Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

Submitted by : Howard Dinumla Labor law II case digest Date: May 16,2020

Calleon vs HSZC Realty Corporation GR No. 228572 27-January-2020


Facts:

On April 29, 2016, the labor arbiter declared HZSC and petitioner guilty of illegal (constructive)
dismissal for HZSC’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements under art 283 (now article 298)
of the Labor Code, and ordered them to pay respective unpaid salary, separation pay, nominal damages,
plus 10% of the total monetary awards as attorney fees. On June 30, 2016 the NLRC dismissed appeal of
the petitioner and on August 31, 2016 denied motions for reconsideration. Petitioners file for certiorari
before the CA praying to be absolved from liability in the absence of any finding of malice and fraud on
his part. September 23, 2016, CA dismissed the petition for failure to comply with the required contents
thereof, and the documents which should accompany it. Petitioner received his personal notice of the ca
resolution on October 5, 2016 and filed for motion for reconsideration on October 26, 2016 claiming that:
a. He received (referring to his counsel’s receipt) notice of the September 23 resolution on October 11,
2016;
b. He had already remedied the procedural defects in his petition

On November 28, 2016, the CA issued its resolution denying motion for reconsideration from the
resolution dated September 23, 2016 for having been belatedly filed. Hence, this petition claiming that
petitioners counsel received notice of sept 23 resolution on October 17, 2016 and as such the motion for
reconsideration was timely filed.

On January 25, 2017 the court required respondents to file their comments to the petition and issued a
TRO enjoining the NLRC from implementing its June 30 decision and August 31 resolution. Considering
the discrepancy in petitioner’s statements as to his counsel’s receipt of notice of the September 23
resolution, the court resolved to direct the CA to elevate the complete records of the case.
Hence, before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari with urgent prayer for the issuance of a
TRO assailing the CA resolution dated November 28, 2018.

ISSUE: WON the CA is right in dismissing the motion for reconsideration for having been belatedly
filed?

HELD: NO.
The petition is meritorious
Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides that if and party has appeared by counsel, services
upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the
court. Thus, even if a party represented by counsel has been actually notified, said notice is not considered
notice in law.

As to service of court resolutions, Section 9, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court pertinently provides:
judgements, final orders or resolutions shall be served either personally or by registered mail. When a party
summoned by publication has failed to appear in action, judgements, final orders or resolutions against him shall be
served upon him also by publication at the expense of the prevailing party.

The reason is simple – the parties, generally have no formal education or knowledge of the rules of
procedure ,specifically, the mechanics of an appeal or availment of legal remedies; thus, they may also be unaware of
the rights and duties of a litigants relative to a receipt of a decision more importantly, it is best for the court to deal
only with one person in the interest of orderly procedure –either the lawyer retained by the party or the party
him/herself if he/she does not intend to hire a lawyer.

In the case at bar, a copy of the September 23, 2016 resolution was sent to the petitioner’s counsel,
Atty. Santos, at his registered address in Meycauayan, Bulacan. On November 8, 2016, the CA sent a
tracer to the postmaster of Meycauayan, Bulacan directing him to inform the court of the exact date when
the said letter was delivered to and received by the addressee. However, prior to the receipt of the
postmaster’s reply, the CA already issued its assailed November 28, 2016 resolution.
Prime Stars International Promotion Corporation vs Baybayan GR No. 213961 22-January-2020

Facts:

Petitioner, Prime Stars, is a local recruitment agency with Taiwan Wacoal Co., Ltd., (Wacaol) and
Avermedia Technolocgies Inc. (Avermedia) as foreign principals. Peralta is one of the officers of Prime
Stars.
Respondent, Norly M. Bayaban (BAyaban) was deployed by Prime Satars to Wacaol on June
12, 2007 for a contract period of 24 months with a monthly salary of NT$15,840.00 per month. However,
he was only paid NT$0,000.00 a month whereas NT$4,000.00 was being deducted from his salary for
expenses for his board and lodging. Upon his return to the Philippines, he instituted a complaint for
underpayment of salaries and the reimbursement of his transportation expenses against petitioners.
Co-respondent, Mechelle V. Beltran (Beltran), was likewise recruited by Prime Stars and was
deployed to Avermedia as an “operator” with contract duration for two years and with monthly salary of
NT$17,280.00. After a year, her services was abruptly and unceremoniously terminated by her supervisor
and was immediately repatriated to the Philippines. Beltran instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal
and sought for payment of the unexpired portion of her contract, the refund of her placement fee,
repatriation expenses, plus damages and attorney’s fees.
The complaints of Bayaban and Beltran were then consolidated.
Petitioners denied that Bayaban was underpaid as his pay slips for the months of March and April 2009
indicated that he received a monthly salary of NT$17,280.00 and that he signed an Addendum to the
Employment Contract which authorized the amount of NT$4,000.00 as payment for his monthly food and
accommodation and that the transportation expenses for his round trip tickets from the Philippines to
Taiwan shall be at his own expense.
With regards to Beltran, petitioners contended that it was Beltran who voluntarily pre-
terminated her contract for personal reasons as evidenced by handwritten statement which she duly
signed on July 4, 2009.
In Beltran’s reply, she countered that she signed the agreement under duress since she was
helpless in a foreign country and further averred that it was her supervisor who dictated the words she
used in the Worker Discontinue Employment Affidavit she executed.
On 30-March-2010, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the consolidated cases for lack of merit giving
weight to the substantial documentary evidences presented by the petitioner. Respondent appealed the
dismissal citing grave error on the part of the labor arbiter.
On 21-December-2010, the NLRC reversed and set aside the finding of the labor arbiter and ruled
in favor of the respondents. It struck down as contrary to law the Addendum of the respondents since it
diminished the benefits provided in the original contract approved and submitted to the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration. The NLRC was, likewise, convinced that Beltran was illegally
dismissed based on her action of immediately filing of the complaint four days after she was repatriated.
A motion for reconsideration by the petitioners was denied by the NLRC for lack of merit.
Petitioners elevated the case the CA raising grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction of
the NLRC.
The CA dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners in the absence of any justifiable reason to
reverse the factual findings and conclusions of law of the NLRC as supported by substantial evidence.
Hence, a petition for review on Certiorari is filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to
reverse the CA decision.

ISSUE: 1. WON Beltran was illegally dismissed from employment?

Ruling: 1. . Beltran was illegally dismissed. The Court is not convinced on the petitioner’s arguments. The
petitioner’s complete reliance on Beltran’s alleged voluntary execution of the Mutual Contract
Annulment Agreement and the Worker Discontinue Employment Affidavit to support their claim that
Beltran voluntarily pre-terminated her contract is unavailing considering that the filing of the complaint
for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with resignation. The Court finds it highly unlikely that Beltran would
just quit even before the end of her contract after all the expenses she incurred and still needed to settle
and the sacrifices she went through in seeking financial upliftment.

It is incongruous for Beltran to simply give up her work, return home, & be unemployed ones again
given that so much time effort and money have already been invested to secure her employment abroad
& enduring the tribulation of being in foreign country and away from her family.

The burden of proving that Beltran voluntarily pre-terminated her contract falls upon petitioner as the
employer.

ISSUE: 2. WON there was underpayment of salaries of respondents;

Ruling 2. Bayaban and Beltran are entitled to salary differentials and refund of transportation
expenses. Paragraph (i) of Article 34 of the Labor Code of the Philippines prohibits the substitution or
alteration of employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of expiration
of the same without the approval of DOLE.
Further, Section 3, Rule 1, Part V of the POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment
and Employment of Land-based Overseas provides for the Minimum Provisions of Employment Contract
which include (a) Free transportation to and from the worksite or offsetting benefit; and (b) free food and
accommodation, or offsetting benefit.

3. Papertech, Inc. vs Katando GR No 236020 8-January-2020

Facts:

Petitioner, Papertech, hired respondent, Katando, as a machine operator in its office in Pasig City.
In 2007, Katando and other employees filed a Petition for Certification Election and conducted a picket in
the company in 2008. This prompted petitioner to file a Complaint for illegal strike against respondent
and other employees with prayer that the participants be declared to have lost their employment.
Labor Arbiter Thomas T. Que, Jr. (Que) ruled in favor of the petitioner but was reversed by the
NLRC on appeal. The NLRC ordered the reinstatement of respondent and her fellow employees. The
order was upheld by the CA and this Court and became final and executory.
Petitioner sent notice to respondent and other employees ordering them to report to various
posts outside its Pasig City office under pain of removal in case of non-compliance. They filed a
Manifestation with urgent motion to cite respondent company in contempt and to order payment of their
salaries. LA Que denied their manifestation which was later declared by the NLRC null and void and
ordered LA Que to resolve the issues on the salaries. Petitioner assailed the NLRC resolution before the
CA.

Respondent was transferred to the petitioner’s Makati office due to urgency of business.
Responded however refused to comply, hence, petitioner issued a memorandum against her imposing a
seven-day suspension for disrespectful behavior to her fellow employees and officials of the company
and another week for disobedience or refusal to transfer as directed. Respondent then filed a complaint
for illegal suspension before the NLRC. Labor Arbiter Rosalina Maria Apita-Battung found the
suspension to be illegal.

Petitioner issued another notice to respondent directing her to explain why she should not be
administratively charged for refusing to transfer to its Makati office. Despite submitting her explanation,
petitioner issued a notice dismissing respondent for insubordination. Respondent filed for illegal
dismissal, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against petitioner. Labor Arbiter Nicolas
issued a ruling in favor of the respondent. However, respondent’s prayer for reinstatement was not
granted, instead, petitioner was ordered to pay separation pay. According to LA Nicolas, the filing of the
instant case and the attempts of petitioner to transfer the respondent have brought about antipathy and
antagonism between them, thereby resulting in strained relationship. The NLRC agreed with the decision
of the Labor Arbiter. Respondent appealed to the CA.
The CA nullified the resolutions of the NLRC and directed respondents to report back to work in the
place designated by petitioner. It held that petitioner was able to prove that it could no lo reinstate
respondents to their previous positions as valid exercise of management prerogative. Should respondents
refuse their reinstatement to an equivalent position, the CA held that the payment of separation pay is a
viable remedy.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA. Thus, it filed a petition
for review on certiorari before this Court seeking the reversal of the CA ruling.

ISSUE: WON the court of appeals is correct in ordering the reinstatement of Katando instead of granting
her separation pay?

HELD: NO, The petition is granted

Although Katando does not occupy a position of trust and confidence as a machine operator, the
circumstances of this case nonetheless call for the application of the doctrine of strained relations. It is
true that litigation between the parties per se should not bar the reinstatement of an employee. However,
as observed by the NLRC, this is not the only case involving the petitioner and respondent, they have
been in conflict since 2008, or for 11 years now.

In the case of Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. vs Digitel Employees Union, we held
that the length of time from the occurrence of the incident to its resolution and the demonstrated
litigiousness of the parties showed that their relationship is strained. Similarly, the protracted litigation
between the parties here sufficiently demonstrate that their relationship is strained.

It is notable that Papertech has not even bothered to appeal the ruling of the Labor Arbiter, and
even stated that “in order not to prolong the proceedings, and for both parties to peacefully move on
from this unwanted situation, Papertech is willing to pay the judgement award of separation pay”.
Clearly, Papertech does not want Katando back as its employee.

4. Aparicio vs Manila Broadcasting Company GR No. 220647 10-December-2019

Facts:

Petitioners Noli Aparicio and Renan Clarito together with Delmer Dilig, Abelardo Brillantes, And
Noel Solutan filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, backwages, moral damages,
exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against Maniila Broadcasting Company (MBC). In their
consolidated position paper, petitioners essentially alleged that they worked as radio technicians with
MBC, a corporation engaged in radio broadcasting. Petitioners received a notice dated 22-February-2002
from MBC terminating their employment with separation pay. Aparicio, Dilig and Brillantes signed a
quitclaim, believing their dismissal was valid. The rest sued for illegal dismissal.
In its consolidated position paper, MBC countered that the management was directed to review
the operations of all MBC stations which revealed several losing stations were subsidized by the more
profitable Manila stations. As remedial measure, it implemented the policy dubbed as “hating kapatid”
whereas stations were considered independent of the head office and will no longer be subsidized. As a
result, each station had to review its own manpower complement severely affecting the sub-stations of
the petitioners, resulting to their retrenchment. Labor Arbiter Salinas held that petitioners were illegally
dismissed. The was no evidence that MBC suffered from serious business losses and financial reverses.
There was no showing either that it used fair and reasonable criteria in choosing the positions to be
retrenched. Instead of reinstatement, petitioners should be awarded separation pay by reason of their
strained relations with MBC.
The NLRC reversed the ruling on the merit that reorganization is a jurisprudentially
acknowledged cost-saving measure. An employer is not precluded from adopting a new policy
conducive to a more economical and effective management. The law does not require that financial losses
be actually suffered by the company before it can terminate the services of an employee. Motion for
reconsideration by the petitioners was denied. Aggrieved, petitioners went on certiorari to the CA
charging NLRC with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for resolving
the appeal in MBC’s favor. The CA partially granted the petition in that the assailed resolution of the
NLRC are reversed and set aside with respect to petitioners Dilig, Brillanted, and Solutan, but the said
decision is uplifted with respect to petitioners Aparicio and Clarito.
Both MBC and petitioners moved for partial reconsideration which the CA denied. Only
petitioners Aparicio and Clarito are now seeking this Court’s discretionary appellate jurisdiction to grant
them affirmative relief from the Court of Appeal’s assailed dispositions.

ISSUE: WON petitioners were validly dismissed on the ground of redundancy?

Held:

Petitioners’ employment was validly terminated on ground of redundancy, one of the authorized
causes for termination of employment under Article 298 of the Labor Code. Redundancy exists when an
employee’s services are in excess of what of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of
the enterprise. While a declaration of redundancy is ultimately a management decision, and the employer
is not obliged to keep in its payroll more employees than are needed for its day-to-day operations,
management must not violate the law nor declare redundancy without sufficient basis.

Here, petitioners were duly served notices of retrenchment which took effect 30 days later. MBC
also submitted its establishment termination report to the DOLE containing the reasons for its adoption
and implementation of the redundancy program. Petitioners were likewise promptly given their
separation pay.

In labor cases, as in other administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence of such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion is required. Here, the
CA relied on substantial evidence in finding that the MBC’s memorandum of appeal was timely filed and
its redundancy program including the consequent retrenchment of petitioners was valid. The Court will
not disturb these factual findings in the absence of any special or compelling reasons.

ISSUE : WON the MBC’s appeal to the NLRC was timely filed?

Held : yes

The rule on service by registered mail contemplates two situations 1.) actual service the completeness of
which is determine upon receipt by the addressee of the registered mail. 2) constructive service the
completeness of which is determine upon the expiration of 5 days from the date the addressee received
the first notice of the postmaster.

Insofar as constructive service is concerned, there must be a conclusive proof that the first notice was duly
sent by the postmaster to the addressee. Not only is it required that notice of registered mail be issued but
that it should also be delivered to and receive by the addressee. Notably, the presumption that official
duty has been regularly performed is not applicable in this situation. It is incumbent upon a party who
relies on the constructive service to prove that the notice was sent to and recieved by the addressee.

The best evidence to prove that notice was sent would be a certification from the postmaster, who should
certify not only that the notice was issued or sent but also as to how, when and to whom the delivery and
receipt was made. the mailman may also testify that the notice was actually delivered.

5. Pacific Metals Co., Ltd. vs Tamayo GR No. 226920 05-December-2019

Facts:
Petitioner, Pacific Metals Co., Ltd., (PAMCO) is a foreign company engaged in the importation of
nickel ore mined in the Philippines. PAMCO is registered in Japan and opened a Philipippine
Representative Office in April 2008. Chitaru Okamura is PAMCO’s general manager and liaison officer
for its Philippine office.
In line with its desire to purchase high quality nickel ore from its target area, PAMCO
negotiated to enter into an exploration agreement with Eramen Minerals, Inc. (Eramen) for the
development of a target area covered by the latter’s Mineral Production and Sharing Agreement (MPSA).
In preparation for its joint venture business with Eramen, PAMCO engaged the services of
respondent Edgar Allan Tamayo, a licensed and registered geologist. Tamayo signed up for a two-month
employment contract commencing on September 2010. In turn, PAMCO agreed to pay Tamayo
PhP90,000.00 per month for his services. Tamayo’s two-month engagement was extended for another two
months, or until January 31, 2011.
Tamayo was designated manager for the Eramen/PAMCO Exploration Project. As such, he was
in charge of preparing the project reports and updates, and budget requests for approval of Fernandez,
Eramen’s president. There is no showing, however, that Tamayo’s engagement with the Eramen/PAMCO
Exploration Project was covered by an employment contract.
On 29-November-2011, Tamayo was informed that his services as exploration manager was
terminated effective December 31, 2011. in view of the completion of the exploration aspect of the project.
Tamayo sent an email to Eramen/Fernandez on December 13, 2011 to clarify the requirements for his
clearance and to inform the company that he was waiving his last salary to cover office items which may
have been lost. Tamayo sent two more emails thereafter. In the first email Tamayo expressed his
suspicion that there had been a connivance among some of the technical people involved in the
exploration project that his career with Eramen ended because a group from the University of the
Philippines allegedly ganged up on him. In his second email, Tamayo informed PAMCO’s Okamura and
Eramen’s Fernandez that he intended to file a complaint before the NLRC unless his demands were
granted by the company to protect his future professional and moral interest.

On 12-December-2012, Tamayo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAMCO and
Eramen praying for backwages, separation pay, 13 th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and
attorney’s fees. PAMCO asserted that it hired Tamayo as exploration manager under a two-month
employment contract and then thereafter extended for another two months. Thereafter, Tamayo was
hired by Eramen and it was was not a party thereto. Tamayo cannot claim to be its regular employee
because it was clear in the service contract that he was hired as a consultant.
Eramen, on the other hand, basically countered that PAMCO initially hired Tamayo and later
recommended him to the joint venture as exploration manager. Tamayo was not illegally dismissed
because he was a project employee whose services were deemed co-terminous with the project for which
he was hired. Thus, Tamayo may be terminated as soon as the exploration project was completed. Labor
Arbiter Marie Josephine C. Suarez ruled that Tamayo was not a regular employee but a project employee
of the Eramen/PAMCO Exploration Project. Tamayo himself was aware of such fact. Hence, Tamayo was
not illegally dismissed and his termination was due solely to contract completion.
NLRC affirmed the decision. Tamayo’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Tamayo elevated
the case to the CA via petition for certiorari. It ruled that Tamayo was PAMCO’s regular employee who
had been illegally dismissed. The CA ordered Tamayo’s reinstatement with backwages. PAMCO’s
motion for reconsideration was denied. PAMCO now faults the CA for brushing aside the factual
findings and legal conclusion of the NLRC, the quasi-judicial agency with expertise on matters relating to
labor, which sustained the LA’s ruling that Tamayo was a mere project employee whose employment got
validly terminated due to contract completion. PAMCO also asserts that Eramen must be solely liable to
pay for Tamayo’s money claims, if warranted, being the latter’s real employer. Hence, a petition for
review before this court.

ISSUES:
1.Whether or not Tamayo is a regular employee.

Held: The principal test to determine if one is a project employee is whether such an employee had been
assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of which is specified at the
time such employee was engaged for that project. This is clear from Article 280 of the Labor Code which
distinguishes a project employee from a regular employee.

PAMCO asserts that Tamayo was a project employee. We do not agree. The controversy hinges
on Tamayo’s subsequent employment or his re-hiring and assignment as exploration manager for the
Eramen? PAMCO Exploration Project. The engagement was not covered by any employment contract. Be
that as it may, the lack of an employment contract would not hinder the determination of the status of
Tamayo’s employment.

Based on Article 295 of the Labor Code, one is deemed a regular employee if one: a) had been
engaged to perform tasks which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trage of the
employer, unless the employment is one for a specific project or undertaking or where work is seasonal
and for the duration of a season; or b) has rendered at least one year of service whether such service is
continuous or broken, with respect to the activity for which he is employed and his employment
continues as long as such activity exists.

2. WON an employee-employer relationship exists between Tamayo and PAMCO.

HELD: As stated, PAMCO is engaged in the business of nickel ore importation. It does not simply
involve sourcing out suppliers of raw materials, for sure, mineral importation takes more effort. Nickel
ore is not readily available. Areas where to find it must first be determined and studied. Too, extensive
work to finally generate it would involve manpower and substantial financing. And since mineral comes
from natural resources, there are environmental safety requirements that must be complied with.

To accomplish this step by step process, PAMCO must rely on the expertise of a geologist with
knowledge of Philippine soil and its rich sources of minerals. The task ordinarily performed by a
geologist, therefore, are necessary to the business which PAMCO was engaged in. it is, thus, undeniable
that Tamayo is a regular employee of PAMCO, for he performs work that is usually necessary and
desirable to PAMCO’s business.
Verily, the mere fact that respondents worked on projects that were time bound did not
automatically characterized them as project employees. The nature of their work is determinative that
ones a project or work pool employee has been 1) continuously as opposes to intermittently,rehired by
the same employer for the same task or nature of task and 3) these tasks are vital, necessary and
indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer, then the employee must be deemed a
regular employee.

S-ar putea să vă placă și