Illegal Recruitment

Illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give the
impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes. People vs. Rea,
698 SCRA 191 (2013)
To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the appellant gave complainants the distinct
impression that he had the power or ability to part with their money in order to be employed. Id.
Illegal Recruitment in large scale
The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed upon the concurrence of these (3) elements,
namely: (1) the offenders undertake any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined
in Article 13 (b) or any prohibited practices enumerated in Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the offenders
have no valid license or authority required by law to enable them to lawfully engage in the recruitment
and placement of workers; and (3) the offenders commit the acts against three or more persons,
individually or as a group. People vs. Rea, 698 SCRA 191 (2013)
Illegal Recruitment as economic sabotage
Under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than
P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00 shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic
sabotage. Id.
Wages
Following the wording of Section 10, R.A. No. 8042 and Supreme Court’s ruling in Marsaman Manning
Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 371 Phil. 827 (1999), when the illegally dismissed
employee’s employment contract has a term of less than one year, he/she shall be entitled to recovery of
salaries representing the unexpired portion of his/her employment contract. Tangga-an vs. Philippine
Transmarine Carriers, Inc., 693 SCRA 340. (2013)
Premium Pay
The burden of proving the entitlement to overtime pay and premium pay for holidays and rest days rests
on the employee because these are not incurred in the normal course of business. Loon vs. Power
Masterm, Inc., 712 SCRA 440. (2013)
Thirteenth Month Pay
Pursuant to Memorandum Order No. 28, as implemented by the Revised Guidelines on the
Implementation of the 13th Month Pay Law dated November 16, 1987, managerial employees are exempt
from receiving such benefit without prejudice to the granting of other bonuses, in lieu of the 13th month
pay, to managerial employees upon the employer’s discretion. Torres vs Rural Bank of San Juan, Inc.,
693 SCRA 357. (2013)
Separation Pay
True, under the Labor Code, separation pay may be given not only when there is illegal dismissal. In fact,
it is also given to employees who are terminated for authorized causes, such as redundancy, retrenchment,
or installation of labor-saving devices under Article 283 or the Labor Code. 7K Corporation vs. Albarico,
699 SCRA 700. (2013)
Retirement??
The Supreme Court held in Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission, 206 SCRA 118
(1992), that in the absence of specific prohibition in the retirement plan or the collective bargaining
agreement, retirement benefits and separation pay are not mutually exclusive of each other and the
employees whose services were terminated without cause are entitled to both separation pay and
retirement gratuity. Zuellig Pharma Corporation vs. Sibal, 701 SCRA 165. (2013)
Retirement- Eligibility and Amount
In the absence of any applicable agreement, an employee must (1) retire when he is at least (60)
years of age and (2) serve at least (5) years in the company to entitle him/her to a retirement benefit
of at least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, with a fraction of at least (6) months
being considered as one whole year. Padillo vs. Rural Bank Nabunturan, Inc., 689 SCRA 53. (2013)
Employer-employee relationship
The established criteria for the determination pages of an employer-employee relationship, are: (1) the
selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the powers of dismissal; and (4)
the power to control the employee’s conduct. McBurnie vs. Ganzon, 707 SCRA 646 (2013)
Fixed-term Employment
The Supreme Court ruled in Brent School, Inc. v Zamora, 260 Phil. 747 (1990), that fixed term
employment contract, which specified employment will last only for a definite period, is not per se illegal
or against public policy. GMA Network, Inc. vs. Pabriga, 710 SCRA 690 (2013)
(Effects) Labor-only contracting
The basis of the solidary liability of the principal with those engaged in labor-only contracting is the last
paragraph of Article 106 of the Labor Code, which in part provides: “In such cases [labor-only
contracting], the person or intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of the employer who shall
be responsible to the workers in the same manner and extent as if the latter were directly employed by
him.” Vigilla vs. Philippine College of Criminology, Inc., 698 SCRA 247 (2013)
Dismissal from Service / Dismissal from employment.
The penalty of dismissal carries with it the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility,
forfeiture of retirement benefits [except leave credits pursuant to Rule 140, Section 11 (1) of the
Rules of Court] and disqualification from reemployment in the government service. Olivan vs.
Rubio. (2013)
Due Process
The most basic tenet of due process is the right to be heard. Denial of due process means the total
lack of opportunity to be heard or to have one’s day in court. Ylaya vs. Gacott, 689 SCRA 452;
Philworth Asia, Inc. vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank, 697 SCRA 206. (2013)
Reinstatement 1094
Reinstatement, as a labor law concept, means the admission of an employee back to work prevailing prior
to his dismissal; restoration to a state or position from which one had been removed or separated, which
presupposes that here shall be no demotion in rank and/or diminution of salary, benefits and other
privileges; if the position previously occupied position in terms of salary, benefits, and other privileges.
Bañares vs Tabaco Women’s Transport Service Cooperative (TAWTRASCO), 694 SCRA 312. (2013)
Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement
Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary
for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative. Management Prerogative. Id.
The Supreme Court has recognized that the employer has the right to regulate, according to its discretion
and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including work assignment, working methods, processes to
be followed, working regulations, transfer of employees, working supervision, lay-off of workers and the
discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. Century Iron Works, Inc. vs. Bañas, 699 SCRA 157. (2013)
Backwages
Backwages, in general, are awarded on the ground of equity as a form of relief that restores the income
lost by the terminated employee by reason of his illegal dismissal. 7K Corporation vs. Albarico, 699
SCRA 700. (2013)
Computation
The computation of backwages depends on the final awards adjudged as a consequence of illegal
dismissal. Bani Rural Bank, Inc. vs. De Guzman, 709 SCRA 330. (2013)
The computation of the respondents’ backwages must be from the time of the illegal dismissal from
employment until the finality of the decision ordering the payment of separation pay. Id.
Preventive Suspension- election case in sCra
Management Prerogative
The Supreme Court has recognized that the employer has the right to regulate, according to its discretion
and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including work assignment, working methods, processes to
be followed, working regulations, transfer of employees, working supervision, lay-off of workers and the
discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. Century Iron Works, Inc. vs. Bañas, 699 SCRA 157. (2013)
Transfer of Employees
When the transfer of an employee is not unreasonable, or inconvenient, or prejudicial to him, and it does
not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, benefits and other privileges, the employee
may not complain that it amounts to a constructive dismissal. Peckson vs. Robinsons Supermarket
Corporation, 700 SCRA 668 (2013)
Social Legislation
Social legislations contemporaneous with the execution of the Collective Bargaining Agreement have
given a meaning to the term legal dependent. Philippine Journalists, Inc. vs. Journal Employees Union
(JEU), 697 SCRA 103. (2013)
Beneficiaries
In general, retirement laws provide security to the elderly who have given their prime years in
employment whether in the private sector or in government. Re: Application for Survivorship Pension
Benefits Under Republic Act No. 9946 of Mrs. Pacita A. Gruba, Surviving Spouse of the Late Manuel K.
Gruba, Former CTA Associate Judge, 709 SCRA 603. (2013)
GSIS Law (R.A. No. 8291)
The funds and assets of Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) may – after the resolution of the
appeal and barring any provisional injunction thereto – be subjected to execution, attachment,
garnishment or levy since the exemption under Section 39 of RA 8291 does not operate to deny private
entities from properly enforcing their contractual claims against GSIS. Government Service Insurance
System vs. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., 710 SCRA 337. (2013)
Employee Compensation
Sickness, as defined under Article 167 (1) Chapter I, Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code of the
Philippines refers to any illness definitely accepted as an occupational disease listed by the Employee’s
Compensation Commission, or any illness caused by employment, subject to proof that the risk of
contracting the same is increased by working conditions. Lorenzo vs. Government Service Insurance
System (GSIS), 706 SCRA 602. (2013)
Employee Compensation- when compensable
In cases of death, Section 1(b), Rule III of the Rules of Implementing P.D. No. 626, as amended, requires
that for the sickness and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the claimant must show: (1)
that it is the result of an occupational disease listed under Annex “A” of the Amended Rules on
Employees’ Compensation with the conditions set therein satisfied; or (2) that the risk of contracting the
disease is increased by the working conditions. Id.
Bargaining unit
A bargaining unit has been defined as a “group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less
than all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interests of all the employees, consistent
with equity to the employer, indicated to be the best suited to serve reciprocal rights and duties of the
parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.” Holy Child Catholic School vs. Sto. Tomas,
701 SCRA 589.
Bargaining unit- Test to determine the constituency of an appropriate bargaining unit
View that the Supreme Court explained for the first time in Democratic Labor Association v. Cebu
Stevedoring Company, Inc,. et. Al., 103 Phil. 1103 (1958), that several factors determine an appropriate
bargaining unit, namely: (1) will of employees (Global Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of employees’
interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working
conditions; (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4) employment status, such as temporary,
seasonal and probationary employees. Id.
Certification election
The purpose of certification election is precisely to ascertain the majority of the employees’ choice of an
appropriate bargaining unit – to be or not to be represented by a labor organization and, if in the
affirmative case, by which one. Holy Child Catholic School vs. Sto. Tomas, 701 SCRA 589. (2013)
Collective Bargaining Agreements
A collective bargaining agreement or (CBA) refers to the negotiated contract between a legitimate labor
organization and the employer concerning wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of
employment in bargaining unit. Goya, Inc. vs. Goya, Inc. Employees Union-FFW, 689 SCRA 1;
Philippine Journalists, Inc. vs. Journal Employees Union (JEU), 697 SCRA 103; Zuellig Pharma
Corporation vs Sibal, 701 SCRA 165. (2013)
Grievance Procedure
Under Article 260 of the Labor Code, grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the
parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement should be resolved in accordance with the grievance procedure
embodied therein. Octavio vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, 692 SCRA 72. (2013)
Voluntary arbitration
A decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is appealable to the CA via petition for review under
Rule 43. Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.-Cebu Plant, 696
SCRA 357. (2013)
Unfair Labor Practices
Acts considered as unfair labor practice relate to the worker’s right to self-organization and to the
observance of a collective bargaining agreement. Bankard, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations
Commission-First Division, 692 SCRA 459. (2013)
Lockout
The termination of employment of 127 officers and members constituted union-busting and unlawful
lockout. As said officers and members were unlawfully dismissed from employment, they are entitled to
reinstatement with full backwages. Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, 704 SCRA 24. (2013)
Injunctions
For a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the following essential requisites must concur, to wit:
(1) that the invasion of the right is material and substantial; (2) that the right of complainant is
clear and unmistakable; and, (3) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to
prevent serious damage. Office of the Ombudsman vs. De Chavez, 700 SCRA 339.
National Labor Relations Commission
The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) becomes final and executory after the
lapse of ten calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties. Univac Development, Inc. vs. Soriano, 699
SCRA 88. (2013)
Mediation 892
Court of Appeals
In exercising the expanded judicial review over labor cases, the Court of Appeals can grant the petition if
it finds that the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) committed grave abuse of discretion by
capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence which is material or decisive of the
controversy which necessarily includes looking into the evidence presented by the parties. Univac
Development, Inc. vs. Soriano, 699 SCRA 88 (2013)
Rule 65, Rules of Court
The Court of Appeals is clothed with jurisdiction to review the resolution issued by the Secretary of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court albeit
solely on the ground that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess or lack of jurisdiction. Gaditano vs. San Miguel Corporation, 702 SCRA 191. (2013)
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases.
Questions of fact are for the labor tribunals to resolve.
Rule 65, Rules of Court
It is settled that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals
via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. The Court is not the
proper venue to consider a factual issue as it is not a trier of facts. Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. vs.
Episcope, 692 SCRA 227. (2013)