Labor Standard Doctrines

Labor Standards G.R. No. 86963 August 6, 1999

BATONG BUHAY GOLD MINES, INC., petitioner, vs. HONORABLE DIONISIO DELA SERNA IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE UNDERSECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, respondent (Issue) The pivot of inquiry here is whether the Regional Director has jurisdiction over subject labor standards case. (Held) We agree with the complainants that the regional office a quo has jurisdiction to hear and decide the instant labor standard case. As can be gleaned from the records on hand, subject labor standards case was filed on February 5, 1987 at which time Article 128 (b) read as follows5: Art. 128 (b) Visitorial and enforcement powers (b) The Minister of Labor or his duly authorized representative shall have the power to order and administer, after due notice and hearing, compliance with the labor standards provisions of this Code based on the findings of labor regulation officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection, and to issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their order, except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officers and raises issues which cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in the ordinary course of inspection. This is a labor standards case and is governed by Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by E.O. 111. xxx xxx xxx

Prior to the promulgation of E.O. 111 on December 24, 1986, the Regional Director's authority over money claims was unclear. The complaint in the present case was filed on May 23, 1986 when E.O. 111 was not yet in effect. . . . We believe, however, that even in the absence of E.O. 111, Regional Directors already had enforcement powers over money claims, effective under P.D. 850, issued on December 16, 1975, which transferred labor standards cases from the arbitration system to the enforcement system. In the aforecited case, the Court in reinforcing its conclusion that Regional Director has jurisdiction over labor standards cases, treated E.O. 111 as a curative statute, ruling as follows: E.O. No. 111 was issued on December 24, 1986 or three (3) months after the promulgation of the Secretary of Labor's decision upholding private respondents' salary differentials and ECOLAs on September 24, 1986. The amendment of the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Regional Director (Article 128(b)) by said E.O. 111 reflects the intention enunciated in Policy Instructions Nos. 6 and 37 to empower the Regional Directors to resolve uncontested money claims in cases where an employer-employee relationship still exists. This intention must be given weight and entitled to great respect.

Police Power G.R. No. L-26298 September 28, 1984 CMS ESTATE, INC., petitioner, vs. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM and SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, respondents. (Issue) That the contributions required of employers and employees under our Social Security Act of 1954 are not in the nature of excise taxes because the said Act was allegedly enacted by Congress in the exercise of the police power of the State, not of its taxing power; (Held) The taxing power of the State is exercised for the purpose of raising revenues. However, under our Social Security Law, the emphasis is more on the promotion of the general welfare. The Act is not part of out Internal Revenue Code nor are the contributions and premiums therein dealt with and provided for, collectible by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The funds contributed to the System belong to the members who will receive benefits, as a matter of right, whenever the hazards provided by the law occur. All that is required of appellant is to make monthly contributions to the System for covered employees in its employ. These contributions, contrary to appellant's contention, are not 'in the nature of taxes on employment.' Together with the contributions imposed upon employees and the Government, they are intended for the protection of said employees against the hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death in line with the constitutional mandate to promote social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people. 4 Because of the broad social purpose of the Social Security Act, all doubts in construing the Act should favor coverage rather than exemption.

Collective Bargaining Agreement G.R. No. 146650 January 13, 2003

DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. PAWIS NG MAKABAYANG OBRERO (PAMAO-NFL), respondent. (Held) CBA is the norm of conduct between petitioner and private respondent and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law. NCC states: Art. 1305. A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service. (1254a) Art. 1306. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. (1255a)

Past Practices G.R. No. 170734 May 14, 2008

ARCO METAL PRODUCTS, CO., INC., and MRS. SALVADOR UY, petitioners, vs. SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA ARCO METAL-NAFLU (SAMARM-NAFLU), respondent. (Held) Any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by employees cannot be reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer.14 The principle of non-diminution of benefits is founded on the Constitutional mandate to "protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare,"15 and "to afford labor full protection."16 Said mandate in turn is the basis of Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations shall be rendered in favor of labor." Jurisprudence is replete with cases which recognize the right of employees to benefits which were voluntarily given by the employer and which ripened into company practice. Thus in Davao Fruits Corporation v. Associated Labor Unions, et al.17 where an employer had freely and continuously included in the computation of the 13th month pay those items that were expressly excluded by the law, we held that the act which was favorable to the employees though not conforming to law had thus ripened into a practice and could not be withdrawn, reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated. In Sevilla Trading Company v. Semana,18 we ruled that the employers act of including non-basic benefits in the computation of the 13th month pay was a voluntary act and had ripened into a company practice which cannot be peremptorily withdrawn. Meanwhile in Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez,19 the Court ordered the payment of the cash equivalent of the unenjoyed sick leave benefits to its intermittent workers after finding that said workers had received these benefits for almost four years until the grant was stopped due to a different interpretation of the CBA provisions. We held that the employer cannot unilaterally withdraw the existing privilege of commutation or conversion to cash given to said workers, and as also noted that the employer had in fact granted and paid said cash equivalent of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave benefits to some intermittent workers.

G.R. No. 146667

January 23, 2007

McLEOD, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (First Division), Respondent (Held) PMI has no company policy granting its officers and employees expenses for trips abroad. That at one time PMI reimbursed McLeod for his and his wifes plane tickets in a vacation to London could not be deemed as an established practice considering that it happened only once. To be considered a "regular practice," the giving of the benefits should have been done over a long period, and must be shown to have been consistent and deliberate.

G.R. No. 166647

March 31, 2006

PAG-ASA STEEL WORKS, INC., Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER SIXTH DIVISION and PAG-ASA STEEL WORKERS UNION (PSWU), Respondent. (Issue) The principal issue in the present petition is whether or not the wage increase of P26.50 under Wage Order No. NCR-08 must be paid to the union members as a matter of practice. (Held) With the above narration of facts and with the union not having effectively controverted the same, we find no merit to the complainants assertion of such a company practice in the grant of wage order increase applied across-the-board. The fact that it was shown the increases granted under the Wage Orders were obtained thru request and negotiations because of the existence of wage distortion and not as company practice as what the union would want.

Neither do we find merit in the argument that under the CBA, such increase should be implemented across-the-board. The provision in the CBA that "Any Wage Order to be implemented by the Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board shall be in addition to the wage increase adverted above" cannot be interpreted in support of an across-the-board increase. If such were the intentions of this provision, then the company could have simply accepted the original demand of the union for such acrossthe-board implementation, as set forth in their original proposal (Annex "2" union[]s counsel proposal). The fact that the company rejected this proposal can only mean that it was never its intention to agree, to such across-the-board implementation. Thus, the union will have to be contented with the increase of P30.00 under the CBA which is due on July 31, 2001 barely a month from now.

Company Policies G.R. No. 146762 January 30, 2007 SUICO vs NLRC (Held) Moreover, the procedure for termination prescribed under Art. 277(b) and Rule XXII of the Implementing Rules of Book V is supplemented by existing company policy. Art. 277(b) provides that the procedure for termination prescribed therein is without prejudice to the adoption by the employer of company policy on the matter, provided this conforms with the guidelines set by the DOLE such as Rule XXII of the Implementing Rules of Book V. This is consistent with the established principle that employers are allowed, under the broad concept of management prerogative, to adopt company policies that regulate all aspects of personnel administration including the dismissal and recall of workers. Company policies or practices are binding on the parties. Some can ripen into an obligation on the part of the employer, such as those which confer benefits on employees or regulate the procedures and requirements for their termination.

G.R. No. 156515

October 19, 2004

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. MARIANO M. BORROMEO, respondent. (Held) It is well recognized that company policies and regulations are, unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law, generally binding and valid on the parties and must be complied with until finally revised or amended unilaterally or preferably through negotiation or by competent authority.29 Moreover, management has the prerogative to discipline its employees and to impose appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to company rules and regulations. 30 With more reason should these truisms apply to the respondent, who, by reason of his position, was required to act judiciously and to exercise his authority in harmony with company policies.

G.R. No. 124013 June 5, 1998 ROSARIO MANEJA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MANILA MIDTOWN HOTEL, respondents. (Held) Art. 217 of the Labor Code gives us the clue as to the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, to wit: Art. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decided within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or nonagricultural: 1. Unfair labor practice cases; 2. Termination disputes;

3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; 4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations; 5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; 6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. b) The commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters. c) Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies shall be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as may be provided in said agreements.

However, Article 217 (c) should be read in conjunction with Article 261 of the Labor Code which grants to voluntary arbitrators original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the collective bargaining agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. Note the phrase "unresolved grievances." In the case at bar, the termination of petitioner is not an unresolved grievance. It should be explained that "company personnel policies" are guiding principles stated in broad, long-range terms that express the philosophy or beliefs of an organization's top authority regarding personnel matters. They deal with matters affecting efficiency and well-being of employees and include, among others, the procedure in the administration of wages, benefits, promotions, transfer and other personnel movements which are usually not spelled out in the collective agreement. The usual source of grievances, however, are the rules and regulations governing disciplinary actions.

Law and Worker G.R. No. L-58639 August 12, 1987 CEBU ROYAL PLANT (SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION), petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOR and RAMON PILONES, respondents. (Held) We take this opportunity to reaffirm our concern for the lowly worker who, often at the mercy of his employers, must look up to the law for his protection. Fittingly, that law regards him with tenderness and even favor and always with faith and hope in his capacity to help in shaping the nation's future. It is error to take him for granted. He deserves our abiding respect. How society treats him will determine whether the knife in his hands shall be a caring tool for beauty and progress or an angry weapon of defiance and revenge. The choice is obvious, of course. If we cherish him as we should, we must resolve to lighten "the weight of centuries" of exploitation and disdain that bends his back but does not bow his head.

Labor Case G.R. No. 154830 June 8, 2007 PIONEER CONCRETE PHILIPPINES, INC., PIONEER PHILIPPINES HOLDINGS, and PHILIP J. KLEPZIG, petitioners, vs. ANTONIO D. TODARO, respondent. (Held) As to the question of jurisdiction, this Court has consistently held that where no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties and no issue is involved which may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes or any collective bargaining agreement, it is the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction. In the present case, no employer-employee relationship exists between petitioners and respondent. In fact, in his complaint, private respondent is not seeking any relief under the Labor Code, but seeks payment of damages on account of petitioners' alleged breach of their obligation under their agreement to employ him. It is settled that an action for breach of contractual obligation is intrinsically a civil dispute. In the alternative, respondent seeks redress on the basis of the provisions of Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Hence, it is clear that the present action is within the realm of civil law, and jurisdiction over it belongs to the regular courts.

G.R. No. 165881 April 19, 2006 OSCAR VILLAMARIA, JR. Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JERRY V. BUSTAMANTE, Respondents (Held) Article 217 of the Labor Code, as amended, vests on the Labor Arbiter exclusive original jurisdiction only over the following: x x x (a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural: 1. Unfair labor practice cases; 2. Termination disputes; 3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wage, rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment; 4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations; 5. Cases arising from violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and 6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from employer-employee relationship, including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. (b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters. (c) Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements, and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies shall be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as may be provided in said agreements. In the foregoing cases, an employer-employee relationship is an indispensable jurisdictional requisite. The jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the NLRC under Article 217 of the Labor Code is limited to disputes arising from an employer-employee relationship which can only be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes or their collective bargaining agreement. Not every dispute between an employer and employee involves matters that only the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC can resolve in the exercise of their adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. Actions between employers and employees where the employer-employee relationship is merely incidental is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the regular courts. When the principal relief is to be granted under labor legislation or a collective bargaining agreement, the case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC even though a claim for damages might be asserted as an incident to such claim. We agree with the ruling of the CA that, under the boundary-hulog scheme incorporated in the Kasunduan, a dual juridical relationship was created between petitioner and respondent: that of employer-employee and vendor-vendee. The Kasunduan did not extinguish the employer-employee relationship of the parties extant before the execution of said deed . LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Former Eighth Division) and COMMANDO SECURITY SERVICE AGENCY, INC., respondents. (Held) The enforcement of the written contract does not fall under the jurisdiction of the NLRC because the mone y claims involved therein did not arise from employer-employee relations between the parties and is intrinsically a civil dispute. Thus, jurisdiction lies with the regular courts. The RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present case. It is well settled in law and jurisprudence that wher e no employer-emplo yee relationship exists between the parties and no issue is involved which maybe resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes or any collective bargaining agreement, it is the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction. Case Decision G.R. No. 131108 March 25, 1999 ASIAN ALCOHOL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondent (Held) Out of its concern for those with less privilege in life, this Court has inclined towards the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts with the employer. This favored treatment is directed by the social justice policy of the Constitution. But while tilting the scales of justice in favor of workers, the fundamental law also guarantees the right of the employer to reasonable returns from his investment.

Management Function G.R. Nos. 146121-22 San Miguel Corporation vs NLRC (Held) In any case, when SMC imposed the penalty of dismissal for the 12th and 13th AWOPs, it was acting well within its rights as an employer. An employer has the prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary for the proper conduct of its business, to provide certain disciplinary measures in order to implement said rules and to assure that the same would be complied with. An employer enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the promulgation of policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees. It is axiomatic that appropriate disciplinary sanction is within the purview of management imposition. Thus, in the implementation of its rules and policies, the employer has the choice to do so strictly or not, since this is inherent in its right to control and manage its business effectively. Consequently, management has the prerogative to impose sanctions lighter than those specifically prescribed by its rules, or to condone completely the violations of its erring employees. Of course, this prerogative must be exercised free of grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the requirements of justice and fair

[G.R. No. 168159. August 19, 2005] NORKIS TRADING CO., INC., ATTY. NORBERTO QUISUMBING, JR., RACQUEL LICSI, EMMANUEL S. TAMAYO and NICHOL JUDE THADDEUS JURIDICO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents. (Held) Concededly, employers are allowed, under the broad concept of management prerogative, to regulate all aspects of personnel administration including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers, and the dismissal and recall of workers. The managements right to transfer or re-assign its personnel, however, is not absolute as it is subject to limitations imposed by law, collective bargaining agreements, and general principles of fair play and justice. The employer must, therefore, muster the test for determining the validity of the transfer of employees. The managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised. Thus, it cannot be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker. In particular, the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should the employer fail to overcome this burden of proof, the employees transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal, which has been defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; as an offer involving a demotion in rank and diminution in pay. Likewise, constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego with his continued employment.

G.R. No. 164774 April 12, 2006 STAR PAPER CORPORATION, JOSEPHINE ONGSITCO & SEBASTIAN CHUA, Petitioners, vs. RONALDO D. SIMBOL, WILFREDA N. COMIA & LORNA E. ESTRELLA, Respondents. (Held) Art. 136. It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not get married, or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated, or to actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of her marriage. Petitioners contend that their policy will apply only when one employee marries a co-employee, but they are free to marry persons other than co-employees. The questioned policy may not facially violate Article 136 of the Labor Code but it creates a disproportionate effect and under the disparate impact theory, the only way it could pass judicial scrutiny is a showing that it is reasonable despite the discriminatory, albeit disproportionate, effect. The failure of petitioners to prove a legitimate business concern in imposing the questioned policy cannot prejudice the employees right to be free from arbitrary discrimination based upon stereotypes of married persons working together in one company. For failure of petitioners to present undisputed proof of a reasonable business necessity, we rule that the questioned policy is an invalid exercise of management prerogative.

G.R. No. 169600 June 26, 2007 MARIVAL TRADING, INC., VIRGINIA A. MANUEL and BEATRICE A. MANUEL, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and MA. VIANNEY D. ABELLA, respondents. (Held) Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The misconduct to be serious must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employees work to constitute just cause for his separation. Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) must relate to the performance of the employees duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. Indeed, an employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such person whose continuance in the service would be patently inimical to his employers business. However, as discussed above, in order to consider it a serious misconduct that would justify dismissal under the law, it must have been done in relation to the performance of her duties as would show her unfit to continue working for her employer. The acts complained of, under the circumstances they were done, did not in any way pertain to her duties as chemist/quality controller.

G.R. No. 171764 June 8, 2007 ALBERT O. TINIO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ALEX O. CAEG and ANASTACIO MARTIREZ, respondents. (Held) This Court has consistently recognized and upheld the prerogative of management to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business establishment, provided there is no demotion in rank or a diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges. As a rule, the Court will not interfere with an employers prerogative to regulate all aspects of employment which include among others, work assignment, working methods and place and manner of work. Labor laws discourage interference with an employers judgment in the conduct of his business. The doctrine is well-settled that it is the employers prerogative, based on its assessment and perception of its employees qualifications, aptitudes and competence, to move them around in the various areas of its business operations in order to ascertain where they will function with maximum benefit to the company. This is a privilege inherent in the employers right to control and manage his enterprise effectively. The freedom of management to conduct its business operations to achieve its purpose cannot be denied. But, like other rights, there are limits thereto. The managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Having the right should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised. Thus, it cannot be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker. The employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges, and other benefits. Should the employer fail to overcome this burden of proof, the employees transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal, which has bee n defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; as an offer involving a demotion in rank and diminution of pay. Likewise, constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego his continued employment.

Compromise and Waiver G.R. No. 156644 July 28, 2008 UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION (URSUMCO) and/or RENATO CABATI, as Manager, Petitioners, vs. AGRIPINO CABALLEDA and ALEJANDRO CADALIN, Respondents. (Held) Generally, the law looks with disfavor on quitclaims and releases by employees who have been inveigled or pressured into signing them by unscrupulous employers seeking to evade their legal responsibilities and frustrate just claims of employees. They are frowned upon as contrary to public policy. A quitclaim is ineffective in barring recovery of the full measure of a worker's rights, and the acceptance of benefits therefrom does not amount to estoppels.

In exceptional cases, the Court has accepted the validity of quitclaims executed by employees if the employer is able to prove the following requisites: (1) the employee executes a deed of quitclaim voluntarily; (2) there is no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties; (3) the consideration of the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and (4) the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.

G.R. No. 177576 July 21, 2008 UNIVERSAL STAFFING SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and GRACE M. MORALES,* Respondents. (Held) USSI cannot take refuge in the final settlement signed by Morales on January 1, 2003 to escape liability. Generally, deeds of release, waivers, or quitclaims cannot bar employees from demanding benefits to which they are legally entitled or from contesting the legality of their dismissal, since quitclaims are looked upon with disfavor and are frowned upon as contrary to public policy. Where, however, the person making the waiver has done so voluntarily, with a full understanding thereof, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. The burden of proving that the quitclaim or waiver was voluntarily entered into rests on the employer. Unfortunately for USSI, it again failed to discharge this burden. Other than its barefaced assertion, no evidence was presented to establish that Morales voluntarily signed the final settlement. The mere fact that Morales was not physically coerced or intimidated does not necessarily imply that she freely and voluntarily consented to the terms of the final settlement. Labor Code Provisions: Article. 227. Compromise agreements. - Any compromise settlement, including those involving labor standard laws, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties with the assistance of the Bureau or the regional office of the Department of Labor, shall be final and binding upon the parties. The National Labor Relations Commission or any court, shall not assume jurisdiction over issues involved therein except in case of non-compliance thereof or if there is prima facie evidence that the settlement was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion.

Management and the Constitution G.R. No. 167813 BENJAMIN L. SAROCAM, Petitioner, Vs. INTERORIENT MARITIME, Respondent (Held) As a final note, let it be emphasized that the constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to oppress employers. The commitment of this Court to the cause of labor does not prevent us from sustaining the employer when it is in the right.

G.R. No. 140692 November 20, 2001 ROGELIO C. DAYAN, petitioner, vs. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, XAVIER LOINAZ, OSCAR CONTRERAS, and GERLANDA DE CASTRO, respondents. (held) The now prevailing rub has recently been handed down in Ruben Serrano vs. NLRC.14 The Court has there clarified that "Even in cases of dismissal under Art. 282, the purpose for the requirement of notice and hearing is not to comply with Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The time for notice and hearing is at the trial stage. Then that is the time we speak of notice and hearing as the essence of procedural due process. Thus, compliance by the employer with the notice requirement before he dismisses an employee does not foreclose the right of the latter to question the legally of his dismissal. As Art. 277(b) provides, 'Any decision taken by the employer shall be without prejudice to the right of the

worker to contest the validity or legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional branch of the National Labor Relations Commission.'

Equal Work Opportunities G.R. No. 165594 April 23, 2007 FRANCISCO SORIANO, JR., Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Respondents. (Held) Finally, we have often stressed that it has always been an avowed policy of this Arbitration Branch that in carrying out and interpreting the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, the working mans welfare should be the paramount and primordial consideration. In protecting the working class, however, we could not simply close our eyes to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and doctrine. This, is so, for while we favor the cause of the working class in his conflict with management, we likewise have to consider the rights and interest of the employers, which are equally entitled to legal protection.

G.R. No. 164774 April 12, 2006 STAR PAPER CORPORATION, JOSEPHINE ONGSITCO & SEBASTIAN CHUA, Petitioners, vs. RONALDO D. SIMBOL, WILFREDA N. COMIA & LORNA E. ESTRELLA, Respondents. (Held) The 1987 Constitution states our policy towards the protection of labor under the following provisions, viz.: Article XIII, Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

Labor as Property G.R. No. 131719 May 25, 2004 THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondent (Held) In JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,25 the issue of the extent of the police power of the State to regulate a business, profession or calling vis--vis the equal protection clause and the non-impairment clause of the Constitution were raised and we held, thus: A profession, trade or calling is a property right within the meaning of our constitutional guarantees. One cannot be deprived of the right to work and the right to make a living because these rights are property rights, the arbitrary and unwarranted deprivation of which normally constitutes an actionable wrong. Nevertheless, no right is absolute, and the proper regulation of a profession, calling, business or trade has always been upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid exercise of the police power by the state particularly when their conduct affects either the execution of legitimate governmental functions, the preservation of the State, the public health and welfare and public morals. According to the maxim, sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, it must of course be within the legitimate range of legislative action to define the mode and manner in which every one may so use his own property so as not to pose injury to himself or others. In any case, where the liberty curtailed affects at most the rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory measures is certainly much wider. To pretend that licensing or accreditation requirements violates the due process clause is to ignore the settled practice, under the mantle of the police power, of regulating entry to the practice of various trades or professions. Professionals leaving for abroad are required to pass rigid written and practical exams before they are deemed fit to practice their trade. Seamen are required to take tests determining their seamanship. Locally, the Professional Regulation Commission has begun to require previously licensed doctors and other professionals to furnish documentary proof that they had either re-trained or had undertaken continuing education courses as a requirement for renewal of their licenses. It is not claimed that these requirements pose an unwarranted deprivation of a property right under the due process clause. So long as professionals and other workers meet reasonable regulatory standards no such deprivation exists.

ASCUNCION vs NLRC G.R. No. 129329 July 31, 2001 (Held) The SC ruled in favor of petitioner. For a valid dismissal not only must there be just cause supported by clear and convincing evidence,. There must also be an opportunity to be heard. The employer has the burden to prove that the dismissal was just or authorized cause. Failure to discharge this burden means that the dismissal is unjustified. Here the evidence submitted was merely unsigned handwritten records and printouts. This is insufficient to justify a dismissal. The provision for flexibility in administrative procedure does not justify decisions without basis in evidence having rational probative value. Here both the handwritten listing and computer print outs being unsigned, so the authenticity is suspect and devoid of any rational probative value. Nor was there due process. There is no showing that there was warning of the absences and tardiness. The 2 day period given to answer the allegations is an unreasonably short period of time. The clinic cant have given ample opportunity to answer the charges filed. There are serious doubts as to the factual basis of the charges against petitioner. There doubts shall be resolved in her favor in line with the policy rule list that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be titled in favor of the latter.

Due Process Requirements G.R. No. L-46496 February 27, 1940 ANG TIBAY, represented by TORIBIO TEODORO, manager and propietor, and NATIONAL WORKERS BROTHERHOOD, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NATIONAL LABOR UNION, INC., respondents. (Held) The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial Relations may be said to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not mean that it can, in justifiable cases before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. There are primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character: (1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. In the language of Chief Hughes, in Morgan v. U.S., 304 U.S. 1, 58 S. Ct. 773, 999, 82 Law. ed. 1129, "the liberty and property of the citizen shall be protected by the rudimentary requirements of fair play. (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. (Chief Justice Hughes in Morgan v. U.S. 298 U.S. 468, 56 S. Ct. 906, 80 law. ed. 1288.) In the language of this court in Edwards vs. McCoy, 22 Phil., 598, "the right to adduce evidence, without the corresponding duty on the part of the board to consider it, is vain. Such right is conspicuously futile if the person or persons to whom the evidence is presented can thrust it aside without notice or consideration." (3) "While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support it is a nullity, a place when directly attached." (Edwards vs. McCoy, supra.) This principle emanates from the more fundamental is contrary to the vesting of unlimited power anywhere. Law is both a grant and a limitation upon power. (4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion (City of Manila vs. Agustin, G.R. No. 45844, promulgated November 29, 1937, XXXVI O. G. 1335), but the evidence must be "substantial." (Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Co. v. national labor Relations Board, 301 U.S. 142, 147, 57 S. Ct. 648, 650, 81 Law. ed. 965.) It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind accept as adequate to support a conclusion." (Appalachian Electric Power v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 93 F. 2d 985, 989; National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, 6 Cir., 97 F. 2d 13, 15; Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 98 F. 2d 758, 760.) . . . The statute provides that "the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling.' The obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is to free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent inn judicial proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order. (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U.S. 25, 44, 24 S. Ct. 563, 568, 48 Law. ed. 860; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville and Nashville R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93 33 S. Ct. 185, 187, 57 Law. ed. 431; United States v. Abilene and Southern Ry. Co. S. Ct. 220, 225, 74 Law. ed. 624.) But this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial

evidence. (Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 59 S. Ct. 206, 83 Law. ed. No. 4, Adv. Op., p. 131.)" (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. (Interstate Commence Commission vs. L. & N. R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 33 S. Ct. 185, 57 Law. ed. 431.) Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case against them. It should not, however, detract from their duty actively to see that the law is enforced, and for that purpose, to use the authorized legal methods of securing evidence and informing itself of facts material and relevant to the controversy. Boards of inquiry may be appointed for the purpose of investigating and determining the facts in any given case, but their report and decision are only advisory. (Section 9, Commonwealth Act No. 103.) The Court of Industrial Relations may refer any industrial or agricultural dispute or any matter under its consideration or advisement to a local board of inquiry, a provincial fiscal. a justice of the peace or any public official in any part of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation, and may delegate to such board or public official such powers and functions as the said Court of Industrial Relations may deem necessary, but such delegation shall not affect the exercise of the Court itself of any of its powers. (Section 10, ibid.) (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. It may be that the volume of work is such that it is literally Relations personally to decide all controversies coming before them. In the United States the difficulty is solved with the enactment of statutory authority authorizing examiners or other subordinates to render final decision, with the right to appeal to board or commission, but in our case there is no such statutory authority. (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.

G.R. No. L-29064 April 29, 1971 AIR MANILA, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. MARCELO S. BALATBAT, DIRECTOR NILO DE GUIA, DR. GREGORIO Y. ZARA, and COL. JUAN B. GUEVARRA as members of the CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD and PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., respondents. (Held) It has been correctly said that administrative proceedings are not exempt from the operation of certain basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as the due process requirements in investigations and trials. And this administrative due process is recognized to include: (a) the right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the institution of the proceedings that may affect a person's legal rights; (b) reasonable opportunity to appear and defend his rights, introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his favor, (c) a tribunal so constituted as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality, and one of competent Jurisdiction; and (d) a finding or decision by that tribunal supported by substantial evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the records or disclosed to the parties affected.

G.R. No. 77859 May 25, 1988 CENTURY TEXTILE MILLS, INC. and ALFREDO T. ESCAO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. LABOR ARBITER FELIPE P. PATI, and EDUARDO CALANGI, respondents. (Held) The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute essential elements of due process in cases of employee dismissal: the requirement of notice is intended to inform the employee concerned of the employer's intent to dismiss and the reason for the proposed dismissal; upon the other hand, the requirement of hearing affords the employee an opportunity to answer his employer's charges against him and accordingly to defend himself therefrom before dismissal is effected. Neither of these two requirements can be dispensed with without running afoul of the due process requirement of the 1987 Constitution.

G.R. No. 158693 November 17, 2004 JENNY M. AGABON and VIRGILIO C. AGABON, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), RIVIERA HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. and VICENTE ANGELES, respondents. (Held) The procedure for terminating an employee is found in Book VI, Rule I, Section 2(d) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code: Standards of due process: requirements of notice. In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed: I. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code: (a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side; (b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; and (c) A written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination.

Liberty of Contract/Laissez-faire and State Interference G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988 PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON as Secretary of Labor and Employment, and TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, respondents. (Held) The Court finds, finally, the impugned guidelines to be applicable to all female domestic overseas workers. That it does not apply to "all Filipina workers" 20 is not an argument for unconstitutionality. Had the ban been given universal applicability, then it would have been unreasonable and arbitrary. For obvious reasons, not all of them are similarly circumstanced. What the Constitution prohibits is the singling out of a select person or group of persons within an existing class, to the prejudice of such a person or group or resulting in an unfair advantage to another person or group of persons. To apply the ban, say exclusively to workers deployed by A, but not to those recruited by B, would obviously clash with the equal protection clause of the Charter. It would be a classic case of what Chase refers to as a law that "takes property from A and gives it to B." 21 It would be an unlawful invasion of property rights and freedom of contract and needless to state, an invalid act. Freedom of contract and enterprise, like all other freedoms, is not free from restrictions, more so in this jurisdiction, where laissez faire has never been fully accepted as a controlling economic way of life.

G.R. No. L-1377 May 12, 1948 LEYTE LAND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., petitioners, vs. LEYTE FARMER'S and LABORER'S UNION, respondents. (Held) In answer to the contention of the petitioner that the doctrine laid down in the appealed decision on effect "has deprived the company of its rights to enter into contract of employment as it and the employee may agree," it is sufficient to quote the following pronouncements of the United States Supreme Court: The fact that both parties are of full age and competent to contract does not necessarily deprive the State of the power to interfere where the parties do not stand upon an equality, or where the public health demands that one party to the contract shall be protected against himself. The State still retains an interest in his welfare, however reckless he may be. The whole is no greater than the sum of all the parts, and where the individual health, safety and welfare are sacrificed or neglected, the State must suffer." The policy of laissez faire has to some extent given way to the assumption by the government of the right of intervention even in contractual relations affected with public interest."

Welfare State G.R. No. L-24396 July 29, 1968 SANTIAGO P. ALALAYAN, ET AL., suing in his behalf and for the benefit of all other persons having common or general interest with him in accordance with Sec. 12, Rule 3, Rules of Court, petitioners-appellants, vs. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION and ADMINISTRATOR OF ECONOMIC COORDINATION, respondentsappellees. (Held) The welfare state concept is not alien to the philosophy of our Constitution. It is implicit in quite a few of its provisions. It suffices to mention two. There is the clause on the promotion of social justice to ensure the well-being and economic security of all the people, as well as the pledge of protection to labor with the specific authority to regulate the relations between landowners and tenants and between labor and capital. This particularized reference to the rights of working men whether in industry and agriculture certainly cannot preclude attention to and concern for the rights of consumers, who are the objects of solicitude in the legislation now complained of. The police power as an attribute to promote the common weal would be diluted considerably of its reach and effectiveness if on the mere plea that the liberty to contract would be restricted, the statute complained of may be characterized as a denial of due process. The right to property cannot be pressed to such an unreasonable extreme. It is understandable though why business enterprises, not unnaturally evincing lack of enthusiasm for police power legislation that affect them adversely and restrict their profits could predicate alleged violation of their rights on the due process clause, which as interpreted by them is a bar to regulatory measures. Invariably, the response from this Court, from the time the Constitution was enacted, has been far from sympathetic. Thus, during the Commonwealth, we sustained legislation providing for collective bargaining, security of tenure, minimum wages, compulsory arbitration, and tenancy regulation. Neither did the objections as to the validity of measures regulating the issuance of securities and public services prevail. For it is to be remembered that the liberty relied upon is not freedom of the mind, which occupies a preferred position, nor freedom of the person, but the liberty to contract, associated with business activities, which, as has been so repeatedly announced, may be subjected, in the interest of the general welfare under the police power, to restrictions varied in character and wide ranging in scope as long as due process is observed. In Calalang v. Williams, this Court found no objection to an enactment limiting the use of and traffic in the national roads and streets as against the assertion that the exercise of such an authority amounted to an unlawful interference with legitimate business and abridgment of personal liberty. The opinion by Justice Laurel explains why such an argument was far from persuasive. Thus: "In enacting said law, therefore, the National Assembly was prompted by considerations of public convenience and welfare. It was inspired by a desire to relieve congestion of traffic, which is, to say the least, a menace to public safety. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of said law, and the state in order to promote the general welfare may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons and property may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state ... " The above doctrine, valid then and equally valid now, constituted more than sufficient justification for statutes curtailing the liberty enjoyed by business enterprises, whether conducted by natural or juridical persons, to satisfy the needs of public welfare.

Participation in Decision Making Processes G.R. No. 85985 August 13, 1993 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER ISABEL P. ORTIGUERRA and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PALEA), respondents. (Held) Indeed, it was only on March 2, 1989, with the approval of Republic Act No. 6715, amending Article 211 of the Labor Code, that the law explicitly considered it a State policy "(t)o ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes affecting the rights, duties and welfare." However, even in the absence of said clear provision of law, the exercise of management prerogatives was never considered boundless. Thus, in Cruz vs. Medina (177 SCRA 565 [1989]) it was held that management's prerogatives must be without abuse of discretion. Indeed, industrial peace cannot be achieved if the employees are denied their just participation in the discussion of matters affecting their rights. Thus, even before Article 211 of the labor Code (P.D. 442) was amended by Republic Act No. 6715, it was already declared a policy of the State, "(d) To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligations . . . as employees." This was, of course, amplified by Republic Act No 6715 when it decreed the "participation of workers in decision and policy making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare." PAL's position that it cannot be saddled with the "obligation" of sharing management prerogatives as during the formulation of the Code, Republic Act No. 6715 had not yet been

enacted (Petitioner's Memorandum, p. 44; Rollo, p. 212), cannot thus be sustained. While such "obligation" was not yet founded in law when the Code was formulated, the attainment of a harmonious labor-management relationship and the then already existing state policy of enlightening workers concerning their rights as employees demand no less than the observance of transparency in managerial moves affecting employees' rights. Petitioner's assertion that it needed the implementation of a new Code of Discipline considering the nature of its business cannot be overemphasized. In fact, its being a local monopoly in the business demands the most stringent of measures to attain safe travel for its patrons. Nonetheless, whatever disciplinary measures are adopted cannot be properly implemented in the absence of full cooperation of the employees. Such cooperation cannot be attained if the employees are restive on account, of their being left out in the determination of cardinal and fundamental matters affecting their employment.

G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988 PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON as Secretary of Labor and Employment, and TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, respondents. (Held) The petitioners's reliance on the Constitutional guaranty of worker participation "in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits" is not well-taken. The right granted by this provision, again, must submit to the demands and necessities of the State's power of regulation. The Constitution declares that: Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. "Protection to labor" does not signify the promotion of employment alone. What concerns the Constitution more paramountly is that such an employment be above all, decent, just, and humane.

Labor Contracts G.R. No. 118978 May 23, 1997 PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANY, * petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and GRACE DE GUZMAN, respondents. (held) Petitioner's policy is not only in derogation of the provisions of Article 136 of the Labor Code on the right of a woman to be free from any kind of stipulation against marriage in connection with her employment, but it likewise assaults good morals and public policy, tending as it does to deprive a woman of the freedom to choose her status, a privilege that by all accounts inheres in the individual as an intangible and inalienable right. Hence, while it is true that the parties to a contract may establish any agreements, terms, and conditions that they may deem convenient, the same should not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Carried to its logical consequences, it may even be said that petitioner's policy against legitimate marital bonds would encourage illicit or common-law relations and subvert the sacrament of marriage.

G.R. No. 119243 April 17, 1997 BREW MASTER INTERNATIONAL INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS (NAFLU), ANTONIO D. ESTRADA and HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, (Third Division), respondents. (Held) It must be underscored that no less than our Constitution looks with compassion on the workingman and protects his rights not only under a general statement of a state policy, but under the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights, thus placing labor contracts on a higher plane and with greater safeguards. Verily, relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are impressed with public interest and labor contracts must, perforce, yield to the common good.

Law Compliance G.R. No. 75271-73 June 27, 1988 CATALINO N. SARMIENTO and 71 other striking workers of ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. THE HON. JUDGE ORLANDO R. TUICO of the Municipal Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, ROBERTO PIMENTEL, NELSON C. TEJADA, and the COMMANDING OFFICER, 224th PC Company at Los Baos Laguna, respondents. No. L-77567 June 27, 1988 ASIAN TRANSMISSION, CORPORATION (ATC), petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), respondent. (Held) The question of competence is easily resolved. The authority for the order is found in Article 264(g) of the Labor Code, as amended by B.P. Blg. 227, which provides as follows: When in his opinion there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause strikes or lockouts adversely affecting the national interest, such as may occur in but not limited to public utilities, companies engaged in the generation or distribution of energy, banks, hospitals, and export- oriented industries, including those within export processing zones, the Minister of Labor and Employment shall assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Minister may seek the assistance of law-enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.