Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Labor Law
Pre-week Labor Updates not related by blood to the member unlike in
PD 626, Johns deliberate act of indicating
Prof. Benedict G. Kato, LA petitioner as his beneficiary at least evinces that
(former professor) he, in a way, considered petitioner as his
dependent. Consequently, the confluence of
SUPPLEMENT NO. 001 circumstances from Cornelios death during
Johns minority, the restoration of petitioners
EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION parental authority, the documents showing
singularity of address, and Johns clear intention
Bartolome vs. Social Security System, to designate petitioner as a beneficiary -
G.R. No. 192531, November 12, 2014 effectively made petitioner, to Our mind,
entitled to death benefit claims as a secondary
1. Rule limiting entitlement to death beneficiary under PD 626 as a dependent
benefit claims to legitimate parents is parent.
contrary to law.
RETIREMENT
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Fortune Tobacco Corporation, the SC held: Goodyear Philippines, Inc. vs. Angus,
G.R. No. 185449, November 12, 2014
Administrative regulations must always
be in harmony with the provisions of the law 1. When employee is entitled to both
because any resulting discrepancy between the separation pay and early retirement
two will always be resolved in favor of the basic benefit in the absence of a provision in
law. the CBA prohibiting recovery of both.
Page 1 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
unlawful acts of the corporation, or that the that the seafarers death had occurred during
officer was guilty of gross negligence or bad the term of his employment, in view of the
faith; and (2) the complainant clearly and terminative consequences of a medical
convincingly proved such unlawful acts, repatriation under Section 18 (B) of the same. In
negligence or bad faith. essence, the Court held that under such
circumstance, the work-related death need not
SUPPLEMENT NO. 002 precisely occur during the term of his
employment as it is enough that the seafarers
EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION work-related injury or illness which eventually
causes his death had occurred during the term
1. When death of seafarer considered of his employment.
work-related.
3. Seafarer not immediately repatriated
Racelis vs. United Philippine Lines, Inc., after his contract expired, thus his injury
G.R. No. 198408, November 12, 2014 incurred after his contract expired was
work-related.
While it is true that Brainstem (pontine)
Cavernous Malformation is not listed as an Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. vs. Hipe, Jr.,
occupational disease under Section 32-A of the G.R. No. 204699, November 12, 2014
2000 POEA-SEC, Section 20 (B) (4) of the same
explicitly provides that [t[he liabilities of the The issue of whether the seafarer can
employer when the seafarer suffers work- legally demand and claim disability benefits
related injury or illness during the term of his from the employer/manning agency for an
contract are as follows: (t)hose illnesses not injury or illness suffered may be determined
listed in Section 32 of this Contract are from the pertinent provisions of the 2000
disputably presumed as work related. This POEA-SEC. Hipe was made to continuously
presumption should be overturned only when perform work aboard the vessel beyond his six-
the employers refutation is found to be month contract without the benefit of a formal
supported by substantial evidence. contract. Considering that any extension of his
employment is discretionary on the part of
2. Seafarers death occurred during period respondents and that the latter offered no
of employment even if he was explanation why Hipe was not repatriated
medically repatriated. when his contract expired on June 5, 2008, the
CA correctly ruled that he was still under the
While it is true that a medical employ of respondents when he sustained an
repatriation has the effect of terminating the injury on June 22, 2008. Consequently, the
seafarers contract of employment, it is, injury suffered by Hipe was a work-related
however, enough that the work-related illness, injury and his eventual repatriation on August
which eventually becomes the proximate cause 5, 2008, for which he was treated/rehabilitated
of death, occurred while the contract was can only be considered as a medical
effective for recovery to be had. repatriation.
Page 2 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
compensability is sought. Said fit-to-work receipt she misappropriated. This is commonly
certification must stand for two (2) reasons: referred to as lapping of accounts. Only a most
trusted clerk would be allowed to perform the
First, while Hipes personal doctor two functions, and the respondent enjoyed this
disagreed with the abovementioned trust.
assessment, opining that it would be
impossible for him to work as seaman-plumber SUPPLEMENT NO. 003
and recommending a disability grade of five,
records show, however, that such opinion was APPEAL
not supported by any diagnostic tests and/or
procedures as would adequately refute the fit- Michelin Asia Pacific Application Support
to-work assessment, but merely relied on a Center, Inc. vs. Ortiz,
review of Hipes medical history and his G.R. No. 189861, November 19, 2014
physical examination; and
1. Appeal properly dismissed by the NLRC
Second, Hipe failed to comply with the due to complainants failure to attach a
procedure laid down under Section 20 (B) (3) certificate of non-forum shopping, in
of the 2000 POEA-SEC with regard to the joint filing a motion for reconsideration
appointment by the parties of a third doctor beyond the 10-day period, and in filing
whose decision shall be final and binding on a prohibited second motion for
them in case the seafarers personal doctor reconsideration.
disagrees with the company-designated
physicians fit-to-work assessment. In Philippine 2. Filing of a prohibited second motion for
Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v. Dumadag reconsideration did not toll the running
(Philippine Hammonia), the Court held that the of the 60-day period for filing a petition
seafarers non-compliance with the said conflict- for certiorari under Rule 65, thus
resolution procedure results in the affirmance of petition filed out of time.
the fit-to-work certification of the company-
designated physician. JUDGMENTS
Page 3 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
and there is no showing that 60 was the connection between the trauma
provided mandatory age for faculty or exertion in the course of the
members. employment and the cerebro-
vascular attack; and (3) the
SUPPLEMENT NO. 004 trauma or exertion then and
there caused a brain
EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION hemorrhage. On the other
hand, essential hypertension is
Government Service Insurance System vs. compensable only if it causes
Calumpiano, impairment of function of body
G.R. No. 196102, November 26, 2014 organs like kidneys, heart, eyes
and brain, resulting in
1. When court stenographers permanent disability, provided
hypertension and resulting glaucoma that, the following documents
considered compensable. substantiate it: (a) chest X-ray
report; (b) ECG report; (c)
In Government Service Insurance blood chemistry report; (d)
System v. Baul, it was held: funduscopy report; and (e) C-T
scan.
Cerebro-vascular
accident and essential EMPLOYEE STATUS
hypertension are considered as
occupational diseases under Manalo, et. al. vs. TNS Philippines, Inc.,
Nos. 19 and 29, respectively, of G.R. No. 208567, November 26, 2014
Annex A of the Implementing
Rules of P.D. No. 626, as 1. Regular employees, not project
amended. Thus, it is not employees; project employment
necessary that there be proof of scheme circumvented the law and
causal relation between the prevented employees from attaining
work and the illness which regular status.
resulted in the respondents
disability. The open-ended In Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC, the Court
Table of Occupational Diseases held that once a project or work pool employee
requires no proof of causation. has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to
In general, a covered claimant intermittently, rehired by the same employer
suffering from an occupational for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (2)
disease is automatically paid these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable
benefits. to the usual business or trade of the employer,
However, although then the employee must be deemed a regular
cerebro-vascular accident and employee.
essential hypertension are listed
occupational diseases, their Granting arguendo that petitioners
compensability requires were rehired intermittently, a careful review of
compliance with all the the project employment contracts of petitioners
conditions set forth in the Rules. reveals some other vague provisions. Oddly,
In short, both are qualified one of the terms and conditions in the said
occupational diseases. For contract stated that:
cerebro-vascular accident, the
claimant must prove the 1. The need for your services
following: (1) there must be a being determinable and for a
history, which should be specific project starting
proved, of trauma at work (to ____________ your
the head specifically) due to employment will be for the
unusual and extraordinary duration of said project of
physical or mental strain or the Company, namely
event, or undue exposure to Project ___________ which is
noxious gases in industry; (2) expected to be finished on
there must be a direct _____________. The
Page 4 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
Company shall have the not merely its designation or by which it was
option of renewing or denominated, is controlling. Though there is a
extending the period of this rule that conflicting provisions in a contract
agreement for such time as it should be harmonized to give effect to all, in
may be necessary to this case, however, harmonization is impossible
complete the project or because project employment and probationary
because we need further employment are distinct from one another and
time to determine your cannot co-exist with each other. Hence, should
competence on the job. there be ambiguity in the provisions of the
contract, the rule is that all doubts,
To the Court, the phrase because we uncertainties, ambiguities and insufficiencies
need further time to determine your should be resolved in favor of labor. This is in
competence on the job would refer to a consonance with the constitutional policy of
probationary employment. Such phrase providing full protection to labor.
changes the tenor of the contract and runs
counter to the very nature of a project EXECUTION
employment. TNS can, therefore, extend the
contract which was already fixed when it Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Paz,
deemed it necessary to determine whether or G.R. No. 192924, November 26, 2014
not the employee was qualified and fit for the
job. Corollarily, TNS can likewise pre-terminate 1. When delay in execution of
the contract not because the specific project was reinstatement pending appeal not
completed ahead of time, but because of failure attributable to the employer but
to qualify for the job. Consistently, the terms because of the constraints of corporate
and conditions of the contract read: rehabilitation, thus pilot not entitled to
reinstatement salaries.
4. It is expressly agreed
and understood that the The rule is that the employee is entitled
Company may terminate your to reinstatement salaries notwithstanding the
employment after compliance reversal of the LA decision granting him said
with procedural requirements relief. In Roquero v. Philippine Airlines, the
of law, without benefit of Court underscored that it is obligatory on the
termination pay and without part of the employer to reinstate and pay the
any obligation on the part of wages of the dismissed employee during the
the Company, in the event of period of appeal until reversal by the higher
any breach of any conditions court. This is so because the order of
hereof: reinstatement is immediately executory. Unless
there is a restraining order issued, it is ministerial
a) If the project is completed upon the LA to implement the order of
or cancelled before the reinstatement. The unjustified refusal of the
expected date of employer to reinstate a dismissed employee
completion as specified in entitles him to payment of his salaries effective
paragraph 1 hereof; from the time the employer failed to reinstate
him.
b) If we should find that you are
not qualified, competent or In light of the fact that PAL's failure to
efficient in the above-stated comply with the reinstatement order was
positions for which you are justified by the exigencies of corporation
hired in accordance with rehabilitation, the respondent may no longer
the company standards claim salaries which he should have received
made known to you at the during the period that the LA decision ordering
start of your employment; his reinstatement is still pending appeal until it
xxx was overturned by the NLRC. Thus, the CA
committed a reversible error in recognizing the
For said reason, at the outset, the respondent's right to collect reinstatement
supposed project employment contract was salaries albeit suspending its execution while
highly doubtful. In determining the true nature PAL is still under corporate rehabilitation.
of an employment, the entirety of the contract,
Page 5 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
TERMINATION CONSEQUENCES The established rule in labor law is that
the withholding of wages need not be coupled
Manalo, et. al. vs. TNS Philippines, Inc., with malice or bad faith to warrant the grant of
G.R. No. 208567, November 26, 2014 attorneys fees under Article 111 of the Labor
Code. All that is required is that lawful wages
1. Illegally dismissed employees entitled to be not paid without justification, thus
backwages and separation pay. compelling the employee to litigate.
Page 6 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
subsequent investigation and termination of
2. Assessment of company-designated petitioner on grounds of dishonesty, loss of
physician upheld over the one (1) page confidence and abandonment of work, clearly
assessment of the seafarers personal appears as an afterthought as it was done only
physician (Dr. Jacinto). after petitioner had filed an illegal dismissal case
and respondents have been summoned for
Vergara ruled that the procedure in the hearing before the LA.
2000 POEA-SEC must be strictly followed;
otherwise, if not availed of or followed strictly Abandonment in this case was a
by the seafarer, the assessment of the company- trumped up charge, apparently to make it
designated physician stands. appear that petitioner was not yet terminated
when she filed the illegal dismissal complaint
xxx and to give a semblance of truth to the belated
Having extensive investigation against the petitioner. Petitioner
personal knowledge of the did not abandon her work but was told not to
seafarer's actual medical report for work anymore after being served a
condition, and having closely, written notice of termination of company
meticulously and regularly closure on July 27, 2000 and turning over
monitored and treated his company properties to respondent Rialubin-
injury for an extended period, Tan.
the company-designated
physician is certainly in a better APPEAL
position to give a more accurate
evaluation of Montierro's One Shipping Corp. vs. Penafiel,
health condition. The disability G.R. No. 192406, January 21, 2015
grading given by him should
therefore be given more weight 1. Court of Appeals properly ruled on the
than the assessment of merits of the case even if the NLRC
Montierro's physician of choice. decision had already become final after
the lapse of ten days, as the petition was
SUPPLEMENT NO. 006 filed within the sixty (60) day period
for filing a petition for certiorari under
ABANDONMENT Rule 65.
Page 7 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
party, and (3) void judgments. 1. Seafarer proven to have committed
Nunc pro tunc judgments have suicide.
been defined and characterized
by the Court in the following The Medico-Legal Report and the
manner: Death Certificate, together with the
Investigation Report, log book extracts, and
Section A of Rule VII of the NLRC Rules Masters Report substantially prove that seaman
of Procedure provides that except as provided Glicerios death was attributable to his
in Section 9 of Rule X, the decisions, resolutions deliberate act of killing himself by committing
or orders of the Commission shall become final suicide.
and executory after ten (10) calendar days from
receipt thereof by the parties. Section B of the 2. Seafarers heirs not entitled to any
same Rules provides that upon the expiration death benefits as the seafarer
of the ten (10) calendar days period provided committed suicide.
in paragraph (a) of this Section, the decision,
resolution, or order shall be entered in a book Section 20 of the POEA Standard
of entries of judgment. Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas
Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board
2. Filing of petition for certiorari does not Ocean-Going Ships, provides:
interrupt the course of the principal
case. x x x
B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
Section 7 of Rule 65 provides: FOR DEATH
xxx
Sec. 7. Expediting D. No compensation and
proceedings; Injunctive relief. - benefits shall be payable in
The court in which the petition respect of any injury,
is filed may issue orders incapacity, disability or
expediting the proceedings, and death of the seafarer
it may also grant a temporary resulting from his willful or
restraining order or a writ of criminal act or intentional
preliminary injunction for the breach of his duties,
preservation of the rights of the provided however, that the
parties pending such employer can prove that
proceedings. The petition shall such injury, incapacity,
not interrupt the course of the disability or death is directly
principal case unless a attributable to the seafarer.
temporary restraining order or
a writ of preliminary injunction Clearly, the employer is liable to pay
has been issued enjoining the the heirs of the deceased seafarer for death
public respondent from further benefits once it is established that he died during
proceeding with the case. the effectivity of his employment contract.
However, the employer may be exempt from
The public respondent liability if it can successfully prove that the
shall proceed with the principal seamans death was caused by an injury directly
case within ten (10) days from attributable to his deliberate or willful act.
the filing of a petition for
certiorari with a higher court or EVIDENCE
tribunal absent a temporary
restraining order or a 1. NLRC may receive evidence even on
preliminary injunction, or upon appeal.
its expiration.
In Sasan, Sr. v. National Labor Relations
EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION Commission 4th Division, it was held that
jurisprudence is replete with cases allowing the
Unicol Management Services, Inc. vs. Malipot, NLRC to admit evidence, not presented before
G.R. No. 206562, January 21, 2015 the Labor Arbiter, and submitted to the NLRC
for the first time on appeal. The submission of
Page 8 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
additional evidence before the NLRC is not her, erred in applying Section 94 of the 1992
prohibited by its New Rules of Procedure MRPS. Essentially, she claims that the 1992
considering that rules of evidence prevailing in MRPS was issued by the Secretary of Education
courts of law or equity are not controlling in as the revised implementing rules and
labor cases. The NLRC and Labor Arbiters are regulations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 232 (BP
directed to use every and all reasonable means 232) or the Education Act of 1982. That there
to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and is no provision in BP 232, which provides for
objectively, without regard to technicalities of the grounds for the termination of employment
law and procedure all in the interest of of teaching and non-teaching personnel of
substantial justice. In keeping with this directive, private schools. Thus, Section 94 of the 1992
it has been held that the NLRC may consider MRPS, which provides for the causes of
evidence, such as documents and affidavits, terminating an employment, is invalid as it
submitted by the parties for the first time on widened the scope and coverage of BP 232.
appeal.
The Court does not agree.
Moreover, among the powers of the
Commission as provided in Section 218 of the The Court notes that the argument
Labor Code is that the Commission may issue against the validity of the 1992 MRPS,
subpoenas requiring the attendance and specifically Section 94 thereof, is raised by the
testimony of witnesses or the production of petitioner for the first time in the instant
such books, papers, contracts, records, petition for review. Nowhere in the
statement of accounts, agreements, and others. proceedings before the LA, the NLRC or the CA
In addition, the Commission may, among other did the petitioner assail the validity of the
things, conduct investigation for the provisions of the 1992 MRPS.
determination of a question, matter or
controversy within its jurisdiction, proceed to It is well established that issues raised
hear and determine the disputes in the absence for the first time on appeal and not raised in the
of any party thereto who has been summoned proceedings in the lower court are barred by
or served with notice to appear, conduct its estoppel. Points of law, theories, issues, and
proceedings or any part thereof in public or in arguments not brought to the attention of the
private, adjourn its hearings to any time and trial court ought not to be considered by a
place, refer technical matters or accounts to an reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for
expert and to accept his report as evidence after the first time on appeal. To consider the alleged
hearing of the parties upon due notice. From facts and arguments belatedly raised would
the foregoing, it can be inferred that the NLRC amount to trampling on the basic principles of
can receive evidence on cases appealed before fair play, justice, and due process.
the Commission, otherwise, its factual
conclusions would not have been given great ATTORNEYS FEES
respect, much weight, and relevance when an
adverse party assails the decision of the NLRC Eyana vs. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc.,
via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the G.R. No. 193468, January 28, 2015
Rules of Court before the CA and then to this
Court via a petition for review under Rule 45. 1. When seafarer entitled to attorneys
fees, but the same is reduced to P1,
SUPPLEMENT NO. 007 000.00 as the acts of respondents did
not evince bad faith and they did not
APPEAL completely shirk from their duties to the
seafarer.
Leus vs. St. Scholasticas College Westgrove,
G.R. No. 187225, January 28, 2015 The petitioner is entitled to attorneys
fees pursuant to Article 2208(8) of the Civil
1. Issue on the validity of the 1992 Manual Code. The Court, however, notes that the
of Regulations for Private Schools (1992 respondents provided the petitioner with
MRPS) cannot be raised for the first medical treatment and offered to pay him
time before the Supreme Court. disability benefits, albeit in the reduced amount.
In other words, the acts of the respondents did
The petitioner contends that the CA, in not evince bad faith. The respondents did not
ruling that there was a valid ground to dismiss completely shirk from their duties to the
Page 9 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
petitioner. Although the petitioner was still thus 1. Under the 1996 POEA Standard
compelled to litigate to be entitled to total and Employment Contract, it is enough that
permanent disability compensation, the Court the seafarer suffered his illness or injury
finds the award of attorneys fees in the amount during the term of his employment
of US$1,000.00 as reasonable. contract for the same to be
compensable.
DAMAGES
The 1996 POEA-SEC reads:
Leus vs. St. Scholasticas College Westgrove, SECTION 20.
G.R. No. 187225, January 28, 2015 COMPENSATION AND
BENEFITS
1. When damages are not awarded in the xxx
absence of bad faith. B. COMPENSATION AND
BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR
A dismissed employee is entitled to ILLNESS
moral damages when the dismissal is attended The liabilities of the
by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act employer when the seafarer
oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner suffers injury or illness during
contrary to good morals, good customs or the term of his contract are as
public policy. Exemplary damages may be follows:
awarded if the dismissal is effected in a wanton, xxx
oppressive or malevolent manner.
We have ruled that under the 1996
Bad faith, under the law, does not POEA-SEC, it is enough that the seafarer proves
simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It that his or her injury or illness was acquired
imports a dishonest purpose or some moral during the term of employment to support a
obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, or a claim for disability benefits.
breach of a known duty through some motive
or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature Note: Under the 2010 POEA-SEC,
of fraud. injury or illness must be (a) work-connected; (b)
acquired during the term of employment.
It must be noted that the burden of
proving bad faith rests on the one alleging it 2. No provision in the 1996 POEA
since basic is the principle that good faith is Standard Employment Contract on
presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the concealment of pre-existing medical
duty to prove the same. Allegations of bad condition.
faith and fraud must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence. C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. vs. Perez,
G.R. No. 194885, January 26, 2015
The records of this case are bereft of any
clear and convincing evidence showing that the We disagree with petitioners that
respondents acted in bad faith or in a wanton respondent is not entitled to disability benefits
or fraudulent manner in dismissing the because he is guilty of fraud in concealing his
petitioner. That the petitioner was illegally pre-existing medical condition. Petitioners
dismissed is insufficient to prove bad faith. A cannot rely on Section 20(E) of the 2000 POEA-
dismissal may be contrary to law but by itself SEC since, as discussed above, it is the 1996
alone, it does not establish bad faith to entitle POEA-SEC that is applicable to the instant case.
the dismissed employee to moral damages. The Section 20(E) of the 1996 POEA-SEC provides:
award of moral and exemplary damages cannot
be justified solely upon the premise that the E. When requested, the seafarer
employer dismissed his employee without shall be furnished a copy of
cause. all pertinent medical
reports or records at no cost
EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION (NOTE: 2010 to the seafarer.
POEA-SEC VS. 1996 POEA-SEC)
The above-quoted provision does not
C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. vs. Perez, mention concealment. It only requires that the
G.R. No. 194885, January 26, 2015 seafarer be furnished a copy of all pertinent
Page 10 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
medical records upon request. On this point, chance or fortuitously, without intention and
the NLRC appears to have been misled in ruling design, and which is unexpected, unusual and
that respondent is guilty of concealment. unforeseen.
Page 11 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
In Chua-Qua v. Clave, the Court pre-marital sexual relations between two
stressed that to constitute immorality, the consenting adults who have no impediment to
circumstances of each particular case must be marry each other, and, consequently,
holistically considered and evaluated in light of conceiving a child out of wedlock, gauged from
the prevailing norms of conduct and applicable a purely public and secular view of morality,
laws. Otherwise stated, it is not the totality of does not amount to a disgraceful or immoral
the circumstances surrounding the conduct per conduct under Section 94(e) of the 1992 MRPS.
se that determines whether the same is
disgraceful or immoral, but the conduct that is 5. There is no substantial evidence to
generally accepted by society as respectable or prove that the petitioners pregnancy
moral. If the conduct does not conform to what out of wedlock caused grave scandal to
society generally views as respectable or moral, SSCW and its students.
then the conduct is considered as disgraceful or
immoral. Tersely put, substantial evidence must Other than the SSCWs bare allegation,
be presented, which would establish that a the records are bereft of any evidence that
particular conduct, viewed in light of the would convincingly prove that the petitioners
prevailing norms of conduct, is considered conduct indeed adversely affected SSCWs
disgraceful or immoral. integrity in teaching the moral doctrines, which
it stands for. The petitioner is only a non-
Thus, the determination of whether a teaching personnel; her interaction with SSCWs
conduct is disgraceful or immoral involves a students is very limited. It is thus quite
two-step process: first, a consideration of the impossible that her pregnancy out of wedlock
totality of the circumstances surrounding the caused such a grave scandal, as claimed by
conduct; and second, an assessment of the said SSCW, as to warrant her dismissal.
circumstances vis--vis the prevailing norms of
conduct, i.e., what the society generally SUPPLEMENT NO. 008
considers moral and respectable.
POEA-SEC
3. Public and secular morality should
determine the prevailing norms of Veritas Maritime Corporation vs. Gepanaga,
conduct, not religious morality. Jr.,
G.R. No. 206285, February 4, 2015
In Estrada v. Escritor , an administrative
case against a court interpreter charged with 1. In Philippine Hammonia v. Dumadag, it
disgraceful and immoral conduct, the Court was held:
stressed that in determining whether a particular
conduct can be considered as disgraceful and Given the circumstances
immoral, the distinction between public and under which Dumadag pursued
secular morality on the one hand, and religious his claim, especially the fact that
morality, on the other, should be kept in mind. he caused the non-referral to a
That the distinction between public and secular third doctor, Dr. Dacanays fit-
morality and religious morality is important to-work certification must be
because the jurisdiction of the Court extends upheld. In Santiago v. Pacbasin
only to public and secular morality. Ship Management, Inc., the
Court declared: "[t]here was no
4. The petitioners pregnancy out of agreement on a third doctor
wedlock is not a disgraceful or immoral who shall examine him anew
conduct since she and the father of her and whose finding shall be final
child have no impediment to marry and binding. x x x [T]his Court
each other. is left without choice but to
uphold the certification made
Viewed against the prevailing norms of by Dr. Lim with respect to
conduct, the petitioners conduct cannot be Santiagos disability."
considered as disgraceful or immoral; such
conduct is not denounced by public and secular 2. Seafarers claims premature as when he
morality. It may be an unusual arrangement, filed his complaint, he had yet to
but it certainly is not disgraceful or immoral consult his own physician.
within the contemplation of the law. To stress,
Page 12 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
A seafarer may have basis to pursue an (g) The company-designated
action for total and permanent disability physician declared him totally
benefits, if any of the following conditions is and permanently disabled but
present: the employer refuses to pay him
the corresponding benefits; and
(a) The company-designated
physician failed to issue a (h) The company-designated
declaration as to his fitness to physician declared him partially
engage in sea duty or disability and permanently disabled
even after the lapse of the 120- within the 120-day or 240-day
day period and there is no period but he remains
indication that further medical incapacitated to perform his
treatment would address his usual sea duties after the lapse
temporary total disability, of said periods.
hence, justify an extension of
the period to 240 days; When Gepanaga filed his complaint on
March 25, 2009, he had yet to consult his own
(b) 240 days had lapsed physician, Dr. Villa. Indeed, the Court has
without any certification issued observed that when Gepanaga filed his
by the company designated complaint, he was armed only with the belief
physician; that he had yet to fully recover from his injured
finger because of the incident that occurred on
(c) The company-designated board the M.V. Melbourne Highway. It was
physician declared that he is fit only on June 9, 2009, a few days before he filed
for sea duty within the 120-day his position paper on June 15, 2009, that
or 240-day period, as the case Gepanaga sought the services of Dr. Villa.
may be, but his physician of
choice and the doctor chosen 3. Seafarers physician only examined him
under Section 20-B(3) of the for one (1) day and failed to state the
POEA-SEC are of a contrary basis of his assessment and conclusion of
opinion; permanent disability.
Page 13 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
SUPPLEMENT NO. 009 The Civil Code provides that the
employer is authorized to withhold wages for
APPEAL debts due:
Milan, et. al. vs. National Labor Relations Article 1706. Withholding of
Commission, the wages, except for a debt
G.R. No. 202961, February 4, 2015 due, shall not be made by the
employer.
1. Claim for retirement benefits was not
included in the complaint and hence Debt in this case refers to any
cannot be raised on appeal. obligation due from the employee to the
employer. It includes any accountability that the
Teodora Mahiloms claim for employee may have to the employer. There is
retirement benefits was not included in her no reason to limit its scope to uniforms and
complaint filed before the Labor Arbiter. equipment, as petitioners would argue.
Hence, it may not be raised in the appeal.
4. The preferential treatment given by
2. Employer has the right to require our law to labor is not a license for
clearance before the release of last abuse; it is not a signal to commit
payments to the employee; an acts of unfairness that will
employer is allowed to withhold unreasonably infringe on the
terminal pay and benefits pending the property rights of the company.
employee's return of its properties;
employers withholding of terminal pay Our laws provide for a clear preference
and other benefits pending the for labor. This is in recognition of the
employees vacating properties it owns asymmetrical power of those with capital when
thus valid. they are left to negotiate with their workers
without the standards and protection of law. In
As an exception to the general rule that cases such as these, the collective bargaining unit
wages may not be withheld and benefits may of workers are able to get more benefits and in
not be diminished, the Labor Code provides: exchange, the owners are able to continue with
the program of cutting their losses or wind
Art. 113. Wage deduction. No down their operations due to serious business
employer, in his own behalf or losses. The company in this case did all that was
in behalf of any person, shall required by law.
make any deduction from the
wages of his employees, except: JURISDICTION
1. In cases where the worker is
insured with his consent by 1. The National Labor Relations
the employer, and the Commission has jurisdiction to
deduction is to recompense determine, preliminarily, the parties
the employer for the rights over a property, when it is
amount paid by him as necessary to determine an issue related
premium on the insurance; to rights or claims arising from an
2. For union dues, in cases employer-employee relationship; the
where the right of the return of its properties in petitioners
worker or his union to possession by virtue of their status as
check-off has been employees is an issue that must be
recognized by the employer resolved to determine whether benefits
or authorized in writing by can be released immediately and thus
the individual worker said issue is intertwined with employer-
concerned; and employee relationship and the labor
3. In cases where the tribunals thus have jurisdiction.
employer is authorized by
law or regulations issued by Claims arising from an employer-
the Secretary of Labor and employee relationship are not limited to claims
Employment. by an employee. Employers may also have
(Emphasis supplied)
Page 14 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
claims against the employee, which arise from from service and would be disembarked from
the same relationship. the vessel.
Page 15 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
2. Doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta 22, 2011, and time-stamped 10:07 a.m. and
movere. 11:40 a.m., respectively, which they claim
chronicled the relevant circumstances that
In fact, in Pacquing, et. al. v. Coca-Cola eventually led to Avestruzs dismissal.
Philippines, Inc., this Court applied the ruling
cited above under the principle of stare decisis In this case, the contents of Captain
et non quieta movere (follow past precedents Woodwards e-mails do not establish that
and do not disturb what has been settled). It Avestruzs conduct had been willful, or
was held therein that since petitioners, as route characterized by a wrongful and perverse
helpers, were performing the same functions as attitude. The Court concurs with the CAs
the employees in Magsalin, which are necessary observation that Avestruzs statement regarding
and desirable in the usual business or trade of the incident in the galley deserves more
Coca Cola Philippines, Inc., they are considered credence, being corroborated by Kong, a
as regular employees entitled to security of messman who witnessed the same.
tenure.
SUPPLEMENT NO. 011
3. When all the petitioners share a
common interest and invoke a common ATTORNEYS FEES
cause of action or defense, the signature
of only one of them in the certification Hocheng Philippines Corporation vs. Farrales,
against forum shopping substantially G.R. No. 211497, March 18, 2015
complies with the certification
requirement. 1. When attorneys fees are awarded.
Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that But concerning the award of attorneys
the rule on verification is deemed substantially fees, Farrales was dismissed for a flimsy charge,
complied with when one who has ample and he was compelled to litigate to secure what
knowledge to swear to the truth of the is due him which HPC unjustifiably withheld.
allegations in the complaint or petition signs the
verification, and when matters alleged in the 2. When damages are not awarded.
petition have been made in good faith or are
true and correct. Similarly, this Court has There is no satisfactory proof that the
consistently held that when under reasonable or concerned officers of HPC acted in bad faith or
justifiable circumstances, as when all the with malice in terminating Farrales.
petitioners share a common interest and invoke Notwithstanding the LAs assertion to this
a common cause of action or defense, as in this effect, Farrales bare allegations of bad faith
case, the signature of only one of them in the deserve no credence, and neither is the mere
certification against forum shopping fact that he was illegally dismissed sufficient to
substantially complies with the certification prove bad faith on the part of HPCs officers.
requirement. But concerning the award of attorneys fees,
Farrales was dismissed for a flimsy charge, and
TERMINATION he was compelled to litigate to secure what is
due him which HPC unjustifiably withheld.
Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. vs. Avestruz,
G.R. No. 207010, February 18, 2015 EMPLOYEE STATUS
1. No insubordination on the part of the Fonterra Brands Phils. Inc. vs. Largado,
seafarer proven. G.R. No. 205300, March 18, 2015
Petitioners maintain that Avestruz was 1. Fixed term employee status valid.
dismissed on the ground of insubordination,
consisting of his repeated failure to obey his Foremost, respondents were fixed-term
superiors order to maintain cleanliness in the employees. As previously held by this Court,
galley of the vessel as well as his act of fixed-term employment contracts are not
insulting a superior officer by words or deeds. limited, as they are under the present Labor
(Insubordination) In support of this contention, Code, to those by nature seasonal or for specific
petitioners presented as evidence the e-mails projects with predetermined dates of
sent by Captain Woodward, both dated June completion; they also include those to which
Page 16 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
the parties by free choice have assigned a A.C. Sicat was able to prove its status as
specific date of termination. The determining a legitimate job contractor for having presented
factor of such contracts is not the duty of the the following evidence, to wit:
employee but the day certain agreed upon by
the parties for the commencement and 1) Certificate of Business Registration
termination of the employment relationship. 2) Certificate of Registration with the
Bureau of Internal Revenue;
In the case at bar, it is clear that 3) Mayors Permit;
respondents were employed by A.C. Sicat as 4) Certificate of Membership with the
project employees. In their employment Social Security System;
contract with the latter, it is clearly stated that 5) Certificate of Registration with the
[A.C. Sicat is] temporarily employing Department of Labor and
[respondents] as TMR[s] effective June 6[, 6) Employment;
2006] under the following terms and 7) Company Profile; and
conditions: The need for your service being 8) Certifications issued by its clients.
only for a specific project, your temporary
employment will be for the duration only of Furthermore, A.C. Sicat has substantial
said project of our client, namely to promote capital, having assets totaling _5,926,155.76 as
FONTERRA BRANDS products x x x which is of December 31, 2006. Too, its Agreement with
expected to be finished on or before Nov. 06, Fonterra clearly sets forth that A.C. Sicat shall be
2006. liable for the wages and salaries of its employees
or workers, including benefits, premiums, and
2. Contractor considered a legitimate job protection due them, as well as remittance to
contractor. the proper government entities of all
withholding taxes, Social Security Service, and
A person is considered engaged in Medicare premiums, in accordance with
legitimate job contracting or subcontracting if relevant laws.
the following conditions concur:
The appellate court further correctly
1. The contractor or subcontractor held that Fonterras issuance of Merchandising
carries on a distinct and Guidelines, stock monitoring and inventory
independent business and forms, and promo mechanics, for compliance
undertakes to perform the job, and use of A.C. Sicats employees assigned to
work or service on its own account them, does not establish that Fonterra exercises
and under its own responsibility control over A.C. Sicat. These were imposed
according to its own manner and only to ensure the effectiveness of the
method, and free from the control promotion services to be rendered by the
and direction of the principal in all merchandisers as it would be risky, if not
matters connected with the imprudent, for any company to completely
performance of the work except as entrust the performance of the operations it has
to the results thereof; contracted out.
Page 17 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
concern for the less privileged in life, this Court, filed at all. The withdrawal of their complaint
has more often than not inclined, to uphold the effectively erased the tolling of the
cause of the worker in his conflict with the reglementary period.
employer. Such leaning, however, does not
blind the Court to the rule that justice is in every RESIGNATION
case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the
light of the established facts and applicable law Fonterra Brands Phils. Inc. vs. Largado,
and doctrine. G.R. No. 205300, March 18, 2015
Page 18 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
flows from the nature of the 2013 up to June 30, 2013. Thereafter, in
illegality of dismissal declared by accordance with Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
the Labor Arbiter in that Monetary Boards Circular No. 799, series of
decision. A recomputation (or an 2013, the legal interest computed from July 1,
original computation, if no 2013 until the monetary awards were fully
previous computation has been satisfied will be 6% per annum.
made) is a part of the law
specifically, Article 279 of the SUPPLEMENT NO. 012
Labor Code and the established
jurisprudence on this provision APPEAL
that is read into the decision. By
the nature of an illegal dismissal Waterfront Cebu City Casino Hotel, Inc. vs.
case, the reliefs continue to add Ledesma,
up until full satisfaction, as G.R. No. 197556, March 25, 2015
expressed under Article 279 of
the Labor Code. The 1. Petition for certiorari should have been
recomputation of the dismissed for being filed beyond the 60-
consequences of illegal dismissal day reglementary period; merits of the
upon execution of the decision case not sufficient to excuse defect.
does not constitute an alteration
or amendment of the final In the subsequent case of Domdom v.
decision being implemented. Third & Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan,
The illegal dismissal ruling the absence of a specific prohibition in Section
stands; only the computation of 4 of Rule 65, as amended, for the extension of
monetary consequences of this the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari
dismissal is affected, and this is was construed as a discretionary authority of
not a violation of the principle the courts to grant an extension.
of immutability of final
judgments. Republic v. St. Vincent De Paul
Colleges, Inc. clarified the "conflict' between
Nacar reiterated the Courts ruling in the rulings in Laguna Metts Corporation and
the earlier cases of Session Delights and Domdom, in that the former is the general rule
Gonzales. while the latter is the exception, thus:
Page 19 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
1. Flaw in the verification, being only a Ledesma exhibited to her his penis and
formal and not jurisdictional requested that he be masturbated while inside
requirement, not a fatal defect. the conference room of the hotel. If not for the
2. position of Ledesma as a House Detective, he
The procedural infirmities pointed out will not have access to the conference room nor
by Ledesma are not adequate to cause the will he know that the premises is not monitored
dismissal of the present petition. Gaye Maureen through a closed-circuit television, thus giving
Cenabre presented to the Notary Public a him the untrammeled opportunity to
Community Tax Certificate numbered accomplish his lewd design on the unsuspecting
27401128 to prove her identity instead of a victim. Such acts of Ledesma constituted
current identification document issued by an misconduct or improper behavior which is a just
official agency bearing her photograph and cause for his dismissal.
signature as required by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.
This rendered the jurat in the WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE
verification/certification of non-forum
shopping of Waterfront as defective. The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf Philippines, Inc.
Nonetheless, any flaw in the verification, being vs. Arenas,
only a formal, not a jurisdictional requirement, G.R. No. 208908, March 11, 2015
is not a fatal defect. In like manner, there is no
need to attach the certified true copy of the 1. No willful disobedience proven;
Board Resolution quoted in the Secretary's alleged infractions do not amount to a
Certificate attached to the petition. Only the wrongful and perverse attitude.
judgment, order or resolution assailed in the
petition are the attachments required under 2. Three counts of tardiness do not
Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to be constitute gross or habitual neglect of
duplicate originals or certified true copies. duty.
The CA ruled in favor of Ledesma since In light of the foregoing criteria, we rule
it believed his version that the complainants that Arenas three counts of tardiness cannot be
merely invented the accusations against him considered as gross and habitual neglect of
because Waterfront failed to present as duty. The infrequency of his tardiness already
evidence the CCTV footages of the alleged removes the character of habitualness. These
lascivious conduct of Ledesma inside the late attendances were also broadly spaced out,
elevator and the conference room. But this negating the complete absence of care on
argument was not even raised by Ledesma Arenas part in the performance of his duties.
himself and it was only the CA which utilized Even CBTL admitted in its notice to explain that
this as a justification to bolster its findings that this violation does not merit yet a disciplinary
Ledesma did not commit any infraction. This action and is only an aggravating circumstance
being a labor case, the evidence required is only to Arenas other violations.
substantial evidence which was adequately
established here by the positive and credible 3. No serious misconduct proven as there
testimonies of the complainants. was no active dishonesty on the part of
the employee.
Notably, Ledesma never refuted, at the
administrative investigation level at Waterfront, For misconduct or improper behavior
and even at the proceedings before the LA, to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be
NLRC, and the CA, the allegations leveled serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of
against him by Rosanna Lofranco that, after the employees duties; and (c) it must show that
deluding her to perform a massage on him,
Page 20 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
the employee has become unfit to continue the difference between the amount of
working for the employer. benefit to which the employee member
or his beneficiary is entitled had the
However, the facts on record reveal proper contributions been remitted to
that there was no active dishonesty on the part the SSS and the amount payable on the
of Arenas. When questioned about who placed basis of the contributions actually
the bottled iced tea inside the ice bin, his remitted.
immediate reaction was not to deny his
mistake, but to remove the bottle inside the bin The law provides that should the
and throw it outside. More importantly, when employer misrepresent the true date of the
he was asked to make a written explanation of employment of the employee member, such
his action, he admitted that the bottled iced tea employer shall pay to the SSS damages
was his. equivalent to the difference between the
amount of benefit to which the employee
Thus, even if there was an initial member or his beneficiary is entitled had the
reticence on Arenas part, his subsequent act of proper contributions been remitted to the SSS
owing to his mistake only shows the absence of and the amount payable on the basis of the
a deliberate intent to lie or deceive his CBTL contributions actually remitted. However,
superiors. On this score, we conclude that should the employee member or his beneficiary
Arenas action did not amount to serious is entitled to pension benefits, the damages shall
misconduct. be equivalent to the accumulated pension due
as of the date of settlement of the claim or to
SUPPLEMENT NO. 013 the five years' pension, whichever is higher,
including the dependent's pension.
APPEAL
2. The imposition upon and payment by
Wallem Philippines Services, Inc. vs. Heirs of the delinquent employer of the three
the late Peter Padrones, percent (3%) penalty for the late
G.R. No. 183212, March 16, 2015 remittance of premium contributions is
mandatory and cannot be waived by
1. Party not allowed to change his theory the System.
on appeal.
The imposition upon and payment by
In their Comment to petitioners' the delinquent employer of the three percent
Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision, (3%) penalty for the late remittance of
as well as in their Comment to the present premium contributions is mandatory and
petition, respondents abandoned their claim for cannot be waived by the System. The law
death benefits and focused solely on Padrones' merely gives to the Commission the power to
supposed entitlement to disability benefits. prescribe the manner of paying the premiums.
However, nowhere in respondents' Comment Thus, the power to remit or condone the
did they refute petitioners' basic contention that penalty for late remittance of premium
they are not entitled to disability benefits on the contributions is not embraced therein.
ground that this issue was never litigated before Petitioners erred in alleging that the imposition
the lower tribunals. Respondents argue as if the of penalty is not proper.
issue of their entitlement to disability benefits
was a matter which was raised at the first EMPLOYEE STATUS
instance. Respondents have, in effect, changed
their theory of the case. Hacienda Cataywa vs. Lorezo,
G.R. No. 179640, March 18, 2015
DAMAGES
1. Farm seasonal worker, not casual
Hacienda Cataywa vs. Lorezo, worker.
G.R. No. 179640, March 18, 2015
Jurisprudence has identified the three
1. Should the employer misrepresent the types of employees mentioned in the provision
true date of the employment of the of the Labor Code: (1) regular employees or
employee member, such employer shall those who have been engaged to perform
pay to the SSS damages equivalent to activities that are usually necessary or desirable
Page 21 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
in the usual business or trade of the employer; respondent for coverage of the SSS benefit.
(2) project employees or those whose They failed to substantiate their claim that it was
employment has been fixed for a specific only in 1978 that respondent reported for
project or undertaking, the completion or work.
termination of which has been determined at
the time of their engagement, or those whose 3. When veil of corporate fiction not
work or service is seasonal in nature and is pierced.
performed for the duration of the season; and
(3) casual employees or those who are neither It was held in Rivera v. United
regular nor project employees. Laboratories, Inc. that _
Farm workers generally fall under the While a corporation may exist
definition of seasonal employees. It was also for any lawful purpose, the law
consistently held that seasonal employees may will regard it as an association
be considered as regular employees when they of persons or, in case of two
are called to work from time to time. They are corporations, merge them into
in regular employment because of the nature of one, when its corporate legal
the job, and not because of the length of time entity is used as a cloak for
they have worked. However, seasonal workers fraud or illegality. This is the
who have worked for one season only may not doctrine of piercing the veil of
be considered regular employees. corporate fiction. The doctrine
applies only when such
The nature of the services performed corporate fiction is used to
and not the duration thereof, is determinative defeat public convenience,
of coverage under the law. To be exempted on justify wrong, protect fraud, or
the basis of casual employment, the services defend crime, or when it is
must not merely be irregular, temporary or made as a shield to confuse the
intermittent, but the same must not also be in legitimate issues, or where a
connection with the business or occupation of corporation is the mere alter
the employer. Thus, it is erroneous for the ego or business conduit of a
petitioners to conclude that the respondent was person, or where the
a very casual worker simply because the SSS corporation is so organized and
form revealed that she had 16 months of controlled and its affairs are so
contributions. It does not, in any way, prove conducted as to make it merely
that the respondent performed a job which is an instrumentality, agency,
not in connection with the business or conduit or adjunct of another
occupation of the employer to be considered as corporation. To disregard the
casual employee. separate juridical personality of
a corporation, the wrongdoing
2. No particular form of evidence required must be established clearly and
to prove the existence of the employer- convincingly. It cannot be
employee relationship. presumed.
It was settled that there is no particular This Court has cautioned against the
form of evidence required to prove the inordinate application of this doctrine,
existence of the employer-employee reiterating the basic rule that the corporate veil
relationship. Any competent and relevant may be pierced only if it becomes a shield for
evidence to prove such relationship may be fraud, illegality or inequity committed against a
admitted. This may entirely be testimonial. If third person.
only documentary evidence would be required
to demonstrate the relationship, no scheming The Court has expressed the language
employer would be brought before the bar of of piercing doctrine when applied to alter ego
justice. Petitioners erred in insisting that, due to cases, as follows: Where the stock of a
passage of time, SSS Form R-1A is the only corporation is owned by one person whereby
remaining source of information available to the corporation functions only for the benefit
prove when respondent started working for of such individual owner, the corporation and
them. However, such form merely reflected the the individual should be deemed the same.
time in which the petitioners reported the
Page 22 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
This Court agrees with the petitioners occupational disease. Section 20 (B), paragraph
that there is no need to pierce the corporate (4) states that those illnesses not listed in
veil. Respondent failed to substantiate her claim Section 32 of this Contract are disputably
that Mancy and Sons Enterprises, Inc. and presumed as work-related. Concomitant with
Manuel and Jose Marie Villanueva are one and this presumption is the burden placed upon the
the same. claimant to present substantial evidence that his
work conditions caused or at least increased the
SUPPLEMENT NO. 014 risk of contracting the disease and only a
reasonable proof of work-connection, not
EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION direct causal relation is required to establish
compensability of illnesses not included in the
Dohle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. vs. Heirs list of occupational diseases.
of Andres Gazzingan,
G.R. No. 199568, June 17, 2015 2. Company-designated physicians
opinion not conclusive as to non-work-
1. Aortic dissection, also called dissecting relatedness of seafarers illness.
aneurysm, considered compensable
under the disputable presumption of While petitioners were quick to point
compensability. out that Dr. Banaga is a company-designated
physician, the latter, however, could not have
Gazzingans work as a messman is not possibly arrived at a reliable diagnosis of
confined mainly to serving food and beverages Gazzingans condition. His assessment, based
to all officers and crew; he was likewise tasked merely on Gazzingans PEME, did not reflect the
to assist the chief cook/chef steward, and thus true state of health of the seafarer. As the Court
performed most if not all the duties in the ships has previously ruled, a PEME is not exploratory
steward department. In the performance of his in nature and cannot be relied upon to arrive at
duties, he is bound to suffer chest and back a seafarers true state of health.
pains, which could have caused or aggravated
his illness. As aptly observed by the CA, MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
Gazzingans strenuous duties caused him to
suffer physical stress which exposed him to Ace Navigation Company vs. Garcia,
injuries. It is therefore reasonable to conclude G.R. No. 207804, June 17, 2015
that Gazzingans employment has contributed
to some degree to the development of his 1. Company-designated physicians
disease. findings upheld over the single medical
certificate of Dr. Escutin.
It must also be pointed out that
Gazzingan was in good health and fit to work It is clear from the CBA stipulation that
when he was engaged by petitioners to work should there be a discrepancy between the
on board the vessel M/V Gloria. His PEME findings of the company-designated physician
showed essentially normal findings with no and the seafarers independent physician, it is
hypertension and without any heart problems. necessary to appoint a third physician whose
It was only while rendering duty that he findings shall be controlling. The use of the
experienced symptoms. This is supported by a word shall in said stipulation indicates the
medical report issued by Cartagena de Indias mandatory nature of such requirement. More
Hospital in Colombia stating that Gazzingan so, the CBA is the law between the parties,
suffered intense chest and back pains, shortness hence they are obliged to comply with its
of breath and a slightly elevated blood pressure provisions.
while performing his duties. Therefore, even
assuming that Gazzingan had a pre-existing As earlier stated, Dr. Cruz, the
condition, as alleged by petitioners, this does company-designated physician, found Garcia to
not totally negate the probability and the be suffering from a Grade 10 disability rating, as
possibility that his aortic dissection was opposed to that of Garcias own physician, Dr.
aggravated by his work conditions. Escutin, who diagnosed him with a work-
related total and permanent injury on his
More importantly, the 2000 POEA-SEC cervical spine, rendering him unfit to be a
has created a presumption of compensability seaman in whatever capacity. In view of such
for those illnesses which are not listed as an contrasting diagnoses, Garcia should have
Page 23 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
resorted to the conflict-resolution mechanism was these same experts who evaluated and
provided under the VELA-AMOSUP CBA. His allowed petitioner to resume his previous
non-compliance with the same would activities. Also, Dr. Cruz's findings are
necessarily result in the affirmance of the supported by the latest results of an EMG-NCV
findings of the company-designated physician. test, which was normal. Dr. Cruz then
personally found that petitioner had no low
2. Claims for compensation cannot be back pain and radiculopathy; had a full
based on whims and caprices; when the range of motion in his trunk; had improved
evidence presented negates tolerance to prolonged sitting, standing and
compensability, the claim must fail, lest walking; and had improved lifting capacity to
it causes injustice to the employer. 40 kilos. Petitioner never immediately
protested such findings. He also does not deny
As a final note, it must be stressed that that he was seen and treated by orthopedic
while the Court adheres to the principle of surgeons and rehabilitation specialists who
liberality in favor of the seafarer, it cannot worked along with Dr. Cruz, or that he went
allow claims for compensation based on whims through an EMG-NCV test.
and caprices. When the evidence presented
negates compensability, the claim must fail, lest In contrast, petitioner presents the
it causes injustice to the employer. report of his own physician, Dr. Collantes, who
examined him almost seven (7) months after he
SECOND OPINION was declared fit to work by Dr. Cruz. The
Court finds, however, that this later report by
Cagatin vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, petitioner's chosen doctor is not as reliable as
G.R. No. 175795, June 22, 2015 that of the company-designated physician.
Page 24 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
permanent disability is the inability of a seafarer contract and died one year after the
to perform his work for more than 120 days, termination of his last employment
regardless of whether or not he loses the use of contract.
any part of his body, now the rule is that if the
injury or sickness still requires medical EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
attendance beyond 120 days, the company-
designated physician has, including the initial Reyes vs. Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc.,
120 days, up to a maximum of 240 days to G.R. No. 189255, June 17, 2015
declare either fitness to work or permanent
disability, beyond which and with or without 1. Employer-employee relationship not
any declaration, the disability is considered total proven; consultant, not employee.
and permanent.
Petitioner contends that, as evidence of
In the case at bar, the declaration by Dr. respondents' supposed control over him, the
Cruz that petitioner was fit to work went organizational plans he has drawn were subject
beyond the 120-day period; however, as the to the approval of Respondent Corporations
reason therefor was that petitioner still required Board of Trustees. However, the Court agrees
additional medical treatment, his declaration as with the disquisition of the CA on this matter,
fit to work was made within the maximum to wit:
240 days which therefore forestalls the
automatic classification of petitioner's injury as [Respondents'] power
total and permanent and, thus, entitled to the to approve or reject the
pertinent disability benefits. organizational plans drawn by
[petitioner] cannot be the
2. No breach of contract proven. control contemplated in the
control test. It is but logical
Cagatin vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, that one who commissions
G.R. No. 175795, June 22, 2015 another to do a piece of work
should have the right to accept
The transfer of a seafarer to another or reject the product. The
vessel is not proscribed but allowed by the important factor to consider in
parties' contract, which is the POEA-SEC. The the control test is still the
following provision of the POEA-SEC states: element of control over how
the work itself is done, not just
Section 15. Transfer Clause. The the end result thereof.
seafarer agrees to be transferred
at any port to any vessel owned Well settled is the rule
or operated, manned or that where a person who works
managed by the same for another performs his job
employer, provided it is more or less at his own
accredited to the same manning pleasure, in the manner he sees
agent and provided further that fit, not subject to definite hours
the position of the seafarer and or conditions of work, and is
the rate of his wages and terms compensated according to the
of service are in no way inferior result of his efforts and not the
and the total period of amount thereof, no employer-
employment shall not exceed employee relationship exists.
that originally agreed upon.
What was glaring in the present case is
Any form of transfer shall be the undisputed fact that petitioner was never
documented and made subject to definite working hours. He never
available when necessary. denied that he goes to work and leaves
therefrom as he pleases. In fact, on December
3. No proof that seafarers 1-31, 2004, he went on leave without seeking
adenocarcinoma was contracted during approval from the officers of respondent
the term of the last employment company. On the contrary, his letter simply
contract; seafarer was repatriated not informed respondents that he will be away for
for medical reasons but for finished a month and even advised them that they have
Page 25 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
the option of appointing his replacement during In bolstering his contention that there
his absence. This Court has held that there is no was an employer-employee relationship,
employer-employee relationship where the petitioner draws attention to the pay slips he
supposed employee is not subject to a set of supposedly received from Respondent
rules and regulations governing the Corporation. However, he does not dispute the
performance of his duties under the agreement findings of the CA that there are no deductions
with the company and is not required to report for SSS and withholding tax from his
for work at any time, nor to devote his time compensation, which are the usual deductions
exclusively to working for the company. from employees' salaries. Thus, the alleged pay
slips may not be treated as competent evidence
In this regard, this Court also agrees of petitioner's claim that he is respondents'
with the ruling of the CA that: employee.
Page 26 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
allow claims for compensation based on whims even if other minds, equally reasonable, might
and caprices. When the evidence presented conceivably opine otherwise. It is more than a
negates compensability, the claim must fail, lest mere scintilla of evidence.
it causes injustice to the employer.
It is against this standard that
Cagatin vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, petitioner's assertion that he was declared
G.R. No. 175795, June 22, 2015 permanently unfit to return to sea duty in
whatever capacity must be measured,
As a final note, the Court is wary of the especially since petitioner levels such assertion
principle that provisions of the POEA-SEC must against an earlier finding by the company-
be applied with liberality in favor of the designated physician that he was fit to work.
seafarers, for it is only then that its beneficent Likewise, he accuses respondents of bad faith in
provisions can be fully carried into effect. declaring him fit to work. Both assertions need
However, on several occasions when disability substantive proof.
claims anchored on such contract were based
on flimsy grounds and unfounded allegations, 7. Good faith is always presumed and he
the Court never hesitated to deny the same. who alleges the contrary on his
Claims for compensation based on surmises opponent has the burden of proving
cannot be allowed; liberal construction is not a that the latter acted in bad faith, with
license to disregard the evidence on record or malice, or with ill motive; allegations
to misapply the laws. This Court abides by the are not proof; seafarer failed to prove
principle that justice is in every case for the bad faith on the part of the company-
deserving, to be dispensed with in the light of designated physician.
established facts, the applicable law, and
existing jurisprudence. Cagatin vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation,
G.R. No. 175795, June 22, 2015
6. In a case of claims for disability benefits,
the onus probandi falls on the seafarer The allegation of petitioner that the
as claimant to establish his claim with allegedly contradicting reports of Dr. Cruz were
the right quantum of evidence; it the result of respondents' malice, bad faith and
cannot rest on speculations, abuse is not supported by him with substantial
presumptions or conjectures; seafarer evidence. It is consistently held that good faith
has to prove assertion of permanent is always presumed and he who alleges the
disability and bad faith on the part of contrary on his opponent has the burden of
the employer. proving that the latter acted in bad faith, with
malice, or with ill motive. Mere allegation is
Cagatin vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, not equivalent to proof. Although strict rules of
G.R. No. 175795, June 22, 2015 evidence are not applicable in claims for
compensation and disability benefits, the
In labor cases, as in all cases which seafarer must still prove his claim with
require the presentation and weighing of substantial evidence, otherwise, injustice will be
evidence, the basic rule is that the burden of done to his employer. Other than petitioner's
evidence lies with the party who asserts the bare allegations, nothing on record supports his
affirmative of an issue. In particular, in a case assertion of malice and bad faith.
of claims for disability benefits, the onus
probandi falls on the seafarer as claimant to 8. Competent evidence of identity is not
establish his claim with the right quantum of required in cases where the affiant is
evidence; it cannot rest on speculations, personally known to the notary public.
presumptions or conjectures. Such party has the
burden of proving the said assertion with the
quantum of evidence required by law which, in TERMINATION
a case such as this of a claim for disability
benefits arising from one's employment as a Naguit vs. San Miguel Corporation,
seafarer, is substantial evidence. Substantial G.R. No. 188839, June 22, 2015
evidence is not one that establishes certainty
beyond reasonable doubt, but only such 1. Valid termination for serious
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might misconduct by assaulting co-worker in
accept as adequate to support a conclusion, the workplace; penalty of dismissal not
Page 27 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Labor Law
too harsh despite long years of service
and this being his first offense.
Page 28 of 28
BAR OPERATIONS 2016