LABOR STANDARDS LAW

CHAPTER IV
SPECIAL GROUP OF WORKERS
OR EMPLOYEES

salaries the amount of their loan

obligations
POEA rendered a decision in favor of
Hornales
On appeal, NLRC dismissed Hornales
complaint due to a non-existent
employer-employee
relationship
between the parties
Issue:

Prohibited Business Agencies & Entities

HORNALES
VS
NLRC
Facts:
- Petitioner Mario Hornales filed with
POEA a complaint for non-payment of
wages against JEAC International
Management & Contractor Services
and Jose Cayanan, its owner
- The complaint alleged JEAC sent
Hornales and several other Filipinos to
Singapore. Upon arrival, they were met
by Victor Lim, owner of Step-up
Employment Agency, who informed
them that they would be working as
fishermen with a monthly salary of $200
- On board the vessel, petitioner suffered
from maltreatment, inadequate food
and water supply, and lack of medical
assistance. The reasons which made
him join the other Filipinos in leaving
the vessel while it was docked at
Mauritius Islands
- Upon his return to the Philippines,
Hornales demanded his salaries from
Cayanan but instead he was given
P500 and required him to surrender his
passport, promising another job
- Private respondents claimed in their
answer that Lim and Hornales are total
strangers to them offering a Joint
Affidavit of Hornales co-workers in
Singapore, stating that Hornales did not
apply in any agency in the Philippines,
he came to Singapore as a turist and
that he applied directly and personally
with Step-Up Agency
- Hornales claimed that he was not a
total stranger to private respondents
and that he knew Cayanan since 1990,
when they used to go to the San
Lazaro Hippodrome to watch horse
races
- He further averred that while they were
at Mauritius Islands, Cayanan reminded
them of their loan obligations by
sending them photocopies of the PNB
- checks Cayanan issued in favor of their
relatives and the agreement whereby
they authorized Lim to deduct from their

Whether or not private respondents are

responsible for petitioners recruitment
and deployment to Singapore
Held:
-

Yes, they are responsible

Private respondents argued that they
cannot be held liable because there
was no employment contract between
him and Step-Up Agency that had been
approved by the POEA. They also
claim that the absence of a Special
Power of Attorney and an Affidavit of
Responsibility as required under Secs 1
and 2, Rule I, Book III of the POEA
Rules and Regulations only proves that
they did not deploy petitioner to
Singapore
Private respondents act of deploying
petitioner
to
Singapore
without
complying with the POEA requirements
only made them susceptible to
cancellation or suspension of license as
provided by section 2, Rule I, Book VI
of POEA Rules and Regulations:

Sec.
2.
Grounds
suspension/cancellation
license

for
of

M. Deploying workers whose

employment
and
travel
documents were not processed
by the Administration
N. Deploying workers or
seafarers to vessels/principals
not accredited

Illegal Recruitment: Undertaken by NonLicensees, Non-Holders

FACTOR, J.V.

PEOPLE
VS
DUJUA

Facts:
- The case at bar stemmed from two (2)
different complaints which share the
same information and allegations
- Private
respondents
represented
themselves to have the capacity to
contract, enlist and transport Filipinos
abroad, and could facilitate the
processing of the pertinent papers if
given the necessary amount to meet
the requirements
- Roberto Perlas, Beldon Caluten, Jaime
Cabus and Melodea Villanueva were
the only ones who testified among the
several people who were promised to
pay
processing
fees,
advance
payments and placement fees in
separate occasions
- Transactions were done in private
resppondents office, the World Pack
Travel and Tours in Manila
- Receipts were given although in
several transactions, it were no longer
issued
- On the promised dates of departure,
they were kept hanging and when they
would ask for a refund or follow-up on
their flights, private respondents would
respond that they will be able to leave
the following day
- When the flights and the promised jobs
did not materialize, they decided to file
separate complaints with the NBI
- Prosecution presented certifications
issued by the POEA, stating that
Ramon Dujua and World Pack Travel
and Tours are not licensed or
authorized by the POEA to recruit
workers abroad
- Ramon Dujua admitted having met
private complainants but denied that he
was a recruiter because he was only a
janitor, messenger and errand boy of
the company, World Pack Travel and
Tours, which is owned by his aunt,
Editha Singh and managed by his
mother, Rose Dujua, both of whom are
respondents to the case
- RTC rendered its decision against the
respondents
Issue:
Whether or not Ramon Dujua is guilty of illegal
recruitment in large scale
Held:

Ramon Dujua is guilty of

recruitment in large scale
The essential elements of
recruitment in large scale are:

illegal
illegal

1. the accused engages in

acts of recruitment and
placement
of
workers
defined under art. 13 (B) or
in any prohibited activities
under art. 34 of the Labor
Code;
2. the accused has not
complied
with
the
guidelines issued by the
secretary
of
labor,
particularly with respect to
the securing of a license or
an authority to recruit and
deploy
workers,
either
locally or overseas;
3. the accused commits the
unlawful acts against three
(3) or more persons,
individually or as a group;
-

First, Ramon Dujua was positively

identified as the recruiter by the
complainants
Seconds, he did not have any license
or authority to recruit persons for
overseas work and neither did his
employer-company
possess
such
license or authority
Third, it has been alleged and proven
that Ramon Dujua undertook the
recruitment of not less than three
persons

Jurisdiction: Labor Arbiter Over Money

Claims
FLOURISH MARITIME SHIPPING
VS
ALMANZOR
Facts:
- Donato Almanzor entered into a 2-year
employment contract with Flourish
Maritime Shipping as a fisherman with
monthly salary, free meals and
accommodation
- While he was deployed in Taiwan, an
incident happened wherein the master
of the vessel struck his dorsal part for
failing to obey his orders

FACTOR, J.V.

Almanzor requested for medical help

but the captain refused so he tried to
reach Lolita Uy, the manning agency
owner, who then talked to the master
Almanzor was repatriated back to the
Philippines where he would report to
petitioners and seek medical attention
after which he was declared fit to work
Petitioners promised that he would be
redeployed but due to his age of 49
years old, it was no longer possible
Almanzor filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and other monetary benefits
Petitioners countered that respondent
voluntarily resigned and returned to the
Philippines
The Labor Arbiter favored Almanzor
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the
Labor Arbiters decision
Petitioners elevated the matter to the
Court of Appeals but the latter agreed
with the Labor Arbiters decision
However, it modified the decision
increasing the monetary award in
accordance with sec 10 of RA 8042
Both the LA and NLRRC awarded an
amount equivalent to respondents
salary for 6 months (3 months for every
year) considering the two-year contract
and
he
was
dismissed
from
employment after 26 days of actual
work
The CA however, awarded 3 months
salary for the unexpired portion of the
contract which 1 year, 11 months and 4
days

Issue:
Whether or not respondent should be paid his
salaries for 14 months and 4 days
Held:
-

No, the interpretation of the CA is

incorrect
Money claims is covered by sec 10 of
RA 8042:
Section 10. Money Claims
In case of termination of
overseas employment without
just, valid or authorized cause
as defined by law or contract,
the worker shall be entitled to
the full reimbursement of his
placement fee with interest at
twelve percent (12%) per
annum, plus his salaries for the
unexpired
portion
of
his

employment contract for 3

months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is
less
-

In Marsanan Manning Agency vs

NLRC, the court held that the choice of
which amount to award an illegally
dismissed overseas contract worker,
whether his salaries for the unexpired
portion of his employment contract, or
three (3) months salary for every year
of the unexpired term, whichever is
less, comes into play when the
employment contract concerned has a
term of at least one (1) yeare or more
The three-month rule applies because
he only worked for 26 days and the
contract involves a 2-year period
Records shows that his actual
employment only lasted for 26 days,
applying the above provision and
considering that the employment
contract covers a two-year period, the
respondent is entitled to 6 months
salary

Apprentice:
Allowed
Employment
Requirement Program Approval
NITTO ENTERPRISES
VS
NLRC
Facts:
- Petitioner Nitto Enterprises hired
Roberto Capili as an apprentice
machinist, molder and core maker as
evidenced
by
an
apprenticeship
agreement for a period of six (6)
months with a daily wage rate of
P66.75 which was 75% of the
applicable minimum wage
- 2 events that occurred in the same day
triggered the case
- First, Capili who was handling a piece
of glass which he was working on
accidentally hit and injured the leg of an
office secretary
- Second, after office hours, Capili went
to the workshop which was not his work
station then operated one of the
machines without authority and injured
his left thumb
- Both the incidents caused the victims to
be sent to the hospital for treatment,
the payment of which was shouldered
by the company

FACTOR, J.V.

After the incidents, the company sent a

letter to Capili asking him to resign
Capili executed a Quitclaim and
Release in favor of Nitto
Thereafter, Capili filed before the NLRC
a complaint for illegal dismissal
The Labor Arbiter dismissed his claims
while the NLRC revered the LAs
decision

apprenticeship agreement can be

validly entered into
The act of filing the pproposed
apprenticeship program with the DOLE
is a preliminary step towards it final
approval and does not instantaneously
give rise to an employer-apprentice
relationship
Art
57
provides
the
aim
of
apprenticeship programs:

Issue:
Article 57.
(2)
To
establish
a
national
apprenticeship program through the
participation of employers, workers and
government
and
non-government
agencies; and

Whether or not Capili should be considered an

apprentice
Held:
-

Capili is not an apprentice but rather a

regular employee
The law is clear on this matter:

(3)
To
establish
standards for the
apprentices.

Art 61 of the Labor Code

Contents of apprenticeship
agreement. Apprenticeship
agreements, including the main
rates of apprentices, shall
conform to the rules issued by
the Minister of Labor and
Employment. The period of
apprenticeship shall not exceed
six months. Apprenticeship
agreements providing for wage
rates below the legal minimum
wage, may be entered into only
in
accordance
with
the
apprenticeship program duly
approved by the Minister of
Labor and Employment. The
Ministry shall develop standard
model
programs
of
apprenticeship.
-

In
the
case
at
bench,
the
apprenticeship
agreement
was
executed and submitted to the DOLE
on May 28, 1990 but it was only filed to
the DOLE on June 7, 1990
Notwithstanding
the
absence
of
approval by the DOLE, the agreement
was enforced the day it was signed
Petitioner did not comply with the
requirements for it is mandated that
apprenticeship agreements entered into
by the employer and apprentice shall
be entered only in accordance with the
apprenticeship program duly approved
the Minister of Labor of Employment
Prior approval by the DOLE of the
proposed apprenticeship program is a
condition sine quo non before an

apprenticeship
protection of

To translate such objectives, prior

approval of the DOLE to any
apprenticeship program has to be
secured as a condition sine qua non
before
any
such
apprenticeship
agreement can be fully enforced
The role of the DOLE cannot be
debased

Persons with
Privileges

Disabilities:

Rights

and

BERNARDO
VS
NLRC
Facts:
- Complainants are deaf-mutes who
were hired by Far East Bank and Trust
Co. as Money Sorters and Counters
through
an
agreement
called
Employment Contract for Handicapped
Workers.
- In the agreement, it is stated that the
contract will be for a period of six (6)
months. Renewable at the discretion of
the bank
- Respondent disclaimed the claim that
complainants were regular employees
because they were under special
employment arrangement and hired
due to pakiusap
- Also, through the pakiusap the tellers
were relieved of the counting task in
favor of deaf-mutes without creating
new positions as there is no such

FACTOR, J.V.

position as Money Sorter and Counter

in any bank in the country
The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled
against the petitioners
According to the NLRC, Art. 280 is not
the controlling provision but rather Art.
80
Furthermore, Magna Carta for Disabled
Persons was not applicable

Whether or not Magna Carta for Disabled

Persons should be applied in the case

principally in the recruitment of Filipino

workers, make and female, for
overseas placement,: challenged the
Constitutional validity of Department
Order No. 1 Guidelines Governing the
Temporary Suspension of Deployment
of Filipino Domestic and Household
Workers
According to PASEI, the measure is a
discrimination because it does not
apply to all Filipino workers but only to
domestic helpers and females with
similar skills
Solicitor General on behalf of the
respondents filed a Comment informing
the Court that the Labor Secretary
Drilon lifted the deployment ban in
several states

Issue:

Held:
-

Magna Carta for Disabled Persons or

RA 7277 and Art. 280 of the Labor
Code should be applied
Respondent entered into a contract
with a total of 56 handicapped workers,
37 of which was renewed. The renewal
of the contracts leads to the conclusion
that their tasks were beneficial and
necessary to the bank
This shows that they were qualified to
perform the responsibilities of their
positions because their disability did not
render them unqualified or unfit for the
tasks assigned to them
Magna Carta for Disabled Persons
mandates that a qualified disabled
employee should be given the same
terms and conditions of employment as
a qualified able-bodied person.
Section 5. Equal Opportunity
for Employment. No disabled
person shall be denied access
to opportunities for suitable
employment.
A
qualified
disabled employee shall be
subject to the same terms and
conditions of employment and
the
same
compensation,
privileges,
benefits,
fringe
benefits,
incentives
or
allowances as qualified able
bodied person

Women Under the Constitution

Philippine Association of Service Exporters
VS
Drilon
Facts:
- Philippine Association of Service
Exporters, Inc (PASEI), a firm engaged

Issue:
Whether or not Department Order No. 1
should be made unconstitutional due to
discrimination of sex
Held:
- The
Department
Order
is
not
unconstitutional
- The Department Order applies only to
female contract workers but it does
not make an undue discrimination
between sexes
- The Court is satisfied that the
classification made-the preference for
female workers due to maltreatment
especially the domestic servants, as
marked by physical and personal
abuse, rape and torture
- The Court finds the guidelines to be
applicable to all female domestic
overseas workers and does not apply
to all Filipina workers is not an
argument for unconstitutionality
- What the Constitution prohibits is the
singling out of a select person or group
of persons within an existing class, to
the prejudice of such a person or group
or resulting in an unfair advantage to
another person or group of persons
- Fernando
says:
Where
the
classification is based on such
distinctions that make a real difference
as infancy, sex, and stage of civilization
of minority groups, the better rule, it
would seem, is to recognize favorable
treatment. There would be an element
of unreasonableness if on the contrary
their status that calls for the law
ministering to their needs is made the
basis of discriminatory denial of equal

FACTOR, J.V.

protection. In the case at bar, the

assailed
Order
clearly
accords
protection to certain women workers,
and not the contrary

including
an
assurance
of
entitlement to tenurial security of all
workers
3.

Women Under the Constitution

Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co.
VS
NLRC
Facts:
- Grace de Guzman was initially hired by
petitioner as a reliever
- Under the agreement, her services will
immediately terminated once the
agreed period expires
- She was renewed several times as a
reliever and in the she the job
application she indicated that she was
single although she had contracted
marriage a few months earlier
- In two (2) successive agreements she
made the same representations that
she is single
- When petitioner learned about the
information, a letter was sent to de
Guzman to explain the discrepancies
- Respondent replied stating that she
was not aware of the companys policy
regarding married women
- Due to the issue, respondent was
dismissed from service which prompted
her to file a complaint for illegal
dismissal
- The Labor Arbiter and on appeal, both
the Labor Arbiter and NLRC favored de
Guzman
Issue:
Whether or not the companys policy is valid
Held:
-

The companys policy is invalid

The Constitution protects the disparity
of the genders in all phases:
1.

2.

Section 14, Article II on the

Declaration of Principles and State
Policies expressly recognizes the
role of women in nation-buuilding
and commands the State to
ensure,
at
all
times
the
fundamental equality before the
law of women and men
Section 3 of Article XIII requires
the State to afford full protection to
labor
and
to
promote
full
employment and equality of
employment opportunities for all,

Section 14 of Article XIII

mandates that the State shall
protect working women through
provisions for opportunities that
would enable them to reach their
full potential

Petitioners policy of not accepting or

considering as disqualified from work
any woman worker who contracts
marriage runs afoul of the test of, and
the
right
against,
discrimination,
afforded all women workers by our
labor laws and by no less than the
Constitution
Contrary to petitioners contention that
it dismissed de Guzman for her
dishonesty, record shows that it was
dissolved because of the companys
policy that married women are not
qualified for employment
In the memorandum sent to de
Guzman, it was clearly stated that
youre fully aware that the company is
not
accepting
married
women
employee, was it was verbally
instructed to you.
In the termination notice sent to de
Guzman she was made to understand
that the reason for her termination was
not simply because she concealed her
status but because she violated the
companys policy against marriage
De Guzman was practically forced by
the illegal company policy into
misrepresenting her civil status for fear
of being disqualified from work

Stipulation Against Marriage

DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF DETAILMAN
VS
GLAXO WELLCOME PHILIPPINES, INC
Facts:
- Petitioner Pedro Tecson was hired by
Glaxo as a medical representative
- Tecson
signed
a
contract
of
employment which stipulates that he
agrees to abide the existing company
rules
such
as
disclosure
to
management of any existing or future
relationship by consanguinity or affinity
with co-employees or employees of
competing drug companies and should

FACTOR, J.V.

management find that such relationship

poses a possible conflict of interest, to
resign
If management perceives a conflict of
interest or a potential conflict between
such relationship and the employees
employment with the company, the
management and the employee will
explore the possibility of a transfer to
another department in
a
noncounterchecking
position
or
preparation for employment outside the
company after six (6) months
Tecson entered into a relationship with
Bettsy, the branch coordinator of Astra,
a competitor of Glaxo, who he
eventually married
Before their marriage, he was reminded
by his District Manager regarding the
conflict of interest which his relationship
might endanger
Tecsons superiors informed him that
his marriage gave rise to a conflict of
interest and so he should decide who
among them should resign from their
jobs. Although they told him that they
wanted to retain him as much as
possible because he was performing
his job well
Tecson requested for time to comply
with the company policy because Astra
was planning to merge with Zeneca,
another drug company and his wife is
planning to avail of the redundancy
package
A few months after, Tecson requested
again for more time and so he applied
for a transfer in Glaxos milk division
thinking that Astra did not have the
same division, there will no longer a
problem
Glaxo transferred Tecson to another
city but the latter request to reconsider
decision which was denied
Tecson brought the issue to Glaxos
Grievance Committee but the company
remained firm with their decision
Tecson defied the order and continued
to act as a medical representative in his
previous area
During the pendency of the grievance
proceedings, he was paid his salary but
he was not issued samples and not
included in product conferences
The parties failed to resolve the
problem and submitted the matter for
voluntary arbitration
Glaxo offered Tecson a separation pay
but he declined it

Later on, the National Conciliation and

Mediation Board (NCMB) rendered
decision in favor of Glaxo
Tecson then filed a Petition for Review
with the Court of Appeals but the latter
assailed the decision of NCMB
A Motion for Reconsideration was filed
before the CA but the same was denied
Hence this petition

Issue:
Whether or not the stipulation against marriage
of the companys policy is violative of the equal
protection clause of the constitution
Held:
-

The challenged company policy does

not violate the equal protection clause
of the Constitution
It is a settled principle that the
commands of the equal protection
clause are addressed only to te state or
those acting under color of its authority
Glaxo possesses the right to protect its
economic interests cannot be denied.
No
less
than
the
Constitution
recognizes the right of enterprises to
adopt and enforce such a policy protect
its right to reasonable returns on
investments and to expansion and
growth
The prohibition against personal or
marital relationships with employees of
competitor companies upon Glaxos
employees is reasonable under the
circumstances because relationships of
that nature might compromise the
interests of the company
What the company merely seeks to
avoid is a conflict of interest between
the employee and the company that
may arise our of such relationships
As what the appellate court explained:

FACTOR, J.V.

The policy being questioned is not a

policy against marriage. An employee
of the company remains free to marry
anyone of his or her choosing. The
policy is not aimed at restricting a
personal prerogative that belongs only
to the individual. However, an
employees personal decision does not
detract the employer from exercising
management prerogatives to ensure
maximum
proft
and
business
success

Stipulation Against Marriage

It is logical to presume that, in the
absence
of
said
standards
or
regulations, which are as yet to be
established, the policy of respondent
against marriage is patently illegal. This
finds support in Section 9 of the
Constitution:

Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co.

VS
NLRC
Facts:
- Grace de Guzman was initially hired by
petitioner as a reliever
- Under the agreement, her services will
immediately terminated once the
agreed period expires
- She was renewed several times as a
reliever and in the she the job
application she indicated that she was
single although she had contracted
marriage a few months earlier
- In two (2) successive agreements she
made the same representations that
she is single
- When petitioner learned about the
information, a letter was sent to de
Guzman to explain the discrepancies
- Respondent replied stating that she
was not aware of the companys policy
regarding married women
- Due to the issue, respondent was
dismissed from service which prompted
her to file a complaint for illegal
dismissal
The Labor Arbiter and on appeal, both
the Labor Arbiter and NLRC favored de
Guzman
Issue:
Whether or not the companys
stipulation against marriage is void
-

Held:
The stipulation or policy in the nature of
that adopted by PT&T is void
The Labor Code states:
Art. 136. Stipulation against
marriage. it shall be unlawful
for an employer to require as a
condition of employment or
continuation of employment
that a woman shall not get
married,
or
to
stipulate
expressly or taxitly that upon
getting married, a woman
employee shall be deemed
resigned or separated, or to
actually dismiss, discharge,
discriminate
or
otherwise
prejudice a woman employee
merely by reason of marriage.

Section 9. The State shall

afford protection to labor, promote full
employment
and
equality
in
employment, ensure equal work
opportunities regardless of sex, race, or
creed, and regulate the relations
between workers and employees. The
State shall assure the rights of workers
to
self-organization,
collective
bargaining, security of tenure, and just
and humane conditions of work

Alien
Employment
Coverage; Exemption

Regulation:

ALMODIEL
VS
NLRC
Facts:
Farle P. Almodiel is a certified public
accountant who was hired as Cost
Account Manager of respondent
Raytheon Philippines
A few months after his hiring, he
recommended and submitted a Cost
Accounting/Finance
Reorganization,
affecting the whole finance group but
the same was disapproved by the
Controller
He was assured that if his position or
department which was a one-man
department becomes unable to deliver
the needed service, he would be given
a three (3) year advance notice
The standard cost accounting system
was installed and used at the Raytheon
plants
worldwide
and
as
a
consequence, the services of a Cost
Accounting Manager allegedly entailed
only the submission of periodic reports
that would use computerized forms
Petitioner was summoned by his boss
and was informed of the abolishment of
his position
He pleaded to be retained or
transferred to another department but
he was informed that the decision was
final and has already been submitted to
the DOLE

In the case of Zialcita, et al. vs PAL:

FACTOR, J.V.

Such notice triggered the petitioner to

file a complaint before the NLRC
- The Labor Arbited rendered a decision
in favor of the petitioner
- On appeal, the NLRC reversed the
decision
- Petitioner filed an instant petition and
claims that the functions of his position
were
absorbed
by
the
Payroll/Mis/Finance Department under
the management of Danny Ang Tan
Chai, a resident alien without any
working permit from the DOLE as
required by law
Issue:
Whether or not Danny Ang Tan Chais
employment is valid considering that he is a
resident alien

appealed the issuance of the said

permit and was granted on the ground
that there was no showing that there is
no person in the Philippines who is
competent, able and willing to perform
the services required nor that the hiring
of the Cone would redound to the
national interest
GMC filed a Motion for Reconsideration
but was denied

Issue:
Whether or not Cone should be issued an alien
employment permit
Held:
-

Cone should not be issued an alien

employment permit
Under Article 40 of the Labor Code, an
employer seeking employment of an
alien must first obtain an employment
permit from the Department of Labor
GMCs right to choose whom to employ
is limited by the statutory requirement
of an alien employment permit
The Labor Code empowers the Labor
Secretary to make a determination as
to the availability of the services of a
person in the Philippines who is
competent, able and willing at the time
of application to perform the services
for which an alien is desired.
Section 6 ( c), Rule XIV, Book I of the
Implementing Rules provides:

Held:
- Ang Tan Chais employment is valid
- Article 40 of the Labor Code which
requires employment permit refers to
non-resident aliens
- The employment permit is required for
entry into the country for employment
purposes
and
is
issued
after
determination of non-availability of a
person in the Philippines who is
competent, able and willing at the time
of application to perform the srvices for
which the alien is desired
- Since Ang Tan Chai is a resident alien,
he does not fall within the ambit of the
provision

Section
6.
Issuance
of
Employment Permit the
Secretary of Labor may issue
an employment permit to the
applicant based on:

Alien Employment Regulation: Conditions

for Grant of Permit, Denial
GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION
VS
TORRES

a) Compliance
by
the
applicant and his employer
with the requirements of
Section 2 hereof;

Facts:
- The NRC of the DOLE issued an Alien
Emplyment Permit in favor of petitioner
Earl Timothy Cone, a US citizen, as
sports consultant and assistant coach
for
petitioner
General
Milling
Corporation (GMC)
- GMC and Cone entered into a contract
of employment whereby the latter took
to coach the GMCs basketball team
- A month after, GMC requested for the
renewal of Cones permit and that he
be allowed to employ Cone as fullfledged Coach, which was granted
- Private respondent Basketball Coaches
Association of the Philippines (BCAP)

FACTOR, J.V.

b) Report of the Bureau

Director
as
to
the
availability r non-availability
of any person in the
Philippines
who
is
competent and willing to do
the job for which the
services of the applicant
are desired.
c) His assessment as to
whether
or
not
the
employment
of
the

applicant will redound to

the national interest;
d) Admissibility of the alien as
certified
by
the
Commission
on
Immigration
and
Deportation;
e) The recommendation of the
Board of Investments or
other
appropriate
government agencies if the
applicant will be employed
in preferred areas of
investments
or
in
accordance
with
the
imperative of economic
development;
-

Article 40 of the Labor Code states:

Art. 40. Employment per unit of
non-resident aliens.Any alien
seeking admission to the
Philippines for employment
purposes and any domestic or
foreign employer who desires
to engage an alien for
employment in the Philippines
shall obtain an employment
permit from the DOLE
The employment permit may
be issued to a non-resident
alien or to the applicant
employer after a determination
of the non-availability of a
person in the Philippines who is
competent, able and willing at
the time of application to
perform services for which the
alien is desired.
For an enterprise registered in
preferred areas of investments,
said employment permit may
be
issued
upon
recommendation
of
the
government agency charged
with the supervision of said
registered enterprise

Facts:
- Private respondent Rosalinda Cortez
was issued a memorandum requiring
her to explain her side regarding
several matters including the act of
throwing a stapler at Plant Manager
William Chua
- The memorandum was refused by
Cortez but it was read to her and
discussed with by a co-employee
- While pending the investigation, she
was
placed
under
preventive
suspension.
Then
another
memorandum was issued regarding
another issue
- Cortez submitted an explanation
regarding the issues except for the
throwing of stapler
- A third memorandum was issued
informing her of her termination
- Cortez filed a complaint with the Labor
Arbiter for illegal dismissal against the
company and Francis Cua, the
companys president but the LA
decided that the dismissal was valid
and legal
- On appeal, NLRC reversed the
decision
- Petitioners elevated the matter to the
SC
Issue:
Whether or not Cortez suffered sexual
harassment in the hands of the Plant Manager
Held:
-

Cortez suffered sexual harassment

Cortez claims that as early as her first
year of employment, William Chua
already manifested a special liking for
her so much that she was given a
special treatment. Later on, he would
make sexual advances like touching
her hands and putting his arms. This
went on for four (4) years but she never
reciprocated his flirtations, until she
noticed that his attitude towards her
changed. He made her understand that
if she would not give in, he would cause
her termination from the company
The gravamen of the offense in sexual
harassment is not the violation of the
employees sexuality but the abuse of
power by the employer. Any employee,
male or female, may rightfully cry foul
provided the claim is well substantiated
There is no time period within which the
person is expected to complain through
the proper channels for the time to do
so may vary depending upon the

Sexual Harassment
PHILIPPINE AELOUS AUTOMOTIVE CORP
VS
NLRC

FACTOR, J.V.

needs, circumstances, and more

importantly, the emotional threshold of
the employee
Private respondent admittedly allowed
four (4) years to pass before finally
coming out with her employers sexual
impositions. If petitioner corporation
had not issued the third memorandum
that terminated the services of
respondent, we could only speculate
how much longer she would keep her
silence
Moreover, few persons are privileged to
transfer from one employer to another
and so one may not be expected to
give up ones employment easily but to
hang on to it and tolerate by all means
To Private respondents mind, for as
long as she could outwit her employers
mind, for as long as she could outwit
her employers ploys she would
continue on her job and consider them
as mere occupational hazards
This went on for four (4) years and
when Chua learned that he had no
place in Cortezs heart, he provoked
her, harassed her and finally dislodged
her; and for finally venting her pent-up
anger for years, he found the perfect
reason to terminate her

Sexual Harassment
DOMINGO
VS
RAYALA
Facts:
- a. Lourdes T. Domingo, then a
Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC
filed a complaint for sexual harassment
against Rayala before the DOLE
- To support her claims, she executed an
Affidavit narrating the incidences of
sexual harassment complaint
- In her affidavit, she stated that at first,
Rayala would praise her beauty. In
some instances, he would put his arms
on her shoulder. One time, he directly
stated that he liked her a lot because
she was different than the rest. He
even asked her personal questions. In
another occasion, he gave her money
for school expenses, which she did not
want to receive and so she informed
one of her officemates and superior
who both advised her to give the
money back, which she did. Several
times, he would look at her from head

to her breasts in a sexual way. In the

last incident before her leave of
absence, Rayala placed his hands on
her right shoulder and squeezed it.
Then, he grazed the neck and right ear,
which he tickled. In that moment,
Domingo asked him to remove his hand
Domingo then filed for a leave of
absence and ask to be transferred
immediately
Thereafter, she filed the Complaint for
sexual harassment
The DOLE Secretary referred the
Complaint to the Office of the
President, Rayala being a presidential
appointee
Secretary Laguesma who was ordered
to investigate the allegations issued an
Administrative Order constituting a
committee regarding the matter
The Committee heard the parties and
found Rayala guilty

Issue:
Whether or not Rayala was guilty of sexual
harassment
Held:
- Rayala is guilty
- Basic in the law of public officers is the
three-fold liability rule, which states that
the wrongful acts or omissions of a
public officer may give rise to civil,
criminal and administrative liability. An
action
for
each
can
proceed
independently of the others. This rule
applies with full force to sexual
harassment
- The law penalizing sexual harassment
in our jurisdiction is RA 7877:

FACTOR, J.V.

Sec. 3. Work, Education or

Training-related
Sexual
Harassment Defined. Work,
education or training-related
sexual
harassment
is
committed by an employer,
manager, supervisor, agent of
the
employer,
teacher,
instructior, professor, coach,
trainor, or any other person
who, having authority, influence
or moral ascendancy over
another in a work or training or
education
environment,
demands,
requests
or
otherwise requires any sexual
favor from the other, regardless
of whether the demand,
request or requirement for

submission is accepted by the

object of said Act.
(a)

In a work-related or
employment environment,
sexual harassment is
committed when:

Non-Household Work
APEX MINING VO.
VS
NLRC

(1) The sexual favor is made

as a condition in the hiring
or in the employment, reemployment or continued
employment
of
said
individual, or in granting
said individual favorable
compensation,
terms,
conditions, promotions, or
privileges; or the refusal to
grant the sexual favor
results
in
limiting,
segregating or classifying
the employee which in a
way would discriminate,
deprive
or
diminish
employment opportunities
or otherwise adversely
affect said employee;

Facts:
- Sincilita Candido was employed by
Apex Mining to perform laundry
services at its staff house
- An accident happened wherein she
slipped and hurt her back while
attending to her assigned task, which
she reported to her superiors
- As a result of the accident, she was not
able to continue with her work
- She was permitted to on leave for
medication and later on, was offered a
sum to persuade her to quit her job, but
she refused
- Petitioner did not allow her to return to
work and dismissed her
- Candido filed a request for assistance
with the DOLE which the Labor Arbiter
favored
- Apex then filed with the NLRC an
appeal but was denied

(2) The above acts would

impair
the
employees
rights or privileges under
existing labor laws; or

Issue:
Whether or not Candido should be treated as a
mere househelper or domestic servant and not
as a regular employee

(3) The above acts would

result in an intimidating,
hostile,
or
offensice
environment
for
the
employee.
It is true that the above provision calls
for a demand, request or requirement
of a sexual favor. But it is not
necessary that the demand, request or
requirement of a sexual favor be
articulated in a categorical oral or
written statement
It may be discerned from the acts of the
offender such as the holding and
squeezing of Domingos shoulders,
running his fingers across her neck and
tickling her ear, having inappropriate
conversations with her, giving her
money for school expenses with a
promise of future privileges, and
making statements with unmistakable
sexual overtones all of which consist
of a request for a sexual favor

Held:
-

Candido is a regular employee

Under Rule XIII, Section I (b), Book III
of the Labor Code:
The term househelper as
used herein is synonymous to
the term domestic servant
and shall refer to any person,
whether male or female, who
renders services in and about
the employers home and
which services are usually
necessary or desirable for the
maintenance and enjoyment
thereof,
and
ministers
exclusively to the personal
comfort and enjoyment of the
employers family

FACTOR, J.V.

The
forgoing
definition
clearly
contemplates such househelper or
domestic servant who is employed in
the employers home to minister
exclusively to the personal comfort and
enjoyment of the employers family.
Such definition covers family drivers,

domestic servants, laundry women,

yayas, gardeners, houseboys and other
similar househelps
The definition cannot be interpreted to
include househelp or laundrywomen
working in staffhouses of a company,
The criteria is the personal comfort and
enjoyment of the family of the employer
in the home of said employer. While it
may true that the nature of the work of
a househelper, domestic servant or
laundrywoman in a home or in a
company staffhouse may be similar in
nature,
the
difference
in
their
circumstances is that in the former
instance they are actually serving the
family while in the latter case, whether
it is a corporation or a single
proprietorship engaged in business or
industry or any other agricultural or
similar pursuit, service is being
rendered in the staffhouses or within
the premises of the business of the
employer
In such instance, they are employees of
the company or employer in the
business concerned entitled to the
privileges of a regular employee
The mere fact that the househelper or
domestic servant is working within the
premises of the business of the
employer and in relation to or in
connection with its business, as in its
staffhouses for its guest or even for its
officers and employees, warrants the
conclusion that such househelper or
domestic servant is and should be
considered as a regular employee of
the employer and not as a mere family
househelper or domestic servant as
contemplated in Rule XIII, Section I (b),
Book 3 of the Labor Code

FACTOR, J.V.