Petitioner Maribel Santos Defendant St. Lukes Medical Center FACTS: Petitioner Santos was hired by St.

Lukes Medical Center as an x-ray technician in Oct. 1984. When Congress passed RA 7431 or the Readiologic tech Act of 1992, St. Lukes required the petitioner to secure her proper certificate of registration as it is now an indispensable requirement for her continued practice. Several opportunities were afforded to the petitioner but still failed to pass the exams. In 1998, the Director of the Institute of Radiology sent her a notice informing her of the approval of the board of her retirement with separation pay. When the petitioner did not accept the offer, the personnel manager of St. Lukes sent her a notice of separation from the company. In March 1999, petitioner Santos filed a complaint against SLMC for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salaries and allowances and other benefits. In Sept. 2000, the Labor Arbiter ruled that she was legally dismissed and is entitled to a separation pay and all other claims were dismissed for lack of merit. The NLRC affirmed the decision. The CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed violating thereof her constitutional right of security of tenure Petition must be dismissed for failure to file Failure to comply with the required MR certification per RA 7431 does not constitute Petitioner was validly dismissed pursuant to just cause for termination, hence, violating her RA 4226 and 7431 right to security of tenure Termination of petitioner was made in good faith and without discrimination as the sole cause of the separation was the failure to pass the board exam. Non-transfer of petitioner to other post is valid exercise of the managements prerogative

HELD: The petition lacks merit Right of security of tenure though guaranteed and protected by the State is regulated by it thru its police power to safeguard: health, morals, peace, education, order, safety and general welfare of the people. The law, RA 7431 is clear that the certificate of Registration cannot be substituted by any other requirement to allow a person to practice as such. Hence, there is no malice or ill-will on the part of respondent In the interest of fair play the law also recognizes that management has rights which are entitled to respect and enforcement. Though the State endeavors to afford full protection to labor and promote social justice, it does not mean that all issues must be resolved in favor of labor. The employer is free to determine, using its own discretion and business judgment all elements of employment from hiring to firing.

Petitioner DOLE Phils

Defendant LABOR UNION PAMAO_NFL

FACTS: On February 1996, a new 5 year CBA was entered into by the DOLE Mgt and Union. One feature under it is the provision of free meal for workers who render actual overtime work under Section 3 of Art XVIIII of the CBA. Pursuant thereto, some dept. granted free meals after exactly three hours of actual overtime work while other depts. Continued to provide free meals ony to those who rendered actual overtime work of more than 3 hours. The issue was submitted under voluntary arbitration where it was ruled that free meals shall be given even to those who actually worked for exactly 3 hours. DOLE filed an MR but it was denied. The CA uphold the decision. ISSUE: Whether or not based on the CBA, the benefit of free meal shall be extended to those workers who just rendered exactly three hours of overtime The phrase after three hours of actual The meal allowance provision in the CBA overtime work was just a mere surplusage means the employees are entitled to it even if and that its meaning is after more than three the workers have rendered exactly three hours hours of actual overtime work. of actual overtime work. It has been the practice of the management is to give a free meal only after more than 3 hours of actual overtime work Principle of management prerogative HELD: The language of the disputed provision in the CBA is clear and unambiguous Scrutiny of the previous CBA would reveal that the reversion of the wording shows that the parties intended that free meals be given to employees after exactly, or no less than, 3 hours of actual work overtime which means that free meal shall be given even to those who rendered actual overtime work for exactly three hours. Principle of management prerogative is not unlimited and unqualified - it is regulated or subject to the limitations of law or contracts i.e. CBA or the general principles of fair play and justice.

Petitioner Abella and Hacienda DanaoRamona(employer-lessor)

Ricardo Dionele and Romeo Quitco, workers of Hacienda

Labor Arbiter Manuel Lucas FACTS: The petitioner secures a lease contract over a hacienda in 1960 and which is renewable at her option for another ten years. Upon the expiration in Oct. 1980 , petitioner no longer renewed her contract and dismissed the her two regular farm workers -Dionele and Quitco without giving them their separation pay. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are entitled to separation pay. Labor Arbiter Lease agreement has expired and there was

Basis of granting the separation pay is Art. 284 as amended by BP 130 provides among others for the separation pay to workers retrenched or separated because of cessation or closure of business not by reason of loss or financial troubles.

complete cessation or closure of a business which as provided under Art. 272 of the Labor Code is a just cause for termination, hence she is not liable for payment of the separation pay.

Application of Art. 284 violates the constitutional provision against impairment of contracts as there was no provision therein providing for a separation pay to workers at the end of the lease. HELD: Art. 284 of the Labor Code as amended by BP 130 is the law applicable in this case as it provides the rights of workers under the circumstances of termination so as to protect the workers from turning into naught their long years of service against unwarranted actions of their employer. Art. 4 applies Constitutional provision against impairment is not absolute and unqualified it may be regulated by the state thru its valid exercise of police power. Besides, the cons prohibition operates only with a change of rights of the parties and not with reference to non-parties

Carolina Clemente, widow of the late Pedro GSIS, ECC Clemente, a janitor at the Norte Skin Clinic under DOH. He died of uremia due to nephritis. FACTS: Pedro Clemente, was a janitor at the Ilocos Norte Skin Clinic under the DOH, died of uremia due to nephritis. His widow Carolina claimed his death benefits but was denied twice by GSIS. Treating the MR as an appeal, her case was forwarded to ECC which affirmed the decision of the GSIS. ISSUE: Whether or not the disease which caused the death of the husband of the petitioner is entitled to death benefits under the law. Ailments of her husband were contracted in ECC: the ailments of the deceased was not the course of his employment and his Hansen among the listed occupational diseases; that disease was aggravated by the nature of his there was no substantial causal connection job as a janitor. between the nature of his job and the diseases that he has prior to his death based on data provided by medical authorities; and there was an absence of presentation of enough evidence to the contrary by the petitioner; and based on records the disease was already preexisting at the time Pedro Clemente was hired ten years ago.

Aggravation of preexisting illnesses is no longer a ground for compensation under the new ECC law.

HELD: The claim falls under Art. 167(L) of the Labor Code and sec. 1(b) Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation which generally requires a reasonable work-connection and not direct causal relation in determining compensable diseases or compensation. Probability and not certainty is the touchstone. As janitor of the Ilocos Sur Skin Clinic , Clemente was exposed to different carriers of viral and bacterial diseases and in fact the most exposed employee to dangerous concentration of infected materials because of not being a medical practitioner and least likely to know how to avoid infection. working conditions definitely increased the risk of his contracting the aforementioned diseases. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation (Sarmiento vs ECC) and the proof required under PD 626 is mere substantial evidence. CONSERVATIVE POSTURE OF THE RESPONDENTS is not consistent with the liberal interpretation of the Labor Code and the social guarantee embodied in the Constitution. Art. 4 doubts should be resolved in favor of the claimant-employee. Hence, when there are two or more possible explanations regarding an issue of compensability that which favors the claimant must be chosen.

COLGATE Minister of Labor, Colgate-Palmolive Union FACTS: The respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations on ground of unfair labor practice consisting of alleged refusal to bargain, dismissal of union officers/members, and coercing employees to retract their membership with the union and restraining union-members from joining the union. But after efforts proved unavailing, the Union moved bring the action with the Ministry of Labor and the latter assumed jurisdiction over the dispute; Thereafter the petitioner filed a position paper claiming otherwise. The Union reiterated their position. The MOLE certified , in its ruling, the Union as the collective bargaining agent for the sales force and ordered the reinstatement of the 3 offenders since this is their first offense. ISSUE: Whether or not the Ministry of Labor acted with grave abuse of discretion in certifying the UNION as the collective bargaining agent of salesmen and ordering the reinstatement of 3 dismissed employees. Alleges that it was registered under BLR with Petitioner concedes that the MOLE has the a total of 87 salesmen out of 117 salesmen power to decide labor dispute in a case assumed by him under Art. 264(g) of the labor The company is unreasonably delaying the Code but this was exceeded when: recognition of the union 1. The MOLE violated the law on

representation cases when he directly certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the companys salesmen when in fact the proceedings made does not fall as a representation proceeding prescribed by the Labor Code 2. The suspension and eventual dismissal of the 3 employees were carried out pursuant to the inherent right and prerogative of management to discipline erring employees. HELD: The petition is impressed with merit. The Minister acted with grave abuse of discretion. The procedure for a representation case is outlined in Arts. 257-260 of the Labor Code. The requirement of the law specifically under sec. 2, 5, and 6 of Rule V, Book V of the IRR is to ensure that the certified bargaining representative is the true choice of all the employees against all contenders There was a failure in determining with certainty that the Union is the true choice when in fact the case is a subject of a pending litigation. The order of the minister for reinstatement is against the law because it does not distinguish between a first offender and a habitual delinquent. The Minister in protecting the rights of the labor authorizes neither oppression or self-destruction of the employer. Reinstatement of the 3 who admittedly guilty of malfeasance and misfeasance is tantamount to unequal protection of the laws because a managerial employee was already dismissed in the same incident

St. Theresas Sch of Novaliches Foundation , NRLC, Ester Reyes Adoracion Roxas FACTS: ISSUE: Whether or not there exist an employee-employer relationship between the parties and whether or not the respondent was illegally dismissed. HELD

Jose Sonza ABS CBN FACTS: ISSUES: Whether or not the parties of the case have an employee-employer relationship Whether or not the decision of Labor Arbiter in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction is correct. HELD: Using the test in determining the employee-employer relationship, the petitioner

NASECO, ARTURO L. PEREZ EUGENIA C. CREDO FACTS: Eugenia C. Credo ISSUE: HELD: The respondent was dismissed witout due process of law. She was illegally dismissed and therefore entitled to backwages, reinstatement, moral damages and attorneys fee.

BENJAMIN C. JUCO NHA FACTS: Juco was hired as a project engineer of NHA but was separated from service five years after because he was implicated in a crime of theft/ and or malversation of public funds. As a result he filed for complaint of illegal dismissal with the Dept of Labor and the Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUES: HELD:

PASTOR DIONISIO V. AUSTRIA

NLRC