UERM Memorial Medical Center vs NLRC (1997) G.R.

1104419
Facts:
Consequently, a complaint was filed by the private respondents, represented by the
Federation of Free Workers (FFW), claiming salary differentials under Republic Act
Nos. 6640 and 6727, correction of the wage distortion and the payment of salaries for
Saturdays and Sundays under Policy Instruction No. 54.Labor Arbiter Nieves de Castro
sustained the private respondents except for their claim of wage distortion. Within the
reglementary period for appeal, the petitioners filed their Notice and Memorandum of
Appeal with a Real
Estate Bond consisting of land and various improvements therein worth
P102,345,650.The private respondents moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground
that Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, requires the posting of a cash or
surety bond. The NLRC directed petitioners to post a cash or surety bond of
P17,082,448.56 with a warning that failure to do so would cause the dismissal of the
appeal. The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging it is not in a viable
financial condition to post a cash bond nor to pay the annual premium of P700,000.00
for a surety bond. On 6 October 1992, the NLRC dismissed petitioners' appeal.
Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was also denied by the NLRC in a resolution
dated 7 June 1993.
Issue:
WON in perfecting an appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a
property bond is excluded by the two forms of appeal bond cash or surety as
enumerated in Article 223 of the Labor Code.

Held:
Yes. The applicable law is Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act
No. 6715, which provides:
"In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may
be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable
bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the
monetary award in the judgment appealed from."We have given a liberal
interpretation to this provision. In YBL (Your Bus Line) v. NLRC we ruled:"x x x that
while Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715, requiring
a cash or surety bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the
judgment appealed from for the appeal to be perfected, may be considered a
jurisdictional requirement, nevertheless, adhering to the principle that substantial
justice is better served by allowing the appeal on the merits threshed out by the
NLRC, the Court finds and so holds that the foregoing requirement of the law should

be given a liberal interpretation."Then too, in Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative,

Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission we held:"The intention of the lawmakers
to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the
employer is underscored by the provision that an appeal by the
employer may be perfected "only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond." The
word "only" makes it perfectly clear, that the lawmakers intended the posting of a
cash or surety bond by the employer to be the exclusive means by which an
employer's appeal may be perfected. The requirement is intended to discourage
employers from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy
their employees' just and lawful claims.
Considering, however, that the current policy is not to strictly follow technical rules
but rather to take into account the spirit and intention of the Labor Code, it would be
prudent for us to look into the merits of the case, especially since petitioner disputes
the allegation that private respondent was illegally dismissed."We reiterate this policy
which stresses the importance of deciding cases on the basis of their substantive
merit and not on strict technical rules. In the case at bar, the judgment involved is
more than P17 million and its precipitate execution can adversely affect the existence
of petitioner medical center. Likewise, the issues involved are not insignificant and
they deserve a full discourse by our quasi- judicial and judicial authorities. We are
also confident that the real property bond posted by the petitioners sufficiently
protects the interests of private respondents should they finally prevail. It is not
disputed that the real property offered by petitioners is worth P102,345,650. The
judgment in favor of private respondent is only a little more than P17million.

AMA Computer College v. Rolando Austria

GR No. 164078
23 November 2007
Nachura, J.

Facts:
Rolando Austria was hired by AMA on probationary employment as a college dean, and was
confirmed as such by AMAs Officer-in-Charge of Academic Affairs.
On the same month that he was confirmed, Austria was charged with violating AMAs Employees
Conduct and Discipline provided in its orientation handbook. He was then placed on preventive
suspension, and was eventually dismissed. Austria filed an illegal dismissal complaint against
AMA.

Issue:
Whether Austria was a regular employee, or an employee with a fixed term.
W/N Austria was lawfully dismissed.

Held:
Austria was an employee with a FIXED TERM. The position of dean is normally an employment
for a fixed term.
NO. True, AMA erred in dismissing Austria, acting on the mistaken belief that he was liable for the
charges leveled against him. But he cannot also claim entitlement to any benefit flowing from
employment after 17 September 2000, because the employment, which is the source of the
benefits, had, by then, already ceased to exist.

Universal Staffing Services Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 177576, July 21, 2008
Facts:
Respondent Grace M. Morales (Morales) applied for and was hired as receptionist by petitioner
Universal Staffing Services, Inc. (USSI) in behalf of its principal Jin Xiang International Labour
Supply of United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.). The contract duly approved by the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA), provided for an employment term of two (2) years with a
monthly salary of Dhs1, 100.00. After Ten (10)months of work in Al Sandos Suites (Al Sandos)
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. Morales employment was terminated allegedly due to her poor work
performance. Morales received Dhs1,300.00 as full and final settlement of all her claims on
January 1, 2003, and was repatriated on January 7,2003.Claiming that she was illegally terminated,
Morales filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of overtime and vacation pay
against USSI and Al Sandos Hotel Management with the Labor Arbiter.
Issue:
Whether or not Morales is illegally dismissed
Ruling:
USSI insists that Morales dismissal was based on a valid and legal ground. The Labor Arbiter lent
credence to USSIs posture and dismissed Morales complaint, but the NLRC and the CA reversed
the Arbiters findings.
Morales was dismissed for her alleged poor performance. As a general concept, "poor
performance" is equivalent to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties.
Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, an unsatisfactory rating can be a just cause for dismissal
only if it amounts to gross and habitual neglect of duties. Thus, the fact that an employee's
performance is found to be poor or unsatisfactory does not necessarily mean that the employee is
grossly and habitually negligent of his duties. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or
failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless
disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.
No substantial evidence was presented to substantiate the cause of Morales dismissal. First, USSI
failed to cite particular acts or instances that would validate its claim of Morales poor
performance. Second, no convincing proof was offered to substantiate Morales alleged poor

performance. The principle echoed and reechoed in jurisprudence is that the onus of proving that
the employee was dismissed for a just cause rests on the employer, and the latters failure to
discharge that burden would result in a finding that the dismissal is unjustified.

Furthermore, Morales was not accorded due process. Under Article 277(b)
of the Labor Code, the employer must send the employee who is about to be terminated, a written
notice stating the cause/s for termination and must give the employee the opportunity to be heard
and to defend himself. There was no showing that Al Sandos warned Morales of her alleged poor
performance. Likewise, Morales was not served the first notice apprising her of the particular acts
or omissions on which her dismissal was based together with the opportunity to explain her side.
Theonly notice given to Morales was the letter

dated December 14, 2002 informing her that she was already terminated .Certainly, there can be no
other conclusion than that Morales was illegally dismissed and her employment contract was
illegally terminated. With this finding, it is imperative that Morales be granted the monetary
benefits due her. WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Grace M. Morales is
declared illegally dismissed. Petitioner Universal Staffing Services, Inc. is ordered to pay Morales
three (3) months salary or Dhs3,300.00, or its peso equivalent. The awards of overtime and
holiday pay, as well as attorneys fees, are DELETED.

DELA SALLE UNIVERSITY vs. DELA SALLE UNIVERSITY

EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DLSUEA) and
BUENAVENTURA MAGSALIN
G.R. No. 109002 April 12, 2000 BUENA, J.:
On 1986, Dela Salle University (UNIVERSITY) and Dela Salle University Employees Association
National Federation of Teachers and Employees Union (UNION), which is composed of regular
non-academic rank and file employees, entered into a collective bargaining agreement. During the
freedom period, or 60 days before the expiration of the said collective bargaining agreement, the
Union initiated negotiations with the University for a new collective bargaining agreement which,
however, turned out to be unsuccessful, hence, the Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board, National Capital Region. Among the issues that remained
unresolved after conciliation-mediation meetings was the scope of the bargaining unit Labor
Arbiter: the employees of the College of St. Benilde, the College of St. Benilde has a personality
separate and distinct from the University and thus, the employees therein are outside the
bargaining unit of the University's rank-and-file employees. The University filed with the Second
Division of this Court, a petition assailing the decision of the voluntary arbitrator. Subsequently,
on May 24, 1993, the Union also filed a petition for certiorari with the First Division. The First
and Second Divisions separately resolved to require the respondents in each petition, including the
Solicitor General on behalf of the voluntary arbitrator, to file their respective Comments. 30 Upon
motion by the Solicitor General both petitions were consolidated and transferred to the Second
Division. Buenaventura C. Magsalin, the Solicitor General agreed
with the voluntary arbitrator's assailed decision on all points except that involving the employees
of the College of St. Benilde. According to the Solicitor General, the employees of the College of
St. Benilde should have been included in the bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees
of the University. The Solicitor General came to this conclusion after finding ".. . sufficient
evidence to justify the Union's proposal to consider the University and the CSB [College of St.
Benilde] as only one entity because the latter is but a mere integral part of the University,"
Issue: Whether CSB employees may be included in the new CBA since they were not previously
included in the CBA between the University and the Union
Held:
The University's arguments on the first issue fail to impress us. The Court agrees with the Solicitor
General that the express exclusion of the computer operators and discipline officers from the
bargaining unit of rankand- file employees in the 1986 collective bargaining agreement does not
bar any re-negotiation for the future inclusion of the said employees in the bargaining unit. During

the freedom period, the parties may not only renew the existing collective bargaining agreement
but may also propose and discuss modifications or amendments thereto. With regard to the alleged
confidential nature of the said employees' functions, after a careful consideration of the pleadings
filed before this Court, we rule that the said computer operators and discipline officers are not
confidential employees. As carefully examined by the Solicitor General, the service record of a
computer operator reveals that his duties are basically clerical and non confidential
in nature. As to the discipline officers, we agree with the voluntary arbitrator that based on the
nature of their duties, they are not confidential employees and should therefore be included in the
bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees. The Court also affirms the findings of the voluntary
arbitrator that the employees of the College of St. Benilde should be excluded from the bargaining
unit of the rank-and-file employees of Dela Salle University, because the two educational
institutions have their own separate juridical personality and no sufficient evidence was shown to
justify the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction.