue: Whether or not the dismissal was petitioner allegedly admitted to the
illegal security guard that he was taking out the
scrap iron consisting of lift springs out of
Held: Yes. The dismissal of the 27 regular which he would make axes.
employees were illegal. The other sixteen
were validly dismissed. As held by the Petitioner thereupon filed a complaint
Court, Articles 280 and 281 of the Labor against respondent company for illegal
Code put an end to the pernicious practice dismissal and underpayment of wages. By
of making permanent casuals of our lowly Decision of June 30, 2008, the Labor
employees by the simple expedient of Arbiter, holding that the pendency of the
extending to them probationary criminal case involving the scrap iron did
appointments, ad infinitum. The contract not warrant the suspension of the
signed by petitioners is akin to a proceedings before him, held that
probationary employment, during which petitioner’s dismissal was justified, for he,
the bank determined the employees a truck driver, held a position of trust and
fitness for the job. When the bank confidence, and his act of stealing
renewed the contract after the lapse of company property was a violation of the
the six-month probationary period, the trust reposed upon him.
employees thereby became regular
employees. Issue: Whether or not ALTURAS violated
QUIRICO’s right to due process when
Lopez v. Alturas Group QUIRICO did not exercise the right to
Facts: Ten years later or sometime in counsel.
November 2007, he was dismissed after
he was allegedly caught by respondent’s Held: No. The right to counsel is not
security guard in the act of attempting to mandatory or indispensable as part of due
Labor Relations 146
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
process. The Court finds that it was error worked as a team, delivering packages to
for the NLRC to opine that petitioner their respective addresses or consignees.
should have been afforded counsel or Petitioners denied any involvement
advised of the right to counsel. The right therein. petitioners were given notices by
to counsel and the assistance of one in management, placing them under
investigations involving termination cases preventive suspension.
is neither indispensable nor mandatory,
except when the employee himself Issue: Whether who has the burden of
requests for one or that he manifests that proving due process and just cause for
he wants a formal hearing on the charges termination?
against him.
Held: No evidence was presented to show
In petitioner’s case, there is no showing that AFCI was motivated by any ill feeling
that he requested for a formal hearing to or bad faith in dismissing petitioners.
be conducted or that he be assisted by AFCI’s decision to terminate petitioners'
counsel. Verily, since he was furnished a services was prompted by the necessity to
second notice informing him of his protect its good name and interests.
dismissal and the grounds therefor, the
twin-notice requirement had been AFCI’s documentary evidence showing the
complied with to call for a deletion of the culpability of petitioners should prevail
appellate court’s award of nominal over petitioners' uncorroborated
damages to petitioner. explanations and self-serving denials
regarding their involvement in the
Segismundo v. NLRC pilferages.
latter was found to be incompetent, given to other employees who appear not
unqualified, etc. Subsequently, the qualified.
petitioners were dismissed. The reason
given for the dismissal was to reduce costs What respondents counsel did was merely
inherent to the liquidation process. The to dispute by pleadings the jurisdiction of
petitioners then filed an illegal dismissal this Office and the claims for damages,
case. which evidentiary matters respondent is
required to prove to sustain the validity of
ISSUE: Whether or not there was an illegal such dismissals.
dismissal.
De Guzman v. NLRC
HELD: In cases of illegal dismissal, the
burden is on the employer to prove that FACTS: As reason for the applications,
there was a valid ground for dismissal. petitioner alleged that he was
Mere allegation of reduction of costs experiencing chronic pain from the
without any proof to substantiate the gunshot wounds he sustained in January
same cannot be given credence by the 1984 when he tried to defend the
Court. As the respondents failed to rebut earnings of the company from "brigands."
petitioners evidence, the irresistible According to petitioner, this incident
conclusion is that the dismissal in question resulted in life-threatening injuries. His leg
was illegal. shrunk by at least two (2) inches and three
(3) feet of his intestines had to be
Thus the failure of respondent bank to removed. A bullet was still imbedded in
dispute complainants evidence pertinent his leg which allegedly still gave him
to the various unnecessary and highly chronic pain.
questionable expenses incurred renders
the termination process as a mere In a notice, the company’s Operations
subterfuge, as the same was not on the Manager, informed De Guzman that he
basis as it purports to see, for reason that was being placed under preventive
immediately after the termination from suspension for his absence without an
their respective positions, the same were
Labor Relations 149
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
HELD: In the case at bar, the Bus Company Held: No, the dismissal was valid.
contend that petitioner was validly The respondent was found to have
dismissed for abandonment of work. violated the Company Code of Discipline.
To constitute abandonment, two We recognize the right of an employer to
elements must concur: (1) the failure to regulate all aspects of employment.
report for work or absence without valid This right, aptly called management
or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear prerogative, gives employers the freedom
intention to sever the employer-employee to regulate, according to their discretion
relationship, with the second element as and best judgment, all aspects of
the more determinative factor and being employment, including work assignment,
manifested by some overt acts. Mere working methods, processes to be
absence is not sufficient. followed, working regulations, transfer of
The burden of proof is on the employer to employees, work supervision, lay-off of
show an unequivocal intent on the part of workers and the discipline, dismissal and
the employee to discontinue employment. recall of workers.
specifically, Article 279 of the Labor Code But petitioner was not immediately
and the established jurisprudence on this reinstated. Owing to the strained
provision – that is read into the decision. employer-employee relationship
By the nature of an illegal dismissal case, perceived to exist between them,
the reliefs continue to add up until full TAWTRASCO offered to pay petitioner
satisfaction, as expressed under Article separation pay of PhP 172, 296, but
279 of the Labor Code. petitioner rejected the offer. Eventually,
the two entered into a Compromise
The recomputation of the consequences Agreement, in which petitioner waived a
of illegal dismissal upon execution of the portion of his monetary claim, specifically
decision does not constitute an alteration his backwages for the period.
or amendment of the final decision being
implemented. The illegal dismissal ruling Issue: Was there a proper and genuine
stands; only the computation of monetary reinstatement of petitioner to his former
consequences of this dismissal is affected, position of General Manager of
and this is not a violation of the principle TAWTRASCO without loss of seniority
of immutability of final judgments. rights and privileges? (NO)
Before private respondent was dismissed Held: Yes. The Retirement Fund can be
from the service, petitioner created a charged. The fact that, since the
committee to investigate the charges establishment and effectivity of the
against him. The committee was Retirement Plans, it had been the policy
composed of highly respectable members and practice of the companies to charge
of the community. Private respondent termination, retirement and analogous
was given an opportunity to answer all the benefits for separated employees to the
charges against him, which he did. After Retirement Fund, without a single
almost one year of investigation, the complaint or dissent on the part of the
committee recommended that private unions or any employee, for that matter,
respondent be dismissed from service. is a manifestation on the part of the
unions that separation benefits (not
Labor Relations 154
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Issue: Was Filoteo illegally dismissed? Issue: W/N the reduction of Attorney’s
(Yes) fees is proper?
Held: the NLRC found that the two-fold Held: A contingent fee arrangement is an
requirements for a valid dismissal were agreement laid down in an express
not satisfied by the petitioners. Whether contract between a lawyer and a client in
private respondent was illegally dismissed which the lawyer's professional fee,
or not is governed by Article 282 of the usually a fixed percentage of what may be
Labor Code. To constitute a valid dismissal recovered in the action is made to depend
from employment, two requisites must upon the success of the litigation.
concur: (a) the dismissal must be for any
of the causes provided for in Article 282 of This arrangement is valid in this
the Labor Code; and (b) the employee jurisdiction. It is, however, under the
must be afforded an opportunity to be supervision and scrutiny of the court to
heard and defend himself. protect clients from unjust charges. We
agree with the NLRC's assessment that
Taganas v. NLRC fifty percent of the judgment award as
attorney's fees is excessive and
Facts: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of unreasonable. The financial capacity and
private respondents. During the execution economic status of the client have to be
stage of the decision, petitioner moved to taken into account in fixing the
enforce his attorney's charging lien. reasonableness of the fee.
Private respondents, aggrieved for
receiving a reduced award due to the Tangga-an v. Phil Transmarine Carriers
attorney's charging lien, contested the Inc.
validity of the contingent fee arrangement
they have with petitioner, albeit four of FACTS: He was to be paid a basic salary of
the fourteen private respondents have US$5,000.00; vacation leave pay
expressed their conformity thereto. equivalent to 15 days a month or
US$2,500.00 per month and tonnage
Labor Relations 156
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
bonus in the amount of US$700.00 a FACTS: The case initially concerned the
month. execution kof a final decision of the CA in
On February 2002, Tangga-an was a labor litigation, but has mutated into a
deployed but was dismissed on April dispute over attorney's fees between the
2002. Tangga-an filed a Complaint for winning employee and her attorney after
illegal dismissal with prayer for payment she entered into a compromise
of salaries for the unexpired portion of his agreement with her employer under
contract, leave pay, exemplary and moral circumstances that the attorney has
damages, attorney’s fees and interest. bewailed as designed to prevent the
The Labor Arbiter found petitioner to be recovery of just professional fees.
illegally dismissed.
ISSUE: WON the Motion for Intervention
ISSUE: Whether or not an illegally to protect attorney’s rights can prosper,
dismissed overseas employee is only and, if so, how much could it recover as
entitled to 3 months back salaries. attorney’s fees. (YES)
approved by final order of the court, has Held: Only joint. The Labor Arbiter thus
the force of res judicata between the concluded that indeed, fraud and bad
parties and will not be disturbed except faith on the part of the management are
for vices of consent or forgery. well-established and, as such, HELIOS et
al. are liable for the judgment award.
Carmen Dy-Dumalas v. Domingo Sabado While the appellate court reinstated the
Fernandez Labor Arbiters decision, it held that since
its fallo did not indicate with certainty the
Facts: On October 23, 2001, respondents solidary nature of the obligation, the
filed a Complaint against HELIOS, obligation is merely joint. The Court finds
docketed as NLRC-NCR South Sector Case this ruling well-taken. It is an elementary
No. 30-10-04950-01, for illegal dismissal principle of procedure that the resolution
or illegal closure of business, non- of the court in a given issue as embodied
payment of salaries and other money in the dispositive part of a decision or
claims against HELIOS. The complaint was order is the controlling factor as to
later consolidated with another case filed settlement of rights of the parties.
by similarly situated employees ofHELIOS,
docketed as NLRC-NCR South Sector Case Lynvil Fishing Enterprises Inc. v. Ariola
No. 30-11-05301-01.
FACTS: Lynvil received a report from
Both complaints also impleaded HELIOS Romanito Clarido, one of its employees,
members of the Board of Directors (The that on 31 July 1998, he witnessed that
Board) including herein petitioner. Atty. while on board the company vessel
Arturo Balbastro, one of the members of Analyn VIII, Lynvil employees, namely:
the Board, was subsequently dropped Andres G. Ariola (Ariola), the captain
from the complaint, upon manifestation Alcovendas, Chief Mate Calinao, Chief
of respondents. Engineer Nubla, cook Bañez, oiler
Sebullen, bodegero, conspired with one
Issue: What is the liability of the another and stole eight (8) tubs of
petitioner? "pampano" and "tangigue" fish and
delivered them to another vessel, to the
Labor Relations 158
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
prejudice of Lynvil. The said employees Roberto Enriquez are also the officers and
were engaged on a per trip basis or "por stockholders of Burgos Corporation
viaje" which terminates at the end of each (Burgos), a sister company of Park Hotel.
trip.
ISSUE: W/N Percy and Harbutt are exempt
ISSUES: Whether or not De Borja is jointly from liability for the termination of
and severally liable with Lynvil (NO) Soriano
Ruling: Jurisprudence laid two conditions HELD: No. Although the corporate veil
for the validity of a fixed-contract between Park Hotel and Burgos cannot be
agreement between the employer and pierced, it does not necessarily mean that
employee. Fixed period of employment Percy and Harbutt are exempt from
was knowingly and voluntarily agreed liability towards respondents. Verily, a
upon by the parties without any force, corporation, being a juridical entity, may
duress, or improper pressure being act only through its directors, officers and
brought to bear upon the employee and employees. Obligations incurred by them,
absent any other circumstances vitiating while acting as corporate agents, are not
his consent;... it satisfactorily appears that their personal liability but the direct
the employer and the employee dealt accountability of the corporation they
with each other on more or less equal represent.
terms with no moral dominance exercised However, corporate officers may be
by the former or the latter. deemed solidarily liable with the
corporation for the termination of
Park Hotel et. al. v. Manolo employees if they acted with malice or
bad faith.
FACTS: Petitioner Park Hotel is a
corporation engaged in the hotel Serrano vs. NLRC
business. Petitioners Gregg Harbutt
(Harbutt) and Bill Percy (Percy) are the Facts: In 1988, he became head of the
General Manager and owner, respectively, Security Checkers Section of private
of Park Hotel. Percy, Harbutt and Atty. respondent. Sometime in 1991, as a cost-
Labor Relations 159
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
cutting measure, private respondent written notice on the workers and the
decided to phase out its entire security Department of Labor and Employment at
section and engage the services of an least one (1) month before the intended
independent security agency. date thereof. In case of termination due
Consequently, Serrano was notified of his to the installation of labor-saving devices
termination on October 11, 1991 thru a or redundancy, the worker affected
Memorandum, it is to be noted that under thereby shall be entitled to a separation
the said memorandum he was informed pay equivalent to at least one (1) month
that his termination was effective on that pay or to at least one (1) month pay for
same day (October 11, 1991). every year of service, whichever is higher.
In case of retrenchment to prevent losses
Serrano, thus filed a complaint for illegal and in cases of closure or cessation of
dismissal, illegal layoff, unfair labor operations of establishment or
practice, underpayment of wages, and undertaking not due to serious business
nonpayment of salary and overtime pay. losses or financial reverses, the separation
pay shall be equivalent to at least one (1)
Issue: Is it an authorized causes for month pay or at least one-half (1/2)
dismissal under Art. 283 of the Labor month pay for every year of service,
Code? whichever is higher. A fraction of at least
six (6) months shall be considered as one
Held: Yes, under Art. 283 which provides: (1) whole year.
Closure of establishment and reduction of
personnel. - The employer may also Agabon v. NLRC
terminate the employment of any
employee due to the installation of labor- Facts: It employed petitioners Virgilio
saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum
to prevent losses or the closing or board and cornice installers on January 2,
cessation of operations of the 1992 until February 23, 1999 when they
establishment or undertaking unless the were dismissed for abandonment of work.
closing is for the purpose of circumventing
the provisions of this Title, by serving a
Labor Relations 160
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Petitioners then filed a complaint for Tanjangco Quazon, took over the
illegal dismissal and payment of money administration of all the Tanjangco
claims. properties. On June 8, 1991, private
respondent Dagui received the shock of
Issue: Were petitioners illegally dismissed his life when Mrs. Quazon suddenly told
even if there was no due process? (NO) him: "Wala ka nang trabaho mula
ngayon," on the alleged ground that his
Held: The dismissal should be upheld work was unsatisfactory.
because it was established that the On August 29, 1991, private respondent,
petitioners abandoned their jobs to work who was then already sixty-two (62) years
for another company. Private old, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
respondent, however, did not follow the with the Labor Arbiter.
notice requirements and instead argued
that sending notices to the last known Issue: Whether or not private respondent
addresses would have been useless Honorio Dagui was illegally dismissed
because they did not reside there
anymore. Unfortunately for the private Held: Yes, the twin requirements of notice
respondent, this is not a valid excuse and hearing constitute the essential
because the law mandates the twin notice elements of due process. This simply
requirements to the employees last means that the employer shall afford the
known address. worker ample opportunity to be heard
Thus, it should be held liable for non- and to defend himself with the assistance
compliance with the procedural of his representative, if he so desires.
requirements of due process.
These mandatory requirements were
Aurora Land Projects v. NLRC undeniably absent in the case at bar.
Petitioner Quazon dismissed private
Facts: He was to perform carpentry, respondent on June 8, 1991, without
plumbing, electrical and masonry work. giving him any written notice informing
Upon the death of Doa Aurora Tanjangco the worker herein of the cause for his
in 1982, her daughter, petitioner Teresita termination.
Labor Relations 161
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of an Facts: As the parties failed to reach a
employee constitute a "grievance settlement before the NCMB, petitioners
between the parties," as defined under requested to elevate the case to voluntary
the provisions of the CBA arbitration. The NCMB thus set a date for
the parties to agree on a Voluntary
Held: Private respondents attempt to Arbitrator.
justify the conferment of jurisdiction over
the case on the Voluntary Arbitrator on Issue: Whether or not the grievances of a
the ground that the issue involves the said employees, not authorized to
proper interpretation and implementation represent the union, can be submitted for
of the Grievance Procedure found in the voluntary arbitration.
CBA.
Held: NO. As they are not authorized to
They point out that when petitioner represent the union, the said grievance
sought the assistance of his Union to avail cannot be submitted to voluntary
of the grievance machinery, he in effect arbitration. Respecting petitioners’ thesis
submitted himself to the procedure set that unsettled grievances should be
forth in the CBA regarding submission of referred to voluntary arbitration as called
unresolved grievances to a Voluntary for in the CBA, the same does not lie. In
Arbitrator. case of any dispute arising from the
interpretation or implementation of this
The argument is untenable. The case is Agreement or any matter affecting the
primarily a termination dispute. It is clear relations of Labor and Management.
from the claim/assistance request form
Labor Relations 163
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Goya Inc. v. Goya Employees Union Following the said categories, the
Company should have observed and
Facts: When the matter remained complied with the provision of their CBA.
unresolved, the grievance was referred to Since the Company had admitted that it
the National Conciliation and Mediation engaged the services of PESO to perform
Board (NCMB) for voluntary arbitration. temporary or occasional services which is
During the hearing the Company and the akin to those performed by casual
Union manifested before Voluntary employees, the Company should have
Arbitrator (VA) Bienvenido E. Laguesma tapped the services of casual employees
that amicable settlement was no longer instead of engaging PESO.
possible.
The Union asserted that the hiring of We confirm that the VA ruled on a matter
contractual employees from PESO is not a that is covered by the sole issue submitted
management prerogative and in gross for voluntary arbitration. Resultantly, the
violation of the CBA tantamount to unfair CA did not commit serious error when it
labor practice (ULP). sustained the ruling that the hiring of
contractual employees from PESO was not
Issue: Was it proper for the voluntary in keeping with the intent and spirit of the
arbitrator to rule that the engagement of CBA.
PESO is not in keeping with the intent of
the CBA? Indeed, the opinion of the VA is germane
to, or, in the words of the CA,
Held: A careful reading of the above- "interrelated and intertwined with," the
enumerated categories of employees sole issue submitted for resolution by the
reveals that the PESO contractual parties.
employees do not fall within the
enumerated categories of employees Master Iron Labor Union v. NLRC
stated in the CBA of the parties.
Facts: Right after the signing of the CBA
with petitioner, the respondent
Labor Relations 164
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Facts: The NLRC declared the respondents
Appeals erred in sustaining the findings of Green Mountain Farm, Roberto Ongpin
the labor arbiter and the NLRC and in and Almus Alabe guilty of Illegal Dismissal
dismissing SMC’s claims that respondent and Unfair Labor Practice and ordered
was terminated from service with just them to pay the complainants, in solidum.
cause. Subsequently a writ of execution was
issued. Sheriff Ventura then proceeded to
HELD: Yes. Proof beyond reasonable enforce the writ. Findings that said
doubt is not required as a basis for judgment debtors do not have sufficient
judgment on the legality of an employer’s personal properties, the Sheriff proceeded
dismissal of an employee, nor even to levy upon a real property of Ongpin.
preponderance of evidence for that
matter, substantial evidence being Issue: Whether or not the trial court may
sufficient. In the instant case, while there take cognizance of the complaint filed by
may be no denying that respondent’s petitioner and consequently provide the
medical card had falsified entries in it, injunction relief sought?
SMC was unable to prove, by substantial
evidence, that it was respondent who Held: No. Ostensibly the complaint before
made the unauthorized entries. Besides, the trial court was for the recovery of
SMC’s (Your) Guide on Employee Conduct possession and injunction, but in essence
punishes the act of falsification of it was an action challenging the legality or
company records or documents; it does propriety of the levy visa-vis the alias writ
not punish mere possession of a falsified of execution, including the acts performed
document. by the Labor Arbiter and the Deputy
Sheriff implementing the writ. The
complainant was in effect a motion to
quash the writ of execution of a decision
rendered on a case properly within the
Labor Relations 166
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, to wit: improve the terms and conditions of their
Illegal Dismissal and Unfair Labor Practice. employment. It may be that in highly
Considering the factual setting, it is then developed countries, the significance of
logical to conclude that the subject matter strike as a coercive weapon has shrunk in
of the third party claim is but an incident view of the preference for more peaceful
of the labor case, a matter beyond the modes of settling labor disputes.
jurisdiction of regional trial courts. In underdeveloped countries, however,
where the economic crunch continues to
Bisig ng Manggagawa sa Concrete enfeeble the already marginalized working
Aggregates Inc. v. NLRC class, the importance of the right to strike
remains undiminished as indeed it has
FACTS: The labor conflict between the proved many a time as the only coercive
parties broke out in the open when the weapon that can correct abuses against
petitioner union struck on April 6, 1992 labor. It remains as the great equalizer.
protesting issues ranging from unfair labor
practices and union busting allegedly San Miguel v. NLRC
committed by the private respondent. The
union picketed the premises of the private FACTS: Petitioner San Miguel Corporation
respondent. On April 8, 1992, Concrete (SMC) and respondent Ilaw at Buklod ng
Aggregates filed with the NLRC a petition Manggagawa (IBM), exclusive bargaining
for injunction (with a prayer for TRO) to agent of petitioners daily-paid rank and
stop the strike which it denounced as file employees, executed a Collective
illegal. It alleged that: Bargaining Agreement (CBA) under which
they agreed to submit all disputes to
ISSUE:Whether or not the NLRC commit grievance and arbitration proceedings.
grave abuse of discretion in issuing a The CBA also included a mutually
TRO/writ of preliminary injunction? enforceable no-strike no-lockout
agreement.
HELD: Yes. Strike has been considered the
most effective weapon of labor in ISSUE: W/N the injunction case filed by
protecting the rights of employees to respondent will proceed
Labor Relations 167
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
HELD: We find for the petitioner. Article The labor arbiter ruled in favor of
254 of the Labor Code provides that no petitioner, confirming that indeed, there
temporary or permanent injunction or was no employer-employee relationship
restraining order in any case involving or between the two and hence, there could
growing out of labor disputes shall be be no illegal dismissal in such a situation.
issued by any court or other entity except Issue: Whether or not the petitioner’s
as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and appeal/petition for certiorari was properly
264 of the Labor Code. filed in the Supreme Court.
Under the first exception, Article 218 (e) Held: No. Historically, decisions from the
of the Labor Code expressly confers upon NLRC were appealable to the Secretary of
the NLRC the power to enjoin or restrain Labor, whose decisions are then
actual and threatened commission of any appealable to the Office of the President.
or all prohibited or unlawful acts, or to However, the new rules do not anymore
require the performance of a particular provide provisions regarding appellate
act in any labor dispute which, if not review for decisions rendered by the
restrained or performed forthwith, may NLRC. However in this case, the Supreme
cause grave or irreparable damage to any Court took it upon themselves to review
party or render ineffectual any decision in such decisions from the NLRC by virtue of
favor of such party their role under the check and balance
system and the perceived intention of the
St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC legislative body who enacted the new
rules.
Facts: Petitioner’s (St. Martin Funeral
Homes) contention is that the respondent Veloso v. China Airlines Ltd
is not an employee due to the lack of an
employer-employee contract. In addition, Facts: Petitioner was employed as
respondent is not listed on St. Martin’s supervisor of the ticketing section at the
monthly payroll. Manila branch office of respondent China
Airlines Ltd. (CAL).
Labor Relations 168
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Contract Agreement between MCEI and of his death, was assigned as part of the
Hanil. close-in security detail of then Vice-
President Joseph E. Estrada. His widow,
Issue: Whether or not the requirement petitioner Rufina Tancinco, filed a claim
laid forth on Rule 46 Sec.3 and Rule 13 for benefits before the Government
Sec. 11 was complied with? Service Insurance System (GSIS).
Held: Yes. There was substantial On February 19, 1996, the GSIS denied
compliance with Rule 46, however Rule 13 petitioner's claim on the ground that
was not complied with there was no proof that petitioner's
husband's death was work-related.
In the case at bar, the petition for Petitioner appealed the denial to the
certiorari filed by petitioners before the Employees' Compensation Commission
Court of Appeals contains a certification (Commission) which, on December 19,
against forum shopping. However, the 1996, issued a Resolution dismissing the
said certification was signed only by the appeal for lack of merit.
corporate secretary of petitioner MCEI.
No representative of petitioner Hanil Issue: Whether or not the petition can still
signed the said certification. As such, the be entertained despite the lapse of time
issue to be resolved is whether or not a to appeal.
certification signed by one but not all of
the parties in a petition constitutes Held: NO. Being not timely filed, the
substantial compliance with the petition should fail as the time to appeal
requirements regarding the certification had already prescribed. The conclusion is
of non-forum shopping. inevitable because the instant petition
was not timely filed. Under section 1 of
Tancinco v. GSIS Rule 45 of the former Revised Rules of
Court, which was then still in effect, an
Facts: SPO1 Tancinco was a member of appeal from a decision rendered by the
the NCR Security Protection Group of the Court of Appeals to this Court must be
Philippine National Police, and at the time made within fifteen (15) days from notice
Labor Relations 171
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
are alternative in nature such that the already been terminated from
retired pilot can only be entitled to that employment.
which provides for superior benefits.
Article 287 of the Labor Code states: Issues: Whether the private respondents
Art. 287. Retirement. - Any employee may are entitled to separation pay?
be retired upon reaching the retirement
age established in the collective Held: Yes. Despite the enormous losses
bargaining agreement or other applicable incurred by RHI due to the fire that gutted
employment contract. the sawmill in 1981 and despite the
logging ban in 1953, the uncontroverted
In case of retirement, the employee shall claims for separation pay show that most
be entitled to receive such retirement of the private respondents still worked up
benefits as he may have earned under to the end of 1985. RHI would still have
existing laws and any collective bargaining continued its business had not the
agreement and other agreements: petitioner foreclosed all of its assets and
provided, however, that an employee’s properties on September 24, 1985. Thus,
retirement benefits under any collective the closure of RHI’s business was not
bargaining and other agreements shall not primarily brought about by serious
be less than those provided herein. business losses.
Facts: November 14, 1986, private Facts: To secure the loan, ARCAM
respondents filed with DOLE- Daet, executed a Real Estate Mortgage and a
Camarines Norte, 17 individual complaints Chattel Mortgage over various personal
against Republic Hardwood Inc. (RHI) for properties consisting of machinery,
unpaid wages and separation pay. generators, field transportation and heavy
These complaints were thereafter equipment. ARCAM, however, defaulted
endorsed to Regional Arbitration Branch on its obligations to PNB. Thus, the Real
of the NLRC since the petitioners had Estate Mortgage and Chattel Mortgage
Labor Relations 174
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
What rules on prescription should apply in having been filed after 4years and
cases like this one has long been decided 9months from the accrual of the alleged
by this Court. In illegal dismissal, it is actionable wrong
settled, that the ten-year prescriptive
period fixed in Article 1144 of the Civil Held: In illegal dismissal cases, the
Code may not be invoked by petitioners, employee concerned is given a period of
for the Civil Code is a law of general four years from the time of his dismissal
application, while the prescriptive period within which to institute a complaint. This
fixed in Article 292 of the Labor Code is based on Article 1146 of the New Civil
[now Article 291] is a SPECIAL LAW Code which states that actions based
applicable to claims arising from upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff
employee-employer relations. must be brought within four years.
employer failed to comply with the notice Issue: Should Kunting be awarded
requirement than a dismissal based on separation pay instead of reinstatement
just cause with the same procedural due to strained relations after an illegal
infirmity, however, in instances where the dismissal?
execution of a decision becomes
impossible, unjust, or too burdensome, Held: In the case at bar, however, the
modification of the decision becomes peculiar circumstances surrounding the
necessary in order to harmonize the dismissal of petitioner simply do not show
disposition with the prevailing such kind of strained relationship as to
circumstances. warrant the severance of the working
relationship between the parties.
Kunting v. NLRC
There is no proof of actual animosity
Facts: She was paid a basic pay and between her and private respondents.
emergency cost of living allowance Besides, there is no clear showing that the
(ECOLA) except during summer period perceived "strained relations" between
when she was paid only the basic pay. Her the parties is of so serious a nature or of
monthly salary was One Thousand Eight such a degree as to justify petitioner's
Hundred and Twenty Pesos (P1,820.00) dismissal.
including ECOLA integrated into the basic
wage. She was also paid the 13th month "Strained relations," must be of such a
pay up to 1987 but not her service nature or degree as to preclude
incentive leave pay. Consuelo and St. reinstatement. But, where the differences
Joseph executed a Teacher's Contract. St. between the parties are neither personal
Joseph School did not renew her nor physical, nor serious, then there is no
employment contract, thereby reason why the illegally dismissed
terminating her employment with the employee should not be reinstated rather
school. than simply given separation pay and
backwages.
Labor Relations 178
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
At the end of the year 2001, petitioner Citibank sent Genuino a letter charging
did not receive his 14th month pay bonus her with "knowledge and/or involvement"
of P35,000.00 while the amount of in transactions "which were irregular or
P15,291.00 representing the alleged even fraudulent." In the same letter,
unauthorized expenses was deducted Genuino was informed she was under
from his salary. preventive suspension.
The Labor Arbiter ruled for the petitioners After the Labor Arbiter rendered his
and ordered immediately for their decision, the SEC replaced the Interim
reinstatement. Rehabilitation Receiver with a Permanent
Rehabilitation Receiver.
Prior to this decision, SEC had placed PAL
under an Interim Rehabilitation Receiver, Ferrer v. NLRC
and subsequently under a Permanent
Rehabilitation Receiver. PAL appealed and FACTS: Petitioners were regular and
the Labor Tribunal ruled in their favor. permanent employees of the Occidental
Subsequently, the Labor Arbiter issued a Foundry Corporation (OFC). They had
writ of execution for the reinstatement been in the employ of OFC for about ten
and issued a notice of garnishment. The (10) years at the time of their dismissal in
Labor Tribunal affirmed the writ and 1989 as piece workers. The Samahang
notice but suspended and referred the Manggagawa ng Occidental Foundry
action to the Rehabilitation Receiver of Corporation-Federation of Free Workers
PAL. On appeal, CA found for respondent (SAMAHAN) and the OFC entered into a
PAL. collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
Issue: Whether PAL being under corporate Issue: Whether or not petitioners failed to
rehabilitation suspends any monetary maintain membership in good standing by
claims to it. committing acts of disloyalty against
SAMAHAN
Held: Yes. It is settled that upon
appointment by the SEC of a rehabilitation Held: No. Petitioners sought the help of
receiver, all actions for claims before any the FEDLU only after they had learned of
court, tribunal or board against the the termination of their employment.
corporation shall ipso jure be suspended. Their alleged application with federations
As stated early on, during the pendency of other than the FFW can hardly be
petitioners’ complaint before the Labor considered as disloyalty to the SAMAHAN,
Arbiter, the SEC placed respondent under nor may the filing of such applications
an Interim Rehabilitation Receiver. denote that petitioners failed to maintain
Labor Relations 181
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
in good standing their membership in the Issue: WON LA acted with grave abuse of
SAMAHAN. The SAMAHAN is a different discretion.
entity from FFW, the federation to which
it belonged. Neither may it be inferred Held: Insofar as the private respondents
that petitioners sought disaffiliation from who knowingly and voluntarily agreed
the FFW for petitioners had not formed a upon fixed periods of employment are
union distinct from that of the SAMAHAN. concerned, their services were lawfully
Parenthetically, the right of a local union terminated by reason of the expiration of
to disaffiliate from a federation in the the periods of their respective contracts.
absence of any provision in the These are Dangwa Bentrez, Apollo Ribaya,
federation's constitution preventing Sr., Ruperta Ribaya, Virginia Boado, Cecilia
disaffiliation of a local union is legal. Such Emocling, Jose Bentrez, Leila Dominguez
right is consistent with the constitutional and Rose Ann Bermudez. Thus, public
guarantee of freedom of association. respondent committed grave abuse of
discretion in affirming the decision of the
Pines City Educational Center v. NLRC Labor Arbiter ordering the reinstatement
and payment of full backwages and other
Facts: Private respondents represented by benefits and privileges.
its President, Eugenio Baltao. With the
exception of Jane Bentrez who was hired Golden Donuts v. NLRC
as a grade school teacher, the remaining
private respondents were hired as college Facts: Private respondents Macandog,
instructors. All the private respondents, Hontiveros, Tamargo, Tegio and
except Roland Picart and Lucia Chan, Magtarayo, were employees of petitioner
signed contracts of employment with Golden Donuts, Inc., and were the
petitioner for a fixed duration. On March complainants in three consolidated cases
31, 1989, due to the expiration of private filed in September 1990 with the Labor
respondents' contracts and their poor Arbiter. The facts are aptly summarized in
performance as teachers, they were the Labor Arbiters decision dated January
notified of petitioners' decision not to 29, 1993, as follows:
renew their contracts anymore.
Labor Relations 182
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
employee who is illegally dismissed shall Issue: Whether the 3-year rule on
be paid "his full backwages, inclusive of backwages applies?
allowances, and to his other benefits or
their monetary equivalent computed from Held: We have constantly adopted the
the time his compensation was withheld policy of awarding backwages to illegally
from him up to the time of his actual dismissed employees to three years
reinstatement," has no retroactive effect without qualification or deduction. This
and does not apply to cases of illegal policy applies even to final decisions
dismissal taking place before its effectivity awarding backwages in excess of three
on March 21, 1989.[6] Since petitioners years.
were dismissed in 1987, they cannot
demand payment of full backwages until Hence, in the case at bar, the open-ended
they were actually reinstated. duration prescribed in the decision sought
to be enforced by the questioned
Bliss Devt v. NLRC resolution should be subject to said
limitation and the award of backwages
Facts: Petitioner terminated private should, therefore be limited to three (3)
respondents on grounds of loss of trust years without qualification or deduction.
and confidence. Private respondents filed The computation of the award made by
a complaint for illegal dismissal with the the labor arbiter in excess of this limit is
NLRC. null and void and the writ of execution
issued pursuant thereto should be set
Petitioner argues that: (1) the backwages aside.
awarded to private respondents should
not have exceeded the 3 year-period as San Miguel Corp v. NLRC
mandated by the Mercury Drug Rule; and
(2) the 3-year rule on backwages applies Facts: The respondent Ernesto Ibias was
to final and executory judgments, hence, employed by the petitioner SMC on
the NLRC should order private December 24, 1978 as an operator.
respondents to return the excess amount According to SMCs Policy on Employee
they received. Conduct, absences without permission or
Labor Relations 184
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
AWOP are absences not covered either by Held: The settled rule in administrative
a certification of the plant doctor that the and quasi-judicial proceedings is that
employee was absent due to sickness or proof beyond reasonable doubt is not
by duly approved application for leave of required in determining the legality of an
absence filed at least 6 days prior to the employer’s dismissal of an employee, and
intended leave, are subject to disciplinary not even preponderance of evidence is
action. necessary as substantial evidence is
considered sufficient.
The same policy also punishes falsification
of company documents or records. In the case at bar, SMC was unable to
prove, by substantial evidence, that it was
For his absences on January 2, 4, 11 and respondent who made the unauthorized
April 28 and 29, he was given a written entries. SMCs Guide on Employee Conduct
warning that he incurred 5 AWOPs and for punishes the act of falsification of
his absences on April 28 and 29 and May 7 company documents or records but it
and 8, the respondent was alleged to have does not punish mere possession of a
falsified his medical consultation card. falsified document.
SMC conducted an administrative
investigation and concluded that the Sanyo Philippines Workers Union v.
respondent committed offenses of Canimeres
excessive AWOPs and falsification of
company documents and accordingly Facts: In accordance with the security
dismissed him. clause of the CBA, Sanyo dismissed the
employees. The dismissed employees filed
Issue: Whether or not the Court of a complaint with the NLRC for illegal
Appeals erred in sustaining the findings of dismissal.
the labor arbiter and the NLRC and in
dismissing SMC’s claims that respondent The Union filed a motion to dismiss
was terminated from service with just alleging that the Labor Arbiter (LA) has no
cause. jurisdiction over the case, citing Art. 217
(c) of the Labor Code which provides that
Labor Relations 185
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
cases arising from the interpretation or signed up for union membership and
implementation of the CBA shall be sought the regularization of their
disposed of by the LA by referring the employment with SMC. The Union alleged
same to the grievance machinery and that this group of employees, while
voluntary arbitration. Nevertheless, the LA appearing to be contractual workers
assumed jurisdiction. supposedly independent contractors,
have been continuously working for
Issue: Does the LA has jurisdiction over SanMig for a period ranging from six (6)
the case? months to fifteen (15) years and that their
work is neither casual nor seasonal as
Held: While it appears that the dismissal they are performing work or activities
of the employees was made upon the necessary or desirable in the usual
recommendation of the Union pursuant to business or trade of SanMig. Thus, it was
the union security clause provided in the contended that there exists a "labor-only"
CBA. The SC is of the opinion that these contracting situation. It was then
facts do not come within the phrase demanded that the employment status of
"grievances arising from the these workers be regularized.
interpretation or implementation of the
CBA and those arising from the On 12 January 1989 on the ground that it
interpretation or enforcement of had failed to receive any favorable
company personnel policies. The response from SanMig, the Union filed a
jurisdiction of which pertains to the notice of strike for unfair labor practice,
grievance machinery or thereafter, to a CBA violations, and union.
voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary
arbitrators. Issue: Whether the labor courts correctly
assumed jurisdiction.
San Miguel Corporation Employees Union
v. Bersamira Held: As the case is indisputably linked
with a labor dispute, jurisdiction belongs
Facts: The Union advised SanMig that to the labor tribunals. As explicitly
some Lipercon and D'Rite workers had provided for in Article 217 of the Labor
Labor Relations 186
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Code, prior to its amendment by R.A. No. Issue: Whether or not the Labor Arbiter
6715 on 21 March 1989, since the suit has jurisdiction.
below was instituted on 6 March 1989,
Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive Held: It is obvious from the complaint that
jurisdiction to hear and decide the the plaintiffs have not alleged any unfair
following cases involving all workers labor practice. Theirs is a simple action for
including "1. unfair labor practice cases; 2. damages for tortious acts allegedly
those that workers may file involving committed by the defendants. Such being
wages, hours of work and other terms and the case, the governing statute is the Civil
conditions of employment; ... and 5. cases Code and not the Labor Code. It results
arising from any violation of Article 265 of that the orders under review are based on
this Code, including questions involving a wrong premise.
the legality of striker and lockouts. ..."
Article 217 lays down the plain command
of the law.