Pointers in Labor and Social Legislation

2015 Bar Exams

By Professor Victoria V. Loanzon
Please find below the possible areas to be covered by the essay questions in the Labor and
Social Legislation:
A. Preliminaries
1 Labor rights protected and guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution. (Sec. 3, Art.
XIII, 1987 Constitution)
a Right to self-organization;
b Right to collective bargain;
c Right to collectively negotiate;
d Right to peaceful concerted activities;
e Right to strike in accordance with law;
f Right to participate in policy and decision-making processes;
g Right to security of tenure;
h Right to human condition of work;
i Right to a living wage;
j Right to a just share in the profits.
2

Labor rights protected under the Labor Code. (Art. 3, Labor Code)
a Right to self-organize;
b Right to collectively bargain;
c Right to security of tenure;
d Right to just and humane work condition.
State policies on:
a Labor Code: (Art. 3, Labor Code)
The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work
opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the relations between workers
and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work.

b Employees Compensation (Art. 166, LC)

The State shall promote and develop a tax-exempt employees compensation program
whereby employees and their dependents, in the event of work-connected disability or death,
may promptly secure adequate income benefit and medical related benefits.

Labor Relations (Art. 211, LC)

To promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations,
including voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling labor or
industrial disputes;
To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancement of democracy and the
promotion of social justice and development;
To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement;
To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligations as union
members and as employees;
To provide an adequate administrative machinery for the expeditious settlement of labor or
industrial disputes;
To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace; and
To ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes affecting their
rights, duties and welfare.
To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating the relations between the employers
and employees by means of agreements freely entered into through collective bargaining, no
court or administrative agency or official shall have the power to set or fix wages, rates of
pay, hours of work or other terms and conditions of employment, except as otherwise
provided under this Code.

d Workers representation and participation in policy and decision-making

(Art. 255, LC)
The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an
appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees
in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. However, an individual employee or
group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, workers shall have the right, subject to
such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment may promulgate, to
participate in policy and decision-making processes of the establishment where they are
employed insofar as said processes will directly affect their rights, benefits and welfare. For
this purpose, workers and employers may form labor-management councils: Provided, that
the representatives of the workers in such labor-management councils shall be elected by at
least the majority of all employees in said establishment. (As amended by Section 22,
Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating the relations between the employers
and employees by means of agreements freely entered into through collective bargaining, no
court or administrative agency or official shall have the power to set or fix wages, rates of
pay, hours of work or other terms and conditions of employment, except as otherwise
provided under this Code.

Workers representation and participation in policy and decision-making

(Art. 255, LC)

The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an

appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees
in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. However, an individual employee or
group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, workers shall have the right, subject to
such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment may promulgate, to
participate in policy and decision-making processes of the establishment where they are
employed insofar as said processes will directly affect their rights, benefits and welfare. For
this purpose, workers and employers may form labor-management councils: Provided, that
the representatives of the workers in such labor-management councils shall be elected by at
least the majority of all employees in said establishment. (As amended by Section 22,
Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
f. Tripartism and tripartite conferences (Art. 275, LC)
Tripartism in labor relations is hereby declared a State policy. Towards this end, workers and
employers shall, as far as practicable, be represented in decision and policy-making bodies of
the government.
The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives may, from
time to time, call a national, regional, or industrial tripartite conference of representatives of
government, workers and employers for the consideration and adoption of voluntary codes of
principles designed to promote industrial peace based on social justice or to align labor
movement relations with established priorities in economic and social development. In
calling such conference, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may consult with accredited
representatives of workers and employers. (As amended by Section 32, Republic Act No.
6715, March 21, 1989)
4

Nature of relationship between employer and employee.

It is not merely contractual. Their relation is impressed with public interest that labor contracts
entered into between them must yield to the common good. Therefore, such contracts are subject
to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop,
wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects. (Art. 1700, Civil Code)

Construction of Labor Contracts and the Labor Code.

Labor contracts are construed as how the parties intended it to be. But in case of doubt, it shall be
construed in favor of the labor. (Art. 1702, Civil Code)

The Labor Code shall be construed verba legis. But in case of doubt in its implementation
and interpretation, all doubts shall be construed in favor of labor. (Art. 4, Labor Code)
B. Book I
1. Illegal Recruitment
Q. Can the accused object when two separate complaints for estafa and illegal
recruitment is file against him?
No. A person may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa. The
reason for this is that illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum, whereas estafa is malum in
se, meaning that the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction in the
former, but is required in the latter. (People v Saulo, 344 SCRA 605)
Q. Charito used to work as a nurse in Ireland. She chose to retire in the Philippines. She
convinced a number of nurses in their barangay apply in the hospital in Ireland where
she used to work without obtaining a license to do so?
No. Charito must obtain a license and an authority from the Department of Labor and
Employment.
License and Authority, defined.
A License is a document issued by the Department of Labor authorizing a person to operate a
private employment agency.
An Authority is a document issued by the Department of Labor authorizing a person or association
to engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment entity.
Q. In the above situation, what action may be filed against Charito?
Illegal Recruitment. There is illegal recruitment under the Labor Code when any person: (Art. 38
(b))

1. Undertakes any recruitment activity as defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited
practice enumerated under Article 34; and
2. Does not have a license or authority to engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers.
There is illegal recruitment under the Migrant Workers Act (RA 8042) when any person
commits: (Sec. 6, RA 8042)
1. Any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring workers
(CETCHUP) and includes referring, contact services, promising or advertising for employment
abroad, (CRAP) whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license or non-holder of
authority; or
2. Any of the acts under Art. 34 of the Labor Code, whether committed by any person, whether a nonlicensee, non-holder, license or holder of authority.
Q. Will the number of persons recruited by Charito determine the action which may be
instituted against her?
Yes. There are two kinds of illegal recruitment:
1. There is simple illegal recruitment when
i. a person undertakes any recruitment activity as defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited
practice enumerated under Article 34; AND
ii. a person does not have a license or authority to engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers.

2. Illegal recruitment as economic sabotage can either be:

a.) large scale illegal recruitment if committed against 3 or more persons individually or as a
group; or
b.) syndicated illegal recruitment if it is committed by 3 or more persons in conspiracy.
Q. Can a party impute that the principal foreign employer had knowledge that its agent
solicited applicants for employment on its behalf?
No. The theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the knowledge of the agent to the

principal/employer, not the other way around. The knowledge of the principal-foreign
employer cannot, therefore, be imputed to its agent. There being no substantial proof that

Sunace knew of and consented to be bound under the 2-year employment contract extension,
it cannot be said to be privy thereto. As such, it and its owner cannot be held solidarily
liable for any of Divinas claims arising from the 2-year employment extension. (Sunace v
NLRC, G.R. No. 161757, Jan. 25, 2006)
Q. In the event that it is established by evidence that the principal foreign employer had
knowledge that its agent was engaged in illegal recruitment, what will be the liability of
the principal foreign employer?
The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all
claims shall be joint and several. The performance bond to be filed by the
recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all money claims
or damages that may be awarded to the workers.
If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors
and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the
corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages. (Sec. 10, RA 8042, as
amended by RA 10022)
Q. Carlito has a two-contract with Pacific Shipping Co. On his 6 th month, Carlito was
informed that he will be repatriated back to Manila. There was reason given for the
pre-termination of the contract. What benefits can Carlito invoke the pre-termination his
overseas employment contract?

In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as

defined by law or contract, or any unauthorized deductions from the migrant worker's salary,
the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement if his placement fee and the deductions
made with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired
portion of his employment contract. (Sec. 10, RA 8042, as amended; Serrano v Gallant
Maritime Service, Inc., GR 167614, March 24, 2009, which deleted the phrase or for three
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. for being unconstitutional)
Q. In anticipation of the need for manpower in the forthcoming Olympics in Brazil,
Francisco was able to establish a contact with Breezo, one of the contractors in the
Olympic site which needed maintenance personnel. Francisco started to advertise
through the social media the manpower requirements of Breezo. Was the act of
Francisco proper?
No. Francisco is guilty of direct hiring of labor. The general rule is that direct hiring is not
allowed except through the Boards and Entities authorized by the Secretary of Labor.
The exception to the rule is when direct hiring is employed by the diplomatic corps;
international organizations; and such other employers as may be allowed by the Secretary of
Labor.
2. Read the essential provisions of R.A. 8042 and 10022 on migrant workers
3. Read on role of OWWA/POEA
Q. Can a Filipino overseas worker invoke the provisions of the Labor Code in case he is
retrenched?
Yes. International Management Services v. Legate (2012): The provisions of the Labor
Code still apply to Filipino OFWs who have been deployed abroad and are retrenched by the
foreign principal. (Article 283, Labor Code)
Q. What is the prescription period within which an OFW may file his monetary claims?
Southeastern Shipping v. Navarra, June 22, 2010: Article 291 is the law governing the
prescription of money claims of seafarers, a class of overseas contract workers. This law
prevails over Section 28 of the Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers which provides
for claims to be brought only within one year from the date of the seafarers return to the
point of hire. The prescriptive period is thus three years from the time the cause of action
accrues
Q. What factors are considered to ensure that a contract of employment of an OFW is
perfected?
Bright Maritime Corp v. Fantonial (2012): A contract approved by the POEA is deemed
perfected at the moment (1) the parties come to agree upon its terms; and (2) concur in the
essential elements thereof (Consent, object and consideration).

The Court awarded moral damages and attorneys fees to the complainant OFW since after
the perfection of the contract, he was not deployed. The Court said that the action of
International Management Services was tainted with bad faith.
C. Book II
1. Apprenticeship (Art. 58(a), Labor Code)
Q. If the company allowed individuals to work for at least three months and then
executed Apprenticeship Agreement on the 4th month, is the agreement valid?
No. Atlanta Industries v. Sabolino (2011). Apprenticeship Agreement is not valid where
complainants were hired as employees first before the execution of apprenticeship
agreement.The fact that the workers were already rendering service to the company when
they were made to undergo apprenticeship renders the apprenticeship agreements irrelevant
as far as the employees are concerned, especially since, prior to the apprenticeship, the
employees performed tasks that were usually necessary and desirable to the companys usual
business.
Even assuming there was a valid apprenticeship, the expiration of the first agreement and the
retention of the employees was a recognition by the employer of their training and
acquisition of a regular employee status. The second apprenticeship agreement for a second
skill which was not even mentioned in the agreement is a violation of the Labor Codes
implementing rules.
2. Learners
3. Hiring of Minors, Article 139 (c)/ see also protection of handicapped workers (Art.
78, Labor Code)
Disabled workers are entitled to 75% of applicable minimum wage.
Incentives for employment of handicapped workers (Sec. 2, R.A. 7277)
PLEASE READ ON THE PROVISIONS OF KASAMBAY LAW
COVERAGE
ENTITLEMENT
PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION
LIABILITY FOR NON COMPLIANCE
D. Book III1. Classification of Employees
- Nature of seasonal employees
- Regularization of employees
Q. What are three types of employees under the Labor Code?
The Labor Code provides for three kinds of employment arrangements, namely: regular,
project/seasonal and casual. Regular employment refers to that arrangement whereby the
employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the employer [.] Under this definition, the primary standard
that determines regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular
activity performed by the employee and the usual business or trade of the employer; the
emphasis is on the necessity or desirability of the employees activity.
By way of an exception, paragraph 2, Article 280 of the Labor Code also considers as
regular, a casual employment arrangement when the casual employees engagement is made
to last for at least one year, whether the service is continuous or broken. The controlling test
in this arrangement is the length of time during which the employee is engaged.
Seasonal employment operates much in the same way as project employment, albeit it
involves work or service that is seasonal in nature or lasting for the duration of the
season. As with project employment, although the seasonal employment arrangement
involves work that is seasonal or periodic in nature, the employment itself is not
automatically considered seasonal so as to prevent the employee from attaining regular
status. To exclude the asserted seasonal employee from those classified as regular
employees, the employer must show that: (1) the employee must be performing work or
services that are seasonal in nature; and (2) he had been employed for the duration of the

season. Hence, when the seasonal workers are continuously and repeatedly hired to
perform the same tasks or activities for several seasons or even after the cessation of the
season, this length of time may likewise serve as badge of regular employment. In fact, even
though denominated as seasonal workers, if these workers are called to work from time to
time and are only temporarily laid off during the off-season, the law does not consider them
separated from the service during the off-season period. The law simply considers these
seasonal workers on leave until re-employed.
Q. Who is considered a regular employee?
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation and Rene Cabati, G.R. No. 186439. January
15, 2014: A regular employee is one who by the nature of his
engagement is to perform an activity usually necessary or desirable in the employers
business. The nature of the employment does not depend solely on the will or word of the
employer or on the procedure for hiring and the manner of designating the employee. Rather,
the nature of the employment depends on the nature of the activities to be performed by the
employee, taking into account the nature of the employers business, the duration and scope
of work to be done, and, in some cases, even the length of time of the performance and its
continued existence.
Q. Can an employee stipulate his period of engagement?
Yes. In Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora (G.R. No. L-48494, February 5, 1990), the Court, for
the first time, recognized and resolved the anomaly created by a narrow and literal
interpretation of Article 280 of the Labor Code that appears to restrict the employees right to
freely stipulate with his employer on the duration of his engagement. In this case, the Court
upheld the validity of the fixed-term employment agreed upon by the employer, Brent
School, Inc., and the employee, Dorotio Alegre, declaring that the restrictive clause in
Article 280 should be construed to refer to the substantive evil that the Code itself x x x
singled out: agreements entered into precisely to circumvent security of tenure. It should
have no application to instances where [the] fixed period of employment was agreed upon
knowingly and voluntarily by the parties x x x absent any x x x circumstances vitiating [the
employees] consent, or where [the facts satisfactorily show] that the employer and [the]
employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms[.] The indispensability or
desirability of the activity performed by the employee will not preclude the parties from
entering into an otherwise valid fixed term employment agreement; a definite period of
employment does not essentially contradict the nature of the employees duties as necessary
and desirable to the usual business or trade of the employer.
Nevertheless, where the circumstances evidently show that the employer imposed the
period precisely to preclude the employee from acquiring tenurial security, the law and
this Court will not hesitate to strike down or disregard the period as contrary to public
policy, morals, etc. In such a case, the general restrictive rule under Article 280 of the
Labor Code will apply and the employee shall be deemed regular.
Q. How can an employer overcome the allegation that an employee has become a
regular employee when said employee was hired as a project employee?

A project employment contemplates on arrangement whereby the employment has been

fixed for a specific project or undertaking whose completion or termination has been
determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.
Two requirements need to be satisfied to remove the engagement from the presumption of
regularity of employment, namely: (1) designation of a specific project or undertaking for
which the employee is hired; and (2) clear determination of the completion or termination of
the project at the time of the employees engagement. The services of the project employees
are legally and automatically terminated upon the end or completion of the project as the
employees services are coterminous with the project.
Q. What is the concept of control test in an employer-employee relationship?
Tongko v. Manufacturers Life Insurance (GR 167622, June 29, 2010 & January 25,
2011):
Guidelines indicative of labor law control,, should not merely relate to the mutually
desirable result intended by the contractual relationship; they must have the nature of
dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining the result, or of fixing the
methodology and of binding or restricting the party hired to the use of these means.
Q. What is the fourfold test in secondment position?
Intel Technology v. NLRC & Cabiles, February 5, 2014: The continuity, existence or
termination of an employer-employee relationship in a typical secondment contract is
measured by the FOUR FOLD TEST:
(1)If the acceptance of the new assignment (2) required the abandonment of the
employees permanent position with the former employer; (3) in order for him to assume a
position in an entirely different company, and (4) the permanent transfer or assignment
constituted a severance of employment with the former employer.
Q. Professor Mercado has been teaching Mathematics at the Unibersidad ng Pag-Asa
(U.P.) for four semesters on a probationary status. He hold a Bachelors Degree in
Education and graduated cum laude. He requested U.P. to regularize his employment so
he can enjoy the benefits under the CBA of the faculty members of U.P.. Can he compel
U.P. to give him a regular status?
No. University of the East v. Pepanio, January 23, 2013: Mere completion of the four
semester probation, even with an above-average performance, does not guarantee that the
teacher will automatically acquire a permanent employment status. The probationer can only
qualify upon fulfilment of the reasonable standards set for permanent employment as a
member of the teaching personnel. A school CBA must be read in conjunction with statutory
and administrative regulations governing faculty qualifications.
Q. After undergoing her probationary period and with completion of 12 units for her
masters degree in education, Professor Cecilio insisted that he be regularize. Can she
compel the school to issue her a regular employment?
No. Herrera-Manaois v. St. Scholasticas College, December 11, 2013: The requirement of
a masters degree for attaining permanent full time faculty member status is a reasonable
qualification.
Q. Is it proper to have both the teaching and non-teaching personnel of an academic
institution to just have one bargaining unit?

No. Holy Child Catholic School v. HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS, July 23, 2013: An academic

institution should have two bargaining units: one for academic personnel; and another
for non-academic personnel. The differences, however, between the two categories of
employees are no substantial enough to warrant a dismissal of a petition for
certification election, seeking an election for only one unit. The remedy is to hold two
certification elections.
Q. What will consist of due notice to terminate an employee under probation?
Tamsons Enterprises v. CA, November 16, 2011; Abbot Laboratories vs. Alcaraz, July 23,
2013: Section 2, Rule I, Book VI: If the termination is brought about by the completion of a
contract or phase thereof, or by failure of an employee to meet the standards of the employer
in the case of probationary employment, it shall be sufficient that a written notice is served
the employee, within a reasonable time from the effective date of termination.
Q. If a probationary employee was illegally dismissed, what is the basis of the
computation of his backwages?
Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corp. v. Ranchez, January 19, 2011: The
computation of backwages of a probationary employee should not cover the entire period
from the time her compensation was withheld up to the time of her actual reinstatement. The
computation of backwages shall end upon the end of the probationary employment.
The lapse of the probationary employment without any appointment as a regular employee of
the employer effectively severed the employer-employee relationship between the parties.
Q. Cristina was initially hired by Abet Laboratories Inc. (ALI) on a probationary
basis. She has been on probation for the past two years. Under the Employees
Handbook, an employee who has consistently rendered above average performance for
a probationary period of two years will automatically become a regular employee.
Cristina requested that she be regularized. ALI refused to regularize Cristina and
instead, it terminated her employment. Cristina instituted an action against ALI. Will
the case prosper?
Yes. Abbot Laboratories vs. Alcaraz, July 23, 2013: The employers violation of its own
company procedure for termination renders the termination procedurally infirm, warranting
the payment of nominal damages. The adequate performance of ones duties is, by and of
itself an inherent and implied standard for a probationary employee to be regularized; such is
a regularization standard which need not be spelled out or mapped into technical indicators in
every case.
Q. Who is considered a project employee?
Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union v. PNOC, March 30, 2011: A
project employee may be classified according to the nature of activities either as:
1. A particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the employer
company, but which is distinct and separate, and identifiable as such, from the other
undertakings of the company. Such job or undertaking begins and ends at determined or
determinable times.
2. A particular job or undertaking that is not within the regular business of the corporation.
Such a job or undertaking must also be identifiably separate and distinct from the ordinary or

regular business operations of the employer. The job or undertaking also begins and ends at
determined or determinable times.
Q. What is the test to determine if one is a project employee?
Asos v. PNCC, July 3, 2013: The principal test used to determine whether employees are
project employees is whether or not the employees were assigned to carry out a specific
project or undertaking, the duration or scope of which was specified at the time the
employees were engaged for that project.
Q. Is prior advice necessary to terminate the services of a project employee?
No. DM Consunji v. Gobres, August 8, 2010: Completion of the work or project

automatically terminates the employment. Prior or advance notice of termination is not part
of procedural due process if the termination is brought about by the completion of the
contract or phase thereof for which the employee was engaged. There is no violation of any
requirement of procedural due process by failing to give the project employees advance
notice of their termination; thus, there is no basis for the payment of nominal damages.
Q. Who is a seasonal employee?
Gapayao v. Fulo, June 13, 2013: The general rule is that seasonal employees may be
considered as regular employees. Regular seasonal employees are those called to work from
time to time. The nature of their relationship with the employer is such that during the off
season, they are temporarily laid off; but reemployed during the summer season or when
their services may be needed. They are in regular employment because of the nature of their
job, and not because of the length of time they have worked.
The exception to the rule is that seasonal workers who have worked for one season only may
not be considered regular employees. Similarly, when seasonal employees are free to contract
their services with other farm owners, then the former are not regular employees.
Q. Who are confidential employees?
Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia Brewery, August 3, 2010;
Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, (2) to
persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor
relations. The two (2) criteria are cumulative, and both must be met.
The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties,
become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective
sought to be accomplished by the confidential employee rule.
Q. Mr. Ramos is a paymaster of a manufacturing company. Can he be considered a
confidential employee?
No. San Miguel Foods v. SMC Supervisors and Exempt Union, August 1, 2011: Payroll
Master and employees who have access to salary and compensation data are NOT
Confidential employees. Their position do not involve dealing with confidential labor
relations information
Q. Mr. Santos is a well-known publicist. Pursuant to the By-Laws of ABC Company, the
Board of Directors created the position of Communications Manager and it engaged the
services of Mr. Santos for said position. Is Mr. Santos considered a corporate officer?
No. A position must be expressly mentioned in the By-Laws in order to be considered as a
corporate office. Thus, the creation of an office pursuant to or under a By-Law enabling
provision is not enough to make a position a corporate office.
Q. As an ordinary corporate officer, can Mr. Santos be terminated at will by ABC
Company?
No. Matling Industrial v. Coros, October 13, 2010. The criteria for distinguishing between
corporate officers who may be ousted from office at will, on one hand, and ordinary
corporate employees who may only be terminated for just cause, on the other hand, do not
depend on the nature of the services performed, but on the manner of creation of the office.
Q. Mr. Reyes is a stockholder of XYZ Company. Being an accountant, the company
hired him as its Comptroller, a position not provided for in the companys By-Laws.

Mr. Reyes is listed as an officer in the General Information Sheet of the Company.
The company terminated his services because he found to be remised of his
responsibility as Comptroller. Can Mr. Reyes file an intra-corporate suit before the
RTC for his dismissal?
No. Cosare v. Broadcom Asia, February 5, 2014: The contents of the General
Information Sheets, which identifies the employee as an officer of the company could
neither govern nor establish the nature of the office held by the employee and his
appointment thereto. The mere fact that the complainant employee was a stockholder of
the company does not necessarily make the action an intra-corporate controversy.
Q. What is the test to be determine whether or not a termination of employment
involves an intercorporate controversy?
The fact that the parties involved in the controversy are all stockholders or that the parties
involved are the stockholders and the corporation does not necessarily place the dispute
within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the RTC. The Two-tier Test must be applied. The test
must scrutinize: the status or relationship of the parties; and the nature of the question that is
the subject of the controversy.
Real v. Sangu Phils., January 19, 2011: If the worker was not appointed by the Board of
Directors, there is no intra-corporate relationship. If what is involved is termination of
employment, it is a labor controversy, and not an intra-corporate dispute.
Q. Mr. Alden Richards, an American citizen, was hired by Aldub Company as a
Marketing Specialist. He has worked for the company for two years. The company
terminated the services for Mr. Richards because the Human Resources Manager of the
company found out that he does not have any Alien Employment Permit. Mr. Richards
sued the company for illegal dismissal. Will the case prosper?
No. McBurnie v. Ganzon, EGI-Managers, Inc., October 17, 2013: A foreigner who alleged
illegal dismissal and sought to claim under our labor laws is required to establish first that he
was qualified and duly authorized to obtain employment within our jurisdiction. A
requirement for foreigners who intend to work within the country is an employment permit.
With the failure of Mr. Richards to obtain his Alien Employment Permit warrants the
dismissal of his labor complaint.
Q. Mr. Ricardo Sanchez is a referee engaged by the UAAP. Is he an employee of the
UAAP?
No. Bernante v. PBA, September 14, 2011: The contractual stipulations do not pertain to,
much less dictate, how and when the referees will blow the whistle and make calls. They
merely serve as rules of conduct or guidelines in order to maintain the integrity of the
professional basketball league.
Q. Ms. Ay is a talent of Showcase, a noontime show of a popular television network. Is
she considered an employee of the television network company?
No. Fulache v. ABS-CBN, January 21, 2010; Television and Production Exponents v.
Servaa, January 28, 2008; ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Nazareno, Sept. 26, 2006:
As a talent, Ms. Ay Ay is considered not an employee of the television network company.
However, production assistants, drivers/cameramen and security guards of the network company not
being talents are considered employees.

2. Labor Contracting
- Requisites
- What is an independent contractor agreement
- Service contractor
-labor/job contractor
- Rights under labor contracting
Q. What characterizes legitimate job contracting?
Babas v. Lorenzo Shipping, December 15, 2010: A person is considered engaged in
legitimate job contracting or subcontracting if the following conditions concur:
(a) The contractor carries on a distinct and independent business and undertakes the contract
work on his account under his own responsibility according to his own manner and method,
free from the control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters connected with
the performance of his work except as to the results thereof;
(b) The contractor has substantial capital or investment; and
(c) The agreement between the principal and the contractor or subcontractor assures the
contractual employees' entitlement to all labor and occupational safety and health standards,
free exercise of the right to self-organization, security of tenure, and social welfare benefits.
Q. A complaint was lodged against Top Company by a group of laborers alleging that
the company does not have sufficient capital to operate as an independent contractor.
During the hearing, Top Company presented its Certificate of Registration with the
DOLE. Is the Certificate of Registration sufficient proof to establish that it is an
independent contractor?
No. Babas v. Lorenzo Shipping, December 15, 2010: A contractors Certificate of
Registration is not sufficient proof that it is an independent contractor. A Certificate of
Registration issued by the Department of Labor and Employment is not conclusive evidence
of such status. The fact of registration simply prevents the legal presumption of being a mere
labor-only contractor from arising.
3. Wage Formulation
- Powers of Wage Boards
- Coverage/Effectivity of Schedule of Adjustments
- Wage Distortion
4. Benefits for Women Workers
- Maternity Leave contrast this with Paternity Leave
- Gynecological Leave
-Sexual Harassment
5. Diminution of Benefits
- Prohibition
- When justified
E. Book IV
1. Death Benefits of Seafarers
Q. Can a claim for death benefits be denied even if the injury was sustained in the
course of his work?
Yes. Crew and Management International Inc and Selena Inc. V. Jina T. Soria (2012):
Failure of an injured seafarer to comply with medical check up within three days from
repatriation is not entitled to receive death benefits. The Court ruled that it could not find a
direct link that pneumonia being the cause of death based on the Death Certificate was
triggered by the tetanus caused by the injury sustained by the seafarer.
2. Disability Benefits of Seafarers
Q. What is the basis of disability benefit of a Filipino overseas seafarer?
Shipmanagement, Inc. Captain Sigfredo E. Monterroyo and/or Interorient Navigation
Limited v. Alexander L. Moradas, G.R. No., January 15, 2014. With respect to the applicable
rules, it is doctrinal that the entitlement of seamen on overseas work to disability benefits is
a matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by law and by contract. The material
statutory provisions are Articles 191 to 193 under Chapter VI (Disability Benefits) of the
Labor Code, in relation [to] Rule X of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book IV of
the Labor Code. By contract, the POEA-SEC, as provided under Department Order No. 4,

series of 2000 of the Department of Labor and Employment, and the parties Collective
Bargaining Agreement bind the seaman and his employer to each other.
In the foregoing light, the Court observes that respondent executed his contract of
employment on July 17, 2000, incorporating therein the terms and conditions of the 2000
POEA-SEC which took effect on June 25, 2000.
However, since the implementation of the provisions of the foregoing 2000 POEA-SEC was
temporarily suspended by the Court on September 11, 2000, particularly Section 20,
paragraphs (A), (B), and (D) thereof, and was lifted only on June 5, 2002, through POEA
Memorandum Circular No. 2, series of 2002, the determination of respondents entitlement to
the disability benefits should be resolved under the provisions of the 1996 POEA-SEC as it
was, effectively, the governing circular at the time respondents employment contract was
executed.
3. Claims under Employees Compensation Act
F. Book V
1. Unions and Registration
- Process of registration
- Grounds for denial of registration
Q. Is the submission of financial statement material to registration of a labor union?
No. Heritage Hotel v. NUWHRAIN-HHMSC (2011). The registered union is not required to
submit financial statements and/or keep membership representing 20% of the appropriate
bargaining unit throughout its lifetime. The Court said that the constitutionally guaranteed
freedom of association and right of workers to self-organization far outweigh respondents
compliance to maintain its status as a legitimate labor organizations.
Q. What is the effect of withdrawal of membership after the application for registration
has been filed?
Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club v. CA, March 18, 2010: The subsequent affidavits of
retraction (withdrawal of membership) will not retroact to the time of the application for
registration or even way back to the organizational meeting.
Art. 234(c) of the Labor Code requires the list of names of all the union members of an
independent union comprising at least 20% of the bargaining unit. This should not be
equated with the list of workers who participated in the organizational meetings (par [b]).
Q. Can both the supervisory and rank-and-file employees be affiliated with the same
labor organization?
Yes. Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Chemical (SMCC-SUPER) v. Charter Chemical
and Coating Corp., March 16, 2011
The mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a union does not nullify its
legal personality as a legitimate labor organization.
Q. Can both the supervisory union and the rank-and-file employees union be affiliated
with the same labor federation?
Yes. Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation v. Hon. Secretary of Labor, August 14, 20
As amended by R.A. 9481, the Labor Code now allows a rank and file union and a
supervisory union of the same company to be part of the same federation for the following
reasons:
An employer cannot ignore the existence of a legitimate labor organization at the time
of its voluntary recognition of another union. The employer and the voluntarily
recognized union cannot, by themselves, decide whether the other union represented
an appropriate bargaining unit.
The employer may voluntarily recognize the representation status of a union in
unorganized establishments
San Miguel Foods v. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union, August 1,
2011: The test of grouping is community or mutuality of interest.

There should be only one bargaining unit for employees involved in dressed
chicken processing and workers engaged in live chicken operations.
Although they seem separate and distinct from each other, the tasks of each division
are actually interrelated and there exists mutuality of interests which warrants the
formation of a single bargaining unit.
2. Affiliation and Disaffiliation
Q. Can the Court intervene in an intra-union dispute?
No. Cirtek Employees Labor Union- FFW v. Cirtek Electronics (2011): In the present
case, whether the FFW went against the will of its principle (member-employees) by
pursuing the case despite signing of the MOA, is not for the Court, nor for the
respondent employer to determine, but for the Union and FFW to resolve on their own
pursuant to their principal agent relationship. Moreover, the issue of disaffiliation is
an intra-union dispute which must be resolved in a different forum.
3. Certification Elections and CBA
- procedural aspects
- coverage of CBA
- conduct of CBA
- relate to kinds of employees, (Art. 82, Book V)
- prescription of action on ULP
- liability for just/authorized cause, see Art. 282
- constructive dismissal
- reinstatement, grounds
- payroll reinstatement
- entitlement to back wages (applicable rules/ maximum amount)
- Notice to Strike (period, grounds)
- Rule on participation of union officers and union members in illegal strike
Q. Is a certificate of non-forum shopping a requisite in a certification proceeding?
No. SAMMA-LIKHA v. SAMMA Corporation, March 13, 2009: There is no requirement for
a certificate of non-forum shopping in the Labor Code or in the rules.
A certification proceeding, even though initiated by a petition, is not a litigation but an
investigation of a non-adversarial and fact-finding character. Such proceedings are not
predicated upon an allegation of misconduct requiring relief, but, rather, are merely of an
inquisitorial nature.
Q. Can probationary employees be allowed to vote in certification election?
Yes. NUWHRAIN-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter v. Secretary, July 31, 2009:
Any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall beginning on the first
day of his/her service, be eligible for membership in any labor organization. In a
certification election for the bargaining unit of rank and file employees, all rank and file
employees, whether probationary or permanent are entitled to vote. As long as probationary
employees belong to the defined bargaining unit, they are eligible to support the petition for
certification election.
4. Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) and Strikes
Q. Who has jurisdiction over an unfair labor practice complaint?
Silva v. National Labor Relations Commission: The correlations of Article 248 (1) and
Article 261 of the Labor Code stress that for a ULP case to be cognizable by the Labor
Arbiter, and for the NLRC to exercise appellate jurisdiction thereon, the allegations in the
complaint must show prima facie the concurrence of two things, namely: (1) gross violation
of the CBA; and (2) the violation pertains to the economic provisions of the CBA.
However, when an employer proceeds to negotiate with a splinter union despite the existence
of its valid CBA with the duly certified and exclusive bargaining agent, the former
indubitably abandons its recognition of the latter and terminates the entire CBA.
Q. How will the Labor Arbiter rule if malice was not alleged in a complaint for unfair
labor practice?
Dismiss the case. Manila Mining Corporation Employees Association v. Manila Mining
Corp., September 29, 2010: For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown
that the employer was motivated by ill-will, bad faith or fraud, or was oppressive to labor.
The employer must have acted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public
policy causing social humiliation, wounded feelings or grave anxiety. While the law makes it

an obligation for the employer and the employees to bargain collectively with each other,
such compulsion does not include the commitment to precipitately accept or agree to the
proposals of the other. All it contemplates is that both parties should approach the negotiation
with an open mind and make reasonable effort to reach a common ground of agreement.
Q. Is it possible for a labor union to commit an unfair labor practice?
Yes. Goya v. Goya Employees Union, January 21, 2013: A CBA which prescribes three
categories of employees (probationary, regular, casual) and provides for the definition,
functions and duties of each, serves as a limitation on managements prerogative of
outsourcing parts of its operations, particularly if it involves functions or duties specified
under the CBA.
Q. With the adoption of cost cutting measures, Eduardo was part of manufacturing that
was retrenched by the company. Can Eduardo ask for reinstatement?
No. Pepsi Cola Products v. Molon et al., February 18, 2013: Retrenchment in good faith is
not an unfair labor practice. The fact that the retrenchment program was implemented on a
company-wide basis shows that the scheme was not calculated to stymie union activities.
Q. Jerusalem Corp. (JC) has been providing new chairs to its sewing crew for the
past five years. On the sixth year, JC stopped providing new chairs. Can the company
be charged with unfair labor practice for withdrawal of this regular provision?
No. Royal Plant Workers Union v. Coca Cola Bottlers, April 15, 2013: Removal of chairs,
which had been provided for more than three decades, was not ULP. The rights of the Union
under any labor law were not violated.
Since the CBA stated that any benefit not expressly provided for in the CBA shall be deemed
as purely voluntary acts, and shall not be construed as obligation of the company, its
subsequent removal was valid. The long practice did not convert it into an obligation or a
vested right in favor of the union. Chairs are not considered benefits and are not therefore
covered by the prohibition against diminution.
Q. Who has the burden of proof in an unfair labor practice case?
The party who instituted the case has the burden of proof. Central Azucarera de Bais
Employees Union v. Central Azucarera de Bais, November 17, 2010: Basic is the principle
that good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. By
imputing bad faith to the actuations of CAB, CABEU-NFL has the burden of proof to present
substantial evidence to support the allegation of unfair labor practice. Apparently, CABEUNFL refers only to the circumstances mentioned in the letter-response, namely, the execution
of the supposed CBA between CAB and CABELA and the request to suspend the
negotiations, to conclude that bad faith attended CABs actions. The Court is of the view that
CABEU-NFL, in simply relying on the said letter-response, failed to substantiate its claim of
unfair labor practice to rebut the presumption of good faith.
Q. Who has the burden of proof in a case when there is allegation that the registration
of the labor union was attended with fraud?
The party who instituted the action has the burden of proof. Yokohama Tire Phils. v.
Yokohama Employees Union, March 10, 2010; Heritage Hotel Manila v. PIGLASHeritage, October 30, 2009: The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and
misrepresentation in securing its registration is a serious charge that should be clearly
established by evidence and the surrounding circumstances.
The petitioner (the party that filed the Petition for Cancellation) has the burden of proof.
Q. Is the employer a party to the petition for certification election?
No. Republic of the Philippines, represented by DOLE, v. Kawashima Textile, July 23,
2008: Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a mere bystander to
any petition for certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely
investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the
employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. The choice of their
representative is the exclusive concern of the employees; the employer cannot have any
partisan interest therein; it cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a
motion to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that some employees
participating in a petition for certification election are actually managerial employees will
lend an employer legal personality to block the certification election. The employer's only
right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof.
As amended by R.A. 9481, the Labor Code now provides that, in certification election cases,
the employer shall not be considered a party with a concomitant right to oppose a petition
for certification election.
Q. Can employer terminate the employment of union members during the Freedom
Period?
No. PICOP Resources, Inc. v. Taeca, August 9, 2010: The mere signing of the
authorization in support of a Petition for Certification Election before the freedom period,
is not sufficient ground to terminate the employment of union members under the Union
Security Clause respondents inasmuch as the petition itself was actually filed during the
freedom period.

Q. What is the effect if the employer and the company extends its 5-year CBA?
FVC Labor Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (FVCLUPTGWO) v. Sama-Samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa Sa FVC-Solidarity of
Independent and General Labor Organizations (SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO), November 27,
2009: While the parties may agree to extend the CBAs original five-year term together with
all other CBA provisions, any such amendment or term in excess of five years will not carry
with it a change in the unions exclusive collective bargaining status. By express provision
of the above-quoted Article 253-A, the exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond five
years and the representation status is a legal matter not for the workplace parties to agree
upon. In other words, despite an agreement for a CBA with a life of more than five years,
either as an original provision or by amendment, the bargaining unions exclusive bargaining
status is effective only for five years and can be challenged within sixty (60) days prior to the
expiration of the CBAs first five years.
Q. Can the personality of the petitioner labor be collaterally attacked in the same
certification election proceeding?
No. Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Chemical (SMCC-SUPER) v. Charter Chemical
and Coating Corp., March 16, 2011: The legal personality of petitioner union cannot be
collaterally attacked in the certification election proceedings. The remedy is to file a separate
action for cancellation of the unions registration/legal personality.
Q. Can bonuses be demandable?
Yes. Eastern Telecoms v. Eastern Telecoms Employees Union, February 8, 2012;
The general is a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable obligation. For a bonus to be
enforceable, it must have been promised by the employer and expressly agreed upon by the
parties. Given that the bonus in this case is integrated in the CBA, the same partakes the
nature of a demandable obligation. Verily, by virtue of its incorporation in the CBA, the
Christmas bonus due to respondent Association has become more than just an act of
generosity on the part of the petitioner but a contractual obligation it has undertaken.
Q: Are dismissed employees entitled to backwages?
If termination was not without just cause, they are entitled to back wages.
Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC) formerly known as Metro Cebu Community
Hospital (MCCH) v. Erma Yballe, et al., G.R. No. 196156, January 15, 2014: As a general
rule, backwages are granted to indemnify a dismissed employee for his loss of earnings
during the whole period that he is out of his job. Considering that an illegally dismissed
employee is not deemed to have left his employment, he is entitled to all the rights and
privileges that accrue to him from the employment. The grant of backwages to him is in
furtherance and effectuation of the public objectives of the Labor Code, and is in the nature
of a command to the employer to make public reparation for dismissing the employee in
violation of the Labor Code.
The Court held that the respondents are not entitled to the payment of backwages. The Court,
citing G&S Transport Corporation v. Infante (G. R. No. 160303, September 13, 2007)
stated that the principle of a fair days wage for a fair days labor remains as the basic
factor in determining the award thereof. An exception to the rule would be if the laborer was
able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed or
otherwise illegally prevented from working. It is, however, required, for this exception to
apply, that the strike be legal, a situation which does not obtain in the case at bar.
The Supreme Court stressed that the law makes a distinction between union members and
union officers. A union member who merely participates in an illegal strike may not be
terminated from employment. It is only when he commits illegal acts during a strike that he
may be declared to have lost employment status. In contrast, a union officer may be
terminated from employment for knowingly participating in an illegal strike or participates in

the commission of illegal acts during a strike. The law grants the employer the option of
declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike as having lost his employment.
It possesses the right and prerogative to terminate the union officers from service.

F. Book VI
1. Just Cause
Jonas Michael R. Garza v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., et al.,G.R. No. 180972. January 20,
2014: The burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for valid cause.
Unsubstantiated accusations or baseless conclusions of the employer are insufficient legal
justifications to dismiss an employee. The unflinching rule in illegal dismissal cases is that the
employer bears the burden of proof. Embezzlement and failure to remit collections can only be
sustained if the employee actually collected the amounts due to the company.

2. Authorized Cause
Q. What constitutes constructive dismissal?
Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corp. v. Ranchez, January 19, 2011:There is
constructive dismissal when the employer pre-judged the employees guilt without proper
investigation, and instantly reported her to the police as the suspected thief, after the
employee herself reported the loss of money. The due process requirements under the Labor
Code are mandatory and may not be supplanted by police investigation or court proceedings.
The criminal aspect of the case is considered independent of the administrative aspect.
Employers should not rely solely on the findings of the Prosecutors Office. They are
mandated to conduct their own separate investigation, and to accord the employee every
opportunity to defend ones self.
Dreamland Hotel v. Johnson, March 12, 2014: The employers non-payment of the
employees salaries for three months constituted constructive dismissal, even if it was the
employee who resigned, since the employee clearly cited in the resignation letter the nonpayment of salaries as the reason for the resignation.
The University of the Immaculate Conception v. NLRC, January 26, 2011: Constructive
Dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered
impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely as when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in
pay or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes
unbearable to the employee, leaving the latter with no other option but to quit.
Q. Will the pendency of a criminal case justify the termination of employment of an
employee?
No. United Tourist Promotion v. Kemplin, February 5, 2014: A first notice which stated that
the employment contract had expired but likewise made general references to alleged
criminal suits filed against the employee is non-compliant with the twin-notice requirement.
An employees guilt or innocence in a criminal case is not determinative of the existence of a
just or authorized cause for the employees dismissal. The pendency of a criminal suit
against an employee does not, by itself, sufficiently establish a ground for an employer to
terminate the employees services.
3. Observation of Due Notice
- Two-notice rule: appraisal and notice of termination
Q. When will the two-notice rule not apply?
Caong v. Regualos, January 26, 2011: The employers policy of suspending drivers who fail
to remit the full amount of the boundary was fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
An employer has free rein and enjoys a wide latitude of discretion to regulate all aspects of
employment, including the prerogative to instill discipline on the employees. Since the case

involved a suspension, not a termination, the strict application of the twin-notice rule is not
warranted.
Q. Will lending a company I.D. to allow a relative to avail of shuttle bus service of the
company justify his dismissal?
No. Integrated Microelectronics v. Pionilla, August 28, 2013: An employees act of lending
his I.D. card to a relative who was an applicant at the employer company (to allow the
relative to have free pass for the shuttle bus) was considered as insufficient ground for
termination, despite the guilt of the employee.
Reinstatement WITHOUT backwages was ordered, because: (1) dismissal of the employee
was too harsh a penalty; (2) the employer was in good faith in terminating the employee.
Q. What would justify non-payment of separation pay?
International School v. ISAE, February 5, 2014: In addition to serious misconduct, in
dismissals based on other grounds under Art. 282 like wilful disobedience, gross and habitual
neglect of duty, fraud or wilful breach of trust, and commission of a crime against the
employer or his family, separation pay should not be conceded to the dismissed employee.
In analogous causes for termination like inefficiency, drug use, and others, the NLRC or the
courts may opt to grant separation pay anchored on social justice in consideration of the
length of service of the employee, the amount involved, whether the act is the first offense,
the performance of the employee and the like.
Grievance procedure
Jonas Michael R. Garza v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., et al.,G.R. No. 180972. January
20, 2014: The burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for valid cause.
Unsubstantiated accusations or baseless conclusions of the employer are insufficient legal
justifications to dismiss an employee. The unflinching rule in illegal dismissal cases is that
the employer bears the burden of proof.
One of CCBPIs policies requires that, on a daily basis, CCBPI Salesmen/Account Specialists
must account for their sales/collections and obtain clearance from the company Cashier
before they are allowed to leave company premises at the end of their shift and report for
work the next day. If there is a shortage/failure to account, the concerned Salesmen/Account
Specialist is not allowed to leave the company premises until he settles the same. In addition,
shortages are deducted from the employees salaries. If CCBPI expects to proceed with its
case against petitioner, it should have negated this policy, for its existence and application are
inextricably tied to CCBPIs accusations against petitioner. In the first place, as petitioners
employer, upon it lay the burden of proving by convincing evidence that he was dismissed
for cause. If petitioner continued to work until June 2004, this meant that he committed no
infraction, going by this company policy; it could also mean that any infraction or
shortage/non-remittance incurred by petitioner has been duly settled. Respondents decision
to ignore this issue generates the belief that petitioner is telling the truth, and that the alleged
infractions are fabricated, or have been forgiven. Coupled with Macatangays statement
which remains equally unrefuted that the charges against petitioner are a scheme by local
CCBPI management to cover up problems in the Naga City Plant, the conclusion is indeed
telling that petitioner is being wrongfully made to account.
G. Book VII
1. Jurisdiction: Labor Arbiter
Price v. Innodata (2008): Where contract of employment, being a contract of adhesion, is
ambiguous, any ambiguity therein should be construed strictly against the party who
prepared it.
Sofio v. Valenzuela (2012): When the labor arbiters decision has become final, party who
prevailed already attained a vested right to said judgment. They had to rely on the
immutability of judgment.

INC Shipmanagement, Inc. Captain Sigfredo E. Monterroyo and/or Interorient

Navigation Limited v. Alexander L. Moradas, G.R. No., January 15, 2014: Having
established through substantial evidence that respondents injury was self-inflicted and,
hence, not compensable pursuant to Section 20 (D) of the 1996 POEA-SEC, no grave abuse
of discretion can be imputed against the NLRC in upholding LAs decision to dismiss
respondents complaint for disability benefits. It is well-settled that an act of a court or
tribunal can only be considered to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion when such act is
done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction: NLRC
INC Shipmanagement, Inc. Captain Sigfredo E. Monterroyo and/or Interorient
Navigation Limited v. Alexander L. Moradas, G.R. No., January 15, 2014: In labor cases, as
in other administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion is required. To note,
considering that substantial evidence is an evidentiary threshold, the Court, on exceptional
cases, may assess the factual determinations made by the NLRC in a particular case.
The Court ruled that NLRC had cogent legal bases to conclude that petitioners have
successfully discharged the burden of proving by substantial evidence that respondents
injury was directly attributable to him. Records bear out circumstances which all lead to the
reasonable conclusion that respondent was responsible for the flooding and burning
incidents. While respondent contended that the affidavits and statements of the vessels
officers and his fellow crew members should not be given probative value as they were
biased, self-serving, and mere hearsay, he nonetheless failed to present any evidence to
substantiate his own theory. Besides, as correctly pointed out by the NLRC, the
corroborating affidavits and statements of the vessels officers and crew members must
be taken as a whole and cannot just be perfunctorily dismissed as self-serving absent any
showing that they were lying when they made the statements therein.
.United Placement v. NLRC (1993): Review powers of NLRC are limited only on issues
raised on appeal. Hence, it is grave abuse of discretion for the NLRC to resolve issues not
raised on appeal.
Jurisdiction: Bureau of Labor Relations
Jurisdiction: National Conciliation and Mediation Board
Insular Hotel Employees Union- NFL v. Waterfront Insular Hotel (2010): Procedurally,
the first step to submit a case for mediation is to file a notice of preventive mediation
with the NCMB.
Jurisdiction: DOLE Regional Directors
Jurisdiction: Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitration
Insular Hotel Employees Union v. Waterfront Insular Hotel, September 22, 2010: The
general rule is individual employees cannot raise a grievance. Only disputes involving the
union and the company shall be referred to the grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrators.
A labor federation cannot raise a grievance on behalf of members of its local/chapter.
BPI v. BPI Employees Union (2012): In ruling in favour of the union in a voluntary
arbitration, the Court held that the CBA is the contract between the parties. All provisions
and conditions for availment of benefits should be made clear. Any ambiguity must be
resolved in favor of the employees.
Santuyo v. Remerco Garments, March 22, 2010: Article 217(c) of the Labor Code requires
labor arbiters to refer cases involving the implementation of CBAs to the grievance
machinery provided therein and to voluntary arbitration.

Moreover, Article 260 of the Labor Code clarifies that such disputes must be referred first to
the grievance machinery and, if unresolved within seven days, they shall automatically be
referred to voluntary arbitration.
Continental Steel v. Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator Montano: Being for the benefit of the
employee, CBA provisions on bereavement leave and other death benefits should be
interpreted liberally to give life to the intentions thereof.
Jurisdiction: DOLE Secretary
Chris Garments Corporation v. Hon. Patricia A. Sto. Tomas and Chris Garments Workers
Union-PTGWO, January 12, 2009: The Secretary of Labor and Employment dismissed
the first petition as it was filed outside the 60-day freedom period. Subsequently,
another petition for CE was filed, this time within the freedom period.
Q. Will the subsequent petition prosper?
Yes, because the dismissal has no bearing in the instant case since the third petition for
certification election was filed well within the 60-day freedom period. Otherwise stated,
there is no identity of causes of action to speak of since in the first petition, the union has no
cause of action while in the third, a cause of action already exists for the union as they are
now legally allowed to challenge the status of SMCGC-SUPER as exclusive bargaining
representative.
2. Prescription of Actions
- Illegal dismissal without any legal bar: 4 years
- Money claims without legal bar: 3 years
- Termination of employment: 4 years (Art. 1146, Civil Code)
Goodrich v. Ativo (2010): Courts look with disfavor on quitclaims. Exceptions to the general
rule on quitclaims:
1. Employee executes quitclaim voluntarily
2. There is fraud or deceit on the part of the employer
3. Consideration for quitclaim is credible and reasonable
4. Contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or
prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law
Villaruel v. Yeo Han Guan, June 1, 2011: Separation pay under Article 284 presupposes that
it is the employer who terminates the services of the employee found to be suffering from
disease. It does not apply to a situation where it is the employee who severe his or her
employment ties.
Nippon Housing v. Leynes, August 3, 2011: A complaint for illegal dismissal filed prior to
the lapse of the six-month period (off-detailing/floating status) and/or the actual dismissal of
the employee is generally considered premature.
3. Modes of Appeal
General Rule: The absence of employer-employee relationship not be raised for the
first time on appeal.
INC Shipmanagement, Inc. Captain Sigfredo E. Monterroyo and/or Interorient Navigation
Limited v. Alexander L. Moradas, G.R. No., January 15, 2014: The Courts jurisdiction in
cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is generally limited to
reviewing errors of law. The Court is not the proper venue to consider a factual issue as it is
not a trier of facts. This rule, however, is not ironclad and a departure therefrom may be
warranted where the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions of
the NLRC and LA, as in this case. In this regard, there is therefore a need to review the
records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary
facts.
The prevailing rule under Section 20 (B) of the 1996 POEA-SEC on compensation and
benefits for injury or illness was that an employer shall be liable for the injury or illness
suffered by a seafarer during the term of his contract. To be compensable, the injury or illness
must be proven to have been contracted during the term of the contract. However, the

employer may be exempt from liability if he can successfully prove that the cause of the
seamans injury was directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act as provided under
Section 20 (D) thereof, to wit:
D. No compensation shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability
or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act, provided however,
that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly
attributable to seafarer.
Hence, the onus probandi falls on the petitioners herein to establish or substantiate
their claim that the respondents injury was caused by his willful act with the requisite
quantum of evidence.
4. Award of Attorneys Fees
- Nature of award
- Grounds for award
-maximum amount
Q. Can monetary award be granted based on equity?
Yes. Luna v. Allado Construction, May 30, 2011; Villaruel v. Yeo Han Guan, June 1, 2011:
Even if there is a finding that the employee indeed resigned and was not dismissed, the
employee may still be granted financial assistance on equity considerations.