St. Lukes Medical Center EmployeesAssociationvs.

NLRC
[G.R. No. 162053. March 7, 2007]
Facts:
Maribel S. Santos was an X-Ray Technician in the Radiology department of St. Lukes.
Subsequently, Congress passed and enacted Republic Act No. 7431 known as the
Radiologic Technology Act of 1992, which required that a person must obtain the
proper certificate of registration from the Board of Radiologic Technology for the practice
or offer to practice as a radiology and/or x-ray technologist in the Philippines. In turn, the
Director of the Institute of Radiology issued a final notice to Santos requiring her to
comply by taking and passing the examination; otherwise St. Lukes may be
compelled to retire her from employment should there be no other position available
where she may be absorbed. Despite extensions of time within which she could comply,
Santos failed to comply with the requirement for her continued employment.
Issue:
Was Santos validly dismissed for failure to secure a certificate of registration from the
Board of Radiologic Technology?
Held:
While the right of workers to security of tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution, its
exercise may be reasonably regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to
safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and the general welfare of the
people. Consequently, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions
requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a
prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. The most concrete example of this
would be in the field of medicine, the practice of which in all its branches has been
closely regulated by the State. It has long been recognized that the regulation of this
field is a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public to protect
the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance among
those who would practice medicine. The same rationale applies in the regulation of the
practice of radiologic and x-ray technology.
The enactment of R.A. (Nos.) 7431 and 4226 are recognized as an exercise of the
States inherent police power. It should be noted that the police power embraces the
power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, educations, good order,
safety or general welfare of the people. The state is justified in prescribing the specific
requirements for x-ray technicians and/or any other professions connected with the
health and safety of its citizens. St. Lukes being engaged in the hospital and health
care business, is a proper subject of the cited law; thus, having in mind the legal
requirements of these laws, the latter cannot close its eyes and [let] complainantappellants private interest override public interest.

FRATERNAL ORDER OF LEVIATHAN | LEVIATHAN SORORITAS

DOLE Philippines Inc. vs. Pawis ng Makabayang Obrero, 2003

Facts: The petitioner and the respondent executed a CBA for the period starting
February 1996 to February 2001. Under the bonuses and allowances section of the said
CBA, a P10 meal allowance shall be given to employees who render at least 2 hrs of
overtime work and free meals shall be given after 3 hours of actual overtime work.
Pursuant to this provision, some departments of granted free mealsafter exactly 3 ours
of work. However, other departments grantedfree meals only after more than 3 hours of
overtime
work.
The respondent filed a complaint against Dole, saying that free meals should be granted
after exactly 3 hrs of overtime work, not after more than 3 hrs. The parties agreed to
settle the dispute to voluntary arbitration. It was decided in favor of the respondent,
directing the petitioner to grant free meals after exactly 3 hrs of overtime work. CA
affirmed.
Issues:(1) Whether or not free meals should be granted after exactly 3 hrs of work
(2) Whether or not the petitioner has the right to determine when to grant free
meals and
its
conditions
Held:
(1) YES. The same meal allowance provision is found in their previous CBAs, the 19851988 CBA and the 1990-1995 CBA. However, it was amended in the 1993-1995 CBA,
by changing the phrase after 3 hrs of overtime work to after more than 3 hrs of
overtime work. In the 1996-2001 CBA, the parties had to negotiate the deletion of the
said phrase in order to revert to the old provision. Clearly, both parties had intended
that free meals should be given after exactly 3 hrs of overtime work.
The disputed provision is clear and unambiguous, hence the literal meaning shall
prevail. No amount of legal semantics can convince the Court that after more than
means
the
same
as
after.
(2) NO. The exercise of management prerogative is not unlimited. It is subject to the
limitations provided by law. In this case, there was a CBA, and compliance therewith is
mandated by the express policy of the law.

ABELLA VS NLRC
G.R. No. 71818
FRATERNAL ORDER OF LEVIATHAN | LEVIATHAN SORORITAS

Date: July 20, 1987

Petitioners: Rosalina Perez Abella/Hda. Danao-Ramona
Respondents: The Honorable National Labor Relations Commission, Romeo Quitco
and Ricardo Dionele, Sr.,
Ponente: Paras, J.
FACTS:
On June 27, 1960 the petioner, Rosalina Perez Abella leased a farm land known
as Hacienda Danao-Ramona, for a period of ten (10) years. She opted to extend the
leased contract for another ten (10) years. During the existence of the lease, she
employed the private respondents Ricardo Dionele, Sr., and Romeo Quitco. Upon the
expiration of her leasehold rights, petitioner dismissed private respondents and turned
over the hacienda to the owners thereof on October 5, 1981, who continued the
management, cultivation and operation of the farm.
On November 20, 1981, private respondents filed a complaint against the
petitioner at the Ministry of Labor and Employment, Bacolod City District Office, for
overtime pay, illegal dismissal and reinstatement with backwages. After the parties had
presented their respective evidence, Labor Arbiter Manuel M. Lucas, Jr., in a Decision
dated July 16, 1982, ruled that the dismissal is warranted by the cessation of business,
but granted the private respondents separation pay. Petitioner appealed, the National
Labor Relations Commission, in a Resolution affirmed the decision and dismissed the
appeal for lack of merit. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was
denied. Hence, the present petition.
ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondents are entitled to separation pay?

HELD:
The petition is devoid of merit. Article 284 of the Labor Code as amended by
BP 130 is the law applicable in this case. The purpose of Article 284 as amended is
obvious-the protection of the workers whose employment is terminated because of the
closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. Without said law, employees like
private respondents in the case at bar will lose the benefits to which they are entitled
for the thirty three years of service in the case of Dionele and fourteen years in the case
of Quitco. Although they were absorbed by the new management of the hacienda, in the
absence of any showing that the latter has assumed the responsibilities of the former
employer, they will be considered as new employees and the years of service behind
them would amount to nothing.

FRATERNAL ORDER OF LEVIATHAN | LEVIATHAN SORORITAS

It is well-settled that in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of

the Labor Code and its implementing regulations, the workingman's welfare should be
the primordial and paramount consideration.
The instant petition is hereby dismissed and Decision of the Labor Arbiter and the
resolution of the ministry of labor and employment are hereby affirmed
COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, Inc. vs.
HON. BLAS F. OPLE, COLGATE PALMOLIVE SALES UNION
JUNE 30, 1988

Facts:
Respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) 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 non-union members from joining the union. The Office of the
MOLE, upon petition of petitioner, assumed jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to
Article 264 (g) of the Labor Code.

Petitioner pointed out that the allegations regarding dismissal from employment due to
union membership were false. It also averred that the suspension and eventual
dismissal of the three employees were due to infractions committed by them and that
the management reserves the right to discipline erring employees. Petitioner also
assailed the legality of the Union, among others.

The minister rendered its decision, ruling that there was no merit in the Unions
complaint. It also ruled that the three dismissed employees were not without fault but
nonetheless ordered the reinstatement of the same. At the same time, respondent
Minister directly certified the respondent Union as the collective bargaining agent for the
sales force in petitioner company and ordered the reinstatement of the three salesmen
to the company on the ground that the employees were first offenders.

Issue:

FRATERNAL ORDER OF LEVIATHAN | LEVIATHAN SORORITAS

Whether or not the minister erred in directly certifying the Union based on the latters
self-serving assertion that it enjoys the support of the majority of the sales force in
petitioners company and in ordering the reinstatement of the three dismissed
employees.

Held:
The Court held that the minister failed to determine with legal certainty whether the
Union indeed enjoyed majority representation. The Court held that by relying only on the
Notice of Strike, the minister had encouraged disrespect of the law. He had also
erroneously vested upon himself the right to choose the collective bargaining
representative which ought to have been upon the employees.
The Court held that the reinstatement of the three employees despite a clear finding of
guilt on their part is not in conformity with law. Ruling otherwise would only encourage
unequal protection of the laws with respect to the rights of the management and the
employees.
The court rendered the decision of the minister reversed and set aside, ordering
petitioners to give the three employees their separation pay.
Nicario v. NLRC
295 SCRA 619
Entry Time Cards
FACTS
Petitioner Emelita Nicario was a saleslady (later on promoted as a sales supervisor) in
Mancaos Supermarket from 1986, until she was terminated in 1989. She filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for backwages, wage differential, service
incentive leave pay, overtime pay, 13 th month pay and unpaid wages before the NLRC in
Butuan City. The Labor Arbiter dismissed her complaint for lack of merit; upon appeal,
the NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiters decision for lack of due process, because he
depended on the photocopies of the payrolls when the petitioner already assailed its
validity. The case was assigned to another Labor Arbiter, who awarded to her the claims
for unpaid service incentive leave pay, 13 th month pay, overtime pay and rest day pay
for the entire period of her employment, but dismissed her claims for holiday premium
pay and unpaid salaries from February 3-5, 1989. Petitioner then appealed again to the
NLRC, who affirmed in toto the latest decision. Upon filing of a motion for
reconsideration, the NLRC then modified the resolution by deleting the award for
overtime pay and ruling that Mancao, the owner of the supermarket and private

FRATERNAL ORDER OF LEVIATHAN | LEVIATHAN SORORITAS

respondent, is not jointly and severally liable with Mancaos Supermarket to give the
petitioner her overtime pay.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to overtime pay
HELD
Yes. In determining whether or not the petitioner was entitled to overtime pay, the NLRC
simply relied on the daily time records (DTRs) presented by the respondent
supermarket, which are unreliable evidence because: 1.) the original DTRs were not
presented, when the supermarket should have shown it to the NLRC to disprove the
petitioners allegation that the documents and her signatures were forged; 2.) the DTRs
make it appear that the petitioner had a two-hour rest period, which was highly unlikely
in an establishment which required their employees to always attend to the needs of
their customers at all times; and 3.) the entries showed that the petitioner consistently
reported at 9:00 am sharp and always left at 8:00 pm sharp. Furthermore, the NLRC
also took judicial notice of the fact that Mancaos Supermarkets are always open for
twelve hours, from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm, which led them to believe that the employees,
indeed, rendered overtime work for four hours. Such judicial notice was not refuted by
the private respondent and the respondent supermarket. With regards to the uniform
entries in the DTRs, the Court has ruled that such unvarying recording of a daily time
record is improbably and contrary to human experience. It is impossible for an
employee to arrive at the workplace and leave at exactly the same time, day in and day
out. The uniformity and regularity of the entries are badges of untruthfulness and as
such indices of dubiety. The instant petition was partially granted, and Nicario was
awarded her overtime pay.
JOSE SONZA vs. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATIONG.R. No. 138051 June
10, 2004
FACTS:In May 1994, ABS-CBN signed an agreement with the Mel and Jay
Management and Development Corporation (MJMDC). ABS-CBN was represented by
its corporate officers while MJMDC was represented by Sonza, as President and general
manager, and Tiangco as its EVP and treasurer. Referred to in the agreement as agent,
MJMDC agreed to provide Sonzas services exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio
and television. ABS-CBN agreed to pay Sonza a monthly talent fee of P310, 000 for the
first year andP317, 000 for the second and third year. On April 1996, Sonza wrote
a letter to ABS-CBN's President, Eugenio Lopez III, where he irrevocably resigned in
view of the recent events concerning his program and career. The acts of the station are
violative of the Agreement and said letter will serve as notice of rescission of said
contract. The letteral so contained the waiver and renunciation for recovery of the
remaining amount stipulated but reserves the right to seek recovery of the other benefits
under said Agreement. After the said letter, Sonza filed with the Department of Labor
and Employment a complaint alleging that ABS-CBN did not pay his salaries, separation
pay, service incentive pay,13th month pay, signing bonus, travel allowance and amounts

FRATERNAL ORDER OF LEVIATHAN | LEVIATHAN SORORITAS

under the Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP). ABS-CBN contended that
no employee-employer relationship existed between the parties. However, ABS-CBN
continued to remit Sonzas monthly talent fees but opened another account for the
same purpose. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and found that there is no
employee-employer relationship. The LA ruled that he is not an employee by reason of
his peculiar skill and talent as a TV host and a radio broadcaster. Unlike an ordinary
employee, he was free to perform his services in accordance with his own style. NLRC
and CA affirmed the LA. Should there beany complaint, it does not arise from an
employer-employee relationship but from a breach of contract.
Ruling: Case law has consistently held that the elements of an employee-employer
relationship are selection and engagement of the employee, the payment of wages, the
power of dismissal and the employers power to control the employee on the means and
methods by which the work is accomplished. The last element, the so-called "control
test", is the most important element.
National Service Corp v NLRC
National Service Corp. v. NLRC, 168 SCRA 125 (1988) -- The civil service does
not include Government owned or controlled corporations (GOCC) which are organized
as subsidiaries of GOCC under the general corporation law. F: Eugenio Credo was
an employee of the National Service Corporation. She claims she was illegally
dismissed. NLRC ruled ordering her reinstatement. NASECO argues that NLRC has no
jurisdiction to order her reinstatement. NASECO as a government corporation by virtue
of its being a subsidiary of the NIDC, which is wholly owned by the Phil. National Bank
which is in turn a GOCC, the terms and conditions of employment of its employees are
governed by the Civil Service Law citing National Housing v Juco.
ISSUE: W/N employees of NASECO, a GOCC without original charter, are governed
by the Civil Service Law.
HELD: NO. The holding in NHC v Juco should not be given retroactive effect, that is to
cases that arose before its promulgation of Jan 17, 1985. To do otherwise would
be oppressive to Credo and other employees similarly situated because under the 1973
Constitution but prior to the ruling in NHC v Juco, this court recognized the applicability
of the Labor jurisdiction over disputes involving terms and conditions of employment in
GOCC's, among them NASECO. In the matter of coverage by the civil service of
GOCC, the 1987 Constitution starkly differs from the 1973 constitution where NHC v
Juco was based. It provides that the "civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government owned or
controlled corporation with original charter." Therefore by clear implication, the civil
service does not include GOCC which are organized as subsidiaries of GOCC under
the general corporation law.

FRATERNAL ORDER OF LEVIATHAN | LEVIATHAN SORORITAS

Juco v. NLRC
Facts: Benjamin C. Juco was hired as a project engineer of National Housing
Corporation(NHC) from November 16, 1970 to May 14, 1975. On May 14,
1975, he was separated from the service for having been implicated in a
crime of theft and/or malversation of public funds. On March 25, 1977, Juco
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the NHC with the Department of
Labor. On September 17, 1977, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the
complaint
on
the
ground
that
the
NLRC
had
no
jurisdiction
overt h e c a s e . J u c o t h e n e l e v a t e d t h e c a s e t o t h e N L R C w h i c h r
e n d e r e d a d e c i s i o n o n December 28, 1982, reversing the decision of the Labor
Arbiter. NHC then appealed the NLRC decision before the Supreme Court and on
January 17, 1985 which petition the Court granted thereby setting aside the NLRC
decision and reinstating the labor arbiters decision of dismissing the case. On January
6, 1989, Juco filed with the Civil Service Commission a complaint for illegal
dismissal, with preliminary mandatory injunction. On February 6, 1989,
NHCm o v e d f o r t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c o m p l a i n t o n t h e g r o u
n d t h a t t h e C i v i l S e r v i c e Commission has no jurisdiction over the case.
CSC granted the motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction.O n A p r i l 2 8 , 1 9 8 9 , J u c o f i l e d w i t h N L R C a c o m p l a i n t f
o r i l l e g a l d i s m i s s a l w i t h preliminary mandatory injunction against NHC. NLRC
find NHC guilty of illegal dismissal. On June 1, 1990, NHC filed its appeal before the
NLRC and on March 14, 1991, the NLRC promulgated a decision which reversed the
decision of Labor Arbiter Manuel R. Caday on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in
holding that petitioner is not governed by the Labor Code
H e l d : Yes . U n d e r t h e l a w s t h e n i n f o r c e , e m p l o ye e s o f g o v e r n m e n t o w n e d a n d / o r controlled corporations were governed by the Civil Service
Law and not by the Labor Code. Although in National Housing Corporation
v Juco, it was held that employees of government-owned and/or controlled
corporations, whether created by special law or formed as subsidiaries under
the general Corporation Law, are governed by the Civil Service Law and not
by the Labor Code, this ruling has been supplanted by the
1987C o n s t i t u t i o n w h i c h s t a t e s t h a t t h e c i v i l s e r v i c e e m b r a c e s a l l b r a n
ches, subdivisions,instrumentalities, and agencies of the Governmen
t , i n c l u d i n g g o v e r n m e n t o w n e d o r controlled corporations with
original charter.
In
National Service Corporation (NASECO) v National Labor Relations Commission, it was
held that the NLRC has jurisdiction over the e m p l o ye e s o f N A S E C O o n t h e

FRATERNAL ORDER OF LEVIATHAN | LEVIATHAN SORORITAS

g r o u n d t h a t i t i s t h e 1 9 8 7 C o n s t i t u t i o n t h a t g o v e r n s because it is the
Constitution in place at the time of the decision. It was further held that the new
phrase "with original charter" means that government-owned and
controlledc o r p o r a t i o n s r e f e r t o c o r p o r a t i o n s c h a r t e r e d b y s p e c i a
l l a w a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m corporations organized under the Corp
oration Code. Thus, NASECO which had beenorganized under the ge
n e r a l i n c o r p o r a t i o n s t a t u t e a n d a s u b s i d i a r y o f t h e N a t i o n a l Investment
Development Corporation, which in turn was a subsidiary of the Philippine
National Bank, is excluded from the purview of the Civil Service Commission. The
above doctrine applies in this case. In the case at bench, the National Housing
Corporation is a government owned corporation organized in 1959 in
accordance with Executive OrderNo. 399, otherwise known as the Uniform
Charter of Government Corporation, dated January 1, 1959. Its shares of
stock are and have been one hundred percent (100%) owned by the Government
from its incorporation under Act 1459, the former corporation law. The government
entities that own its shares of stock are the Government Service
Insurance System, the Social Security System, the Development Bank of the
Philippines, the National Investment and Development Corporation and the
People's Homesite and Housing Corporation. Considering the fact that the NHA had
been incorporated under Act1459, the former corporation law, it is but correct to say that
it is a government-owned or controlled corporation whose employees are subject
to the provisions of the Labor Code. This observation is reiterated in the recent
case of
Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) v National Housing
Corporation, w h e r e t h e S C h e l d t h a t t h e N H A i s n o w w i t h i n t
h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e Department of Labor and Employment, it being
a government-owned and/or controlled corporation without an original charter.
Furthermore, the Court previously ruled that the workers or employees of the NHC (now
NHA)
undoubtedly
have
the
right
to
form
unions
or employee's organization and that there is no impediment to
t h e h o l d i n g o f a certification election among them as they are covered by the
Labor Code.
Austria v NLRC
Facts:
Private respondent Central Philippine Union Mission Corporation of the Seventh Day
Adventists (SDA) is a religious corporation under Philippine law and is represented by
the other private respondents. Petitioner was a pastor of SDA until 1991, when his
services were terminated.

FRATERNAL ORDER OF LEVIATHAN | LEVIATHAN SORORITAS

Austria worked with SDA for 28 years. He started as a literature evangelist in 1963 then
got promoted several times. He became the Assistant Publishing Director in the West
Visayan Mission of the SDA in 1968 and Pastor in the West Visayan Mission in 1972.
Finally in 1989, he was promoted as District Pastor of the Negros Mission of the SDA.
On various occasions from August to October 1991, Austria received several
communications from Mr. Ibesate, treasurer of the Negros Mission, asking the former to
admit accountability and responsibility for the church tithes and offerings collected by
his wife, Thelma Austria, in his district and to remit the same to the Negros Mission.
In his answer, petitioner said that he should not be made accountable since it was
private respondent Pastor Buhat and Mr. Ibesate who authorized his wife to collect the
tithes and offerings since he was very sick to do the collecting at that time.
Thereafter, petitioner went to the office of Pastor Buhat, president of the Negros
Mission, and asked for a convention to settle the dispute between petitioner and Pastor
Rodrigo. Pastor Buhat denied the request of petitioner because there was no quorum.
The two exchanged heated arguments until petitioner left the office. However, while on
his way out, he heard Pastor Buhat saying, "Pastor daw inisog na ina iya (Pador you are
talking tough) which prompted him to go back and overturn Pastor Buhats table,
scatter books in the office, bang Buhats attach case and throw the phone.
Petitioner received a letter inviting him and his wife to attend the meeting to discuss the
non-remittance of church collection and the events that transpired between him and
Pastor Buhat. A fact-finding committee was created to investigate petitioner.
Subsequently, petitioner received a letter of dismissal citing misappropriation of
denominational funds, willful breach of trust, serious misconduct, gross and habitual
neglect of duties, and commission of an offense against the person of employer's duly
authorized representative, as grounds for the termination of his services.
(Nakakainis tong part na to dahil appeal nang appeal! Hahaha)
1) Petitioner filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal. = decision
rendered in favor of petitioner
2) SDA appealed to NLRC = decision rendered in favor of respondent
3) Petitioner filed motion for reconsideration = reinstated decision of Labor Arbiter
4) SDA filed motion for reconsideration = decision rendered in favor of respondent
(grabe ang kulit!)

FRATERNAL ORDER OF LEVIATHAN | LEVIATHAN SORORITAS

Hence, this recourse to the court by the petitioner.

Issues:
1) WON the Labor Arbiter/NLRC has jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint filed by
petitioner against the SDA;
2) WON the termination of the services of petitioner is an ecclesiastical affair, and, as
such, involves the separation of church and state;
Held:
1) YES.
2) NO.
Ratio Decidendi:
The principle of separation of church and state finds no application in this case. The
rationale of the principle of the separation of church and state is summed up in the
familiar saying, "Strong fences make good-neighbors." The idea advocated by this
principle is to delineate the boundaries between the two institutions and thus
avoid encroachments by one against the other because of a misunderstanding of
the limits of their respective exclusive jurisdictions.
The case at bar does not concern an ecclesiastical or purely religious affair as to bar the
State from taking cognizance of the same. An ecclesiastical affair is "one that concerns
doctrine, creed, or form of worship of the church, or the adoption and enforcement
within a religious association of needful laws and regulations for the government of the
membership, and the power of excluding from such associations those deemed
unworthy of membership. Examples of this so-called ecclesiastical affaits are
proceedings for excommunication, ordinations of religious ministers, administration of
sacraments and other activities with attached religious significance. The case at bar
does not even remotely concern any of the given examples. What is involved here is the
relationship of the church as an employer and the minister as an employee. It is purely
secular and has no relation whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or doctrines of
the church. The matter of terminating an employee, which is purely secular in nature, is
different from the ecclesiastical act of expelling a member from the religious
congregation.

FRATERNAL ORDER OF LEVIATHAN | LEVIATHAN SORORITAS

FRATERNAL ORDER OF LEVIATHAN | LEVIATHAN SORORITAS