2000 CASES

Q: X had been working for a year as a security guard with company A., a sister company of
company B. He was hired on January 1, 1!! as he was among those absorbed by company B
when it took o"er the security contracts of its sister company A. He was forced by company B to
sign a new probationary contract for # mos$ and on August 1, 1!!, his emp%oyment was
terminated for a%%eged%y s%eeping on post and &uarre%ing with a co'worker. (as B a regu%ar
emp%oyee and thereby i%%ega%%y dismissed)
A: *es. B+s emp%oyment with company B was ,ust a continuation of his emp%oyment with
company A. -he .ourt cannot sanction the practice of companies that effects the transfer of its
emp%oyees to another entity whose owners are the same, in order to depri"e sub,ect emp%oyees
of the benefits he is entit%ed to under the %aw. /e"erthe%ess, B attained the status of a regu%ar
emp%oyee with company B upon comp%etion of his si0'month period of probation. He started
working on January 12, 1!!$ and the end of the period of probation was on Ju%y 34, 1!!.
(hen he was dismissed on August 1, he was a%ready a regu%ar emp%oyee with a security of
tenure. 5ri"ate respondent+s a%%eged "io%ations were first infractions and do not amount to "a%id
grounds for terminating emp%oyment. (A Prime Security Services, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. 107320,
Jnury 1!, 2000"

Q: 6788'.9( is a union whose .BA with the company A e0pired. 8uring renegotiations, the
management pane% arri"ed %ate causing the union pane% to wa%k out. -he management
addressed a %etter of apo%ogy to the union and re&uested for negotiations to resume. -he union
pane% did not show up despite %etters from management ad"ising the former of the .BA
meetings. .onse&uent%y, the union struck. A comp%aint was fi%ed by :o%den 8onuts to dec%are
the strike i%%ega%. .ounse% for the union strikers p%eaded for a compromise whereupon a 3;4 out
of 3#3 members agreed to a compromise sett%ement whereby they sha%% be paid separation pay
in e0change for the dismissa% of the crimina% and unfair %abor practice cases fi%ed by petitioners
against them. .ou%d the union compromise or wai"e the rights to security of tenure and money
c%aims of its minority members, without the %atter+s consent)
A: /o. Absent a showing of the union+s specia% authority to compromise the indi"idua% c%aims of
pri"ate respondents for reinstatement and backwages, there is no "a%id wai"er of the aforesaid
rights. -he ,udgment of the <abor Arbiter upho%ding the dismissa% of pri"ate respondents based
on the compromise agreement does not ha"e the effect of res ,udicata those who did not agree
thereto since the re&uirement of identity of parties is not satisfied. A ,udgment upon a
compromise agreement is conc%usi"e on%y upon parties thereto and their pri"ies. 5ri"ate
respondents ha"e not wai"ed their right to security of tenure nor can they be barred from
entit%ement of their indi"idua% c%aims. =ince there was no e"idence that pri"ate respondents
committed any i%%ega% act, petitioner+s fai%ure to reinstate them after the sett%ement of the strike
amounts to i%%ega% dismissa%. (G#$%en &#nuts, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. N#s. 113'''('), Jnury
1!, 2000"

Q: >nion A, of which X was a part, fi%ed with the 8?<@ a notice of strike raising charges of ><5
and i%%ega% dismissa% against .ompany A. -he <abor Arbiter ordered .ompany A to pay X
separation pay of A month pay for e"ery year of ser"ice. X fi%ed a motion for e0ecution of the
decision of the <abor Arbiter. -he Behabi%itation Becei"er of .ompany A submitted a
7anifestation with 7otion, a%%eging that petitioner was not yet in a position to comp%y with the
directi"e of the <abor Arbiter as it was sti%% under Behabi%itation Becei"ership by "irtue of the
order of the =@.. Howe"er, the <abor Arbiter sti%% granted the motion for e0ecution. .ompany A
contends that the /<B. shou%d ha"e denied the order of the <A for the immediate payment of
separation pay because of the order of the =@. suspending a%% c%aims against petitioner
pending before any court, tribuna% or body. .an the order of the =@. stay the e0ecution of
,udgment against petitioner)
A: /o. A%though a stay of e0ecution may be warranted by the fact that a petitioner corporation
has been p%aced under rehabi%itation recei"ership, the =@. a%ready issued an order appro"ing
the rehabi%itation p%an of petitioner and p%acing it under %i&uidation pursuant to 58 23'A. =ince
recei"ership proceedings ha"e ceased and petitioner+s rehabi%itation recei"er and %i&uidator has
been gi"en the imprimatur to proceed with corporate %i&uidation, the cited order of the =@. has
been rendered functus oficio. 5etitioner+s monetary ob%igation to pri"ate respondent is %ong
o"erdue and thus cannot de%ay the satisfaction of pri"ate respondent+s c%aim. Howe"er, due to
e"ents subse&uent to the fi%ing of this petition, pri"ate respondent must present its c%aim with the
rehabi%itation recei"er and %i&uidator in the =@., sub,ect to the ru%es on preference of credits.
(A$emr*s Si+$ , S#ns, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. N#. 11-7'1, Jnury 1!, 2000"

Q: X was emp%oyed as a &ua%ity contro% inspector with the duty of inspecting <5B cy%inders for
any possib%e defects. He was dismissed when he was a%%eged%y caught by petitioner+s company
5resident for s%eeping on the ,ob, thereby "io%ating .ompany Bu%e 1;'b. He was asked to
e0p%ain why no discip%inary action shou%d be taken against him, to which he prompt%y rep%ied.
/otwithstanding his rep%y, he was terminated. (as X i%%ega%%y dismissed)
A: *es. 5etitioner+s c%aim that pri"ate respondent s%ept on the ,ob was not substantiated by any
e"idence. Cn other cases, s%eeping on the ,ob was found as a "a%id ground for dismissa%
because such cases in"o%"ed security guards whose duty necessitates that they be awake and
watchfu% at a%% times, such is not the degree of discip%ine re&uired of a &ua%ity contro% inspector.
(hi%e an emp%oyer is a%%owed a wide discretion in the promu%gation of company po%icies, such
shou%d a%ways be fair and reasonab%e. Cn this case, the dismissa% meted out on pri"ate
respondent for s%eeping on the ,ob appears to be too harsh a pena%ty. (./ 0nu1cturin2, Inc.
v. NLRC, G.R. N#. 130!37, Jnury 1!, 2000"
Q: .ompany * is engaged in road construction pro,ects of the go"ernment. Ct engaged the
ser"ices of certain workers to work on "arious pro,ects on different dates. =e"era% of its
workers ,oined >nion A as members. >nion A fi%ed a motion for certification e%ection with the
regiona% office. .ompany * opposed stating that the workers were pro,ect emp%oyees and not
&ua%ified to form part of the rank and fi%e co%%ecti"e bargaining unit. <ater, .ompany *
terminated the emp%oyment of the workers due to the comp%etion of its pro,ects or the e0piration
of worker+s contracts. -he affected workers c%aimed they were dismissed because of their
union acti"ities$ and thus staged a strike. -he strike was dec%ared i%%ega% and the workers were
deemed to ha"e %ost their emp%oyment status. (ere the workers "a%id%y dismissed)
A: *es. -he contracts of emp%oyment of petitioners attest to the fact that they were hired for
specific pro,ects and their emp%oyment was coterminous with the comp%etion of the
pro,ect for which they had been hired. A%so, they were informed in ad"ance that said
pro,ect or undertaking for which they were hired wou%d end on a stated or determinab%e
date. =ince the workers were pro,ect emp%oyees, their emp%oyment %ega%%y ended upon
comp%etion of their respecti"e pro,ects. (Ass#citi#n #1 4r%e 5ni#ns v. A+e$$, G.R.
N#. 10031), Jnury 2-, 2000.
Q: .ompany 6 a%%owed the temporary transfer ho%ding of office at 6a%ibo, Ak%an. /e"erthe%ess,
ma,ority of the emp%oyees continued to work at its office in <eDo Ak%an and were paid their
respecti"e sa%aries. 9rom June 13 to 7arch 11, X and * reported to work at the <eDo office
and were not paid their sa%aries. 9rom 7arch up to the present, they were again a%%owed to
draw their sa%aries. Ct is the assertion of .ompany 6 that X and * "o%untari%y abandoned their
work assignments and that they defied the %awfu% orders by the :enera% manager and thus the
Board of 8irectors passed a reso%ution resisting and denying X and *+s c%aims under the
princip%e of Eno work, no pay.F X and * interpose that the transfer to 6a%ibo was i%%ega%. Are X
and * entit%ed to c%aim their unpaid wages from June 13 to 7arch 11)
A: /o. 5etitioner was ab%e to show that pri"ate respondents did not render ser"ices during the
stated period. X and * e"en admitted that they did not report at the 6a%ibo office, as <eDo
remained to be their office where they continuous%y reported. Ct was not for X and * to dec%are
the management+s act of transferring the office to 6a%ibo as an i%%ega% act as there was no
a%%egation of proof that such was made in bad faith or with ma%ice. 5ri"ate respondents were
dismissed by petitioner effecti"e January 13 and were accepted back, sub,ect to the condition
of Eno work, no payF effecti"e 7arch 11 which is why they were a%%owed to draw their sa%aries
again. (A6$n E$ectric C##7ertive Inc#r7#rte% v. NLRC, G.R. 121-3!, Jnury 23, 2000"

Q: A was hired by Csetann 8epartment =tore as a security checker to apprehend shop%ifters. As
a cost'cutting measure, pri"ate respondent decided to phase out its security section and engage
the ser"ices of an independent security agency. A was then terminated prompting him to fi%e a
comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. /<B. ordered petitioner to be gi"en separation pay ho%ding that
the phase'out of the security section was a %egitimate business decision. Howe"er, A was
denied the right to be gi"en written notice before termination of his emp%oyment. (hat is the
effect of "io%ation of the notice re&uirement when termination is based on an authoriDed cause)
A: -he dismissa% is ineffectua%. Cn termination of emp%oyment under Art. 3!1, the "io%ation of
notice re&uirement is not a denia% of due process as the purpose is not to afford the emp%oyee
an opportunity to be heard on any charge against him, for there is none. -he purpose is to gi"e
him time to prepare for the e"entua% %oss of his ,ob and the 8?<@ to determine whether
economic causes do e0ist ,ustifying the termination of his emp%oyment. (ith respect to Art. 3!1,
the emp%oyer+s fai%ure to comp%y with the notice re&uirement does not constitute a denia% of due
process but a mere fai%ure to obser"e a procedure for the termination of emp%oyment which
makes the termination of emp%oyment mere%y ineffectua%.
Cf the emp%oyee+s separation is without cause, instead of being gi"en separation pay, he shou%d
be reinstated. Cn either case, whether he is reinstated or gi"en separation pay, he shou%d be
paid fu%% backwages if he has been %aid off without written notice at %east 12 days in ad"ance.
(ith respect to dismissa%s under 3!3, if he was dismissed for any of the ,ust causes in 3!3, he
shou%d not be reinstated. Howe"er, he must be paid backwages from the time his emp%oyment
was terminated unti% it is determined that the termination is for a ,ust cause because the fai%ure
to hear him renders the termination of his emp%oyment without %ega% effect. (Serrn# v. NLRC,
G.R. N#. 1170-0, Jnury 27, 2000"
Q: A was emp%oyed as EhousekeeperF with .ompany B. He a%so owned a car'for'hire which he
rented to B who operated the car as a ta0i. ?ne day, B approached the front desk c%erk at
petitioner+s hote% re&uesting a co%%ectib%e of 53222 be added to a certain 6orean guests, 7r.
Hu+s bi%%. 7r. Hu %ater comp%ained that he was o"erbi%%ed. A e0p%ained his side being the front
desk super"isor and owner of the car. @"entua%%y, .ompany B+s staff confirmed the error and
refunded the amount to the 6orean. .ompany B terminated the ser"ices of A on the ground of
%oss of confidence for the %atter+s ma%icious intent to defraud a guest of the hote%. (as A i%%ega%%y
dismissed)
A: *es. .ompany B fai%ed to pro"e by amp%e e"idence that A intended to defraud 7r. Hu. -he
front desk c%erk admitted being the one responsib%e for entering the 53222 in 7r. Hu+s statement
of account. A%so, B admitted approaching the front desk c%erk to demand payment of the
transportation fee as he was hired by 7r. Hu+s group for two days be%ie"ing in good faith that 7r.
Hu owed him 53222. As there is no "a%id and ,ust cause, he is entit%ed to reinstatement without
%oss of seniority rights p%us fu%% backwages and other benefits withhe%d from him up to the time of
his actua% reinstatement. (C#n%# Suite C$u+ 4rve$, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. N#. 123'71, Jnury
2), 2000"
Q: >nion A and .ompany B were faced with a bargaining dead%ock. -he union then fi%ed a
notice of strike with the /.7B. <ater, the union conducted a strike "ote among its members
and the resu%ts were submitted to the A%%iance of /ationa%ist and :enuine %abor ?rganiDation for
submission to the /.7B, but which was not made. -he union went on strike without the report
of the strike "ote submitted to the /.7B. .ompany B fi%ed a petition to dec%are the strike i%%ega%
a%%eging that the union barricaded gates of .ompany B and committed acts of "io%ence, threats
and coercion. -ria% on the merits was conducted wherein .ompany B presented witnesses and
e"idence, >nion A did not present any witness but instead re%ied on their 7emorandum
contending that respondent+s e"idence are inadmissib%e. (as the strike i%%ega%)
A: *es. 9ai%ure to submit the strike "ote to the /.7B immediate%y makes the strikek i%%ega%. -he
i%%ega%ity of the strike is further affirmed by the acts of "io%ence, threats and coercion committed
during the strike. -he re&uirements of procedura% due process were comp%ied with as both
parties were a%%owed to present their witnesses and e"idence, a%though petitioner opted instead
to fi%e a memorandum. (Sm8n n2 0n2229 s 0#$%e: Pr#%ucts, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R.
N#. 11!-'7, ;e+rury 1, 2000"
Q: G was hired by B9. as sa%es representati"e. He a"ers that he was transferred by B9. to
57.C, an agency which pro"ides B9. with additiona% contractua% workers. Cn 57.C, he was
reassigned to B9. as sa%es representati"e and then %ater informed by the personne% manager of
B9. that his ser"ices were terminated. B9. maintains that no emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship
e0isted between G and itse%f. G fi%ed comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. B9. a%%eges that 57.C is
an independent contractor as the %atter is a high%y capita%iDed "enture. (as G a regu%ar
emp%oyee of B9., thereby i%%ega%%y dismissed)
A: *es. 57.C was a %abor'on%y contractor. A%though the /eri doctrine stated that it was enough
that a contractor had substantia% capita% to show it was an independent contractor, the case of
9u,i Xero0 c%arified the doctrine stating that an independent business must undertake the
performance of the contract according to its own manner and method free from the contro% of
the principa%. Cn this case, 57.C did not e"en ha"e substantia% capita%iDation as on%y a sma%%
amount of its authoriDed capita% stock was actua%%y paid'in. 9urthermore, 57.C did not carry on
an independent business or undertake the performance of its contract according to its own
manner and method nor was it engaged to perform a specific and specia% ,ob or ser"ice. Cn
%abor'on%y contracting, the emp%oyees supp%ied by the contractor perform acti"ities, which are
direct%y re%ated to the main business of its principa%. Ct is c%ear that in this case, the work of
petitioner as sa%es representati"e was direct%y re%ated to the business of B9.. 8ue to G+s %ength
of ser"ice, he had attained the status of regu%ar emp%oyee and thus cannot be terminated
without ,ust or "a%id cause. B9. fai%ed to pro"e that his dismissa% was for cause and that he
was afforded procedura% due process. G is thus entit%ed to reinstatement p%us fu%% backwages
from his dismissa% up to actua% reinstatement. (.in#y v. NLRC, G.R. N#. 12'3!', ;e+rury 2,
2000"
Q: B is a %ady =ecurity :uard of .ompany ?. =he was %ast assigned at Gicente 7adriga%
.ondominium CC %ocated in Aya%a A"enue, 7akati. Cn a memorandum, the Bui%ding Administrator
of G7 .ondomunium CC comp%ained of the %a0ity of the guards in enforcing security measures
and re&uested to reorganiDe the men and women assigned to the bui%ding to induce more
discip%ine and proper decorum. B was then transferred another bui%ding in -aytay, BiDa%. B fi%ed
a comp%aint a%%eging that her transfer amounted to an un,ust dismissa%. (as the transfer of B
i%%ega%)
A: /o. =er"ice'oriented enterprises adhere to the business adage that, Ethe customer is a%ways
right.F Cn the emp%oyment of personne%, the emp%oyer has management prerogati"es sub,ect
on%y to %imitations imposed by %aw. -he transfer of an emp%oyee wou%d on%y amount to
constructi"e dismissa% when such is unreasonab%e, incon"enient, or pre,udicia% to the emp%oyee,
and when it in"o%"es a demotion in rank or diminution of sa%aries, benefits and other pri"i%eges.
Cn this case, the transfer was done in good faith and in the best interest of the business
enterprise. @"idence does not show that .ompany ? discriminated against B in effecting her
transfer as such was done to comp%y with a reasonab%e re&uest. -he mere incon"enience of a
new ,ob assignment does not by itse%f make the transfer i%%ega%. (<SS Security n% A$$ie%
Services, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. N#. 112732, ;e+rury !, 2000"

Q: .ompany ( is conducts a printing business in =ta. .ruD 7akati. -he .ompany informed its
workers that it was going to transfer its site in 7akati to Batangas. Ct ga"e its emp%oyees time to
inform the management of their wi%%ingness to go with petitioner, otherwise, they wou%d find
rep%acements. -he >nion ad"ised the company that its members were not wi%%ing to transfer to
the new site. Are the emp%oyees entit%ed to separation pay by "irtue of their refusa% to transfer to
the business in Batangas.
A: *es. A%though there is no comp%ete disso%ution of petitioner+s undertaking, but a mere
re%ocation$ the phrase, Ec%osure or cessation of operation of an estab%ishment not due to serious
business %osses or re"erses,F under Artic%e 3!1 of the <abor .ode inc%udes the cessation of on%y
part of a company+s business. .ompany ( had a%egitimate reason to re%ocate its p%ant due to
the e0piration of the %ease contract in 7akati$ howe"er, it is sti%% re&uired to pay its workers
separation pay. .essation of operation not due to serious business %osses is an authoriDed
cause for termination$ and the <abor .ode pro"ides that such terminated emp%oyees are entit%ed
to separation pay of 1 month pay or at %east A month for e"ery year of ser"ice, whiche"er is
higher. (C8eniver &ec# Print 4ec8nics C#r7#rti#n v. NLRC, G.R. N#. 122)7', ;e+rury
17, 2000"
Q: 7era%co and its union 7@(A renegotiated its 13'14 .BA insofar as the %ast two'year
period was concerned. -he =ecretary of <abor assumed ,urisdiction and granted the arbitra%
awards. -here was no &uestion that these arbitra% awards were to be gi"en retroacti"e effect.
Howe"er, the parties dispute the reckoning period when retroaction sha%% commence. 7era%co
c%aims that the award shou%d retroact on%y from such time that the =ecretary of <abor rendered
the award. -he union argues that the awards shou%d retroact to such time granted by the
=ecretary who has p%enary and discretionary power to determine the effecti"ity of the arbitra%
award. -he union cited the case of =t. <uke+s and 7indanao -ermina% where the =ecretary
ordered the retroaction of the .BA to the date of e0piration of the pre"ious .BA. (hen shou%d
the arbitra% award retroact)
A: <abor %aws are si%ent as to when an arbitra% award in a %abor dispute where the =ecretary has
assumed ,urisdiction by "irtue of Art. 3#1 HgI sha%% retroact. 8espite the si%ence of the %aw, the
.ourt ru%ed that the .BA arbitra% awards granted after si0 months from the e0piration of the %ast
.BA sha%% retroact to such time agreed upon by both the emp%oyer and the emp%oyees or their
union. Absent such agreement as to retroacti"ity, the award sha%% retroact to the first day after
the si0'month period fo%%owing the e0piration of the %ast day of the .BA shou%d there be one. Cn
the absence of a .BA, the =ecretary+s determination of the date of effecti"ity as part of his
discretionary powers o"er arbitra% awards sha%% contro%. (0ni$ E$ectric C#m7ny v. Secretry
#1 L+#r, G.R. N#. 1273!), ;e+rury 22, 2000"
Q: A, B and . were dri"ers of .ompany Q dri"ing the %atter+s ta0icabs e"ery other day on a 3J
hour work schedu%e under the boundary system where petitioners earn an a"erage of 5J22
dai%y and pri"ate respondent regu%ar%y deducts an amount for the washing of the ta0i units. A, B
and . decided to form a %abor union. <ater, .ompany Q refused to %et petitioners dri"e their
ta0icabs. A, B and . fi%ed with the %abor arbiter a comp%aint for ><5, i%%ega% dismissa%, and i%%ega%
deductions. -he /<B. found for A, B and . stating that dismissa% must be for ,ust cause and
after due process. .ompany QKs first motion for reconsideration was denied. Ct fi%ed another
7B, which was then granted. =hou%d the /<B. ha"e granted the second 7B)
A: /o. .ompany Q e0hausted administrati"e remedies a"ai%ab%e to it by seeking an 7B. -he
rationa%e for a%%owing on%y one 7B from the same party is to assist the parties in obtaining an
e0peditious and ine0pensi"e sett%ement of %abor cases. -he /<B. shou%d ha"e recogniDed that
the re%ationship between ,eepney'owners and ,eepney dri"ers under the boundary system is that
of ee'er and not that of %essor'%essee. -he fact that the dri"ers do not recei"e fi0ed wages is not
sufficient to withdraw the re%ationship f1om that of er and ee. -herefore the termination of A, B
and .+s emp%oyment shou%d ha"e be effectuated in accordance with %aw. (ith regard to the
amount deducted for washing, such was not i%%ega% as such is indeed a practice in the ta0i
industry and is dictated by fair p%ay. (Jr%in v. NLRC, G.R. N#. 11!2'), ;e+rury 23, 2000"
Q: >nion 7 is an affi%iate of 9ederation >. A bitter disagreement ensued between the
9ederation > and the >nion 7 cu%minating in the %atter+s dec%aration of genera% autonomy from
the former. -he federation asked the company to stop the remittance of >nion 7+s share in the
education funds. -he federation ca%%ed a meeting p%acing >nion 7 under trusteeship and
appointing an administrator. ?fficers of >nion 7 recei"ed %etters from the administrator
re&uiring them to e0p%ain why they shou%d not be remo"ed from their office and e0pe%%ed from
union membership. -he officers were e0pe%%ed from the federation. -he federation then
ad"ised the company of the e0pu%sion of the 12 union officers and demanded their separation
pursuant to the >nion =ecurity .%ause in the .BA. -he 9ederation fi%ed a notice of strike with
the /.7B to compe% the company to effect the immediate termination of the e0pe%%ed union
officers. >nder the pressure of a strike, the company terminated the 12 union officers from
emp%oyment. >nion 7 fi%ed a notice of strike on the grounds of discrimination$ interference$
mass dismissa% of union officers and shop stewards$ threats, coercion and intimidation$ and
union busting. 7embers of >nion 7 prayed for the suspension of the effects of their termination.
=ecretary 8ri%on dismissed the petition stating it was a intra'uion matter. <ater, 4! union shop
stewards were p%aced under pre"enti"e suspension. -he union members staged a wa%k'out and
officia%%y dec%ared a strike that afternoon. -he strike was attended by "io%ence. (as the
dismissa% of the union officers i%%ega%)
A: *es. -he charges against respondent company proceeded main%y from the termination of the
union officers upon the demand of the federation pursuant to the union security c%ause.
A%though the union security c%ause may be "a%id%y enforced, such must comp%y with due
process. Cn this case, the union officers were e0pe%%ed for a%%eged%y committing acts of dis%oya%ty
to the federation. -he company did not in&uire into the cause of the e0pu%sion and mere%y re%ied
upon the federation+s a%%egations. -he issue is not a pure%y intra'union matter as it was %ater on
con"erted into a termination dispute when the company dismissed the petitioners from work
without the benefit of a separate notice and hearing. As to the act of disaffi%iation by the %oca%
union$ it is sett%ed that a %oca% union has the right to disaffi%iate from its mother union in the
absence of specific pro"isions in the federation+s constitution prohibiting such. -here was no
such pro"ision in federation ><:(5+s constitution.
Q: Cn the abo"e case, was the strike i%%ega%)
A: /o. As to the %ega%ity of the strike$ it was based on the termination dispute and petitioners
be%ie"ed in good faith that in dismissing them, the company was gui%ty of ><5. -he no'strike, no
%ockout pro"ision in the .BA can on%y be in"oked when the strike is economic. As to the
"io%ence, both parties agreed that the "io%ence was not attributed to the striking emp%oyees
a%one as the company itse%f hired men to pacify the strikers. =uch "io%ence cannot be a ground
for dec%aring the strike i%%ega%. (0$yn2 Sm8n n2 m2 0n2229 s 0. Green1ie$%
(0S0G05=P" v. Rm#s, G.R. N#. 113!07, ;e+rury 2), 2000"
Q: -he <A ordered petitioner to pay respondents the sum of 5#;;, !##.J1. 5etitioner appea%ed
to the /<B. with a motion for the reduction of the supersedeas to 5122,222 and thereafter
posted a cash bond of 5122,222. -he /<B. dismissed the appea% for insufficiency of the bond.
5etitioner said the =tar Ange% doctrine shou%d app%y where the appea% may be perfected after
that period upon posting of a cash or surety bond. Howe"er, the /<B. disagreed stating that in
this case, the petitioner did not fi%e a motion for reduction of bond within the period but instead
posted a bond in an amount not e&ui"a%ent to the monetary award. (as the motion for the
reduction of the bond fi%ed in time)
A: *es. -hat petitioner did fi%e a motion within the period is supported by the fo%%owing:
1. -he motion for reduction was stamped with the Erecei"edF rubber stamp marker of the /<B.
and indicated the date of fi%ing as #.4.#.
2. Both the motion and the appea% memorandum were sent to respondents in one en"e%ope
and sent by registered mai% under Beg. Beceipt 1;4#.
3. -he same person notariDed both the motion and the appea% on the same date.
-. ?n the %ast page of their comments, respondents stated that Ethe motion for reduction
shou%d be founded on meritorious grounds.F -his was found by the =. to be an imp%ied
admittance of the receipt of the motion. Besides, respondents cou%d ,ust as we%% ha"e stated
in their comments that no motion was fi%ed. (C#r$ P#int &eve$#7ment C#r7#rti#n v.
NLRC, G.R. N#.12!7'1, ;e+rury 2), 2000"
Q: A was a ,eepney dri"er of X on the boundary system. 8ue to a change in schedu%e, they did
not report for work as protest. -hey were then rep%aced. A fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%
asking for separation pay and other benefits. ?n /o"ember 3#, 11, the %abor arbiter rendered
,udgment in fa"or of A. X was ser"ed a copy of the decision on Apri% 1, 13. X fi%ed a
memorandum on appea% on Apri% 11, 13$ howe"er the appea% bond was on%y fi%ed on Apri% 12,
13. A%so, such bond was found to be spurious. Ct was on%y on Ju%y 32, 11 that a substitute
bond was issued by another company. 8id the /<B. ha"e ,urisdiction to hear the appea%)
A: /o. -he perfection of an appea% within the reg%ementary period and in the manner prescribed
by %aw is ,urisdictiona%, and noncomp%iance with such %ega% re&uirement is fata% and has the
effect of rendering the ,udgment fina% and e0ecutory. 5erfection of an appea% inc%udes the fi%ing,
within the prescribed period of the memorandum of appea% and posting of the appea% bond. Cn
cases where the ,udgment in"o%"es a monetary award, as in this case, the appea% may be
perfected on%y upon posting of a cash or surety bond to the /<B.. =ince the X recei"ed the
<A+s decision on Apri% 1, they had on%y unti% Apri% 11 to fi%e their appea%. -he bond was posted
on%y on Apri% 12$ beyond the reg%ementary period. -he re&uirement of posting the bond has on%y
been re%a0ed on grounds of substantia% ,ustice and specia% circumstances which are not
attendant in this case. 9urthermore, the bond posted was not genuine. -he decision can no
%onger be amended nor a%tered by the %abor tribuna%. (Nvrr# v. NLRC, G.R. N#. 11'-'-,
0rc8 1, 2000"
Q: A, is a member of the /9<, emp%oyed by X in the 5ata%on .oconut @state in Lamboanga .ity.
5ursuant to BA ##;4, the .omprehensi"e Agrarian Beform <aw, the 5ata%on .ocount @state
was warded to the 5ata%on @state Beform Association, of which A is a member and co'owner.
As a resu%t of this ac&uisition, the 5ata%on @state shut down operations and the emp%oyment of A
was se"ered. A did not recei"e separation pay. A became co'owner of the %and and
subse&uent%y fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. =hou%d X, who had been compe%%ed to
cease operations because of compu%sory ac&uisition by the go"ernment of his %and for purposes
of agrarian reform, be made %iab%e to pay separation pay to A)
A: /o. -he pecu%iar circumstance in the case at bar in"o%"es neither the c%osure of an
estab%ishment nor a reduction in personne% as contemp%ated in Artic%e 3!1. -he c%osure
contemp%ated in 3!1 is a "o%untary act on the part of the emp%oyer. -he <abor .ode
does not contemp%ate a situation where the c%osure is forced upon the emp%oyer. As
such, petitioners are not entit%ed to separation pay as pri"ate respondents did not
"o%untary shut down operations as they e"en sought to be e0empted from the co"erage
of BA ##;4. (Nti#n$ ;e%erti#n #1 L+#r v. NLRC, G.R. N#. 12771), 0rc8 2, 2000"
Q: A and B were emp%oyed by .ompany @. A app%ied for a %ea"e of absence and informed the
?perations 7anager of his intention to a"ai% of the optiona% retirement p%an under the
.onsecuti"e @n%istment Cncenti"e 5%an H.@C5I. =uch was denied. B a%so app%ied for a %ea"e of
absence and informed the ?perations 7anger of his intention to a"ai% of the optiona% ear%y
retirement p%an in "iew of his 32 years of ser"ice which was %ikewise denied. A and B both
re&uested for e0tension of their %ea"es of absence. <ater, they disco"ered that they had been
dropped from the roster of crew members. .ompany @ asserts that A and B are contractua%
emp%oyees whose emp%oyment are terminated e"ery time their contracts e0pire. (ere A and B
"a%id%y dismissed)
A: /o. -he primary standard to determine a regu%ar emp%oyment is the reasonab%e connection
between the acti"ity performed by the emp%oyee in re%ation to the usua% business or trade of the
emp%oyer. Cn this case it is undisputed that petitioners were regu%ar emp%oyees of pri"ate
respondents. A%so, as they had been in the emp%oy of pri"ate respondents for 32 years as they
were repeated%y re'hired after the e0piration of their respecti"e contracts, it is c%ear that their
ser"ice was necessary and indispensab%e to pri"ate respondent+s business. -herefore, they
cou%d on%y be dismissed for ,ust and "a%id cause. -here is no showing that they abandoned their
,ob as there was no showing of their un,ustified refusa% to resume emp%oyment. (0i$$res v.
NLRC, G.R. N#. 11032-, 0rc8 1-, 2000"
Q: X is a members of >nion =. -he @0ecuti"e Board of >nion = decided to retain the ser"ices
of their counse% in connection with negotiations for a new .BA. A genera% membership meeting
was ca%%ed where ma,ority of union members appro"ed a reso%ution confirming the decision to
engage the ser"ices of the union+s counse%, Atty. <acsina. -he reso%ution pro"ided that 12M of
the tota% economic benefits that may be secured be gi"en to the counse% at attorney+s fees. A%so
it contained an authoriDation for =o%idbank .orporation to check'off said attorney+s fees from the
first %ump sum of payment of benefits under the new .BA. X issued a comp%aint for i%%ega%
deduction. 7ay the union "a%id%y deduct attorney+s fees from X+s sa%ary)
A: /o. Artic%e 3J1 has 1 re&uisites for the "a%idity of the specia% assessment for union+s
incidenta% e0penses, attorney+s fees and representation e0penses. -hey are:
1. authoriDation by a written reso%ution of ma,ority of a%% the members at the genera%
membership meeting ca%%ed for the purpose
3. secretary+s record of the minutes of the meeting
1. indi"idua% written authoriDation for check'off du%y signed by the emp%oyees concerned.
=uch re&uirements were not comp%ied with, as there were no indi"idua% written check off
authoriDations$ thus, the emp%oyer cannot %ega%%y deduct thus the assessment. -he
union shou%d be made to shou%der the e0penses incurred for the ser"ices of a %awyer
and according%y, reimbursement shou%d be charged to the union+s genera% fund or
account. /o deduction can be made from the sa%aries of the concerned emp%oyees
other than those mandated by %aw. (G+rie$, et $ v. Secretry #1 L+#r, G.R. N#.
113!-!, 0rc8 1', 2000"
Q: A and B were emp%oyed by 5A< as %oad contro%%er and check'in c%erk, respecti"e%y. ?n
January 1, 11, a passenger by the name of .ominero checked in for the f%ight. Ct appears
that B ref%ected a %ighter weight of baggage on .ominero+s ticket to make it appear that the
same was within the a%%owab%e %e"e%. (hen the anoma%y was %ater disco"ered, B went to the
cashier to pay the e0cess baggage fee. .ominero further paid the sum representing the e0cess
baggage fee. B imp%icated A in the anoma%y. A and B were charged with Efraud against the
companyF and were found gui%ty and meted with the pena%ty of dismissa%. -he /<B. found that
the a%%eged defrauding of 5A<+s e0cess baggage re"enue was not the handiwork of A and that
5A< fai%ed to show it suffered %oss in re"enues as a conse&uence of pri"ate respondent+s
&uestioned act. (as A "a%id%y dismissed)
A: *es. -he core of 5A<+s e"idence against A inc%uded the report of B. Ct was erroneous for the
/<B. to ha"e discredited B+s testimony because he appeared gui%ty as we%%. -here is
substantia% e"idence showing that pri"ate respondent had direct in"o%"ement in the i%%ega%
poo%ing of baggage. A+s act is ine0cusab%e as it constitutes a serious offense under petitioner+s
.ode of 8iscip%ine. -he fact that 5A< fai%ed to show it suffered %osses in re"enue is immateria%
as pri"ate respondent+s mere attempt to depri"e petitioner of its %awfu% remedy is a%ready
tantamount to fraud. -herefore, A was "a%id%y dismissed and as such was for a ,ust cause, he is
not entit%ed to backwages nor separation pay. (PAL v. NLRC, G.R. N#. 12')03, 0rc8 1',
2000"

Q: -he /9< was the so%e and e0c%usi"e bargaining representati"e for the rank and fi%e
emp%oyees of .ompany X. /9< started to negotiate for better terms and conditions of
emp%oyment$ which were met with resistance by .ompany X. -he /9< fi%ed a comp%aint for ><5
on the ground of refusa% to bargain co%%ecti"e%y. <A issued an order dec%aring the company gui%ty
of ><5 and ordering the .BA proposa%s submitted by the /9< as the .BA between the parties.
<ater, * c%aimed that he was wrongfu%%y e0c%uded from the benefits under the .BA fi%ed a petition
for re%ief. .ompany X asserts that * is not entit%ed to the benefits under the .BA because he
was hired after the term of a .BA and therefore, is not a party to the agreement and may not
c%aim benefits thereunder. As for the .BA, .ompany X maintains that the force and effect of the
.BA+s terms are %imited to on%y three years and cannot e0tend to terms and conditions which
ceased to ha"e force and effect. Are the assertions of .ompany X correct)
A: /o. As to its first assertion, * shou%d be ab%e to c%aim benefits under the .BA. -he benefits
under the .BA shou%d be e0tended to those who on%y became such after it e0pired, to e0c%ude
them wou%d constitute undue discrimination. Cn fact, when a .BA is entered into by the union
representing the emp%oyees and the emp%oyer, e"en the non'union members are entit%ed to the
benefits of the contract. As to its assertion that the .BA+s terms are %imited to on%y three years,
it is c%ear from Art. 3;1 that unti% a new .BA has been e0ecuted by and between the parties,
they are duty bound to keep the status &uo and to continue in fu%% force and effect the terms and
conditions of the e0isting agreement. Cn the case at bar, no new agreement was entered
between the parties pending appea% of the decision in the /<B.. .onse&uent%y, the emp%oyees
wou%d be depri"ed of a substantia% amount of monetary benefits if the terms and conditions of
the .BA were not to remain in force and effect which runs counter to the intent of the <abor
.ode to curb %abor unrest and promote industria% peace. (Ne9 Pci1ic 4im+er Su77$y C#. v.
NLRC, G.R. N#. 12-22-, 0rc8 17, 2000"
Q: A was emp%oyed as a data encoder by pri"ate respondent. 9rom 1!! unti% 11, she
entered into 11 emp%oyment contracts with pri"ate respondent, each contract for a period of 1
months. Cn =eptember 11, A and 13 other emp%oyees a%%eged%y agreed to the fi%ing of a 5.@
of the rank and fi%e emp%oyees of pri"ate respondent. =ubse&uent%y, A recei"ed a termination
%etter due to E%ow "o%ume of work.F A fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. (as A a regu%ar
emp%oyee entit%ed to tenuria% security)
A: *es. @"en though petitioner is a pro,ect emp%oyee, as in the case of 7araguinot, Jr. ".
/<B., the court he%d that a pro,ect emp%oyee or member of a work poo% may ac&uire the status
of a regu%ar emp%oyee when the fo%%owing concur:
1. there is continuous rehiring of pro,ect emp%oyees e"en after the cessation of a pro,ect
3. the tasks performed by the a%%eged Epro,ect emp%oyeeF are "ita%, necessary and
indispensab%e to the usua% business and trade of the emp%oyer.
A was emp%oyed as a data encoder performing duties, which are usua%%y necessary or desirab%e
in the usua% business or trade of the emp%oyer, continuous%y for a period of more than 1 years.
Being a regu%ar emp%oyee, A is entit%ed to security of tenure and cou%d on%y be dismissed for a
,ust and authoriDed cause$ %ow "o%ume of work is not a "a%id cause for dismissa% under Arts. 3!3
or 3!1. Ha"ing worked for more than 1 years, A is a%so entit%ed to ser"ice incenti"e %ea"e
benefits from 1! unti% her actua% reinstatement since such is demandab%e after one year of
ser"ice, whether continuous or broken. (Im+ui%# v. NLRC, G.R. N#. 11-73-, 0rc8 31, 2000"
Q: A was emp%oyed as a security guard by .ompany X. 8uring a routinary meeting of the
security guards, A stood up and shouted at the presiding officer. =he was then suspended for
1; days. <ater, she recei"ed a %etter that she was reassigned and re&uired to report to
respondent+s 7ani%a office. Her ser"ices were terminated for abandonment when she fai%ed to
report for work in her new assignment. -he <abor Arbiter found for petitioner. 5ri"ate
respondent appea%ed to the /<B., which denied the appea%. -he decision ha"ing become fina%,
the <A issued a writ of e0ecution on the reinstatement aspect, but it was not imp%emented as the
monetary aspect remained to be determined. <ater, /<B. sheriff issued a notice of
:arnishment ser"ed on pri"ate respondent+s deposit account with the 5/B. -he <A directed the
5/B to re%ease the amount. 7eanwhi%e, .ompany X fi%ed with the <A a motion to &uash the writ
of e0ecution on the ground that there has been a change in the situation of the parties which
wou%d make the e0ecution ine&uitab%e. Ct contended that A accepted emp%oyment from another
security agency without pre"ious%y resigning from respondent+s agency. =hou%d the <abor Arbiter
sti%% order the re%ease of the ,udgment award)
A: *es. @0ecution is the fina% stage of %itigation, the end of the suit. Ct cannot be frustrated
e0cept for serious reasons demanded by ,ustice and e&uity. Ct is the ministeria% duty of the court
to issue a writ of e0ecution to enforce the ,udgment. .ompany X+s contention that there has
been a change in the situation of the parties is without merit. Ct has been he%d that back wages
awarded to an i%%ega%%y dismissed emp%oyee sha%% not be diminished or reduced by the earnings
by him e%sewhere during the period of his i%%ega% dismissa%. -he decision is fina% and the tota%
amount representing the sa%ary differentia%s and back wages awarded to the petitioner has been
garnished from the account of respondent agency with no opposition or resistance. -herefore, it
is the ministeria% duty of the <A to re%ease the money to A. (4#rres v. NLRC, G.R. N#. 10701-,
A7ri$ 12, 2000"
Q: ?n 8ecember 1!#, 8e <a =a%%e >ni"ersity and 8e <a =a%%e >ni"ersity @mp%oyee+s
Association, which is composed of regu%ar non'academic rank and fi%e emp%oyees entered into a
.BA. 8uring the freedom period of such .BA, the >nion initiated negotiations, which turned out
to be unsuccessfu%. After se"era% conci%iation meetings, ; out of 11 issues were reso%"ed by the
parties. A partia% .BA was e0ecuted. -he parties then entered into a =ubmission Agreement
identifying the remaining issues for arbitration. Cn reso%"ing the issues, the GA inc%uded the
computer operators from the scope of the .BA and e0c%uded the emp%oyees of the .o%%ege of
=t. Beni%de. 8id the GA act proper%y in ru%ing as such)
A: *es. .omputer operators were present%y doing c%erica% and routinary work and had nothing to
do with the setting of management po%icies for the uni"ersity. -he access they ha"e to
information to the >ni"ersity+s operations are not necessari%y confidentia%. -he e0press
e0c%usion of the computer operators in the past does not pose a bar to re'negotiation for future
inc%usion of the said emp%oyees in the bargaining unit. A%so, as to the emp%oyees of the .=B,
they were proper%y e0c%uded at the two education institutions ha"e their own separate ,uridica%
persona%ity. H8e %a =a%%e >ni"ersity ". 8e <a =a%%e >ni"ersity @mp%oyees Association, :.B. /o.
12223, Apri% 13, 3222I
Q: A recei"ed a %etter ca%%ing to his attention his conduct during a =a%es and 7arketing
.hristmas gathering where she a%%eged%y made utterances of obscene, insu%ting and offensi"e
words towards the =5.+s 7anagement .ommittee. A was gi"en two days to e0p%ain why no
discip%inary action shou%d be taken against him and he was thereafter p%aced on pre"enti"e
suspension. A rep%ied stating that such utterances were on%y made in reference to a decision
taken by the management committee on the .ua <im .ase and not to any specific person. A
was thereafter informed in a %etter that his emp%oyment was terminated. (as A "a%id%y
dismissed)
A: /o. A+s dismissa% was brought about by utterances made during an informa% .hristmas
gathering. 9or misconduct to warrant dismissa%, it must be in connection with the emp%oyee+s
work. Cn this case, the a%%eged misconduct was neither in connection with emp%oyee+s work, as
A+s utterances are not unusua% in informa% gatherings, neither was it of such serious and gra"e
character. 9urthermore, A+s outburst was in reaction to the decision of the management in a
certain case and was not intended to ma%ign on the person of the respondent company+s
president and genera% manager. -he company itse%f did not seem to consider the offense
serious to warrant an immediate in"estigation. Ct is a%so pro"ided in the company+s ru%es and
regu%ations that for conduct such as that of A, a first offense wou%d on%y warrant a E"erba%
reminderF and not dismissa%. H=amson ". /<B., :.B. /o.13121;, Apri% 13, 3222I.
Q: X was emp%oyed by .ompany . as assistant mechanic. X dro"e .ompany .+s truck to
insta%% a pane% sign and accidenta%%y sideswiped a ten year o%d gir% whose in,uries incurred
hospita%iDation e0penses of up to 51,;1J.J;. =uch amount was not reimbursed by insurance
as X had no dri"er+s %icense at the time of the accident$ therefore .ompany . shou%dered the
e0penses. .ompany . conducted an in"estigation where X was gi"en the opportunity to defend
himse%f. X was then dismissed for "io%ating the company ru%es and regu%ation for b%atant
disregard of estab%ished contro% procedures resu%ting in company damages. (as X "a%id%y
dismissed)
A: *es. A%though X contends that he was in"estigated simp%y for the offense of dri"ing without a
"a%id dri"er+s %icense, it was c%ear that he was fu%%y aware that he was being in"estigated for his
in"o%"ement in the "ehicu%ar accident. Ct was a%so known to him that the accident caused the
"ictim to suffer serious in,uries %eading to e0penses which the insurance refused to co"er. 8ue
process does not necessari%y re&uire a hearing, as %ong as one is gi"en reasonab%e opportunity
to be heard. X+s actions c%ear%y constituted wi%%fu% disobedience. A%though genera%%y, an
emp%oyee who is dismissed for ,ust cause is not entit%ed to any financia% assistance, due to
e&uity considerations as this was X+s first offense in 1! years of ser"ice, he is to be granted
separation pay by way of financia% assistance of A month+s pay for e"ery year of ser"ice.
(A7rente, Sr. v. NLRC, G.R. N#. 117'32, A7ri$ 27, 2000"
Q: * was a company nurse for the .ompany L. A memorandum was issued by the personne%
manager of .ompany L to * asking her to e0p%ain why no action shou%d be taken against her for
H1I throwing a stap%er at p%ant manager (i%%iam .hua$ H3I for %osing the amount of 51,J!!
entrusted to her, H1I for asking a co'emp%oyee to punch in her time card one morning when she
was not there. =he was then p%aced on pre"enti"e suspension. Another memorandum was
sent to her asking her to e0p%ain why she fai%ed to process the A-7 app%ications of her co'
emp%oyees. =he submitted a written e0p%anation as to the %oss of the 51,J!! and the punching
in of her time card. A third memorandum was sent to her informing her of her termination from
ser"ice for gross and habitua% neg%ect of duties, serious misconduct, and fraud or wi%%fu% breach
of trust. * c%aims that her throwing of the stap%er at p%ant manager (i%%iam .hua was because
the %atter had been making se0ua% ad"ances on her since her first year of emp%oyment and that
when she wou%d not accede to his re&uests, he threatened that he wou%d cause her termination
from ser"ice. As to the other charges, she c%aimed that they were not done with ma%ice or bad
faith. (as * i%%ega%%y dismissed, and if so, is she entit%ed to reco"er damages)
A: *es. -he grounds by which an emp%oyer may "a%id%y terminate the ser"ices of an emp%oyee
must be strict%y construed. -o constitute serious misconduct to ,ustify dismissa%, the acts
must be done in re%ation to the performance of her duties as wou%d show her to be unfit
to continue working for her emp%oyer. -he acts comp%ained of did not pertain to her
duties as a nurse neither did they constitute serious misconduct. ?n the &uestion of
damages, a%though * a%%owed four years to pass before coming out with her emp%oyer+s
se0ua% impositions$ the time to do so admitted%y "aries depending upon the needs,
circumstances and emotiona% thresho%d of each person. Ct is c%ear that * has suffered
an0iety, s%eep%ess nights, besmirched reputation and socia% humi%iation by reason of the
act comp%ained of. -hus, she shou%d be entit%ed to mora% and e0emp%ary damages for
the oppressi"e manner with which petitioner+s effected her dismissa% and to ser"e as a
warning to officers who take ad"antage of their ascendancy o"er their emp%oyees.
(P8i$i77ine Ae#$us Aut#m#tive 5nite% C#r7#rt#in v. NLRC, G.R. N#. 12-'17, A7ri$
2), 2000"
Q: Csetann 8ept =tore dismissed B due to retrenchment. Howe"er instead of gi"ing the re&uired
12 day notice, the company ga"e 12 days pay arguing that this is effecti"e notice. -hey made B
sign &uitc%aims so that there wou%d be no more c%aims from them. -he <abor Arbiter ru%ed that
the B was i%%ega%%y dismissed because they were not afforded due process because they fai%ed
to pro"e retrenchment due to %osses. -he /<B. re"ersed the ru%ing saying that the dismissa%
was ,ustified because it was due to redundancy and not retrenchment. -he /<B. howe"er did
not ru%e on whether the 12 day pay was a sufficient substitute for the 12 day notice. -he
petitioner argues further that they shou%d be gi"en the chance to present his side. (as the 12
days pay sufficient rep%acement for 12 day notice)
A: /o. -he .ourt ru%ed that since the dismissa% is due to an authoriDed cause on%y notice is
re&uired and that the emp%oyee has no right to present his side. -he 12 day notice is needed in
order to afford the emp%oyee enough time to %ook for work and to gi"e the 8?<@ time to %ook into
the "a%idity of the authoriDed cause. 12 days pay is not enough to rep%ace the notice
re&uirement because it wou%d not ser"e the purpose of the notice. Additiona%%y, backwages are
not a se"ere punishment because it is a conse&uence of the emp%oyer+s fai%ure to gi"e notice
and due process and the emp%oyee is therefore not deemed terminated so he shou%d be
compensated for that period. (Serrn# vs NLRC, GR N# 1170-0, 0y -, 2000"
Q: A and B fi%ed a petition for certification e%ection. -heir petition was granted but they %ost in the
e%ection as ma,ority of the emp%oyees "oted for Eno unionF. -he ne0t day, they fai%ed to report for
work. -hey c%aim that they were barred from entering the premises. -hey fi%ed a suit for i%%ega%
dismissa% and backwages. -he company denied these a%%egations and a%%eged that A and B
refused to return to work despite their attention being ca%%ed. (ere A and B %ega%%y dismissed)
A: /o. -he .ourt ru%ed that an immediate fi%ing of a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% is
incompatib%e with abandonment. Abandonment is a matter of intention. -here must be proof of
de%iberate and un,ustified intent to se"er the emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship. -his burden rests
on the emp%oyer. Cn this case, the emp%oyer fai%ed to do so. =ince they were i%%ega%%y dismissed,
the emp%oyees are entit%ed to reinstatement with fu%% backwages, undiminished by their earnings
e%sewhere. (.i$$r v. NLRC, GR N# 130!33, 0y 11, 2000"
Q: A schoo% emp%oys both %oca%'hire and foreign'hire teachers. -he foreign'hire teachers were
gi"en an added 3;M in their sa%ary and some benefits %ike transportation and housing, shipping
costs etc. -hese were gi"en based on two things: dis%ocation and %imited tenure. -he added
compensation was the schoo%+s way of remaining competiti"e on an internationa% %e"e% in terms
of attracting competent teachers. -he %oca%'hire teachers, part of the union contested the
difference, a dead%ock resu%ted so the teachers went on strike. Cs there discrimination in terms
of wages)
A: *es, there is discrimination. -he princip%e Ee&ua% pay for e&ua% workF shou%d app%y in this
case. 5ersons who work with substantia%%y e&ua% &ua%ifications, ski%%, effort and responsibi%ity,
under simi%ar conditions, shou%d be paid simi%ar sa%aries. Cf an emp%oyee is paid %ess it is upon
the emp%oyer to e0p%ain why the emp%oyee is treated different%y. 8is%ocation and %imited tenure
cannot ser"e as ade&uate or "a%id bases for the difference in the sa%ary rates. -he other
benefits are enough to make up for these two factors. -here is no reasonab%e distinction
between the work of a %oca%'hire and a foreign'hire that wi%% ,ustify the difference. (Internti#n$
Sc8##$ A$$ince #1 E%uct#rs v. >uisum+in2, GR N# 12))-3, June 1, 2000"
Q: A company was found to ha"e underpaid their emp%oyees and did not pay the 11
th
month pay
on a routine inspection conducted by 8?<@. -he regiona% director ordered the company to pay
the deficiency. =ubse&uent%y, the /<B. affirmed the order. A wai"er was signed by 12! of the
workers where they reduced by ha%f the amount that was due. 8?<@ appro"ed the wai"er
saying that it was not contrary to %aw, good customs and pub%ic po%icy. <ater, petitioner fi%ed a
motion for reconsideration a%%eging undue inf%uence, coercion, intimidation, and no assistance of
counse%. -he motion was denied. @duardo /ietes, c%aiming that he represented the workers,
fi%ed a position paper with the same argument. -he /<B. dismissed the case for fai%ure to
ac&uire ,urisdiction. He again fi%ed an appea% but the appea% was denied for being fi%ed out of
time. -he appea% was fi%ed days %ate a%ong with the appea% fee and research fee. (as the
appea% was fi%ed out of time)
A: *es, the appea% was fi%ed out of time. -he perfection of an appea% within the reg%amentary
period and in the manner prescribed by %aw is mandatory and ,urisdictiona%. /on'comp%iance
renders the ,udgement appea%ed fina% and e0ecutory. An appea% is perfected when there is proof
of payment of the appea% fee and in cases of the emp%oyer appea%ing and there is a monetary
award, payment of the appea% bond. A mere notice of appea% without comp%ying with the other
re&uisites sha%% not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appea%. =ometimes though,
in the interest of ,ustice, %ate appea%s ha"e been a%%owed. An instance is a c%ass suit. Cn this
case there is no e"idence that there is a c%ass suit. -here is no e"idence that the workers chose
/ietes to represent them. -here is no showing that the workers are ,oined by a common
interest. As there is no basis to in"a%idate the wai"er the workers signed, the wai"er is "a%id.
(=#r6ers #1 Anti?ue E$ectric C##7ertive v. NLRC, GR N# 1200'2, June ), 2000"
Q: X was a radio operator on board a ship where he had a contract for 13 months. He was
re&uired to submit himse%f to a medica% e0amination. 5rior to this, he had a pacemaker inserted
to he%p his cardio"ascu%ar functioning but he was sti%% dec%ared fit to work. ?n board the "esse%,
he had bouts of coughing and he needed open heart surgery. He fi%ed for sickness and
disabi%ity benefits with the 5?@A and these were awarded to him. Cs the sickness
compensab%e)
A: *es, it is compensab%e. .ompensabi%ity of the i%%ness or death of seamen need not depend on
whether the i%%ness was work connected or not. Ct is sufficient that the i%%ness occurred during the
term of the emp%oyment contract. Ct wi%% a%so be reca%%ed that petitioners admitted that pri"ate
respondentKs work as a radio officer e0posed him to different c%imates and unpredictab%e
weather, which cou%d trigger a heart attack or heart fai%ure. @"en assuming that the ai%ment of
the worker was contracted prior to his emp%oyment, this sti%% wou%d not depri"e him of
compensation benefits. 9or what matters is that his work had contributed, even in a small
degree, to the development of the disease and in bringing about his e"entua% death. /either is it
necessary, in order to reco"er compensation, that the emp%oyee must ha"e been in perfect
hea%th at the time he contracted the disease. (Se2u$$ S8i70n2ement n% 4rns7#rt Inc. v.
NLRC, GR N# 123'1!, June ), 2000"
Q: X is a merchandiser of respondent company. He withdraws stocks from the warehouse, fi0es
the prices, price'tagging, disp%aying the products and in"entory. He was paid by the company
through an agent. He asked for regu%ariDation of his status. -he company denied any
emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship. -hey c%aim that they used an agent or independent
contractors to se%% the merchandise. (as there %abor'on%y contracting)
A: /o. -he agent is a %egitimate independent contractor. <abor'on%y contractor occurs on%y
when the contractor mere%y recruits, supp%ies or p%aces workers to perform a ,ob for a principa%.
-he %abor'on%y contractor does not ha"e substantia% capita% or in"estment and the workers
recruited perform acti"ities direct%y re%ated to the principa% business of the emp%oyer. -here is
permissib%e contracting on%y when the contractor carries an independent business and
undertakes the contract in his own manner and method, free from the contro% of the principa%
and the contractor has substantia% capita% or in"estment. -he agent, and not the company, a%so
e0ercises contro% o"er the petitioners. /o documents were submitted to pro"e that the company
e0ercised contro% o"er them. -he agent hired the petitioners. -he agent a%so pays the
petitioners, no e"idence was submitted showing that it was the company paying them and not
the agent. Ct was a%so the agent who terminated their ser"ices. By petitioning for regu%ariDation,
the petitioners concede that they are not regu%ar emp%oyees. (Escri# v. NLRC, GR N#
12-033, June ), 2000"
Q: X was origina%%y emp%oyed by B .orporation as a muff%er specia%ist, and was subse&uent%y
appointed super"isor . He was instructed to report at pri"ate respondent+s main office where he
was informed by the company+s personne% manager that he wou%d be transferred to its =ucat
p%ant due to his fai%ure to meet his sa%es &uota, and for that reason, his super"isor+s a%%owance
wou%d be withdrawn. 9or a short time, X reported for work at the =ucat p%ant$ howe"er, he
protested his transfer, subse&uent%y fi%ing a comp%aint for i%%ega% termination. X decries his
transfer as being "io%ati"e of his security of tenure, the c%ear imp%ication being that he was
constructi"e%y dismissed. (as X constructi"e%y dismissed)
A: /o. (e ha"e he%d that an emp%oyer acts we%% within its rights in transferring an emp%oyee as it
sees fit pro"ided that there is no demotion in rank or diminution in pay. -he two circumstances
are deemed badges of bad faith, and thus constituti"e of constructi"e dismissa%. Cn this regard,
constructi"e dismissa% is defined as Ean in"o%untary resignation resorted to when continued
emp%oyment becomes impossib%e, unreasonab%e, or un%ike%y$ when there is a demotion in rank
or diminution in pay$ or when a c%ear discrimination, insensibi%ity or disdain by an emp%oyer
becomes unbearab%e to the emp%oyee.F Ct shou%d be borne in mind, howe"er, that the right to
demote an emp%oyee a%so fa%%s within the category of management prerogati"es. An emp%oyer is
entit%ed to impose producti"ity standards for its workers, and in fact, non'comp%iance may be
"isited with a pena%ty e"en more se"ere than demotion. 9ai%ure to obser"e prescribed standards
of work, or to fu%fi%% reasonab%e work assignments due to inefficiency may constitute ,ust cause
for dismissa%. (Le#nr%# v. NLRC, G.R. N#. 123303, June 1', 2000"
Q: * was emp%oyed as a mechanic. He was dismissed after the company found out that he was
doing side%ine work. Ct wou%d appear that %ate in the e"ening of the day in &uestion, the dri"er of
a red .oro%%a arri"ed at the shop %ooking for *. -he dri"er said that, as prearranged, he was to
pick up * who wou%d perform a pri"ate ser"ice on the "ehic%e. (hen reports of the Nside%ineN
work reached management, it confronted * and asked for an e0p%anation. According to pri"ate
respondent, * ga"e contradictory e0cuses, e"entua%%y c%aiming that the unauthoriDed ser"ice
was for an aunt. (hen pressed to present his aunt, it was then that * stopped reporting for
work, fi%ing his comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% some ten months after his a%%eged termination. *
was e"en emp%oyed by another company thereafter. (as there abandonment of work)
A: *es. *, after being pressed by the respondent company to present the customer regarding
his unauthoriDed so%icitation of side%ine work from the %atter and whom he c%aims to be his aunt,
he ne"er reported back to work anymore. Ct must be stressed that whi%e * a%%eges that he was
i%%ega%%y dismissed from his emp%oyment by the respondents, surprising%y, he ne"er stated any
reason why the respondents wou%d want to ease him out from his ,ob. 7oreo"er, why did it take
him ten H12I %ong months to fi%e his case if indeed he was aggrie"ed by respondents. A%% the
abo"e facts c%ear%y point that the fi%ing of his case is a mere afterthought on the part of *.
(Le#nr%# v. NLRC, G.R. N#. 123303, June 1', 2000"
Q: X is an officer and member of the 5:A Brotherhood Association, a du%y registered %abor
organiDation, and is a security guard emp%oyed by 5=G=CA. He was informed that his ser"ices
were being terminated. He contended that prior to such dismissa%, they were harassed by
5=G=CA officers to withdraw their membership from the 5:A Brotherhood Association. A%though
5=G=CA denied the charge of i%%ega% dismissa%, the <abor Arbiter dec%ared 5=G=CA and its
responsib%e officers gui%ty of ><5 and dec%ared that petitioners were constructi"e%y dismissed,
thereby ordering respondent to reinstate X to his former position with backwages up to the time
of actua% reinstatement. Howe"er, X was paid monetary award for backwages pursuant to an
ear%ier decision of the /<B. %imiting it to three years where he assented to the computation
made by the /<B. reducing the backwages to three years. /o 7.B. was fi%ed. Cn fact, X e"en
fi%ed a motion to re%ease the remaining ba%ance to satisfy the ,udgment awards. X fi%ed a motion
for c%arification of the reso%ution reiterating their prayer for the inc%usion of their backwages from
time they were terminated up to the present Hunti% actua% or payro%% reinstatementI. How shou%d
the backwages be computed)
A: -he /<B. decision has become fina% and e0ecutory. /either a motion for reconsideration
nor appea% was e"er taken by petitioners on this point. -his procedura% %apse is fata%. @&ua%%y
significant is the fact that petitioners acti"e%y participated in the enforcement of the e0ecution by
garnishing the supersedeas bond and the bank deposits of 5=G=CA. -he /<B. prepared a
computation showing the back wages due petitioners for three H1I years. X not on%y assented to
the computation made when they did not ob,ect thereto but e"en fi%ed a motion to re%ease the
remaining ba%ance amounting to 51!,#22.22 sti%% in the hands of the /<B. to fu%%y satisfy the
,udgment awards. X cannot now c%aim that they ha"e remained unpaid, especia%%y considering
that they ha"e a%ready recei"ed the ,udgment award. (PGA @r#t8er8##% Ass#citi#n, et $., v.
NLRC, G.R. N#. 1310)-, June 1!, 2000".
Q: X was working as dri"er of passenger ,eepneys. He %ost his dri"er+s %icense and asked for
permission to go on "acation %ea"e to secure a new one. X on%y returned after three months
when he was ab%e to obtained his %icense. He was howe"er informed that another dri"er had
a%ready taken his p%ace. -he company argues that the pro%onged absence of X constituted
abandonment. X fi%ed a case for i%%ega% dismissa%. 8id X+s absence constitute abandonment)
A: /o. -o constitute abandonment, two e%ements must concur: H1I the fai%ure to report for work
or absence without "a%id or ,ustifiab%e reason, and H3I a c%ear intention to se"er the emp%oyer'
emp%oyee re%ationship. =uch is disputed by the fact that pri"ate respondent immediate%y
reported back for work and %ost no time in fi%ing a case for i%%ega% dismissa% against petitioners.
(Ic9t v. NLRC, GR 133372, June 20, 2000"
Q: X was emp%oyed as manager by a company for its Hea%thcare 8i"ision. Cn Apri% 1#,
fictitious in"oices were sent to c%ients made to inf%ate the gross re"enues of the Hea%thcare
8i"ision$ and /okom was p%aced on pre"enti"e suspension as initia% findings showed her to be
in"o%"ed in such anoma%y. X admitted the irregu%arities and made no e0p%anation. =he a%so
fai%ed to appear during the hearing. After the in"estigation, X+s emp%oyment was terminated. X
was found to ha"e been dismissed for Efraud or wi%%fu% breachF of the trust reposed on her by her
emp%oyer or du%y authoriDed representati"e. (as X %ega%%y dismissed)
A: *es. Cn the case at bar, petitioner+s position demanded a high degree of responsibi%ity,
inc%uding the unearthing of fraudu%ent and irregu%ar acti"ities. 5etitioner fai%ed to do such and
her bare denia%s did not dispro"e her gui%t. -he ordinary ru%e is that one who has know%edge
pecu%iar%y within his contro%, and refuses to di"u%ge it, cannot comp%ain if the court puts the most
unfa"orab%e construction upon his si%ence, and infers that a disc%osure wou%d ha"e shown the
fact to be as c%aimed by the opposing party. <oss of confidence is one of the ,ust causes for a
"a%id dismissa%$ and it is enough that there be Esome basisF for such %oss of confidence. -he
guide%ines for the app%ication of the doctrine of %oss of confidence as enunciated in Midas Touch
Food Corporation, are:
a.....%oss of confidence shou%d not be simu%ated$
b.....it shou%d not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, i%%ega% or
un,ustified$
c.....it may not be arbitrari%y asserted in the face of o"erwhe%ming e"idence to the
contrary$ and
d.....it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to ,ustify ear%ier action taken in bad faith.
An emp%oyer en,oys a wide %atitude in the promu%gation of company ru%es$ and in this case, the
po%icies of respondent were fair and reasonab%e. (N#6#m v. NLRC, G.R. N#.1-00-3, Ju$y 1),
2000"

Q: X, 5resident of the e0c%usi"e bargaining agent initiated renegotiations of its .BA with the
company for the %ast two years of the .BA+s ; year %ifetime from 1!'1J. ?n the same year,
the union e%ected a new set of officers with L as the new%y e%ected 5resident. L wanted to
continue renegotiation, but the company c%aimed that the .BA was a%ready prepared for signing.
-he .BA was submitted to a referendum which was re,ected by the union members. <ater, the
union notified the /.7B of its intention to strike due to the company+s refusa% to bargain.
-hereafter, the parties agreed to disregard the unsigned .BA and to start negotiation on a new
fi"e'year .BA. -he union submitted its proposa%s to petitioner, which notified the union that the
same was submitted to its Board of -rustees. 7eanwhi%e, L+s work schedu%e was changed,
which she protested and re&uested to be submitted to a grie"ance machinery under the o%d
.BA. 8ue to the company+s inaction, the union fi%ed a notice of strike. <ater, L was dismissed
for a%%eged insubordination. Both parties again discussed the ground ru%es for the .BA
renegotiations$ howe"er the company stopped negotiations after a%%eged%y recei"ing information
that a new group of emp%oyees had fi%ed a 5etition for .ertification @%ections. -he union he%d a
stike and the =ecretary assumed ,urisdiction ordering a%% striking workers to return to work. A%%
were readmitted e0cept L.
1. Cs the company gui%ty of unfair %abor practice by refusing to bargain with the union when it
uni%atera%%y suspended the ongoing negotiations for a new .BA upon mere information that a
petition for certification has been fi%ed by another %egitimate %abor organiDation)
3. 8oes the termination of the union president amount to an interference of the emp%oyees+ right
to se%f'organiDation)
A:
1. /o. -he duty to bargain co%%ecti"e%y inc%udes the mutua% ob%igation to meet and con"ene
prompt%y and e0peditious%y in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement.
5etitioner fai%ed to make a time%y rep%y to the union+s proposa%s, thereby "io%ating the proper
procedure in co%%ecti"e bargaining as pro"ided in Artic%e 3;2. Cn order to a%%ow the emp%oyer
to "a%id%y suspend the bargaining process, there must be a "a%id 5.@ raising a %egitimate
representation issue. Cn this case, the petition was fi%ed outside the #2'day freedom period$
therefore there was no %egitimate representation issue and the fi%ing of the 5.@ did not
constitute a bar to the ongoing negotiation.
2. *es. -he dismissa% was in "io%ation of the emp%oyee+s right to se%f'organiDation. -he
dismissa% must be made pursuant to the tenets of e&uity and fair p%ay$ wherein the
emp%oyer+s right to terminate the ser"ices of an emp%oyee must be e0ercised in good faith$
furthermore, it must not amount to interfering with, restraining or coercing emp%oyees in their
right to se%f'organiDation. -he factua% backdrop of the Ambas+ termination re"ea%s that such
was done in order to strip the union of a %eader. Admitted%y, management has the prerogati"e
to discip%ine its emp%oyees for insubordination. But when the e0ercise of such management
right tends to interfere with the emp%oyees+ right to se%f'organiDation, it amounts to union'
busting and is therefore a prohibited act. (C#$e2i# %e Sn Jun %e Letrn v. Ass#citi#n
#1 Em7$#yees n% ;cu$ty #1 Letrn, G.R. 1-1-71, Se7tem+er 1), 2000"
Q: X was emp%oyed as sewer by a corporation engaged in the business of sewing costumes,
gowns and casua% and forma% dresses. @"entua%%y, she started to fee% chest pains. =he then fi%ed
a %ea"e of absence from work as the chest pains became unbearab%e. After sub,ecting herse%f to
medica% e0amination, she was found to be suffering from Atherosc%erotic heart disease, Atria%
9ibri%%ation, .ardiac Arrhythmia. >pon recommendation of her doctor, she resigned from her
work hoping that with a much'needed comp%ete rest, she wi%% be cured. =he %ater fi%ed a
disabi%ity c%aim with the === from the @mp%oyees+ .ompensation 9und, under 5residentia%
8ecree /o. #3#, as amended. (as the sickness compensab%e)
A: *es, the i%%ness is compensab%e. >nder the <abor .ode, as amended, the %aw app%icab%e to
the case at bar, in order for the emp%oyee to be entit%ed to sickness or death benefits, the
sickness or death resu%ting therefrom must be or must ha"e resu%ted from either HaI any i%%ness
definite%y accepted as an occupationa% disease %isted by the .ommission, or HbI any i%%ness
caused by emp%oyment, sub,ect to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased by
working conditions.F Cn other words, Efor a sickness and the resu%ting disabi%ity or death to be
compensab%e, the said sickness must be an occupationa% disease %isted under Anne0 EAF the
Amended Bu%es on @mp%oyees+ .ompensation$ otherwise, the c%aimant or emp%oyee concerned
must pro"e that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working condition.F
Cndisputab%y, cardio"ascu%ar diseases, which, as herein abo"e'stated inc%ude atherosc%erotic
heart disease, atria% fibri%%ation, cardiac arrhythmia, are %isted as compensab%e occupationa%
diseases in the Bu%es of the @mp%oyees+ .ompensation .ommission, hence, no further proof of
casua% re%ation between the disease and c%aimant+s work is necessary. (S$m#ne v.
Em7$#yees* C#m7ensti#n C#mmissi#n n% S#ci$ Security System, G.R. N#. 1-23!2,
Se7tem+er 2', 2000"
1!!! CASES
Q. A f%ight surgeon at 5A<, was on duty from J pm unti% 13 midnight. At around 4 pm, he %eft the
c%inic to ha"e his dinner at his residence, a ;'minute dri"e away. (hi%e he was away, the c%inic
recei"ed an emergency ca%% for a 5A< emp%oyee suffered from a heart attack. -he nurse on duty
phoned the doctor at home to inform him of the emergency, then rushed the patient to the
hospita% at 4:;2 pm. -he doctor arri"ed at 4:;1 pm. -he patient died the fo%%owing day. After
in"estigation, the doctor was charged with abandonment of post whi%e on duty, and was %ater
suspended for 1 months. (as this suspension %ega%)
A. -he suspension was i%%ega%. Artic%e !1 of the <abor .ode H/orma% hours of (orkI pro"ides
that Hea%th personne% . . . sha%% ho%d regu%ar office hours for eight H!I hours a day, for fi"e H;I
days a week, exclusive of time for meals, O H=ee Art. !; ' 7ea% 5eriods$ =ec. 4, Bu%e C, Book CCC
of the ?mnibus Bu%es H7ea%s and Best periodsI -hus, the !'hour work period does not inc%ude
the mea% break. /owhere in the %aw may it be inferred that emp%oyees must take their mea%s
within the company premises, as %ong as they return to their posts on time. 5ri"ate respondent+s
act of going home to take his dinner does not constitute abandonment. HP8i$i77ine Air$ines,
Inc. v. NLRC, 302 SCRA 3)2 (1!!!""

Q. A ,et printer operator emp%oyed at =e%ecta was dismissed from emp%oyment for dishonesty
and theft of company property. .onsidering that the emp%oyee mere%y took 1; hamburger
patties, a pair of boots and an a%uminum container, was dismissa% the appropriate remedy)
A. /o. (hi%e the =. agrees that the emp%oyer shou%d not be re&uired to continuous%y emp%oy
someone who has betrayed its trust and confidence, dismissa% wou%d not be proportionate to the
gra"ity of the offense. 9urther, he is a non'confidentia% emp%oyee. 8ismissa% as a measure to
protect the interests of Bespondent .ompany is unwarranted under the facts of this case.
=uspension wou%d ha"e sufficed. (Ass#cite% L+#r 5ni#ns(45CP v. NLRC, 302 SCRA 70)
(1!!!""

Q. A de%i"eryman of 5etitioner .ompany fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% and non'payment
of basic wages and certain monetary benefits. He was suspected of se%%ing fruits of his emp%oyer
at a higher price, and pocketing the difference. -he <A found in fa"or of the emp%oyee and
ordered petitioner .ompany to reinstate him with back wages, sa%ary differentia%s, 11
th
month
pay and ser"ice incenti"e pay. -he /<B. re"ersed the decision and ru%ed that pri"ate
respondent was not entit%ed to reinstatement with back wages e0cept for the award of sa%ary
differentia%s due to underpayment.
A. -he =. agrees with the <A and he%d that pri"ate respondent was indeed i%%ega%%y dismissed. Ct
was on%y upon his comp%aint regarding his %ow sa%ary that he was no %onger a%%owed to report for
work. -his amounted to dismissa% without cause and without the re&uisite written notice. =uch
circumstances make it difficu%t to sustain any a%%egation of abandonment. Abandonment, as a
,ust and "a%id cause for termination, re&uires a de%iberate and un,ustified refusa% of an emp%oyee
to resume his work, coup%ed with a c%ear absence of any intention of returning to his or her work.
(ith regard to the sa%ary differentia%s granted, petitioners c%aim e0emption under BA #434
H(age Bationa%iDation ActI and the Bu%es Cmp%ementing (age ?rder /os. /.B'21 and
/.B'21'A, as we%% as (age ?rder /os. /.B'23 and /.B'23'A. Howe"er, regard%ess of
the factua% circumstances in this case, the =. was not con"inced as the petitioners cou%d
not e"en show any appro"ed app%ication for e0emption, as re&uired by the app%icab%e
guide%ines issued by the .ommission. (C. P$ns C#mmerci$ v. NLRC, 303 SCRA -!
(1!!!""

Q. Cs due process ser"ed e"en when the decision of the <abor arbiter is based so%e%y on position
papers)
A. 5etitioner %ikewise contends that it was not granted its right to due process, as the decision of
the <A was based pure%y on position papers. -he standard of due process that must be met in
administrati"e tribuna%s a%%ows a certain degree of %atitude as %ong as fairness is not ignored.
PAdamson Q Adamson, Cnc. ". Amores, 1;3 =.BA 314, 3;2 H1!4IR Hence it is not %ega%%y
ob,ectionab%e, for being "io%ati"e of due process, for the <A to reso%"e a case based so%e%y on
position papers, affida"its or documentary e"idence submitted by the parties. (C0P ;e%er$
Security A2ency, Inc. v. NLRC, 303 SCRA !! (1!!!""

Q. (hi%e petitioner was assigned to sort out re,ects in a pri"ate respondent+s bakery, he went to
the comfort room to answer the ca%% of nature, with the permission of his checker. Howe"er,
when the owner saw that petitioner was not at his station, he demanded from him a written
e0p%anation for abandoning his work. Ha"ing "erba%%y e0p%ained that he had to answer the ca%% of
nature, petitioner no %onger submitted a written e0p%anation, be%ie"ing that his "erba% denia%
wou%d suffice. Howe"er, he was suspended for 1; days. ?n another occasion, petitioner had to
answer the ca%% of nature. -his time, he re&uested his fe%%ow worker to rep%ace him whi%e he was
away. -he owner, howe"er, once again noticed that he was gone and demanded a written
e0p%anation for his absence. 6nowing better, petitioner comp%ied with the demand. 9inding
petitioner+s e0p%anation unsatisfactory, the .ompany ser"ed petitioner a notice of termination.
A. 5etitioner+s act of re%ie"ing himse%f can hard%y be characteriDed as abandonment, much %ess a
wi%%fu% or intentiona% disobedience of company ru%es since bowe% mo"ements are hard%y
contro%%ab%e. Aside from the discomfort it causes, restraining one+s bowe% mo"ements ad"erse%y
affects the efficiency and hea%th of the worker. /either cou%d it ha"e disrupted the operations of
the company as to cause it irreparab%e damage. As such, answering the ca%% of nature is a "a%id
reason to %ea"e the work area. H&im+y# v. NLRC, 303 SCRA '33 (1!!!""
Q. A room attendant of the =heraton, operated by petitioner, was dismissed for ha"ing been
caught by a hote% guest with his %eft hand inside the guest+s suitcase. After being charged and
terminated based on the company ru%es regarding &ua%ified theft, he fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega%
dismissa%. He reasons that he was mere%y p%acing the be%ongings of the hote% guest into the
%atter+s suitcase, as they were scattered on the f%oor. (as the dismissa% i%%ega%)
A. *es. 5etitioner reasons that the emp%oyee was caught in f%agrante de%icto, and is therefore a
cause for dismissa%. Howe"er, absent any e"idence that wou%d substantiate such imputation
against the emp%oyee, suspicions and base%ess conc%usions by emp%oyers are not %ega%
,ustification for dismissing emp%oyees. -he burden of proof to show the "a%idity of the dismissa%
%ies on the emp%oyer. /otab%y, it was shown that the hote% guest %ost nothing. H0rn9 /#te$s
n% Res#rt C#r7#rti#n v. NLRC, 303 SCRA 3-1 (1!!!""

Q. 5etitioner was a checker in the warehouse of respondent .ompany who met an accident
whi%e in the course of performing his ,ob. His hand was pinned down by a crane which resu%ted
in its deformity and tota% disabi%ity of his midd%e finger. He was gi"en a month of sick %ea"e
which he e0tended for another month. <ater, he disco"ered that the .ompany had terminated
his ser"ices. He then fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. -he <A found that there was an
i%%ega% dismissa%. Cn its appea% to the /<B., the .ompany a%%eged that the rea% reason why
petitioner was dismissed was due to se"era% gamb%ing incidents in the work area. -his
e0p%anation was accepted by the /B<., which omitted reinstatement and backwages from the
award of the <A. 5etitioner points out that the issue of gamb%ing was raised on%y by the
respondents upon appea%. /ot ha"ing been a%%eged in the 5osition 5apers of the respondents
at the ear%iest instance, shou%d the /<B. ha"e considered the .ompany+s gamb%ing
a%%egations)
A. -he .ompany was a%%owed to submit EAnne0 3F which contained the gamb%ing a%%egations
with the <A, there was no showing whether the /<B. ga"e the petitioner a c%ear chance to
rebut the contention. .onsidering the %ateness of its submission, and the critica% fact it a%%eged,
this was the %east that shou%d ha"e been done by the /<B.. -herefore, petition granted. /<B.
committed gra"e abuse of discretion. <A+s decision reinstated. H.i$$ v. NLRC, 303 SCRA -)1
(1!!!""
Q. =uper"isory emp%oyees of =7. were retired prior to reaching the compu%sory age of #2
pursuant to a .BA reducing optiona% retirement to fifteen years. -hey c%aim that their signatures
in conformity with their retirement from the ser"ice were secured through threats, and that the
emp%oyees had no choice but no accept the benefits. (ere the emp%oyees "a%id%y retired) 8id
their acceptance of benefits amount to estoppe%)
A. /o the emp%oyees were not "a%id%y retired. -he mere absence of actua% physica% force to
compe% them to ink their app%ication for retirement did not make it "o%untary. -hey were
confronted with the danger of being ,ob%ess. -heir acceptance of benefits did not %ikewise
amount to estoppe%. Cf the intention to retire is not c%ear%y estab%ished or if the retirement is
in"o%untary, such is to be treated as a discharge. Cn any case, the .BA is not app%icab%e to them
as it e0press%y e0c%uded super"isory positions which petitioners occupy. (Sn 0i2ue$
C#r7#rti#n v. NLRCA Ju$y 23, 1!!!"
Q. =an 7igue% .orporation shut down some of its p%ants and dec%ared ;; positions as
redundant, in order to stream%ine operations due to financia% %osses. .onse&uent%y, the union
fi%ed se"era% grie"ance cases for the said retrenched emp%oyees, and sought the redep%oyment
of said emp%oyees to other di"isions of the company. :rie"ance proceedings were conducted
pursuant to the partiesK .o%%ecti"e Bargaining Agreement. -he procedure out%ined in the .BA
re&uired the sett%ement of grie"ances on 1 %e"e%s ' department manager, p%ant manager, and a
conci%iation board. 8uring the proceedings, many emp%oyees were redep%oyed, some accepted
ear%y retirement. =an 7igue% informed the union that the remaining emp%oyees wou%d be
terminated, if they cou%d not be redep%oyed. =ubse&uent%y, the union fi%ed a notice of strike with
the /.7B of the 8?<@ due to a bargaining dead%ock and gross "io%ation of the .BA such as
non'comp%iance with the grie"ance procedure. ?n the other hand, =an 7igue% fi%ed a comp%aint
with the /<B. to dismiss the notice of strike. .an the union ho%d a strike on the grounds re%ied
upon)
A. -he grounds re%ied upon by the union are non'strikeab%e. A strike or %ockout may on%y be
dec%ared in cases of bargaining dead%ocks and ><5. Gio%ations of the .BA, e0cept
f%agrantSma%icious refusa% to comp%y with economic pro"isions sha%% not be strikeab%e. H=ec. 1,
Bu%e XXCC, <. CBBI A co%%ecti"e bargaining dead%ock is the situation between the %abor and
management of the company where there is fai%ure in the co%%ecti"e bargaining negotiations
resu%ting in a sta%emate. -his situation is none0istent in the present case since there is a
conci%iation board assigned in =tep 1 of the grie"ance machinery to reso%e the conf%icting "iews
of the parties. 9or fai%ing to e0haust a%% the steps in the grie"ance machinery and arbitration
proceedings pro"ided in the .BA, the notice of strike shou%d ha"e been dismissed by the /<B.
and the union ordered to proceed with the grie"ance and arbitration proceedings. 7oreo"er, in
abandoning the grie"ance proceedings and refusing to a"ai% of the remedies under the .BA, the
union "io%ated the mandatory pro"isions of the .BA. 5arenthetica%%y, it is worthy to note that
abo%ition of departments or positions in the company is one of the recogniDed management
prerogati"es. HSn 0i2ue$ C#r7#rti#n v. NLRC, 30- SCRA 1 (2 0rc8 1!!!""
Q. 8ue to a%%eged ><5, se"era% emp%oyees wa%ked out from their ,obs. -he company purported%y
sent them notices urging them to return to work, otherwise their ser"ices wou%d be terminated.
-he emp%oyees denied ha"ing recei"ed these notices, and c%aimed that they were mere%y
informed of their dismissa% and pre"ented from returning to work Hremo"a% of their machines by
the companyI. (as there a "a%id case of abandonment, as a ground for dismissa%)

A. Abandonment, as a ,ust and "a%id ground for dismissa%, means the de%iberate and un,ustified
refusa% of an emp%oyee to resume his emp%oyment. -he burden of proof is on the emp%oyer to
show an une&ui"oca% intent on the part of the emp%oyee to discontinue emp%oyment. -wo
e%ements must be pro"ed: the intention of an emp%oyee to abandon and an o"ert act from which
it may be inferred that the emp%oyee has no more intent to resume his work. Ct is un%ike%y that the
emp%oyees abandoned their ,obs, considering the %ength of their ser"ice H12'14 yearsI. Cn fact,
no o"ert act was pro"en by the company from which the intention of the emp%oyees to desist
from emp%oyment may be shown. 7oreo"er, the abandonment of work does not per se se"er
the emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship. C- is mere%y a form of neg%ect of duty, which is in turn a ,ust
cause for termination of emp%oyment. -he operati"e act that wi%% u%timate%y put an end to the
re%ationship is the dismissa% of the emp%oyee, after comp%ying with the procedure prescribed by
%aw. Cf the emp%oyer does not fo%%ow the procedure, there is i%%ega% dismissa%. H&e Pu$BCin2
P8i$i7 Cust#ms 4i$#r v. NLRC, 30- SCRA --), 10 0rc8 1!!!"
Q: = was emp%oyed under an emp%oyment contract that wi%% be effecti"e for a period of 1 year,
un%ess sooner terminated. -he first period was for si0 months terminab%e at the option of the
emp%oyer. -he second period was a%so for si0 months but probationary in character. After
working for si0 months, = was made to sign a 1'month probationary emp%oyment and %ater
e0tended by another 1'month period. After a tota% emp%oyment of one year, = was dismissed on
grounds of termination of contract emp%oyment. = fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. (as =
"a%id%y dismissed)
A: *es. Cn both periods, the company did not specify the criteria for the termination or retention
of the ser"ices of =. Cf the contract was rea%%y for a fi0ed term, the emp%oyer shou%d not ha"e
been gi"en the discretion to dismiss = during the one year period of emp%oyment for reasons
other than the ,ust and authoriDed causes under the <abor .ode. Cn effect, the emp%oyer
theoriDed that the one'year period of emp%oyment was probationary. Ct was not brought to %ight
that = was informed at the start of his emp%oyment of the reasonab%e standards under which he
wou%d &ua%ify as a regu%ar emp%oyee. Cn the case of Brent, the .ourt uphe%d the princip%e that
when the period was imposed to prec%ude the ac&uisition of tenuria% security, they shou%d be
disregarded for being contrary to pub%ic opinion. Ct was c%ear that = was hired as a regu%ar
emp%oyee and his work was necessary and direct%y re%ated to the business of the company. = is
considered as a regu%ar emp%oyee of the company. At any rate, e"en assuming that the origina%
emp%oyment was probationary, the fact that he was a%%owed to work beyond the si0'month
probationary period con"erts him to a regu%ar emp%oyee under Artic%e 3!1 of the <abor .ode. =
was reinstated with backwages from the time of dismissa% to payro%% reinstatement. (Servi%% v.
Nti#n$ L+#r Re$ti#ns C#mmissi#n, 303 SCRA -!, 1) 0rc8 1!!!"
Q: 8 %earned from B that the %atter needed factory workers in -aiwan, but B to%d 8 that as a part
of his ,ob app%ication, he shou%d gi"e a certain amount. 8 ga"e B the money but was unab%e to
go to -aiwan. =e"era% other persons paid B the re&uired p%acement fee but were a%so unab%e to
work abroad. -he "ictims fi%ed cases of i%%ega% recruitment in %arge sca%e H1 or more personsI and
estafa. (as B gui%ty of i%%ega% recruitment and estafa)
A: *es. C%%ega% recruitment is committed when the H1I offender has no "a%id %icense or authority$
and H3I he undertakes any acti"ity within the meaning of Erecruitment and p%acementF under the
<abor .ode. Ct is the %ack of necessary %icense or authority that renders the recruitment acti"ity
un%awfu% or crimina%. -here is i%%ega% recruitment when one purports to ha"e the abi%ity to send a
worker abroad through without %icense and authority to do so. (Pe#7$e v. @#rr#me#, 303 SCRA
1)0, 23 0rc8 1!!!"
Q: At the time AC>5 fi%ed a petition for certification e%ection, there was an e0isting .BA between
the company and ..@A, the incumbent bargaining agent for a%% the rank and fi%e emp%oyees.
-his petition was opposed by ..@A on the ground of the contract bar ru%e. AC>5 fi%ed a notice of
strike citing union busting and unfair %abor practice as grounds. -he union proceeded to stage a
strike, in the course of which, i%%ega% acts were perpetrated. (hen AC>5 ignored the -B?
en,oining the union members to refrain from b%ocking the road, the company dismissed se"era%
emp%oyees on the ground of i%%ega% strike and i%%ega% acts perpetrated in connection with the
strike. AC>5 is &uestioning the %ega%ity of the dismissa% of se"era% AC>5 member emp%oyees.
(as the strike i%%ega%) (as the dismissa% of the AC>5 member emp%oyees "a%id)
A: -he .ourt was not persuaded by the a%%egation of union busting. -he strike staged by AC>5
was a union'recognition'strike. -he petition for certification e%ection H5.@I shou%d not ha"e been
entertained because of the contract bar ru%e. A 5.@ may on%y be entertained #2 days before the
e0piration of a .BA Hfreedom periodI.
-he strike staged by AC>5 was i%%ega% as they formed human barricades to b%ock roads
and pre"ented co'workers from entering company premises. @"en if the strike is "a%id because
its ob,ect or purpose is %awfu%, the strike may sti%% be dec%ared as in"a%id where the means
emp%oyed are i%%ega%. >nion officers who knowing%y participate in the commission of i%%ega% acts
in a strike may be dec%ared to ha"e %ost his emp%oyment status but an ordinary striking
emp%oyee cannot be terminated for mere participation in an i%%ega% strike. Howe"er, there must
be proof that he committed i%%ega% acts during the strike. 9or the se"erest pena%ty to dismissa% to
attach, the erring strikers must be du%y identified. =imp%y referring to them as EstrikersF is not
enough to ,ustify their dismissa%. -he petitioning members of AC>5 are ordered reinstated with
fu%% backwages. (Ass#citi#n #1 In%e7en%ent 5ni#ns in t8e P8i$i77ines v. NLRC, 303 SCRA
21!, 23 0rc8 1!!!"
Q: -he origina% owners of AA. were dri"en by mounting financia% %oses to se%% the ma,ority rights
of the company to 5H. -o thwart further %osses, 5H imp%emented a re'organiDationa% p%an.
(orkers occupying redundant positions that were abo%ished were terminated. 5H du%y paid their
separation pay and other benefits. =i0 of the union members who were terminated fi%ed a case
for i%%ega% termination a%%eging that the retrenchment program was a subterfuge for union
busting. -hey c%aimed that they were sing%ed out for their acti"e participation in union acti"ities.
-hey a%so asserted that AA. was not bankrupt, as it has engaged in an aggressi"e scheme of
contractua% hiring. (ere the union members "a%id%y dismissed)
A: *es. -he condition of business %osses is norma%%y shown by audited financia% documents. Ct
is the .ourt+s ru%ing that financia% statements must be prepared and signed by independent
auditors. Cn the instant case, the emp%oyees ne"er contested the "eracity of the audited financia%
documents presented by AA. to the <abor Arbiter, neither did they ob,ect to the documents+
admissibi%ity. Ct is on%y necessary that the emp%oyees show that its %osses increased through a
period of time and that the condition of the company is not %ike%y to impro"e in the near future.
-he a%%egation of union busting is a%so bereft of proof. -he records show that the position on ;1
other non'union members were abo%ished due to business %oses.
-he .ourt genera%%y ho%ds &uitc%aims to be contrary to pub%ic po%icy. *et as in the instant
case, as there is no showing that the &uitc%aims were e0ecuted in duress, they are binding on
the parties. (Asin A$c#8#$ C#r7#rti#n v. NLRC, 303 SCRA -1', 23 0rc8 1!!!"
Q: 5C.?5 grants certain a%%owances to its emp%oyees depending on the circumstances and
need for such. -he a%%owances in &uestion pertains to the fo%%owing:
1. =taffS7anager+s A%%owance: 9ree housing faci%ities to super"isory and manageria%
emp%oyees assigned in Bis%ig. 8ue to shortage of housing faci%ities, the company was
constrained to grant a%%owances to those who %i"e or rent houses near the "icinity of
the mi%% site.
3. -ransportation A%%owance: granted to 7anagers assigned to the mi%% site who use
their own "ehic%es in the performance of their duties.
1. Bis%ig A%%owance: gi"en in consideration of being assigned to the hosti%e en"ironment
then pre"ai%ing in Bis%ig.
-he @0ecuti"e <abor Arbiter opined that the sub,ect a%%owances formed part of the
emp%oyees+ wages. .iting ,urisprudence, he conc%uded that the a%%owances shou%d be inc%uded
in the computation of the emp%oyees+ base pay in determining the separation pay. -he /<B. did
not share the "iew of the <abor Arbiter. Ct found that the a%%owances were contingency'based
and thus not inc%uded C their sa%aries. 8id the sub,ect a%%owances form part of the petitioners+
wage)
A: /o. E(ageF, as defined by the <abor .ode, may inc%ude any determination by the =ecretary
of <abor in appropriate instances the Efair and reasonab%e "a%ue of board, %odging and other
faci%ities customari%y furnished by an emp%oyer to his emp%oyees.F -he .ourt agrees with the
?=: that the sub,ect a%%owances were temporary and not regu%ar%y recei"ed by the petitioners.
-he a%%owance gi"en to the emp%oyees in the instant case do not represent such fair and
reasonab%e "a%ue because the a%%owance were gi"en by the company in %ieu of actua% housing
and transportation needs whereas the Bis%ig a%%owance was gi"en in consideration of being
assigned to the hosti%e en"ironment then pre"ai%ing in Bis%ig$ petitioners+ continuous en,oyment
of the disputed a%%owances was based on contingencies the occurrence of which terminated
such en,oyment. (0i$$res v. Nti#n$ L+#r Re$ti#ns C#mmissi#n, 303 SCRA 300, 2!
0rc8 1!!!"
Q: A was emp%oyed by CB7 for 1# years as an @ngineer. He was informed, through a %etter, that
his emp%oyment with the company was to be terminated on the grounds of habitua% tardiness
and absenteeism. A%%eging that his dismissa% was without ,ust cause and due process, he fi%ed a
comp%iant with the 8?<@. He a%so c%aimed that he was not gi"en the opportunity to be heard
and hat he was summari%y dismissed from emp%oyment based on charges which has not been
du%y pro"en. CB7 denied A+s c%aims. Ct was a%%eged that A was to%d of his poor attendance record
and inefficiency through the company+s interna% e%ectronic mai% system. Attached to CB7+s
position paper were copies of printouts of a%%eged computer entriesSmessages sent by the
company to A through the interna% emai% system. (as A "a%id%y dismissed)
A: /o. Ct appears, howe"er, that A+s 8ai%y -ime Becord H8-BI and pay s%ips showed that he did
not incur any une0cused absences, he was not %ate on any day and, that no deduction was
made from his sa%ary on account of tardiness or absences. -he computer print outs, which
constitutes the on%y e"idence of CB7, afford no assurance of their authenticity because they are
unsigned Ct is true that administrati"e agencies are not bound by the technica% ru%es of
procedure and e"idence in the ad,udication of cases. Howe"er, the %ibera%ity of procedure is
sub,ect to %imitations imposed by basic re&uirements of due process. -he e"idence presented
before the /<B. must at %east ha"e a modicum of admissibi%ity for it to be gi"en some probati"e
"a%ue. -he print outs %ikewise fai%ed to show that A was a%%owed due process before his
dismissa%. -he %aw re&uires an emp%oyer to furnish the emp%oyee two written notices before
termination of his emp%oyment may be ordered. -hese re&uirements were not obser"ed in this
case. (I@0 P8i$i77ines v. Nti#n$ L+#r Re$ti#ns C#mmissi#n, 303 SCRA 3!2, 13 A7ri$
1!!!"
Q: B5 fi%ed with the =@. a petition for the suspension of payments and a rehabi%itation p%an. A
management committee was created to o"ersee the rehabi%itation p%an. .onse&uent%y, the =@.
issued an order suspending a%% actions and c%aims against B5. @mp%oyees of B5 fi%ed their
respecti"e comp%aints for i%%ega% dismissa%, unfair %abor practice, and payment of separation pay.
-he <abor Arbiter he%d that the order of the =@. suspending a%% action for c%aims against
B5 does not co"er the c%aims of pri"ate respondents in the %abor cases because said c%aims and
the %iabi%ity of B5 as the emp%oyer sti%% has to be determined, thus carrying no dissipation of the
assets of petitioners. Are %abor c%aims inc%uded in the suspension order of the =@.)
A: *es. -he %aw is c%ear: a%% c%aims for actions sha%% be suspended according%y. /o e0ception in
fa"or of %abor c%aims is mentioned in the %aw. A%%owing %abor cases to proceed c%ear%y defeats the
purpose of the automatic stay and se"ere%y encumbers the management committee+s time and
resources.
-he preferentia% right of workers and emp%oyees under Artic%e 112 of the <abor .ode
may be in"oked on%y upon the institution of inso%"ency or ,udicia% %i&uidation proceedings. -he
purpose of rehabi%itation proceedings is precise%y to enab%e the company to gain a new %ease on
%ife and thereby a%%ow creditors to be paid their c%aims from its earnings. Cn inso%"ency
proceedings, the company stops operations and the c%aims of creditors are satisfied from the
assets of the inso%"ent company. -he present case in"o%"es rehabi%itation, not the %i&uidation, of
B5 .orporation. Hence the preference of credit granted to workers is not app%icab%e. -he %abor
c%aims fi%ed by the emp%oyees wi%% temporari%y be suspended during the period of the
rehabi%itation p%an. (Ru++er9#r$% P8i$i77ines v. Nti#n$ L+#r Re$ti#ns C#mmissi#n, 303
SCRA 721, 1- A7ri$ 1!!!"
Q: = was emp%oyed by JGA. .orporation in 1#. He retired on 13 when he was #3 years
o%d. =ubse&uent%y, = brought a comp%aint for retirement benefits and ser"ice incenti"e %ea"e pay
before the /<B. against the corporation. -he <abor Arbiter granted retirement pay to = under
BA 4#J1. -he corporation cha%%enged this decision asserting that = retired a%most a year prior to
the effecti"ity of the said %aw H4 January 11I, and thus the retirement benefits under BA 4#J1
shou%d not be app%ied retroacti"e%y. (as = entit%ed to the retirement benefits under BA 4#J1)
A: /o. -he .ourt he%d in a pre"ious case that BA 4#J1 granting retirement benefits is
undoubted%y a socia% %egis%ation. -here shou%d be %itt%e doubt about the fact that the %aw can
app%y to %abor contracts sti%% e0isting at the time the statute has taken effect, and that its benefits
can be reckoned not on%y from the date of the %aw+s enactment but retroacti"e%y to the time said
emp%oyment contract ha"e started. -he aforecited doctrine was e%aborated upon by
enumerating the circumstances which must concur before the %aw cou%d be gi"en retroacti"e
effect: H1I the c%aimant must sti%% be an emp%oyee of the emp%oyer at the time the statute took
effect$ and H3I the c%aimant has comp%ied with the re&uirements for e%igibi%ity under the statute. Cn
the case under scrutiny, = retired and ceased to be an emp%oyee of JGA. .orporation e%e"en
months before the effecti"ity of BA 4#J1. Ct is thus decisi"e%y c%ear that the pro"isions of BA
4#J1 cou%d not be gi"en retroacti"e effect in his fa"or. (J... An2e$es C#nstructi#n C#r7#rti#n
v. NLRC, 303 SCRA 73-, 1- A7ri$ 1!!!"
Q: -he corporation and A<> inked a .BA effecti"e unti% 1;. 1J days before the e0piration of
the said .BA, /A9<> fi%ed a petition for certification e%ection, which was granted by the 7ed'
Arbiter. A<> interposed a 7otion to 8ismiss for fai%ure of /A9<> to ac&uire for and in beha%f of
its %oca% charter affi%iates H.?55@BI, a %ega% persona%ity as a %egitimate %abor organiDation. A<>
and /A9<> signed an agreement to ho%d a certification e%ection and /A9<> promised to furnish
A<> a copy of its .ertificate of Begistration and other pertinent documents. ?n the same day
.?55@B was issued by the 8?<@ a .ertificate of Begistration. (as the 5.@ du%y fi%ed)
A: *es. Cn a pre"ious case, the .ourt he%d that a party is estopped to cha%%enge the persona%ity
of a corporation after ha"ing acknow%edged the same by entering into a contract with it. Cn the
present case, A<> acknow%edged the %ega% e0istence of /A9<>+s affi%iate by entering into an
agreement with /A9<>. A<> a"er that their agreement with /A9<> on the ho%ding of a
certification e%ection with a suspensi"e condition was not comp%ied with. .onsidering, howe"er,
that /A9<> was ab%e to submit the documents re&uired by the agreement, such comp%iance
retroacted to the date the agreement was signed.
-he order of the 7ed'Arbiter granting the petition for the certification e%ection has
become fina% in "iew of A<>+s fai%ure to appea% there from. >nder the <abor .ode, a party has
the right to appea% an order a%%owing or granting a petition for certification e%ection. But the right
of appea% may on%y be e0ercised within 12 ca%endar days from the receipt of the order.
(Ass#cite% L+#r 5ni#ns v. >uisum+in2, 303 SCRA 7'2, 1- A7ri$ 1!!!"
Q: A was a po%ice officer assigned to 5/5 Gigan. (hi%e he was dri"ing his tricyc%e and ferrying
passengers, he was confronted by another po%ice officer about his tour of duty. A "erba% tuss%e
then ensued between the two, which %ed to the fata% shooting A. ?n account of A+s death, his
wife fi%ed a c%aim for death benefits with the :=C=. Cn its decision, :=C= denied the c%aim on the
ground that at the time of his death, A was performing a persona% acti"ity that was not work'
connected. =ubse&uent appea% to the @mp%oyees .ompensation .ommission H@..I pro"ed to
be futi%e as it mere%y affirmed the decision of :=C=. -he .ourt of Appea%s, howe"er, ru%ed
otherwise. Ct decided that Eas app%ied to a peace officer, A+s work p%ace is not confined to the
po%ice precinct or any station, but to any p%ace where his ser"ices, as a %awman, to maintain
peace and security, are re&uired. At the time of his death, A was dri"ing his tricyc%e at the town
comp%e0 where the po%ice assistance center is %ocated. -here can be no dispute therefore that
he met his death %itera%%y in his p%ace of work. 5o%icemen, by the nature of their functions, are
deemed to be on a round'the'c%ock duty.F 7ust the acti"ity being performed at the time of death
be work'connected for it to be compenesab%e)
A: *es. (hi%e it agrees that po%icemen are at the beck and ca%% of pub%ic duty as peace officers
and technica%%y on duty round'the'c%ock, the same does not ,ustify the grant of compensation
benefits for the death of A. ?b"ious%y, the matter A was attending at the time of his death, that of
ferrying passenger for a fee, was intrinsica%%y pri"ate and unofficia% in nature proceeding as it did
from no particu%ar directi"e or permission of his superiors officers. -he 3J'hour duty doctrine, as
app%ied to po%icemen and so%diers, ser"es more as an after'the'fact "a%idation of their acts to
p%ace them within the scope of the guide%ines rather than a b%anket %icense to benefit them in a%%
situations that may gi"e rise to their deaths. Cn other words, the 3J'hour doctrine shou%d not be
sweeping%y app%ied to a%% acts and circumstances causing the death of a po%ice officer but on%y
tot hose which, a%though not on officia% %ine of duty, are nonethe%ess basica%%y po%ice ser"ice in
character. -herefore, death benefits under the @.. shou%d not be granted. (G#vernment
Service Insurnce System v. C#urt #1 A77e$s, 30' SCRA -1, 20 A7ri$ 1!!!"
Q: <:, JB and 5B were accused of i%%ega% recruitment by a syndicate in %arge sca%e. Ct was
a%%eged that the abo"e named accused, without %icense or authority, recruited se"era% peop%e for
,ob p%acement abroad, recei"ing a p%acement fee from the recruits in e0change. -he recruits
f%ew to the supposed country of emp%oyment yet had to return to the 5hi%ippines as the promised
,ob did not e0ist. -he "ictims confronted the accused, and the accused promised to refund their
money. (ere the accused gui%ty of i%%ega% recruitment in a syndicate)
A: *es. -he .ourt he%d that the appea% %acks merit. Becruitment for o"erseas emp%oyment is not
in itse%f necessari%y immora% or un%awfu%. Ct is the %ack of the necessary %icense or permit, or the
engagement of prohibited acti"ities enumerated in the <abor .ode that renders such
recruitment acti"ities un%awfu% or crimina%. -he accused asserted that the offense shou%d not
ha"e been &ua%ified into i%%ega% recruitment by a syndicate since there was no proof that they
acted in conspiracy with one another. Howe"er, the acts of the accused showed unity in
purpose. ?ne wou%d "isit the house of the recruits se"era% times, con"incing them to work
abroad. Another wou%d accompany the recruit to the house of the person co%%ecting the
processing fee. A%% these acts estab%ished a common crimina% design mutua%%y de%iberated upon
and accomp%ished through coordinated acts. Against the e"idence of the prosecution, the
accused mere%y posited the defense of denia%. 8enia%s, if unsubstantiated by c%ear and
con"incing e"idence, are deemed negati"e and se%f'ser"ing e"idence unworthy of credence.
(Pe#7$e v. Guevrr, 30' SCRA 111, 21 A7ri$ 1!!!"
Q: 5hi%ippine Babbit Cnc. H5BCI emp%oyed 5@ as a bus conductor. ?n 14;, petitioner terminated
the ser"ices of 5@, prompting him to sue 5BC for i%%ega% dismissa%. -he <abor Arbiter dec%ared
the dismissa% to be i%%ega% and ordered reinstatement with fu%% backwages. 5BC appea%ed to the
/<B. but the appea% was dismissed, as the same was not fi%ed within the reg%ementary period.
5BC appea%ed to the ?ffice of the 5resident, which directed 5BC to reinstate 5@ but on%y pay
backwages for si0 months. 5@ was paid the backwages but he was not reinstated. -hus, he
mo"ed for a second writ of e0ecution on 1!; and the payment of backwages from 14 Hthe
date he presented himse%f for reinstatementI unti% he cou%d actua%%y be reinstated. -he /<B.
granted the (rit of @0ecution. 8id the /<B. committed a gra"e abuse of discretion in modifying
the amending the fina% and e0ecutory order of the ?ffice of the 5resident, and in enforcing by
mere motion the fina% ,udgment of the ?ffice of the 5resident despite the %apse of se"en years)
A: /o. 5BC cannot %ega%%y in"oke in this case the strict app%ication of the ru%e %imiting e0ecution of
,udgment by mere motion within a period of ; years on%y. -here ha"e been cases where the
.ourt a%%owed e0ecution by mere motion e"en after the %apse of ; years. -heir common
denominator in those instances was the de%ay caused or occasion by the actions of the
,udgment debtor andSor those incurred for his benefit. Cn the instant case, 5BC undu%y de%ayed
the fu%% imp%ementation of the fina% decision of the ?ffice of the 5resident by f%ing numerous
di%atory appea%s and persistent%y refusing to reinstate pri"ate respondent 5@. -echnica%ities ha"e
no room in %abor cases where the Bu%es of .ourt are app%ied on%y in a supp%etory manner and
on%y to effectuate the ob,ecti"es of the <abor .ode, and not to defeat them.
5BC can no %onger assai% the propriety of the fina% decision of the ?ffice of the 5resident
issued way back in 7ay 14!. -he fina%ity of a decision is a ,urisdictiona% e"ent that cannot be
made to depend on the con"enience of a party. ?nce a decision attains fina%ity, it becomes the
%aw of the case whether or not the decision is erroneous. (P8i$i77ine R++it @us Lines, Inc. v.
NLRC n% Evn2e$ist, 30' SCRA 131, 21 A7ri$ 1!!!"
Q: According to the prosecution, the accused, B., in"ited and con"inced se"era% peop%e to work
with her as a factory worker abroad. B. promised to process the necessary papers for a
p%acement fee of 5!, 222.22. (hen the agreed date of departure came, B. fai%ed to show up.
-he recruits went to the 5?@A who issued a certification that B. had no %icense to recruit
o"erseas workers. -he recruits then went to the po%ice and fi%ed a comp%iant for i%%ega%
recruitment in %arge'sca%e. B. "ehement%y denied recruiting the comp%ainants and dec%ared that
she mere%y tried to he%p them work abroad at the insistence of the comp%ainants. Cs B. gui%ty of
i%%ega% recruitment)
A: *es. <arge'sca%e i%%ega% recruitment has the fo%%owing e%ements: H1I -he accused undertook
recruitment acti"ities or any prohibited practice under the <abor .ode. H3I He did not ha"e the
%icense or authority to %awfu%%y engage in the recruitment and p%acement of workers. H1I He
committed the same to two or more persons. -he prosecution e"idence pro"ed beyond
reasonab%e doubt that the foregoing e%ements were present in this case. -here is no &uestion
that B. did not ha"e a %icense to engage in he recruitment of workers, as she herse%f admitted,
and that the crime was committed against more than three persons. -he e"idence on record
be%ies her argument that she did not engage in the recruitment and p%acement of workers. -he
testimonies of the recruits une&ui"oca%%y pro"e that B. promised the three ,obs abroad pro"ided
they wou%d pay the p%acement fee. -he fact that each of them paid the down payment is
e"idence by the receipts issued and signed by B.. (Pe#7$e #1 t8e P8i$i77ines v. Csti$$#n,
30' SCRA 271, 21 A7ri$ 1!!!"
Q: AA is the owner of a farm who emp%oyed the petitioners . and C. 5etitioners contended that
they were "erba%%y to%d by AA to stop working and terminated their emp%oyment without informing
them of the reason for their intended dismissa%. Hence, they charged AA for i%%ega% dismissa%
with money c%aims. AA asserts that . and C were dismissed for "a%id causes, as they were gui%ty
of insubordination, both disobeying the prescribed manner and procedure of doing their ,ob. -he
<abor Arbiter ru%ed that there was no ,ust cause for termination. ?n appea%, the /<B. re"ersed
the decision of the <abor Arbiter for gross insufficiency of e"idence to sustain the decision,
remanding the case to the <abor Arbiter for the reception of further e"idence. (as the remand
of the case to the <abor Arbiter proper)
A: /o. -he remand of the case to the <abor Arbiter for the reception of e"idence has no %ega% or
actua% basis. =ub,ect to the re&uirements of due process, proceedings before the <abor Arbiter
are genera%%y non'%itigious, because technica% ru%es and procedures of ordinary courts of %aw do
not strict%y app%y. -hus, a forma% or tria%'type hearing is not a%ways essentia%. Cn the absence of
any pa%pab%e error, arbitrariness or partia%ity, the method adopted by the <abor Arbiter to decide
a case must be respected by the /<B..
AA was not depri"ed of due process of %aw, the essence of which is simp%y the
opportunity to be heard. Ct must be stressed that a%% the parties to the case were gi"en e&ua%
opportunities to air their respecti"e positions before the <abor Arbiter. -hat AA fai%ed to fu%%y air
his position by his own inaction or neg%igence does not constitute depri"ation of due process.
(CDete n% Is+i% v. Nti#n$ L+#r Re$ti#ns C#mmissi#n, 30' SCRA 32-, 21 A7ri$
1!!!"
Q: A< was a seaman on board the "esse% 7SG .ast 7uskoD. His %ife%ess body was found
hanging by the neck from the cei%ing of an o%d abandoned warehouse in Quebec, .anada.
According to the coroner, the probab%e cause of death was asphy0iation by hanging. (hen A<+s
body was f%own to 7ani%a, his father noted that the body bore se"era% bruises. -hey submitted
the cada"er to the /BC for an autopsy. .onsidering that the findings of the /BC were a%%
inconsistent with suicide, the father fi%ed a c%aim with the 5?@A. -he 5?@A dismissed the
comp%iant of the father based on the so%id e"idence of the emp%oyer'shipping company. ?n
appea%, the /<B. affirmed the ru%ing of the 5?@A. Apparent%y, both %abor bodies anchored their
conc%usion on the fact that had there been fou% p%ay in"o%"ed in A<+s death, the T3, 222.22 in his
pocket wou%d ha"e been taken. (as the father of A< entit%ed to his son+s death benefits)
A: *es. -he emp%oyer fai%ed to ascertain the circumstances surrounding A<+s death, which was
its duty to undertake as A<+s emp%oyer. =uch wi%%fu% neg%ect cannot but indicate that a through
in"estigation wou%d ha"e yie%ded a resu%t ad"erse to the emp%oyer. -he records are bereft of any
substantia% e"idence showing that respondent emp%oyer successfu%%y discharged its burden of
pro"ing that A< committed suicide, so as to e"ade its %iabi%ity for death benefits under 5?@A+s
=tandard @mp%oyment .ontract for 9i%ipino =eaman. -he records of this case are remanded to
the 5?@A for the computation of the death benefits to be awarded to the father of A<. (L7i% v.
Nti#n$ L+#r Re$ti#ns C#mmissi#n, 30' SCRA 3-!, 2! A7ri$ 1!!!"
Q: B was emp%oyed by the hote% as a doorman. 5rofessiona% shoppers hired by the hote%
e"a%uating hote% emp%oyees recommended the transfer of BodrigueD to a non'customer'contact
position because of the negati"e feedback on his manner of pro"iding ser"ices to the hote%
guests. A memorandum was %ater issued transferring him to the %inen room as an attendant. He
resisted the transfer and did not assume his new post at the %inen room. -he hote% terminated
his emp%oyment on the ground of insubordination. -he <abor Arbiter dec%ared the dismissa% to
be %ega%. ?n appea%, the /<B. re"ersed the decision of the <abor Arbiter dec%aring that the
intended transfer was in the nature of a discip%inary action. -he hote% management contends
that the emp%oyee+s continuous refusa% to report to his new work assignment constituted gross
insubordination. (as the transfer of the emp%oyee a "a%id e0ercise of its management
prerogati"e)
A: *es. 8isobedience to be a ,ust cause for dismissa% en"isages the concurrence of at %east two
re&uisites U HaI the emp%oyee+s wrongfu% conduct must ha"e been wi%%fu% or intentiona%$ HbI the
order "io%ated must ha"e been reasonab%e, %awfu%, made known to the emp%oyee and must
pertain to the duties which he has been engaged to discharge. Ct is the emp%oyer+s prerogati"e,
based on its assessment and perception of the emp%oyee+s &ua%ification, aptitude and
competence, to mo"e him around in the "arious areas of its business operations in order to
ascertain where the emp%oyee wi%% function with utmost efficiency and ma0imum producti"ity or
benefit to the company.
8e%iberate disregard of company ru%es or defiance of management prerogati"e cannot
be countenanced. >nti% and un%ess the ru%es or orders are dec%ared to be i%%ega% or improper by
competent authority, the emp%oyees ignore or disobey them at their peri%. Cn the case at bat, the
emp%oyee was repeated%y reminded not on%y by management but a%so by his union to report to
work station but to no a"ai%. (=estin P8i$i77ine P$E /#te$ v. Nti#n$ L+#r Re$ti#ns
C#mmissi#n, 30' SCRA '31, 3 0y 1!!!"
Q: Accused @nri&ueD promised emp%oyment in -aiwan to at %east J3 peop%e. -hey were each
asked to pay processing fees ranging from 51, 142 to 5;, 222 for which no receipts were issued
and to submit documents to faci%itate their tra"e% and subse&uent dep%oyment abroad. -he
5?@A issued a certification showing the @nri&ueD is not %icensed to engage in the recruitment of
workers for o"erseas emp%oyment. Cn her defense, @nri&ueD c%aimed that it was her common'
%aw husband who was engaged in the EbusinessF and she on%y acted as his secretary when she
dea%t with the comp%ainants. =he a%%owed him to estab%ish his recruitment office at her residence.
@nri&ueD c%aimed that she on%y he%ped her husband in the office for three months whi%e he was
%ooking for a secretary. 5art of her duties then was to co%%ect the documents submitted by the
app%icants and recei"e the money they paid as p%acement fees. Cs she gui%ty of i%%ega%
recruitment in %arge'sca%e)
A: *es. -he essentia% e%ements of the crime of i%%ega% recruitment in %arge'sca%e can be
summariDed as fo%%ows: H1I the accused engages in acts of recruitment and p%acement of
workers as defined in the <abor .ode$ H3I the accused does not ha"e a %icense or authority from
the =ecretary of <abor to recruit and dep%oy workers$ and H1I the accused commits the same
un%awfu% acts against three or more persons, indi"idua%%y or as a group.
-he theory of the defense undu%y strains the credu%ity of the .ourt. -he comp%ainants
positi"e%y identified @nri&ueD as the one who dea%t direct%y with them from the time they in&uired
about the ,ob prospects abroad unti% they comp%ied with the re&uirements and fo%%owed up their
app%ications. (orth reiterating is the ru%e that i%%ega% recruitment in %arge'sca%e is malum
prohibitum, not malum in se, and that the fact a%one that a person "io%ated the %aw warrants her
con"iction. Any c%aim of %ack of crimina% intent is una"ai%ing. HPe#7$e #1 t8e P8i$i77ines v.
Enri?ueE, 30' SCRA 73!, 3 0y 1!!!"
Q: .oca .o%a entered into a contract of ,anitoria% ser"ices with BJ=. .oca .o%a then hired X first,
as a casua% emp%oyee$ after the casua% emp%oyment was terminated, .oca .o%a again hired X
as a painter in contractua% pro,ects. He was a%so hired by BJ=, which assigned him to the .oca
.o%a considering his fami%iarity with its premises. :oaded by information that .oca .o%a
emp%oyed pre"ious BJ= emp%oyees who fi%ed a comp%aint against the company for regu%ariDation
pursuant to a compromise agreement, X submitted a simi%ar comp%aint against .oca .o%a to the
<abor Arbiter$ he inc%uded BJ= therein as a co'respondent. He no %onger reported to work and
when offered by BJ= to work in other firms, he refused. He amended the comp%aint to i%%ega%
dismissa% and underpayment of wages. Cs there an emp%oyee'emp%oyer re%ationship in this
case)
A: /o. -he .ourt takes ,udicia% notice of the practice adopted in se"era% go"ernment and pri"ate
institutions and industries of hiring ,anitoria% ser"ices on an Eindependent contractor basisF.
A%though ,anitoria% ser"ices may be considered direct%y re%ated to the principa% business of an
emp%oyer, the .ourt deemed them unnecessary in the conduct of the principa% business. -his
,udicia% notice rests on the assumption that the independent contractor is a %egitimate ,ob
contractor so that there can be no doubt as to the e0istence of an emp%oyer'emp%oyee
re%ationship between the contractor and the worker. Ct is a%so c%ear that BJ= e0ercises contro%
o"er the work of X as most of his assigned task dea%t with the maintenance and sanitation of the
company premises pursuant to BJ=+s contract with the company.
-he .ourt ru%ed that no emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ation e0ists between X and .oca .o%a yet
the %atter sha%% be ,oint%y and se"era%%y %iab%e with BJ= for the wage differentia%s and 11
th
7onth
pay of X. (C#c C#$ @#tt$ers P8i$i77ines v. NLRC, 307 SCRA 131, 17 0y 1!!!"
Q: Admira% Hote% hired Ba%ani as a .ost .ontro%%er. =he recei"ed a memo from the 7anaging
8irector ca%%ing her attention to se"era% "io%ation of hote% ru%es she had "io%ated such as using
the phone for persona% ca%%s and entertaining "isitors during office hours, to the detriment of her
regu%ar work. -he emp%oyee denied the charges %e"e%ed against her and she submitted a %etter
of resignation. .onse&uent%y, she recei"ed a%% sa%aries, benefits and separation pay, and
e0ecuted a &uitc%aim in fa"or of the hote%. 8id the emp%oyee "o%untari%y resign)
A: *es, this is a case if "o%untary resignation. -he emp%oyee c%aims that she was constructi"e%y
dismissed from her office as its %ocation was transferred from under the steps of the stairs to the
kitchen. =uch transfer caused her menta% torture, which forced her to resign. Howe"er, it was
not shown that her transfer was prompted by i%% wi%% of management. Cndeed, the resident
manager of the hote% swore that the transfer affected not on%y the .ost .ontro% office but a%so
the other offices. -he transfer on%y in"o%"ed a change in %ocation of the office. Ct does not in"o%"e
a change in the emp%oyee+s position. @"en a transfer in position is "a%id when based on sound
,udgment, unattended by demotion in rank or diminution of pay or bad faith. HA%mir$ Re$ty
C#m7ny (A%mir$ /#te$" v. NLRC, 307 SCRA 1'2, 1) 0y 1!!!"
Q: (hi%e the oi%er was anchored on port, seaman H was directed to open and c%ean the main
engine. -o accomp%ish this, he had to enter a manho%e in a crouching position. After working for
J consecuti"e days, he e0perienced back pains and foot swe%%ing. Howe"er, he was instructed
to continue with his work unti% he was fina%%y repatriated to the 5hi%ippines where medica%
e0aminations confirmed that he suffered from a s%ipped disc, which re&uired surgery. >pon
hearing that the surgery wou%d cost more than 5 J2,222, the company disregarded the
recommendation for surgery and instead proposed a %ess cost%y treatment. But this did not
impro"e the condition of H. After se"en months, H fi%ed a comp%aint with the 5?@A against the
maritime agencies for disabi%ity and medica% benefits. -he emp%oyers a%%ege that H signed a
Beceipt and Be%ease in fa"or of the maritime agencies whi%e the case was pending in 5?@A,
that affirmed the findings of the 5?@A that his i%%ness was work'connected. H supposed%y
acknow%edged receipt of a certain amount in comp%ete and fina% sett%ement of a%% his wages,
benefits and c%aims. -he maritime agencies assert that the signed Beceipt is a &uitc%aim that
re%eases them from any %iabi%ity whatsoe"er. Cs the agreement "a%id)
A: /o, the %aw does not consider as "a%id any agreement to recei"e %ess compensation than
what a worker is entit%ed to reco"er nor pre"ent him from demanding benefits to which he is
entit%ed. Ct is appa%%ing that H wou%d sett%e for a meas%y consideration of 51;, 222 which is
gross%y inade&uate, that is cou%d not ha"e gi"en rise to a "a%id wai"er on the part of the
disad"antaged emp%oyee.
Cn order that a &uitc%aim may be "a%id, the re&uisites are: H1I there was no fraud or deceit
on the part of any party$ H3I the consideration of the &uitc%aim is credib%e and reasonab%e$ and
H1I that the contract is not contrary to %aw, pub%ic order, pub%ic po%icy, mora%s or good custom. But
e"en assuming that the ai%ment of H was contracted prior to his emp%oyment with the maritime
agency, this fact wou%d not e0cu%pate petitioners from %iabi%ity. .ompensabi%ity of an ai%ment does
not depend on whether the in,ury or disease was pre'e0isting at the time of the emp%oyment but
rather if the disease or in,ury is work're%ated or aggra"ated his condition. Ct is safe to presume,
at the "ery %east, the arduous nature of H+s emp%oyment had contributed to the aggra"ation of
his in,ury, if indeed it was pre'e0isting at the time of his emp%oyment. -herefore, it is but ,ust that
he be du%y compensated for it. (0#re 0ritime A2encies n% A$78 Insurnce v. NLRC, 307
SCRA 1)!, 1) 0y 1!!!"
Q: -he :enera% 7anger of the -o%% way recei"ed reports that certain security personne% are
in"o%"ed in mu%cting acti"ities. Acting on the comp%aint, the manager a%ong with po%ice officers
staged an entrapment. Ange%es, security guard on duty in one of the e0its was caught in
flagrante delicto recei"ing bribe money from an underco"er passenger pretending to i%%ega%%y
transport dogs. A notice of dismissa% on the ground of serious misconduct was issued. After
forma% in"estigations, dismissa% was ad"ised and Ange%es was informed of his dismissa%.
Ange%es c%aimed that the entrapment was masterminded by the manager as a reta%iation for his
being critica% of the manager+s administration. He now c%aims separation pay. Cs he entit%ed to
separation pay)
A: An emp%oyee who is dismissed for ,ust cause is genera%%y not entit%ed to separation pay. Cn
some cases, the .ourt awards separation pay to a %ega%%y dismissed emp%oyee on the grounds
of e&uity and socia% ,ustice. -his is not a%%owed, though, when the emp%oyee has been dismissed
for serious misconduct or other causes ref%ecting on his mora% character. -he act of accepting
bribe money constituted serious misconduct that warrants the dismissa% from the ser"ice.
(P8i$i77ine Nti#n$ C#nstructi#n C#r7#rti#n v. NLRC, 307 SCRA 21), 1) 0y 1!!!"
Q: ., a manageria% emp%oyee, was accused of se0ua%%y harassing a subordinate, =. After
hearing and in"estigation, the 7anagement @"a%uation .ommittee conc%uded that the charges
against . constituted a "io%ation of the 5%ant+s ru%es and regu%ations. Ct stated that, Etouching a
fema%e subordinate+s hand and shou%der, caressing her nape and te%%ing other peop%e that = was
the one who hugged and kissed or that she responded to the se0ua% ad"ances are unauthoriDed
acts that damaged her honor.F Ct referred to the manua% of the 5hi%ippine 8ai%y Cn&uirer in
defining se0ua% harassment, which defined se0ua% harassment as Eunwe%come or unin"ited
se0ua% ad"ances, re&uests for se0ua% fa"ors and other "erba% or physica% conduct of se0ua%
nature with any of the fo%%owing e%ements...Hinc%udingI such conduct as unreasonab%y interferes
with the indi"idua%+s performance at work, or creates an intimidating, hosti%e or offensi"e working
en"ironment.F . was charged with 12 days suspension without pay. . fi%ed a comp%aint for
i%%ega% suspension. -he <abor Arbiter dismissed the petition which ru%ing was affirmed by the
/<B.. -he . assai%ed the fai%ure to app%y BA 4!44 in determining whether or not he actua%%y
committed se0ua% harassment. (as . correct%y charged with se0ua% harassment ,ustifying his
suspension)
A: *es. BA 4!44 was not yet in effect at the time of the occurrence of the act comp%ained of. C-
was sti%% being de%iberated upon in .ongress. As a ru%e, %aws sha%% ha"e no retroacti"e effect
un%ess otherwise pro"ided. Hence, the <abor Arbiter had to re%y on the 7@. report and the
common connotation of se0ua% harassment as it is genera%%y understood by the pub%ic. A%so, as
a manageria% emp%oyee, is bound by more e0acting work ethics. (hen such mora% per"ersity is
perpetrated against a subordinate, there is a ,ustifiab%e ground for dismissa% based on %oss of
trust and confidence. (Li+res v. NLRC, 307 SCRA '7-, 0y 2), 1!!!"
Q: Cn an intra'union dispute in"o%"ing the e0amination of union accounts of a <oca% .hapter, the
parties submitted the matter to the ?ffice of the Begiona% 8irector, who sustained the order for
an audit to be conducted. -he C<7 union officers appea%ed the order to the 8?<@ =ecretary,
who endorsed it to the Bureau of <abor Be%ations. -he B<B subse&uent%y dismissed the
appea%. Cs the 8?<@ =ecretary correct in endorsing the case)
A: *es. @0aminations of union accounts are e0press%y c%assified by the Bu%es of 5rocedure on
7ed'Arbitration, and a different process is pro"ided for the reso%ution of the same. According to
Art. 33# of the <abor .ode, the B<B has appe%%ate ,urisdiction o"er the matter, so the 8?<@
=ecretary was correct in its endorsement of the case. (@r$es v. @it#ni#, 30) SCRA 2)), June
1!!!"
Q: Q and < were super"isors whose ,obs in"o%"ed the o"erseeing of the withdrawa% and sorting
of sacks of sugar. Cn one transaction in"o%"ing ;2,222 .%ass . sacks, %arge numbers of sacks
were misp%aced, and sacks of other c%asses were mi0ed in with the %ot. As they were
super"ising other operations at the time, Q and < were %a0 with their duties to see that the sacks
were proper%y segregated and de%i"ered. As a resu%t, a %arge number of sacks was sto%en from
the company. Q and < were subse&uent%y fired for gross neg%igence. Are they "a%id%y
dismissed)
A: /?. (hi%e Quimba and <agrana were partia%%y responsib%e for the unfortunate incident, their
neg%igence is not gross or habitua%, and as such does not merit outright dismissa%. -hus, they
wou%d be entit%ed to reinstatement, but the emp%oyees ha"e accepted the /<B.+s ,udgement for
separation pay instead due to the animosity between the parties. (Nti#n$ Su2r Re1ineries
C#r7. v. NLRC, 30) SCRA 3!!, June 1!!!"
Q: B worked as the dri"er of -, the owner of >%tra Gi%%a 9ood Haus. 8uring the 7ay 13
e%ections, he acted as a po%% watcher for <akas'/>.8 and did not report for work for two days.
9or the past years, the - ga"e B 11
th
mo. 5ay. He a%%eged that he was an emp%oyee of >%tra
Gi%%a 9ood Haus, and as such, he was entit%ed to the benefits accorded to emp%oyees under the
<abor .ode. (hat is B entit%ed to)
A: :eniston is a persona% dri"er of -io, and as such, the company is not ob%iged to grant
o"ertime pay, ho%iday pay, premium pay and ser"ice incenti"e %ea"e, inc%uding 11
th
mo. pay.
Howe"er, since - admitted that she has gi"en B 11
th
mo. pay e"ery 8ecember, it is but ,ust to
award B such benefit. (5$tr .i$$ ;##% /us v. Genist#n, 30! SCRA 17, June 1!!!".
Q, a former emp%oyee of =>B/@.?, sent %etters to the company management re&uesting
separation benefits for her years of faithfu% ser"ice to the company. /ear%y four months %ater,
@, then 5ersonne% ?fficer of =>B/@.?, fo%%owed up and made a re"iew of Q+s case.
=ubse&uent%y, Q fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%, based %arge%y on the report of @ acting in
fa"or of Q. -he comp%aint was barred by prescription, but because of what had happened, @
was terminated for ha"ing pro"ided Q with the Eweapons and ammunitionF to wage a war
against the cooperati"e. 9urthermore, the Board of =>B/@.? conc%uded that ad"ancing the
interest of Q instead of the company, especia%%y since she di"u%ged the contents of her interna%
memorandum to Q, were inimica% to the company and merited dismissa%. (as @ i%%ega%%y
dismissed)
A: *@=. @ was a 5ersonne% ?fficer, ho%ding a manageria% position that is considered "ested with
a certain amount of discretion and independent ,udgement. =he was simp%y doing her ,ob when
she re"iewed Quinto+s case, and she is not proscribed from taking the side of %abor when she
makes recommendations as to what must be done in each situation. A%so, there is no e"idence
that Quinto got the copy of the interna% memorandum direct%y from @scu%ano U she cou%d ha"e
ac&uired it from other sources. As such, @+s actions do not &ua%ify as breach of confidence or
serious misconduct. (Suri2# &e$ N#rte E$ectric C##7ertive v. NLRC, 30! SCRA 233,
June 1!!!".
Q: BA #41; was passed creating a new c%assification of emp%oyee, the super"isory emp%oyee,
as not being a member of the rank and fi%e but a%so not considered a manageria% emp%oyee. At
around this time, the super"isory emp%oyees of =emirara .oa% decided to form their own union
and inter"ene in the certification e%ections. Howe"er, the company fi%ed a motion to dis&ua%ify
the super"isory emp%oyees from participating in the certification e%ections, as their functions
were manageria% in nature. =hou%d they be a%%owed to participate in the certification e%ections)
A: *es, they shou%d be a%%owed. -he said emp%oyees fa%% under the category of super"isory
emp%oyees. /othing in the company po%icies a%ters the nature and duty of these super"isory
emp%oyees to manageria%. -here is no showing that the power to discip%ine erring emp%oyees is
"ested in their immediate super"isors. As such, they fa%% outside of the restriction on manageria%
emp%oyees from ,oining unions and participating in certification e%ections. (Semirr C#$
C#r7#rti#n v. Secretry #1 L+#r, 30! SCRA 2!2, June 1!!!"
Q: .omp%ainants are deaf'mutes hired by .ompany 9 as money sorters and counters through
an agreement ca%%ed, V@mp%oyment .ontract for Handicapped (orker.+ -he <abor Arbiter and
/<B. ru%ed that Artic%e 3!2 was not contro%%ing as comp%ainants were hired as an
accommodation to the recommendation of ci"ic oriented persona%ities whose emp%oyments were
co"ered by @mp%oyment .ontracts with specia% pro"isions on duration of contract as specified
under Art. !2. Hence, the terms of the contract was be the %aw between the parties.
.omp%ainants a%%ege that the contracts ser"ed to prec%ude the app%ication of Artic%e 3!2 and to
bar them from becoming regu%ar emp%oyees. .ompany 9 submits that comp%ainants were hired
as specia% workers under Art. !2 of the <abor .ode and they ne"er so%icited the ser"ices of
petitioners. (ere comp%ainants regu%ar emp%oyees)
A: *es. -he enactment of BA 4344, the 7agna .arta for 8isab%ed 5ersons, ,ustify the
app%ication of Art. 3!2 of the <abor .ode. =uch %aw mandates that a &ua%ified disab%ed
emp%oyee shou%d be gi"en the same terms and conditions of emp%oyment as a &ua%ified ab%e
bodies person. -he fact that comp%ainants were &ua%ified disab%ed persons remo"es the
emp%oyment contracts from the ambit of Art. 3!2, since the 7agna .arta accords them the
rights of &ua%ified ab%e'bodied persons. -he task of comp%ainants was necessary and desirab%e
in the usua% trade of the emp%oyer and therefore they shou%d be deemed regu%ar emp%oyees.
(@ernr%# v. NLRC, 310 SCRA 1)', Ju$y 12, 1!!!"
Q: A %abor dispute arose between .ompany * and >nion A, which caused the union to fi%e a
notice of stricke with the /.7B charging the company with ><5 for union'busting and "io%ations
of the .BA. -his was fo%%owed by picketing and the ho%ding of assemb%ies by the union outside
the gate of .ompany 5+s p%ant. -he =ecretary of <abor assumed ,urisdiction o"er the %abor
dispute and certified it for compu%sory arbitration. 8uring the pendency of the %abor dispute,
.ompany * agreed to se%% it+s p%ant and e&uipment to .ompany L. -he union was informed of
the purchase of the p%ant. .ompany L asked the union to desist from picketing outside its p%ant.
-he >nion refused petitioner+s re&uest, and .ompany L fi%ed a compa%int for in,unction. -he
>nion mo"ed to dismiss the comp%aint a%%eging %ack of ,urisdiction on the part of the tria% court
and that .ompany L was an a%ter ego of .ompany * and not mere%y an Einnocent by'stander.F
A: An Einnocent by'stander,F who seeks to en,oin a %abor strike, must satisfy the court that its
interests are tota%%y foreign to the conte0t of the %abor dispute. Ct must appear that the ine"itab%e
resu%t of its e0ercise is to create an impression that a %abor dispute with which they ha"e no
connection or interest e0ists between them and the picketing union or constitutes an in"asion of
their rights. Cn this case, .ompany L c%ear%y has a connection with the %abor dispute as the sa%e
between .ompany * and .ompany L re"ea%s a %ega% re%ation between them that cannot be
ignored. (0S; 4ire n% Ru++er, Inc. v. CA, 311 SCRA 7)-, Au2ust 3, 1!!!"
Q: 7 was emp%oyed by petitioner as a truck dri"er. ?ne day, he was accused of tampering with
the E"a%eF sheet and he was subse&uent%y barred from entering company premises. 7 fi%ed a
comp%aint of i%%ega% dismissa% against pri"ate respondent before the /<B.. A copy of the
summons was sent to petitioners by registered mai% and was du%y recei"ed and signed. -he
petitioner was a%so notified of the hearing date by registered mai% but no one appeared for the
petitioner. -he <abor Arbiter deemed petitioners+ non'appearance as a fai%ure to contro"ert the
facts as c%aimed by 7 and decided the case ex-parte. -he petitioners a%%ege that they ne"er
recei"ed copies of summons or notices and that the <abor Arbiter ne"er ac&uired ,urisdiction
o"er them, as there was no "a%id ser"ice of summons. (ere the petitioners denied due
process)
A: /o. -he bare assertion of petitioner that the persons who signed the summons which were
sent by registered mai% were Eimpostors or persons unknown to themF re&uires substantiation by
competent e"idence. Cn &uasi',udicia% proceedings of the /<B., procedura% ru%es go"erning
ser"ice of summons are not strict%y construed and substantia% comp%iance is therefore sufficient.
9urther, officia% duty is presumed to ha"e been performed regu%ar%y un%ess the contrary is
pro"en. Cn administrati"e proceedings, due process simp%e means the opportunity to e0p%ain
one+s side or seek a reconsideration of the action comp%ained of. 5etitioners were ab%e to fi%e an
appea% before the /<B. of the <abor Arbiter+s decision and a party who has a"ai%ed of the
opportunity to present his position cannot c%aim to ha"e been denied due process.
-he .ourt a%so ru%ed that 7 was constructi"e%y dismissed when he was accused of
tampering with the "a%e sheet and pre"ented from going to work. -he assertion of petitioner that
7 abandoned his work is a%so without merit as it is high%y i%%ogica% for an emp%oyee to abandon
his emp%oyment and thereafter fi%e a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. @"en assuming that there
was abandonment, there was non'comp%iance with the statutory re&uirement of notice$ therefore
7 is entit%ed to separation pay and backwages. (0s2n C#ncrete Pr#%ucts v. NLRC, 313
SCRA 37', 3 Se7tem+er 1!!!"
Q: < was emp%oyed by /A5.?'<uDmart, which was managed by petitioner :arcia. A mau%ing
incident occurred in the company premise in"o%"ing < and another emp%oyee. -he fo%%owing day
after the incident, < submitted his written e0p%anation of the e"ent. 1 days %ater, < attempted to
report for work but the company refused to admit him. < immediate%y fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega%
dismissa% with the /<B.. After the company knew of the i%%ega% dismissa% charge against it, a
memorandum was issued ordering the suspension of <. -he company asserted that < remains
an emp%oyee and was mere%y suspended for a month. 5roof of this, the company presented the
payro%%s where the name of < continued to be %isted as a regu%ar emp%oyee during the period
after the a%%eged i%%ega% dismissa%. -he company c%aimed that < abandoned his work when he
fai%ed to report for work after notice of return. (as < i%%ega%%y dismissed)
A: -he .ourt ru%ed that the payro%% is of doubtfu% probati"e "a%ue, as it does not contain the
signature of emp%oyees as proof that they recei"ed their sa%aries for the said period. 9or a "a%id
finding of abandonment, two factors must be present: H1I fai%ure to report for work without any
"a%id or ,ustifiab%e reason$ and H3I a c%ear intention to se"er the emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship
manifested by some o"ert acts. Ct was the company who refused him entry into the work p%ace
and made it impossib%e for him to return to work. 7oreo"er, the fi%ing of the comp%aint for i%%ega%
dismissa% 4 days after the a%%eged dismissa% negates said charge.
A%though fighting within company premises may be considered as a serious misconduct
under Artic%e 3!3 of the <abor .ode, not a%% fights within company premises wou%d warrant
dismissa%. -his is especia%%y true if the emp%oyee did not instigate the fight and it appears from
the facts of the case that < was ,ust defending himse%f from the assau%t of a co'emp%oyee.
-he company was ordered to reinstate < and pay backwages computed from the date of
i%%ega% dismissa%. (Grci v. Nti#n$ L+#r Re$ti#ns C#mmissi#n, 313 SCRA 3!7, 3
Se7tem+er 1!!!"
Q: Cn a case of i%%ega% dismissa% against the petitioner, the <abor Arbiter ru%ed that the dismissa%
of 5 was i%%ega% and awarded damages, separation pay and backwages. -he company fi%ed a
7otion for Appea% and a 7otion to Beduce Appea% Bond before the /<B. reiterating that 5
"o%untari%y resigned and was not i%%ega%%y dismissed. 5etitioners argued that considering the
authoriDed capita% stock of the corporation was on%y 53, 222,222.22, an award of 51,
!42,222.22 as backwages a%one was e0cessi"e and initia%%y posted on%y a 5;2,222.22 cash
bond. -he /<B. denied the 7otion to Beduce the Appea% Bond. -he /<B. ga"e the company
three e0tensions Htota%ing 12 daysI for them to comp%y with the appea% bond re&uirement. A
certain B, wife of the company+s chairman, posted the re&uired bond. *et when B %earned that
she was not under any ob%igation to post the bond on beha%f of her husband, she withdrew the
bond. =hou%d petitioners sti%% be made to post another bond)
A: *es. =ince effecti"e%y, no appea% bond was posted by petitioners, no appea% was perfected
from the decision of the <abor Arbiter, for which reason the decision sought to be appea%ed to
the /<B. became fina% and e0ecutory and immutab%e. -he re&uirement of cash or surety bond
to perfect an appea% from the <abor Arbiter+s monetary award is ,urisdictiona%$ non'comp%iance is
fata% and renders the award fina% and e0ecutory. Ct is not an e0cuse that the bond of 53 mi%%ion is
too much for a sma%% business enterprise. -he %aw does not re&uire outright payment but on%y
the posting of a bond to ensure that the award wi%% e"entua%%y be paid shou%d the appea% fai%.
(@i#2enerics 0r6etin2 n% Reserc8 C#r7#rti#n v. NLRC, 313 SCRA 7-), ) Se7tem+er
1!!!"
Q: X was emp%oyed by petitioner Bestaurante <as .onchas whi%e the %atter was in"o%"ed in a
%ega% batt%e with company * o"er the %and being a%%eged%y occupied by the petitioner. .ompany *
was ab%e to obtain a fa"orab%e ,udgment which e"entua%%y caused petitioner to "acate the
premises. As no other suitab%e %ocation was found for petitioner to mo"e, the restaurant was
forced to c%ose down, thereby resu%ting in the termination of emp%oyment of X. /o separation
pay was gi"en to X based on the argument of petitioner that on%y c%osure of business not due to
business %osses mandates payment of separation pay to dismissed emp%oyees. =hou%d
separation be gi"en and shou%d the manager of the Bestaurante <as .onchas be he%d %iab%e as
a corporate officer)
A: -he .ourt ru%es that the burden of proof that business %osses actua%%y occurred rests on the
emp%oyers. =ince no statements of assets and %iabi%ities certified by a .5A or accounting firm
was offered, nor the corporation+s Cncome -a0 Beturn certified by the BCB was shown, such
business %osses were not pro"en. As regards the %iabi%ity of the manager, genera%%y, the officers
and members of a corporation are not persona%%y %iab%e for the acts done in the performance of
their duties. An e0ception is when the emp%oyer corporation is no %onger e0isting and is unab%e
to satisfy the ,udgment in fa"or of the emp%oyees. Cn such a case, the officers shou%d be he%d
%iab%e for acting on beha%f of the corporation. (Resturnte Ls C#nc8s n%B#r &vi%
G#nE$es vs. L$e2#, 31- SCRA 2-, Se7t. !, 1!!!"
Q: X was hired by Bespondent under a 3 year contract in 6uwait. ?n%y after 1 year, howe"er, X
was terminated from emp%oyment and was sent back to the 5hi%ippines. X then fi%ed a comp%aint
for i%%ega% dismissa% with the <abor Arbiter. Bespondents were gi"en by the <abor Arbiter 12 days
to answer the charges against. Bespondents submitted a bi%% of particu%ars instead a%%eging that
X was %acking in the re&uired narration of facts constituting the causes of action. X, on the other
hand, mo"ed to dec%are respondents in defau%t for fai%ing to submit their position papers. Both
parties agreed that the <abor Arbiter shou%d decide on the motion on the Bi%% of 5articu%ars. -he
<abor Arbiter, howe"er, dec%ared the respondents in defau%t for fai%ure to submit their position
papers within the period gi"en. (ere the respondents denied due process)
A: *es. -he court ru%es that there was denia% of due process since no notice or order re&uiring
respondents to fi%e their position paper, nor an order informing the parties that the case was
a%ready submitted for decision. -here was an utter absence of opportunity to be heard at the
arbitration %e"e%. (hat the <abor Arbiter shou%d ha"e done was to ru%e on the pending motions,
or at %east notify pri"ate respondents that he wou%d no %onger reso%"e their motions, and to direct
them forthwith to submit within a reasonab%e time their position paper as we%% as a%% the
e"idence. (/+n vs. NLRC, 31- SCRA 1)7, Se7tem+er 1!!!"
Q: 5etitioner X was an Cta%ian citiDen who was the @0ec. Gice 5resident and :en. 7anager of
.ompany * when he was terminated by the %atter. X then fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%.
.ompany * based the dismissa% of X on the ground that X fai%ed to secure his emp%oyment
permit. X, on the other hand, argued that it was the duty of the company to secure his work
permit during the term of his office. -he <abor Arbiter rendered a decision in fa"or of X.
.ompany * howe"er appea%ed such decision to the /<B.. X now &uestions the ,urisdiction of
/<B. as he is a corporate officer, it is the =@. who shou%d ha"e ,urisdiction. 8id the /<B.
ha"e ,urisdiction o"er the case)
A: /o. According to =ec ;HcI of 5.8. /o. 23'A, the =@. e0ercises e0c%usi"e ,urisdiction o"er
contro"ersies o"er regarding the e%ection andSor designation of directors, trustees, officers, or
managers of a corporation, partnership or association. Jurisdiction therefore is not which the
<abor Arbiter nor the /<B.. (&e R#ssi vs. NLRC, 31- SCRA 2-3, Se7tem+er 1!!!"
Q: Bespondent X was hired by the B%ue 8airy to work as a food techno%ogist in the %atter+s
%aboratory. ?ne day howe"er, whi%e attending to a c%ient outside company premises as
accompanied by the company dri"er, the "ehic%e was hit by a post, as there was a typhoon.
Afterwards, X was then transferred from the %aboratory to the "egetab%e processing section$ she
was then barred from the %aboratory. X c%aims that she was constructi"e%y dismissed as she was
e"ident%y demoted. (as X constructi"e%y dismissed from work)
A: *es. -he .ourt ru%es that a%though the emp%oyer has manageria% prerogati"e to transfer
personne%, such must be e0ercised without gra"e abuse of discretion. -he emp%oyer has the
burden of proof to show that such transfer was not unreasonab%e, incon"enient or pre,udicia% to
the emp%oyee, nor does it in"o%"e a demotion in rank or a diminution of his sa%aries, pri"i%eges
and other benefits. -he company in this case, a%%eges that the reason for the transfer was %oss
of trust and confidence. X howe"er, was ne"er gi"en the chance to refute such reason, nor was
she notified in ad"ance of the transfer. (@$ue &iry C#r7#rti#n vs. NLRC, 31- SCRA -01,
Se7tem+er 1!!!"
Q. A check was mis'posted, resu%ting in an o"erstatement of a c%ient+s outstanding dai%y ba%ance.
-he 5resident of the bank sent a %etter to petitioner to e0p%ain the mis'posting. Cnterna% auditors,
after in"estigation, reported that petitioner was %iab%e, and the bank notified her that 32M of the
amount wou%d be deducted from her sa%ary. >pon petitioner+s demand for a fu%%'dress
in"estigation, she was informed of her pre"enti"e suspension unti% the end of the in"estigation.
5etitioner then fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% and damages. (as she i%%ega%%y dismissed)
8id fi%ing of damages amount to abandonment of work)
A. *es, her pre"enti"e suspension was without "a%id cause since she was suspended outright.
5re"enti"e suspension beyond the ma0imum period amounts to constructi"e dismissa%.
<ikewise, her c%aim for damages did not amount to abandonment of work. -o constitute
abandonment, these shou%d concur: 1. 9ai%ure to report for work or absence without "a%id or
,ustifiab%e cause$ and 3. A c%ear intention to se"er the emp%oyee'emp%oyer re%ationship Hmore
determinati"e factor manifested by o"er actsI. =he mere%y took steps to protest her indefinite
suspension. Her fai%ure to report for work was e"en due to her indefinite suspension.
(Premiere &ev*t @n6 v. NLRC"
1!!) CASES
Q. Cn an i%%ega% dismissa% case, the <abor Arbiter ru%ed in fa"or of the worker. -he tota%
monetary award was more than ?/@ 7C<<C?/ 5esos. -he emp%oyer appea%ed and posted a
bond in the amount of 5422,222.22 on%y. Cn computing the monetary amount for the purpose of
posting an appea% bond, the emp%oyer e0c%uded the award for damages, %itigation e0penses and
attorney+s fees. Cs the emp%oyer+s computation correct)
A. *es, the computation of the monetary award is correct. >nder the /<B. /ew Bu%es of
5rocedure, an appea% is deemed perfected upon the posting of the bond e&ui"a%ent to the
monetary award Ee0c%usi"e of mora% and e0emp%ary damages as we%% as attorney+s fees.F -he
said imp%ementing ru%e is a contemporaneous construction of Artic%e 331 of the <abor .ode by
the /<B. pursuant to the mandate. -he e0c%usion of mora% and e0emp%ary damages and
attorney+s fees from the computation of the monetary award has been recogniDed by the
=upreme .ourt in a number of cases. (;ernn%eE v. NLRC, 2)3 SCRA 1-!, Jnury 2),
1!!)"
Q. Beyna%do worked as a bus dri"er for /e%busco, Cnc.. ?n 9ebruary 3!, 11, the
airconditioning unit of the bus which Beyna%do was dri"ing suffered a mechanica% breakdown.
-he company to%d Beyna%do to wait unti% the airconditioning unit was repaired. /o other bus
was assigned to Beyna%do to keep him gainfu%%y emp%oyed. Beyna%do continued reporting to his
emp%oyer+s office for work, on%y to find out that the airconditioning unit had not been repaired.
7ore than si0 months e%apsed but Beyna%do was not gi"en work. He fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega%
dismissa%. -he /<B. ru%ed that there was no i%%ega% dismissa%. Cs the ru%ing correct)
A. /o, the ru%ing is erroneous. >nder Artic%e 3!# of the %abor .ode, the bona fide suspension of
the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not e0ceeding si0 months sha%% not
terminate emp%oyment. .onse&uent%y, when the suspension e0ceeds si0 months, the
emp%oyment of the emp%oyee sha%% be deemed terminated. By the same token and app%ying
said ru%e by ana%ogy, if the emp%oyee was forced to remain without work or assignment for a
period e0ceeding si0 months, then he is in effect constructi"e%y dismissed. -he so'ca%%ed
Ef%oating statusF of an emp%oyee shou%d %ast on%y for a %ega%y prescribed period of time. (hen
that Ef%oating statusF %asts for more than si0 months, he may be considered to ha"e been i%%ega%%y
dismissed from the ser"ice. (.$%eE v. NLRC, 2)' SCRA )7, ;e+rury !, 1!!)"
Q. An emp%oyer appea%ed a (rit of @0ecution issued by the <abor Arbiter c%aiming that it had
"aried the tenor of the ,udgment. -he /<B. dismissed the appea% stating that it had %ost
,urisdiction o"er the case. -he /<B. stated that an order of e0ecution is not mere%y
inter%ocutory but fina% in character and that after a decision has become fina%, the pre"ai%ing party
becomes entit%ed as a matter of right to its e0ecution. Cs the dismissa% of the appea% correct)
A. /o, the dismissa% of the appea% is erroneous. -he /<B.+s ru%ing is based on the genera% ru%e
that after a decision has become fina%, the pre"ai%ing party becomes entit%ed as a matter of right
to its e0ecution, that it becomes mere%y the ministeria% duty of the court to issue the e0ecution.
-his genera% ru%e cannot be app%ied, howe"er, whhere the writ of e0ecution is assai%ed as
ha"ing "aried the decision. Cn this case, the emp%oyer a%%eged that the writ of e0ecution
materia%%y a%tered the decision. Cf this a%%egation is correct, the appe%%ant is entit%ed to the
remedy of appea%. -he /<B. is "ested with authority to %ook into the correctness of the
e0ecution of the decision and to consider super"ening e"ents that may affect such e0ecution.
(SGS ;r Est Lt%. .. NLRC, 2)' SCRA 333, ;e+rury 12, 1!!)"

Q. 9ederico was a regu%ar work poo% emp%oyee of 5/... He was emp%oyed in 141 and
worked in "arious construction pro,ects of 5/... C/ 14, he worked for a pro,ect of 5/.. in
the 7idd%e @ast with a sa%ary of T3.32 per hour. After the comp%etion of the pro,ect in 1!J,
9ederico returned to the 5hi%ippines. 5/.. then fai%ed to gi"e him work in its %oca% pro,ects.
.onse&uent%y, 9ederico fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% and obtained a ru%ing in his fa"or.
(hen the backwages were computed, the /<B. used 9ederico+s sa%ary rate in the 7idd%e @ast.
5/.. &uestions the correctness of the computation and c%aimed that the computation shou%d
be based on 9ederico+s %oca% wage rate at the time of his transfer to the o"erseas pro,ect.
8ecide.
A. -he /<B.+s computation is erroneous. 9ederico was not i%%ega%%y dismissed whi%e working in
the 7idd%e @ast pro,ect. He was dismissed from the work poo% after the comp%etion of the
7idd%e @ast pro,ect. Cf 9ederico were gi"en %oca% assignments after his stint abroad, he wou%d
ha"e recei"ed the %oca% wage. -his is the E%ossF which backwages aim to restore. -he
computation shou%d be based on the %oca% rate. (PNCC v. NLRC, 2)' SCRA 32!, ;e+rury 12,
1!!)"
Q. A%%eging serious business %osses, @dge Appare% imp%emented a retrenchment program by
phasing out its sewing %ine for simp%e garments. -he workers assigned to this particu%ar sewing
%ine were terminated. -he other %ines were maintained. Cn the i%%ega% dismissa% case fi%ed by the
dismissed workers, the /<B. uphe%d the %ega%ity of the dismissa% but treated such dismissa% as
due to redundancy. (as the dismissa% due to redundancy)
A. /o, the dismissa% was due to a retrenchment program. Cn e0ercising its right to retrench
emp%oyees, the firm may choose to c%ose a%%, or a part of, its business to a"oid further %osses or
mitigate e0penses. -he fact that on%y the dismissed emp%oyees+ sewing %ine was phased out
does not make their termination a case of redundancy. Bedundancy e0ists where the ser"ices
of an emp%oyee are in e0cess of what wou%d reasonab%y be demanded by the actua%
re&uirements of the enterprise. A position is redundant when it is superf%uous. Betrenchment,
in contrast to redundancy, is an economic ground to reduce the number of emp%oyees. Cn order
to be ,ustified, it must be due to business %osses which are serious, actua% and rea%. Cn this
case, the phasing out of the %ine for simp%e garments and, conse&uent%y, the termination of
emp%oyees assigned to such %ine, was due to serious business %osses. Hence, it constitutes
retrenchment. (E%2e A77re$, Inc. v. NLRC, 2)' SCRA 303, ;e+rury 12, 1!!)"
Q. =imu%taneous with the fi%ing of the appea%, the appe%%ant'emp%oyer fi%ed a motion to reduce
the amount of the bond. -he motion was partia%%y granted. Cn the order partia%%y granting the
motion to reduce the amount of the bond, the /<B. directed the appe%%ant to post the bond
within ten H12I days from receipt of the order. Cnstead of fi%ing the bond, the appe%%ant emp%oyer
fi%ed a motion for reconsideration of the /<B.+s order reducing the amount of the bond.
Because of the appe%%ant emp%oyer+s fai%ure to post the bond, the /<B. dismissed the appea%.
Cs the /<B.+s ru%ing correct)
A. *es, the ru%ing is correct. -o ha"e the bond reduced is not a matter of right on the part of the
appe%%ant but %ies within the sound discretion of the /<B. upon showing of meritorious grounds.
After the /<B. had e0ercised its discretion in fi0ing the bond, the appe%%ant shou%d ha"e
comp%ied with it. -o fi%e a subse&uent motion seeking another reconsideration of the a%ready
reduced amount of the bond is to re&uest for an e0tension of time to perfect an appea% which is
prohibited. (0ERS S8#es 0nu1cturin2, Inc. v. NLRC, 2)' SCRA '-7, ;e+rury 27, 1!!)"
Q. Juana is a worker in 8e% 7onte 5hi%., Cnc.. -he company ru%es pro"ide for an Absence
(ithout 5ermission HA(?5I 5o%icy. Cf the worker intends to be absent from work, he shou%d
first fi%e an app%ication for %ea"e and wait for its appro"a% before going on %ea"e. -he first
offense is punishab%e by ora% reprimand$ 3
nd
offense U written reprimand$ 1
rd
offense U 1'4 days
suspension$ J
th
offense U !'1; days suspension$ ;
th
offense U 1#'12 days suspension$ and #
th
offense U dismissa%. 9rom 13'1J, Juana incurred ;4 A(?5. (ithout initia%%y pena%iDing
Juana for her past A(?5, the company dismissed her from ser"ice in 1J.
HaI Cs the dismissa% "a%id)
HbI .an Juana be considered to ha"e abandoned her ,ob due to her intermittent absences
without permission)
A. HaI /o, the dismissa% is not "a%id. -he ru%e is that an emp%oyer+s power to discip%ine its
workers may not be e0ercised in an arbitrary manner as to erode the constitutiona% guarantee of
security of tenure. Cn this case, the company ru%es pro"ide for a graduation of pena%ties for
"io%ation of the A(?5 po%icy. @"en granting that Juana incurred pre"ious A(?5s as far back
as 13, the company shou%d ha"e initia%%y pena%%iDed her with reprimand or suspension for her
pre"ious A(?5s instead of dismissing her outright from ser"ice.
HbI /o, Juana did not abandon her ,ob. Abandonment, as a ,ust and "a%id ground for
termination, means the de%iberate, un,ustified refusa% of an emp%oyee to resume his
emp%oyment. -he burden of proof is on the emp%oyer to show a c%ear and de%iberate intent on
the part of the emp%oyee to discontinue emp%oyment. -he intent cannot be %ight%y inferred from
certain e&ui"oca% acts. 9or abandonment to be a "a%id ground for dismissa%, two e%ements must
be pro"ed: the intention of an emp%oyee to abandon, coup%ed with an o"ert act from which it
may be inferred that the emp%oyee has no more intent to resume hisSher work. Cn this case,
these e%ements are not present. (&e$ 0#nte P8i$i77ines, Inc. v. NLRC, 2)7 SCRA 71, 0rc8
3, 1!!)"
Q. @rnesto was emp%oyed by Ba%iwag -ransit as a bus dri"er. ?n 7ay 32, 1!1, the bus dri"en
by @rnesto was hea"i%y damaged in an accident with two other "ehic%es. @rnesto was
EgroundedF and was ad"ised by Ba%iwag -ransit to wait for the resu%t of the po%ice in"estigation
and the actions that may be taken by the owners of the other "ehic%es. @rnesto paitient%y
waited. Bea%iDing that he has waited too %ong, @rnesto on 8ecember 11, 1!# re&uested
Ba%iwag -ransit to reinstate him. Ba%iwag -ransit forma%%y informed him to %ook for another ,ob
because the management has terminated his ser"ices on account of the "ehicu%ar accident.
?n /o"ember 1;, 12, @rnesto fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. -he %abor arbiter
dismissed the comp%aint on the ground that @rnesto+s action is barred by prescription since it
was fi%ed more than four years from the accrua% of the cause of action on 7ay 32, 1!1. Cs
@rnesto+s action barred by prescription)
A. /o, the action is not barred. -he four year period shou%d not be reckoned from the time of
the accident on 7ay 32, 1!1 because @rnesto was not yet considered terminated at that time.
He was mere%y EgroundedF and ad"ised to wait. @rnesto+s cause of action accrued on%y in
8ecember 1!# when ba%iwag -ransit forma%%y dismissed him from the ser"ice. Hence, the
action fi%ed on /o"ember 12 had not yet prescribed. (0en%#E v. NLRC, 2)7 SCRA 31,
0rc8 3, 1!!)"
Q. Jose, a married man, was emp%oyed as a teacher by Hagonoy Cnstitute. <ikewise working
as a teacher for Hagonoy Cnstitute was Ar%ene, a%so married. Cn the course of their emp%oyment,
Jose and Ar%ene fe%% in %o"e and had a re%ationship. After comp%ying with the procedura%
re&uirements, Hagonoy terminated the ser"ices of the coup%e. Cs the dismissa% "a%id)
A. *es, the dismissa% is "a%id. -he i%%icit re%ationship between Jose and Ar%ene can be
considered immora% as to constitute ,ust cause to terminate the coup%e. -o constitute
immora%ity, the circumstances of each particu%ar case must be considered and e"a%uated in %ight
of the pre"ai%ing norms of conduct and app%icab%e %aws. Cn the present case, the gra"ity of the
charges against the coup%e stem from their being married and at the same time teachers.
-eachers must adhere to the e0acting standards of mora%ity and decency. A teacher, both in
hisSher officia% and persona% conduct, must disp%ay e0emp%ary beha"ior. HeSshe must free%y
and wi%%ing%y accept restrictions on hisSher conduct that might be "iewed irksome by ordinary
citiDens. -eachers must abide by a standard of persona% conduct which not on%y proscribes the
commission of immora% acts, but a%so prohibits beha"ior creating a suspicion of immora%ity
because of the harmfu% impression it might ha"e on students. (Snt#s v. NLRC, 2)7 SCRA 117,
0rc8 ', 1!!)"
Q. 5hi%ippine Air%ines terminated the ser"ices of two f%ight stewards for their a%%eged in"o%"ement
in currency smugg%ing in Hong 6ong. Cnstead of fi%ing an i%%ega% dismissa% case with the <abor
Arbiter, the workers fi%ed with the /<B. H.ommissionI a petition for in,unction. -he /<B.
issued a temporary mandatory in,unction en,oining 5A< to cease an desist from enforcing its
memorandum of dismissa%. -he /<B. further ru%ed that the fi%ing of an i%%ega% dismissa% case
with the <abor Arbiter was not an ade&uate remedy for the workers. Cs the /<B.+s ru%ing
correct)
A. /o, the /<B.+s ru%ing is erroneous. -he power of the /<B. to issue an in,uncti"e writ
originates from Eany %abor disputeF, i.e. a case between the contending parties before the %abor
arbiter. Cn the present case, there is no %abor dispute yet between the workers and 5A< since
there has yet been no i%%ega% dismissa% comp%aint fi%ed with the %abor arbiter. -he petition for
in,unction direct%y fi%ed before the /<B. is in rea%ity an action for i%%ega% dismissa%. -he petition
shou%d ha"e been fi%ed with the %abor arbiter who has the origina% and e0c%usi"e ,urisdiction o"er
termination disputes. -he <abor .ode does not pro"ide b%anket authority to the /<B. or any of
its di"isions to issue writs of in,unction, considering that the /ew Bu%es of 5rocedure of the
/<B. makes in,unction on%y an anci%%ary remedy in ordinary %abor disputes. (PAL v. NLRC,
2)7 SCRA'72, 0rc8 20, 1!!)"
Q. -he factory workers of =ime 8arby used to work from 4:J; a.m. to 1:J; p.m. with a 12'
minute paid Eon ca%%F %unch break. Cn 13, =ime 8arby issued a memorandum to a%% factory
workers ad"ising them of a change in work schedu%e. -he new work schedu%e e%iminated the
12'minute paid Eon ca%%F %unch break and ga"e the workers a one'hour unpaid %unch break.
>nder the new schedu%e, the workers wi%% sti%% work for eight hours per day. -he workers fi%ed a
comp%aint for unfair %abor practice. 8id the company commit any unfair %abor practice when it
re"ised the work schedu%e)
A. /o, the company did not commit any unfair %abor practice. -he right to fi0 the work
schedu%es of the emp%oyees rests principa%%y on their emp%oyer. >nder the o%d schedu%e, the
workers cou%d be ca%%ed upon to do ,obs during their 12'minute paid %unch break. >nder the
new schedu%e, the workers were gi"en a one'hour %unch break without any interruption from
their emp%oyer. -hus, there is no need to compensate the workers for this period. =ince the
new schedu%e app%ies to a%% emp%oyees in the factory whether union members or not, it is not
discriminatory. Ct cannot be said that this new scheme pre,udices the workers+ right to se%f'
organiDation. Hence, there is no unfair %abor practice in this case.
Q. =hou%d the appea% bond be posted within the ten H12I day reg%ementary period for fi%ing an
appea% from the <abor Arbiter+s decision)
A. As a genera% ru%e, yes. (hen the ,udgment in"o%"es a monetary award, an appea% by the
emp%oyer may be perfected on%y upon posting of a cash or surety bond in an amount e&ui"a%ent
to the monetary award in the ,udgment appea%ed from. .omp%iance with the re&uirement of
posting a bond is both mandatory and imperati"e as the perfection of an appea% within the
reg%ementary period is ,urisdictiona%. Cn a growing number of cases, howe"er, the =upreme
.ourt has re%a0ed the stringent app%ication of the ru%e concerning the posting of the appea% bond
within the ten H12I day reg%ementary period as a re&uirement for the perfection of an appea%.
-he =upreme .ourt has a%%owed the fi%ing of a motion for reduction of bond in %ieu of the appea%
bond within the reg%ementary period for fi%ing an appea%. Cn such case, the appea% bond may be
fi%ed after the %apse of the reg%ementary period and after the reso%ution of the motion to reduce
the amount of the bond . (A$c#ser# v. NLRC, 2)) SCRA 12!, 0rc8 2', 1!!)"
Q. Boberto was a dri"er of 5hi%tranco who was assigned to the <egaspi .ity'5asay .ity route.
He was dismissed from the ser"ice. He fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% before the /<B.+s
/ationa% .apita% region Arbitration Branch in 7ani%a. 5hi%tranco fi%ed a 7otion to 8ismiss stating
that the comp%aint shou%d ha"e been %odged with the /<B.+s Begiona% Arbitration Branch in
<egaspi .ity not on%y because Boberto was a resident thereof but a%so because the %atter was
hired, assigned, and based in <egaspi .ity. 8ecide.
A. -he 7otion to 8ismiss must be denied. -he &uestion of "enue pertains to the tria% and
re%ates more to the con"enience of the parties rather than upon the substance and merits of the
case. 5ro"isions on "enue are intended to assure con"enience for the p%aintiff and his
witnesses and to promote the ends of ,ustice. -he /ew Bu%es of 5rocedure of the /<B. cited
by 5hi%tranco speaks of the comp%ainant+s workp%ace, e"ident%y showing that the ru%e is intended
for the e0c%usi"e benefit of the worker. -his being the case, the worker may wai"e said benefit.
7oreo"er, since Boberto was assigned to <egaspi .ity'5asay .ity route, the fi%ing of the
comp%aint with the /ationa% .apita% Begion Arbitration Branch was proper, 7ani%a being
considered as part of Boberto+s workp%ace. (P8i$trnc# Service Enter7rises, Inc. v. NLRC,
2)) SCRA 3)3, A7ri$ 1, 1!!)"
Q. 7ario was hired to work on board the passenger cruise "esse% ?dyssey for 13 months as
uti%ity man. (hen he boarded the "esse%, he was unaware that there was an e0isting animosity
between the 9i%ipino crew and the :reek crew. ?ne day, a heated argument occurred between
7ario and a :reek deck steward, Lakkas, which resu%ted in a scuff%e between the two. Lakkas
pushed 7ario who fe%% hitting his head against the stee% mo%ding of the door. 7ario suffered a
cut in the head. 5rior to this incident, Lakkas and the other :reek workers continuous%y
ridicu%ed 7ario. -he night before the incident, Lakkas threatened to pour hot coffee on 7ario+s
head. 7ario reported the abuses to the ship captain but the %atter ,ust b%amed 7ario for ,oining
the ship. Because of his fear that further troub%e may erupt between him and the :reek crew,
7ario %eft the ship. (hen he was repatriated to the 5hi%ippines, he fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega%
dismissa%. -he %abor arbiter dismissed the comp%aint on the ground that 7ario "o%untari%y
signed off from the "esse%. Cs the ru%ing correct)
A. /o, the ru%ing is erroneous. .onstructi"e dismissa% e0ists when there is a &uitting because
continued emp%oyment is rendered impossib%e, unreasonab%e or un%ike%y. Cn this case, 7ario &uit
because he feared for his %ife and his fear was we%% founded. His decision to %ea"e the ship was
not "o%untary but was impe%%ed by a %egitimate desire for se%f'preser"ation. -he ship captain, as
the genera% agent of the ship owner, cou%d be he%d responsib%e for fai%ing to make the workp%ace
safe for 7ario. -his is a c%ear case of constructi"e dismissa%. (Sin2 S8i7 0n2ment
P8i$s., Inc. v. NLRC, 2)) SCRA '!2, A7ri$ 1-, 1!!)"
Q. 5C=C is a du%y %icensed security agency. Ct hired @scobin and se"era% other security guards to
work as guards in the premises of Basi%an 5%antations, Cnc. in Basi%an, 7indanao. @scobin and
his companions were residents of Basi%an and heads of fami%ies. After working for fi"e years as
guards in the p%antation, @scobin and his group were p%aced under reser"ed or f%oating status.
-his was due to the reduction of the security force ordered by Basi%an 5%antations, Cnc.. <ater,
the guards p%aced on reser"ed or f%oating status were instructed by registered %etter to report to
5C=C Head ?ffice in 7etro 7ani%a for posting to 5C=C c%ients within 7etro 7ani%a. -he guards did
not rep%y. A second %etter was sent but the guards %ikewise fai%ed to rep%y. 5C=C sent indi"idua%
%etters to the guards ordering them to e0p%ain why no discip%inary action shou%d be taken against
them for fai%ing to comp%y with 5C=C+s order. -he guards did not send their answers to 5C=C.
5C=C dismissed the guards on the ground of insubordination or wi%%fu% disobedience to %awfu%
orders of their emp%oyer. 8uring the proceedings before the <abor Arbiter, the guards ,ustified
their inabi%ity to comp%y with 5C=C+s order to report to the head office in 7etro 7ani%a, saying:
they were residents of Basi%an, ha"e fami%ies of their own in Basi%an, ha"e ne"er tra"e%ed
beyond Gisayas and 7indanao, not pro"ided by 5C=C with fare money as they cannot, on their
own, finance their tra"e% from Basi%an to 7ani%a. Assuming the a%%egations of the guards were
true, was the dismissa% "a%id)
A. /o, the dismissa% was not "a%id. 8isobedience, to be a ,ust cause for termination, must be
wi%%fu% and per"erse menta% attitude rendering the emp%oyee+s act inconsistent with proper
subordination. A wi%%fu% or intentiona% disobedience ,ustifies dismissa% on%y when the ru%e, order
or instruction is H1I reasonab%e and %awfu%, H3I sufficient%y known to the emp%oyee, and H1I
connected with the duties which the emp%oyee has been engaged to discharge. -he
reasonab%eness and %awfu%ness of a ru%e depend on the circumstances of each case.
Beasonab%eness pertains to the kind or character of directi"es and commands and to the
manner in which they are ade. Cn this case, the order to report to the 7ani%a office fai%s to meet
this standard. Ct was gross%y incon"enient for the guards who were residents and heads of
fami%ies in Basi%an. -he guards were not pro"ided with funds to defray their transportation and
%i"ing e0penses. -he dismissa% in this case was too harsh a pena%ty for the insubordination
which was neither wi%%fu% nor intentiona%. -he guards+ fai%ure to answer 5C=C+s show'cause
%etters does not negate this conc%usion as 5C=C granted other guards a second chance to
e0p%ain, an opportunity it denied @scobin and his group. (Esc#+in v. NLRC, 2)! SCRA -),
A7ri$ 13, 1!!)"
Q. 8ri"ersSsa%esmen and truck he%pers of a softdrinks merchandiser fi%ed a case for i%%ega%
dismissa%, underpayment of wages, and other c%aims. -he <abor Arbiter decided, among
others, that the emp%oyer had not comp%ied with the minimum wage re&uirements. Cn arri"ing at
this conc%usion, the <abor Arbiter refused to inc%ude the commissions paid to the workers in
determining comp%iance with the minimum wage re&uirement. As part of their compensation,
the workers recei"ed commissions per case of softdrinks so%d. Cs the <abor Arbiter+s ru%ing
correct)
A. /o, the ru%ing is erroneous. -he definition of the term EwageF in the <abor .ode e0p%icit%y
inc%udes commissions. (hi%e commissions are incenti"es or forms of encouragement to inspire
workers to put a %itt%e more industry on their ,obs, sti%% these commissions are direct
remunerations for ser"ices rendered. -here is no %aw mandating that commissions be paid
on%y after the minimum wage has been paid to the worker. -he estab%ishment of a minimum
wage on%y sets a f%oor be%ow which an emp%oyee+s remuneration cannot fa%%, not that
commissions are e0c%uded from wages in determining comp%iance with the minimum wage %aw.
(Irn v. NLRC, 2)! SCRA -33, A7ri$ 22, 1!!)"
Q. Cn a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% and unfair %abor practices, ,udgment was rendered in fa"or
of Buda <abor >nion. -he <abor Arbiter ordered the company, Buda @nterprises to reinstate
the indi"idua% comp%ainants and to pay them fu%% backwages. -he decision became fina% and
e0ecutory and a writ of e0ecution was issued. 5arce%s of %and a%%eged%y be%onging to Buda
@nterprises, but %ater found to be registered under the names of .o -uan, =. Ang, J. <im, and @
:otamco, were %e"ied upon. >pon %earning of such %e"y, .o -uan and his three other re%ati"es
fi%ed an >rgent 7otion to Quash the (rit of @0ecution c%aiming that they ho%d "a%id and %awfu%
tit%e to the said properties by "irtue of the E@0tra',udicia% =ett%ement and =a%e of the @state of the
8eceased @di%berto =orianoF e0ecuted by the heirs. /one of the heirs, e0cept <ourdes
=oriano, the proprietress and manager of Buda @nterprises, were parties in the %abor case.
-he motion was granted. -he workers appea%ed and asked the .ommission to order the <abor
Arbiter to imp%ead the mo"ants, praying that the sa%e between the mo"ants and Buda
@nterprises be dec%ared "oid. Cs the /<B. competent to determine the %ega%ity of the sa%e)
A. /o. -he power of the /<B. to e0ecute its ,udgment e0tends on%y to properties
un?uesti#n+$y +e$#n2in2 to the ,udgment debtor. Cf the property under %e"y does not be%ong
to the ,udgment debtor in the /<B. case, it cou%d not be %e"ied upon by the sheriff for the
satisfaction of the ,udgment therein. @"en upon a mere prima facie showing of ownership by
the third'party c%aimant, if the third party c%aim does not in"o%"e nor grows out of a %abor dispute,
a separate action for in,uncti"e re%ief against such %e"y may be maintained in court. Cf there is
suspicion that the sa%e of properties was not in good faith, i.e. was made in fraud of creditors,
the /<B. is incompetent to make a determination . -he task is ,udicia% and the proceedings
must be ad"ersary. (C# 4un v. NLRC, 2)! SCRA -13, A7ri$ 22, 1!!)"
Q. -he Begiona% (age Board for Begion X issued (age ?rder /o. BX'21. -hree corporations
fi%ed app%ications for e0emption as Edistressed estab%ishmentsF under :uide%ines /o. 1 issued by
the Begiona% (age Board. >nder the Begiona% (age Board+s guide%ine, a corporation is a
Edistressed estab%ishmentF if it is engaged in an industry that is Edistressed due to conditions
beyond its contro%.F -his criterion is different from the criterion %aid down in the guide%ines
promu%gated by the /ationa% (ages and 5roducti"ity .ommission. =hou%d the app%ications be
granted pursuant to the Begiona% (age Board+s guide%ines)
A. /o, the app%ications shou%d be denied. -he %aw grants the /(5., not the Begiona% (age
Board, the power to Eprescribe the ru%es and guide%inesF for the determination of minimum wage
and producti"ity measures. (hi%e the Begiona% (age Board has the power to issue wage
orders, such wage orders are sub,ect to the guide%ines prescribed by the /(5.. =ince the
Begiona% (age Board+s :uide%ine /o. 1 was not appro"ed by the /(5. and is contrary to
/(5.+s guide%ines, the said guide%ine issued by the Begiona% (age Board is inoperati"e and
cannot be used by the %atter in deciding on the app%ications for e0emption. (Nsi7it Lum+er
C#m7ny, Inc. v. N=PC, 2)! SCRA ''7, A7ri$ 27, 1!!)"
Q. Girginia was an emp%oyee of Judy 5hi%ippines, Cnc.. Because of her erroneous assortment
and packaging of 3,#!2 doDens of infant wear, the company dismissed her from emp%oyment on
the ground of gross neg%igence. Girginia committed the infraction for the first time. Cs the
dismissa% "a%id)
A. /o, the dismissa% is in"a%id. :ross neg%igence imp%ies a want or absence of or fai%ure to
e0ercise s%ight care or di%igence, or the entire absence of care. Ct e"inces a thought%ess
disregard of conse&uences without e0erting any effort to a"oid them. Artic%e 3!3 HbI of the
<abor .ode re&uires that such neg%ect must not on%y be gross, it shou%d be Egross and habitua%
neg%ectF. -he pena%ty of dismissa% is &uite se"ere here since the worker committed the
infraction for the first time. (Ju%y P8i$i77ines, Inc. v. NLRC, 2)! SCRA 733, A7ri$ 2!, 1!!)"
Q. Cn an i%%ega% dismissa% case fi%ed by security guards of =cout =ecurity Agency, the %abor
arbiter he%d Bosewood, Cnc., the principa%, ,oint%y and se"era%%y %iab%e with the security agency for
wage differentia%, backwages, and separation pay. -he %abor arbiter stated that Bosewood was
%iab%e as the guards+ indirect emp%oyer under Arts. 12#, 124, and 12 of the <abor .ode.
Bosewood appea%ed c%aiming that it had no participation in the i%%ega% dismissa% of the guards.
Assuming Bosewood+s c%aim is true, shou%d the %abor arbiter+s ru%ing be re"ersed)
A. *es, the %abor arbiter+s ru%ing shou%d be re"ersed. >nder the <abor .ode, an emp%oyer is
so%idari%y %iab%e for %ega% wages due security guards 1#r t8e 7eri#% #1 time t8ey 9ere ssi2ne%
t# it by its contracted security agency. Howe"er, in the absence of proof that the emp%oyer
itse%f committed the acts constituti"e of i%%ega% dismissa% or conspired with the security agency in
the performance of such acts, the emp%oyer s8$$ n#t +e $i+$e for backwages andSor
separation pay arising as a conse&uence of such un%awfu% termination. (R#se9##%
Pr#cessin2, Inc. v. NLRC, 2!0 SCRA -0), 0y 21, 1!!)"
Q. Cn an i%%ega% dismissa% case, the <abor Arbiter uphe%d the "a%idity of a retrenchment program
imp%emented by a mining company. As basis for the ru%ing, the <abor Arbiter took E,udicia%
noticeF of the economic difficu%ties suffered by the mining sector. Cs the ru%ing correct)
A. /o, the ru%ing is erroneous. Jurisprudence prescribes the minimum standards necessary to
pro"e the "a%idity of a retrenchment: HaI the %osses e0pected must be substantia% and not
mere%y de minimis in e0tent$ HbI the substantia% %osses apprehended must be reasonab%y
imminent$ HcI the retrenchment must be reasonab%y necessary and %ike%y to effecti"e%y pre"ent
the e0pected %osses$ and HdI the a%%eged %osses, if a%ready incurred, and the e0pected imminent
%osses sought to be foresta%%ed must be pro"ed by sufficient and con"incing e"idence. Cn this
case, the retrenchment cannot be considered "a%id on the basis of the E,udicia% noticeF taken by
the <abor Arbiter. (Anin# v. NLRC, 2!0 SCRA -)!, 0y 21, 1!!)"
Q. Cnc%uded in a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% is a c%aim for night shift differentia%s. -he
emp%oyer did not deny that the comp%ainant rendered night shift work. -he %abor arbiter
dismissed the c%aim for night shift differentia%s because the comp%ainant a%%eged%y fai%ed to
substantiate his c%aim for night shift differentia%s. Cs the ru%ing correct)
A. /o, the ru%ing is erroneous. -he fact that the comp%ainant neg%ected to substantiate his c%aim
for night shift differentia%s is not pre,udicia% to his cause. -he burden of pro"ing payment rests
on the emp%oyer. -he worker+s c%aim of non'payment of this benefit is a negati"e a%%egation
which need not be supported by e"idence. -he worker cannot ade&uate%y pro"e the fact of
non'payment of the night shift differentia%s since the pertinent emp%oyee fi%es, payro%%s, records,
and other simi%ar documents are not in his possession but in the custody and abso%ute contro% of
petitioner. By choosing not to fu%%y and comp%ete%y disc%ose information to pro"e that it had paid
a%% the nights shift differentia%s due the worker, the emp%oyer fai%ed to discharge the burden of
proof. (Nti#n$ Semic#n%uct#r &istri+uti#n, Lt%. .. NLRC, 2!1 SCRA 3-), June 2', 1!!)"
Q. After the <abor Arbiter dismissed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%, the worker appea%ed. -he
emp%oyer was not furnished a copy of the memorandum of appea%. -hus, the emp%oyer was not
aware of the appea% and did not participate in the appea% interposed by the worker. (ithout the
emp%oyer+s participation, the /<B. re"ersed the <abor Arbiter+s decision and ru%ed in fa"or of
the appe%%ant worker. Cs the decision "a%id)
A. /o, the /<B.+s decision is nu%% and "oid. Ct is a cardina% ru%e in %aw that a decision or
,udgment is fata%%y defecti"e if rendered in "io%ation of a party'%itigant+s right to due process.
-he fau%t %ies with the /<B. and not with the appe%%ant worker. (hi%e the /ew Bu%es of
5rocedure of the /<B. re&uire proof of ser"ice of the appea% on the other party, non'
comp%iance therewith wi%% present no obstac%e to the perfection of the appea% nor does it amount
to a ,urisdictiona% defect to the /<B.+s taking cogniDance thereof. (hi%e the %aw e0cuses the
appe%%ant from notifying the other party of the appea%, no reason can be gi"en by the /<B. that
wou%d e0empt it from informing the %atter of the appea% and gi"ing it an opportunity to be heard.
-he case shou%d be set for further proceedings to afford the emp%oyer the opportunity to be
heard. (P8i$i77ine Nti#n$ C#nstructi#n C#r7#rti#n v. NLRC, 2!2 SCRA 2'', Ju$y 10,
1!!)"
Q. Cn their answer to a case for i%%ega% dismissa%, the emp%oyer fi%ed position papers supported by
affida"its. =ubse&uent%y, the <abor Arbiter ordered the company to pay wage differentia%s and
other benefits. -hey appea%ed to the /<B. by fi%ing a supp%ementa% memorandum to correct
and amp%ify inade&uate a%%egations and certain omissions. Cn this appea%, the seek to introduce
new e"idence to pro"e that there was no emp%oyee'emp%oyer re%ationship. =hou%d the /<B.
admit new e"idence)
A. /o. Hearings had a%ready been schedu%ed, yet the emp%oyer chose mere%y to submit position
papers. As such, the company had e"ery opportunity to submit before the %abor arbiter the
e"idence which they sought to adduce before the /<B.. (Snt#s v. NLRCA Ju$y 23, 1!!)"

Q. 5etitioner was emp%oyed as Accounting 7anager entrusted with the e"a%uation and
assessment of contacts. A contractor comp%ained that petitioner was asking two thousand
pesos for e"ery contract the contractor gets from the company. 5etitioner admitted ha"ing
accepted money on four different occasions. -he company terminated petitioner on this ground.
(as she "a%id%y dismissed)
A. *es, the company+s re%iance on petitioner+s assessment of contracts was based primari%y on
trust and confidence. Her acceptance of money, e"en if "o%untary on the contractor+s part, casts
doubt on her integrity. Ha"ing occupied a manageria% position, petitioner maybe dismissed on
the ground of %oss of trust and confidence. @"en if she was a first'time offender, a company
may resort to acts of se%f'defense against a manageria% emp%oyee who has breached their trust
and confidence. 9urthermore, each of the four occasions is treated as a separate offense$
hence, mi%itating her p%ea of first infraction. (.i$$nuev v. NLRCA Ju$y 27, 1!!)"

Q. 5etitioners were dismissed from ser"ice after they were asked by the company to go through
drug'tests, as the company recei"ed information that they were smoking something HVshabu+I
inside the work premises. 5etitioners and the company submitted their respecti"e position
papers on the incident. -he <abor Arbiter found the dismissa% based on the position papers as
"a%id which the /<B. affirmed. .an a fu%%'b%own tria% be dispensed with by the %abor arbiter)
A. *es. Bu%es of e"idence in courts sha%% not be contro%%ing in any case brought before the
commission HArt. 331, <.I. -he <abor .ode a%%ows the %abor arbiter and /<B. to decide the
case based on position papers and other documents. -he ho%ding of a tria% is discretionary on
the %abor arbiter and cannot be demanded as a matter of right by the parties. (SureE v. NLRCA
Ju$y 31, 1!!)"
Q. A super"isory emp%oyee %abor organiDation was issued a charter certificate by a nationa%
federation to which the company+s rank and fi%e union was a%so affi%iatedW with. Ct fi%ed a petition
for certification e%ection, opposed by the company because the union was a%%eged%y composed
of both super"isory and rank and fi%e emp%oyees since both unions are affi%iated with the same
federation. =hou%d the petition for certification e%ections be granted)
A. *es. -he affi%iation of two %oca% unions in a company with the same nationa% federation is not
a negation of their independence Has unionsI since in re%ation to the emp%oyer, the %oca% unions
are considered as principa%s whi%e the federation is deemed as their agent. -he %oca%s are
separate from each other and their affi%iation with the same federation wou%d not make them
members of the same %abor union. A super"isory organiDation is prohibited from ,oining the
same federation as that of the rank and fi%e organiDation on%y if two conditions are present: 1.
-he B Q 9 emp%oyees are direct%y under the authority of super"isory emp%oyees and 3. -he
nationa% federation is acti"e%y in"o%"ed in union acti"ities in the company. (&LS5 0e%ic$
Center v. L2uesmA Au2ust 12, 1!!)"
Q. 5ri"ate respondents were emp%oyed by 5A< with a sa%ary of 51,!#2. -hey got a sa%ary
increase of 5J22Smo. for a tota% month%y compensation of 53,3#2 under the CBA.
=ubse&uent%y, BA ##J2 was passed raising the minimum wage of worker. -heir sa%aries were
ad,usted again by adding 512J pursuant to the BA thus their tota% gross pay amounted to
53,;#;. After four months, they were promoted and their basic pay of 51,!#2 was raised to
53,122Smo. p%us the .BA wage increase of 5J22Smo. thereby making their gross pay to
53,422Smo.. -he emp%oyees were not satisfied with their gross pay, in"oking the 512J wage
increase under BA ##J2. 5A< howe"er refused c%aiming that the increase of 5JJ2 which is the
difference between their new basic sa%ary and their o%d basic sa%ary H53,122'1,!#2I was
sufficient comp%iance with the BA. -hus respondents instituted an action against 5A< for
"io%ations of BA ##J2. Cs the sa%ary increase of the emp%oyees sufficient comp%iance with BA
##J2) =hou%d the .BA increase be credited to the wage increase under the BA)
A. /o. =ec. 4 of the BA prohibits the diminution of e0isting benefits and a%%owances by workers.
.onse&uent%y, it was improper and not a%%owed by %aw for petitioner to app%y or consider as
comp%iance, with the mandated wage hike of its workers, the sa%ary increases corresponding to
their promotion in rank. >n%ike the (age ?rder /os. ; and # in the Apex ruling, there is no
creditabi%ity pro"ision in BA ##J2. Ct was not the intention of .ongress to credit sa%ary increases
by reason of .BA wage ad,ustments or promotions in rank for the mandated wage increase.
(PAL v. NLRCA Se7t. 3,1!!)"
Q. .omp%aints for i%%ega% dismissa% were fi%ed against respondent. =ummons and notices of
hearings were sent to the respondent which were recei"ed by its bookkeeper. -hereafter, the
%abor arbiter rendered a ,udgment by defau%t after finding that the respondent tried mere%y
e"aded a%% the summons and notices by refusing to c%aim its mai%s. Bespondent contends that
the he was not "a%id%y ser"ed with summons since the bookkeeper cannot be considered an
agent under the Bu%es of .ourt and thus the %abor arbiter ne"er ac&uired ,urisdiction o"er
respondent. 8id the %abor arbiter ac&uire ,urisdiction o"er respondent)
A. *es. 5rocedura% ru%es are %ibera%%y construed and app%ied in &uasi',udicia% proceedings.
=ubstantia% comp%iance in this case is considered ade&uate. -he bookkeeper can be
considered an agent because his ,ob is integrated with the corporation. HP+#n v. NLRC, Se7t.
2-,1!!)"

Q. .an a company, dissatisfied with the decision of the <abor Arbiter, fi%e a 7otion to Amend
the ?rder of the <abor Arbiter more than a month after the date of issuance of the ?rder)

A. /o. -o a%%ow the amendment of the order wi%% resu%t in the circum"ention of =ec. 14 of the
Bu%es of 5rocedure of the /<B. which pro"ide that E/o 7otion for Beconsideration of any order
or decision of the <abor Arbiter sha%% be a%%owed.F -o permit this wou%d on%y a%%ow the petitioner
to "io%ate the statutory 12'day period re&uirement for appea%. HSc8erin2 Em7$#yees L+#r
5ni#n v. NLRC, Se7t. 23,1!!)"
Q. Bespondent was first hired by =7. Hengaged in the manufacture of g%assI for a period of J
months to repair and upgrade its furnace. 12 days after his first contract ended, he was again
hired to drain another furnace for 1 months. Cs he a pro,ect emp%oyee)
A. *es. -here are two kinds of pro,ect emp%oyees: 1.-hose emp%oyed in a pro,ect usua%%y
necessary or desirab%e in the usua% trade or business H>/?8 in >-?BI of the emp%oyer but is
separate and distinct from the other undertaking of the company$ or 3.-hose not >/?8 in
>-?B but is a%so distinct and separate from the other undertaking of the company. But both
,obs begin and end at determined or determinab%e time. Cn the case at bar, the emp%oyee fa%%s
under the second category. -he process of manufacturing g%ass re&uires a furnace which is to
be repaired on%y after being used continuous%y for "arying period of ;'12 years. -herefore, the
,ob of the respondent is a pro,ect not >/?8 in >-?B. HS0C v. NLRC, <ct#+er 7,1!!)"

Q. 5etitioner was emp%oyed as an assistant credit and co%%ection manager. 9rom the start, he
was informed that those not e%igib%e for membership in the bargaining unit are not entit%ed to
.BA benefits, but to benefits at %east e&ui"a%ent or higher than that pro"ided in the .BA.
=ubse&uent%y, petitioner was diagnosed with pu%monary disease, prompting him to app%y for
optiona% retirement as pro"ided by the .BA. He wished to retire on Ju%y 1#,13 but was asked
by the company to change it to Apri% 12,13. -he emp%oyee, due to urgent need, agreed, for
which he recei"ed 5122,222 as ad"ances on his retirement pay. .ou%d the emp%oyee a"ai% of
the optiona% retirement benefit in the .BA) .ou%d the emp%oyer "ary the effecti"e date of
retirement)
A. *es, a%though manageria% emp%oyees are not co"ered by the .BA, the emp%oyer "o%untari%y
agreed to grant them benefits at %east e&ui"a%ent or higher than that pro"ided in the .BA. -hus,
this agreement is the app%icab%e retirement contract under the <abor .ode. 7oreo"er, the
emp%oyer may "ary the effecti"e date of retirement as petitioner assented to the change, in
consideration for an ad"ance of his retirement pay. =o %ong as the agreement is "o%untary and
reasonab%e, it is "a%id. (0rtineE v. NLRC, <ct#+er 12, 1!!)"

Q. Bespondent emp%oyee was a truck dri"er who was dismissed because he a%%eged%y dro"e
whi%e drunk after he chase an office personne% with a knife. -he incident resu%ted to the damage
of the ten'whee%er truck he dro"e. -he emp%oyee on%y reported the incident on 7arch 11,
though it happened on 8ecember 13. 5rior to the accident, he was a%ready caught stea%ing
diese% fue% from the company. As a resu%t of these actions, he was dismissed for serious
misconduct. (as the dismissa% "a%id) .an the company re%y on past offenses to ,ustify the
dismissa%)
A. /o, the re%iance by petitioner corporation on his past offenses to ,ustify his dismissa% is
una"ai%ing. -he correct ru%e has a%ways been that such pre"ious offenses may be used as "a%id
,ustification for dismissa% from work on%y if the infractions are re%ated to the subse&uent offense
upon which basis the termination is decreed. -he "ehicu%ar accident causing damage to the
truck is not a ,ust cause for dismissa%. -he pena%ty of dismissa% is gross%y disproportionate to the
offense of dri"ing through reck%ess imprudence resu%ting in damage to property. He was
%ikewise depri"ed of due process as he was not afforded amp%e opportunity to be heard. Cf after
the thirty'day period the emp%oyee does not gi"e his e0p%anation of what happened, he must
again be sent a notice of dismissa% stating the particu%ar acts constituting the ground for
dismissa% and an in&uiry why he did not gi"e his e0p%anation. (L Cr$#t P$nters Ass#citi#n
v. NLRC, <ct#+er 27, 1!!)"

Q. 5A< entered into a ser"ice agreement with =-@<<AB .orp., a corporation in the business of
,ob contracting ,anitoria% ser"ices. After the agreement e0pired, 5A< ca%%ed for a bidding but in
the meantime a%%owed =-@<<AB to maintain the ,anitoria% contract. =ubse&uent%y, 5A< sent a
%etter to =-@<<AB informing them that the contract wou%d no %onger be renewed. =-@<<AB,
terminated their ser"ices, so respondent emp%oyees fi%ed a case for i%%ega% dismissa% against 5A<
and =-@<<AB. -he /<B. affirmed the decision of the %abor arbiter finding the dismissa% i%%ega%.
(as there an emp%oyee'emp%oyer re%ationship e0isting between 5A< and respondents) And
were they i%%ega%%y dismissed)
A. /o, there is no emp%oyee'emp%oyer re%ationship between 5A< and the respondents. 5A< is
not engaged in %abor'on%y contracting e"idenced by the ser"ice agreement that it wou%d be
=-@<<AB who wi%% emp%oy the ,anitors. 5A< was engaged in permissib%e ,ob contracting and the
emp%oyees were emp%oyees of =-@<<AB not 5A<. Howe"er, the emp%oyees were i%%ega%%y
dismissed by =-@<<AB. -hey were regu%ar emp%oyees not pro,ect emp%oyees. A pro,ect
emp%oyee must be emp%oyed in a pro,ect distinct, separate and identifiab%e from the main
business of the emp%oyer and its duration must be determined or determinab%e. (hi%e the
ser"ice agreement may ha"e had a specific term, =-@<<AB disregarded it and repeated%y
renewed the agreement and continued hiring the respondents for thirteen years. HPAL. ..
NLRC, N#v. !, 1!!)"
Q. =e"era% security guards of =entine% =ecurity, assigned to 5HC<A7 were found to ha"e been
i%%ega%%y dismissed. .an 5HC<A7 be made %iab%e for the payment of backwages and separation
pay of the i%%ega%%y dismissed emp%oyees)
A. *es. A%though an indirect emp%oyer shou%d not be made %iab%e without a finding that it had
committed or conspired in the i%%ega% dismissa% Hosewood rulingI, in the case at bar the
e0oneration of 5HC<A7 was not inc%uded in the 8C=5?=C-CG@ 5?B-C?/ of the .ourt+s decision
despite the fact that it was c%ear%y stated in the body of the decision that they were e0onerated.
-he decision did not comp%ete%y e0onerate 5HC<A7 which, as an indirect emp%oyer is so%idari%y
%iab%e with =entine% for the comp%ainants+ unpaid ser"ice incenti"e %ea"e pursuant to Art. 12#,
124 and 12 of the <abor .ode. =hou%d the contractor fai% to pay the wages of its emp%oyees in
accordance with %aw, the indirect emp%oyer is ,oint%y and se"era%%y %iab%e with the contractor, but
such responsibi%ity shou%d be understood to be %imited to the e0tent of work performed under the
contract, in the same manner and e0tent that he is %iab%e to the emp%oyees direct%y emp%oyed by
him. HSentine$ Security v. NLRC, N#v. 1',1!!)"
Q. 5roducer+s Bank was p%aced by the .entra% Bank under a conser"ator to protect its assets.
(hen the retired emp%oyees sought the imp%ementation of the .BA regarding their retirement
p%an and uniform a%%owance, the conser"ator ob,ected, resu%ting in an impasse between the
bank and the union. =hou%d the .BA pro"isions be imp%emented, despite the bank+s status)
A. *es. -he conser"ator cannot rescind a "a%id and e0isting contract and the .BA is the %aw
between the contracting parties. A%though the emp%oyees are a%ready retired, retirement does
not affect their emp%oyment status when it in"o%"es a%% rights and benefits due them. -he
retirement scheme was part of their emp%oyment package and the benefits under the scheme
constituted a continuing consideration for ser"ices rendered and effecti"e inducement to remain
in the company. -he emp%oyees were not p%eading for the company+s generosity but were
demanding their rights under the .BA. HPr#%ucer*s @n6 v. NLRC, N#v. 1',1!!)"

Q. After negotiations fai%ed to produce any agreement, the e0c%usi"e bargaining agent of .oca'
.o%a decided to fi%e a notice of strike. .onci%iation hearings were conducted but were
una"ai%ing. -he union conducted a strike "ote on Apri% 1J, which shoed that the members were
in fa"or of conducting a strike. ?n Apri% 32, the union staged the strike. -he company fi%ed a
petition to dec%are the strike i%%ega% as it was staged without obser"ing the mandatory se"en'day
strike ban and that it was staged in bad faith. -he company then fired a%%eged union officers by
"irtue of the i%%ega% strike. (as the strike %ega%) (as the termination of the emp%oyees Ha%%eged%y,
union officersI "a%id)
A. -he strike was i%%ega% for fai%ure to obser"e the mandatory re&uirements of Artic%es 3#J and
3#; of the <abor .ode. -he fai%ure of the union to obser"e the 4'day strike ban made the strike
i%%ega%. (hi%e the strike "ote was conducted around 4:12 am to !:J; am and the strike he%d on
Apri% 32 was around !:12 am, the .i"i% .ode states that in computing a period, the first day sha%%
be e0c%uded and the %ast day inc%uded$ hence the fai%ure to obser"e 4 days. Howe"er, the
dismissa% of the strikers was not "a%id. -he emp%oyees were mere union members and not
officers who shou%d not be dismissed un%ess they knowing%y participate in i%%ega% acts during a
strike. A%though these emp%oyees signed the .BA, nowhere in these documents can it be found
that the cited emp%oyees signed it as union officers. -heir acti"e participation in the negotiations
did not render them union officers. HCC@PI P#stmi: =#r6ers 5ni#n v. NLRC, N#v. 27,1!!)"
Q. A case for i%%ega% dismissa% was fi%ed against ?r%ando 9arms :rowers Association, an informa%
association of %andowners engaged in the production of e0port &ua%ity bananas. .an an
unregistered association be considered an emp%oyer independent%y of the respecti"e members it
represents)
A. *es, being an unregistered association and ha"ing been formed so%e%y to ser"e as an
affecti"e medium for dea%ing co%%ecti"e%y with another company is not an e%ement of an
emp%oyee'emp%oyer re%ationship. -he <abor .ode does not re&uire an emp%oyer to register
before he may come within the pur"iew of the said %aw. (<r$n%# ;rms Gr#9ers Ass#citi#n
v. NLRC, N#v. 23,1!!)"
Q. Bespondent emp%oyee was recruited for emp%oyment with :u%f .atering .ompany in =audi
as a waitress. (hen she was dep%oyed to =audi, she was made to wash dishes, cooking pots
and utensi%s, ,anitoria% work and other unre%ated ,obs in 13'hour shifts without o"ertime pay. 8ue
to the strenuous work, she was confined in a housing faci%ity during which, she was not paid her
sa%aries. =he worked again after getting we%% but was not paid her compensation.
=ubse&uent%y, she was hospita%iDed and went through surgica% operations, again without
compensation. =he was then dismissed on the ground of i%%ness without any separation pay or
sa%ary payment for the periods she was not a%%owed to work. =he fi%ed a comp%aint before 5?@A
against petitioner for underpaid sa%aries and damages. (as she i%%ega%%y dismissed) Cs the
emp%oyee entit%ed to the payment of underpaid sa%aries)
A. =he was i%%ega%%y dismissed because the manner by which she was terminated was in
"io%ation of the <abor .ode since her i%%ness was not prohibited by %aw nor was it pre,udicia% to
her hea%th as we%% as that of her co'emp%oyees HArt. 3!JI. Her i%%ness was not e"en contagious
H.arpa% -unne% =yndromeI. As for the time she was hospita%iDed and she was not gi"en any
compensation, the Vno work'no pay+ ru%e does not app%y since that period was due to her i%%ness
which was c%ear%y work're%ated. (4ri7$e Ei28t Inte2rte% Services v. NLRC, &ec. 3, 1!!)"
Q. 8oes =ection J, Bu%e G of the /<B. /ew Bu%es of 5rocedure re&uire the <abor Arbiter to
propound c%arificatory &uestions to the parties in order to determine whether a forma% hearing is
necessary)
A. -here is no %ega% ,ustification for a mandatory interpretation. A reading of =ec J Bu%e G of the
/ew Bu%es of 5rocedure of the /<B. readi%y shows that c%arificatory &uestions may be
propounded to the parties at the discretion of the <A. Aside from emp%oying the word
EmayF which denotes discretion negating a mandatory or ob%igatory effect, the pro"ision
e0press%y states that it is discretionary on the part of the <A. (R&S 4ruc6in2 vs NLRC,
2!- SCRA NLRC"

Q. 7e%chor, a ta0i dri"er under the boundary system, met a "ehicu%ar accident. After fi%ing a
report to the office of respondents, he was a%%eged%y ad"ised to stop working and ha"e a rest.
He thus fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. -he company maintains that 7e%chor was not
i%%ega%%y dismissed, there being in the first p%ace no emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship between
them. Cs there an emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship under the boundary system)
A. -he emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship was deemed to e0ist. HMartine! v" #$C%
-he re%ationship of ta0i owners and ta0i dri"ers is the same as that between ,eepney
owners and ,eepney dri"ers under the Eboundary systemF. -he ta0i operator e0ercises
contro% o"er the dri"er. Cn 7artineD " /<B. this court a%ready ru%ed that the re%ationship of
ta0i owners and ta0i dri"ers is the same as that between ,eepney owners and ,eepney
dri"ers under the Eboundary system.F Cn both cases the emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship
was deemed to e0ist, "iD: E-he re%ationship between ,eepney ownersSoperators on one hand
and ,eepney dri"ers on the other under the boundary system is that of emp%oyer'emp%oyee
and not of %essor'%essee.000 -hus, pri"ate respondent were emp%oyees 000 because they
had been engaged to perform acti"ities which were usua%%y necessary or desirab%e in the
usua% trade or business of the emp%oyer. (P2ui# 4rns7#rt C#r7#rti#n v NLRC, 2!-
SCRA '3"
Q. 7onera% Anda% app%ied with : Q 7 5hi%s. Cnc. for an o"erseas emp%oyment as a domestic
he%per in Biyadh 6=A. =he was hired for a term of 3 years H11'11I at a month%y basic
sa%ary of T322.22. Howe"er, she was repatriated on 11 Jan 13. >pon her repatriation she
fi%ed a comp%aint before the 5?@A for i%%ega% dismissa%, non'payment and underpayment of
sa%aries. Cmp%eaded as co'respondent in the comp%aint was @mpire Cnsurance HpetitionerI, in its
capacity as the surety of : Q 7. Cs @mpire so%idari%y %iab%e for the payment of the emp%oyee+s
monetary c%aims)
A. *es. 5etitioner is so%idari%y %iab%e with its principa%. (hen @mpire entered into suretyship
agreement with : Q 7 5hi%s Cnc it bound itse%f to answer for the debt or defau%t of the
%atter. (here the surety bound itse%f so%idari%y with the principa% ob%igor, the former is so
dependent on the principa% debtor such that the surety is considered in %aw as being the
same party as the debtor in re%ation to whate"er is ad,udged touching the ob%igation of
the %atter, and the %iabi%ities are interwo"en as to be inseparab%e. -he purpose of the
re&uired bond is to insure that the rights of the o"erseas are "io%ated by their emp%oyer
recourse wou%d sti%% be a"ai%ab%e to them against the %oca% companies that recruited them
for the foreign principa%" (Em7ire Insurnce C#m7ny v NLRC, 2!- SCRA 2'3"
Q. 5ri"ate respondent is =amue% <. Bang%oy was a production super"isor and radio
commentator of the 8LJ.'A7 radio station in <aoag .ity, owned by 7B.. Bang%oy
subse&uent%y app%ied for a %ea"e of absence in order to run for Board 7ember in C%ocos /orte.
-he company %ater on informed him that, as a matter of company po%icy, any emp%oyee who fi%es
a certificate of candidacy for any e%ecti"e nationa% or %oca% office wou%d be considered resigned
from the company. Bang%oy nonethe%ess ran, but %ost. /either was he permitted to return to
work. Cs 7B.+s po%icy that any emp%oyee who is running for e%ecti"e pub%ic position sha%% be
considered to ha"e "o%untari%y terminated his emp%oyment re%ations "a%id)

A. -he po%icy is ,ustified. (orking for the go"ernment and the company at the same time is
c%ear%y disad"antageous and pre,udicia% to the rights and interest not on%y of the company
but the pub%ic as we%%. Cn the e"ent that the emp%oyee %oses in the e%ection, the impartia%ity
and co%d neutra%ity of an emp%oyee as broadcast persona%ity is suspect, thus readi%y
eroding and ad"erse%y affecting the confidence and trust of the %istening pub%ic to
emp%oyer+s station. As such, the dismissa% is ,ustified. An emp%oyee may be dismissed for
wi%%fu% disobedience of the %awfu% orders of his emp%oyer in connection with his work.
(0ni$ @r#%cstin2 C#m7ny v NLRC, 2!- SCRA -)'"
Q. (hat are the re&uirements for a "a%id c%osure due to retrenchment)
A. -he fo%%owing re&uirements must be met to ,ustify retrenchment. 9irst, the %oss shou%d be
substantia% and not mere%y de minimis. =econd, the %oss must be reasonab%y imminent,
percei"ed ob,ecti"e%y and in good faith by the emp%oyer. Cn other words, there shou%d be a
certain degree of urgency for the retrenchment. -hird, the retrenchment must be reasonab%y
necessary and %ike%y to effecti"e%y pre"ent the e0pected %osses. 9ourth, the emp%oyer shou%d
ha"e taken other measures prior or para%%e% to retrenchment to foresta%% %osses, so retrenchment
may on%y be undertaken as a %ast resort. 9ina%%y, the a%%eged %osses if a%ready rea%iDed, and the
e0pected imminent %osses to be foresta%%ed must be pro"en by sufficient e"idence. (Stin$ess
Stee$ C#r7#rti#n v. NLRC, 11 0rc8 1!!)"
Q. Gictoria Abri% was emp%oyed by 59..C in different capacities from 1!3'1!!, unti% she went
on maternity %ea"e. >pon her return in 1!, she disco"ered that another person had been
appointed to her former position. /e"erthe%ess, she accepted another position as e"idenced by
a contract which stipu%ated that her emp%oyment wou%d be probationary for a period of # months.
After the period e%apsed, she continued to work unti% she and her emp%oyer entered into another
emp%oyment contract for a period of 1 year, after which her emp%oyment was terminated. Abri%
fi%ed a case for i%%ega% dismissa%. 59..C c%aims that her appointment had been fi0ed for a
specific pro,ect, and shou%d therefore be considered as causa% or contractua% emp%oyment under
Artic%e 3!2 of the <abor .ode. (as Abri%Ks termination "a%id) Cs she a regu%ar emp%oyee)
A. Artic%e 3!1 of the <abor .ode a%%ows the emp%oyer to secure the ser"ices of an emp%oyee on
a probationary basis U a%%owing the emp%oyer to terminate the %atter for ,ust cause or upon fai%ure
to &ua%ify in accordance with reasonab%e standards set forth by the emp%oyer at the time of his
emp%oyment. A probationary emp%oyee is one who is on tria% by an emp%oyer during which the
emp%oyer determines whether or not he is &ua%ified for permanent emp%oyment. 5robationary
emp%oyees, notwithstanding their %imited tenure, are a%so entit%ed to security of tenure. -hus,
e0cept for ,ust cause as pro"ided by %aw, or under the emp%oyment contract a probationary
emp%oyee cannot be terminated.
>nder Artic%e 3!2 of the <abor .ode, there are 1 kinds of emp%oyees: regu%ar, pro,ect
and casua% emp%oyees. (ith respect to contractua% emp%oyees, stipu%ations in emp%oyment
contracts pro"iding for term emp%oyment are "a%id when the period was agreed upon knowing%y
and "o%untari%y by the parties without force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear
upon the emp%oyee, and absent any other circumstances "itiating his consent, or where is
satisfactori%y appears that the emp%oyer and emp%oyee dea%t with each other in more or %ess
e&ua% terms.
-he present emp%oyment contract entered into initia%%y pro"ides that the period of
emp%oyment is for a fi0ed period. Howe"er, the succeeding pro"isions contradicted the same
when it pro"ided that respondent wou%d be under probationary status. :i"en the ambiguity in the
contract, and fo%%owing the pronouncement in Gi%%anue"a ". /<B. H12 =ept. 1!I, where a
contract of emp%oyment, being a contract of adhesion, is ambiguous, any ambiguity therein
shou%d be construed strict%y against the party who prepared it. 9urthermore, a%% %abor contracts
shou%d be construed in fa"or of the %aborer, pursuant to Artic%e 1423 of the .i"i% .ode. -hus,
notwithstanding the designation made by 59..C, ha"ing comp%eted the probationary period and
a%%owed to work thereafter, Abri% became a regu%ar emp%oyee who may be dismissed on%y for ,ust
or authoriDed causes under the <abor .ode. Hence, the dismissa%, premised on the e0piration of
the contract, is i%%ega%. HP8i$. ;e%erti#n #1 Cre%it C##7ertives v. NLRC, 300 SCRA 72, 11
&ecem+er 1!!)"
Q. X was dismissed by her emp%oyer, 9-H. >pon her dismissa%, 9-H withhe%d 1; days worth of
her sa%ary, and app%ied it to a X+s persona% %oan to the company+s genera% manager. Both the
%abor arbiter and the /<B. appro"ed the deduction of the amount of the persona% %oan from X+s
sa%ary. Cs this action of the %abor arbiter correct)
A. Artic%e 314 of the <abor .ode %imits the ,urisdiction of %abor arbiters to:
HaI unfair %abor practice cases$
HbI termination disputes
HcI if accompanied by a c%aim for reinstatement, cases in"o%"ing wages, rates of pay, hours of
work, and other terms and conditions of emp%oyment
HdI c%aims for actua%, mora%, e0emp%ary and other forms of damages arising from the emp%oyer'
emp%oyee re%ations
HeI cases arising from "io%ations of Artic%e 3#J of the <abor .ode, inc%uding &uestions on the
%ega%ity of strikes and %ockouts
HfI a%% other c%aims from emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ations, inc%uding those of persons in
domesticShouseho%d ser"ice in"o%"ing an amount not e0ceeding 5;,222 regard%ess of whether
accompanied by a c%aim for reinstatement He0cept for c%aims of @mp%oyees .ompensation, ===,
7edicare and maternity benefitsI
As the persona% %oan did not arise from the emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship, said %oan
is not within the ambit of the <abor ArbiterKs ,urisdiction. 7oreo"er, fo%%owing Artic%e 314 of the
<abor .ode, if a c%aim does not fa%% within the e0c%usi"e origina% ,urisdiction of the %abor arbiter,
the /<B. cannot ha"e appe%%ate ,urisdiction therein. -hus, the garnishment of @spinoKs sa%ary
was disregarded. H;##% 4r%ers /#use v. NLRC, 300 SCRA 3'0, 21 &ecem+er 1!!)"
Q. Cn a case for i%%ega% dismissa%, the <abor Arbiter found the dismissa% of X un,ustified, and
ordered the emp%oyer to reinstate X with fu%% backwages. ?n appea% by the company, the /<B.
re"ersed the %abor arbiter+s decision, in effect finding the termination %ega%. Howe"er, the /<B.
ordered the emp%oyer to pay X+s wages from 3; January 11 Hdate of fi%ing the appea% with the
/<B.I up to 31 =eptember 11 Hpromu%gation of the /<B. decisionI, pursuant to Artic%e 331
of the <abor .ode. >nder Artic%e 331 of the <abor .ode, the emp%oyer found to ha"e i%%ega%%y
dismissed an emp%oyee is re&uired to reinstate the emp%oyee either actua%%y or through payro%% at
the emp%oyerKs option. 8oes this re&uirement need e0ecution of enforcement) ?r was the <AKs
decision immediate%y se%f'e0ecutory)
A. (hi%e the interpretation of Artic%e 331 has been di"ergent, the .ourt in the 14 5ioneer
.ase %aid down the doctrine that henceforth an award or order for reinstatement is se%f'
e0ecutory, and does not re&uire a writ of e0ecution, much %ess a motion for its issuance. Artic%e
33J on%y app%ies to fina% and e0ecutory decisions which are not within the co"erage of Artic%e
331. -hus, the emp%oyer was bound to either re'admit X or inc%ude him in the payro%%, and inform
X of its choice in order to enab%e him to act according%y. 9ai%ing to e0ercise these options, the
company must pay his sa%ary, which automatica%%y accrued from notice of the <AKs order unti% its
re"ersa% by the /<B.. Internti#n$ C#ntiner 4ermin$ Services, Inc. v. NLRC 300 SCRA
333 (21 &ecem+er 1!!)"
Q. @duardo 9e%ipe, emp%oyee of Hyundai @ngineering and .onstruction .o., through its %oca%
agent ?manfi%, perished in an accident. Hyundai deposited 1J,J22 7a%aysian Binggit as 9e%ipeKs
death benefits in the 7e%acca %abor office. -his was done pursuant to =ection ! of 7a%aysiaKs
%abor %aw, which pro"ides that death benefits in a %ump sum e&ua% to J; months earnings
HT34,23.23I or 7B 1J,J22 sha%% be awarded, whiche"er is %ess. 9e%ipeKs widow a%%eged that the
amount shou%d be >=T34,23.23, and that the deposit made by Hyundai to the 7e%acca %abor
office did not constitute payment. (hat amount is the 9e%ipe fami%y entit%ed to)
A. -he 9e%ipeKs are entit%ed to 7B 1J,J22, in comp%iance with the pro"isions of 7a%aysiaKs %abor
%aw. A manning agency cannot be fau%ted for fo%%owing app%icab%e foreign %aw. As a resu%t,
?manfi% has discharged its monetary ob%igation to 7rs. 9e%ipe. H<mn1i$ Internti#n$
0n7#9er &evt. C#r7 v. NLRC, 300 SCRA -3- ,22 &ecem+er 1!!)"

Q. X was one of the 3 emp%oyees of :andara 7i%% =upp%y. Cn 9ebruary 1;, X did not report to
work for 3 weeks, and when he returned, he was informed that someone had been hired to
rep%ace him. Howe"er he was ad"ised that he was to be readmitted in June of 1#. (as there
an i%%ega% dismissa%)
A. Admitted%y, it is unc%ear whether respondent was actua%%y dismissed. Howe"er, there is no
indication that he was to be reinstated. Cn effect, the offer to re'admit :ermano was mere%y a
gesture used to mitigate the impact of his e0tended suspension. -his is contrary to the e0p%icit
pro"isions of the <abor .ode, which pro"ide that no pre"enti"e suspension shou%d %ast more
than 12 days. As the supposed suspension was e0pected to %ast for more than the period
a%%owed by %aw, the suspension constitutes an i%%ega% dismissa%.
@"en assuming that XKs absence caused difficu%ty to the company, his dismissa% was
unwarranted. :i"en the constitutiona% mandate of protection to %abor, the rigid ru%es of procedure
may sometimes be dispensed with to gi"e room for compassion. Cn ca%%ing for the protection of
%abor, the .onstitution does not condone wrongdoing by the emp%oyee, it ne"erthe%ess urges a
moderation of the sanctions to be app%ied, in the %ight of the many disad"antages of %aborers.
HGn%r 0i$$ Su77$y v. NLRC, 300 SCRA 702, 2! &ecem+er 1!!)"

Q. -he offices and factory of 7aster =hirt .o. were burned, so the company had to cease
operations. 7anagement and the union he%d a conference with the /.7B, where they agreed
that the company wou%d try to resume operations A=A5, but if this did not occur within # months,
the workers wou%d be paid their corresponding separation benefits. After # months, the company
fai%ed to resume operations, but the company refused to grant separation pay, for it had not
reco"ered on their c%aim for damages against their insurance company. -he union and its
members fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%, separation pay and damages against 7ani%a
=hirt .o. Are the emp%oyees entit%ed to separation pay)
A. =eparation pay is paid to an emp%oyee whose ser"ices are "a%id%y terminated as a resu%t of
retrenchment, suspension, c%osure of business or disease. C- does not necessari%y fo%%ow that if
there is no i%%ega% dismissa%, no award of separation pay may be made. -he basis for the award
in this case is the agreement entered into between the company and the emp%oyees. -he
agreement is the %aw between the parties and must be enforced. -he c%aim for damages is
una"ai%ing, in the absence of ma%ice or bad faith. (0ster S8irt C#. v. NLRC, 300 SCRA '-!,
2! &ecem+er 1!!)"

Thank &ou to Cris, 'umi, Andrew and (ten"

1!!7 CASES
Q. Cn an i%%ega% dismissa% case, the <abor Arbiter ru%ed in fa"or of the comp%ainant and ordered
his reinstatement. -he emp%oyer appea%ed. Befusing to reinstate the worker pending appea%,
the emp%oyer c%aims that the order of reinstatement needs a writ of e0ecution. -he emp%oyer
further maintains that e"en if a writ of e0ecution was issued, a time%y appea% coup%ed by the
posting of appropriate supersedeas bond effecti"e%y foresta%%ed and stayed the e0ecution of the
<abor Arbiter+s reinstatement order. Cs the emp%oyer+s contention correct)
A. /o, the emp%oyer+s contention is erroneous. -he %aw as now worded emp%oys the phrase
Esha%% immediate%y be e0ecutoryF without &ua%ification emphasiDing the need for prompt
comp%iance. -he term Esha%%F denotes an imperati"e ob%igation and is inconsistent with the idea
of discretion. -he <abor Arbiter+s order of reinstatement does not need a writ of e0ecution. Ct
is se%f'e0ecutory. -he posting of a bond by the emp%oyer sha%% not stay the e0ecution for
reinstatement. After receipt of the decision ordering reinstatement, the emp%oyer has the right
to chose whether to re'admit the emp%oyee to work under the same terms and conditions
pre"ai%ing prior to his dismissa% or to reinstate the emp%oyee in the payro%%. Cn either instance,
the emp%oyer has to inform the emp%oyee of his choice. (Pi#neer 4e:turiEin2 C#r7. v. NLRC,
2)0 SCRA )0', <ct#+er 1', 1!!7"
Q. (hen can B.A. /o. 4#J1 HBetirement 5ay <awI, which took effect on January 4, 11, be
gi"en retroacti"e effect)
A. B.A. 4#J1 may be gi"en retroacti"e effect where H1I the c%aimant for retirement benefits was
sti%% the emp%oyee of the emp%oyer at the time the statute took effect$ and H3I the c%aimant was in
comp%iance with the re&uirements for e%igibi%ity under the statute for such retirement benefits.
-hus, the %aw can app%y to %abor contracts sti%% e0isting at the time the statute took effect and its
benefits can be reckoned not on%y from the date of the %aw+s enactment but retroacti"e%y to the
time said emp%oyment contracts ha"e started. (C+c+n v. NLRC, 277 SCRA '71, Au2ust
1), 1!!7"
Q. An insurance agent was re&uired to so%icit business e0c%usi"e%y for A95 7utua% Benefit
Association, Cnc. pursuant to an Cnsurance .ommission regu%ation. He was a%so bound by
company po%icies, memoScircu%ars, ru%es and regu%ations issued by the company re%ating to
payment of the agent+s accountabi%ities, a"ai%ment by the agent of cash ad"ances, incenti"es
and awards, and other matters concerning the se%%ing of insurance, in accordance with the ru%es
promu%gated by the Cnsurance .ommission. :i"en this set of facts, can the insurance agent
be considered an emp%oyee of the company)
A. /o, the facts are not sufficient to support the conc%usion that there e0ists an emp%oyer'
emp%oyee re%ationship between the agent and the company. -he significant factor in
determining the re%ationship of the parties is the presence or absence of super"isory authority to
contro% the method and the detai%s of performance of the ser"ice being rendered, and the
degree to which the principa% may inter"ene to e0ercise such contro%. /ot e"ery form of contro%,
howe"er, may be accorded the effect of estab%ishing an emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship.
-here is a difference between ru%es that mere%y ser"e as guide%ines towards the achie"ement of
the mutua%%y desired resu%t without dictating the means or methods to be emp%oyed in attaining
it, and those that contro% or fi0 the methodo%ogy and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of
such means. -he first, which aim on%y to promote the resu%t, create no emp%oyer'emp%oyee
re%ationship un%ike the second, which address both the resu%t and the means used to achie"e it.
Cn this case, the ru%es that the agent shou%d fo%%ow mere%y aim to promote the resu%t desired,
primari%y to conform to the re&uirements of the Cnsurance .ommission. (A;P 0utu$ @ene1it
Ass#citi#n v. NLRC, 2'7 SCRA -7, Jnury 2), 1!!7"
Q. An emp%oyer appea%ed from the <abor Arbiter+s decision. Cnstead of posting cash or surety
bond, the emp%oyer posted a Bea% @state Bond consisting of %and and "arious impro"ements.
Cs such property bond a%%owed)
A. (hi%e Artic%e 331 of the <abor .ode pro"ides that an appea% by the emp%oyer may be
perfected on%y upon the posting of cash or surety bond, this pro"ision shou%d be gi"en a %ibera%
interpretation. -his po%icy stresses the importance of deciding cases on the basis of their
substanti"e merit and not on strict technica% ru%es. (hen the rea% property bond sufficient%y
protects the interests of the workers shou%d they fina%%y pre"ai%, the appea% shou%d be a%%owed.
(5ER0(0em#ri$ 0e%ic$ Center v. NLRC, 2'! SCRA 70, 0rc8 3, 1!!7"
Q. .9-C, a c%ose fami%y corporation owned by the /aguiat fami%y, stopped its ta0i business within
.%ark Air Base because of the phase'out of >.=. mi%itary presence at the said insta%%ation. Cn
an i%%ega% dismissa% comp%aint fi%ed by .9-C+s dismissed emp%oyees, the <abor Arbiter ru%ed that
=ergio /aguiat, .9-C+s president who had acti"e%y engaged in the management and operation
of the corporation, was so%idari%y %iab%e with .9-C for the separation pay due the emp%oyees. Cs
the <abor Arbiter+s ru%ing correct)
A. *es, the ru%ing is correct. =ergio /aguiat can be he%d so%idari%y %iab%e with the corporation.
9irst, as the president of .9-C who acti"e%y managed the business, /aguiat fa%%s within the
meaning of an Eemp%oyerF as contemp%ated by the <abor .ode, who may be he%d ,oint%y and
se"era%%y %iab%e for the ob%igations of the corporation to its dismissed emp%oyees. =econd,
=ection 122 of the .orporation .ode states that stockho%ders acti"e%y engaged in the
management or operation of the business of a c%ose corporation sha%% be persona%%y %iab%e for
corporate torts un%ess the corporation has obtained reasonab%y ade&uate %iabi%ity insurance.
-ort is a breach of a %ega% duty. =ince the <abor .ode mandates the payment of separation pay
to emp%oyees in case of c%osure or cessation of operations not due to business %osses, fai%ure to
comp%y with this %aw'imposed duty can be considered a Ecorporate tortF. Hence, pursuant to the
.orporation .ode, /aguiat shou%d be he%d so%idari%y %iab%e for this corporate tort. Cn this case,
the ru%e that a corporate officer cannot be he%d so%idari%y %iab%e with a corporation in the absence
of e"idence that he acted in bad faith is not app%icab%e. (N2uit v. NLRC, 2'! SCRA 3'-,
0rc8 13, 1!!7"
XXX)n another case, the Court held:
-he fictiona% "ei% of a corporation can be pierced by the "ery same %aw which created it
when Ethe notion of the %ega% entity is used as a means to perpetrate fraud, an i%%ega% act, as a
"ehic%e for the e"asion of an e0isting ob%igation, and to confuse %egitimate issues.F >nder the
<abor .ode, for instance, when a corporation "io%ates a pro"ision dec%ared to be pena% in
nature, the pena%ty sha%% be imposed upon the gui%ty officer or officers of the corporation.
-o ,ustify so%idary %iabi%ity, there must be an a%%egation or showing that the officers of the
corporation de%iberate%y or ma%icious%y designed to e"ade the financia% ob%igation of the
corporation to its emp%oyees, or a showing that the officers indiscriminate%y stopped its business
to perpetrate an i%%ega% act, as a "ehic%e for the e"asion of e0isting ob%igations, in circum"ention
of statutes, and to confuse %egitimate issues. (Re8s C#r7#rti#n v. NLRC, 271 SCRA 2-7,
A7ri$ 13, 1!!7"
Q. 5urificacion was a founding member, a member of the Board of -rustees, and the corporate
secretary of pamana :o%den .are 7edica% .enter 9oundation, a non'stock corporation engaged
in e0tending medica% and surgica% ser"ices. Cn 12, the Board of -rustees issued a
memorandum appointing 5urificacion as 7edica% 8irector and Hospita% Administrator of the
foundation+s medica% center. A medica% director and aa hospita% administrator are considered as
corporate officers under the foundation+s by'%aws. (hen the Board of -rustees re%ie"ed
5urificacion of her position as 7edica% 8irector and Hospita% Administrator, she fi%ed a comp%aint
for i%%ega% dismissa% and non'payment of wages before the <abor Arbiter. 8oes the <abor Arbiter
ha"e ,urisdiction o"er the case)
A. /o, the <abor Arbiter has no ,urisdiction o"er the case. -he =ecurities and @0change
.ommission has ,urisdiction. -he charges fi%ed by 5urificacion partake of the nature of an intra'
corporate contro"ersy. An EofficeF is created by the charter of the corporation and the officer is
e%ected by the directors or stockho%ders. ?n the other hand, an Eemp%oyeeF usua%%y occupies no
office and genera%%y is emp%oyed not by action of the directors or stockho%ders but by the
managing officer of the corporation who a%so determines the compensation to be paid such
emp%oyee. Cn this case, 5urificacion was appointed by the Board of -rustees to offices stated in
the by'%aws. =he is deemed an officer of the corpporation. An officer+s dismissa% is a%ways a
corporate act, or an intra'corporate contro"ersy, and the nature is not a%tered by the reason or
wisdom which the Board of 8irectors may ha"e in taking such action. -he &uestion of
remuneration of an officer is %ikewise not a simp%e %abor prob%em but a matter that comes within
the area of corporate affairs and management and is a corporate contro"ersy. (4+n2 v.
NLRC, 2'' SCRA -'2, Jnury 21, 1!!7"
Q. Beformist >nion, a %abor union staged a strike against B.B. <iner in 1!. B.B. <iner
petitioned the =ecretary of <abor to assume ,urisdiction o"er the dispute or certify it to the
/<B.. -he =ecretary certified the case to the /<B. for compu%sory arbitration. -he certified
case was dismissed after the union and the company reached an agreement pro"iding, among
others, for the ho%ding of a certification e%ection. <ater, when the union fi%ed a comp%aint for
unfair %abor practice against the company, i.e. i%%ega% %ockout that a%%eged%y took p%ace after the
strike and the e%ection, B.B. <iner countered with another case that sought to dec%are the 1!
strike i%%ega%. .an the company sti%% contest the %ega%ity of the 1! strike)
A. /o, the company can no %onger contest the %ega%ity of the strike. -he company itse%f sought
compu%sory arbitration in order to reso%"e that "ery issue. -he dispute or strike was sett%ed
when the company and the union entered into an agreement. By acceding to the peacefu%
sett%ement brokered by the /<B., the company wai"ed the issue of the i%%ega%ity of the strike.
-he "ery nature of compu%sory arbitration makes the sett%ement binding upon the company.
.ompu%sory arbitration has been defined both as Ethe process of sett%ement of %abor disputes by
a go"ernment agency which has the authority to in"estigate and to make an award which is
binding on a%% the parties,F and as a mode of arbitration where the parties are Ecompe%%ed to
accept the reso%ution of their dispute through arbitration by a third party.F .%ear%y, the %ega%ity of
the strike can no %onger be re"iewed. (Re1#rmist 5ni#n #1 R.@. Liner, Inc. v. NLRC, 2''
SCRA 713, Jnury 27, 1!!7"
Q. 9rom 1;1 unti% 11, Honorio worked as maintenance man, carpenter, p%umber, e%ectrician
and mason at the -an,angco apartments and residentia% bui%dings. Cn short, he took charge of
the maintenance and repair of the bui%dings. He reported for work from 4:22 a.m. to J:22 p.m..
He earned 51!2 a day H%atest sa%aryI. (hen Honorio fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%,
-an,angco c%aimed that Honorio was an independent contractor. -an,angco further c%aimed
that e"en assuming that Honorio can be considered an emp%oyee, he was mere%y a pro,ect
emp%oyee whose ser"ices were hired on%y with respect to a specific ,ob and on%y whi%e the same
e0ists.
HaI ?n the basis of this set of facts, can Honorio be considered an independent contractor)
A. /o, Honorio was not an independent contractor but an emp%oyee of -an,angco. He was not
compensated in terms of profits for his %abor orser"ices %ike an independent contractor. Bather,
he was paid on a dai%y wage basis. Ct is absurd to e0pect that with such humb%e resources,
Honorio wou%%d ha"e substantia% capita% or in"estment in the form of too%s, e&uipment, and
machineries with which to conduct the business of supp%ying -an,angco with manpower and
ser"ices for maintaining the apartments and bui%dings. -he most important re&uisite of contro%
that determines the e0istence of an emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship is present. -he power of
contro% refers mere%y to the e0istence of the power and not to the actua% e0ercise thereof.
/atura%%y, Honorio+s work as maintenance man had to be performed within the premises of
-an,angco. Ct is not far'fetched to e0pect that Honorio had to obser"e the instructions and
specifications gi"en by -an,angco as to how his work had to be performed. -an,angco cou%d
easi%y e0ercise contro% on Honorio.
HbI (hat kind of an emp%oyee is Honorio)
A. Honorio is a regu%ar emp%oyee. -here are two kinds of regu%ar emp%oyees: H1I those who are
engaged to perform acti"ities which are usua%%y necessary or desirab%e in the usua% trade or
business of the emp%oyer$ and H3I those who ha"e rendered at %east one year of ser"ice,
whether continuous or broken, with respect to the acti"ity in which they are emp%oyed.
(hiche"er standard is app%ied, Honorio &ua%ifies as a regu%ar emp%oyee. Honorio cannot be
considered a pro,ect emp%oyee. Cf he was emp%oyed as a pro,ect emp%oyee, -an,angco shou%d
ha"e submitted a report of termination to the nearest pub%ic emp%oyment office e"erytime his
emp%oyment is terminated due to comp%etion of each pro,ect, as re&uired by 5o%icy Cnstruction
/o. 32. -here shou%d ha"e been fi%ed as many reports of termination as there were pro,ects
actua%%y finished. (Aur#r Ln% Pr#Fects C#r7. v. NLRC, 2'' SCRA -), Jnury 2, 1!!7"
Q. Antonio was hired by ?rient @0press as crane operator sub,ect to a 1'month probationary
period. After on%y one month and fi"e days, he was dismissed. (hen he fi%ed a comp%aint for
i%%ega% dismissa%, ?rient @0press c%aimed that he was terminated for poor ,ob performance.
?rient @0press did not inform Antonio about the standards of work re&uired of him by which his
competency wou%d be ad,udged. (hen he was dismissed, ?rient @0press did not point out the
reasonab%e standards of work by which he was e"a%uated and how he fai%ed to %i"e up to such
standards. Cs the dismissa% "a%id)
A. /o, the dismissa% is not "a%id. -he ser"ices of an emp%oyee hired on a probationary basis
may be terminated when he fai%s to &ua%ify as a regu%ar emp%oyee in accordance with
reasonab%e standards made known by the emp%oyer to the emp%oyee at the time of his
engagement. Antonio+s dismissa% cannot be sustained on this ground because ?rient @0press
fai%ed to specify the reasonab%e standards by which Antonio+s a%%eged poor performance was
e"a%uated, much %ess to pro"e that such standards were made known to him at the time of his
recruitment. (<rient E:7ress P$cement P8i$i77ines v. NLRC, 273 SCRA 23', June 11,
1!!7"
Q. .api%i was an instructor of a pri"ate educationa% institution. Cn 11, the schoo% informed
.api%i that he wou%d be e%igib%e for retirement when he wou%d reach the age of #2 years. .api%i
answered that he was not opting to retire but wou%d continue to ser"e unti% he reaches the age
of #;. (hen the schoo% reiterated its position that it cou%d retire him, .api%i fi%ed a comp%aint
&uestioning his forced retirement. <ater, after recei"ing the <abor Arbiter+s decision but before
fi%ing his appea%, .api%i recei"ed partia% payment of his retirement pay. 8uring the pendency of
his apppea% with the /<B., he recei"ed fu%% payment of his retirement benefiits.
HaI .an an emp%oyee be compe%%ed to retire at the age of si0ty years)
A. /o, an emp%oyee cannot be compe%%ed to retire at the age of si0ty years in the absence of a
pro"ision on retirement in the .BA or if the emp%oyer has no retirement p%an. >nder the <abor
.ode, as amended by B..A. /?. 4#J1, the option of the emp%oyer to retire an emp%oyee at age
#2 no %onger e0ists. >nder the present ru%e, the option to retire upon reaching the age of #2
years or more but not beyond #; is the e0c%usi"e prerogati"e of the emp%oyee if there is no
pro"ision on retirement in the .BA or any agreement or if the emp%oyer has no retirement p%an.
HbI (i%% the subse&uent acceptance of retirement benefits estop an emp%oyee
from pursuing his comp%aint &uestioning the "a%idity of his forced retirement)
A. *es, the acceptance of retirement benefits wi%% estop the emp%oyee from pursuing his case.
By accepting the retirement benefits, the emp%oyee is deemed to ha"e opted to retire under the
present ru%e stated abo"e. (C7i$i v. NLRC, 273 SCRA 37', June 17, 1!!7"
Q. .an an emp%oyee uni%atera%%y withdraw hisSher resignation)
A. /o, an emp%oyee cannot uni%atera%%y withdraw hisSher resignation. Besignation, once
accepted, may not be withdrawn without the consent of the emp%oyer. Cf the emp%oyer consents
to the withdrawa%, the emp%oyee retains the ,ob. Cf the emp%oyer does not, the emp%oyee cannot
c%aim i%%ega% dismissa%. -o say that an emp%oyee who has resigned is i%%ega%%y dismissed is to
encroach upon the right of the emp%oyers to hire persons who wi%% be of ser"ice to them. An
emp%oyment contract is consensua% and "o%untary. Cf the resignation is accepted by the
emp%oyer, its conse&uent effect is se"erance of the contract of emp%oyment. A resigned
emp%oyee who desires to take his ,ob back has to reapp%y therefor and cannot demand an
appointment. (P8i$i77ines 4#%y, Inc. v. NLRC, 2'7 SCRA 202, Jnury 30, 1!!7"
Q. .an the emp%oyer dismiss an emp%oyee who is aff%icted with pu%monary tubercu%osis)
A. *es, but on%y if there is a prior certification from a competent pub%ic authority that the disease
aff%icting the emp%oyee sought to be dismissed is of such nature or at such stage that it cannot
be cured within si0 H#I months e"en with proper medica% treatment. -he fact that an emp%oyee
is suffering from a disease and whose continued emp%oyment is prohibited by %aw or is
pre,udicia% to his hea%th as we%% as to that of his co'emp%oyees does not ipso facto make the
emp%oyee a candidate for dismissa%. (4n v. NLRC, 271 SCRA 21', A7ri$ 1-, 1!!7"
Q. Cn the proceedings before the <abor Arbiter, on%y the unregistered trade name of the
emp%oyerUcorporation, EHacienda <anutan,F and its administrator'manager were imp%eaded and
subse&uent%y he%d %iab%e for i%%ega% dismissa%. ?n appea%, the /<B. motu proprio inc%uded the
corporate name of the emp%oyer as ,oint%y and se"era%%y %iab%e for the workers+ c%aims. -here is
no dispute that Hacienda <anutan which was owned so%e%y by the emp%oyer'corporation was
imp%eaded and heard. Ct was represented by its corporate officer in the proceedings before the
<abor Arbiter. Cs the /<B.+s action ,ustified)
A. *es, the action is ,ustified. Cn &uasi',udicia% proceedings, procedura% ru%es go"erning ser"ice
of summons are not strict%y construed. =ubstantia% comp%iance thereof is sufficient. Cn %abor
cases, puncti%%ious adherence to stringent technica% ru%es may be re%a0ed in the interest of the
worker$ it shou%d not defeat the comp%ete and e&uitab%e reso%ution of the rights and ob%igations
of the parties. 9urthermore, the /<B. is gi"en the power to correct, amend, or wai"e any error,
defect or irregu%arity whether in the substance or in the form of the proceedings before it. -he
non'inc%usion of the corporate name of the emp%oyer was a mere procedura% error which did not
at a%% affect the ,urisdiction of the %abor tribuna%s. (Pis#n(Arce# A2ricu$tur$ n%
&eve$#7ment C#r7. v. NLRC, 27! SCRA 312, Se7tem+er 1), 1!!7"
-he =tate is bound under the .onstitution to afford fu%% protection to %abor and when conf%icting
interests of %abor and capita% are to be weighed
on the sca%es of socia% ,ustice
the hea"ier inf%uence of the %atter shou%d be counterba%anced
with the sympathy and compassion
the %aw accords the %ess pri"i%eged worker.
-his is on%y fair
if the worker is to be gi"en the opportunity and the right
to assert and defend hisSher cause
not as a subordinate
but as part of management with which heSshe can negotiate on e"en p%ane.
-hus %abor is not a mere emp%oyee of capita% but its acti"e and e&ua% partner.
(;uentes v. NLRC, 2'' SCRA 2-, Jnury 2, 1!!7"