Rights of Employer/Employee (1996)

2) What are the rights of an employer and an employee?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:



The Constitution in Art. XIII, Section 3 provides for the following rights of employers and employees:



A. Employers Right to a reasonable return on investments, and to expansion and growth.



1. To a just share in the fruits of production;

2. Right to self organization, collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful concerted activities,
including the right to strike in accordance with law;

3. To security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage; and

4. To participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be
provided by law,



ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:



In an employer-employee relationship, it is the right of the employer to use the services of an employee
who is under his (employers) orders as regards the employment. On the other hand, it is the right of the
employee to receive compensation for the services he renders for the employer.

Social Justice as Guiding Principles in Labor (2003)



May social justice as a guiding principle in labor law be so used by the courts in sympathy with the
working man if it collides with the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Explain. 5%



SUGGESTED ANSWER:



Yes. The State is bound under the Constitution to afford full protection to Labor; and when conflicting
interests collide and they are to be weighed on the scales of social justice, the law should accord more
sympathy and compassion to the less privileged workingman. (Fuentes v. NLRC. 266 SCRA 24 f 19971)
However, it should be borne in mind that social justice ceases to be an effective instrument for the
equalization of the social and economic forces by the State when it is used to shield wrongdoing.
(Corazon Jamer v. NLRC. 278 SCRA 632 F1 99711).



ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:



No, social justice as a guiding principle in law may not be used by the courts if it collides with the equal
protection clause of the Constitution. Social justice is not a magic wand applicable in all circumstances.
Not all labor cases will be automatically decided in favor of the worker. Management has also rights
which are entitled to recognition and protection; justice must be dispensed according to facts and law;
and social justice is not designed to destroy or oppress the employer.



ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:



Social justice as a guiding principle in Labor Law can be implemented side by side with the equal
protection clause of the Constitution. In implementation of the principle of social justice, the
Constitution commands that the State shall afford protection to labor. Thus Labor Law may be pro-labor
in the sense that labor is given certain benefits not given to management. But this is not necessarily
violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution because said clause allows reasonable
classification.
Damages; Absence of E-E Relationship (1995)



Pablo Bagsakin. a law graduate who got tired of taking the bar examinations after several unsuccessful
attempts, joined the Investigation Division of Warak Transport Company. From the very beginning Pablo
never liked his manager because the latter always made fun of the formers accident reports. When
Pablos patience ran out he walked up to his manager who was reviewing the investigators assignments
and workload and boxed him until the latter collapsed. The incident happened during office hours at the
Investigation Division in the presence of his co-employees. Pablo was dismissed without any
investigation and was no longer allowed to enter the company premises.

The manager filed a complaint for damages against Pablo before the Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC). In
turn, Pablo filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter against the manager and the transport
company. Pablo asked for reinstatement without loss of seniority rights

with full back wages. Pablo also filed before the Pasig RTC a motion to dismiss the damage suit against
him alleging that the Labor Arbiter before whom the case for illegal dismissal was pending had exclusive
jurisdiction over both cases. Resolve the motion to dismiss. Discuss fully.



SUGGESTED ANSWER:



The motion to dismiss filed by Pablo before the Pasig RTC should be denied. The damage suit filed by the
manager against Pablo does not arise from employer-employee relationship. While the case involves an
employer and his employee. It is not the employer- employee relationship between the two that gives
rise to the damage suit. Instead, it is based solely on an alleged tort which could give rise to a damage
suit under the Civil Code. Thus, the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the damage suit.





Damages; Not arising from the E-E Relations (1999)



FACTS: Mariet Demetrio was a clerk-typist in the Office of the President of a multi-national corporation.
One day she was berated by the President of the company, the latter shouting invectives at her in the
presence of employees and visitors for a minor infraction she committed. Mariet was reduced to tears
out of shame and felt so bitter about the incident that she filed a civil case for damages against the
company president before the regular courts. Soon thereafter, Mariet received a memorandum
transferring her to the Office of the General Manager without demotion in rank or diminution in pay.
Mariet refused to transfer. With respect to the civil suit for damages, the company lawyer filed a
Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction considering the existence of an employer-employee
relationship and therefore, it is claimed that the case should have been filed before the Labor Arbiter.



2. Rule on the Motion to Dismiss. Should it be granted or denied? Explain briefly (3%).



SUGGESTED ANSWER:



The Motion to Dismiss should be denied. It is a regular court and not a Labor Arbiter that has jurisdiction
on the suit for damages. The damages are not arising from the employer employee relations which
would have placed the suit under the jurisdiction of a Labor Arbiter. The suit arises from the fact that
the President of the company shouted invectives at Marlet Demetrio in the presence of employees and
visitors. Her complaint for damages is against an officer of the Company based on slanderous language
allegedly made by the latter. This falls under the Jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. There is here a
simple action for damages for tortious acts allegedly committed by the defendant. Such being the case,

the governing statute is the Civil Code and not the Labor Code. (Medina v. Castro-Bartolome, 116 SCRA
597)



ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:



The Motion to dismiss should be granted. According to the Labor Code (in Article 217 (a) 4), the Labor
Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, among others, claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer employee relations. The claim for
damages in the case in question arose from the fact that the President of the Company shouted
invectives at Marlet Demetrio in the presence of employees and visitors for a minor infraction she
committed. If the infraction has something to do with her work, then, the claim for damages could be
considered as arising from employer-employee relations. Thus, the claim is under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.

ALEX GURANGO VS BEST CHEMICALS

PETITIONER Alex Gurango worked as boiler operator in respondent Best Chemicals and
Plastics, Inc. (BCPI). In a memorandum of May 2, 2003, BCPI prohibited its employees from
bringing personal items to their work area. Erring employees would be suspended for six days.
At 4:00 a.m. of May 5, 2003, while Gurango was on his way out of his work area, he was
detected by security guard Romeo Albao to have in his pocket a camera without film. Albao
pulled Gurango, grabbed his pocket and tried to confiscate the camera, to which the latter
physically resisted. Consequently, Gurango was dismissed from the service for engaging in a
fistfight and violating company policy. Was the dismissal justified?
Ruling: No.
In the present case, aside from Albaos statement, BCPI did not present any evidence to show
that Gurango engaged in a fistfight. Moreover, there is no showing that Gurangos actions were
performed with wrongful intent.
In order to constitute serious misconduct that will warrant the dismissal of an employee under
paragraph (a) of Article 282 of the Labor Code, it is not sufficient that the act or conduct
complained of has violated some established rules or policies. It is equally important and
required that the act or conduct must have been performed with wrongful intent.
The surrounding circumstances show that Gurango did not engage in a fistfight: 1) in his 9 May
2003 letter to BCPI, Juanitas corroborated Gurangos version of the facts; 2) nobody
corroborated Albaos version of the facts; 3) in his medical report, Dr. Aguinaldo found that
Gurango suffered physical injuries; 4) Gurango filed with the MCTC a complaint against Albao
and two others for slight physical injury; 5) the labor arbiter found Gurangos statement credible
and unblemished; 6) the Labor Arbiter found Albaos statement contradictory; 7) the labor
arbiter stated, I am convinced Albao lied in his statement; 8) the NLRC found that Gurango
did not start a fight; 9) the NLRC found Albaos statement unbelievable and exaggerated; and
10) the Court of Appeals reversal of the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC is
baseless. (Alex Gurango vs. Best Chemicals and Plastics, Inc., et. al., G.R. No. 174593, Aug. 25,
2010, quoting Ama Computer College-East Rizal, G.R. No. 178520, June 23, 2009, 590 SCRA
633)