Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal
work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the relations
between workers and employers.
Labor contracts are not ordinary contracts as the relation between capital and labor is
impressed with public interest.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
2.3. ONAR/UP LAW CENTER should be furnished rules and regulation issue
Labor Arbiter vs. Civil Service Commission (GOCC’s with Original Charter)
Labor Arbiter vs. Civil Service Commission (GOCC’s without Original Charter)
OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT
Solidary Liability
Jurisprudence of Note
WORKING CONDITIONS
Original - Art. 225 (e) Injunction /Temporary Restraining Order (TRO); Art. 225(d)
Contempt; Certified Cases
Art. 224. JURISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITERS AND THE COMMISSION – (a) Except as
otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for
decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving
all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:
Termination disputes;
If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file
involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of
employment;
Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the
employer-employee relations;
Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions
involving the legality of strikes and lockouts;
Excepts claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity
benefits, all other claims, arising from employer-employee relations, including those
of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five
thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement.
Independent Union (Art. 240, Labor Code) and Chartered Local (Book V Rules)
Substitutionary Doctrine
Special Assessment (Attorney’s Fees, etc.) Art. 250 (n), Labor Code
Public Sector Unionism (Art. 254, Labor Code and E.O. No. 180)
Concepts
Jurisprudence
Agency Fee
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
CERTIFICATION ELECTION
Petition for Certification Election Filed by Employer (Art. 270 and 271)
One (1) year Ban; Certification Year Bar and Negotiation Year Bar;
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION
Jurisprudence
Backwages- Basis
KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT
Art. 295, Labor Code (Regular and Casual Employment) –Reasonable Connection Test
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer
or representative in connection with his work;
(c) Fraud of willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any
immediate member of his family of his duly authorized representative; and
Closure or Lay-off for Reason other than Serious business Losses; and Disease
RETIREMENT
(ART. 302, LABOR CODE AND
REP. ACT NO. 7641)
Jurisprudence
STRAINED RELATIONS
How Construed
raised
Jurisprudence
Is Commission Included in the Computation of 13th Month Pay? Yes, if commission was
pre-determined with guaranteed wage or salary
Concept
Jurisprudence
Benefits/Beneficiaries
Preference
No Shared Jurisdiction on Money Claims Between the Regional Director and the Labor
Arbiter
Art. 250 (n) on Special Assessment of Attorney’s Fees and Negotiation fees and
Requisites
Jurisprudence
Jurisprudence
May Both Separation Pay and Retirement Benefits be Paid to Retrenched or Retired
Employees?
Jurisprudence
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency MAY assume
jurisdiction over a case if it chooses to do so, PROVIDED:
a. that the Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to;
c. that the Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision.
This doctrine may be invoked against the exercise of jurisdiction of the labor arbiters as held
in the case of Manila Hotel Corporation and Manila Hotel International limited vs. NLRC and
Marcelo Santos wherein the SC ruled that the NLRC was a seriously an inconvenient forum.
Philippine National Bank vs. Cabansag, [G. R. No. 157010, June 21, 2005]. Here, the doctrine of
forum non conveniens was rejected by the SC.as argued by PNB. Instead, there was reason
to presume per the SC that Cabansag was a migrant worker, wherein the petitioner cannot
escape the application of Philippine laws or the jurisdiction of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter.
In San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 107693, July 23, 1998], the
employees were given the option to retire, be retrenched or dismissed but they were made to
understand that they had no choice but to leave the company. This is known as the Hobson’s choice
which means that they have no choice at all. All that the private respondents were offered was a
choice on the means or method of terminating their services but never as to the status of their
employment.
In short, they were never asked if they still wanted to work for petitioner. The mere absence of actual
physical force to compel private respondents to ink an application for retirement did not make their
retirement voluntary. Confronted with the danger of being jobless, unable to provide their families
even with the basic needs or necessities of life, the private respondents had no choice but to sign the
documents proffered to them