CASE DOCTRINES IN LABOR

UP TO 81

 PEOPLE VS MANUNGAS – (janitors in Saudi Arabia) accused Manungas (operations manager of ZG

Recruitment) convinced complainants to apply as janitors in Saudi Arabia; complainants were asked to pay
placement fee; but the complainants were never deployed in Saudi for work and found out that Manungas is
not certified as a recruitment agent.
- MANUNGAS CONTENTION: there was no intention to commit illegal recruitment as the money
paid by the complainants was actually used for their expenses such as medical and others.

- Thus accused-appellant is guilty of the crimes of Estafa and Illegal Recruitment. Under Article 38 of
the Labor Code, as amended, the crime of illegal recruitment is qualified when the same is committed
against three (3) or more persons.
- A person who violates any of the provisions under Article 13(b) and Article 34 of the Labor Code can
be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa [Revised Penal Code, Article 315,
2(a)] because illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not
necessary for a conviction while estafa is a malum in se where criminal intent of the accused is
necessary for a conviction.
- “modus operandi”

 PEOPLE VS GONZALES-FLORES – (illegal recruitment by large scale; “referrals” is included in

the definition of recruitment and placement) Gonzales-Flores was found guilty of illegal recruitment as
seamen three different people at the same time and collecting money from them without the necessary
license.
- the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment
and placement of workers; (2) the accused has no license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers,
either locally or overseas; and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons,
individually or as a group.

 SAMEER OVERSEAS VS CABILLES – (quality control in Taiwan, less than one month
terminated; twin requirement of a valid dismissal) Joy Cabiles responded to the ad published, quality
control in Taiwan
- She alleged that Sameer Overseas Agency required her to pay a placement fee of P70,000.00 when she
signed the one year employment contract.
- June – she was deployed in Taiwan to work to Wacoal, July – she was terminated, given $9,000,
$3,000 for transpo fee to Manila
- Management prerogative is recognized in law and in our jurisprudence. This prerogative, however,
should not be abused. It is "tempered with the employee’s right to security of tenure." 63Workers are
entitled to substantive and procedural due process before termination. They may not be removed from
employment without a validor just cause as determined by law and without going through the proper
procedure. Security of tenure for labor is guaranteed by our Constitution.
- A valid dismissal requires both a valid cause and adherence to the valid procedure of dismissal. 75 The
employer is required to give the charged employee at least two written notices before termination. One
of the written notices must inform the employee of the particular acts that may cause his or her
dismissal. The other notice must "[inform] the employee of the employer’s decision."78 Aside from the
notice requirement, the employee must also be given "an opportunity to be heard."

 SUNACE INTL VS NLRC (book, pg102) – worker was recruited by Sunace, deployed to Mr. Hang in
Taiwan for 12 mo; without knowledge of Sunace, Mr Hang extended employment for 2 yrs; after

ESGUERRA CASE DOCTRINES | 2018-2019 | LABOR STANDARDS

 extension, Divina filed for complaint with the NLRC (solidarily liable with the principal) for unpaid
salaries
- Divina contention: knowledge of the principal is considered as knowledge of the agent
- Doctrine of imputed knowledge – knowledge of the agent is knowledge of the principal
- As such, it and its “owner” cannot be held solidarily liable for any of Montehermozo’s claims arising
from the 2-year employment extension.

 SERRANO VS GALLANT MARITIME (WON Serrano is entitled of the unexpired portion of his
employment, or just 3 months worth of employment, whichever is less)
- Petitioner was hired by respondents, with the duration of 12 months as Chief Officer; before departure,
was forced to accept downgrade to Second Officer, salary from 1,400 to 1,000, with a promise to be
C/O by April 1998; but did not happen, and he was repatriated
- he had served only two (2) months and seven (7) days of his contract, leaving an unexpired
portion of nine (9) months and twenty-three (23) days.
- SUBJECT CLAUSE sa RA 8042: 1) if contract is less than one year: employee is entitled to the
unexpired portion; 2) if contracts is for more than a year: limited only to three months equivalent of
employment
- DISCRIMINATORY
- the Court GRANTS the Petition. The subject clause “or for three months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less” in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 is
DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL;
- petitioner is entitled to his salaries for the entire unexpired period of nine months and 23 days of
his employment contract, pursuant to law and jurisprudence prior to the enactment of R.A. No.
8042.

 BERNARDO VS NLRC (Section 5, RA 7277 – equal opportunity for employment)

- Disabled Persons are those suffering from restriction of different abilities, as a result of a mental,
physical or sensory impairment, to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered
normal for a human being;
- Petitioners numbering 56 are deaf–mutes and 37 of them were renewed contract, 2 of them were hired
from 1988-1993, hired by respondent FEBTC
- They were dismissed; contented that their employment was necessary and desirable as task money
sorters and counters
- FEBTC CONTENTION: that the petitioners were only hired as trainees, and employer may
determine after one month whether they will retain the employees or not
- In this light, the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that a qualified disabled employee should
be given the same terms and conditions of employment as a qualified able-bodied person. Section 5 of
the Magna Carta provides:

- “Section 5. Equal Opportunity for Employment.—No disabled person shall be denied access to
opportunities for suitable employment. A qualified disabled employee shall be subject to the same
terms and conditions of employment and the same compensation, privileges, benefits, fringe benefits,
incentives or allowances as a qualified able bodied person.”

 NITTO ENTERPRISE VS NLRC, CAPILI (pg 148) – (apprentice vs regular employee) Nitto hired
Capili (May 28) as apprentice machinist for 6 months, he met an accident; Nitto wrote a letter to Capili
asking him to resign ( August 3; less than 3 months from work); NLRC decided Capili as a regular

ESGUERRA CASE DOCTRINES | 2018-2019 | LABOR STANDARDS

 employee since Nitto did not file any apprenticeship program; the apprenticeship program was approved
much later (June 7)
- Petitioner did not comply with the requirements of the law which provides that apprenticeship
agreements shall be entered into by the employer and apprentice only in accordance with the
apprenticeship program duly approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment.
- Capili was hired not as an apprentice, but as a regular employee.

 CENTURY CANNING VS CA (Gloria was hired as fish cleaner by petitioner as apprentice; TESDA)
- July 15 – hired Gloria; July 17 – signed apprenticeship program: July 25 – petitioner pass
apprenticeship program to TESDA of DOLE; September - approved program; November – was
dismissed for lack of performance
- Palad then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of
pro-rated 13th month pay for the year 1997.
- Registration and Approval by the TESDA of Apprenticeship Program Required Before Hiring of
Apprentices
- The act of filing the proposed apprenticeship program with the Department of Labor and Employment
is a preliminary step towards its final approval and does not instantaneously give rise to an
employer-apprentice relationship.

 ATLANTA INDUSTRIES VS SEBOLINO (hired as regular employees, then underwent to another

apprenticeship agreement)
- Complainants filed for illegal dismissal and regularization against Atlanta, saying that they have
worked for more than six months already from the start of the purported apprenticeship
- The fact that Costales, Almoite, Sebolino and Sagun were already rendering service to the company
when they were made to undergo apprenticeship (as established by the evidence) renders the
apprenticeship agreements irrelevant as far as the four are concerned. The respondents occupied
positions such as machine operator, scaleman and extruder operator - tasks that are usually necessary
and desirable in Atlanta’s usual business or trade as manufacturer of plastic building materials. These
tasks and their nature characterized the four as regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
Thus, when they were dismissed without just or authorized cause, without notice, and without the
opportunity to be heard, their dismissal was illegal under the law.
- Even if we recognize the company’s need to train its employees through apprenticeship, we can only
consider the first apprenticeship agreement for the purpose. With the expiration of the first agreement
and the retention of the employees, Atlanta had, to all intents and purposes, recognized the completion
of their training and their acquisition of a regular employee status. To foist upon them the second
apprenticeship agreement for a second skill which was not even mentioned in the agreement itself, is a
violation of the Labor Code’s implementing rules and is an act manifestly unfair to the employees, to
say the least.

ARTICLES 82-96 (employer-employee relationship cases)

 JOSE SONZA VS ABSCBN BROADCASTING - Jose Sonza considered as independent contractor;

independent contractor is concern only as to the results, which must be delivered, and on control as to the
means and methods to achieve the results
- Four fold test of Er-Ee relationship
 MAKATI HABERDASHERY VS NLRC – piece rate workers
- Control is present. Makati Haberdashery directs the employees who may be tailors, seamstress,
sewers to take customer’s measurement, also directs as to the manner and quality of cutting, sewing
and ironing.

ESGUERRA CASE DOCTRINES | 2018-2019 | LABOR STANDARDS

 - Not entitled to SIL, only MW, 13th, COLA
- No illegal dismissal. Employees not only failed to explain their violation, but also AWOL.
 MARAGUINOT VS NLRC – VIVA FILMS case
- Asst electrician to electrician; loading, unloading and carrying equipment in the shooting area
- When they ask for an increase, they were asked to sign a blank document; when they refused to do so,
they were terminated; demanded for monetary benefits
- Control is evident. Viva Films in its mandate that the end result must be a quality films acceptable to
the company; they should follow the schedule, not exceeding the budget; Vic Del Rosario set as an eye
and ears and intervenes in the movie making processes
- STATUS OF A REGULAR EMPLOYEE: under Article 280: 1) there is a continuous rehiring of
project employees even after cessation of the project, 2) tasks performed are vital, necessary and
indispensable to the usual business of the employer.

 FRANCISCO VS NLRC – two tiered test

- There was control under supervision of Seiji Kamura, Technical Consultant of the corporation, she was
tasked to regularly report
- Two tiered test is present; she regularly receives compensation and benefits for 6 years.

 SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES FORCE VS OPLE – complementary Distribution Scheme, wherein
imbis na ang mga wholesalers ay makikipagugnayan sa mga Route Salesman, pede na sila bumili directly
sa San Miguel Sales’ Office, so parang mababawasan ng work si Route Salesman and pati benefits
mababawasan
- Doctrine of Management prerogative
 SIME DARBY PILIPINAS VS NLRC – from 30min on call break to 1hr lunch break
- The right to fix work schedule of employees rests principally on their employers.
 MOSES DE LEON VS NLRC – Moses De Leon paints the company bldg and equipment, sometimes
works related to maintenance. Paid on a daily basis. After one year, ask to be included I nthe payroll of
regular workers
- Regular or casual
 PH GEOTHERMAL INC VS NLRC – casual-regular employees
- Once an employee has rendered atleast one year of service, even continuous or broken, an
employees is considered as a regular employee, hence, he cannot be terminated unless for a just
cause or authorized by Labor Code.
- It is the policy of the state to assure the right of workers to "security of tenure. The guarantee is
an act of social justice. When a person has no property, his job may possibly be his only
possession or means of livelihood. Therefore, he should be protected against any arbitrary
deprivation of his job. Article 280 of the Labor Code has construed 'security of tenure' as
meaning that "the employer shall not terminate the services of the employee except for a just
cause or when authorized by the Code.

 MARIO CARTAGENAS VS ROMAGO ELECTRIC COMPANY - Respondent Romago is a general

contractor engaged in contracting and sub contracting of specific building construction projects or
undertaking such as electrical, mechanical and civil engineering aspects in the repair of buildings and from
other kindred services.
- In their agreement “hired for above project only”, “employment will terminate upon completion
stoppage of the project or terminated earlier ”
- They are considered project employees

ESGUERRA CASE DOCTRINES | 2018-2019 | LABOR STANDARDS

 - Since its work depends on the availability of such contracts or projects, necessarily the duration of the
employment of its work force is not permanent but co-terminus with the project they are assigned
and from whose pay roll they are paid

BOOK 3

 PEOPLES BROADCASTING VS SECRETARY OF DOLE –DOLE vs NLRC

- DOLE – visitorial and enforcement power; monetary claim even beyong 5000, provided there is still
the existence of Er-Ee relationship
- NLRC – determination of existence of Er-Ee relationship; claiming reinstatement
 ALBERTA YANSON VS SECRETARY OF DOLE – 40 workers in Hacienda Balabag by Yanson
- Article 128: in order to perfect an appeal which involved monetary award, only upon posting of a cash
or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the order appealed from.
- Ang binigay lang ni Yanson ay 1,000 instead of 372, 000 – depends on the capacity of the appellant
to file a bond

 ZIALCITA VS PALRO – flight attendants must be single and shall be automatically terminated upon
marriage
 STAR PAPER CORPORATION VS SIMBOL, COMIA, ESTRELLA – an employee will be
terminated if s/he marries another employees; bawal ang mag-asawa sa company
- Disparate Treatment vs Disparate impact
- Bonafide Occupational Qualification Rule: 1) employment qualification is reasonably related to the
essential operation of the job involved; 2) there is a factual basis in believing the all or substantially all
persons meeting the qualifications would be unable to perform duties of the job.
- Standard of reasonableness
 APEX MINING COMPANY VS NLRC – PR performs laundry service in the staff house of Apex
Mining;
- house helper – any person, male or female, who renders service in and about the employer’s home and
which services are usually necessary or desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof; and
ministers exclusively to the maintenance and enjoyment of the employer’s family

 DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS NLRC

- Employees’ preference
- Article 110: in the event of bankruptcy or liquidation of an employer’s business, his workers shall
enjoy first preference as regards wages due them for services rendered during the period prior to the
bankruptcy or liquidation, any provision to the contrary notwithstanding
- Concept of preference to cover not only unpaid wages but also other monetary claims to which even
claims of the Govt must be deemed subordinate
- DECLARATION OF BANKRUPTCY OR INSOLVENCY OR JUDICIAL LIQUIDATION MUNA
BAGO WORKERS’ PREFERENCE TO APPLY.

BOOK 4 PART 1

 JOSE SARMIENTO VS ECC – Flordeliza Sarmiento employed as accounting clerk in NAPOCOR; died
due to cardiorespiratory arrest due to parotid carcinoma

ESGUERRA CASE DOCTRINES | 2018-2019 | LABOR STANDARDS

 - Compensatory illness – any illness accepted as an occupational disease as listed in ECC or any
disease caused by employment subject to proof by the employee that the risk of contracting the same is
increased by working conditions.
- Parotid carcinoma or cancer of the salivary glands is not an occupational disease considering
deceased’s employment as an accounting clerk nor proved that his wife’s ailment was caused by her
employment or that working condition increased of her contracting the fatal illness.
- PD 626 now removes presumption of compensability
 MANUEL BELARMINO VS ECC – (proximate cause) petitioner’s wife, Oania Belarmino is a public
school teacher
- Buntis si deceased, thereafter while performing her duties in the classroom, she accidentally slipped
and fell on the classroom floor; she died; septicemia post partum
- “Proximate cause” – is a cause in which, constitutes an unbroken chain of events , each having a
closer causal connection with its immediate predecessor, without which, such injury would not
have happened.

 HINOGUIN VS ECC – (aising out or in the course of employment) rifle in a semi-automatic mode
- Before the incident happened, they were orally granted permission to take their guns with them
- A soldier is considered in an active duty status 24/7, unless it is shown clearly and unequivocally put
aside that status or condition temporarily, while on an approved vacation leave.

 NFD INTERNATIONAL VS ESMERALDO ILLESCAS

- PR is a seaman. One time when he is carrying a heavy fire hydrant, he felt a snap n his back; he
continued to feel back pain.
- the doctor declared that he is unfit for work, and recommended the respondent return home for further
mngmt; PR contested that he is entitled to 90, 000 under CBA, when he suffers permanent disability
as a result of an accident while serving on board, or while traveling to or from the vessel on
Company’s business.
- NLRC CONTENTION: accident is unforeseen event, fortuitous, marine peril
- Court ruled: not an accident but an injury.
- “less than 50% permanently disabled, but if unfit for work permanently for further service at sea, shall
be entitled to compensation 100%”

 GSIS VS CA, FELONILA ALEGRE – police officers, the deceased was confronted at the time when he
is execising his intrinsically private and unofficial activities as a tricycle driver, no particular directive and
permission of his superior officers.
 CELERINO VALERIANO VS ECC, GSIS – fire truck driver in San Juan fire station; he met with a
friend and ate in Bonanza Resto in QC; on their way home, petitioner incurred injuries in QC
- Petitioner was not able to demonstrate how his work as a fire truck driver was related to the injuries he
has suffered. Injuries were incurred after pursuing personal injuries.
- 24 hr not applicable – he was neither in the assigned work nor in the pursuit of his employment

 ILOILO DOCK VS WORKMENS COMPENSATION COMMISSION (PROXIMITY RULE/

INGRESS EGRESS)
- Pablo was shot 20 meters away from the main IDECO gate/ 2 minutes after the dismissal from the
overtime work.
- 2 minutes and 20 meters from the main gate IDECO are a reasonable margin of time and space
necessary to be used in passing to and from the IDECO premises. The IDECO employees used the

ESGUERRA CASE DOCTRINES | 2018-2019 | LABOR STANDARDS

 private road with its consent express or implied. Twenty meters away from the main gate is in close
proximity to the IDECO premises.
- The part where Pablo was killed is in very close proximity to the employer’s premises. Considered as
an “access area” so clearly related to the employee’s premises
 GENEROSO ALANO VS ECC – principal Dedicacion De Vera was waiting for a transpo papunta sa
school; 7:30 ang call time niya sa school, the incident happened 7AM ran over by a Toyota mini bus in
Plaza Jaycee
- She was at the place where , as petitioner puts it, her job necessarily required him to be if she wants to
reach he place of work on time. There was nothing private or public about the school principal being at
the place of the accident. She was there because her employment required her to be there.
 SALVADOR LAZO VS ECC – security guard of Central Bank of the PH; avowed policy of the state to
give maximum aid and protection to labor
- Petitioner left his station at the central Bank several hours after his regular time off, because the
reliever did not arrive, so petitioner was asked to go on overtime. After permission to leave, he went
home. There is no evidence on record that petitioner deviated from his usual, regular homeward
route or that interruptions occurred in the journey.
- VANO RULING – awarded compensation to an employee who was on his way from his home to
work one day before the official working day, hence there’s no reason to deny compensation for
accidental injury while on his way home one hour after he had left his work station.
- The court is contrained not to consider the defense of the street peril doctrine and instead
interpret the law liberally in favor of the employee because the EC Act, like Workmen’s
Compensation Act, is basically social legislation designed to afford relief to the working men and
women in our society.

BOOK 4 PART 2

 GLORIA MENEZ VS ECC – petitioner is a public school teacher for 32 years in Tondo, Binondo
Manila, had a disability retirement plan due to rheumatoid arthritis, claimed she also contracted
pneumonitis and bronchiecstasis; denied on the ground that it is not occupational disease
- In the case of petitioner, her emotional tension is heightened by the fact that the high school in which
she teaches is situated in a tough area, inhabited by thugs and other criminal elements, aggravated by
heavy pollution and congestion, stinking smell of the dirty estero de la Reina nearby. Women like
petitioner are most vulnerable to such unhealthy conditions. The pitiful stuation of all public school
teacher is further accentuated by poor diet, for they can ill-afford nutritious food.
- Increased by unfavorable working conditions - compensable
 AMALIA NARAZO VS ECC (increased risk theory - complainant must show proof of reasonable work
connection, not necessarily direct causal relation; merely substantial evidence)
- Budget Examiner for 38 years; preparation for the budget of the province, financial reports and review
or examination;
- He died having medical records of urinary retention, abdominal pain, anemia; diagnosed to be
suffering from Uremia – one of its causes is the obstruction in the flow of urinary waste production.
- Such work needs full concentration and thorough study of the entries of accounts in the budget and/or
financial reports, had to sit for hours, and more often than not delay and even forego urination in order
not to interrupt the flow of concentration - compensable
 RUBEN LIMBO VS ECC – Area Sales Supervisor of Nestle
- Petitioner’s area of responsibility included Manila, BUlacan, Pampanga, and Nueva Ecija
- Ruben Limbo discovered that he had chronic renal disease, was advised to undergo kidney transplant

ESGUERRA CASE DOCTRINES | 2018-2019 | LABOR STANDARDS

 - End stage renal disease – secondary to uric acid nephropathy
- Physician’s report is the best evidence of work-connection or workmen’s ailments and can be the
basis of an award even if the physician was not presented as witness.
- Physician’s report –“ Mr. Limbo has long history of hypertension and gout. Led to several
complications like hypertensive heart disease, hypertensive nephrosclerosis and renal failure. He was
hypertensive while still employed and certainly, the stress at work could have aggravated his
condition.” - compensable
 ZAIDA RARO VS ECC
- Petitioner was employed as clerk by Bureau of Mines and Geo Sciences. Four years later, suffered
from severe and recurrent headache, blurring of visions
- He was diagnosed with brain tumor
- There are certain types of cancer which are reasonably considered as strongly induced by specific
causes. Heavy doses of radiation, cigarette smoke over long period, certain chemicals for specific
cancers and asbestos dust, are generally accepted as increasing the risk of contracting specific cancers.
- We have no actuarial expertise in this Court. If diseases not intended by the law to be compensated are
inadvertently or recklessly included, the integrity of the State Insurance Funds is endangered.
Compassion for the victims of diseases not covered by the law ignores the need to show a greater
concern for the trust fund to which the tens of millions of workers and their families look for
compensation whenever covered accidents, diseases, and deaths occur. – not compensable

 NAESS SHIPPING VS NLRC

- Pablo Dublin, vessel’s chief steward, stabbed the second cook, ran away and jumped or fell overboard
- There is no question that NAESS freely bound itself to a contract which on its face makes it
unqualifiedly liable to pay compensation benefits for Dublin's death while in its service, regardless of
whether or not it intended to make itself the insurer, in the legal sense, of Dublin's life. No law or rule
has been cited which would make it illegal for an employer to assume such obligation in favor of his or
its employee in their contract of employment.
- In view of what has already been stated, it makes no difference whether Dublin intentionally took his
own life, or he killed himself in a moment of temporary aberration triggered by remorse over the
killing of the second cook, or he accidentally fell overboard while trying to flee from imagined pursuit,
which last possibility cannot be ruled out considering the state of the evidence.
 SOLIDUM VS GSIS (NOTORIOUS NEGLIGENCE)
- SOlidum jokingly challenged his comrades to a duel, they ignored him. Pointing the muzzle of his
loaded rifle at his temple and saying “Bahala na”, squeezed the trigger and died.
- Such an act constituted notorious negligence. The employees’ compensation program under which
appellant seeks relief is designed to compensate only the working men who are victims of work-
connected injuries and other contingencies. Such contingency did not arise out of and in the course of
employment, hence not compensable.

 QUIZON VS GSIS (NOT NOTORIOUS NEGLIGENCE)

- A PH army soldier asked for permission from his unit to test the dynamite that they earlier confiscated.
He took a civilian pumpboat and proceeded towards near SInonog island. Along the way, he
accidentally ignited the fuse of the dynamite, causing it to explode, died on the stop
- Despite the fact the deceased soldier is indeed negligent, his negligence was not notorious as perceived
by the respondent. Notorious negligence signifies a deliberate act of the employee to disregard his own
personal safety. Disobedience to rules does not itself constitute notorious negligence, if not intention
can be attributed to the injured to end his life.

ESGUERRA CASE DOCTRINES | 2018-2019 | LABOR STANDARDS

- The presumption then to be adopted is that any person by his instinct of self-preservation wants to
avoid such danger unless an intention is attributed to him to end his life.

ESGUERRA CASE DOCTRINES | 2018-2019 | LABOR STANDARDS