PHILCOM EMPLOYEES UNION
Manifestation/Motion to Strike Out Portions of
v. PHIL. GLOBAL COMM.,
G. R. No. 144315, July 17, 2006
FACTS:
Upon the expiration of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between petitioner
Philcom Employees Union (PEU or union, for
brevity) and private respondent Philippine
Global Communications, Inc. (Philcom, Inc.) on
June 30, 1997, the parties started negotiations
for the renewal of their CBA in July 1997. While
negotiations were ongoing, PEU filed with the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB) – National Capital Region, a Notice of
Strike.
The company, then, suspended the
ongoing CBA negotiation for ground of
bargaining deadlock.
The union went for another strike.
At a conciliation conference held at the
NCMB-NCR office, the parties agreed to
consolidate the two (2) Notices of Strike filed by
the union and to maintain the status quo during
the pendency of the proceedings.
While the union and the company
officers and representatives were meeting, the
remaining union officers and members staged a
strike at the company premises.
The company immediately filed a
petition for the Secretary of Labor and
Employment to assume jurisdiction over the
labor dispute.
Acting Labor Secretary Trajano:
enjoining any strike or lockout, whether
threatened or actual, directing the parties to
cease and desist from committing any act that
may exacerbate the situation.
Secretary of Labor: The Union's
and Attachments in Philcom's Position Paper is
hereby denied for lack of merit. The Union's
charges of unfair labor practice against the
Company are hereby dismissed
CA: Violations of CBAs, except those
gross in character, are mere grievances
resolvable through the appropriate grievance
machinery or voluntary arbitration as provided
in the CBAs.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not there was an illegal
strike.
2. Whether or not there was an unfair labor
practice.
HELD:
The Court held that there is an illegal
strike. However, there was no unfair labor
practice.
Lamentably, PEU defiantly proceeded
with their strike during the pendency of the
conciliation proceedings.
A strike declared on the basis of
grievances which have not been submitted to
the grievance committee as stipulated in the CBA
of the parties is premature and illegal.
Unfair labor practice refers to acts that
violate the workers' right to organize. The
prohibited acts are related to the workers' right
to self-organization and to the observance of a
CBA. Without that element, the acts, no matter
how unfair, are not unfair labor practices.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition
and AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 53989, with
the MODIFICATION that the Secretary of Labor
is directed to determine who among the Philcom
Employees Union officers participated in the
illegal strike, and who among the union
members committed illegal acts or defied the
return-to-work orders of 19 November 1997 and
28 November 1997. No pronouncement as to
costs.
DOLE PHILS., INC. VS. PAWIS,
G. R. NO. 146650, JANUARY 13, 2003
FACTS:
On February 22, 1996, a new five-year
CBA for the period starting February 1996 up to
February 2001, was executed by Dole and Pawis
Ng Makabayang Obrero-NFL (PAMAO-NFL).
Among the provisions of the new CBA is the
disputed section on meal allowance under
Section 3 of Article XVIII on Bonuses and
Allowances, which reads:
Section 3. MEAL ALLOWANCE. The
COMPANY agrees to grant a MEAL ALLOWANCE
of TEN PESOS (P10.00) to all employees who
render at least TWO (2) hours or more of actual
overtime work on a workday, and FREE MEALS,
as presently practiced, not exceeding TWENTY-
FIVE PESOS (P25.00) after THREE (3) hours of
actual overtime free meals after exactly three
hours of actual overtime work. However, other
departments continued the practice of granting
free meals only after more than three hours of
overtime work.
PAMAO-NFL filed a complaint before the
NCMB alleging that Dole refused to comply with
the provisions of the 1996-2001 CBA because it
granted free meals only to those who rendered
overtime work for more than three hours and
not to those who rendered exactly three hours
overtime work.
The parties agreed to submit the dispute
to voluntary arbitration. Thereafter, the
voluntary arbitrator, deciding in favor of
PAMAO-NFL, issued an order directing Dole to
extend the “free meal” benefit to those
employees who actually did overtime work even
for exactly three hours only.
DOLE sought a reconsideration of the
order but the same was denied. Hence, DOLE
elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by
way of a petition for review on certiorari.
On September 22, 2000, the Court of
Appeals rendered its decision upholding the
assailed order. Thus, the instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not “after three hours of actual
overtime work” should be interpreted to mean
after more than three hours of actual overtime
work.
HELD:
NO. The disputed provision of the CBA is
clear and unambiguous. The terms are explicit
and the language of the CBA is not susceptible to
any other interpretation. Hence, the literal
meaning of “free meals after 3 hours of overtime
work” shall prevail, which is simply that an
employee shall be entitled to a free meal if he
has rendered exactly, or no less than, three
hours of overtime work, not “after more than” or
“in excess of” three hours overtime work.
 VALIAO Vs. CA
G. R. No. 146621, July 30, 2004
FACTS:
Petitioner Rene Valiao was an employee
of the private respondent West Negros College
(WNC), who was continuously re-assigned from
different departments for different posts due to
his tardiness and absences, as reflected in the
summary of tardiness and absences report,
which showed him to have been absent or late
for work.
On January 18, 1993, petitioner was
again absent from work without permission or
notice to his immediate superior. It turned out
that he went to Bacolod City and on January 28,
1993, the petitioner was one of those arrested
during a raid in the house of one Toto Ruiz, a
suspected drug pusher and was brought to the
Bacolod Police Station along with four (4) other
suspects.
Petitioner was asked to explain within 24
hours why he should not be terminated as a
result of the raid and the charges against him.
The petitioner was dismissed for failure to
answer said memorandum.
On February 1, 1993, the petitioner
wrote to the President of WNC explaining his
side and asking for due process. WNC cancelled
its Notice of Termination dated January 29, 1993,
and granted the petitioners request.
After the investigation attended by the
petitioner and his counsel, with proceedings duly
recorded, the investigation committee
recommended the dismissal of petitioner. A
notice of termination was then sent to petitioner
informing him of his termination from the
service for serious misconduct and gross and
habitual neglect of duty. The petitioner received
the notice on March 25, 1993, but did not file a
grievance concerning the notice of termination.
On January 19, 1995, petitioner filed a
Complaint against WNC for illegal suspension,
illegal dismissal, backwages, salary differential
for salary increases and other benefits granted
after his dismissal as well as for moral and
exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
In its Answer, WNC alleged that petitioner
was dismissed on charges of serious misconduct,
and gross and willful neglect of duty. WNC said
his dismissal was effected after due notice and
prior hearing. It claimed also that since
petitioner was terminated for a valid cause after
a due hearing, the latters claim for moral and
exemplary damages, and attorneys fees had no
basis in fact and in law.
After due proceedings, the Labor Arbiter
rendered a decision, favoring other claims of the
petitioner and dismissing all other.
Petitioner then filed a Petition
for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of
Appeals but this was dismissed for lack of merit.
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the honorable public respondent
court of appeals erred in holding that the
dismissal of petitioner was valid, despite the fact
that there is clear and blatant violation of the
basic constitutional rights of the herein
petitioner both substantive and procedural due
process.
HELD:
No. The Court affirms with the Decision of
the Court of Appeals that the records reveal that
petitioner was afforded the twin requirements
of notice and hearing and was likewise given the
opportunity to defend himself before the
investigating committee.
In this case, petitioner was asked to explain
his several absences and tardiness on many
occasions. It must be emphasized that proceedings
of the committee were duly recorded, and
petitioner actively participated therein by
answering the various questions interposed by the
panel members.
At any rate, petitioner was given enough
opportunity to be heard, and his dismissal was
based on valid grounds. The essence of due
process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or
as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one’s side or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated
August 22, 2000 and Resolution dated November
22, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 55133 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in
that the award of attorneys fees is deleted. No
pronouncement as to costs.
ACUÑA VS CA
(2006) G.R. 159832
FACTS:
Petitioners are Filipino overseas workers
deployed by private respondent Join
International Corporation (JIC), a licensed
recruitment agency, to its principal, 3D Pre-Color
Plastic, Inc., (3D) in Taiwan, Republic of China,
under a uniformly-worded employment contract
for a period of two years. Herein private
respondent Elizabeth Alañon is the president of
Join International Corporation.
Sometime in September 1999,
petitioners filed with private respondents
applications for employment abroad. After their
papers were processed, petitioners claimed they
signed a uniformly-worded employment
contract with private respondents which
stipulated that they were to work as machine
operators with a monthly salary of
NT$15,840.00, exclusive of overtime, for a
period of two years.
On December 9, 1999, with 18 other
contract workers they left for Taiwan. Upon
arriving at the job site, a factory owned by 3D,
they were made to sign another contract which
stated that their salary was only NT$11,840.00.
They were likewise informed that the dormitory
which would serve as their living quarters was
still under construction. They were requested to
temporarily bear with the inconvenience but
were assured that their dormitory would be
completed in a short time.
Petitioners alleged that they were
brought to a "small room with a cement floor so
dirty and smelling with foul odor". Forty women
were jampacked in the room and each person
was given a pillow. Since the ladies' comfort
room was out of order, they had to ask
permission to use the men's comfort room.
Petitioners claim they were made to work twelve
hours a day, from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.
The petitioners averred that on
December 16, 1999, due to unbearable working
conditions, they were constrained to inform
management that they were leaving. They
booked a flight home, at their own expense.
Before they left, they were made to sign a
written waiver. In addition, petitioners were not
paid any salary for work rendered on December
11-15, 1999.
Immediately upon arrival in the
Philippines, petitioners went to private
respondents' office, narrated what happened,
and demanded the return of their placement
fees and plane fare. Private respondents
refused.
On December 28, 1999, private
respondents offered a settlement. Petitioner
Mendez received P15,080. The next day,
petitioners Acuña and Ramones went back and
received P13,640 10 and P16,200, respectively.
They claim they signed a waiver, otherwise they
would not be refunded.
 On January 14, 2000, petitioners Acuña
and Mendez invoking Republic Act No. 8042 filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-
payment/underpayment of salaries or wages,
overtime pay, refund of transportation fare,
payment of salaries/wages for 3 months, moral
and exemplary damages, and refund of
placement fee before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC).
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners were illegally
dismissed under Rep. Act No. 8042, thus entitling
them to benefits plus damages.
HELD:
No illegal dismissal. As we have held
previously, constructive dismissal covers the
involuntary resignation resorted to when
continued employment becomes impossible,
unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a
demotion in rank or a diminution in pay; or when
a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by
an employer becomes unbearable to an
employee.
In this case, the appellate court found
that petitioners did not deny that the
accommodations were not as homely as
expected. In the petitioners' memorandum, they
admitted that they were told by the principal,
upon their arrival, that the dormitory was still
under construction and were requested to bear
with the temporary inconvenience and the
dormitory would soon be finished. We likewise
note that petitioners did not refute private
respondents' assertion that they had deployed
approximately sixty other workers to their
principal, and to the best of their knowledge, no
other worker assigned to the same principal has
resigned, much less, filed a case for illegal
dismissal.
To our mind these cited circumstances
do not reflect malice by private respondents nor
do they show the principal's intention to subject
petitioners to unhealthy accommodations.
Under these facts, we cannot rule that there was
constructive dismissal.
Overtime Pay. Private respondents also
claim that petitioners were not entitled to
overtime pay, since they had offered no proof
that they actually rendered overtime work.
Petitioners, on the other hand, say that they
could not show any documentary proof since
their employment records were all in the custody
of the principal employer. It was sufficient, they
claim, that they alleged the same with
particularity.
It is a time-honored rule that in
controversies between a worker and his
employer, doubts reasonably arising from the
evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements
and writing should be resolved in the worker's
favor. The policy is to extend the applicability of
the decree to a greater number of employees
who can avail of the benefits under the law,
which is in consonance with the avowed policy of
the State to give maximum aid and protection to
labor. Accordingly, we rule that private
respondents are solidarily liable with the foreign
principal for the overtime pay claims of
petitioners.
Moral and exemplary damages. On the
award of moral and exemplary damages, we hold
that such award lacks legal basis. Moral and
exemplary damages are recoverable only where
the dismissal of an employee was attended by
bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act
oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy. The person claiming moral damages must
prove the existence of bad faith by clear and
convincing evidence, for the law always
presumes good faith. Petitioners allege they
suffered humiliation, sleepless nights and mental
anguish, thinking how they would pay the money
they borrowed for their placement fees. Even so,
they failed to prove bad faith, fraud or ill motive
on the part of private respondents. Moral
damages cannot be awarded. Without the award
of moral damages, there can be no award of
exemplary damages, nor attorney's fees.
Quitclaims are valid. Quitclaims
executed by the employees are commonly
frowned upon as contrary to public policy and
ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of
the workers' legal rights, considering the
economic disadvantage of the employee and the
inevitable pressure upon him by financial
necessity. Nonetheless, the so-called "economic
difficulties and financial crises" allegedly
confronting the employee is not an acceptable
ground to annul the compromise agreement
unless it is accompanied by a gross disparity
between the actual claim and the amount of the
settlement.
A perusal of the records reveals that
petitioners were not in any way deceived,
coerced or intimidated into signing a quitclaim
waiver in the amounts of P13,640, P15,080 and
P16,200 respectively. Nor was there a disparity
between the amount of the quitclaim and the
amount actually due the petitioners.
According to the Bangko Sentral
Treasury Department, the prevailing exchange
rates on December 1999 was NT$1 to
P1.268805. Hence, after conversion to Philippine
pesos, the amount of the quitclaim paid to
petitioners was actually higher than the amount
due them.
ORIENTAL SHIP MANAGEMENT Vs. CA
G. R. No. 153750, January 25, 2006
FACTS:
Petitioner Oriental Shipmanagement
Co., Inc. (Oriental, for brevity) is a recruitment
agency duly licensed by the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) to recruit
seafarers for employment on board vessels
accredited to it. Kara Seal Shipping Co., Ltd. (Kara
Seal, for brevity) is petitioner’s foreign-based
principal, which owns and manages M/V Agios
Andreas, a vessel accredited to petitioner.
Respondents Felicisimo Cuesta and
Wilfredo Gonzaga were hired in the latter part of
1998 as Third Engineers on board M/V Agios
Andreas for a one-year contract with a monthly
salary of nine hundred US dollars (US$900). It
was through Oriental that Kara Seal hired them.
However, upon reaching Port Piombino
on January 19, 1999, respondents were ordered
repatriated to Manila. Before their repatriation,
they were made to sign Letters of Indemnity.
Thus, on April 19, 1999, respondents
filed a Complaint10 against Oriental and Kara
Seal for illegal dismissal.
Respondents averred that Kara Seal
repeatedly failed to pay their wages according to
the ITF Agreement. They also claimed that they
did not voluntarily resign, but were forced to sign
the Letters of Indemnity under threat of possible
disciplinary actions.
In defense, Oriental and Kara Seal
alleged that respondents voluntarily resigned, as
evidenced by the Letters of Indemnity bearing
their signatures. They added that respondents
were duly paid their full wages.1awphil.net
In its three-page Decision, the Labor
Arbiter dismissed the complaint.
 On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor
Arbiter’s Decision with modification.
Aggrieved, respondents filed a motion
for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied for
lack of merit. Thus, respondents filed with the
Court of Appeals a special civil action for
certiorari, alleging that grave abuse of discretion
was committed by the NLRC.
Oriental and Kara Seal filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals
denied in its assailed Resolution.
Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in
setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s and National
Labor Relations Commissions’ findings that
private respondents voluntarily resigned from
employment as shown by the Letters of
Indemnity they executed as the said findings
were based on substantial evidence and law and
rendered without any grave abuse of discretion.
HELD:
Yes. The Court ruled in favor of the respondents.
Resignation is defined as the voluntary
act of an employee who finds himself in a
situation where he believes that personal
reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the
exigency of the service, and he has no other
choice but to disassociate himself from his
employment.18
It would have been illogical for
respondents to resign and then claim that they
were illegally terminated. Well-entrenched is the
rule that resignation is inconsistent with the
filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal.
We note that respondents Cuesta and
Gonzaga, when repatriated to Manila, had each
been employed for only a little over two (2)
months and less than one (1) month,
respectively. Prior to their repatriation, their
monthly salaries were even increased from
US$900 to US$1,936. Hence, it is rather strange
that they would suddenly resign after barely
beginning service of their twelve (12)-month
contract.
Prior to their dismissal, respondents
demanded payment of their unpaid wages and
protested the substandard conditions of their
employment. The Letters of
Indemnity supra contained a waiver by
petitioner and Kara Seal of the right to institute
disciplinary action against respondents. Hence,
respondents were under the impression that
they would be disciplinarily dealt with if they
would not sign the waiver.
Based on the foregoing disquisition, we
are convinced that respondents were forced to
sign the Letters of Indemnity. Thus, said Letters
of Indemnity must be deemed void. The stamp
and signature of the ITF representative thereon
add nothing to render the letters of any legal
effect, but instead add to the impression of
pressure exerted by ITF on the individual Filipino
seamen.
Having ruled out voluntary resignation,
we now ascertain whether respondents were
illegally dismissed. Try hard as we may, no clear
showing could be found in this case of any valid
and legal cause which justifies respondents’
removal from employment. Instead we find that
Oriental and/or Kara Seal did not serve two
written notices to respondents prior to their
termination from employment as required by
the Labor Code.19 Plainly, there was no due
process in their dismissal, and we have here a
clear case of illegal dismissal.