Updates on Labor Law and Jurisprudence by Atty. Leilanee Q.
Dasig-Quanguey
Labor Law Review Professor
04 November 2017
What is a labor dispute? ............................................................................................................3
Some Factors to Consider 3 2. Our Haus Realty Development Corporation vs Alexander Parian, et al, GR No. 204651, 06
Existence of employer-employee relations 3 August 2014 ..........................................................................................................................7
Tests of Employment Relations .................................................................................................3
1. Valeroso vs Sky Cable Corporation, GR No. 202015, 13 July 2016 ..........................................3
2. Felicilda vs Uy, GR No. 221241, 14 September 2016 ..............................................................3
3. Joaquin Lu vs. Tirso Enopia, GR No. 197899, 06 March 2017 .................................................3
What is the effect of repudiation of employment relation in a contract? ................................. 3
1. Century Properties, Inc. vs Babiano and Concepcion, GR No. 220978, 05 July 2016 ..............3
2. Royale Homes Marketing Corp. vs. Alcantara, GR No. 195190, 28 July 2014 .........................3
3. Jack Valencia vs Classique Vinyl Products Corp, Gr No. 206390, 30 January 2017 ..................3
Perfected contract of employment ...........................................................................................3
Enrique Sagun vs Anz Global Services and Operations (Manila), Inc., et al, GR No. 220399, 22
August 2016 ..........................................................................................................................3
Corporate officer vs. Employee ................................................................................................4
1. Wesleyan University-Phils. Vs. Maglaya, GR No. 212774, 23 January .....................................4
Independent Contractor vs Employee vs Labor Only Contractor ............................................4
1. Jack Valencia vs Classique Vinyl Products Corp, Gr No. 206390, 30 January 2017 ..................4
2. Nestle Phils. Inc. vs Puedan, Jr., GR No. 220617, 30 January 2017 .........................................4
In the public sector ..................................................................................................................4
National Transmission Corporation vs COA, et al, GR No. 223625, 22 November 2016 ............. 4
Who has the power to determine employer-employee relations? ............................................. 4
1. South Cotabato Comminications Corp vs Sto. Tomas, GR 217575, 15 June 2016 ....................4
2. Hijo Resources Corporation vs Mejares, et al, GR No. 208986, 13 January 2016 ....................5
Reasonable Causal Connection 5
1. Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. vs Engr. Salvador Adviento, GR No. 171212, 04 August 2014 ........5
2. Social Security System vs Debbie Ubaa, GR No. 200114, 24 August 2015 ............................5
3. Emer Milan, et al vs NLRC, et al, GR No. 202961, 04 February 2015 ......................................5
Resolution on Some Labor Disputes and Issues 5 Preventive Suspension
Money Claims 5
Burden of Proof ........................................................................................................................5
Toyota Pasig, Inc. vs Vilma de Peralta, GR No. 213488, 07 November 2016 ................................5
Covered Employees ...................................................................................................................6
Hilario Dasco, et al vs Philtranco Service Enterprises Inc./Centurion Solano, GR No. 211141, 29
June 2016 ..............................................................................................................................6
Service Incentive Leave Pay ......................................................................................................6
Lourdes Rodrigez vs Park n Ride, Inc., GR No. 222980, 20 March 2017 ....................................6
Of regular pakyaw workers ......................................................................................................6
A. Nate Casket Maker and/or Armando and Amely Nate vs Elias Arango, et al, GR No. 192282,
05 October 2016 ...................................................................................................................6
Wages ......................................................................................................................................6
1. Toyota Pasig, Inc. vs Vilma de Peralta, GR No. 213488, 07 November 2016 ............................6
Retirement Benefits ..................................................................................................................7
GSIS vs Apolinario Pauig, GR No. 210328, 30 January 2017 .......................................................7
Disability/Death Claims ...........................................................................................................7
Jebsens Maritime, Inc., et al vs Rapiz, GR No. 218871, 11 January 2017 ...................................7
C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. and/or JUAN JOSE
ROCHA vs RHUDEL CASTILLO, GR No. 208215, 19 April 2017 ..........................................7
Test/Proof of Compensability ....................................................................................................7
Jesus Villamos vs ECC and SSS, GR No. 204422, 21 November 2016 ..........................................7
Nature and Status of Employment 7
Regular Employment ................................................................................................................7
Isidro Quebral, et al vs Angbus Construction, Inc., et al, GR No. 221897, 07 November 2016 ....7
Project Employment .................................................................................................................8
1. E. Ganzon, Inc., et al vs Fortunato Ando, GR No. 214813, 20 February 2017 ..........................8
2. Isidro Quebral, et al vs Angbus Construction, Inc., et al, GR No. 221897, 07 November 2016 ..
8
Fixed-Term Employment ...........................................................................................................8
Atty. Marcos D. Risonar, Jr. vs Cor Jesus College, et al, GR No. 198350, 14 September 2016 ......8
Seasonal Employment ...............................................................................................................8
Zenaida Paz vs Northern Tobacco Redrying Co., Inc. et al, GR No. 199554, 18 February 2015 ...8
Probationary Employment ........................................................................................................9
1. Geraldine Michelle Fallarme, et al vs San Juan de Dios Educational Foundation, Inc., GR Nos.
190015 & 190019, 14 September 2016 ................................................................................9
2. PNOC-EDC vs Buenviaje, GR Nos. 183200- 01, 183253 & 183257, 29 June 2016 .................9
3. Enchanted Kingdom vs Verzo, GR No. 209559, 09 December 2015 ........................................9
Terminations Disputes 9
9
Francisco Baculi vs Office of the President, GR No. 188681, 08 March 2017 ..............................9
Constructive Dismissal 9
Chateau Royale Sports and Country Club, Inc. vs Rachelle Balba, et al, GR No. 197492, 18
Janauary 2017 .......................................................................................................................9
Grande vs Philippine Nautical Training College, GR No. 213137, 01 March 2017 ....................10
Ernesto Galang et al vs BOIE Takeda Chemicals, Inc., GR No. 183934, 20 July 2016 ................10
Illegal Dismissal 10
Jinky Isabel vs Perla Compaa de Seguros, Inc., GR No. 219430, 07 November 2016 ..............10
Leo Maula vs Ximex Delivery Express, Inc., GR No. 207838, 25 January 2017 .........................10
Sta. Ana vs Manila Jockey Club, Inc., GR No. 208459, 15 February 2017 .................................10
Rodfhel Torrefiel et al vs Beauty Lane Phils, Inc., GR No. 214186, 03 August 2016 ...................10
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
Interadent Zahntechnik Phils, Inc. et al vs Rebecca Simbillo, GR No. 207315, 23 November 2016
............................................................................................................................................10
Marinas Creation Enterprises, et al vs Romeo Ancheta, GR No. 218333, 07 December 2016 ...10
Valid Dismissal 11
Universal Canning Inc., et al vs CA, et al, GR 215047, 23 November 2016 ...............................11
Philippine Auto Components Parts, Inc. vs Ronnie Jumadla, et al, GR No. 218980, 28 November
2016 ...................................................................................................................................11
Mary Ann Venzon et al vs ZAMECO II Electric Cooperative, Inc., GR No. 213934, 09 November
2016 ...................................................................................................................................11
Errol Ramirez et al vs Plyson Industries, Inc et al, GR No. 207898, 19 October 2016 ................11
Angelito Publico vs Hospital Managers, Inc., et al, GR 209086, 17 October 2016 ....................11
Reliefs in Illegal Dismissal 11
1. TPG Corporation (formerly The Professional Group Plans, Inc.) vs Esperanza Pinas, GR No.
189714, 25 January 2017 ....................................................................................................11
2. PNCC Skyway Corporation, et al vs The Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al, GR 196110,
06 February 2017 ................................................................................................................11
Manila Doctors College et al vs Emmanuel Olores, GR No. 225044, 03 October 2016 .............11
3. Julius Campol vs Balao-as, et al, GR No. 197634, 28 November 2016 ..................................12
When an employee was not dismissed and also did not abandon his work ............................12
Dee Jays In and Caf, et al vs Ma. Lorina Raneses, GR 191825, 05 October 2016 ....................12
Mergers and Separation Pay ...................................................................................................12
The Philippine Geothermal Inc Employees Union vs Unocal Philippines, Inc. (now known as
Chevron Geothermal Phils Holdings, Inc.), GR No. 190187, 28 September 2016 ................12
Labor Procedure 12
Cause of Action Belatedly Filed 12
Dee Jays In and Caf, et al vs Ma. Lorina Raneses, GR 191825, 05 October 2016 ....................12
Defective Service of Summons 13
Oyster Plaza Hotel, et al vs Errol Melivo, GR No. 217455, 05 October 2016 ............................13
No Service of Summons ..........................................................................................................13
Reyno Dimson vs Gerry Chua, GR No. 192318, 05 December 2016 ........................................13
Forum Shopping .....................................................................................................................13
Fontana Development Corporation et al vs Sascha Vukasinovic, GR No. 222424, 21 September
2016 ...................................................................................................................................13
Res Inter Alios Acta Rule ........................................................................................................13
Buenaflor Car Services, Inc. vs Cezar David, GR No. 222730, 07 November 2016 ...................13
Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statements ....................................................................13
Buenaflor Car Services, Inc. vs Cezar David, GR No. 222730, 07 November 2016 ...................13
The Equipoise Doctrine ..........................................................................................................13
Dee Jays Inn and Caf et al vs Ma. Lorina Raeses, GR No. 191823, 05 October 2016 ............13
Perfection of Appeal 13
Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond .............................................................................................13
Turks Shawarma Company ve Feliciano Pajaron, et al, GR No. 207156, 16 January 2017 .........13
Maria Victoria Tolentino-Prieto vs Robert Elvas, GR No. 192369, 09 November 2016 ...............14
Timeliness of Appeal ................................................................................................................14
Isidro Quebral, et al vs Angbus Construction, Inc., et al, GR No. 221897, 07 November 2016 ..14
What may be resolved on appeal ............................................................................................14
Heirs of Teodora Loyola vs CA, et al, GR No. 188658, 11 January 2017 ....................................14
May a party who did not appeal obtain any affirmative relief? ..............................................14
Century Properties, Inc. vs Edwin Babiano and Emma Concepcion, GR No. 220978, 05 July 2016
............................................................................................................................................14
BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
Petition for Certiorari .............................................................................................................14
Oasis Park Hotel vs Leslee Navaluna, GR No. 197191, 21 November 2016 ..............................14
Coca-cola Femsa Philippines, Inc. vs Bacolod Sales Force Union-Congress of Independent
Organization-ALU, GR No. 220605, 21 September 2016 ....................................................15
Appeal from CA to SC 15
Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al vs Elmer Mapagu, GR No. 196084, 15 February 2017
............................................................................................................................................15
Petition for Review ..................................................................................................................15
Maria Victoria Tolentino-Prieto vs Robert Elvas, GR No. 192369, 09 November 2016 ...............15
Petition for Certiorari .............................................................................................................15
Powerhouse Staffbuilders International, Inc. vs Romelia Rey, et al, GR No. 190203, 07 November
2016 ...................................................................................................................................15
Satisfaction of Judgment 15
Release of Cash Bond .............................................................................................................15
CICM Mission Seminaries School of Theology, Inc. et al vs Maria Veronica , Perez, GR 220506,
18 January 2017 ..................................................................................................................15
Piercing the Veil of Corporate Fiction .....................................................................................16
Guillermo vs Uson, GR No. 198967, 07 March 2016 ................................................................16
Liability of Corporate Officers ................................................................................................16
Reyno Dimson vs Gerry Chua, GR No. 1923, 05 December 2016 ............................................16
Third Party Claim ...................................................................................................................16
Cameron Granville 2 Asset Management, Inc. vs UE Monthly Associates, GR 181387, 05
September 2016 ..................................................................................................................16
Indirect Employer ...................................................................................................................16
Light Rail Transit Authority vs Bienvenido Alvarez et al, GR No. 188047, 28 November 2016 ...16
Doctrine of Stare Decisis ........................................................................................................16
Alumamay Jamias, et al vs NLRC, et al, GR No. 159350 ...........................................................16
Labor Organizations 16
Cancelation of Union organization ........................................................................................16
De Ocampo Memorial Schools, Inc. vs. Bigkis ng Manggagawa sa De Ocampo Memorial School,
Inc. GR No. 192648, 15 March 2017 ...................................................................................16
Agency Fees.............................................................................................................................17
Peninsula Employees Union vs Michael Esquivel, GR No. 218454, 01 December 2016 ............17
Unfair Labor Practice .............................................................................................................17
SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union (SWOFLU) et al vs Universal Robina Corp, Sugar Division-
Southern Negros Devt Corp (SONEDCO), GR No. 220383, 05 October 2016 ....................17
Unfair Labor Practice .............................................................................................................17
Guagua National Colleges v. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union and Guagua
National Colleges Non-Teaching and Maintenance Union, GR No. 204693, 13 July 2016 ...17
Violation of the duty to bargain collectively ..........................................................................17
Guagua National Colleges v. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union and Guagua
National Colleges Non-Teaching and Maintenance Union, GR No. 204693, 13 July 2016 ..17
Return to work order ..............................................................................................................17
Manggawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. PLDT, Co. Inc., GR No. 190389, 19 April 2017 .....17
Bargaining unit .......................................................................................................................18
Erson Ang Lee Doing Business as Super Lamination Services v. Samahang Manggagawa ng
Super Lamination (SMSLS-NAFLU-KMU), GR No. 193816, 21 November 2016 ..................18
PAGE 2 OF 18
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
WHAT IS A LABOR DISPUTE?
Any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the
association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of
whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and
employee.
Some Factors to Consider
Existence of employer-employee relations
Reasonable Causal Connection Rule
EXISTENCE OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
TESTS OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
1. Four-fold Test
2. Economic Reality Test
3. Two-tiered Test
1. Valeroso vs Sky Cable Corporation, GR No. 202015, 13 July 2016
Guidelines indicative of labor law 'control' do not merely relate to the mutually
desirable result intended by the contractual relationship; they must have the
nature of dictating the means and methods to be employed in attaining the
result.
Sky Cables act of regularly updating petitioners who were account executives,
of new promos, new price listings, meetings and trainings of new account
executives; imposing quotas and penalties; and giving commendations for
meritorious performance do not pertain to the means and methods of how
petitioners were to perform and accomplish their task of soliciting cable
subscriptions; merely pertain to regular monitoring of their work.
2. Felicilda vs Uy, GR No. 221241, 14 September 2016
A truck driver hired on per trip or commission basis is an employee; the method
of computing his compensation is not a basis for determining the existence
of employer-employee relations.
Control can be safely deduced from the fact that:
(a) respondent owned the trucks that were assigned to petitioner;
(b) the cargoes loaded in the said trucks were exclusively for respondent's
clients; and
(c) the schedule and route to be followed by petitioner were exclusively
determined by respondent.
The power of control refers merely to the existence of the power.
3. Joaquin Lu vs. Tirso Enopia, GR No. 197899, 06 March 2017
The crew members of a fishing boat who had an income-sharing arrangement
with the boat owner (45%-55%), with an additional 4% as backing incentiv
BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
(divided equally among them after deduction of their vales) are deemed
employees of the boat owner.
The fact that Mr. Lu had registered the crew members with SSS is proof that they
were indeed his employees. The coverage of the Social Security Law is
predicated on the existence of an employer- employee relationship.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF REPUDIATION OF EMPLOYMENT RELATION IN A
CONTRACT?
1. Century Properties, Inc. vs Babiano and Concepcion, GR No. 220978, 05 July
2016
The existence of employer-employee relations could not be negated by the mere
expedient of repudiating it in a contract; i.e., a Contract of Agency for
Project Director
Concepcion was continuously hired and promoted to perform functions
necessary and desirable to the business; was given monthly subsidy and
cash incentives without qualification; with the company reserving the
power to discipline her and exercised the power of direct supervision
through Babiano.
2. Royale Homes Marketing Corp. vs. Alcantara, GR No. 195190, 28 July 2014
At the very least, the provision on the absence of employer- employee
relationship between the parties can be an aid in considering the Agreement
and its implementation, and in appreciating the other evidence on record.
The contract provides that "no employer-employee relationship exists between"
Royale Homes and Alcantara, as well as his sales agents. It is clear that they
did not want to be bound by employer-employee relationship at the time of
the signing of the contract.
3. Jack Valencia vs Classique Vinyl Products Corp, Gr No. 206390, 30 January 2017
Valencias claim that his work was supervised by Classique Vinyl does not hold
water and was found to be a self-serving assertion unworthy of credence in
the light of the employment contract which Valencia signed with CMS
categorically stating that the latter possessed not only the power of control
but also of dismissal over him.
PERFECTED CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
Enrique Sagun vs Anz Global Services and Operations (Manila), Inc., et al, GR No.
220399, 22 August 2016
In this case, there was already a perfected contract of employment when petitioner
signed ANZ's employment offer and agreed to the terms and conditions that
were embodied therein. Nonetheless, the offer of employment extended to
petitioner contained several conditions before he may be deemed an
employee of ANZ.
Jurisprudence states that when a contract is subject to a suspensive condition, its
effectivity shall take place only if and when the event which constitutes the
PAGE 3 OF 18
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
condition happens or is fulfilled. n other words, a perfected contract may
exist, although the obligations arising therefrom if premised upon a
suspensive condition would yet to be put into effect.
Considering, however, that petitioner failed to explain the discrepancies in his
declared information and documents that were required from him relative to
his work experience at Siemens, that rendered his background check
unsatisfactory, ANZ's obligations as a would-be employer were held in
suspense and thus, had yet to acquire any obligatory force.
Thus, until and unless petitioner complied with the satisfactory background check,
there exists no obligation on the part of ANZ to recognize and fully accord
him the rights under the employment contract.
CORPORATE OFFICER VS. EMPLOYEE
1. Wesleyan University-Phils. Vs. Maglaya, GR No. 212774, 23 January
The president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer are commonly regarded as
the principal or executive officers of a corporation, and they are usually
designated as the officers of the corporation. However, other officers are
sometimes created by the charter or by-laws of a corporation, or the board
of directors may be empowered under the by- laws of a corporation to create
additional offices as may be necessary.
An "office" is created by the charter of the corporation and the officer is elected
by the directors or stockholders, while an "employee" usually occupies no
office and generally is employed not by action of the directors or
stockholders but by the managing officer of the corporation who also
determines the compensation to be paid to such employee.
That the creation of the position is under the corporation's charter or by-laws,
and that the election of the officer is by the directors or stockholders must
concur in order for an individual to be considered a corporate officer, as
against an ordinary employee or officer.
The alleged "appointment" instead of "election" as provided by the by-laws
neither convert the president of university as a mere employee, nor amend its
nature as a corporate officer.
His removal from office is not a labor dispute but an intra- corporate controversy
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR VS EMPLOYEE VS LABOR ONLY CONTRACTOR
1. Jack Valencia vs Classique Vinyl Products Corp, Gr No. 206390, 30 January 2017
In labor-only contracting, the statute creates an employer- employee relationship
for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws.
The contractor is considered merely an agent of the principal employer and the
latter is responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such
employees had been directly employed by the principal employer. The
principal employer therefore becomes solidarily liable with the labor-only
contractor for all the rightful claims of the employees
To prove that CMS was a legitimate contractor, Classique Vinyl presented the
former's Certificate of Registration with the Department of Trade and Industry
BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
and, License as private recruitment and placement agency from the
Department of Labor and Employment.
These documents are not conclusive evidence of the status of CMS as a
contractor. However, such fact of registration of CMS prevented the legal
presumption of it being a mere labor-only contractor from arising.
As the party asserting employment relations, Valencia has the burden to prove
the same.
2. Nestle Phils. Inc. vs Puedan, Jr., GR No. 220617, 30 January 2017
Under the Distributorship Agreement, Nestle agreed to sell its products to ODSI
at discounted prices, which in turn will be resold to identified
customers, ensuring in the process the integrity and quality of the said
products based on the standards agreed upon by the parties.
The imposition of minimum standards concerning sales, marketing, finance and
operations are nothing more than an exercise of sound business practice
to increase sales and maximize profits.
The relationship of Nestle and ODSI is not that of a principal and contractor
(regardless of whether labor-only or independent), but that of a seller
and a buyer/re-seller
Nestle is not the true employer
IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
National Transmission Corporation vs COA, et al, GR No. 223625, 22 November
2016
Employer-employee relationship in the public sector is primarily determined by
special laws, civil service laws, rules and regulations.
While the four-fold test and other standards set forth in the labor code may aid in
ascertaining the relationship between the government and its purported
employees, they cannot be overriding factors over the conditions and
requirements for public employment as provided for by civil service laws,
rules and regulations.
Thus, the COA correctly disallowed the separation pay benefit of an employee
because it pertained to services rendered under the service contract which
was not attested to by the CSC.
WHO HAS THE POWER TO DETERMINE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS?
1. South Cotabato Comminications Corp vs Sto. Tomas, GR 217575, 15 June 2016
Like the NLRC, the DOLE has the authority to rule on the existence of an
employer-employee relationship between the parties, considering that the
existence of an employer-employee relationship is a condition sine qua non
for the exercise of its visitorial power.
Without an employer-employee relationship, or if one has already been
terminated, the Secretary of Labor is without jurisdiction to determine if
violations of labor standards provision had in fact been committed, and to
direct employers to comply with their alleged violations of labor standards.
PAGE 4 OF 18
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
2. Hijo Resources Corporation vs Mejares, et al, GR No. 208986, 13 January 2016
The Med-Arbiter dismissed the certification election case because of lack of
employer-employee relationship between HRC and the union members. This
was served after the termination of employment of the said members who
subsequently filed an illegal dismissal case. Is the Labor Arbiter in the illegal
dismissal case bound by the ruling of the Med-Arbiter regarding the
existence of employer-employee relationship?
There is no question that the Med-Arbiter has the authority to determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties in a
petition for certification election. As this is necessary and indispensable in the
exercise of jurisdiction by the med-arbiter, his finding thereon may only be
reviewed and reversed by the Secretary of Labor who exercises appellate
jurisdiction under Article 259 of the Labor Code.
However, in this case, the order was served after the termination of employment
of the union members. The respondent union, without its member-
employees, was thus stripped of its personality to challenge the Med-
Arbiters decision in the certification election case. Thus, the members of
the respondent union were left with no option but to pursue their illegal
dismissal case filed before the Labor Arbiter.
To dismiss the illegal dismissal case filed before the Labor Arbiter on the basis of
the pronouncement of the Med-Arbiter in the certification election case that
there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties, which the
respondent union could not even appeal to the DOLE Secretary because of
the dismissal of its members, would be tantamount to denying due process to
the complainants in the illegal dismissal case. This, the Court cannot allow.
REASONABLE CAUSAL CONNECTION
1. Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. vs Engr. Salvador Adviento, GR No. 171212, 04 August
2014
Not all claims involving employees can be resolved solely by our labor courts,
specifically when the law provides otherwise.
Reasonable causal connection rule:
Where there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted
and the employer-employee relations, the case is within the jurisdiction of
the labor courts;
In the absence thereof, it is the regular courts that have jurisdiction.
The companys alleged gross negligence in maintaining a hazardous work
environment cannot be considered a mere breach of the contract of
employment but falls squarely within the elements of quasi-delict under Art.
2176 of the Civil Code since the negligence is direct, substantive and
independent.
Here, the cause of action is based on a quasi- delict or tort, which has no
reasonable causal connection with any of the claims provided for in Article
217, jurisdiction over the action is with the regular courts.
BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
2. Social Security System vs Debbie Ubaa, GR No. 200114, 24 August 2015
A complaint for damages under Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code filed by an
employee of an independent service contractor hired by the SSS to recover
what she would have been entitled to as her proper salary had she been
employed in the roster of regular employees of SSS falls under the jurisdiction
of the regular courts.
There being no employer-employee relationship between the parties, there is no
labor dispute cognizable by the Labor Arbiters, or the NLRC.
3. Emer Milan, et al vs NLRC, et al, GR No. 202961, 04 February 2015
As a general rule, a claim only needs to be sufficiently connected to the labor
issue raised and must arise from an employer- employee relationship for the
labor tribunals to have jurisdiction.
Solid Mills allowed petitioners to use its property (SMI Village) as an act of
liberality. The return of its properties in petitioners possession by virtue of
their status as employees is an issue that must be resolved to determine
whether benefits can be released immediately. The issue raised by the
employer is, therefore, connected to petitioners claim for benefits and is
sufficiently intertwined with the parties employer-employee relationship.
Thus, it is properly within the labor tribunals jurisdiction.
The return of the propertys possession became an obligation or liability on the
part of the employees when the employer- employee relationship ceased.
Thus, respondent Solid Mills has the right to withhold petitioners wages and
benefits because of this existing debt or liability.
Resolution on Some Labor Disputes and Issues
Money Claims
Nature and Status of Employment
Termination Disputes
MONEY CLAIMS
BURDEN OF PROOF
Toyota Pasig, Inc. vs Vilma de Peralta, GR No. 213488, 07 November 2016
Respondent's allegation of nonpayment of monetary benefits places the burden on
the employer, i.e., petitioner, to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty
that it paid said benefits and that the employee, i.e., respondent, actually
received such payment or that the employee was not entitled thereto.
It is well-settled that the failure of employers to submit the necessary documents
that are in their possession gives rise to the presumption that the presentation
thereof is prejudicial to its cause.
PAGE 5 OF 18
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
COVERED EMPLOYEES
Hilario Dasco, et al vs Philtranco Service Enterprises Inc./Centurion Solano, GR No.
211141, 29 June 2016
The definition of a "field personnel" is not merely concerned with the location
where the employee regularly performs is unsupervised by the employer.
Field personnel are those who regularly perform their duties away from the
principal place of business of the employer and whose actual hours of work in
the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Thus, in order to conclude whether an employee is a field employee, it is also
necessary to ascertain if actual hours of work in the field can be determined
with reasonable certainty by the employer. In so doing, an inquiry must be
made as to whether or not the employees time and performance are
constantly supervised by the employer.
These drivers and/or conductors cannot be considered as field personnel because
they are under control and constant supervision of the bus companies while in
the performance of their work.
SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY
Lourdes Rodrigez vs Park n Ride, Inc., GR No. 222980, 20 March 2017
The service incentive leave is a curious animal in relation to other benefits granted
by the law to every employee.
If the employee entitled to service incentive leave does not use or commute the
same, he is entitled upon his resignation or separation from work to the
commutation of his accrued service incentive leave.
His cause of action to claim the whole amount of his accumulated SIL shall arise
when the employer fails to pay such amount at the time of his resignation or
separation from employment.
Applying Article 291 of the Labor Code in light of this peculiarity of the service
incentive leave, we can conclude that the three (3)-year prescriptive period
commences, not at the end of the year when the employee becomes entitled
to the commutation of his service incentive leave, but from the time when the
employer refuses to pay its monetary equivalent after demand of
commutation or upon termination of the employee's services, as the case
may be.
OF REGULAR PAKYAW WORKERS
A. Nate Casket Maker and/or Armando and Amely Nate vs Elias Arango, et al, GR
No. 192282, 05 October 2016
Are the pakyaw workers who are considered as regular workers entitled to overtime
pay, holiday pay, SIL and 13th month pay?
In determining whether workers engaged on "pakyaw" or "task basis" is entitled
to holiday and SIL pay, the presence (or absence) of employer supervision
as regards the worker's time and performance is the key: if the worker is
simply engaged on "pakyaw" or task basis, then the general rule is that he is
BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
entitled to a holiday pay and SIL pay unless exempted from the exceptions
specifically provided under Article 94 (holiday pay) and Article 95 (SIL pay)
of the Labor Code.
However, if the worker engaged on pakyaw or task basis also falls within the
meaning of "field personnel" under the law, then he is not entitled to these
monetary benefits.
In this case, respondents cannot be considered as "field personnel," since they
regularly performed their duties at petitioners' place of business, their
actual hours of work could be determined with reasonable certainty, and
petitioners supervised their time and performance of their duties. Thus, they
are not exempted from the grant of holiday and SIL pay even as they were
engaged on pakyaw or task basis.
With respect to the payment of 13th month pay, however, respondents are not
entitled to such benefit.
Note that unlike the IRR of the Labor Code on holiday and SIL pay, Section 3(e)
of the Rules and Regulations Implementing PD No. 851 exempts employees
"paid on task basis" without any reference to "field personnel
This could only mean that insofar as payment of the 13th month pay is
concerned, the law did not intend to qualify the exemption from its
coverage with the requirement that the task worker be a "field personnel" at
the same time.
WAGES
1. Toyota Pasig, Inc. vs Vilma de Peralta, GR No. 213488, 07 November 2016
Section 97 (f) of the Labor Code reads:
"Wage" paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration of earnings,
however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether
fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other
method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an
employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done
or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered and includes the fair
and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the
employer to the employee.
While commissions are, indeed, incentives or forms of encouragement to
inspire employees to put a little more industry on the jobs particularly
assigned to them, still these commissions are direct remunerations for
services rendered.
De Peraltas (an Insurance Sales Executive) claims for commissions, tax rebates
and success share/profit sharing incentives fall within the ambit of the general
term "commissions" which in tum, fall within the definition of wages pursuant
to prevailing law and jurisprudence.
PAGE 6 OF 18
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
2. Our Haus Realty Development Corporation vs Alexander Parian, et al, GR No.
204651, 06 August 2014
To be considered as facilities, the employer must prove that
(a) such facilities are customarily given;
(b) voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee; and
(c) charged at fair and reasonable value.
Purpose Test:
a) Facilities include articles or services for the benefit of the employee or his
family but exclude tools of the trade or articles or services primarily for
the benefit of the employer or necessary to the conduct of the business.
b) Under the Purpose Test, substantial consideration must be given to the nature
of the employers business in relation to the character or type of work
performed by the employees involved.
The subsidized meals and free lodging provided by Our Haus (engaged in
construction) are actually supplements.
Although they also work to benefit the respondents, an analysis of the nature of
these benefits in relation to Our Haus business shows that they were given
primarily for Our Haus greater convenience and advantage.
If weighed on a scale, the balance tilts more towards Our Haus side. Accordingly,
their values cannot be considered in computing the total amount of the
respondents wages.
RETIREMENT BENEFITS
GSIS vs Apolinario Pauig, GR No. 210328, 30 January 2017
Compulsory coverage under the GSIS had previously and consistently included
regular and permanent employees, and expressly excluded casual, substitute
or temporary employees from its retirement insurance plan, until 1997 when
compulsory membership in the GSIS was extended to employees other than
those on permanent status.
Pauig cannot succeed in appealing to liberal construction to include his 14 years of
temporary employment where the law is clear and unambiguous.
DISABILITY/DEATH CLAIMS
Jebsens Maritime, Inc., et al vs Rapiz, GR No. 218871, 11 January 2017
Guidelines that shall govern seafarers' claims for permanent and total disability
benefits:
a) The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on
the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time
the seafarer reported to him;
b) If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the
period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's
disability becomes permanent and total;
c) If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the
period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g. seafarer required
further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period
BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer
has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has
sufficient justification to extend the period; and
d) If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within
the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes
permanent and total, regardless of any justification.
C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. and/or
JUAN JOSE ROCHA vs RHUDEL CASTILLO, GR No. 208215, 19 April 2017
Does the Pre-employment Medical Examination establish a presumption that the
seafarer is fit when he entered into his employment contract?
No. The fact that respondent passed the company's PEME is of no moment. The
PEME is not exploratory in nature. It was not intended to be a totally in-depth
and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition. The PEME
merely determines whether one is fit to work at sea or fit for sea service; it does
not state the real state of health of an applicant. In short, the fit to work
declaration in the seafarer's PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he
was free from any ailment prior to his deployment.
TEST/PROOF OF COMPENSABILITY
Jesus Villamos vs ECC and SSS, GR No. 204422, 21 November 2016
"Probability and not ultimate degree of certainty is the test of proof in
compensation proceedings."
Direct evidence showing that his work and position in the union caused his illness
is not necessary.
Under prevailing jurisprudence, the nature of petitioner's work and his medical
results are substantial evidence to support his claim for EC TTD benefits under
PD No. 626, as amended.
NATURE AND STATUS OF EMPLOYMENT
REGULAR EMPLOYMENT
Isidro Quebral, et al vs Angbus Construction, Inc., et al, GR No. 221897, 07
November 2016
To safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the word "project" to
preclude them from attaining regular status, jurisprudence provides that
employers claiming that their workers are project-based employees have the
burden to prove that these two requisites concur:
(a) the employees were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking;
and
(b) the duration and scope of which were specified at the time they were engaged
for such project.
Angbus did not state the specific project or undertaking assigned to petitioners. As
to the second requisite, not only was Angbus unable to produce petitioners'
employment contracts, it also failed to present other evidence to show that it
informed petitioners of the duration and scope of their work.
PAGE 7 OF 18
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
Although the absence of a written contract does not by itself grant regular status to
the employees, it is evidence that they were informed of the duration and scope
of their work and their status as project employees at the start of their
engagement.
Absent such proof, it is presumed that they are regular employees, thus, can only
be dismissed for just or authorized causes upon compliance with procedural
due process.
PROJECT EMPLOYMENT
1. E. Ganzon, Inc., et al vs Fortunato Ando, GR No. 214813, 20 February 2017
The rehiring of construction workers on a project-to-project basis does not
confer upon them regular employment status as it is only dictated by the
practical consideration that experienced construction workers are more
preferred.
In Ando's case, he was rehired precisely because of his previous experience
working with the other phases of the project. EGI took into account similarity
of working environment.
Although the employment contract provided that the stated date may be
"extended or shortened depending on the work phasing," it specified the
termination of the parties' employment relationship on a "day certain," which
is "upon completion of the phase of work for which [he was] hired for.
2. Isidro Quebral, et al vs Angbus Construction, Inc., et al, GR No. 221897, 07
November 2016
Indicators of project employment:
(a) The duration of the specific/identified undertaking for which the worker is
engaged is reasonably determinable.
(b) Such duration, as well as the specific work/service to be performed, is defined
in an employment agreement and is made clear to the employee at the
time of hiring.
(c) The work/service performed by the employee is in connection with the
particular project/undertaking for which he is engaged.
(d) The employee, while not employed and awaiting engagement, is free to offer
his services to any other employer.
(e) The termination of his employment in the particular project/undertaking is
reported to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional
Office having jurisdiction over the workplace within 30 days following the
date of his separation from work, using the prescribed form on employees'
terminations/dismissals/suspensions.
(f) An undertaking in the employment contract by the employer to pay
completion bonus to the project employee as practiced by most
construction companies. (Section 2.2, D.O. No. 9, series of 1993,
Guidelines Governing the Employment of Workers in the Construction
Industry)
BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
By the provision's tenor, the submission of the termination report, by and of itself,
is therefore not conclusive to confirm the status of the terminated employees as
project employees, especially in this case where there is a glaring absence of
evidence to prove that petitioners were assigned to carry out a specific project
or undertaking, and that they were informed of the duration and scope of their
supposed project engagement, which are, in fact, attendant to the first two (2)
indicators of project employment in the same DOLE issuance above-cited.
FIXED-TERM EMPLOYMENT
Atty. Marcos D. Risonar, Jr. vs Cor Jesus College, et al, GR No. 198350, 14
September 2016
Appointments to the position of Dean of an educational institution involves an
employment contract to which a fixed term is an essential and natural
appurtenance.
In the Law Deans appointment letter, the school obligated itself to send a 30-day
prior notice from the expiration of the term if it no longer intends to renew/
extend his appointment.
The Law Deans appointment was automatically renewed under the same terms and
conditions of the original appointment, since the respondents failed to send
him the required written notice.
Where the termination letter received more than a month after the expiration of the
fixed term merely indicated that the dean was about to be replaced, without
providing any reason therefor, he is deemed illegally dismissed.
The monetary awards to which he is entitled to as a consequence of his illegal
dismissal are only limited until the expiration of his second term.
Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet. No one should obtain an
advantage from his own wrong doing.
SEASONAL EMPLOYMENT
Zenaida Paz vs Northern Tobacco Redrying Co., Inc. et al, GR No. 199554, 18
February 2015
The amount of separation pay is based on two factors:
a) the amount of monthly salary and
b) the number of years of service.
Although the Labor Code provides different definitions as to what constitutes "one
year of service," Book Six does not specifically define "one year of service" for
purposes of computing separation pay.
However, Articles 283 and 284 both state in connection with separation pay that a
fraction of at least six months shall be considered one whole year.
In the case of a regular seasonal employee, the number of years they actually
rendered service shall be counted, provided that they worked for at least six
months during a given year.
PAGE 8 OF 18
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT
1. Geraldine Michelle Fallarme, et al vs San Juan de Dios Educational Foundation,
Inc., GR Nos. 190015 & 190019, 14 September 2016
As prescribed by the 1992 Manual, a teacher must satisfy the following requisites
to be entitled to regular faculty status:
(1) must be a full-time teacher;
(2) must have rendered three years of service or six consecutive semesters of
service for teachers on the tertiary level); and
(3) that service must have been satisfactory.
Valid probationary employment under the Labor Code presupposes the
concurrence of two requirements:
(1) the employer must have made known to the probationary employee the
reasonable standard that the latter must comply with to qualify as a
regular employee; and
(2) the employer must have informed the probationary employee of the
applicable performance standard at the time of the latter's engagement
Failing in one or both, the employee, even if initially hired as a probationary
employee, shall be considered a regular employee.
The teachers were hired by the college as early as 2003, but were required to
sign appointment contracts for the first time only in 2005.
Each of the contracts supposedly provided that it "incorporates by reference the
school policies, regulations, operational procedures and guidelines provided
for in the Manual of Operations of the School.
The failure to inform them of these matters was in violation of the requirements
of valid probationary employment.
2. PNOC-EDC vs Buenviaje, GR Nos. 183200- 01, 183253 & 183257, 29 June 2016
The job description attached to Buenviaje's appointment letter merely answers the
question: "what duties and responsibilities does the position entail?", but fails to
provide the answer/s to the question: "how would the employer gauge the
performance of the probationary employee?".
The job description merely contains her job identification, her immediate superior
and subordinates, a list of her job objectives, duties and responsibilities, and the
qualification guidelines required of her position (i.e., minimum education,
minimum experience, and special skills).
There is no question that performance of duties and responsibilities is a necessary
standard for qualifying for regular employment. It does not stop on mere
performance, however. There must be a measure as to how poor, fair,
satisfactory, or excellent the performance has been.
3. Enchanted Kingdom vs Verzo, GR No. 209559, 09 December 2015
Section 6 (d), Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code provides
that if the employer fails to inform the probationary employee of the reasonable
standards on which his regularization would be based at the time of the
engagement, then the said employee shall be deemed a regular employee.
BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
An exception to the foregoing rule is when the job is self- descriptive, as in the case
of maids, cooks, drivers, or messengers.
While it may be argued that ideally employers should immediately inform a
probationary employee of the standards for his regularization from day one,
strict compliance thereof is not required.
The true test of compliance with the requirements of the law is, of course, one of
reasonableness.
As long as the probationary employee is given a reasonable time and opportunity to
be made fully aware of what is expected of him during the early phases of the
probationary period, the requirement of the law has been satisfied.
TERMINATIONS DISPUTES
Preventive Suspension
Constructive Dismissal
Illegal Dismissal
Valid Dismissal
Reliefs in Illegal Dismissal
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION
Francisco Baculi vs Office of the President, GR No. 188681, 08 March 2017
Preventive suspension is of two kinds:
a) preventive suspension pending
b) preventive suspension pending appeal where the penalty imposed by the
disciplining authority is either suspension or dismissal but after review the
respondent official or employee is exonerated.
If the proper disciplinary authority does not finally decide the administrative case
within a period of 90 days from the start of preventive suspension pending
investigation, and the respondent is not a presidential appointee, the
preventive suspension is lifted and the respondent is "automatically reinstated
in the service.
In the case of presidential appointees, the preventive suspension pending
investigation shall be "for a reasonable time as the circumstances of the case
may warrant.
Baculi should be paid his back salaries and other benefits for the entire time that he
should have been automatically reinstated at the rate owing to his position
that he last received prior to his preventive suspension on September 4, 1992.
Such time corresponded to the period from December 4, 1992 until June 25, 2003,
but excluding the interval from March 12, 2001 until December 31, 2001
when he was briefly reinstated.
CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL
Chateau Royale Sports and Country Club, Inc. vs Rachelle Balba, et al, GR No.
197492, 18 Janauary 2017
The transfer constitutes constructive dismissal
PAGE 9 OF 18
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
1. when it is unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee, or
2. involves a demotion in rank or diminution of salaries, benefits and other
privileges, or
3. when the acts of discrimination, insensibility or disdain on the part of the
employer become unbearable for the employee, forcing him to forego
her employment.
Management had the prerogative to determine the place where the employee is
best qualified to serve the interests of the business given the qualifications,
training and performance of the affected employee.
The resignations of the account managers and the director of sales and marketing in
the Manila office brought about the immediate need for their replacements
with personnel having commensurate experiences and skills is not
constructive dismissal.
Grande vs Philippine Nautical Training College, GR No. 213137, 01 March 2017
In order to determine whether the employees truly intended to resign from their
respective posts, we must take into consideration the totality of circumstances
in each particular case.
By vigorously pursuing the litigation of her action against respondent, petitioner
clearly manifested that she has no intention of relinquishing her employment,
which act is wholly incompatible to respondent's assertion that she voluntarily
resigned.
Ernesto Galang et al vs BOIE Takeda Chemicals, Inc., GR No. 183934, 20 July 2016
Resenting the promotion of Villanueva as National Sales Director, petitioners
applied for retirement in a joint letter of resignation, received their retirement
package, and months later, complained of constructive dismissal.
They voluntarily retired and not constructively dismissed
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL
Jinky Isabel vs Perla Compaa de Seguros, Inc., GR No. 219430, 07 November 2016
The charge of insubordination against Sta. Isabel was grounded on her refusal
despite due notice to report to the Head Office in compliance with the
requisites of procedural due process in administrative cases.
This should only be deemed as a waiver of her right to procedural due process in
connection with the investigation, and is not tantamount to willful
disobedience or insubordination.
Leo Maula vs Ximex Delivery Express, Inc., GR No. 207838, 25 January 2017
Seguro na abnormal ang utak mo!
The admittedly insulting and unbecoming language uttered by petitioner to the HR
Manager on April 3, 2009 should be viewed with reasonable leniency in light
of the fact that it was committed under an emotionally charged state.
On-the-spur-of-the-moment outburst was due to what he perceived as successive
retaliatory and orchestrated actions of respondent. Indeed, there was only
BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
lapse in judgment rather than a premeditated defiance of authority. It was not
shown in detail that he has become unfit to continue working for the company
and that the continuance of his services is patently inimical to respondent's
interest.
The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period
of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed
upon an erring employee. Having been penalized for his previous infractions,
this does not and should not mean that his employment record would be
wiped clean of his infractions.
Ximex cannot invoke the principle of totality of infractions considering that Maulas
alleged previous acts of misconduct were not established in accordance with
the requirements of procedural due process.
Sta. Ana vs Manila Jockey Club, Inc., GR No. 208459, 15 February 2017
The charges against an outlet teller for engaging in a personal lending business
using company funds during office hours was unsubstantiated, as the employee
was able to submit proof of her sources of funds and there was no proof that she
conducted the business during company time using company personnel. No
basis for loss of trust and confidence.
Rodfhel Torrefiel et al vs Beauty Lane Phils, Inc., GR No. 214186, 03 August 2016
There was no valid reason for their dismissal considering the lack of proof of their
involvement in the alleged pilferage.
While proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in dismissing an employee,
the employer must prove by substantial evidence the facts and incidents upon
which the accusations are made.
Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of the employer, as in
this case, are not enough to justify an employee's dismissal.
Interadent Zahntechnik Phils, Inc. et al vs Rebecca Simbillo, GR No. 207315, 23
November 2016
Simbillos Facebook post which supposedly suggests that Interadent was being
investigated by the BIR for irregular transactions, and hence has compromised
the reputation of the company, is not sufficient basis for loss of trust.
It leaked no company information or coporate record, at most, it would only merit
some suspicion, Interadent being the present employer
Marinas Creation Enterprises, et al vs Romeo Ancheta, GR No. 218333, 07
December 2016
The companys refusal to give Ancheta work assignments until he submitted a new
medical certificate certifying his fitness to work amounts to illegal dismissal
the law imposes upon the employer the duty not to terminate an employee (based
on disease) until there is a certification by a competent public health authority
that the employee's disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot
be cured within a period of six months even with proper medical treatment.
PAGE 10 OF 18
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
VALID DISMISSAL
Universal Canning Inc., et al vs CA, et al, GR 215047, 23 November 2016
Respondents were caught in the act of engaging in gambling activities inside the
workplace during work hours, a violation of company policy penalized with
dismissal.
The defense that it took place during noon break and that no stakes were involved,
even if were proven true, will however not save the day for the respondents.
The use of the company's time and premises for gambling activities is a grave
offense which warrants the penalty of dismissal for it amounts to theft of the
company's time and it is explicitly prohibited by the company rules on the
ground that it is against public morals.
Philippine Auto Components Parts, Inc. vs Ronnie Jumadla, et al, GR No. 218980, 28
November 2016
PACI's loss of trust and confidence was directly rooted in the manner of how they,
as persons in charge of the inventory, had negligently handled the products.
Though not directly involved in the pilferage of PACI's products, their negligence
facilitated the unauthorized transporting of products out of PACI's warehouse
and their sale to third persons.
Mary Ann Venzon et al vs ZAMECO II Electric Cooperative, Inc., GR No. 213934, 09
November 2016
Complainants-appellees, instead of being neutral, embroiled themselves in the
ongoing corporate dispute to wrestle control over ZAMECO II.
While loss of trust and confidence should be genuine, it does not require proof
beyond reasonable doubt, it being sufficient that there is some basis to believe
that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that the
nature of the employee's participation therein rendered him unworthy of trust
and confidence demanded by his position.
Errol Ramirez et al vs Plyson Industries, Inc et al, GR No. 207898, 19 October 2016
The act of inducing and/or threatening workers not to render overtime work, was
undoubtedly a calculated effort amounting to 'overtime boycott' or 'work
slowdown which caused signifinat losses (P290,000).
Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or
union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts
during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status.
Angelito Publico vs Hospital Managers, Inc., et al, GR 209086, 17 October 2016
Publico was the hospital's Chief of Blood Bank Section, Laboratory Department
when he was dismissed from employment by HMI in 2008 due to gross and
habitual neglect of duty as anomalous transactions in the Blood Bank Section
were found to have persisted for almost two years.
BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
His liability did not depend on his own participation in the unlawful sales but to his
failure to perform his duties as a supervisor.
RELIEFS IN ILLEGAL DISMISSAL
1. TPG Corporation (formerly The Professional Group Plans, Inc.) vs Esperanza
Pinas, GR No. 189714, 25 January 2017
Following the pronouncement of the Court in Sagales v. Rustan's Commercial
Corporation,(592 Phil. 468 (2008), the computation of separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement includes the period for which backwages were awarded.
2. PNCC Skyway Corporation, et al vs The Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al,
GR 196110, 06 February 2017
Factors in the determination of the amount of nominal damages:
(1) the authorized cause invoked, whether it was a retrenchment or a closure or
cessation of operation of the establishment due to serious business losses
or financial reverses or otherwise;
(2) the number of employees to be awarded;
(3) the capacity of the employers to satisfy the awards, taken into account their
prevailing financial status as borne by the records;
(4) the employer's grant of other termination benefits in favor of the employees;
and (5) whether there was a bona fide attempt to comply with the notice
requirements as opposed to giving no notice at all.
In Jaka Food Processing Corp. v. Pacot (GR No. 151378, 28 March 2005), we fixed
the nominal damages at P50,000.00 if the dismissal is due to an authorized
cause under Article 283 of the Labor Code, but the employer failed to comply
with the notice requirement.
In this case, the amount of P30,000.00 in nominal damages is sufficient to
vindicate each private respondent's right to due process considering that the
dismissal was prompted by the cessation of PSCs operation which was done in
good faith, and that PSC had the intention to give the benefits due them.
Manila Doctors College et al vs Emmanuel Olores, GR No. 225044, 03 October
2016
Olores was terminated for grave misconduct, gross inefficiency and incompetence
in employing a grading system liberally implementing the guidelines in arriving
at his students final grades that was not in accord with the guidelines set by
MDC. The LA found for Olores and ordered his reinstatement without
backwages or, at his option, the payment of separation pay.
Was the inclusion of reinstatement wages in the Writ of Execution proper where the
employer relied on the option granted to pay separation pay instead of reinstatement?
Yes. Petitioners were duty-bound to reinstate respondent either by admitting him
back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his
dismissal, or by merely reinstating him in the payroll, which alternative options
PAGE 11 OF 18
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
must be exercised in good faith; otherwise, they are bound to pay his accrued
salaries.
What effect does the complainants subsequent choice of separation pay during the
execution proceedings have on the liability of the employer for reinstatement wages?
None. Not only because there was no genuine compliance by the employer of the
reinstatement order but also because the employer chose not to act on said
claim.
Hence, for failure of the petitioners to comply with said order, the CA correctly
declared respondent to be entitled to the payment of his accrued salaries
during the period of the appeal until the reversal of the December 8, 2010
Decision of LA Amansec.
Yes. petitioners were duty-bound to reinstate respondent either by admitting him
back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his
dismissal, or by merely reinstating him in the payroll, which alternative options
must be exercised in good faith; 57 otherwise, they are bound to pay his
accrued salaries.
3. Julius Campol vs Balao-as, et al, GR No. 197634, 28 November 2016
An employee of the civil service who is invalidly dismissed is entitled to the
payment of backwages.
The five-year cap on backwages was not fully explained in earlier cases, other than
a mention in the case of Cristobal vs Melchor (G.R. No. L- 43203, July 29,
1977, 78 SCRA 175) which appliedby analogy the then prevailing doctrine
involving employees who suffered unfair labor practice.
n 1989, RA 6715 amended the Labor Code, and provided for the payment of
backwages from the time the illegally dismissed employees compensation was
withheld up to his or her reinstatement.
The five-year cap was dropped in the case of CSC vs Gentallan (G.R. No. 152833,
May 9, 2005, 458 SCRA 278.) which awarded backwages from the time of
illegal dismissal until reinstatement.
An employee of the civil service who is ordered reinstated is also entitled to the full
payment of his or her backwages during the entire period of time that he or she
was wrongfully prevented from performing the duties of his or her position and
from enjoying its benefits.
This is necessarily so because, in the eyes of the law, the employee never truly left
the office. Fixing the backwages to five years or to the period of time until the
employee found a new employment is not a full recompense for the damage
done by the illegal dismissal of an employee. Worse, it effectively punishes an
employee for being dismissed without his or her fault.
BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
WHEN AN EMPLOYEE WAS NOT DISMISSED AND ALSO DID NOT ABANDON
HIS WORK
Dee Jays In and Caf, et al vs Ma. Lorina Raneses, GR 191825, 05 October 2016
The general course of action is for the Court to dismiss the complaint, direct the
employee to return to work, and order the employer to accept the employee.
However, when a considerable length of time had already passed rendering it
impossible for the employee to return to work, the award of separation pay is
proper. (similar to Nightowl Watchman & Security Agency, Inc. v.
Lumahan,G.R. No. 212096, October 14, 2015.)
MERGERS AND SEPARATION PAY
The Philippine Geothermal Inc Employees Union vs Unocal Philippines, Inc. (now
known as Chevron Geothermal Phils Holdings, Inc.), GR No. 190187, 28 September
2016
The merger of a corporation with another does not operate to dismiss the
employees of the corporation absorbed by the surviving corporation. This is in
keeping with the nature and effects of a merger as provided under law and the
constitutional policy protecting the rights of labor.
The employment of the absorbed employees subsists. Necessarily, these absorbed
employees are not entitled to separation pay on account of such merger in the
absence of any other ground for its award.
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation
of Unions in BPI Unibank has ruled that the surviving corporation
automatically assumes the employment contracts of the absorbed corporation,
such that the absorbed corporation's employees become part of the manpower
complement of the surviving corporation. (674 Phil. 609, 617-618 (2011)
Labor Procedure
Cause of Action Belatedly Filed
Defective Service of Summons
Perfection of Appeal
Appeal from CA to SC
Satisfaction of Judgment
Doctrine of Stare Decisis
CAUSE OF ACTION BELATEDLY FILED
Dee Jays In and Caf, et al vs Ma. Lorina Raneses, GR 191825, 05 October 2016
May a cause of action belatedly included in the position paper but not originally
pleaded in the complaint be given cognizance?
Under the applicable 2002 NLRC Rules of Procedure, Sec. 4, the parties could
allege and present evidence to prove any cause or causes of action included,
not only in the complaint, but in the position papers as well.
PAGE 12 OF 18
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
DEFECTIVE SERVICE OF SUMMONS
Oyster Plaza Hotel, et al vs Errol Melivo, GR No. 217455, 05 October 2016
The Court considered as substantial compliance the service of summons by
registered mail at the respondent's place of business.
The notation in the registry receipt that "a registered article must not be delivered
to anyone but the addressee, or upon the addressee's written order" creates the
presumption that the persons who received the summons and notice were
presumably able to present a written authorization to receive them and,
therefore, the notices were presumed to be duly received in the ordinary
course of events.
NO SERVICE OF SUMMONS
Reyno Dimson vs Gerry Chua, GR No. 192318, 05 December 2016
No service of summons and notices were served on the respondent and he was not
impleaded as a party respondent. He did not voluntarily appear before the LA
as to submit himself to its jurisdiction but was merely dragged to court after he
reacted to the improper execution of his properties.
Perforce, the proceedings conducted and the decision rendered are nugatory and
without effect as the LA never acquired jurisdiction over his person.
FORUM SHOPPING
Fontana Development Corporation et al vs Sascha Vukasinovic, GR No. 222424, 21
September 2016
The test for determining the existence of forum shopping is whether a final
judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in another or whether the following
elements of litis pendentia are present:
a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as representing the same interests in
both actions;
b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on
the same facts; and
c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered
in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to
res judicata in the action under consideration. Said requisites are also
constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens.
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE
Buenaflor Car Services, Inc. vs Cezar David, GR No. 222730, 07 November 2016
May the extra-judicial confession of his co-accused be admissible in evidence against
him?
No. The res inter alios acta rule, which, as per Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court, provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, should not be applied.
The NLRC Rules of Procedure state that "[t]he rules of procedure and evidence
prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling and the
BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
Commission shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in
each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or
procedure .
DOCTRINE OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS
Buenaflor Car Services, Inc. vs Cezar David, GR No. 222730, 07 November 2016
"Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, regardless of their truth
or falsity, the fact that such statements have been made is relevant. The hearsay
rule does not apply, and the statements are admissible as evidence.
Del Rosario's extrajudicial confession is independently relevant to prove the
participation of respondent in the instant controversy considering his vital role
in petitioner's procurement process.
THE EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE
Dee Jays Inn and Caf et al vs Ma. Lorina Raeses, GR No. 191823, 05 October
2016
The equipoise doctrine provides that with all things considered equal, since there is
an equipoise of evidence and therefore there is doubt as to where the
evidence of the parties tilt, all doubts must be resolved in favor of labor.
In this case, the doctrine was misapplied since without the joint affidavit of Mercy
and Mea, there only remained the bare allegation of respondent that she was
dismissed by petitioners. The burden of proof did not shift to petitioners to
prove that her dismissal was for just or authorized cause.
PERFECTION OF APPEAL
MOTION TO REDUCE APPEAL BOND
Turks Shawarma Company ve Feliciano Pajaron, et al, GR No. 207156, 16 January
2017
The reduction of the appeal bond is allowed, subject to the following conditions:
(1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds; and
(2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the
appellant. Compliance with these two conditions will stop the running of
the period to perfect an appeal
If the NLRC grants the motion and rules that there is indeed meritorious ground and
that the amount of the bond posted is reasonable, then the appeal is perfected.
If the NLRC denies the motion, the appellant may still file a motion for
reconsideration as provided under Section 15, Rule VII of the Rules.
If the NLRC grants the motion for reconsideration and rules that there is indeed
meritorious ground and that the amount of the bond posted is reasonable,
then the appeal is perfected. If the NLRC denies the motion. then the decision
of the Labor Arbiter becomes final and executory
In the case of McBurnie v. Ganzon, the Court has set a provisional percentage of
10% of the monetary award (exclusive of damages and attorney's fees) as
reasonable amount of bond that an appellant should post pending resolution
PAGE 13 OF 18
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
by the NLRC of a motion for a bond's reduction. Only after the posting of this
required percentage shall an appellant's period to perfect an appeal be
suspended.
Applying this parameter, the P15,000.00 partial bond posted by petitioners is not
considered reasonable in relation to the total monetary award of P197,936.27.
Maria Victoria Tolentino-Prieto vs Robert Elvas, GR No. 192369, 09 November 2016
Was the appeal deemed perfected where the memorandum of appeal was seasonably
filed but the appeal bond turned out to be spurious upon verification?
While posting of an appeal bond is mandatory and jurisdictional, we sanction the
relaxation of the rule in certain meritorious cases. These cases include instances in
(1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules,
(2) surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce
the bond,
(3) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the
desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits, or
(4) the appellants, at the very least, exhibited their willingness and/or good faith
by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period The first and
second instances are present in this case.
There should be adherence to a strict application of Article 229 of the Labor Code
when appellants do not post an appeal bond at all; but here an appeal bond
was actually filed. Strict application of the rules is therefore uncalled for.
While it is true that the payment of the supersedeas bond is an essential
requirement in the perfection of an appeal, however, where the fee had been
paid although payment was delayed, and the appellant acted in good faith, the
broader interests of justice and the desired objective of resolving controversies
on the merits demands that the appeal be given due course."
TIMELINESS OF APPEAL
Isidro Quebral, et al vs Angbus Construction, Inc., et al, GR No. 221897, 07
November 2016
Based on Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, the date of filing is determinable
from two sources:
(1) from the post office stamp on the envelope or
(2) from the registry receipt, either of which may suffice to prove the timeliness
of the filing of the pleadings.
The Court previously ruled that if the date stamped on one is earlier than the other,
the former may be accepted as the date of filing. This presupposes, however,
that the envelope or registry receipt and the dates appearing thereon are duly
authenticated before the tribunal where they are presented.
When the photocopy of a registry receipt bears an earlier date but is not
authenticated, the Court held that the later date stamped on the envelope shall
be considered as the date of filing.
BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
WHAT MAY BE RESOLVED ON APPEAL
Heirs of Teodora Loyola vs CA, et al, GR No. 188658, 11 January 2017
As a general rule, only matters assigned as errors in the appeal may be resolved
(Rule 51, Section 8 of the Rules of Court)
Exceptions established by jurisprudence:
a) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject
matter;
b) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical
errors within the contemplation of law;
c) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is
necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the
case or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal
justice;
d) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial
court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue
submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court
ignored;
e) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error
assigned; and
f) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of
a question properly assigned is dependent.
MAY A PARTY WHO DID NOT APPEAL OBTAIN ANY AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF?
Century Properties, Inc. vs Edwin Babiano and Emma Concepcion, GR No. 220978,
05 July 2016
General Rule: A party who has not appealed cannot obtain any affirmative relief
other than the one granted in the appealed decision.
Exception: When strict adherence thereto shall result in the impairment of the
substantive rights of the parties concerned.
Concepcion's right to her earned commissions is a substantive right which cannot
be impaired by an erroneous computation of what she really is entitled to.
Hence, following the dictates of equity and in order to arrive at a complete
and just resolution of the case, and avoid a piecemeal dispensation of justice
over the same, the CA correctly recomputed Concepcion' s unpaid
commissions, notwithstanding her failure to seek a review of the NLRC's
computation of the same.
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Oasis Park Hotel vs Leslee Navaluna, GR No. 197191, 21 November 2016
Was the Petition for Certiorari correctly dismissed for failure to state a material
date(date of receipt of the NLRC decision?
Yes. To establish the timeliness of the petition for certiorari, the date of receipt of
the assailed judgment, final order or resolution or the denial of the motion for
reconsideration or new trial must be stated in the petition; otherwise, the
petition for certiorari must be dismissed.
PAGE 14 OF 18
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
Substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance with the
Rules.
Coca-cola Femsa Philippines, Inc. vs Bacolod Sales Force Union-Congress of
Independent Organization-ALU, GR No. 220605, 21 September 2016
May the CA exercise judicial review of the assailed VA rulings, notwithstanding the
CBA stipulation that the decision of the Arbitration Committee, i.e., the VA, shall be
final and binding upon the parties?
Yes. The CA should look into the merits of the case where there is prima facie
showing of the existence of grounds warranting judicial review, and where
refusing to do so would deprive the petitioner the opportunity to prove or
substantiate its allegations.
"Any agreement stipulating that 'the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and
unappealable' and 'that no further judicial recourse if either party disagrees
with the whole or any part of the arbitrator's award may be availed of' cannot
be held to preclude in proper cases the power of judicial review which is
inherent in courts."
APPEAL FROM CA TO SC
Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al vs Elmer Mapagu, GR No. 196084, 15
February 2017
A party litigant wishing to file a petition for review on certiorari must do so within
15 days from notice of the judgment, final order or resolution sought to be
appealed.
The Rules allow only for a maximum period of 45 days within which an aggrieved
party may file a petition for review on certiorari.
The failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere
technicality. It raises a jurisdictional problem, as it deprives the appellate court
of its jurisdiction over the appeal.
After a decision is declared final and executory, vested rights are acquired by the
winning party. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the
prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the
finality of the decision on the case.
Exceptional cases when the Court allowed a relaxation of the rules governing the
periods of appeals:
The questioned decision of the trial court was served upon appellant at a time
when her counsel of record was already dead. Her new counsel could only
file the appeal four days after the prescribed reglementary period was over.
(Ramos vs. Bagasao, 96 SCRA 395)
To prevent a gross miscarriage of justice since the Republic stood to lose hundreds
of hectares of land already titled in its name and had since then been devoted
for educational purposes; delay of 6 days excused. (Republic vs. Court of
Appeals, 83 SCRA 453)
The subject matter in issue had theretofore been judicially settled, with finality, in
another case. The dismissal of the appeal would have had the effect of the
BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
appellant being ordered twice to make the same reparation to the appellee.
(Olacao vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 177 SCRA 38, 41)
PETITION FOR REVIEW
Maria Victoria Tolentino-Prieto vs Robert Elvas, GR No. 192369, 09 November 2016
The fact that the delay in the filing of the petition was only one day is not a legal
justification for non-compliance with the rule requiring that it be filed within
the reglementary period.
We cannot fix a period with the solemnity of a statute and disregard it like a joke. If
law is founded on reason, whim and fancy should play no part in its
application.
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Powerhouse Staffbuilders International, Inc. vs Romelia Rey, et al, GR No. 190203,
07 November 2016
If the last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a
legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the
next working day." Thus, the petition filed on the 61st day, was timely filed.
SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT
RELEASE OF CASH BOND
CICM Mission Seminaries School of Theology, Inc. et al vs Maria Veronica , Perez,
GR 220506, 18 January 2017
The petitioners opposed the issuance of a Writ of Execution and moved for the
issuance of a certificate of satisfaction of judgment, alleging that their
obligation had been satisfied by the release of the cash bond in the amount of
P272,337.05 to respondent.
The judgment has not yet been fully satisfied. In the event the aspect of
reinstatement is disputed, backwages, including separation pay, shall be
computed from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering
the separation pay.
Rationale: When there is an order of separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement or
when the reinstatement aspect is waived or subsequently ordered in light of a
supervening event making the award of reinstatement no longer possible), the
employment relationship is terminated only upon the finality of the decision
ordering the separation pay.
It does not matter if the delay caused by an appeal was brought about by the
employer or by the employee.
Accordingly, she is entitled to have her backwages and separation pay computed
until October 4, 2012, the date when the judgment of this Court became final
and executory
PAGE 15 OF 18
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
PIERCING THE VEIL OF CORPORATE FICTION
Guillermo vs Uson, GR No. 198967, 07 March 2016
The veil of corporate fiction can be pierced, and responsible corporate directors
and officers or even a separate but related corporation, may be impleaded and
held responsible solidarily in a labor case, even after final judgment and on
execution, so long as it is established that such persons have deliberately used
the corporate vehicle to unjustly evade the judgment obligation, or have
resorted to fraud, bad faith or malice in doing so.
When the shield of a separate corporate identity is used to commit wrongdoing and
opprobriously elude responsibility, the courts and the legal authorities in a
labor case have not hesitated to step in and shatter the said shield and deny
the usual protections to the offending party, even after final judgment.
LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS
Reyno Dimson vs Gerry Chua, GR No. 1923, 05 December 2016
To hold a director or officer personally liable for corporate obligations, two
requisites must concur:
(1) it must be alleged in the complaint that the director or officer assented to
patently unlawful acts of the corporation or that the officer was guilty of
gross negligence or bad faith; and
(2) there must be proof that the officer acted in bad faith.
THIRD PARTY CLAIM
Cameron Granville 2 Asset Management, Inc. vs UE Monthly Associates, GR 181387,
05 September 2016
Third party claimants in execution proceedings have the burden of proving their
right or title to the subject properties, if they want to defeat the judgment lien.
To do so, they must submit evidence not only of the basis of their entitlement,
but also of the fact that the properties they are claiming were indeed the
subject of execution. Failure to submit that evidence will justify the denial of
the third party claim.
The new provision gave the LA the discretion to determine whether additional
evidence needed to be presented before the TP claim could be resolved.
In the case at bar, the TP claimant, Metrobank failed to comply with the new
requirements as soon as it took effect, and the LA decided that no further
hearing was necessary, given the failure of Metrobank to submit proof of its
claim to the properties.
INDIRECT EMPLOYER
Light Rail Transit Authority vs Bienvenido Alvarez et al, GR No. 188047, 28
November 2016
METRO and LRTA entered into an agreement to manage and operate the LRT
System, where LRTA shouldered all the operating expenses of METRO. METRO
later became a wholly owned subsidiary of LRTA.
BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
May LRTA be made liable by the labor tribunals for private respondents' money claim
(severance pay) despite the absence of an employer-employee relationship, and
though LRTA is a government-owned and controlled corporation?
LRTA must submit itself to the provisions governing private corporations, including
the Labor Code, for having conducted business through a private corporation, in
this case, METRO
May LRTA be held liable jointly and solidarily with METRO for the payment of the
METRO employees separation pay differentials?
Yes.
First, LRTA is contractually obligated to pay the retirement or severance/resignation
pay of METRO employees.
Second, assuming arguendo that LRTA is not contractually liable to pay the
separation benefits, it is solidarily liable as an indirect employer of private
respondents pursuant to Art. 107 and 109 of the Labor Code (Indirect Employer
and Solidary Liability).
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
Alumamay Jamias, et al vs NLRC, et al, GR No. 159350
The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents.
When a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of
facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which
the facts are substantially the same; but when the facts are essentially different,
stare decisis does not apply because a perfectly sound principle as applied to
one set of facts might be entirely inappropriate when a factual variance is
introduced.
The principle does not apply in this case as the earlier cases of Servidad and
Villanueva involved contracts that contained stipulations not found in the
contracts entered by the petitioners, such as double probation. Thus, the
employees in the earlier cases were adjudged as regular employees, while in
this case, they were fixed-term employees.
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
CANCELATION OF UNION ORGANIZATION
De Ocampo Memorial Schools, Inc. vs. Bigkis ng Manggagawa sa De Ocampo
Memorial School, Inc. GR No. 192648, 15 March 2017
Is the lack of mutuality and/or communality of interest a ground for cancellation of
union registration?
The only grounds on which the cancellation of a union's registration may be sought
are those found in Article 247 of the Labor Code. . Pursuant to paragraphs (a)
and (b) of Article 247 of the Labor Code, it must be shown that there was
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with:
(1) the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
amendments thereto;
PAGE 16 OF 18
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
(2) the minutes of ratification;
(3) the election of officers;
(4) the minutes of the election of officers; and (5)the list of voters.
Failure to submit these documents together with the list of the newly elected-
appointed officers and their postal addresses to the BLR may also constitute
grounds for cancellation, lack of mutuality of interests, however, is not among
said grounds.
AGENCY FEES
Peninsula Employees Union vs Michael Esquivel, GR No. 218454, 01 December
2016
The recognized collective bargaining union which successfully negotiated the CBA
with the employer is given the right to collect a reasonable fee called "agency
fee" from non- union members who are employees of the appropriate bargaining
unit, in an amount equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by union
members, in case they accept the benefits under the CBA
Three (3) documentary requisites in order to justify a valid levy of increased union
dues:
(a) an authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the members at
the general membership meeting duly called for the purpose;
(b) the secretary's record of the minutes of the meeting, which shall include the
list of all members present, the votes cast, the purpose of the special
assessment or fees and the recipient of such assessment or fees; and
(c) individual written authorizations for check-off duly signed by the employees
concerned.
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union (SWOFLU) et al vs Universal Robina Corp,
Sugar Division-Southern Negros Devt Corp (SONEDCO), GR No. 220383, 05
October 2016
If, as a result of the certification election, respondent union or a union other than
petitioner union which executed the interim agreement, is certified as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file employees of
respondent company, then, such union may adopt the interim collective
bargaining agreement or negotiate with management for a new collective
bargaining agreement.
An employer who refuses to bargain with the union and tries to restrict its
bargaining power is guilty of unfair labor practice. In determining whether an
employer has not bargained in good faith, the totality of all the acts of the
employer at the time of negotiations must be taken into account.
BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
That it chose to refuse negotiations and instead entered into an agreement with its
employees to essentially waive negotiations for 2007 and 2008 betrays its
intention of limiting petitioners' bargaining power.
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
Guagua National Colleges v. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union and
Guagua National Colleges Non-Teaching and Maintenance Union, GR No. 204693,
13 July 2016
In the absence here of an express stipulation in the CBA that GNC and respondents
agreed to submit cases of unfair labor practice to their grievance machinery
and eventually to voluntary arbitration, jurisdiction over the parties' dispute
does not vest upon the voluntary arbitrator.
It has been held that while the phrase "all other labor dispute" or its variant "any
other matter or dispute" may include unfair labor practices, it is imperative,
however, that the agreement between the union and the company states in
unequivocal language that the parties conform to the submission of unfair
labor practices to voluntary arbitration.
VIOLATION OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
Guagua National Colleges v. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union and
Guagua National Colleges Non-Teaching and Maintenance Union, GR No. 204693,
13 July 2016
Here, the collective conduct of GNC is indicative of its failure to meet its duty to
bargain in good faith. Badges of bad faith attended its actuations both at the
plant and NCMB levels.
Due to its bad faith in bargaining, the final CBA draft submitted by respondents to
the NCMB was correctly imposed by the NLRC as the parties CBA for the
period June 21, 2009 to May 31, 2014. This is on the premise that the said
employers, by their acts which bespeak of insincerity, had lost their statutory
right to negotiate or renegotiate the terms and conditions contained in the
unions' proposed CBAs.
RETURN TO WORK ORDER
Manggawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. PLDT, Co. Inc., GR No. 190389, 19 April
2017
Are the affected and striking employees entitled to reinstatement and backwages from
January 2, 2003 when the SOLE directed the striking employees to return to work, up
to April 29, 2006, when the NLRCs resolution upholding the validity of PLDTs
redundancy program became final and executory?
No. There is no order of reinstatement from a Labor Arbiter in the case at bar,
instead, what is at issue is the return-to-work order from the Secretary of Labor
and Employment. An order of reinstatement is different from a return-to-work
order. The award of reinstatement, including backwages, is awarded by a
Labor Arbiter to an illegally dismissed employee pursuant to Article 294 of the
Labor Code: Article 294.
PAGE 17 OF 18
UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
On the other hand, a return-to-work order is issued by the Secretary of Labor and Therefore, aside from geographical location, their employment status and working
Employment when he or she assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an conditions were so substantially similar as to justify a conclusion that they
industry that is considered indispensable to the national interest. shared a community of interest.
Return-to-work and reinstatement orders are both immediately executory; however,
a return- to-work order is interlocutory in nature, and is merely meant to
maintain status quo while the main issue is being threshed out in the proper
forum. In contrast, an order of reinstatement is a judgment on the merits So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding
handed down by the Labor Arbiter pursuant to the original and exclusive - ROMANS 14:19
jurisdiction provided for under Article 224(a) of the Labor Code. Clearly, there Thank you...and good luck!
is no basis to reinstate the employees who were terminated as a result of
redundancy.

BARGAINING UNIT
Erson Ang Lee Doing Business as Super Lamination Services v. Samahang
Manggagawa ng Super Lamination (SMSLS-NAFLU-KMU), GR No. 193816, 21
November 2016
May separate corporations with related businesses be treated as a single bargaining
unit although these companies are indubitably distinct entities with separate juridical
personalities?
Yes, by way of exception. A settled formulation of the doctrine of piercing the
corporate veil is that when two business enterprises are owned, conducted
and controlled by the same parties, both law and equity will, when necessary
to protect the rights of third parties, disregard the legal fiction that these two
entities are distinct and treat them as identical or as one and the same.
This was proper under the circumstances where the three corporations had the
same lamination business, share a common human resource department,
employees were constantly rotated and assigned to the 3 corporations, the
common HR imposed disciplinary sanctions of all the subject employees,
Super Lamination registered all the employees with the SSS as its own and
signed the IDs of all these employees, and they were represented by the same
counsel.

Would the rank-and-file employees of the three companies constitute an appropriate

bargaining unit despite their different geographical location?
Yes. The basic test for determining the appropriate bargaining unit is the application
of a standard whereby a unit is deemed appropriate if it affects a grouping of
employees who have substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours, working
conditions, and other subjects of collective bargaining.
Geographical location can be completely disregarded if the communal or mutual
interests of the employees are not sacrificed.
In the present case, there was communal interest among the rank-and-file
employees of the three companies based on the finding that they were
constantly rotated to all three companies, and that they performed the same or
similar duties whenever rotated.

PAGE 18 OF 18