LABREL CASE DOCTRINES

1ST BATCH

SONZA VS ABS-CBN Radio broadcaster/TV Host: No E-E Relationship;

Apply 4-fold Test; Sonza was employed for his
peculiar skills and talent; Sonza was merely an
Independent Contractor and not an Employee;
Labor Courts have no jurisdiction in the absence of
E-E Relationship; Action at bar is Civil Action for
Breach of Contract-Regular Courts; Labor Code
Right on Security of Tenure available only if there
is E-E Relationship.; Exclusivity Clause not indicia of
E-E Relationship.
LOCSIN & TOMAQUIN VS PLDT Employees of Security Agency and hired by PLDT
thru Security Agency; Continued working for PLDT
despite termination of contract between PLDT and
Security Agency; No E-E Relationship exists
between petitioners and PLDT from the time
services were hired until termination of
agreement; E-E Relationship exists after
termination when they continued to work for PLDT
since it is clear that when PLDT directed
petitioners to continue to work for them, they
exercised CONTROL over the petitioners.; E-E
Relationship exists hence petitioners are entitled
to Security of Tenure.; Illegally Dismissed.
BEGINO VS ABS-CBN Petitioners employed as Reporters and
Cameramen; An employee who has rendered at
least 1 year of service, even if not continuous, shall
be considered as a regular employee with respect
to said activity in which he is employed;
Employment is deemed regular when employee is
engaged in services which are necessary in the
usual business of employer; E-E Relationship
exists; Exclusivity Clause is indicia of E-E
Relationship as opposed to Sonza; When work is
done as an integral part of the regular business of
employer and the worker does not furnish an
independent business or professional service, such
work is a regular employment and not an
independent contractor.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES VS NATIVIDAD & Negligence of Doctors working in the premises of
AGANA The Medical City owned by Petitioners; Gauze
protruding after operation; Res Ipsa Loquitur in
relation to the Vicarious Liability of the Employers;
General Rule: No E-E Relationship between
hospital and physicians as they do not exert
 control over the manner that that the latter
perform their work; Case at bar: E-E Relationship
exists as hospital can only act through its
physicians and they are bound by Estoppel by
publicly displaying the names of the doctors in the
lobby leading the public to believe that it vouched
for their skills and diligence; Doctrine of Corporate
Responsibility.
SOUTH EAST RATTAN VS COMING Coming hired as machine operator by Petitioner
which is engaged in business of manufacturing
and delivering furniture to various countries; The
fact that s worker was not reported as an
employee in the payroll is not a conclusive proof of
absence of E-E Relationship; Apply E-E Relationship
test.
NASECO VS CREDO Credo was employed by NASECO (a corp. which
provides security guards for PNB); Question of
Jurisdiction in relation to Juco; Under the Juco
Case (1973 Constitution at the time of decision),
Civil Service governs all GOCC employees, whether
organized under original charter or corporation
code; Case at bar is governed by the 1987
Constitution which says that Civil Service embraces
only GOCC Employees with original charter and
not those organized under the corporation code;
NASECO as subsidiary of PNB is organized under
Corporation Code hence is not under jurisdiction
of Civil Service.
JUCO VS NLRC Juco employed as engineer of National Housing
Authority (NHA); NHA is a GOCC not organized
with original charter hence, jurisdiction is not
under the Civil Service but of the Labor Code.
UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING VS ACIBO When the “seasonal” workers are continuously
and repeatedly hired to perform the same tasks or
activities for several seasons or even after the
cessation of the season, this length of time may
likewise serve as a badge of regular employment.
DAVID VS MACASIO Macasio was hired on “pakyaw” or task basis in his
Hog-Dealer Business; E-E Relationship exists in
application of 4-fold test despite being a “pakyaw”
employee.

2ND BATCH

HALAGUEA VS PAL Compulsory retirement at the age of 55 for female

and 60 for male cabin crews under the CBA; Action
is nullification of provision in the CBA; Ordinary

LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL VS COMMANDO
SECURITY
7k CORP VS ALBARICO
BOMBO RADYO PHILS VS SEC OF LABOR
Civil Action under jurisdiction of Regular Courts
and not Labor Tribunals; Jurisdiction of Labor
Arbiters limited only to disputes arising from an E-
E Relationship which can only be resolved by
reference to Labor Code, other Labor Statutes and
CBA; Case at bar requires reference to other
sources such as the constitution hence, beyond
Labor Court’s Jurisdiction.
Security Guard Service Contract entered into by
the petitioner and respondent; RTC has jurisdiction
when there is no E-E Relationship existing between
the parties and issue may not be resolved by
reference to Labor Code, other Labor Statutes and
CBA only; Action is recovery of sums of money
and damages for breach of their contract (with
regard to payment of increased wage orders);
hence under the regular courts and not the labor
courts; Agency has right of reimbursement from
contractor.
Water purifier; Illegal dismissal; Whether
Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) is correct in assuming
jurisdiction to decide on legality of dismissal as
well as entitlement of back wages even if neither
was expressly claimed in the submission of
agreement. (Only issue submitted to the VA is the
claim for Separation Pay)
SC: The court ruled that Art. 262 of LC provides
that “The VA or panel of VA, upon agreement of
the parties, shall also hear and decide all other
labor disputes including ULP and bargaining
deadlock. Also, the labor disputes referred to in
the same Article can include all those disputes
mentioned in Art. 217 over which the LA has
original and exclusive jurisdiction; Separation pay
may be awarded for causes other than illegal
dismissal; Albarico’s claim for separation pay is
premised on his illegal dismissal thus, VA may
award back wages upon finding of illegal dismissal
even though the issue of entitlement thereto is
not explicitly claimed in the Submission Agreement
as back wages are awarded by reason of equity on
the ground of Illegal Dismissal.
DOLE may make a determination of whether an E-
E Relationship exists to the exclusion of NLRC;
DOLE would have no jurisdiction only if the E-E
Relationship has already been terminated; or
when there is no E-E Relationship in the first place;
If there is no E-E Relationship, jurisdiction is with
 NLRC; no E-E Relationship proved in the case at bar
hence, DOLE had no jurisdiction and dismissal of
complaint is proper; The law gives prerogative to
the NLRC in determining the existence of EER. It
can be assumed that the DOLE in the exercise of its
visitorial and enforcement power somehow has to
make a determination of existence of an EER.
Such prerogative is merely incidental to its
function of enforcing labor standard provisions
MCBURNIE VS GANZON Appeal of LA decision to NLRC; General Rule: Art.
223 of Labor Code requires filing of bond
equivalent to the monetary award; Exception: Sec.
6, Rule VI of NLRC Rules of Procedure allows filing
of a Motion to Reduce Bond upon meritorious
grounds; The filing of the bond is not only
mandatory but a jurisdictional requirement as
well, that must be complied with in order to confer
jurisdiction upon the NLRC. Non-compliance
therewith renders the decision of the Labor
Arbiter final and executory;
While the bond may be reduced upon motion by
the employer, this is subject to the conditions
that: (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. Otherwise the
filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop
the running of the period to perfect an appeal. The
qualification effectively requires that unless the
NLRC grants the reduction of the cash bond within
the 10-day reglementary period to perfect an
appeal from the judgment of LA, the employer is
still expected to post the cash or surety bond
securing the full amount within the said 10-day
period. If the NLRC does eventually grant the
motion for reduction after the reglementary
period has elapsed, the correct relief would be to
reduce the cash or surety bond already posted by
the employer within the 10-day period; Proper
Procedure: all motions to reduce bond that are to
be filed with the NLRC shall be accompanied by
the posting of a cash or surety bond equivalent to
10% of the monetary award that is subject of the
appeal, which shall provisionally be deemed the
reasonable amount of the bond in the meantime
that an appellant’s motion to reduce bond is
pending resolution by the Commission. The
foregoing shall not be misconstrued to unduly

ONG (MILESTONE METAL MANUFACTURING) VS
CA
YUPANGCO COTTON MILLS VS CA
hinder the NLRC’s exercise of its discretion, given
that the percentage of bond that is set by this
guideline shall be merely provisional. (To require
the full amount of the bond within the 10-day
reglementary period would only render nugatory
the legal provisions which allow an appellant to
seek a reduction of the bond.)
Period for perfecting an Appeal: Rule VI, Sec. 1,
NLRC Rules of Procedure: Decisions of LA shall be
final and executory unless appealed to the
Commission by any or both parties within 10
calendar days from receipt of such decisions,
award, orders of the LA; Sec. 3 Requisites for
Perfection of Appeal: 1. Must be filed within the
reglementary period; 2. Shall be under oath with
proof of payment of appeal fee and posting of cash
or surety bond; 3. Shall be accompanied by
Memorandum of Appeal which shall state the
grounds relied upon and relief prayed for and
statement of the date when the appellant received
the appealed decision; 4. Proof of service of such
appeal to the other party; Petitioner received the
decision of the Labor Arbiter on January 6, 2000.
He filed with the NLRC a notice of appeal with a
memorandum of appeal and paid the docket fees
therefor on January 17, 2000, the last day of filing
the appeal. However, instead of posting the
required cash or surety bond, he filed a motion to
reduce the appeal bond; Mere filing of Motion to
Reduce Bond shall not stop the running of the
period to perfect an appeal; The law does not
require its outright payment but merely filing of a
bond with a moderate/reasonable amount to
ensure that the award will be eventually paid; A
mere notice of appeal without complying with the
other requisites mentioned shall not stop the
running of the period for perfection of appeal.
In the case at bar, petitioner did not post a full or
partial appeal bond within the prescribed period,
thus, no appeal was perfected from the decision of
the Labor Arbiter. For this reason, the decision
sought to be appealed to the NLRC had become
final and executory and therefore immutable.
Clearly, then, the NLRC has no authority to
entertain the appeal, much less to reverse the
decision of the Labor Arbiter.
In Re: Forum Shopping; NLRC Case: Between Artex
and Samar-Anglo (Issue is WON Writ of Execution

PAL VS NLRC, PINEDA & CABLING
can be issued on a property owned by petitioner
who is not a party to said case); Case in RTC:
Accion Reinvindicatoria for recovery of property
illegally levied and sold on auction; Different
causes of action; Power of NLRC to execute
judgments extends only to properties belonging to
the judgment debtor; Remedies of a third party
whose property has been illegally levied
(alternative remedies-cumulative); Cumulative:
filing of one will not preclude filing of others,
remedies are separate and distinct from each
other: 1. File a third party claim with LA; 2. If third-
party claim is denied, file an action for recovery of
ownership; The filing of a third party claim with
the LA and the NLRC did not preclude the
petitioner from filing a subsequent action for
recovery of property and damages with RTC and
the institution of said complaint will not make said
petitioner guilty of forum shopping.
Can the NLRC, even without a complaint for ID
filed before the LA, entertain an ACTION FOR
INJUNCTION and issue said writ enjoining PAL from
enforcing its orders of dismissal and ordering the
latter to reinstate the respondents?
SC: RULE XI, SECTION 1. INJUNCTION IN ORDINARY
LABOR DISPUTE.-A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OR
A RESTRAINING ORDER MAY BE GRANTED BY THE
COMMISSION THROUGH ITS DIVISIONS PURSUANT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH (E) OF
ARTICLE 218 OF THE LABOR CODE, AS AMENDED,
WHEN IT IS ESTABLISHED ON THE BASES OF THE
SWORN ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION THAT THE
ACTS COMPLAINED OF, INVOLVING OR ARISING
FROM ANY LABOR DISPUTE BEFORE THE
COMMISSION, WHICH, IF NOT RESTRAINED OR
PERFORMED FORTHWITH, MAY CAUSE GRAVE OR
IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO ANY PARTY OR RENDER
INEFFECTUAL ANY DECISION IN FAVOR OF SUCH
PARTY. (NLRC Rules of Procedure); The foregoing
ancillary power may be exercised by the Labor
Arbiters only as an incident to the cases pending
before them in order to preserve the rights of the
parties during the pendency of the case, but
excluding labor disputes involving strikes or
lockout; It is an essential requisite that there must
first be a labor dispute between the contending
partied before the LA; In the present case, there is
no labor dispute between the petitioner and

3RD BATCH
DIAMOND TAXI / BRYAN ONG VS LLAMAS
ANDO VS CAMPO
BERGONIO VS SOUTH EAST ASIAN AIRLINES
private respondents as there has yet been no
complaint for illegal dismissal filed with the labor
arbiter by the private respondents against the
petitioner; Injunctions may be issued only in cases
of extreme necessity based on legal grounds
clearly established, after due consultations or
hearing and when all efforts at conciliation are
exhausted which factors, however, are clearly
absent in the present case; LABOR DISPUTE: Any
controversy or matter concerning terms and
conditions of employment.
Llamas did not file a Memorandum of Appeal but
instead, a Motion for Reconsideration; As a
general rule, said motion for recon from LA’s
decision could not be allowed but the motion may
be treated as an appeal provided it complies with
the requirements of perfecting an appeal; said
motion did not include a Certificate for Non-Forum
Shopping initially as prescribed by the court (thru
the negligence of his former counsel); However,
Llamas’ subsequent filing and compliance with said
certification requirement should be given due
course as although the requirement for the
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping is mandatory, it
should not be interpreted too literally.
RTC has no jurisdiction to restrain the
implementation of the writ of execution issued by
the LA as regular courts have no jurisdiction to
decide questions incidental to the enforcement of
decisions in LABOR cases, to hold otherwise is to
sanction splitting of jurisdiction; A third party claim
may be filed before the NLRC as when a person,
not a party to the case, asserts title to or right of
possession to the property levied upon (This is the
proper remedy of a third party as stated in NLRC
Rules and not an injunction filed with Regular
Courts to restrain enforcement)
The LA’s decision reinstating a dismissed employee
insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned is
immediately executory even during the pendency
of employer’s appeal; Employer must either
actually reinstate the employee in its prior position
and paying his wages OR merely reinstate him in
the payroll until the decision is reversed by the

BUENVIAJE VS CA
COLLEGE OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION VS NLRC
higher court. Failure of employer to comply with
such renders him liable to pay the employee’s
salaries; Unless the appellate tribunal issues a
restraining order, LA’s order for reinstatement is
immediately executory and LA need not issue a
writ of execution for such; Despite the reversal of
said order by a higher tribunal, an employer who
does not comply with said order may be held liable
for ACCRUED WAGES (unpaid salary from the
order of reinstatement until the reversal order of a
higher court); Exception to said rule: 2-fold tests
to determine if employee is now barred from
collecting the accrued wages: 1. Actual delay or
the fact that the order of reinstatement pending
appeal was not executed prior to its reversal AND
2.The delay must not be due to the employer’s
unjustified act or omission.
Reliefs for illegally dismissed employee:
Reinstatement-restores him in the previous
position and Backwages-allows said employee to
recover what he lost by way of wages because of
dismissal; Said employee is entitled to FULL
BACKWAGES from the time compensation is
withheld to actual reinstatement (If reinstatement
is no longer possible, backwages shall be
computed from illegal termination up to finality of
decision); FULL BACKWAGES: without deducting
earnings derived elsewhere during the period of
illegal dismissal; Modification of the (Mercury Drug
Rule-Deduction of Earnings Elsewhere Rule); Art
223 of the Labor Code cannot be invoked by
employer (in the contention that back wages shall
only be from the time of illegal dismissal up to
termination of services instead of their actual
reinstatement) as to give the employer the right to
remove an employee who fails to immediately
comply with the reinstatement order especially
when there is reasonable explanation to said
failure.
Does the reversal of LA”s order for reinstatement
mean that the employee should reimburse the
employer of all the salaries received from the
order of reinstatement until the reversal of the
order?
SC: Even if the order of reinstatement is reversed
on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the
employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the
dismissed employee during the period of appeal

GARCIA VS KJ COMMERCIAL
PFIZER VS VELASCO
SARA LEE PHILIPPINES VS NLRC
until the reversal and the employee is not required
to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is
entitled to such, more so if he actually rendered
services during said period pursuant to the
immediate executory nature of the LA’s
Reinstatement Order. (Why entitled even if it is
only payroll reinstatement?-because employer had
the option of actual reinstatement); Rationale
against the Refund Rule: The employee, to make
both ends meet, would necessarily have to use up
the salaries received during the pendency of the
action, only to end up having to refund the same in
case of reversal of said order which would lead
him to further insolvency.
The filing of a motion to reduce bond and
compliance with the two conditions stop the
running of the period to perfect an appeal mainly:
1. The motion to reduce bond shall be based on
meritorious grounds and 2. A reasonable amount
in relation to the monetary award is posted by the
appellant, otherwise the filing of the motion to
reduce bond shall not stop the running of the
period to perfect an appeal; In order to give full
effect on the motion to reduce bond, the appellant
must be allowed to wait for the ruling of the NLRC
on the motion even beyond the 10-day period to
perfect an appeal. If the NLRC grants the motion,
then the appeal is perfected; if NLRC denies the
same, appellant may still file a motion for recon, if
motion is granted, then appeal is perfected and if
said motion is denied, then the LA Decision is final
and executory.
Order for Reinstatement is immediately executory
even without an writ of execution; Actual
Reinstatement means admission back to work
under the SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS
prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation;
Employee is entitled to back wages from the Order
of Reinstatement by the LA to reversal of such
ruling by a higher tribunal.
10% requirement in McBurnie Case for the posting
of bond pertains to the minimum amount of the
bond which the NLRC would accept and should
accompany the decision the motion to reduce
bond to suspend the period to perfect an appeal
and should not be construed as the minimum
amount of bond to be posted in order to perfect a
n appeal; NLRC still has the discretion and

WENPHIL CORP VS ABING
4TH BATCH
PROGRESSIVE DEVT CORP.-PIZZA HUT VS NLM-
KATIPUNAN
LIBERTY COTTON MILLS VS PAFLU
authority to resolve the motion and determine the
final amount of the bond that shall be posted by
the appellant based on a reasonable amount,
given that the percentage of bond set by the
guideline is merely provisional; Original judgment
award is more than 3Billion; NLRC’s determination
for partial bond: 750M; Compromise agreement is
merely 342M; Compromise agreement is
unconscionable.
An illegally dismissed employee should be entitled
to either reinstatement-if viable, or separation pay
if reinstatement is no longer possible, plus back
wages in either instance; Back wages is different
from separation pay as back wages restores the
income lost while separation pay grants the
employee an amount before locating a
replacement job; Payment of backwages should be
up to the reversal of the ruling by a higher court
(meaning, the higher court which first reverses the
ruling) and need not be the court whose reversal
rendered the decision final and executory
(meaning, di kailangang SC, pwede na sa CA basta
nireverse nila)
One who files a petition for Certification Election
must comply with Art. 234, meaning, it should be a
legitimate labor organization; While as a rule, a
pendency of a cancellation of registration case is
not a ground for the suspension of representation
proceedings, since a legitimate labor org is entitled
to such right until a final order is rendered
cancelling said registration, If its application for
registration is vitiated by falsification and serious
irregularities, especially those appearing on the
face of the application and the supporting
documents, a labor organization should be denied
recognition as a legitimate labor org.
CBA with Union Security Clause; Dismissal of
employee through USC should be with due process
of law-Right to Notice and Hearing;
CBA: “That the Liberty Cotton Mills Workers
Union-PAFLU shall be affiliated with the PAFLU,
and shall remain an affiliate as long as ten (10) or
more of its members evidence their desire to
continue the said local unions affiliation.”
 Record shows that only four (4) out of its members
remained for 32 out of the 36 members of the
Union signed the resolution of disaffiliation on
May 17, 1964, triggered by the alleged negligence
of PAFLU in attending to the needs of its local
union, particularly its failure to assign a
conscientious lawyer to the local to attend to the
ULP case they filed against the Company. The
disaffiliation was, therefore, valid under the local's
Constitution and By-Laws which, taken together
with the Collective Bargaining Agreement, is
controlling.
VILLAR VS INCIONG Disaffiliation from the mother union is invalid since
they only represent the minority of the employees
in the bargaining unit; Petition for Certification
Election can only be availed of by a legitimate
labor org; AEU-PAFLU; Termination is valid
It is true that disaffiliation from a labor union is not
open to legal objection. It is implicit in the freedom
of association ordained by the Constitution.
However, a closed shop is a valid form of union
security, and such provision in a CBA is not a
restriction of the right of freedom of association
guaranteed by the Constitution. When a labor
union affiliates with a parent organization or
mother union, or accepts a charter from a superior
body, it becomes subject to the laws of the
superior body under whose authority the local
union functions. The constitution, by-laws and
rules of the parent body, together with the charter
it issues pursuant thereto to the subordinate
union, constitute an enforceable contract between
the parent body and the subordinate union, and
between the members of the subordinate union
inter se.
FERRER VS NLRC No hearing ("pandinig") was ever conducted by the
SAMAHAN to look into petitioners' explanation of
their moves to oust the union leadership under
Capitle, or their subsequent affiliation with FEDLU.
While it is true that petititioners' actions might
have precipitated divisiveness and, later, showed
disloyalty to the union, still, the SAMAHAN should
have observed its own constitution and bylaws by
giving petitioners an opportunity to air their side
and explain their moves. If, after an investigation
the petitioners were found to have violated union
rules, then and only then should they be subjected
to proper disciplinary measures;

PALACOL VS CALLEJA AND COCA COLA BOTTLERS
VICTORIANO VS ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS
While petitioner's act of holding a special election
to oust Capitles, et al. may be considered as an act
of sowing disunity among the SAMAHAN
members, and, perhaps, disloyalty to the union
officials, which could have been dealt with by the
union as a disciplinary matter, it certainly cannot
be considered as constituting disloyalty to the
union. Faced with a SAMAHAN leadership which
they had tried to remove as officials, it was but a
natural act of self-preservation that petitioners
fled to the arms of the FEDLU after the union and
the OFC had tried to terminate their employment.
Petitioners should not be made accountable for
such an act.
A special assessment requires compliance with
RAM2 and individual written authorization from
employees concerned; subsequent
disauthorization of majority amounts to no
authorization; Three requisites to collect special
assessment (incidental expenses, attorney’s fees
and representation expenses)
(1) Authorization by a written resolution of the
majority of all the members at the general
membership meeting duly called for the purpose;
(2) Secretary’s record of the minutes of the
meeting; (3) Individual written authorization for
check‐off duly signed by the employee concerned
Failure of the Union to comply strictly with the
requirements set out by the law invalidates the
questioned special assessment. Substantial
compliance is not enough in view of the fact that
the special assessment will diminish the
compensation of the union members. Their
express consent is required, and this consent must
be obtained in accordance with the steps outlined
by law, which must be followed to the letter.
Handwritten authorization which complied with
the law is valid. However, its withdrawal means no
authorization was given.
Constitutionality of RA 3350 which grants
exemption of religious sects whose beliefs do not
permit membership on a labor organization is
contested on the grounds that the same is
violative of right to self-organization; SC: Not
violative of said right since RA 3350 does not
enjoin an employee of said religion to join with a
labor organization should he permit to do so; In
short, said act gives an employee belonging to said
 religion an OPTION whether to join a labor
organization or not; NO COMPULSION; MERELY
OPTIONAL.
ARIZALA VS CA Industrial Peace Act: GOCCs have the right to
bargain collectively but supervisors are prohibited
from being members of a labor org with rank and
file employees; 1987 Constitution decriminalized
said prohibition from supervisors belonging in a
same org with rank and file employees; Under
1987 Constitution, GOCCs can’t enter into CBA
anymore but it also removes the penalty imposed
on erring supervisors; RA 6715: Supervisors who
are members of a labor org with rank and file
employees are not required to disaffiliate
anymore, and can continue their membership
thereto.