Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4



Facts: The resident physicians formed a union called the UERMMC-Resident Doctors Union and filed the petition for certification so that it will be recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the resident physicians in the hospital for purposes of collective bargaining. The petition for certification was dismissed by the Undersecretary, acting under the authority of the Secretary of Labor, on the ground that there exist no employer-employee relationship between the resident doctors and the hospital. Issue: WON resident doctors are employees of the hospital. Held: The resident doctors are not employees of the hospital. It is clear that physicians undergo residency training in order to hone their skills and develop or improve their knowledge in a specialized medical field or discipline. Hence, residency is basically and simply a continuation of their medical course. However, they are not required or mandated under any law to further undergo a residence training program. Having passed the medical board examinations, they are already licensed physicians and could very well engage in the general practice of medicine. It is for the practice of highly specialized medical disciplines which necessitates further on-the-job training thereon. Viewed from this perspective, residency training clearly amounts to a pursuit of further education on a specific discipline. Thus, the relationship between the teaching/training hospital and the resident doctor is not one of employer-employee. The training/teaching hospital may simply be likened to a medical school/university, but in this instance, the emphasis is on the practical application and training of its students, the resident doctors.


FACTS: Petitioner is a CPA hired as Cost Accounting Manager of Respondent Raytheon Philippines, Inc. However, when the standard cost accounting system for Raytheon plans worldwide was adopted and installed in the Philippine operations, the services of the petitioner was reduced to only the submission of period reports. On January 27, 1989, petitioner was told of the abolition of his position on the ground of redundance. He was constrained to file the complaint for illegal dismissal after his request to have him transferred to another department was denied. He also alleged that the functions of his position were absorbed by the Payroll/MIS/Finance Department which is headed by a resident alien without working permit from the DOLE. Petitioner also assails Raytheon's choice of Ang Tan Chai to head the Payroll/Mis/Finance Department, claiming that he is better qualified for the position. ISSUE: Naglibog kos issue ky redundance man gud ni nga case naka.sentro HELD: It has been consistently held that an objection founded on the ground that one has better credentials over the appointee is frowned upon so long as the latter possesses the minimum qualifications for the position. In the case at bar, since petitioner does not allege that Ang Tan Chai does not qualify for the position, the Court cannot substitute its discretion and judgment for that which is clearly and exclusively management prerogative. To do so would take away from the employer what rightly belongs to him as aptly explained in National Federation of Labor Unions v. NLRC: It is a well settled rule that labor laws do not authorize interference with the employer's judgment in the conduct of his business. The determination of the qualification and fitness of workers for hiring and firing, promotion or reassignment are exclusive prerogatives of management. The Labor Code and its implementing Rules do not vest in the Labor Arbiters nor in the different Divisions of the NLRC (nor in the courts) managerial authority. The employer is free to determine, using his own discretion and business judgment, all elements of employment, "from hiring to firing" except in cases of unlawful discrimination or those which may be provided by law.



FACTS: Pantranco North Express is a government-owned and controlled corporation which provided transportation services to the public. However, it incurred huge financial losses so it implemented a job classification program for purposes of manpower reduction. Private respondent, Ayento, was an employee of the company. With the reorganization, positions were reclassified and restructured. Ayento's position, as Head of Registration Section, was abolished. Consequently, he was appointed as Registration Assistant. As a Registration Assistant, he actually was relieved of his supervisory function, no longer had any field work, nor entitled to overtime pay. His representation expenses and discretionary funds were also cancelled. He received instead a fixed amelioration allowance. Ayento then filed a Complaint against Pantranco for unfair labor practice. It specifically alleged demotion of position and diminution of salary and benefits. Respondent company, on the other hand, argued that there was no demotion but a job-reclassification where petitioner's position was abolished due to the company's financial problems. ISSUE: WON there was demotion of position and diminution of salary and benefits. HELD: The Supreme Court held in the negative. Where there is nothing that would indicate that an employee's position was abolished to ease him out of employment, the deletion of that position should be accepted as a valid exercise of management prerogative. It is a well-settled rule that labor laws discourage interference with an employer's judgment in the conduct of his business. Absent any unfair or oppressive act against private respondent, the Court cannot and should not interfere with management decisions validly undertaken by petitioner. To do so would be meddling with the control and management of the corporation without legal justification.



FACTS: The union is the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of the company. A provision in the unions collective bargaining agreement with the company allows union officials to avail of union leaves with pay for the purpose of attending grievance meetings, Labor-Management Committee meetings, annual National Labor Management Conferences, labor education programs and seminars, and other union activities. The company issued a rule requiring not only the prior notice that the CBA expressly requires, but prior approval by the department head before the union and its members can avail of union leaves. The rule was placed into effect in November 2002 without any objection from the union. A union officer, Mangalino, filed union leave applications but was disapproved by the department head because the department was undermanned at that time. Despite the disapproval, Mangalino proceeded to take the union leave. The company responded by suspending him. ISSUE: WON the suspension was valid. HELD: The suspension was valid. While it is true that the union and its members have been granted union leave privileges under the CBA, the grant cannot be considered separately from the other provisions of the CBA, particularly the provision on management prerogatives where the CBA reserved for the company the full and complete authority in managing and running its business.[18] We see nothing in the wordings of the union leave provision that removes from the company the right to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations to govern the manner of availing of union leaves, particularly the prerogative to require prior approval. Precisely, prior notice is expressly required under the CBA so that the company can appropriately respond to the request for leave. In this sense, the rule requiring prior approval only made express what is implied in the terms of the CBA.