1) PRIMICIAS v.

FUGUSO, 80 PHIL 71

FACTS: Mayor Fuguso refused to grant the petitioner and his party a permit to hold a public
meeting at Plaza Miranda, based on a city ordinance which grants the mayor the discretion
to regulate such conduct of public assemblies, as a lawful exercise of police power.

ISSUE: What is police power? How was it supposed to be exercised by the Manila City
Officials?

HELD: Police Power is the power of the State to enact laws and prescribe regulations that
will promote the health, morals, education, good order, safety, and general welfare of the
People. However, in the exercise of police power the council may, in its discretion, regulate
the exercise of such rights in a reasonable manner, but cannot suppress them, directly or
indirectly, by attempting to commit the power of doing so to the mayor or any other officer.
The ordinance grants the mayor the power to regulate as to how, when and where a public
assembly should be held, but not the discretion to refuse the grant of such permit to
derogate the right of the petitioner to peaceably assemble and seek redress against the
government.


2) PASEI v DRILON, 163 SCRA 386

FACTS: The Department of Labor and Employment issued an order suspending the
deployment of Filipino domestic and household workers, in view of the heightened abuses
committed against OFWs abroad. The petitioner, a local recruitment agency, petitioned for
the invalidation of such order for alleged violation of equal protection clause.

ISSUE: Is the deployment ban a valid exercise of police power? What is police power?

HELD: Yes, the deployment ban of domestic helpers is a valid exercise of police power.
Police Power is the inherent power of the State to enact legislation that may interfere with
personal liberty and property in order to promote the general welfare.

3) BREWMASTER INTERNATIONAL INC. v. NAFLU

FACTS: Private respondent Estrada is a member of the respondent labor union. He did not
report for work for 1 month due to a grave family problem as his wife deserted him and
nobody was there to look after his children. He was required to explain. Finding his reasons
to be unjustified, the petitioner terminated him, since according to company rules, absence
for 6 consecutive days is considered abandonment of work.

ISSUE: Should a worker be summarily dismissed relying on some company rules?

HELD: No. While the employer is not precluded from prescribing rules and regulations to
govern the conduct of his employees, these rules and their implementation must be fair,
just and reasonable. No less than the Constitution looks with compassion on the
workingman and protects his rights not only under a general statement of a state policy but
under the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights, thus placing labor contracts on a
higher plane and with greater safeguards. Verily, relations between labor and capital are not
merely contractual. They are impressed with public interest and labor contracts must,
perforce, yield to the common good.

4) MABEZA v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118506 April 18, 1997

FACTS: The petitioner and her co-employees were asked by their employer to sign an
instrument attesting to the latters compliance with minimum wage and other labor
standard provision, and that they have no complaints against the management. The
petitioner signed the affidavit but refused to go to the Citys Prosecutors Office to confirm
the veracity and contents of the affidavit as instructed by management. That same day she
was ordered by the hotel management to turn over the keys to her living quarters and to
remove her belongings in the hotels premises. She then filed a leave of absence which was
denied by her employer. She attempted to return to work but the hotels cashier told her
that she should not report to work and instead continue with her unofficial leave of absence.
The management defended upon a ground of loss of confidence.

ISSUE: Was the dismissal of the petitioner valid?

HELD: No. The pivotal question in any case where unfair labor practice on the part of the
employer is alleged is whether or not the employer has exerted pressure, in the form of
restraint, interference or coercion, against his employees right to institute concerted action
for better terms and conditions of employment. Without doubt, the act of compelling
employees to sign an instrument indicating that the employer observed labor standard
provisions of the law when he might not have, together with the act of terminating or
coercing those who refuse to cooperate with the employers scheme constitutes unfair labor
practice.

5)