FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK vs. ARLENE ESPIRITU.

G.R. No. 204944 December 03, 2014

FACTS:
Arlene Espiritu had to report for work in Fujis office in Manila from Mondays to Fridays,
eight hours per day. Likewise, Espiritu, having no equipment, had to use the facilities of Fuji to
accomplish her tasks. Espiritu suffered a disease. Espiritu said she was forced to sign preprepared documents by Fuji TVs lawyers.
Espiritu initially refused to sign the documents. However, Espiritu did not receive her salary
starting March that year. Eventually, Espiritu signed the documents, which included a resignation
letter, release and quit claim of salary and benefits, and non-renewal of contract.
She, however, signed the documents ''under protest'' and filed a case against Fuji.

ISSUE:
Is the dismissal of Espiritu valid?
LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:
Article 280 of the Labor Code: Regular and casual employment
CASE HISTORY:
The labor arbiter dismissed Espiritu's case, but reversed the same upon appeal.
CA, affirmed the labor arbiter's decision
RULING:
No
The SC said that the appellate court was correct in its finding that Espiritu was a regular Fuji TV
employee with the right of security of tenure. The Court agreed with the CA which held that
Espiritu was entitled to security of tenure and could be dismissed only for just or authorized
causes and after the observance of due process,'' the SC said. ''The expiration of her contract does
not negate the finding of illegal dismissal by Fuji."
The CA based this decision on the successive renewals of Espiritus contract which indicated
the necessity and desirability of her work in the usual course of Fujis business.
The SC said Espiritu had been illegally dismissed since Fuji failed to comply with the
requirements of substantive and procedural due process necessary for her dismissal since she was
a regular employee.
The SC said for a disease to become a valid ground for termination, ''the employees disease
cannot be cured within six months and his 'continued employment is prohibited by law or
prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees.

OPINION:
I agree that Arlene Espiritu was illegally dismissed because there was no evidence showing
she was given due process considering she was not given the chance to present medical
certificates. Lastly, Fuji failed to comply with the requirements of substantive and procedural
due process necessary for her dismissal since she was a regular employee.

GMA NETWORK INC vs. PABRIGA

G.R. No. 176419 November 27, 2013

FACTS:
Carlos Pabriga, Geoffrey Arias, Kirby Campo, Arnold Lagahit, and Armando Catubig
worked as television technicians for GMA7 in the late 1990s. Their work included manning of
technical operations center and acting as transmitter/VTR men, maintenance staff, and
cameramen. They were repeatedly rehired in several fixed term contracts from 1996 to 1999.
Pabriga and his co-workers originally filed in July 1999 a complaint for non-payment of
benefits with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Later on, they amended their
complaint by raising the issues of unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, damages, and attorneys
fees.
Pabriga and his co-workers claimed that they were GMA7's regular employees. On the other
hand, GMA7 claimed that they were merely hired as pinch-hitters on fixed term contracts.

ISSUE:
Is the dismissal of Pabriga valid?

LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:

Laws concerning Regular and Project Employees
CASE HISTORY:
NLRC reverses Labor Arbiters decision
Court of Appeals affirms NLRC ruling
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the NLRC and the CA that Pabriga and his coworkers were GMA7s regular employees and that they were illegally dismissed.
The Court ruled that Pabriga and his co-workers were not project employees because the
manning of the operations center to air commercials, acting as transmitter/VTR men, maintaining
the equipment, and acting as cameramen were not undertakings separate or distinct from the
business of a broadcasting company. Even if Pabriga and his co-workers are to be considered as
project employees, they attained regular employment status because GMA7 continuously rehired
them. GMA7 did not report the completion of its projects and the dismissal of Pabriga and his
co-workers in its finished projects to the nearest Public Employment Office as required by Policy
Instruction No. 20 of the Department of Labor and Employment. Based on jurisprudence, the
failure of an employer to report to the nearest Public Employment Office the termination of its
workers services every time a project or a phase is completed indicates that the workers are not
project employees. GMA7s practice of hiring and rehiring of workers on fixed terms, without
end, is unjustifiable.
OPINION:
I agree to the Supreme Court ruling that Pabriga and his co-workers were regular employees
with respect to the particular activity to which they were assigned.

BRENT vs. ZAMORA

260 Phil 747 1990

FACTS:
An employment contract in virtue of which Doroteo R. Alegre was engaged as athletic
director by Brent School, Inc. at a yr.ly compensation of P20,000.00. The contract fixed a
specific term for its existence, 5 yrs. Subsequent subsidiary agreements reiterated the same terms
and conditions, including the expiry date, as those contained in the original contract. Some 3
months before the expiration of the stipulated period Alegre was given a copy of the report filed
by Brent School with the Department of Labor advising of the termination of his services.
The stated ground for the termination was "completion of contract, expiration of the definite
period of employment. And a month or so later, Alegre accepted the amount of P3,177.71, and
signed a receipt therefor containing the phrase, "in full payment of services for the contract."
However, at the investigation conducted by a Labor Conciliator of said report of termination of
his services, Alegre protested the announced termination of his employment. He argued that
although his contract did stipulate that the same would terminate, since" his services were
necessary & desirable in the usual business of his employer", and his ET had lasted for 5 yrs., he
had acquired the status of a regular and could not be removed except for valid cause.
The Regional Director considered Brent School's report as an "application" for clearance to
terminate employment (not a report of termination), and accepting the recommendation of the
Labor Conciliator, refused to give such clearance and instead required the reinstatement of
Alegre, as a "permanent employee," to his former position without loss of seniority rights & with
full back wages. The Director pronounced "the ground relied upon by the Brent in terminating
the services of the complainant, Alegre as not sanctioned by P.D. 442, and, quite oddly, as
prohibited by Circular No. 8, series of 1969, of the Bureau of Private Schools. Brent School filed
a MR.

ISSUE:
Is the Dismissal of Alegre valid?

LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:

RA 1787
Laws dealing with Probationary and fixed period employment
Laws dealing with "Regular" and "Casual" employment. Article 280 Labor Code

CASE HISTORY:
The Regional Director denied the motion & forwarded the case to the Secretary of Labor for
review.
Secretary of Labor for review sustained the Regional Director decision
Brent appealed to the Office of the President but that office dismissed its appeal for lack of merit
and affirmed the Labor Secretary's decision

RULING:
No
Alegre was a permanent employee who could not be dismissed except for just cause and
expiration of the employment contract and was not one of the just causes provided in the Labor
Code for termination of services
OPINION:
I agree with the ruling that a permanent employee ca not be dismissed without just and

authorized cause
CONRADO A LIM v HMR PHILIPPINES INC
G.R. No. 201483 August 4, 2014

FACTS:
Petitioner Lim filed a case for illegal dismissal and money claims against Respondent HMR
and its officers. The labor Artbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The
NLRC
reversed the Labor Artbiters decision and declared Lim his full back wages reckoned from the
time of his dismissal up to this promulgation of the decision.
Lim and HMR Phil appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
NLRC Decision with modification. Consequently, HMR Phil Inc. appealed to the Supreme Court
and was denied.
Now, Lim moved for execution. The computation and research unit of the NLRC computed
the backwages from the date of dismissal up to the date of actual reinstatement. HMR opposed
the computation arguing that the backwages should be computed until the date of promulgation
of the NLRC decision as stated in the disposition of the decision which provided that backwages
shall be reckoned from his dismissal up to the promulgation of this decision. Lim argued that the
body of the NLRC decision explicitly stated that he was entitled to full backwages from the time
he was illegaly dismissed until his actual reinstatement, which was also accord in the Article 279
of the Labor code and all prevailing jurisprudence.
The labor artbiter issued the order granting the motion for the execution filed by Lim
holding that the backwages should be reckoned from the time he was illegally dismissed until his
actual reinstatement. The NLRC sustained the computation of the Labor arbiter.
ISSUE:
Is backwages should be computed from the time the employee was illegally dismissed until
his actual reinstatement?

LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:

Labor laws concerning Security of Tenure
CASE HISTORY:
Labor Artbiter dismissed the complaint
NLRC reversed the LA decision
NLRC sustained the computation of the Labor Arbiter
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled that under Article279 of the labor code, it is clear that an illegally
dismissed employee is entitled to full backwages computed from the time his compensation was
withheld up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
OPINION:
I agree with the decision because it was already expressly provided by the law.

SESSIONS DELIGHTS v CA
G.R. No. 172149 February 08, 2010
FACTS:
A complaint for illegal dismissal was filed against petitioner Session Delights Ice Cream &
Fast Foods by private respondent Adonis Armenio M. Flora, docketed as NLRC Case No. RABCAR 09-0507-00. The labor arbiter decided against petitioner, finding that it had
illegally dismissed the private respondent. Based on such finding, it awarded private respondent
backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, indemnity, and attorneys fees.
The CA affirmed with modification the NLRC decision by deleting the awards for a
proportionate 13th month pay and for indemnity. The CA decision became final per Entry of
Judgment dated July 29, 2003.
In January 2004, and in the course of the execution of the above final judgment, a preexecution conference was held, with the contending parties in attendance. In said conference an
updated computation of the monetary awards in the total amount of P235,986.00, which included
additional backwages and separation pay and a proportionate amount of the 13th month pay due
to private respondent Flora, was made and was approved by the Labor Arbiter about three (3)
months after.
The petitioner objected to the re-computation and appealed the labor arbiters order to the
NLRC but the same was denied. The CA, however, partially granted the petition by deleting the
awarded proportionate 13th month pay.
ISSUE:
Is the updated computation proper?
LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:
Article 279 of the Labor Code
CASE HISTORY:
Labor Arbiter granted the complaint for illegal dismissal
Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the NLRC decision
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled that the updated computation was proper. The issue in the case at
bar is not the correctness of the awards, the finality of the CAs judgment, nor the petitioners
failure to appeal. Rather, it is the propriety of the computation of the awards made, whether this
violated the principle of immutability of final judgments.
In concrete terms, the question is whether a re-computation in the course of execution, of the
labor arbiters original computation of the awards made pegged as of the time the decision was
rendered and confirmed with modification by a final CA decision, is legally proper.
The Court held that under the terms of the decision under execution, no essential change is
made by a re-computation as this step is a necessary consequence that flows from the nature of
the illegality of dismissal declared in that decision. A re-computation (or an
original computation, if no previous computation has been made) is a part of the law,
specifically, Article 279 of the Labor Code and the established jurisprudence on this provision,
that is read into the decision. By the nature of an illegal dismissal case, the reliefs continue to add
on until full satisfaction, as expressed under Article 279 of the Labor Code. The recomputation of the consequences of illegal dismissal upon execution of the decision does not
constitute an alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented. The illegal
dismissal ruling stands; only the computation of the monetary consequences of this dismissal is
affected and this is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments.
OPINION:
I agree with the argument of the Supreme Court since the basis of the decision was based in

the express provision of the law

NACAR v GALLERY FRAMES
G.R. No. 189871 August 13, 2013
FACTS:
Dario Nacar filed a labor case against Gallery Frames and its owner Felipe Bordey, Jr. Nacar alleged that
he was dismissed without cause by Gallery Frames on January 24, 1997. On October 15, 1998, the Labor
Arbiter found Gallery Frames guilty of illegal dismissal hence the Arbiter awarded Nacar P158,919.92 in
damages consisting of backwages and separation pay.

Gallery Frames appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the Labor Arbiter and the decision became final on May 27, 2002.
After the finality of the Supreme Court decision, Nacar filed a motion before the Labor
Arbiter for recomputation as he alleged that his backwages should be computed from the time of
his illegal dismissal (January 24, 1997) until the finality of the SC decision (May 27, 2002) with
interest. The Labor Arbiter denied the motion as he ruled that the reckoning point of the
computation should only be from the time Nacar was illegally dismissed (January 24, 1997) until
the decision of the Labor Arbiter (October 15, 1998). The Labor Arbiter reasoned that the said
date should be the reckoning point because Nacar did not appeal hence as to him, that decision
became final and executory.
ISSUE:
Is the Labor arbiter correct?
LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:
Article 279 of the Labor Code which concerns the principle in computing backwages.
CASE HISTORY:
Labor Arbiter concurs with complaint filed
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in negative.
There are two parts of a decision when it comes to illegal dismissal cases (referring to cases
where the dismissed employee wins, or loses but wins on appeal). The first part is the ruling that
the employee was illegally dismissed. This is immediately final even if the employer appeals
but will be reversed if employer wins on appeal. The second part is the ruling on the award of
backwages and/or separation pay. For backwages, it will be computed from the date of illegal
dismissal until the date of the decision of the Labor Arbiter. But if the employer appeals, then the
end date shall be extended until the day when the appellate courts decision shall become final.
Hence, as a consequence, the liability of the employer, if he loses on appeal, will increase
this is just but a risk that the employer cannot avoid when it continued to seek recourses against
the Labor Arbiters decision. This is also in accordance with Article 279 of the Labor Code.
Anent the issue of award interest in the form of actual or compensatory damages, the
Supreme Court ruled that the old case of Eastern Shipping Lines vs CA is already modified by
the promulgation of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board Resolution No. 796 which
lowered the legal rate of interest from 12% to 6%.
OPINION:
I agree with the decision in this case because it was already decided in some other similar
cases the proper way of computing backwages and others.

EQUITABLE BANKING CORP vs. SADAC

2006
FACTS:
Respondent Sadac was appointed as the General Counsel of Equitable Bank. Later on,
lawyers of the bank accused Sadac of abusive conduct which resulted to the termination of his
services. Sadac then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages. The dismissal was
finally declared as illegal. Sadac filed with the Labor Arbiter a motion for execution of the
decision and argued that in the computation of backwages, salary increases should be deemed
included.
ISSUE:
Should periodic general increases in basic salary be included in computing full backwages
for illegally dismissed employees?
Is Sadacs dismissal legal? -No
LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:
Article 279 of the Labor Code
CASE HISTORY:
Labor Artbiter dismissed the complaint
NLRC reversed the LA decision and declared respondent Sadacs dismissal as illegal
RULING:
Supreme court ruled in negative.
Backwages are granted on grounds of equity for earnings which a worker or employee has
lost due to his illegal dismissal; it is not private compensation or damages but is awarded in
furtherance and effectuation of the public objective of the Code. Backwages to be awarded to an
illegally dismissed employee should not as a general rule be diminished or reduced by the
earnings derived by him elsewhere during the period of his illegal dismissal. Article 279 of the
Labor Code mandates that an employees full backwages shall be inclusive of allowance and
other benefits or their monetary equivalent. The salary increase cannot be interpreted as either as
an allowance or a benefit. Salary increases are not akin to allowances or benefits and cannot be
confused with either. Allowances and benefits are granted to the employee apart or separate from
the wage or salary. In contrast, salary increases are amounts which are added to the employees
salary as an increment thereto for varied reasons deemed appropriate by the employer. An
unqualified award of backwages means that the employee is paid at the wage rate at the time of
his dismissal. And the court has declared that the base figure to be used in the computation of
backwages due to the employee should include not just the basic salary, but also the regular
allowances that he had been receiving, such as the emergency living allowances and the 13th
month pay mandated under the law The term backwages without qualification and deduction
means that the workers are to be paid their backwages fixed as of the time of the dismissal or
strike without deduction for their earnings elsewhere during their layoff and without qualification
of their wages as thus fixed; unqualified by any wage increases or other benefits that may have
been received by their co-workers who are not dismissed or did not go on strike. Awards
including salary differentials are not allowed. The salary base properly used should, however,
includednot only the basic salary but also the emergency cost of living allowance and also
transportation allowances if the workers are entitled thereto.
OPINION:
I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court because backwages should be awarded to an
illegally dismissed employee and should not be diminished or reduced by the earnings derived by
him elsewhere during the period of his illegal dismissal.

CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYES ASSOC v HON. BLAS F. OPLE

G.R. No. L-44717 August 28, 1985

FACTS:
The Chartered Bank Employees Association, in representation of its monthly paid
employees/members, instituted a complaint with the Regional Office No. IV, Department of
Labor, now Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) against private respondent Chartered
Bank, for the payment of ten (10) unworked legal holidays, as well as for premium and overtime
differentials for worked legal holidays from November 1, 1974.
On the bases of the facts represented, both the arbitrator and the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of the petitioners ordering the respondent bank to pay its
monthly paid employees, holiday pay for the ten (10) legal holidays effective November 1, 1974
and to pay premium or overtime pay differentials to all employees who rendered work during
said legal holidays. On appeal, the Minister of Labor set aside the decision of the NLRC and
dismissed the petitioner's claim for lack of merit basing its decision on Section 2, Rule IV, Book
Ill of the Integrated Rules and Policy Instruction No. 9.

ISSUE:
Is respondent Secretary of Labor acted contrary to law and abused his discretion in denying
the claim of petitioners for unworked holidays and premium and overtime pay differentials for
worked holidays in not giving due credence to the respondent bank's practice of paying its
employees base pay of 100% and premium pay of 50% for work done during legal holidays,.

LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:

Ruling in Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees' Union (IBAAEU) v. Inciong
Presidential Decree No. 850: Who are excluded from the holiday provisions of that law
ART. 4. Construction in favor of labor: Labor Code
CASE HISTORY:
Labor Arbitrator and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of the
petitioners
Minister of Labor set aside the decision of the NLRC and dismissed the petitioner's claim
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employees
It is not the intent of this Court to impose any undue burdens on an employer which is
already doing its best for its personnel. However, we have to resolve the labor dispute in the light
of the parties' own collective bargaining agreement and the benefits given by law to all workers.
When the law provides benefits for "employees in all establishments and undertakings, whether
for profit or not" and lists specifically the employees not entitled to those benefits, the
administrative agency implementing that law cannot exclude certain employees from its
coverage simply because they are paid by the month or because they are already highly paid. The
remedy lies in a clear redrafting of the collective bargaining agreement with a statement that
monthly pay already includes holiday pay or an amendment of the law to that effect but not an
administrative rule or a policy instruction.
OPINION:
The court is correct in ruling this case because employees benefits and others should not be
diminished or be taken back without fair and reasonable or legal basis

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v COURT OF APPELAS

G.R. No. 97412 July 12, 1994
FACTS:
Two fiber drums were shipped owned by Eastern Shipping from Japan. The shipment as
insured with a marine policy. Upon arrival in Manila unto the custody of metro Port Service,
which excepted to one drum, said to be in bad order and which damage was unknown the
Mercantile Insurance Company. Allied Brokerage Corporation received the shipment from
Metro, one drum opened and without seal. Allied delivered the shipment to the consignees
warehouse. The latter excepted to one drum which contained spillages while the rest of the
contents was adulterated/fake. As consequence of the loss, the insurance company paid the
consignee, so that it became subrogated to all the rights of action of consignee against the
defendants Eastern Shipping, Metro Port and Allied Brokerage. The insurance company filed
before the trial court. The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff and ordered defendants to pay the
former with present legal interest of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint.
On appeal by defendants, the appellate court denied the same and affirmed in toto the decision of
the trial court.
ISSUE:
Should the payment of legal interest on the award for loss or damage be computed from the
time the complaint is filed from the date the decision appealed from is rendered?
LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:
Section 1 of Act 2655, as amended
Article 2209 and Article 1169 of the New Civil Code
CASE HISTORY:
Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in this case
Appellate court affirmed Trial courts decision
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in negative.
The payment of legal interest should be computed from the date the judgment is made.
Where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from
the time the claim is made judicially or Extra judicially but when such certainty cannot be so
reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from
the date of judgment of the court is made.
OPINION:
I agree with this ruling because the law already expressly and also some of pertinent rulings
which provides on how to compute legal interest and to resolves issues in relation with this.

AUGUSTO EVANGELISTA, petitioner, vs. NLRC , respondents.

G.R. No. 93915 October 11, 1995

FACTS:
Eighteen years ago, 1977, private respondent Arturo Mendoza filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against petitioner Augusto Evangelista. Eventually, the case reached this Court through
a petition forcertiorari . Thereafter, private respondent filed a motion seeking clarification with
respect to the salary scale which should be applied in computing the three years backwages
awarded in his favor and cited the decision in the case of De Jesus vs. Philippine National
Construction Corporation, wherein the award of backwages was based on the latest pay scale of
the employee's position.
Thereafter, the Court, through the First Division, issued a resolution granting private
respondent's motion for clarification and modified the decretal portion of the decision. As a result
of the modification, petitioner, in turn, filed the instant motion for reconsideration seeking the
reversal of the Resolution. Petitioner alleged that he was not furnished a copy of the motion for
clarification and neither was there a resolution issued by the Court requiring him to comment
thereto, thereby depriving him of his right to due process. Moreover, he disputes the computation
of the award of backwages based on the current wage levels and maintains that the same should
instead be computed based on the rate of the wage level in 1977 when private respondent was
illegally dismissed, in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence.
ISSUE:
Is the Petitioners motion meritorious with respect to the determination of the salary base for
the computation of backwages?
LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:
Ruling in Paramount Vinyl Products Corp. vs. NLRC
Article 279 of the Labor Code
CASE HISTORY:
The Court, through the First Division, issued a resolution granting private respondent's
motion for clarification.
RULING:
Supreme Court find merit in the petitioners motion.
As explicitly declared in Paramount Vinyl Products Corp. vs. NLRC, the determination of
the salary base for the computation of backwages requires simply an application of judicial
precedents defining the term "backwages". An unqualified award of backwages means that the
employee is paid at the wage rate at the time of his dismissal. Furthermore, the award of salary
differentials is not allowed, the established rule being that upon reinstatement, illegally dismissed
employees are to be paid their backwages without deduction and qualification as to any wage
increases or other benefits that may have been received by their co-workers who were not
dismissed or did not go on strike.
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is hereby granted and the assailed Resolution dated
July 24, 1991, is hereby ordered set aside. The award of backwages in private respondent's favor
is instead to be computed at the rate of the wage levels prevailing at the time of his illegal
dismissal in 1977
OPINION:
The argument of the petitioner was meritorious.