You are on page 1of 7

Saydamin Mauntol

Block A

ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS vs.


LETRONDO-MONTEJO
G.R. No. 111988 October 14, 1994
Facts:

Associated Labor Union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with
AMS Farming Corporation in 1990.
Part of the CBA provides that AMS Farming shall be paying for holiday pay which
shall include, among others, local and national elections.
In 1992, the President declared December 4, 1992 as a general election
for Sanggunian Kabataan throughout the nation.
AMS Farming did not pay any holiday pay for said day as it argued that said election
by any stretch of the imagination cannot be considered as a local election within the
meaning of CBA because not all people can vote in the said election but only
qualified youths.
The issue was submitted to a voluntary arbitrator (Rosalina Letrondo-Montejo) and
the arbiter ruled in favor of AMS Farming.

Issue:
Should the Sangguniang Kabataan election be considered a "local/national election" so as
to entitle petitioners to the payment of holiday pay for that day?
Ruling:

Yes, the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) is part of the local government structure. The
Local Government Code defines it as such hence the election for members of the SK
may properly be considered a "local election" within the meaning of Art. VII, sec 3 of
the CBA and the day on which it is held to be a holiday, thereby entitling petitioners
members at the AMS Farming Corp. to the payment of holiday on such day.
It was a non-working holiday and this was announced in the media. In Proclamation
No. 118 dated December 2, 1992 President Ramos declared the day as "a special day
through the country on the occasion of the Sangguniang Kabataan Elections" and
enjoined all "local government units through their respective Chief Local Executives
[to] extend all possible assistance and support to ensure the smooth conduct of the
general elections."
A "special day" is a "special day", as provided by the Administrative Code of 1987.
On the other hand, the term "general elections" means, in the context of SK elections,
the regular elections for members of the SK, as distinguished from the special
elections for such officers.
As already explained, the phrase "general election" means regular local and national
elections. Consequently, whether in the context of the CBA or the Labor Code,
December 4, 1992 was a holiday for which holiday pay should be paid by respondent
employer.

Saydamin Mauntol

Block A

San Miguel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals


G.R. No. 146775 January 30, 2002
Facts:

The Department of Labor and Employment conducted a routine inspection in San


Miguel Corporation, Iligan City and it was discovered that there was underpayment
by San Miguel Corporation of regular Muslim holiday pay to its employees.
DOLE sent a copy of inspection result to San Miguel Corporation which the latter
contested.
San Miguel Corporation failed to submit proof to the contrary and hence the Director
of DOLE of Iligan District Office issued a compliance order to pay both its Muslim
and non-Muslim employees the Muslim Holidays.
San Miguel Corporation appealed to DOLE main office but it was dismissed for lack
of merit.
Hence, this present petition for certiorari.

Issue:
Are non-Muslim employees working in Muslim areas entitled to Muslim Holiday pay.
Ruling:
Yes, Article 3(3) of Presidential Decree No. 1083 provides that (t)he provisions of this
Code shall be applicable only to Muslims x x x. However, there should be no distinction between
Muslims and non-Muslims as regards payment of benefits for Muslim holidays. Wages and
other emoluments granted by law to the working man are determined on the basis of the criteria
laid down by laws and certainly not on the basis of the workers faith or religion.

Saydamin Mauntol

Block A

Imbuido vs.
National Labor Relations Commission
G.R. No. 114734

March 31, 2000

Facts:

Petitioner entered into 13 employment contracts with private respondent as a date


encoder, each contract for a period of 3 months.
In September 1991, petitioner and 12 other employees allegedly agreed to the filing
of a petition for certification election of the rank and file employees of private
respondent.
Subsequently, petition received a termination latter due to low volume of work.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The labor Arbiter ruled that she was a regular employee.
The NLRC reversed the decision stating that although petitioner is a regular
employee, she has no tenurial security beyond the period for which she was hired
(only up to the time the specific project for which she was hired was completed).
Petitioner filed the present appeal.

Issue:
Is the petitioner a regular employee who is entitled to tenurial security and was therefore
unjustly dismissed.
Ruling:
Yes. Even though petitioner is a project employee, as in the case of Maraguinot, Jr. v.
NLRC, the court held that a project employee or member of a work pool may acquire the status
of a regular employee when the following concur:
1. there is continuous rehiring of project employees even after the cessation of a project,
2. the tasks performed by the alleged project employee are vital, necessary and
indispensable to the usual business and trade of the employer.

Private respondent was employed as a data encoder performing duties, which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, continuously for a period of
more than 3 years. Being a regular employee, petitioner is entitled to security of tenure and could
only be dismissed for a just and authorized cause; low volume of work is not a valid cause for
dismissal under Art. 282 or 283. Having worked for more than 3 years, petitioner is also entitled
to service incentive leave benefits from 1989 until her actual reinstatement since such is
demandable after one year of service, whether continuous or broken.

Saydamin Mauntol

Block A

FERNANDEZ vs NLRC
G.R. No. 105892 January 28, 1998

FACTS:

Petitioners, filed a complaint before Dept. of Labor for illegal dismissal and payment
of backwages and subsequently terminated their employment.

Two Position Papers were filed by petitioners


In their Position Papers, petitioners alleged that they were employed by
Lhuillier whos employment were terminated when the private respondent

denied their demand to increase their salaries.


Labor Arbiter favored petitioners but NLRC vacated the labor arbiters order.
They filed for a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Is there a limit to the amount of service incentive leave pay and backwages that may be
awarded to an illegally dismissed employee?
HELD:
No, the clear policy of the Labor Code is to grant service incentive leave pay to workers
in all establishments, subject to a few exceptions. Section 2, Rule V, Book III of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations provides that "[e]very employee who has rendered at least
one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay."
Service incentive leave is a right which accrues to every employee who has served "within 12
months, whether continuous or broken reckoned from the date the employee started working,
including authorized absences and paid regular holidays unless the working days in the
establishment as a matter of practice or policy, or that provided in the employment contracts, is
less than 12 months, in which case said period shall be considered as one year." It is also
"commutable to its money equivalent if not used or exhausted at the end of the year." In other
words, an employee who has served for one year is entitled to it. He may use it as leave days or
he may collect its monetary value. To limit the award to three years, as the solicitor general
recommends, is to unduly restrict such right. The law indeed does not prohibit its commutation.
Moreover, the solicitor general's recommendation is contrary to the ruling of the Court in
Bustamante et al. vs. NLRC et al., lifting the three-year restriction on the amount of backwages
and other allowances that may be awarded an illegally dismissed employee, thus:
Therefore, in accordance with R.A. No. 6715, petitioners are entitled to their full
backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, from the
time their actual compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual
reinstatement. (Emphasis supplied.).
Since a service incentive leave is clearly demandable after one year of service whether
continuous or broken or its equivalent period, and it is one of the "benefits" which would have

Saydamin Mauntol

Block A

accrued if an employee was not otherwise illegally dismissed, it is fair and legal that its
computation should be up to the date of reinstatement as provided under Section 279 of the
Labor Code, as amended, which reads:
Art. 279. Security of Tenure. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall
be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his
full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation is withheld from him up to the time
of his actual reinstatement.
However, the Implementing Rules clearly state that entitlement to "benefit provided
under this Rule shall start December 16, 1975, the date the amendatory provision of the
Labor]Code took effect." Hence, petitioners, except Lim and Canonigo, should be entitled to
service incentive leave pay from December 16, 1975 up to their actual reinstatement.

Integrated Contractor And Plumbing Works, INC. vs.


National Labor Relations Commission and Glen Solon

Saydamin Mauntol

G.R. No. 152427

Block A

August 9, 2005

Facts:

Petitioner is a plumbing contractor. Its business depends on the number and frequency
of the projectsit is able to contract with its clients.
Private respondent Solon worked for petitioner in various projects from 1994 to 1998.
Private respondent was informed by the warehouseman that the main office had
instructed them to tell him it was his last day of work as he had been terminated.
Private respondent went to verify his status only to find out that he has indeed been
terminated.
Private respondent went back to petitioners office to sign a clearance so he could
claim his 13th month pay and tax refunds however, he had second thoughts and
refused to sign the clearance when he read the clearance indicating he had resigned.
Private respondent filed a complaint alleging that he was illegally dismissed without
just cause and without due process.
The petitioner asserts that the private respondent was a project employee. Thus, when
the project was completed and private respondent was not re-assigned to another
project, petitioner did not violate any law since it was petitioners discretion to reassign the private respondent to other projects.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that private respondent was a regular employee and could
only be removed for cause and was ordered to reinstate private respondent to his
former position with full backwages from the time his salary was withheld until his
actual reinstatement, and pay him service incentive leave pay, and 13 thmonth pay for
three years.
The NLRC affirmed the decision with modification that the 13th month pay should be
given only for the year 1997 and portion of 1998. Backwages shall be computed from
the time he was illegally dismissed up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
Likewise, service incentive leave pay for three (3) years is also awarded to appellee
Their petition for a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals was likewise
dismissed for lack of merit.

Issue:
1.) Is the respondent a regular employee?
2.) Did the Court of Appeals erred seriously in awarding 13 th month pay for the entire
year of 1997 and service incentive leave pay to the respondent and without taking
cognizance of the evidence presented by petitioner.

Ruling:
1.) Yes, the court held that while there were several employment contracts between
private respondent and petitioner, in all of them, private respondent performed tasks

Saydamin Mauntol

Block A

which were usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of petitioner.
A review of private respondents work assignments patently showed he belonged to a
work pool tapped from where workers are and assigned whenever their services were
needed. In a work pool, the workers do not receive salaries and are free to seek other
employment during temporary breaks in the business. They are like regular seasonal
workers insofar as the effect of temporary cessation of work is concerned. This
arrangement is beneficial to both the employer and employee for it prevents the
unjust situation of coddling labor at the expense of capital and at the same time
enables the workers to attain the status of regular employees. [15] Nonetheless, the
pattern of re-hiring and the recurring need for his services are sufficient evidence of
the necessity and indispensability of such services to petitioners business or trade.[16]
In Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC[17] we ruled that once a project or work pool
employee has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to intermittently, re-hired by the
same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (2) these tasks are vital,
necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer, then the
employee must be deemed a regular employee.
The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable
connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to
the usual business or trade of the employer. Also, if the employee has been
performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or
merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its
performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that
activity to the business.[18] Thus, we held that where the employment of project
employees is extended long after the supposed project has been finished, the
employees are removed from the scope of project employees and are considered
regular employees.
Yes, the court has noted that the private respondent had been paid his
13 month pay for the year 1997. Article 95(a) of the Labor Code governs the award of
service incentive leave. It provides that every employee who has rendered at least one
year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay,
and Section 3, Rule V, Book III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations, defines the
term at least one year of service to mean service within 12 months, whether continuous
or broken reckoned from the date the employee started working, including authorized
absences and paid regular holidays, unless the working days in the establishment as a
matter of practice or policy, or that provided in the employment contract is less than 12
months, in which case said period shall be considered as one year. Accordingly, private
respondents service incentive leave credits of five days for every year of service, based
on the actual service rendered to the petitioner, in accordance with each contract of
employment should be computed up to the date of reinstatement pursuant to Article 279
of the Labor Code.
2.)

th