LABOR CASES

I. APPLICABLE LAWS

Facts Issue Doctrine
1. Maternity
Childrens
Hospital vs.
Secretary of Labor
MCH: semi-govt hospital managed by CDO
Womens Club with Pres. Antera Dorado
Partly subsidized by PCSO and CDO Govt
Has 41 employees
1986:10 employees filed a complaint with the
RD DOLE, Region X re: underpayment and
ECOLA; confirmed in the investigation
RDs Order: 723K to all petitioner employees
Minister of Labor Sanchez: modified for
recomputation; must cover 1983-86 only

WON RD has jurisdiction
(claim: Art 217 par 3: Labor
Arbiter has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over
money claims)
(YES: if with EER)

WON RD erred in
awarding all hospital
employees (YES)

This is a Labor Standards Case governed by Art 128b
LC, am EO 111. (not yet in effect)
RD exercises both visitorial and enforcement power
over labor standards cases and is empowered to
adjudicate money claims PROVIDED there still exists
and EER and the findings of the RO is not contested
by the employer concerned.
Power under PD 850 (Dec 16, 1975) + MOLE Policy
Ins No. 6, 7, 37 (immediate access to rights and bene
If no EER, claims fall within the E and O jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiters.
Applies to those who signed and did not sign but were
still connected with the hospital (similarly
situated);pinnacle of injustice if not
However, power cannot be applied where the
employee is already separated from the service.
DISMISSED: EER; and GRANTED: Not employed

2. P.I.
Manufacturing Inc
vs. P.I.
Manufacturing
Union
PIMI: domestic corporation engaged in the
manufacture and sale of household app.
PIMASUFA: organization of PIMIs
supervisors and foremen
RA 6640: Dec 10, 87: increase in the
statutory minimum wage and salary rates of
employees and workers in the private sector
CBA: Dec 18, 87: supervisors granted
625/month; foremen granted 475/month
-made retroactive to May 12, 1987 to 7-26-89
PIMASUFA and NLU filed a complaint at LA
for the alleged wage distortion resulting from
RA 6640. Won. Affirmed by NLRC and CA.
WON RA 6640 resulted
in wage distortion and
whether such distortion
was cured or remedied
by 1987 CBA (YES)
Wage distortion: the disappearance or the virtual
disappearance of pay differentials between lower and
higher positions in an enterprise because of
compliance with a wage order.
The gap re-established by CBA is more than
substantial compliance with RA 6640.
CBA constitutes the law between the parties when
freely and voluntarily entered into.
The provisions of CBA should be read in harmony with
the wage orders whose benefits should be given only
to those employees covered thereby.
Only 3 are receiving below 100, thus entitled to
GRANTED.

3. Philippine
Association of
Service Exporters
vs. Drilon
PASEI: a firm engaged principally in the
recruitment of Filipino workers, M&F, for
overseas placement
Invokes Sec 3 Art 13 providing for worker
participation and decision making processes
affecting their rights and benefits as may be
provided by law.
Contends DO No.1 had no prior consultation
and in violation of non-impairment clause
WON DO No.1 is
constitutional for
discrimination for it does
not apply to all F workers
but only to domestic
helpers and females with
similar skills and is
violative of the right to
travel and an invalid
exercise of police power
(YES)
Police Power validly exercised
Official acts enjoy a presumed validity
Valid discrimination. Valid classification.
Females exposed to exploitative working conditions
marked by physical and personal abuse.
A ban on deployment will be for their own welfare
Right to travel not impaired. It is subject to the
requirement of public safety.
Legislative power lawfully delegated. LC vests DOLE
with rule-making powers in its enforcement.
Non-impairment clause must yield to the loftier
purposes targeted by Govt, Freedom of contract and
enterprise is not free from restrictions.
DISMISSED

4. Sosito vs.
Aguinaldo
Development
Corporation
Manuel Sosito: employed by ADC, a logging
company; in charge of logging importation
Went on indefinite leave with consent on of
the company on Jan 16, 1976
ADC announced a retrenchment program,
offered separation pay to employees in active
service as of June 30, 1976 who would tender
their resignations not later than July 31, 1976
Sosito decided to accept the offer and
submitted resignation on July 29, 1976 to avail
himself of gratuity benefits. However, it was
not acted upon and never given SP.
Complained to LA. Won. Reversed by NLRC.
WON Sosito is entitled to
separation pay under the
retrenchment program of
ADC (NO)

ART 272a LC: A
company can validly
reduce the workforce due
to financial reverses with
the obligation to grant SP
but still ADC voluntarily
offered gratuities
Sosito was not eligible for the promised gratuity as he
was not actually working with the company as of said
date. Being on indefinite leave, he was not in active
service although, if one were to be technical, he was
still in its employ.
Sosito wants to enjoy the best of two worlds at ADCs
expense. It is strange that ADC should agree to such
an open-ended arrangement, which is one-sided. .
Art 272 a: Such compassionate measure deserves
commendation and support but should be available to
those qualified therefore. Sosito is not one of them.
While the Const is committed to the policy of social
justice and protection of working class, it should not be
supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically
decided in favor of labor.
DISMISSED.
5. Mendoza vs.
Rural Bank of
Lucban
BoD of Rural Bank of Lucban issued Board
Res: RESHUFFLING of assignments without
changes in salary, allowances, and benefits
Purpose: to further strengthen the existing
internal control system
Mendoza: Appraiser to Clerk- Meralco
Collection (sees it as a Demotion)
Submitted letter applying for LOA for 10 days
due to an ailment; submitted again for 20 days
While on 2
nd
leave, he filed an illegal dismissal
complaint at LA. Won. NLRC Reversed. CA
affirmed.
CA: Harassment is but a figment of his
imagination as there is no evidence
WON there is
constructive dismissal
when Mendoza was
reshuffled (NO)

Constructive dismissal:
involuntary resignation
resorted to when
continued employment is
rendered impossible,
unreasonable or unlikely;
when there is demotion in
rank, insensibility or
disdain by employer

Labor laws discourage interference in employers
judgments concerning the conduct of their business.
Law must protect not only the welfare of employees,
but also the right of employers.
The right of employees to security of tenure does not
give them vested rights to their positions to the extent
of depriving management of its prerogatives to change
their assignments or to transfer them.
Managerial prerogatives, however are subject to
limitations provided by law, CBA and general
principles of fair play and justice: not unreasonable,
inconvenient or prejudicial; no demotion in rank or
diminution of salaries, privileges and benefits (Blue
Dairy Corporation vs NLRC)
DISMISSED.

6. China Banking
Corporation vs.
Borromeo
Borromeo: Manager I at Cebu, transferred to
CDO as Branch Manager
Highly satisfactory performance: promoted to
Asst. VP Mindanao Branch Banking Group
Without authority from Exec Committee, he
approved 10 DAU/BP accommodations (7
PCIB, 3 UCPB) amounting to 2.4M in favor of
Maniwan with Ramos as surety. (checks
Drawn Against Uncollected Deposits/Bills
Purchased)
Upon learning, First VP sought clarification
Borromeo expressed his intention to resign
and apologized for all the trouble
Senior VP informed that he violated the
Banks Code of Ethics. 1.5M proportionate
share. Will earmark only 836K from SP.
Borromeo demanded for his SP.
LA dismissed. NLRC affirmed. CA reversed
WON he pledged his
benefits as guarantee for
the losses the bank
incurred resulting from
DAU/BP (YES)
WON CBC was justified
in withholding the
benefits due to Borromeo
WON he was denied of
due process

It is settled that
7. SSS Employees
Association vs CA


II. BASIC PRINCIPLES
Facts Issue Doctrine
8. Brotherhood Labor
Unity Movement vs
Zamora

9. Tabas vs CMC

10. Philippine Fuji
Xerox vs. NLRC

11. Manila Golf and
Country Club vs IAC

12. Sevilla vs CA

13. Encyclopedia
Britannica vs NLRC

14. Insular Insurance
vs NLRC

15. Francisco vs NLRC

16. Paguio vs NLRC

17. Great Pacific Life vs
Judico

18. Villamaria vs CA

19. Sy vs CA

20. Makati
Haberdachery vs NLRC

21. Maraguinot vs
NLRC

22. Orlando Farm vs
NLRC