Marian C.

Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm
I. Employer-Employee Relationship

Parties and
Case Number

Business
of the
Company
Insurance
Provider

Work of
the
Employee
Insurance
Agent, and
at the same
time Acting
Unit
Manager

2. Restituto
Palumado vs.
NLRC, Marling
Rice Mill
(G.R. No.
96520, June
28, 1996)

Trading and
Rice Mill

Truck Driver

3. Angelina
Francisco vs.
NLRC, Kasei
Corp.
(G.R. No.
170087,
August 31,
2006)

Corporation
/
Restaurant
business

Accountant
and
Corporate
Secretary,
and later on
as Acting
Manager

1. Insurance Life
Assurance Co.,
Ltd. vs. NLRC
(G. R. No.
119930, March
12, 1998)

Is there EmployerEmployee
Relationship?
Yes. The Supreme Court
stated that private
respondent was an
employee of the
petitioner because the
latter has exclusivity of
service, control of
assignments and
removal of agents under
private respondents
unit, collection of
premiums, furnishing of
company facilities and
materials as well as
capital are hallmarks of
the management
system.
No. The Supreme Court
held that the
documentary evidences
presented by the
respondent strongly
negated the
complainants charges
that he had been under
the employ Tan who was
nothing more than an
employee of Marling
Rice Mill. Complainants
documentary exhibits
failed to serve their
purpose as they are in
themselves mere scraps
of papers, irrelevant and
Immaterial.
Yes. By applying the
control test, the
petitioner is an
employee of Kasei Corp.
because she was under
the direct control and
supervision of Seiji
Kamura, the
corporations Technical
Consultant. Under the
broader economic reality
test, the petitioner can
likewise be said to be an
employee of respondent
corporation because she

What happened to
the case?
The appeal of petitioner
Insular Life Assurance
Co. was denied and the
decision of the NLRC
was affirmed. The case
was remanded to the
Labor Arbiter a quo to
hear and dispose of the
case.

The petition was

dismissed and the
resolution of the public
respondent NLRC, that
there was no EmployerEmployee relationship
between the petitioner
and private respondent,
was affirmed.

The petition was

granted. The decision
and resolution of Court
of Appeals dismissing
the complaints for
constructive dismissal,
was annulled and set
aside. The decision of
the NLRC was
reinstated. The case
was remanded to the
Labor Arbiter for the
recomputation of
petitioners full
backwages from the

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

4. Paz Martin Jo
and Cesar Jo
vs. NLRC and
Peter Mejila
(G.R. No.
121605,
February 2,
2000)

Barber
Shop

Barber on a
piece rate
basis. Later
on as
caretakerbarber.

5. Jeromie
Encasinas and
Evan Rigor
Singco vs.
Shangri-la
Mactan Island
Resort and Dr.
Jessica J.R.
Pepito
(G.R. No.
178827, March

Hotel and
Resort
Operation

Nurses

had served the company

for six years before her
dismissal, receiving
check vouchers
indicating her
salaries/wages, benefits,
13th month pay, bonuses
and allowances, as well
as deductions and Social
Security contributions. It
is therefore apparent
that petitioner is
economically dependent
on respondent
corporation for her
continued employment
in the latters line of
business.
Yes. The private
respondent was
employed by the
petitioners as caretakerbarber. Undoubtedly, the
services performed by
private respondent as
barber is related to, and
in the pursuit of the
principal business
activity of petitioners.
Certainly, petitioners
had the power to
dismiss private
respondent being the
ones who engaged the
services of the latter. As
a caretaker, private
respondent was paid by
petitioners wages in the
form of honorarium.
Furthermore, petitioners
controlled private
respondents work
performance.
No. There is no
employer-employee
relationship between
Shangri-la and
petitioners. The
Supreme Court affirmed
the decision of the
appellate court which
concluded that all
aspects of the
employment of

time she was illegally

terminated until the
date of finality of this
decision, and
separation pay
representing one-half
month pay for every
year of service, where a
fraction of at least six
months shall be
considered as one
whole year.

The petition was

granted. The assailed
decision and resolution
of public respondent
NLRC are reversed and
set aside. The decision
of the Labor Arbiter,
that private respondent
was an employee of
petitioners and that
private respondent was
not dismissed but left
his job voluntarily, was
reinstated.

The petition was

denied. The decision of
the Court of Appeals
finding that there exists
no employer-employee
relationship was
affirmed.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

4, 2009)

6. Insular Life
Assurance Co.,
Ltd. vs. NLRC
and Melecio
Basiao
(G.R. No.
84484,
November 15,
1989)

Insurance
Provider

Agency
Manager

7. AFP Mutual
Benefit
Association,
Inc. vs NLRC
and Eutiguio
Bustamante

Insurance
Provider

Insurance
Underwriter

8. Great Pacific
Life Assurance
Corp.
(Grepalife) vs
NLRC, Ernesto

Insurance
Provider

District
Managers

petitioners being under

the supervision and
control of respondent
doctor and since
Shangri-la is not
principally engaged in
the business of
providing medical or
healthcare services,
petitioners could not be
regarded as regular
employees of Shangri-la.
No. The Court ruled that
under the contract
invoked by him, Basiao
was not an employee of
the petitioner, but a
commission agent, an
independent contractor
whose claim for unpaid
commissions should
have been litigated in an
ordinary civil action.
No, the facts that private
respondent was bound
by company policies,
memo/circulars, rules
and regulations issued
from time to time is not
indicative of control.
Although petitioner
could have,
theoretically,
disapproved any of
private respondent's
transactions, what could
be disapproved was only
the result of the work,
and not the means by
which it was
accomplished. The
"control" which the
above factors indicate
did not sum up to the
power to control private
respondent's conduct in
and mode of soliciting
insurance. On the
contrary, they clearly
indicate that the juridical
element of control had
been absent in this
situation.
Yes. Applying the fourfold test, the Court finds
that, as correctly held by
the NLRC, the
relationships of the Ruiz

The appealed resolution

of the NLRC, finding
that there was an
employer-employee
relationship between
Basiao and the
company, was set aside
and the complaint of
private respondent was
dismissed.
The petition is
meritorious. There is
no employment
relationship had ever
existed between the
parties

The decision of the

NLRC was modified
insofar as the award of
separation pay is
concerned. In lieu of

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

and Rodrigo
Ruiz
(G.R. No.
80750-51, July
23, 1990)

9. Jose Y. Sonza
vs. ABS-CBN
Broadcasting
Corporation
(G.R. No.
138051, June
10, 2004)

Television
and radio
broadcastin
g company

TV host and
radio
broadcaster
(Talent for
television
and radio)

brothers and Grepalife

were those of employeremployee. First, their
work at the time of their
dismissal as zone
supervisor and district
manager are necessary
and desirable to the
usual business of the
insurance company.
Their contracts reveal
that the comoany
practically dictates the
manner by which their
jobs are to be carried
out.
No. applying the control
test, the Court found
that Sonza was not an
employee but an
independent contractor.
A radio broadcast
specialist who works
under minimal
supervision is an
independent contractor.
Sonzas work as
television and radio
program host required
special skills and talent,
which Sonza admittedly
possesses. The records
do not show that ABSCBN skulls, expertise or
talent enjoy the freedom
to offer their services
exercised any
supervision and control
over how Sonza utilized
his skills and talent in
his show. Moreover,
individuals with special
as independent
contractors. The right to
life and livelihood
guarantees this freedom
to contract as
independent
contractors. The right of
labor to security of
tenure cannot operate to
deprive an individual,
possessed with special
skills, expertise and

separation pay.
Petitioner Grepalife was
ordered to indemnify
private respondents the
amount if P1000 each
for its failure to observe
the procedural
requirements of due
process.

The Court denied the

petition. The assailed
decision of the Court of
Appeals finding no
employer-employee
relationship existed
between Sonza and
ABS-CBN was affirmed.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

10.Coca-Cola
Bottlers
(Phils.)
Inc./Eric
Montinola,
Manager vs.
Dr. Dean N.
Climaco
(G.R. No.
146881,
February 5,
2007)

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

Soft drinks
Manufacturing

Company
doctor by
virtue of a
Retainer
Agreement

talent, of his right to

contract as an
independent contractor.
An individual like an
artist or talent has a
right to render his
services without any one
controlling the means
and methods by which
he performs his art or
craft.
No. The Labor Arbiter
and the NLRC correctly
found that petitioner
company lacked the
power of control over
the performance by
respondent of his duties.
In effect, the Labor
Arbiter held that
petitioner company,
through the
Comprehensive Medical
Plan, provided
guidelines merely to
ensure that the end
result was achieved, but
did not control the
means and methods by
which respondent
preformed his assigned
tasks. In addition, the
Court finds that the
schedule of work and
the requirements to be
on call for emergency
cases do not amount to
such control, but are
necessary incidents to
the Retainership
Agreement.

The petition was

granted and the
decision and resolution
of the Court of Appeals
are reversed and set
aside. The decision and
resolution of the NLRC
finding no employeremployee relationship
was reinstated.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Parties and Case

Number

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

Business
of the
Company

1. Samahan ng mga
Manggagawa sa
Bandolino-LMLC
vs. NLTC,
Bandolino Shoe
Corp and/or
German
Alcantara, Aida
Alcantara & Mimi
Alcantara
(G.R. No. 125195,
July 17, 1997)

Shoe
Company

2. St. John Colleges,

Inc vs. St. John
Academy Faculty
& Employees
Union
(G.R. No. 167892,
October 27, 2006)

School

II. Unfair Labor Practice

Work of
Is there Employerthe
Employee
Employe
Relationship?
e
Factory
Yes. The Court ruled
workers
that an employer may
be guilty of ULP in
interfering with the
right to selforganization even
before the union has
been registered. The
facts of record found by
the arbiter which NLRC
disregarded. These are:
(1) that following the
order for rotation, some
of the petitioners were
made to surrender their
IDs and (2) that
although the rotation
scheme was ostensibly
implemented because
of the Shoemart strike,
even after the strike
had ended, petitioners
attempts to return to
work were thwarted.
High
Yes. The court ruled
School
that SJCI is liable for
Teachers
ULP and illegal
and Nondismissal. The reasons
teaching
for the closure of the
Staff
high school and its
reopening after one
year from the time it
was closed down, show
that the closure was
done in bad faith for
the purpose of
circumventing the

What happened to
the case?

The decision of the

NLRC is set aside and
the decision of the
labor arbiter is
reinstated, with
modification that only
Jaime Sibug should be
given holiday pay,
while all petitioners
should be given 13th
month pay and full
backwages.

The petition is denied.

The April 22, 2004
Decision is affirmed
with a modification that
in the computation of
backwages, the two
month unworked
summer vacation
should be excluded and
the April 15,
2005 Resolution of the
Court Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 74519 is

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

3. Me-Shurn
Corporation &
Sammy Chou vs.
Me-Shurn Workers
Union-FSM &
Rosalinda Cruz
(G.R. No. 156292.
January 11, 2005)

Clothing
Wholesale
and
Manufactur
ing

Was not
mentione
d except
that they
are
Regular
rank and
file
employee
s.

4. T & H Shopfitters
Corporation/Gin
Queen
Corporation,
Stinnes Huang,
Ben Huang and
Rogelio Madriaga
vs. T & H
Shopfitters
Corporation/Gin
Queen Workers
Union
(G.R. No. 191714)

Manufactur
er,
Distributor/
Wholesaler,
Exporter/Im
porter

Assigning
union
officers
and
active
union
members
as grass
cutters on
rotation
basis.

Unions right to
collective bargaining
and its members right
to security of tenure.
Yes. The court ruled
that to justify the
closure of a business
and the termination of
the services of the
concerned employees,
the law requires the
employer to prove that
it suffered substantial
actual losses. The
cessation of a
companys operations
shortly after the
organization of a labor
union, as well as the
resumption of business
barely a month after,
gives credence to the
employees claim that
the closure was meant
to discourage union
membership and to
interfere in union
activities. These acts
constitute unfair labor
practices.
Yes. The Court ruled
that Indubitably, the
various acts of
petitioners (specifically,
sponsoring a field trip
on the day preceding
the certification
election, warning the
employees of dire
consequences should
the union prevail, and
escorting them to the
polling center and
discriminating in regard
to conditions of
employment in order to
discourage union
membership-assigning
union officers and
active union members
as grass cutters on
rotation basis)., taken
together, reasonably
support an inference
that, indeed, such were
all orchestrated to
restrict respondents
free exercise of their
right to selforganization. The Court
is of the considered
view those petitioners

affirmed.

The petition is denied.

The assailed decision of
the appellate court is
affirmed. The petitioner
is hereby ordered to
pay the complainants
their full backwages
from the date of their
wages were withheld
from them to the date
of the finality of the
decision. Cost against
the petitioners.

The November 12,

2009 decision of the
Court of Appeals and its
March 24, 2010
resolution, in CA-G.R.
SP No. 107188, are
affirmed, except with
respect to the award of
attorneys fees which is
hereby deleted.
Ordering to pay each of
the complainants moral
and exemplary
damages amounting to
P50,000 and P30,000
respectively.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

5. BaLmar Farms,
Inc. vs NLRC and
Associated Labor
Unions (ALU)

Banana
Plantation

Banana
Planters
and
Plantation
Workers

6. Arellano
University
Employees and
Workers Union,
Carlos C. A. Rivas,
Jr., Simeon B.
Inocencio, Romulo
D. Jacob, Nymia
M. Pineda,
Benedicto I. Nieto,
Jr., Luis Jacinto,
Milbert Mora,
Monico Calma,
Constancio
Bayhohan,
Bernard Sanble,
Nestor Brinosa,
Nanji
Macarampat,
Eduardo Florague
& DIony S.
Lumanta vs. CA,
NLRC & Arellano

University

Was not
mentione
d except
that they
are rankand-file
employee
s

undisputed actions
prior and immediately
before the scheduled
certification election,
while seemingly
innocuous, unduly
meddled in the affairs
of its employees in
selecting their
exclusive bargaining
representative.
Yes. The court ruled
that Balmars refusal to
bargain collectively
with ALU is a clear act
of unfair labor practice.
Article 248 (Labor
Code, as amended),
enumerates unfair
labor practices
committed by
employers such as for
them: (g) To violate the
duty to bargain
collectively as
prescribed by this
Code. BALMAR cannot
also invoke good faith
in refusing to negotiate
with ALU, considering
that the latter has been
certified as the
exclusive bargaining
representative of
BALMAR rank and file
employees.
No. The court ruled that
to constitute ULP,
however, violations of
the CBA must be gross.
Gross violation of the
CBA, under Article 261
of the Labor Code,
means flagrant and/or
malicious refusal to
comply with the
economic provisions
thereof. Evidently, the
University cannot be
faulted for ULP as it in
good faith merely
heeded the above-said
request of Union
members.

The petition is
dismissed for lack of
merit and the assailed
resolution is affirmed.

The NLRC Decision

of October 12,
1998 and Resolution
of January 20,
1999 are affirmed, with
modification that the
dismissal of petitionerunion members Monico
Calma, Constancio
Bayhonan, Bernardo
Sable, Nestor Brinosa,
Nanji Macarampat,
Eduardo Florague, and
Diony S. Lumanta is set
aside, and they are
thus ordered reinstated
without backwages. If
their reinstatement is
no longer possible,
however, they should
be given separation pay
at the rate of One (1)
Month pay for every
year of service.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
University, Inc.
(G.R. No. 139940,
September 19,
2006)
7. Nueva Ecija
Electric
Cooperative Inc.
(NEECO I)
Employees Assoc,
vs NLRC, Nueva
Ecija Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
(NEECO I) and
Patricio Dela Pea

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

Electric
Cooperativ
e

Was not
mentione
d except
that they
are
Permanen
t
Employee
s

Yes. The labor ruled

that there was unfair
labor practice. Unfair
labor practices violate
the constitutional rights
of workers and
employees to selforganization, are
inimical to the
legitimate interests of
both labor and
management, including
their right to bargain
collectively and
otherwise deal with
each other in an
atmosphere of freedom
and mutual respect;
and disrupt industrial
peace and hinder the
promotion of healthy
and stable labormanagement
relations. As the
conscience of the
government, it is the
Courts sworn duty to
ensure that none trifles
with labor rights. "As a
backdrop, complainants
alleged, and this is
supported by
documentary evidence,
that on 7 February
1987, the then NEECO I
Board of Directors
adopted their own
Policy No. 3-33 under
Resolution No. 47,
series of 1987 requiring
all employees to avail
of the retirement
benefits. All regular
employees, including
the complainants were
ordered to file their
application for
retirement/resignation
and/or separation from
the service under
NEECO I Form 87. All
NEECO I employees
have no choice but to
manifest their
willingness to retire.
However, the
complainants pointed
out that the approval of

The petition is partially

granted. The assailed
decision of the NLRC is
affirmed with
modification Private
respondent Nueva Ecija
1 Electric Cooperative
is hereby ordered
through its executive
officers:
1. to pay individual
petitioners their full
backwages from the
time they were illegally
dismissed until the date
of their reinstatement
on March 13, 1992,
minus the amount they
received as
"retirement" pay. In the
event that the
computed backwages
of a concerned
petitioner is less than
the amount of so-called
"retirement" pay
already received, the
difference should be
treated as advances
refundable from his
salary until fully repaid;
2. to pay moral and
exemplary damages in
the amount of ten
thousand (P10,000.00)
pesos and five
thousand (P5,000.00)
pesos, respectively, to
each of the petitioners
who were illegally
terminated and/or
compulsorily retired;
3. to pay ten (10%) of
the total amount due to
petitioners as attorneys
fees; and
4. to pay the cost of
suits.
Respondent NLRC is
ordered to recompute
the total monetary
benefits awarded and
due to the employees
concerned in
accordance with the
decision and to submit

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

8. The Insular Life

Assurance Co.,
Ltd., Employees
Association-NATU,
FGU Insurance
Group Workers
and Employees
Association-NATU,
and Insular Life
Building
Employees
Association-NATU
vs. The Insular
Life Assurance,
Co., Ltd., FGU
Insurance Group,
Jose M. Olbes and
Court of Industrial
Relations
(G.R. No. L-25291,
January 30, 1971)

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

Insurance
Provider

Superviso
rs

the employees
application for
retirement was not
done in succession
according to the list,
but according to the
choice of the
respondents, and for
which, complainants
were singled out from
the list because they
were union officers,
past officers and active
members of the
complainant
Association."
Yes. The act of an
employer in notifying
absent employees
individually during a
strike following
unproductive efforts at
collective bargaining
that the plant would be
operated the next day
and that their jobs were
open for them should
they want to come in
has been held to be an
unfair labor practice, as
an active interference
with the right of
collective bargaining
through dealing with
the employees
individually instead of
through their collective
bargaining
representatives.
Although the union is
on strike, the employer
is still under obligation
to bargain with the
union as the
employees bargaining
representative.
Individual solicitation of
the employees or
visiting their homes,
with the employer or
his representative
urging the employees
to cease union activity
or cease striking,
constitutes unfair labor
practice. All the abovedetailed activities are
unfair labor practices
because they tend to
undermine the
concerted activity of
the employees, an

its compliance thereon

within thirty (30) days
from notice of this
decision, with copies
furnished to the parties.

The decision of the

Court of Industrial
Relations dated August
17, 1965 is reversed
and set aside, and
another is entered,
ordering the
respondents to
reinstate the dismissed
members of the
petitioning Unions to
their former or
comparatively similar
positions, with
backwages from June 2,
1958 up to the dates of
their actual
reinstatements. Costs
against the
respondents.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

9. Lakas ng
Manggagawang
Makabayan
(LAKAS) vs.
Marcelo Group of
Companies and
The Court of
Industrial
Relations
(G.R. No. L-38258,
November 19,
1982)
Marcelo Group of
Companies vs
Lakas ng
Manggagawang
Makabayan
(LAKAS)
(G.R. No. L-38260,
November 19,
1992)

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

Rubber,
Chemical
and Steel
Companies

Was not
mentione
d

activity to which they

are entitled free from
the employers
molestation.
Indeed, when the
respondents offered
reinstatement and
attempted to bribe
the strikers with
comfortable cots,
free coffee and
occasional movies,
overtime pay for
work performed in
excess of eight hours,
and arrangements for
their families, so they
would abandon the
strike and return to
work, they were guilty
of strike-breaking
and/or union-busting
and, consequently, of
unfair labor practice. It
is equivalent to an
attempt to break a
strike for an employer
to offer reinstatement
to striking employees
individually, when they
are represented by a
union, since the
employees thus offered
reinstatement are
unable to determine
what the consequences
of returning to work
would be.
No. The court ruled in
favor of Marcelo
Companies. LAKAS was
not the bargaining
representative, yet the
management did not
ignore the demand for
collective bargaining
neither it was refused.
Marcelo Companies
may rightfully demand
for reasonable proof of
majority representation
on the part of the
supposed or putative
bargaining agent as it
is a natural
consequence of the
employers duty to
bargain with the
bargaining agent who
represents the majority
of the workers. It is,
however, necessary

Upon the foregoing

considerations, the
petition in L-38258 is
dismissed and the
petition in L-38260 is
granted. The decision
of the Court of
Industrial Relations is
hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE and a new
judgment is rendered
holding that the
respondent Marcelo
Companies are not
guilty of unfair labor
practice.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

10.Colegio de San
Juan de Letran vs.
Association of
Employees and
Faculty of Letran
and Eleonor
Ambas
(G.R. No. 141471,
September 18,
2000)

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

University

Professors
and
School
Personnel
s

that such demand is

made in good faith and
not as a pretext of
delay or evasion.
Yes. The court stated
The petition is denied
that there is no doubt
for lack of merit.
that petitioner is guilty
of unfair labor practice
by its stern refusal to
bargain in good faith
with respondent union.
In this regard, there is
no cogent reason to
disturb the findings of
the Court of Appeals
affirming the findings of
the Secretary of Labor
and Employment. The
right to selforganization of
employees must not be
interfered with by the
employer on the
pretext of exercising
management
prerogative of
disciplining its
employees. In this case,
the totality of conduct
of the employer shows
an evident attempt to
restrain the employees
from fully exercising
their rights under the
law. This cannot be
done under the Labor
Code.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

III. NLRC Jurisdiction

Parties and Case

Number
1. Dai-Chi
Electronics
Manufacturing
Corporation vs.
Hon. Martin S.
Villarama, Jr.,
presiding Judge
RTC Br. 156,
Pasig, Metro
Manila and
Adonis C.
Limjuco
(G.R. No.
112940,
November 21,
199)

Business of
the
Company
Electronics
Manufacturin
g

Work of
the
Employee
Head of
the
Material
Managem
ent
Control
Departme
nt

Does the NLRC have

Jurisdiction?

What happened to
the case?

No. The petitioner does

not ask for any relief
under the Labor Code
of the Philippines. It
seeks to recover
damages agreed upon
in the contract as
redress for private
respondents breach of
his contractual
obligation to its
damage and
prejudice. Such cause
of action is within the
realm of Civil Law, and
jurisdiction over the
controversy belongs to
the regular courts. More
so when we considered
that the stipulation
refers to the postemployment relations

The Orders of the

Regional Trial Court
dated September 20,
1993 and November
29, 1993 are set aside.
The trial court is
ordered to continue
with the proceedings in
Civil Case No. 63448.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm
of the parties.

2. The Manila Hotel

Corporation and
Manila Hotel Intl,
Ltd vs. NLRC,
Arbiter Ceferina
J. Diosana and
Marcelo G.
Santos
(G.R. No.
120077, October
14, 2000)

Hotel
Management

Overseas
Contract
Worker as
Printer

3. Food Traders
House, Inc. vs.
NLRC and
Barbara A.
Camacho-Espino

Food
business

Marketing
Manager

4. Purificacion Y.
Manliguez,
Antonina Y. Luis

No. The court ruled

that the POEA not the
NLRC had jurisdiction
over the case.
Cconsidering that the
NLRC was forum nonconveniens and
considering further that
no employer-employee
relationship existed
between MHICL, MHC
and respondent Santos,
Labor Arbiter Ceferina J.
Diosana clearly had no
jurisdiction over
respondent's claim. The
lack of jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter was
obvious from the
allegations of the
complaint. His failure to
dismiss the case
amounts to grave
abuse of discretion.
No. The court ruled that
the NLRC shall have
exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over all
cases decided by labor
arbiters. This simply
means that if a claim
does not fall within the
exclusive original
jurisdiction of the labor
arbiter, the NLRC
cannot have appellate
jurisdiction thereon,
much less receive
additional evidence. As
a result, the NLRC
gravely abused its
discretion when it
affirmed the
garnishment of Espinos
salary and allowed its
set-off against Espinos
personal loan on the
ground that it does not
fall within the Labor
Arbiters exclusive
original jurisdiction.
No. respondent court
erred in holding that
the trial court does not
have jurisdiction over

The Court hereby

GRANTS the petition for
certiorari and Annuls
the orders and
resolutions of the
National Labor
Relations Commission
dated May 31, 1993,
December 15, 1994
and March 30, 1995 in
NLRC NCR CA No.
002101-91 (NLRC NCR
Case No. 00-02-0105890).

The Decision of public

respondent NLRC is
modified. Private
respondent Barbara A.
Camacho-Espino is
awarded full back
wages, including 13th
month pay and other
benefits, computed
from 31 January 1992,
the date when her
compensation was
withheld, until 4 July
1994, the date of her
actual reinstatement.
Meanwhile, the
garnishment of private
respondent Barbara A.
Camacho-Espinos
salary and allowing the
set-off against her
supposed personal loan
with Alinas is nullified
and disregarded.
The petition for review
is granted. The
Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

and Benjamin C.
Ybanez vs Court
of Appeals, et al
(G.R. No. 92598,
May 20, 1994)

5. Pacific
Consultants
International
Asia, Inc. and
Jens Peter
Henrichsen vs.
Klaus K.
Schonfeld
(G.R. No.
166920.
February 19,
2007)

Providing
specialty and
technical
services both
in and out of
the
Philippines

Sector
Manager Water and
Sanitation
as per
Letter of
Employme
nt dated
January
1998

the case filed by

petitioners. It is at once
evident that the Civil
Case No. Ceb-6917 is
not a labor case. No
employer-employee
relationship exists
between petitioners
and the other parties,
and no issue is involved
which may be resolved
by reference to the
Labor Code, other labor
statutes, or any
collective bargaining
agreement. Neither can
we characterize
petitioner's action
before the trial court as
arising out of a labor
dispute. It was not
brought to reverse or
modify the judgment of
the Department of
Labor and Employment
(DOLE). Neither did it
question the validity of,
or pray for, the quashal
of the writ of execution
against Inductocast.
Yes. The Labor Arbiter
a quo has jurisdiction
over respondents claim
because no restrictive
words like only,
solely, exclusively in
this court, in no other
court save -,
particularly, nowhere
else but/except-, or
words of equal import
were stated in the
contract. It cannot be
said that the court of
arbitration in London is
an exclusive venue to
bring forth any
complaint arising out of
the employment
contract. Philippine
Court may assume
jurisdiction over the
case if it chooses to do
so; provided, that the
following requisites are
met: (1) that the
Philippine Court is one
to which the parties
may conveniently resort
to; (2) that the
Philippine Court is in a
position to make an

No. 18017, dated

November 16, 1989, is
reversed and set aside.
The Regional Trial Court
of Cebu City, Branch 8
is ordered to try Civil
Case Ceb-6917 on its
merit. No costs.

The petition is denied.

The decision of the
Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 76563 is
affirmed. This case is
remanded to the Labor
Arbiter for disposition of
the case on the merits.
Cost against
petitioners.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm
intelligent decision as
to the law and the
facts; and, (3) that the
Philippine Court has or
is likely to have power
to enforce its decision.
Admittedly, all the
foregoing requisites are
present in this case

6. Deltaventures
Resources, Inc.
vs Hon. Fernando
P. Cabato,
Presiding Judge
RTC La Trinidad
Benguet Br. 62,
Hon. Gelacio L.
Rivera, Jr,
Executive Labor
Arbiter, NLRCCAR, Baguio City,
Adam P. VenturaDeputy Sheriff,
NLRC-CAR
Baguio City,
Alejandro
Bernardino,
Augusto
Granados,
Pilando Tangay,
Nestor Rabang,
Ray Dayap, Myra
Bayaona, Violy
LIbao, Aida
Libao, Jesus
Gatcho and
Gregorio Dulay
(G.R. No.
118216, March 9,
2000)

Yes. The court ruled

that by filing the
petitioner third-party
claim with the deputy
sheriff, it submitted
itself to the jurisdiction
of the Commission
acting through the
Labor Arbiter. It failed
to perceive the fact that
what it is really
controverting is the
decision of the Labor
Arbiter and not the act
of the deputy sheriff in
executing said order
issued as a
consequence of said
decision rendered.
The broad powers
granted to the Labor
Arbiter and to the
National Labor
Relations Commission
by Articles 217, 218
and 224 of the Labor
Code can only be
interpreted as vesting
in them jurisdiction
over incidents arising
from, in connection with
or relating to labor
disputes, as the
controversy under
consideration, to the
exclusion of the regular
courts.
Having established that
jurisdiction over the
case rests with the
Commission, we find no
grave abuse of
discretion on the part of
respondent Judge
Cabato in denying
petitioner's motion for
the issuance of an
injunction against the
decision of the National
Labor Relations
Commission.

The petition
for certiorari and
prohibition is denied.
The assailed Orders of
respondent Judge
Fernando P. Cabato
dated November 7,
1994 and December
14, 1994, respectively
are affirmed. The
records of this case are
hereby remanded to
the National Labor
Relations Commission
for further proceedings.
Cost against the
petitioner.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

7. Republic of the
Philippines,
represented by
the Social
Security
Commission and
Social Security
System vs.
Asiapro
Cooperative
(G.R. No.
172101,
November 23,
2007)

Cooperative

8. Philippines
National Bank vs.
Florence O.
Cabansag
(G.R. No.
157010, June 21,
2005)

Bank

No. The court ruled that

the question on the
existence of an
employer-employee
relationship for the
purpose of
determining the
coverage of the
Social Security
System is explicitly
excluded from the
jurisdiction of the NLRC
and falls within the
jurisdiction of the SSC
which is primarily
charged with the duty
of settling disputes
arising under the Social
Security Law of 1997.

Branch
Credit
Officer

Yes. The court ruled

that petitioner cannot
escape the application
of Philippine laws or the
jurisdiction of the NLRC
and the labor arbiter
because the issue here
involves termination of
an overseas Filipino
worker. The fact that
respondent applied for
and secured an
Overseas Employment
Certificate from the
POEA through the
Philippine Embassy in
Singapore. The
Certificate, declared her
a bona fide contract
worker for Singapore.
Under Philippine law,
this document
authorized her working
status in a foreign
country and entitled her
to all benefits and
processes under our
statutes. At the time
her employment was
illegally terminated, she
already possessed the
POEA employment
Certificate.
Moreover, petitioner
admits that it is a
Philippine corporation

The instant petition is is

hereby granted. The
Decision and the
Resolution of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 87236, dated 5
January 2006 and 20
March 2006,
respectively, are
hereby reverse and set
aside. The Orders of the
petitioner SSC dated 17
February 2004 and 16
September 2004 are
hereby reinstated. The
petitioner SSC is
hereby directed to
continue hearing the
petition-complaint filed
before it by the
petitioner SSS as
regards the compulsory
coverage of the
respondent cooperative
and its ownersmembers. No costs.
The petition is denied
and the assailed
decision and resolution
are affirmed. Cost
against the petitioner.
[Petitioners] likewise
acted in a wanton,
oppressive or
malevolent manner in
terminating
[respondents]
employment and are
therefore liable for
exemplary damages.
This should served [sic]
as protection to other
employees of
[petitioner] company,
and by way of example
or correction for the
public good so that
persons similarly
minded as [petitioners]
would be deterred from
committing the same
acts.
The Court also affirms
the award of attorneys
fees. It is settled that
when an action is
instituted for the

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

9. Calamba Medical
Center, Inc. vs.
NLRC, Ronald
Lanzanas and
Merceditha
Lanzanas
(G.R. No.
176484,
November 25,
2008)

Hospital

Doctors

10.Ma. Isabel T.
Santos,
represented by
Antonio P. Santos
vs. Servier
Philippnes, Inc
and NLRC
(G.R. No.
166377,
November 28,
2008)

French
Pharmaceuti
cal Company

Human
Resource
Manager

doing business through

a branch office in
Singapore and
respondents
employment by the
Singapore branch office
had to be approved by
Benjamin P. Palma
Gil, the president of the
bank whose principal
offices were in Manila.
With more reason does
this fact reinforce the
presumption that
respondent falls under
the legal definition
of migrant worker, in
this case one deployed
in Singapore.
Yes. The court ruled
that the NLRC has
jurisdiction at the case
at bar because the
respondents were not
undergoing any
specialization training.
They were considered
as non-training general
practitioners assigned
at the emergency
rooms and ward
sections.
Yes. The court held that
the petitioners claim for
illegal deductions falls
within tribunals
jurisdiction. It is
noteworthy that
petitioner demanded
the completion of her
retirement benefits,
including the amount
withheld by respondent
for taxation purposes.
The issue of deduction
for tax purposes is a
money claim arising
from the employeremployee relationship
which clearly falls
within the jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC.

recovery of wages, or
when employees are
forced to litigate and
consequently incur
expenses to protect
their rights and
interests, the grant of
attorneys fees is
legally justifiable.37

The Decision of the

Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 75871 is
affirmed with
modification in that the
award by the NLRC of
10% of the total
judgment award as
attorneys fees is
reinstated. In all other
aspects, the decision of
the appellate court is
affirmed.
The Petition is denied
for lack of merit. The
Court of Appeals
decision dated August
12, 2004 and its
resolution dated
December 17, 2004 in
CA-G.R. SP No. 75705
are affirmed.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

IV. Strikes
Parties and Case
Number
1. National Union of
Workers in the
Hotel Restaurant
and Allied
Industries
(NUWHRAIN-APLIUF) Dusit Hotel
Nikko chapter vs.
CA (Former
Eighth Division),
NLRC, Philippine
Hoteliers Inc,
owner and
operator of Dusit
Hotel Nikko
and/or Chiyuki
Fujimoto, and
Esperanza V.
Alvarez
(G.R. No.
163942,
Novembe
r 11, 2006)
NUWHRAIN-Dusit
Hotel Nikko
Chapter vs.
Secretary of
Labor and
Employment and
Philippine
Hotelier, Inc.
(G.R. No.
166295,
November 11,

Business of
the
Company
Hotel
Management

Work of
the
Employee
Hotel
service
attendants
, staffs

Is there a valid
strike?

What happened to
the case?

No. The court holds that

the Unions concerted
violation of the Hotels
Grooming Standards
which resulted in the
temporary cessation
and disruption of the
Hotels operations is an
unprotected act and
should consider as an
illegal strike. The
Unions concerted
action which disrupted
the Hotel's operations
clearly violated the
CBA's "No Strike, No
Lockout" provision.

The CA's May 6, 2004

Decision in CA-G.R. SP
No. 70778 is
hereby affirmed.
The CA's January 19,
2004 Decision in CAG.R. SP No. 76568 is
hereby set aside. The
October 9, 2002
Decision of the NLRC in
NLRC NCR CC No.
000215-02 is
hereby affirmed with
modiffications, as
follows:
The 29 Union officials
are hereby declared to
have lost their
employment status.
The 61 Union members
are hereby reinstated
to their former
positions without
backwages. In view of
the possibility that the
Hotel might have
already hired regular
replacements for the
afore-listed 61
employees, the Hotel
may opt to
pay separation
pay computed at one
(1) month's pay for
every year of service in
lieu of reinstatement, a
fraction of six (6)
months being
considered one year of

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

2008)

service.

2. National
Federation of
Sugar Workers
(NF SW) vs.
Ethelwoldo R.
Ovejera, Central
Azucarera de la
Carlota (CAC),
Col. Rogelio
Deinla, as
Provincial
Commander,
3311st P.C.
Command,
Negros
Occidental
(G.R. No. l59743, May 31,
1982)

Sugar
Plantation

Sugar
Planters
and Sugar
Workers

3. Telefunken
Semiconductors
Employees Union
FFW vs.
Secretary of
Labor and
Employment and
Temic Telefunken
Micro-Electronics
(Phils.), Inc. vs
Temic Telefunken
Micro-electronics
(Phils.), Inc. vs.
Hon. Leonardo A.
Quisumbing in
his capacity as
Secretary of
Labor and
Employment,
and Telefunken
Semiconductors
Employees
Union-FFW
(G.R. No. 122743
& 127215,
December 12,
1997)

Semiconduct
ors

Factory
workers

Yes. The court ruled

that NFSW strike is
illegal. The NFSW
declared the strike six
(6) days after filing a
strike notice, i.e., before
the lapse of the
mandatory cooling-off
period. It also failed to
file with the
MOLE before launching
the strike a report on
the strike-vote, when it
should have filed such
report "at least seven
(7) days before the
intended strike." Under
the circumstances, the
court perforce
constrained to conclude
that the strike staged
by petitioner is not in
conformity with law.
It defends; the Court
prefers to rule likewise
on the legality or
illegality of the strike
and determined the
individual liability of the
strikers. if any, to put
an end to this
protracted labor
dispute, this Court is
unable to do so as the
record is wanting of any
evidence to support a
conclusion. We thus
order the Secretary of
Labor to resolve the
instant case with
utmost dispatch and
determine whether the
strike was illegal and
the liability of the
individual strikers, if
any.

The petition is
dismissed for lack of
merit.

The Petition in G.R.

No. 122743 is granted.
Respondent Temic
Telefunken
Microelectronics
(Phils.), Inc. is ordered
to accept back
immediately all striking
workers of Telefunken
Semiconductors
Employees FFW
Without exception.
In G.R. No. 127215,
the petition is
Dismissed for lack of
merit. Accordingly,
respondent Secretary of
Labor and Employment
is directed to ensure
the effective
enforcement of the writ
of execution he issued
and determine with
dispatch the legality of
the strike as well as the
liability of the individual
strikers. If any, the
members of the
Telefunken
Semiconductors
Employees Union FFW
are warned that a

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

4. Batangas Laguna
Tayabas Bus
Company (BLTB
Co.) vs. NLRC,
Tinig at Lakas ng
Manggagawa sa
BLTBCO-NAFLU
and its reinstated
one hundred
ninety (190)
members
(G.R. No.
101858, August
21, 1992)

Bus
Company

Was not
mentioned

5. Zamboanga
Wood Products,
Inc. vs NLRC,
National
Federation of
Labor, Dionisio
Estioca and the
Strikers
(G.R. No. L82088, October
13, 1989)

Wood
Products

First hired
in May
1977 as a
clerk in its
personnel
departmen
t. In 1980,
he rose to
become a
personnel
aide. On
July 1,
1981, he
became
the
Personnel
Supervisor
,a
supervisor
y and/or
manageria
l position,
next in
rank to the
Personnel
Manager.

Yes. The Secretary of

Labor assumed
jurisdiction over the
dispute and certified
the dispute to the
NLRC. A copy of the
certification order was
served upon the NAFLU
and on the TLM-BLTBCoNAFLU. However it was
noted in the notice of
order that union
secretary Jerry Soriano
refused to receive it.
Union officers and
members went on strike
and maintained picket
lines blocking the
premises of BLTBCos
terminals. A return to
work order was
published by BLTBCo to
called on all striking
workers to return.
No. The Court ruled that
the illegal dismissal of
Estioca and the
Companys unionbusting efforts were
legal grounds for the
strike. In fact, the
Company did not deny
the charge of union
busting levelled by the
respondents. Union
busting, or interference
with the formation of a
union, constitute an
unfair labor practice,
hence a valid ground
for the declaration of a
strike.

repetition of the same

or similar mass
demonstration within or
about the premises of
the Court will be dealt
with severely.
The petition is
dismissed. The
resolutions dated July
19, 1991, and
September 16, 1991,
are affirmed. The
temporary restraining
order dated November
6, 1991, is lifted. Costs
against the petitioner.

The petition for

certiorari is dismissed.
The decision of the
NLRC in Certified Case.
No. 0309 is affirmed
with modification by
ordering the petitioner
Zamboanga Wood
Products, Inc. to
reinstate the strikers,
including Dionisio
Estioca to their former
positions without loss of
seniority rights and
with backwages from
August 19, 1982 when
they offered to report
for work, up to August
1984 when they were
readmitted by the
Company. With respect
to Estioca, his
backwages shall not
exceed a period of
three (3) years from
April 30, 1982. The fine
of P10,000 imposed on
the petitioner for its
delay in complying with

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

6. Union of Filipro
Emploees (UFE)
vs. Nestle
Philippines, Inc.,
NLRC, Hon.
Eduardo G.
Magno, Hon.
Zosimo T. Vasallo
and Hon.
Evangeline S.
Lubaton
(G.R. No. 8871013, December
19, 1990)

Dairy
Products

7. Henry Bacus,
Maximo Dangga,
Salvador Flores,
Victor Fuentes,
Santiago
Lacquiao, Luz
Fuentes,
Eleodoro Gajo,
Juanito Genilla,
Godofredo GacAng, and Calixto
Coyno vs. Hon.
Blas F. Ople,
Minister of Labor
of Employment
and Findlay Millar
Timber Company

Logging and
Manufacture
of plywood,
veneer and
other lumber
products.

Wood
processing
plants
workers,
administra
tive and
technical
services

No. The court ruled

that a strike that is
undertaken despite the
issuance by the
Secretary of Labor on
an assumption or
certification order
becomes a prohibited
activity and thus illegal,
pursuant to the second
paragraph of Art. 264 of
the Labor Code as
amended. The return to
work order does not so
much confer a right as
it imposes a duty; and
while as a right it may
be waived, it must be
discharged as a duty
even against the
worker's will. Returning
to work in this situation
is not a matter of option
or voluntariness but of
obligation. The worker
must return to his job
together with his coworkers so the
operations of the
company can be
resumed and it can
continue serving the
public and promoting
its interest.
Yes, the court ruled that
strike is illegal and at
very least, respondent
Minister of Labor and
Employment should
have viewed the strike
as premature. In the
instant case, it is not
disputed that, indeed,
the Company did not
pay the salaries of the
workers for one and a
half months, more or
less. Such act of the
Company broke the
patience of the workers

the Secretarys returnto-work order, is

affirmed. Costs against
the petitioner.
The petition is
dismissed, and the
decision of public
respondent NLRC,
dated November 2,
1988, and its
Resolution, dated March
7, 1989, are both
affirmed in their
entirety. No costs.

The petition is hereby

granted. The decision
of the Ministry of Labor
and Employment dated
October 18, 1979 is
declared NULL and
VOID and hereby SET
ASIDE. Respondent
Minister of Labor and
Employment is hereby
ordered to conduct a
hearing in MOLE Case
No. 003-79 on charges
of serious acts of
violence against the
petitioners giving them
the opportunity to be
heard and present their
evidence. Pending

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm

(G.R. No. L58856, October

23, 1984)

8. Sukhothai
Cuisine and
Restaurant vs.
CA, NLRC,
Philippine Labor
Alliance Council
(PLAC), Local 460
Sukhothai
Restaurant
Chapter
(G.R. No.
150437, July 17,
2006)

Restaurant

Cook

and those who

depended on them for
support and daily
subsistence. On the
other hand, the act of
the workers in
demanding a valid
grievance for the
payment of their
salaries is inspired by
their honest belief that
the Company was
committing acts
inimical to their
interests relative to
wages which, basically,
is a violation of the CBA
existing between the
parties.
Yes. The court has held
that strikes staged in
violation of agreements
providing for arbitration
are illegal, since these
agreements must be
strictly adhered to and
respected if their ends
are to be achieved. The
rationale of the
prohibition under Article
264 is that once
jurisdiction over the
labor dispute has been
properly acquired by
competent authority,
that jurisdiction should
not be interfered with
by the application of
the coercive processes
of a strike. Indeed it is
among the chief
policies of the State to
promote and emphasize
the primacy of free
collective bargaining
and negotiations,
including voluntary
arbitration, mediation,
and conciliation, as
modes of settling labor,
or industrial disputes

resolution of the
aforesaid case on the
merit, respondent
Company is hereby
ordered to reinstate the
ten (10) petitioners
herein to their former
positions without loss of
seniority rights and
privileges.

The petition is granted.

The Decision and
Resolution of the Court
of Appeals together
with the Decision dated
November 29, 2000 of
the National Labor
Relations Commission
are reserved and set
aside. The Decision of
the Labor Arbiter
dated October 12,
1999 is reinstated. The
Court finds the strike
illegal and, as a
consequence thereto,
the union officers who
participated in the
illegal strike and in the
commission of illegal
acts, namely,
Emmanuel Cayno, Billy
Bacus, Analiza Cablay,
Jose Neil Arcilla, Roel
Esancha, and Claudio
Panaligan, as well as
the union members
who participated in the
commission of illegal
acts during the strike,
namely, Rey Arsenal,
Alex Martinez, Hermie
Raz, Jose Lanorias, Lito
Arce, Cesar Sangreo,
Rolando Fabregas,
Jimmy Balan, Joven
Lualhati, Antonio
Enebrad, Edgar
Eugenio, Albert Agbuya,

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm
Arnel Salvador, Ricky
Del Prado, Bernie Del
Mundo, Roberto Eco,
Joven Talidong, Leny
Lucente, Rigoberto
Tubaon, Merly Naz, Lino
Salubre, Rolando
Pugong, and John
Bathan, all private
respondents, are
hereby declared to
have lost their
employment status.

9. Far Eastern
University-Dr.
Nicanor Reyes
Medical
Foundation (FEUNRMF) and Lilia
P. Luna, M.D. vs.
FEU-NRMF
Employees
AssociationAlliance of
Filipino Workers
(FEU-NRMFEAAFW), Union
Officers, the
Alliance of
Filipino Workers
(AFW), federation
officers Gregorio
C. Del Prado and
Jose Umali
(G.R. No.
168362,

Medical
Institution
(Hospital)

10.Hotel Enterprises
of the
Philippines, Inc.
(HEPI), owner of
Hyatt Regency
vs. Samahan ng
mga
Manggagawa sa
Hyatt-National

Hotel
Management

Hospital
staffs

Yes. The court ruled

that the strike
conducted by the
respondent union was
valid and legal under
the circumstances,
therefore no cogent
reason to dismiss the
union officers. The
presumption of receipt
of the copies of the
Assumption of
Jurisdiction Order could
not be lightly inferred
from the circumstances
considering the adverse
effect in case the
parties failed to heed to
the injunction directed
by such Order. Merely
posting copies of the
Assumption of
Jurisdiction Order does
not satisfy the rigid
requirement for proper
service outlined by the
above stated
rules. Needless to say,
the manner of service
made by the process
server was invalid and
irregular. Respondent
union could not
therefore be adjudged
to have defied the said
Order since it was not
properly apprised
thereof.
Housekeep Yes. The court ruled
ing
that the strike staged
attendant- by officers and member
line, tailor, of respondent is,
room
perforce illegal though
attendant, the respondent fully
messenger satisfied the procedural
/mail clerk, requirements
and
prescribed by law,
telephone
however, a valid and

The instant petition is

denied. Costs against
the petitioner.

The petition is partly

granted. The
downsizing scheme
implemented by
petitioner is hereby
declared a valid
exercise of
management
prerogative. The
penalty of six (6)

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Union of Workers
in the Hotel and
Restaurants and
Allied Industries
(SAMASAHNUWRAIN)
(G.R. No.
165756, June 5,
2009)

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Saturday, 5-7pm
technician

legal strike must be

based on strikeable
grounds, because if it is
based on a nonstrikeable ground, it is
generally deemed an
illegal strike.
Respondent Union
went on strike in the
honest belief that
petitioner was
committing ULP after
the latter decided to
downsize its
workforce contrary
to the
staffing/manning
standards adopted
by both parties
under a CBA forged
only four (4) months
earlier. The belief was
bolstered when the
management hired 100
contractual workers to
replace the 48
terminated regular
rank-and-file employees
who were all Union
members. Indeed,
those circumstances
showed prima facie that
the hotel committed
ULP. Thus, even if
technically there was
no legal ground to
stage a strike based on
ULP, since the
attendant
circumstances support
the belief in good faith
that petitioners
retrenchment scheme
was structured to
weaken the bargaining
power of the Union, the
strike, by exception,
may be considered
legal.

months suspension
without pay imposed in
the April 3, 2003 NLRC
Resolution is hereby
reduced to two (2)
months, to be
considered in the Labor
Arbiters computation of
the separation pay to
be received by the
Union officers
concerned. The first
batch of quitclaims
signed by 33 of the 48
terminated employees
is hereby declared
invalid and illegal for
failure to state the
proper consideration
therefor, but the
amount received by the
employees concerned,
if any, shall be
deducted from their
separation pay and
other monetary
benefits, subject to the
computation to be
made by the Labor
Arbiter. The second
batch of quitclaims
signed by 85 of the 160
terminated employees,
following Hyatt
Regency Manilas
permanent closure, is
declared valid and
binding.