Sunteți pe pagina 1din 10

C. A.

Azucena

Labor Standards Case Doctrines and Decisions

MIDTERMS
ALFARO V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 140812
August 28, 2001
Voluntary resignation is defined as the
act of an employee, who finds himself in
a situation in which he believes that
personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in
favor of the exigency of the service;
thus, he has no other choice but to
disassociate himself from his
employment.

INTER TROD MARITIME, INC V.


NLRC
G.R. No. 81087
June 19, 1991
Resignation once accepted and being
the sole act of the employee may not be
withdrawn without the consent of the
employer. The mere fact that they did
not accept such withdrawal did not
constitute illegal dismissal for
acceptance of the withdrawal of the
resignation was the employers sole
prerogative.

SAN MIGUEL CORP. V. DEL


ROSARIO
G.R. Nos. 168194 & 168603
December 13, 2005
An employee who was illegally
dismissed is entitled to reinstatement
and back wages
Everyones Labor Code

PLDT VS. BALBASTRO


G.R. No. 157202
March 28, 2007
"Private respondent had committed the
first two offenses of unauthorized
absences in the same year. First, she
did not report for work from March 19 to
29, 1989 without notice to petitioner,
thus her absence was treated as
unauthorized and considered her first
offense for which she was penalized
with suspension. Second, she again did
not report for work from June 5 to 13,
1989 and when she reported for work
and presented her medical certificate, it
covered the period from June 5 to 8,
1989 only but she did not report for work
until June 14, 1989. Petitioners doctor
did not confirm her absences from June
11 to 13, 1989, thus, the same was
considered unauthorized and her
second offense for which she was
penalized again with suspension. These
two unauthorized absences together
with her third unauthorized absences
committed from June 28 to July 14,
1989 are sufficient bases for petitioners
finding that private respondent patently
abused her sick leave privileges."
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS.
RAMON BRIGIDO L. VELASCO
G.R. No. 166096
September 11, 2008

Page 1

Labor Standards Case Doctrines and Decisions

"As contradistinguished with Article


285 of the Labor Code, which
enumerates the instances when an
employee may terminate his
employment relation with the employer,
to wit: (1) Serious insult by the employer
or his representative on the honor and
person of the employee; (2) Inhuman
and unbearable treatment accorded the
employee by the employer or his
representative; (3) Commission of a
crime or offense by the employer or his
representative against the person of the
employee or any of the immediate
members of his family; and (4) Other
causes analogous to any of the
foregoing."

C. A. Azucena

STAR PAPER CORPORATION VS.


RONALDO SIMBOL, ET AL.
G.R. No.164774
April 12, 2006
To justify a bona fide occupational
qualification, the employer must prove
two factors: (1) that the employment
qualification is reasonably related to the
essential operation of the job involved;
and, (2) that there is a factual basis for
believing that all or substantially all
persons meeting the qualification would
be unable to properly perform the duties
of the job.

AGABON V. NLRC
G.R. No. 158693
November 17, 2004

NORKIS TRADING VS GNILO


G.R. No. 159730
February 11, 2008

Minimum penalty for non-compliance


with due process but with existence of
valid cause to terminate an employee is
set at 30,000. It is dependent upon the
circumstances of each case.

The employer bears the burden of


showing that the transfer is not
unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial
to the employee; and does not involve a
demotion in rank or a diminution of his
salaries, privileges and other benefits.
Should the employer fail to overcome this
burden of proof, the employees transfer
shall be tantamount to constructive
dismissal.

ALBERTO NAVARRO VS COCA-COLA


BOTTLERS
G.R. No. 162583
June 8, 2007
A worker cannot be reasonably
expected to anticipate times of sickness
nor emergency. Hence, to require prior
notice of such times would be absurd.
He can only give proper notice after the
occurrence of the event which is what
petitioner did in this case.
Everyones Labor Code

Constructive dismissal is defined as


a quitting because continued employment
is rendered impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank
or a diminution of pay.

Page 2

Labor Standards Case Doctrines and Decisions

CITIBANK V. NLRC
G.R. No. 159302
February 6, 2008
Where the notice of charges given to an
employee is inadequate, the charges
being too general to enable the
employee to intelligently and adequately
prepare her defense, the dismissal
could not be in accordance with due
process.

CARLOS DE CASTRO VS LIBERTY


BROADCASTING NETWORK AND
QUIOGUE
G.R. No. 165153
August 25, 2010
Thus, we ruled that the grounds that
LBNI invoked for de Castros dismissal
were, at best, doubtful, based on the
evidence presented. These doubts
should be interpreted in de Castros
favor, pursuant to Article 4 of the Labor
Code.1 Between a laborer and his
employer, doubts reasonably arising
from the evidence or interpretation of
agreements and writing should be
resolved in the formers favor.

ARCO METAL VS. SAMAHAN NG


MANGGAGAWA SA ARCO
G.R. No. 170734
May 14, 2008

Everyones Labor Code

C. A. Azucena
Any benefit and supplement being
enjoyed by employees cannot be
reduced, diminished, discontinued or
eliminated by the employer

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY


VS PERFECTO H. VENUS ET. AL.
G.R. No. 163881; G.R. No. 163782
March 24, 2006
This Court ruled that labor law claims
against government-owned and
controlled corporations without original
charter fall within the jurisdiction of the
Department of Labor and Employment
and not the Civil Service Commission.
Petitioner METRO was originally
organized under the Corporation Code,
and only became a government-owned
and controlled corporation after it was
acquired by petitioner LRTA. Even
then, petitioner METRO has no original
charter, hence, it is the Department of
Labor and Employment, and not the
Civil Service Commission, which has
jurisdiction over disputes arising from
the employment of its workers.
Consequently, the terms and conditions
of such employment are governed by
the Labor Code and not by the Civil
Service Rules and Regulations.

POSTIGO V. PHIL. TUBERCULOSIS


SOCIETY
G.R. No. 155146
January 24, 2006

Page 3

Labor Standards Case Doctrines and Decisions

PTSI is a private corporation thus the


petitioners are employees in the private
sector hence entitled to the benefits of
RA 7641.Employees of governmentowned and controlled corporations
under the Corporation Code are
governed by the provisions of the Labor
Code.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS


ANTONIO NOGRA
G.R. No. 170834
August 29, 2008
An employee of a company or
corporation engaged in illegal
recruitment may be held liable as
principal by direct participation, together
with its employer, if it is shown that he
actively and consciously participated in
the recruitment process.
In the present case, it was clearly
established that appellant dealt directly
with the private complainants. He
interviewed and informed them of the
documentary requirements and
placement fee. He promised deployment
within a three or four month-period upon
payment of the fee, but failed to deploy
them and to reimburse, upon demand,
the placement fees paid.

C. A. Azucena
The subject clause "or for three months
for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less" in the 5th paragraph
of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042
is DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL;

BECMEN SERVICE EXPORTER AND


PROMOTION, INC VS SPOUSES
CUARESMA
G.R. Nos. 182978-79
April 7, 2009
Thus, more than just recruiting and
deploying OFWs to their foreign
principals, recruitment agencies have
equally significant responsibilities. In a
foreign land where OFWs are likely to
encounter uneven if not discriminatory
treatment from the foreign government,
and certainly a delayed access to
language interpretation, legal aid, and
the Philippine consulate, the recruitment
agencies should be the first to come to
the rescue of our distressed OFWs
since they know the employers and the
addresses where they are deployed or
stationed. Upon them lies the primary
obligation to protect the rights and
ensure the welfare of our OFWs,
whether distressed or not. Who else is
in a better position, if not these
recruitment agencies, to render
immediate aid to their deployed OFWs
abroad?

ANTONIO M. SERRANO VS.


GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES,
INC
G.R. No. 167614
March 24, 2009
Everyones Labor Code

Page 4

C. A. Azucena

Labor Standards Case Doctrines and Decisions

SUNACE INTERNATIONAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES VS
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
G.R. No. 161757
January 25, 2006
The theory of imputed knowledge
ascribes the knowledge of the agent,
Sunace, to the principal, employer
Xiong, not the other way around.[23]
The knowledge of the principal-foreign
employer cannot, therefore, be imputed
to its agent Sunace.

LINTON COMMERCIAL VS.


HELLERA
G.R. No. 163147
October 10, 2007
For retrenchment to be justified, any
claim of actual or potential business
losses must satisfy the following
standards: (1) the losses incurred are
substantial and not de minimis; (2) the
losses are actual or reasonably
imminent; (3) the retrenchment is
reasonably necessary and is likely to be
effective in preventing the expected
losses; and (4) the alleged losses, if
already incurred, or the expected
imminent losses sought to be
forestalled, are proven by sufficient and
convincing evidence.2 Linton failed to
comply with these standards.

Everyones Labor Code

MAYA FARMS EMPLOYEES


ORGANIZATIONV. NLRC
G.R. No. 106256
December 28, 1994
Last In, First Out (LIFO) Rule: when
there are two or more employees
occupying the same position in the
company affected by the retrenchment
program, the last one employed will
necessarily be the first to go.

ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL
SHIPPING LINES VS. UNITED
HARBOR PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF
THE PHILIPPINES, INC.
G.R. No. 172029
August 6, 2008
It bears pointing out that additional
compensation for nighttime work is
founded on public policy.3[32] Working
at night is violative of the law of nature
for it is the period for rest and sleep. An
employee who works at night has less
stamina and vigor. Thus, he can easily
contract disease. Night work brings
increased liability to eyestrain and
accident. Serious moral dangers also
are likely to result from the necessity of
traveling the street alone at night, and
from the interference with normal home
life. Hygienic, medical, moral, cultural
and socio-biological reasons are in
accord that night work has many
inconveniences and when there is no

Page 5

C. A. Azucena

Labor Standards Case Doctrines and Decisions

alternative but to perform it, it is but just


that the laborer should earn greater
salary than ordinary work so as to
compensate the laborer to some extent
for the said inconveniences.

RFM CORP VS. KASAPIAN NG


MANGGA-GAWANG PINAGKAISARFM
G.R No. 162324
February 4, 2009
If the terms of a CBA are clear and
have no doubt upon the intention of the
contracting parties, as in the herein
questioned provision, the literal meaning
thereof shall prevail. That is settled. As
such, the daily-paid employees must be
paid their regular salaries on the
holidays which are so declared by the
national government, regardless of
whether they fall on rest days. The CBA
is the law between the parties, hence,
they are obliged to comply with its
provisions.4[7] Indeed, if petitioner and
respondents intended the provision in
question to cover payment only during
holidays falling on work or weekdays, it
should have been so incorporated
therein.

P.I. MANUFACTURING
INCORPORATED VS. P.I.
MANUFACTURING SUPERVISORS
AND FOREMAN ASSOCIATION

Everyones Labor Code

G.R. No. 167217


February 4, 2008
Otherwise stated, wage distortion
means the disappearance or virtual
disappearance of pay differentials
between lower and higher positions in
an enterprise because of compliance
with a wage order.

MWC-EAST ZONE UNION AND


EDUARDO BORELA VS MANILA
WATER COMPANY
G.R No. 174179
November 16, 2011
Under this interpretation, the
Companys argument that the attorneys
fees are unconscionable as they
represent 20% of the amount due or
about P21.4 million is more apparent
than real. Since the attorneys fees
awarded by the LA pertained to the
Unions members as indemnity for
damages, it was totally within their right
to waive the amount and give it to their
counsel as part of their contingent fee
agreement. Beyond the limit fixed by
Article 111 of the Labor Code, such as
between the lawyer and the client, the
attorneys fees may exceed ten percent
(10%) on the basis of quantum meruit,
as in the present case.5

Page 6

C. A. Azucena

Labor Standards Case Doctrines and Decisions

ROSEWOOD PROCESSING, INC. V.


NLRC
G.R. Nos. 116476-84
May 21, 1998
The joint and several liability of the
employer or principal was enacted to
ensure compliance with the provisions
of the Code, principally those on
statutory minimum wage. The contractor
or subcontractor is made liable by virtue
of his or her status as a direct employer,
and the principal as the indirect
employer of the contractors employees.
This liability facilitates, if not guarantees,
payment of the workers compensation,
thus, giving the workers ample
protection as mandated by the 1987
Constitution. This is not unduly
burdensome to the employer. Should
the indirect employer be constrained to
pay the workers, it can recover whatever
amount it had paid in accordance with
the terms of the service contract
between itself and the contractor.

regular practice on the part of the


employer.

PRODUCERS BANK OF THE


PHILIPPINES V. NLRC
G.R. No. 100701
March 28, 2001
A bonus is an amount granted and paid
to an employee for his industry and
loyalty which contributed to the success
of the employers business and made
possible the realization of profits. It is an
act of generosity granted by an
enlightened employer to spur the
employee to greater efforts for the
success of the business and realization
of bigger profits. The granting of a
bonus is a management prerogative,
something given in addition to what is
ordinarily received by or strictly due the
recipient. Thus, a bonus is not a
demandable and enforceable obligation,
except when it is made part of the wage,
salary or compensation of the
employee.

AMERICAN WIRE AND CABLE


DAILY RATED UNION VS
AMERICAN WIRE AND CABLE CO.,
INC.
G.R No. 155059
April 29, 2005

PROTACIO VS LAYA MANANGHAYA


& CO.
G.R No. 168654
March 25, 2009

For a bonus to be enforceable, it must


have been promised by the employer
and expressly agreed upon by the
parties, or it must have had a fixed
amount and had been a long and

The granting of a bonus is basically a


management prerogative which cannot
be forced upon the employer who may
not be obliged to assume the onerous
burden of granting bonuses or other

Everyones Labor Code

Page 7

C. A. Azucena

Labor Standards Case Doctrines and Decisions

benefits aside from the employees


basic salaries or wages.
LEOPARD INTEGRATED SERVICES
INC V. MACALINAO
G.R. No. 159808
September 30, 2008
Most contracts for security services
stipulate that the client may request the
replacement of the guards assigned to it
and a relied and transfer order in itself
does not sever employment relationship
between a security guard and his
agency.

ESCASINAS VS SHANGRI-LA'S
MACTAN ISLAND RESORT
G.R No. 178827
Shangri-la does not control how the
work should be performed by
petitioners, Shangri-la is not the
employer of the nurses; it is the
respondent Doctor who has control over
them.
Respondent Doctor is a legitimate
independent contractor and the
employer of the nurses.

PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS, INC. V.


NLRC
G.R. No. 110068
February 15, 1995
If the bonus is paid only if profits are
realized or a certain amount of
productivity achieved, it cannot be
Everyones Labor Code

considered part of wages. If the desired


goal of production is not obtained, of the
amount of actual work accomplished,
the bonus does not accrue. Only when
the employer promises and agrees to
give without any conditions imposed for
its payment, such as success of
business or greater production or
output, does the bonus become part of
the wage.

SANTOS V. SERVIER PHILS


G.R. No. 166377
November 28, 2008
The receipt of retirement benefits does
not bar the retiree from receiving
separation pay. Retirement benefits and
separation pay are not mutually
exclusive unless there is no specific
prohibition against the payment of both
benefits in the retirement plan and/or in
the CBA.

KING OF KINGS TRANSPORT VS.


MAMAC
G.R. No. 166208
June 29, 2007
Thus, the Court held that bus drivers
and conductors who are paid a fixed or
guaranteed minimum wage in case their
commission be less than the statutory
minimum, and commissions only in case
where they are over and above the
statutory minimum, are entitled to a
13th-month pay equivalent to onePage 8

Labor Standards Case Doctrines and Decisions

twelfth of their total earnings during the


calendar year.

TSPIC CORPORATION VS TSPIC


EMPLOYEES UNION
G.R. No. 163419
February 13, 2008
Any amount given to the employees in
excess of what they were entitled to, as
computed above, may be legally
deducted by TSPIC from the employees
salaries.

MILLARES V. NLRC
G.R. No. 110524
July 29, 2002
It is clear that seafarers are considered
contractual employees. They can not be
considered as regular employees under
Article 280 of the Labor Code. Their
employment is governed by the
contracts they sign everytime they are
rehired and their employment is
terminated when the contract expires.
Their employment is contractually fixed
for a certain period of time. They fall
under the exception of Article 280
whose employment has been fixed for a
specific project or undertaking the
completion or termination of which has
been determined at the time of
engagement of the employee or where
the work or services to be performed is
seasonal in nature and the employment
is for the duration of the season.
Everyones Labor Code

C. A. Azucena

PETROLEUM SHIPPING LIMITED VS


NLRC
G.R. No. 148130
June 16, 2006
Seafarers are Contractual Employees
and his employment is governed by his
Contract of Enlistment which does not
include 13th month pay. In the absence
of any provision in the contract for 13th
month pay, he is not entitled to the
benefit.

LETRAN CALAMBA FACULTY AND


EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS
NLRC
G.R. NO. 156225
January 29, 2008
Under a later set of Supplementary
Rules and Regulations Implementing
Presidential Decree 851 issued by the
then Labor Secretary Blas Ople,
overtime pay, earnings and other
remunerations are excluded as part of
the basic salary and in the computation
of the 13th-month pay.

CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION


VS CA
G.R. No. 152894
August 17, 2007
It is mandated that apprenticeship
agreements entered into by the
employer and apprentice shall be
Page 9

Labor Standards Case Doctrines and Decisions

entered only in accordance with the


apprenticeship program duly approved
by the Minister of Labor and
Employment. Prior approval by the
Department of Labor and Employment
of the proposed apprenticeship program
is, therefore, a condition sine qua non
before an apprenticeship agreement can
be validly entered into

C. A. Azucena
finish their chosen courses under such
agreement

NITTO ENTERPRISES V. NATIONAL


LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. No. 114337
September 29, 1995
An apprenticeship program should first
be approved by the DOLE before an
apprentice may be hired, otherwise the
person hired will be considered a
regular employee

FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUE V.


IAC
G.R. no.75112
August 17, 1992
There is no employer-employee
relationship between students on one
hand and schools, colleges or
universities, on the other, where there is
a written agreement between them
under which the former agree to work
for the latter in exchange for the
privilege to study free of charge,
provided the students are given real
opportunities, including such facilities as
may be reasonable and necessary to
Everyones Labor Code

Page 10

S-ar putea să vă placă și