LABOR STANDARDS

Estrellita G. Salazar vs Philippine Duplicators, Inc, G.R.

No. 154628 December 6, 2006
The constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor
is not meant to be a sword to oppress employers. The
commitment under the fundamental law is that the cause of
labor does not prevent us from sustaining the employer
when the law is clearly on its side.
People of the Philippines vs. Teresita Tessie Laogo.
G.R. No. 176264 January 10, 2011
Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, specifies that
recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or nonholders of authority are deemed illegal and punishable by
law. When the illegal recruitment is committed against
three or more persons, individually or as a group, then it is
deemed committed in large scale and carries with it stiffer
penalties as the same is deemed a form of economic
sabotage. But to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown
that the accused, without being duly authorized by law,
gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the
power or ability to send them abroad for work, such that the
latter were convinced to part with their money in order to
be employed. It is important that there must at least be a
promise or offer of an employment from the person posing
as a recruiter, whether locally or abroad.
SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY INC. v.
CABILES, G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014
In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow
Navigation Co., Inc., this court ruled that the clause or for
three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less is unconstitutional for violating the equal
protection clause and substantive due process.
A statute or provision which was declared unconstitutional
is not a law. It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it
affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative
as if it has not been passed at all.
When a law or a provision of law is null because it is
inconsistent with the Constitution, the nullity cannot be
cured by reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a
similar law or provision. A law or provision of law that was
already declared unconstitutional remains as such unless
circumstances have so changed as to warrant a reverse
conclusion.
Sycip, Gorres, Velayo & Company vs. Carol De Raedt.
G.R. No. 161366; June 16, 2009
To determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, case law has consistently applied the four-fold
test, to wit: (a) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of
dismissal; and (d) the employers power to control the
employee on the means and methods by which the work is
accomplished. The so-called control test is the most

important indicator of the presence or absence of an

employer-employee relationship.
Manila Water Company, Inc. vs. Jose J. Dalumpines. G.R.
No. 175501; October 4, 2010
It should be remembered that the control test merely calls
for the existence of the right to control, and not necessarily
the exercise thereof. It is not essential that the employer
actually supervises the performance of duties of the
employee. It is enough that the former has a right to wield
the power.
Macarthur Malicdem and Hermenigildo Flores vs.
Marulas Industrial Corporation. G.R. No. 204406;
February 26, 2014
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.
KASAMMA-CCO v. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 159828;
April 19, 2006
A casual employee is only casual for one year, and it is the
passage of time that gives him a regular status.
Jose Y. Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation,
G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004
Television-radio talent is not an employee. Relationship of
a big name talent and a television-radio broadcasting
company is one of an independent contracting
arrangement. ABS-CBN engaged Sonzas services
specifically to co-host the Mel & Jay programs. ABS-CBN
did not assign any other work to Sonza. To perform his
work, Sonza only needed his skills and talent. How Sonza
delivered his lines, appeared on television, and sounded on
radio were outside ABS-CBNs control. Sonza did not have
to render eight hours of work per day. The Agreement
required Sonza to attend only rehearsals and tapings of the
shows, as well as pre- and post-production staff meetings.
ABS-CBN could not dictate the contents of Sonzas script.
Gapayao v Fulo, et al., G.R. No. 193493 (2013)
Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal
employees. The Court has consistently held 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.
This rule, however, is not absolute. Seasonal workers who
have worked for one season only may not be considered
regular employees. Also when seasonal employees are free
to contract their services with other farm owners, then the
former are not regular employees. For regular employees to
be considered as such, the primary standard used is the
LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 1

reasonable connection between the particular activity they

perform and the usual trade or business of the employer.
FVR Skills and Services Exponents, Inc. (SKILLEX), et al.
v. Jovert Seva, et al., G.R. No. 200857, October 22, 2014
For an employee to be validly categorized as a project
employee, it is necessary that the specific project or
undertaking had been identified and its period and
completion date determined and made known to the
employee at the time of his engagement. This provision
ensures that the employee is completely apprised of the
terms of his hiring and the corresponding rights and
obligations arising from his undertaking. Notably, the
petitioners service contract with Robinsons was from
January 1 to December 31, 2008. The respondents were
only asked to sign their employment contracts for their
deployment with Robinsons halfway through 2008, when
the petitioners service contract was about to expire.
Under Article 1390 of the Civil Code, contracts where the
consent of a party was vitiated by mistake, violence,
intimidation, undue influence or fraud, are voidable or
annullable. The petitioners threat of nonpayment of the
respondents salaries clearly amounted to intimidation.
Under this situation, and the suspect timing when these
contracts were executed, we rule that these employment
contracts were voidable and were effectively questioned
when the respondents filed their illegal dismissal
complaint. Respondents are thus regular employees.
Pasos v Philippine National Construction Corporation,
G.R. No. 192394 (2013)
Project employee is deemed regularized if services are
extended without specifying duration. While for first three
months, petitioner can be considered a project employee of
PNCC, his employment thereafter, when his services were
extended without any specification of as to the duration,
made him a regular employee of PNCC. And his status as a
regular employee was not affected by the fact that he was
assigned to several other projects and there were intervals
in between said projects since he enjoys security of tenure.
Alcatel Phils. vs Relos, G.R. No. 164315. July 3, 2009
However, a project or work pool employee who has been
continuously rehired by the same employer for the same
tasks that are necessary to the usual business of the
employer must be deemed a regular employee.
Fuji Television Network, Inc. v Arlene S. Espiritu, G.R.
No. 204944-45, 03 December 2014
An employee can be a regular employee with a fixed-term
contract. The law does not preclude the possibility that a
regular employee may opt to have a fixed-term contract for
valid reasons. This was recognized in Brent: For as long as
it was the employee who requested, or bargained, that the
contract have a definite date of termination, or that the
fixed-term contract be freely entered into by the employer
and the employee, then the validity of the fixed-term
contract will be upheld.

GMA Network, Inc. v Pabriga, et al., G.R. No. 176419

(2013)
Petitioners allegation that respondents were merely
substitutes or what they call pinch-hitters (which means
that they were employed to take the place of regular
employees of petitioner who were absent or on leave) does
not change the fact that their jobs cannot be considered
projects within the purview of the law. Every industry, even
public offices, has to deal with securing substitutes for
employees who are absent or on leave. Such tasks, whether
performed by the usual employee or by a substitute, cannot
be considered separate and distinct from the other
undertakings of the company. While it is managements
prerogative to device a method to deal with this issue, such
prerogative is not absolute and is limited to systems
wherein employees are not ingeniously and methodically
deprived of their constitutionally protected right to security
of tenure.
Avelino Lambo vs NLRC. G.R. No. 111042 October 26,
1999
There is no dispute that petitioners were employees of
private respondents although they were paid not on the
basis of time spent on the job but according to the quantity
and the quality of work produced by them. There are two
categories of employees paid by results: (1) those whose
time and performance are supervised by the employer.
(Here, there is an element of control and supervision over
the manner as to how the work is to be performed. A piecerate worker belongs to this category especially if he
performs his work in the company premises.); and (2) those
whose time and performance are unsupervised. (Here, the
employers control is over the result of the work. Workers
on pakyao and takay basis belong to this group.) Both
classes of workers are paid per unit accomplished. Piecerate payment is generally practiced in garment factories
where work is done in the company premises, while
payment on pakyao and takay basis is commonly observed
in the agricultural industry, such as in sugar plantations
where the work is performed in bulk or in volumes difficult
to quantify. Petitioners belong to the first category, i.e.,
supervised employees.
PCL Shipping Philippine, Inc. and U-Ming Marine
Transport Corporation, vs NLRC. G.R. No. 153031,
December 14, 2006
With respect, however, to the award of overtime pay, the
correct criterion in determining whether or not sailors are
entitled to overtime pay is not whether they were on board
and cannot leave ship beyond the regular eight working
hours a day, but whether they actually rendered service in
excess of said number of hours. In the present case, the
Court finds that private respondent is not entitled to
overtime pay because he failed to present any evidence to
prove that he rendered service in excess of the regular eight
working hours a day.

LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 2

Bisig Manggawa sa Tryco, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No.

151309 October 15, 2008
D.O. No. 21 sanctions the waiver of overtime pay in
consideration of the benefits that the employees will derive
from the adoption of a compressed workweek scheme, thus:
The compressed workweek scheme was originally
conceived for establishments wishing to save on energy
costs, promote greater work efficiency and lower the rate of
employee absenteeism, among others. Workers favor the
scheme considering that it would mean savings on the
increasing cost of transportation fares for at least one (1)
day a week; savings on meal and snack expenses; longer
weekends, or an additional 52 off-days a year, that can be
devoted to rest, leisure, family responsibilities, studies and
other personal matters, and that it will spare them for at
least another day in a week from certain inconveniences
that are the normal incidents of employment, such as
commuting to and from the workplace, travel time spent,
exposure to dust and motor vehicle fumes, dressing up for
work, etc. Thus, under this scheme, the generally observed
workweek of six (6) days is shortened to five (5) days but
prolonging the working hours from Monday to Friday
without the employer being obliged for pay overtime
premium compensation for work performed in excess of
eight (8) hours on weekdays, in exchange for the benefits
abovecited that will accrue to the employees. Moreover, the
adoption of a compressed workweek scheme in the
company will help temper any inconvenience that will be
caused the petitioners by their transfer to a farther
workplace.
Rosario A. Gaa vs CA G.R. No. L-44169 Dec. 3, 1985
The term wages differs from the term salary. Wages
apply to compensation for manual labor, skilled or
unskilled, paid at stated times and measured by the day,
week, month or season; while salary denotes a higher grade
of employment or a superior grade of services and implies
a position or office. By contrast, the term wages indicates
a considerable pay for a lower and less responsible
character of employment, while salary is suggestive of a
larger and more important service
The distinction between salary and wage in Gaa vs CA was
only for the purpose of Art. 1708 of the Civil Code which
provides that the laborers wage shall not be subject to
execution or attachment except for debts incurred for food,
shelter, clothing, and medical attendance.
Our Haus Realty Development Corporation v.
Alexander Parian, et al., G.R. No. 204651, 06 August
2014
The benefit or privilege given to the employee which
constitutes an extra remuneration above and over his basic
or ordinary earning or wage is supplement; and when said
benefit or privilege is part of the laborers basic wages, it is
a facility. The distinction lies not so much in the kind of
benefit or item (food, lodging, bonus or sick leave) given,
but in the purpose for which it is given. In the case at bench,
the items provided were given freely by SLL for the purpose

of maintaining the efficiency and health of its workers while

they were working at their respective projects.
Ultimately, the real difference lies not on the kind of the
benefit but on the purpose why it was given by the
employer. If it is primarily for the employees gain, then the
benefit is a facility; if its provision is mainly for the
employers advantage, then it is a supplement. Again, this is
to ensure that employees are protected in circumstances
where the employer designates a benefit as deductible from
the wages even though it clearly works to the employers
greater convenience or advantage.
Under the purpose test, substantial consideration must be
given to the nature of the employers business in relation to
the character or type of work performed by the employees
involved.
Bluer Than Blue Joint Ventures Company v Glyza
Esteban, G.R. No. 192582, 7 April 2014
The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code,
meanwhile, provides:
SECTION 14. Deduction for loss or damage. Where the
employer is engaged in a trade, occupation or business
where the practice of making deductions or requiring
deposits is recognized to answer for the reimbursement of
loss or damage to tools, materials, or equipment supplied
by the employer to the employee, the employer may make
wage deductions or require the employees to make deposits
from which deductions shall be made, subject to the
following conditions:
(a) That the employee concerned is clearly shown to be
responsible for the loss or damage;
(b) That the employee is given reasonable opportunity to
show cause why deduction should not be made;
(c) That the amount of such deduction is fair and reasonable
and shall not exceed the actual loss or damage; and
(d) That the deduction from the wages of the employee does
not exceed 20 percent of the employees wages in a week.
Petitioner failed to sufficiently establish that Esteban was
responsible for the negative variance it had in its sales for
the year 2005 to 2006 and that Esteban was given the
opportunity to show cause why the deduction from her last
salary should not be made. The Court cannot accept the
petitioners statement that it is the practice in the retail
industry to deduct variances from an employees salary,
without more.
Lilia P. Labadan vs. Forest Hills Academy. G.R. No.
172295 December 23, 2008
Respecting petitioners claim for holiday pay, Forest Hills
contends that petitioner failed to prove that she actually
worked during specific holidays. Article 94 of the Labor
Code provides, however, that(a) Every worker shall be
paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays, except
in retail and service establishments regularly employing
less than ten (10) workers; (b) The employer may require
an employee to work on any holiday but such employee
LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 3

shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his regular

rate.The provision that a worker is entitled to twice his
regular rate if he is required to work on a holiday implies
that the provision entitling a worker to his regular rate on
holidays applies even if he does not work.

commissions due to Delmo were to be paid in US dollars or

their equivalent in Philippine currency determined at the
time of the sales. To rule otherwise would be to cause an
unjust diminution of the commissions due and owing to
Delmo.

BPI Employees union-Davao City-FUBU v Bank of the

Philippine Islands, et al., G.R. No. 174912 (2013)
Contracting out of services is not illegal per se. It is an
exercise of business judgment or management prerogative.
Absent proof that the management acted in a malicious or
arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere with the
exercise of judgment by an employer. BPIs policy of
contracting out cashiering and bookkeeping services was
considered as a valid exercise of management prerogative
which is further authorized by the Central Bank in CBP
Circular No. 1388, Series of 199.

Bankard Employees Union-Workers Alliance Trade

Unions vs NLRC. G.R. No. 140689 February 17, 2004
Even assuming that there is a decrease in the wage gap
between the pay of the old employees and the newly hired
employees, to Our mind said gap is not significant as to
obliterate or result in severe contraction of the intentional
quantitative differences in the salary rates between the
employee group. As already stated, the classification under
the wage structure is based on the rank of an employee, not
on seniority. For this reason, ,wage distortion does not
appear to exist.

Central Azucarera De Tarlac vs. Central Azucarera De

Tarlac Labor Union-NLU. G.R. No. 188949, July 26, 2010
Article 100 of the Labor Code, otherwise known as the NonDiminution Rule, mandates that benefits given to
employees cannot be taken back or reduced unilaterally by
the employer because the benefit has become part of the
employment contract, written or unwritten. The rule
against diminution of benefits applies if it is shown that the
grant of the benefit is based on an express policy or has
ripened into a practice over a long period of time and that
the practice is consistent and deliberate. Nevertheless, the
rule will not apply if the practice is due to error in the
construction or application of a doubtful or difficult
question of law. But even in cases of error, it should be
shown that the correction is done soon after discovery of
the error.

Rogelio Reyes vs NLRC. G.R. No. 160233, August 8, 2007

Under the Rules and Regulations Implementing
Presidential Decree 851, the following compensations are
deemed not part of the basic salary:

Netlink Computer Incorporated v Eric Delmo, G.R. No.

160827, 18 June 2014
With regard to the length of time the company practice
should have been observed to constitute a voluntary
employer practice that cannot be unilaterally reduced,
diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer,
we find that jurisprudence has not laid down any rule
requiring a specific minimum number of years. In Davao
Fruits Corporation v. Associated Labor Unions, the
company practice lasted for six years. In Davao Integrated
Port Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez, the employer, for
three years and nine months, approved the commutation to
cash of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave with pay
benefits of its intermittent workers. In Tiangco v. Leogardo,
Jr., the employer carried on the practice of giving a fixed
monthly emergency allowance from November 1976 to
February 1980, or three years and four months. In Sevilla
Trading Company v. Semana, the employer kept the practice
of including non-basic benefits such as paid leaves for
unused sick leave and vacation in the computation of their
13th-month pay for at least two years.
With the payment of US dollar commissions having ripened
into a company practice, there is no way that the

a) Cost-of-living allowances granted pursuant to

Presidential Decree 525 and Letter of Instruction No. 174;
b) Profit sharing payments;c) All allowances and monetary
benefits which are not considered or integrated as part of
the regular basic salary of the employee at the time of the
promulgation of the Decree on December 16, 1975.
Producers Bank v. NLRC. G.R. No. 100701. March 28,
2001
Bonus is not demandable as a matter of right. It is a
management prerogative, given in addition to what is
ordinarily received by or strictly due to the recipient.
Philipiine Telegraph vs. Laplana. G.R. No. 76645; July
23, 1991
It is the employers prerogative, based on its assessment
and perception of its employees qualifications, aptitudes,
and competence, to move them around in the various areas
of its business operations in order to ascertain where they
will function with maximum benefit to the company. When
an employees transfer is not unreasonable, nor
inconvenient or prejudicial to him, and it does not involve a
demotion in rank or diminution of his salaries, benefits and
other privileges, the employee may not complain that it
amounts to a constructive dismissal.
UE v. PEPANIO, G.R. No. 193897, January 23, 2013
The requirement of a masteral degree for tertiary education
teachers is not unreasonable. The operation of educational
institutions involves public interest. The government has a
right to ensure that only qualified persons, in possession of
sufficient academic knowledge and teaching skills, are
allowed to teach in such institutions. Government
regulation in this field of human activity is desirable for
protecting, not only the students, but the public as well from
ill-prepared teachers, who are lacking in the required
LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 4

scientific or technical knowledge. They may be required to

take an examination or to possess postgraduate degrees as
prerequisite to employment.

Prohibition of marriage or existing or future relationships

between employees of competing companies is not violative
of the equal protection clause.

Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC. G.R. No. 125792;

November 9, 1998
In legitimate job contracting, no employer-employee
relation exists between the principal and the job
contractors employees. The principal is responsible to the
job contractors employees only for the proper payment of
wages. But in labor-only contracting, an employeremployee relation is created by law between the principal
and the labor-only contractors employees, such that the
former is responsible to such employees, as if he or she had
directly employed them

Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v National Labor

Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 200575 (2014)
Cabiles contention that his employment with Intel HK is a
continuation of his service with Intel Phil alleging that it was
but an assignment by his principal employer, similar to his
assignments to Intel Arizona and Intel Chengdu is
untenable.

Vigilla, et al. v Philippine College of Criminology, Inc.,

G.R. No. 200094 (2013)
In legitimate job contracting, the principal employer
becomes jointly and severally liable with the job contractor
only for the payment of the employees wages whenever the
contractor fails to pay the same. On the other hand, in laboronly contracting, the principal employer becomes solidarily
liable with the labor-only contractor for all the rightful
claims of the employees. In this case, the releases, waivers
and quitclaims executed by employees in favor of the laboronly contractor redounded to the benefit of the principal.
San Miguel Corp. vs. MAERC Integrated Systems. G.R. No.
144672; July 10, 2003
The employer is deemed the direct employer and is made
liable to the employees of the contractor for a more
comprehensive purpose (wages, monetary claims, and all
other benefits in the Labor Code such as SSS/Medicare/PagIbig). The labor-only contractor is deemed merely an agent.
A finding that a contractor is a labor-only contractor is
equivalent to declaring that there is an ER-EE relationship
between the principal and the employees of the labor-only
contractor.
Cheryll Santos Leus v St. Scholasticas College
Westgrove, et al., G.R. No. 187226, 28 January 2015
That an employee was employed by a Catholic educational
institution per se does not absolutely determine whether
her pregnancy out of wedlock is disgraceful or immoral.
There is still a necessity to determine whether the
petitioners pregnancy out of wedlock is considered
disgraceful or immoral in accordance with the prevailing
norms of conduct. To stress, pre-marital sexual relations
between two consenting adults who have no impediment to
marry each other, and, consequently, conceiving a child out
of wedlock, gauged from a purely public and secular view of
morality, does not amount to a disgraceful or immoral
conduct under Section 94(e) of the 1992 MRPS.
Duncan vs. Glaxo Wellcome. G.R.
September 17, 2004

No. 162994;

Eugene Arabit, et al. v Jardine Pacific Finance, Inc., G.R.

No. 181719, 21 April 2014
It is illogical for Jardine to terminate the petitioners
employment and replace them with contractual employees.
The replacement effectively belies Jardines claim that the
petitioners positions were abolished due to superfluity.
Redundancy could have been justified if the functions of the
petitioners were transferred to other existing employees of
the company.
To dismiss the petitioners and hire new contractual
employees as replacements necessarily give rise to the
sound conclusion that the petitioners services have not
really become in excess of what Jardines business requires.
To replace the petitioners who were all regular employees
with contractual ones would amount to a violation of their
right to security of tenure.
Supreme Steel Pipe Corp. vs. Bardaje, G.R. No. 170811;
April 24, 2007
Although fighting within company premises may constitute
serious misconduct (possible ground for disciplinary
actions), not every fight with in company premises in which
an employee is involved automatically warrant dismissal
from service.
Punzal vs. ETSI Technologies. G.R. No. 170384-85.
March 9, 2007
Halloween invitation sent out by employee for office trickor-treating without clearance from higher management is
considered misbehavior. The circumstances in the case
were differentiated from Samson vs. NLRC where the
offensive remarks were verbally made during informal
Christmas gathering.
Lores Realty Enterprises, Inc. v. Virginia E. Pacia, March
2011
Petitioner employer ordered the respondent employee to
prepare checks for payment of petitioners obligations.
Respondent did not immediately comply with the
instruction since petitioner employer had no sufficient
funds to cover the checks. Petitioner employer dismissed
respondent employee for willful disobedience. The Court
held that respondent employee was illegally dismissed.
Though there is nothing unlawful in the directive of
petitioner employer to prepare checks in payment of
LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 5

petitioners obligations, respondent employees initial

reluctance to prepare the checks, although seemingly
disrespectful and defiant, was for honest and well
intentioned reasons. Protecting the petitioner employer
from liability under the Bouncing Checks Law was foremost
in her mind. It was not wrongful or willful. Neither can it be
considered an obstinate defiance of company authority. The
Court took into consideration that respondent employee,
despite her initial reluctance, eventually did prepare the
checks on the same day she was tasked to do it.

Hocheng Philippines Corporation v Antonio M.

Farrales, G.R. No. 211497, 18 March 2015
Theft committed by an employee against a person other
than his employer, if proven by substantial evidence, is a
cause analogous to serious misconduct. The misconduct to
be serious must be of such grave and aggravated character
and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such misconduct,
however serious, must, nevertheless, be in connection with
the employees work to constitute just cause for his
separation.

Gonzales vs. NLRC. G.R. No. 131653; March 26, 2001

The act constituting the breach must be work-related such
as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to
continue working for the employer.

Emeritus Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc. v

Janrie C. Dailig, G.R. No. 204761, 2 April 2014
A floating status of a security guard for more than six
months constitutes constructive dismissal. The temporary
inactivity or floating status of security guards should
continue only for six months. Otherwise, the security
agency concerned could be liable for constructive dismissal.
The failure of petitioner to give respondent a work
assignment beyond the reasonable six-month period makes
it liable for constructive dismissal.

Jardine Davies vs. NLRC. G.R. No. 106915; August 31,

1993
For abandonment to constitute a valid cause for
termination of employment there must be a deliberate
unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his
employment. This refusal must be clearly shown. Mere
absence is not sufficient; it must be accompanied by overt
acts pointing to the fact that the employee simply does not
want to work anymore.
SME Bank, Inc., et al. v De Guzman, et al., G.R. No. 184517
(2013)
While resignation letters containing words of gratitude may
indicate that the employees were not coerced into
resignation, this fact alone is not conclusive proof that they
intelligently, freely and voluntarily resigned. To rule that
resignation letters couched in terms of gratitude are, by
themselves, conclusive proof that the employees intended
to relinquish their posts would open the floodgates to
possible abuse. In order to withstand the test of validity,
resignations must be made voluntarily and with the
intention of relinquishing the office, coupled with an act of
relinquishment. Therefore, in order to determine whether
the employees truly intended to resign from their
respective posts, we cannot merely rely on the tenor of the
resignation letters, but must take into consideration the
totality of circumstances in each particular case.
Sanoh Fulton Phils., Inc., et al. v Bernardo, et al., G.R. No.
187214 (2013)
A lull caused by lack of orders or shortage of materials must
be of such nature as would severely affect the continued
business operations of the employer to the detriment of all
and sundry if not properly addressed. Sanoh asserts that
cancelled orders of wire condensers led to the phasing out
of the Wire Condenser Department, which triggered
retrenchment. Sanoh presented the letters of cancellation
given by Matsushita and Sanyo as evidence of cancelled
orders. The evidence presented by Sanoh barely established
the connection between the cancelled orders and the
projected business losses that may be incurred by Sanoh.

Exocet Security and Allied Services Corporation and/or

Ma. Teresa Marcelo v Armando D. Serrano, G.R. No.
198538, 29 September 2014
It is manifestly unfair and unacceptable to immediately
declare the mere lapse of the six-month period of floating
status as a case of constructive dismissal, without looking
into the peculiar circumstances that resulted in the security
guards failure to assume another post. This is especially
true in the present case where the security guards own
refusal to accept a non-VIP detail was the reason that he was
not given an assignment within the six-month period. The
security agency, Exocet, should not then be held liable for
constructive dismissal.
Philippine Sheet Metal Workers Union vs. CIR. G.R. No.
L-2028; April 28, 1949
Reduction of the number of workers in a companys factory
made necessary by the introduction of machinery in the
manufacture of its products is justified. There can be no
question as to the right of the manufacturer to use new
labor-saving devices with a view to effecting more economy
and efficiency in its method of production.
Oriental Petroleum & Minerals Corp. vs. Fuentes. G.R.
No. 151818. October 14, 2005
Standards to Justify Retrenchment:
The losses expected should be substantial and not merely
de minimis in extent;The substantial loss apprehended
must be reasonably imminent. It be reasonably necessary
and likely to effectively prevent the expected losses;The
employer should have taken other measures prior or
parallel to retrenchment to forestall losses;The alleged
losses if already realized, and the expected imminent losses
must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence.
BPI v. BPI EMPLOYEES UNION DAVAO, G.R. No. 164301,
October 19, 2011
LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 6

By upholding the automatic assumption of the nonsurviving corporations existing employment contracts by
the surviving corporation in a merger, the Court
strengthens judicial protection of the right to security of
tenure of employees affected by a merger and avoids
confusion regarding the status of their various benefits
which were among the chief objections of our dissenting
colleagues. However, nothing in this Resolution shall impair
the right of an employer to terminate the employment of the
absorbed employees for a lawful or authorized cause or the
right of such an employee to resign, retire or otherwise
sever his employment, whether before or after the merger,
subject to existing contractual obligations. In this manner,
Justice Brions theory of automatic assumption may be
reconciled with the majoritys concerns with the successor
employers prerogative to choose its employees and the
prohibition against involuntary servitude.
King of Kings Transport vs. Mamac. G.R. No. 166208.
June 29, 2007
In order to intelligently prepare the employees for their
explanation and defenses, the notice should contain a
detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will
serve as the basis for the charge against the employee a
general description of the change will not suffice.
Esguerra vs. Valle Verde Country Club. G.R. No. 173012.
June 13, 2012
The law does not require that an intention to terminate
ones employment should be included in the first notice. It
is enough that employees are properly apprised of the
charges brought against them so they can properly prepare
their defenses; it is only during the second notice that the
intention to terminate ones employment should be
explicitly stated
Lavador vs. J Marketing Corporation and Soyao. G.R.
No. 157757; June 28, 2005
A hearing or conference should be held during which the
employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel, if the
employee so desires, is given the opportunity to respond to
the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence
presented against him.
AGABON v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004
The violation of the petitioners right to statutory due
process by the private respondent warrants the payment of
indemnity in the form of nominal damages. The amount of
such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the
court, taking into account the relevant circumstances.
Considering the prevailing circumstances in the case at bar,
we deem it proper to fix it at P30,000.00. We believe this
form of damages would serve to deter employers from
future violations of the statutory due process rights of
employees. At the very least, it provides a vindication or
recognition of this fundamental right granted to the latter
under the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules.

Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot. G.R. No. 151378.March

28, 2005
If the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282
but the employer failed to comply with the notice
requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon him should
be tempered because the dismissal process was, in effect,
initiated by an act imputable to the employee. On the other
hand, if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under
Article 283 but the employer failed to comply with the
notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because
the dismissal process was initiated by the employers
exercise of his management prerogative.
Tangga-an v Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., et
al., G.R. No. 180636 (2013)
Article 279 of the Labor Code mandates that an employees
full backwages shall be inclusive of allowances and other
benefits or their monetary equivalent. It is the obligation of
the employer to pay an illegally dismissed employee or
worker the whole amount of the salaries or wages, plus all
other benefits and bonuses and general increases, to which
he would have been normally entitled had he not been
dismissed and had not stopped working.
Reyes, et al. v RP Guardians Security Agency, Inc., G.R.
No 193756 (2013)
Backwages and reinstatement are separate and distinct
reliefs given to an illegally dismissed employee in order to
alleviate the economic damage brought about by the
employees dismissal. Reinstatement is a restoration to a
state from which one has been removed or separated while
the payment of backwages is a form of relief that restores
the income that was lost by reason of the unlawful
dismissal. Therefore, the award of one does not bar the
other.
Crisanto F. Castro, Jr. vs Ateneo De Naga University, et
al., G.R. No. 175293, 23 July 2014
The Court holds that the order of reinstatement of the
petitioner was not rendered moot and academic. He
remained entitled to accrued salaries from notice of the LAs
order of reinstatement until reversal thereof. In Islriz
Trading v. Capada, we even clarified that the employee
could be barred from claiming accrued salaries only when
the failure to reinstate him was without the fault of the
employer.
Considering that the respondents reinstated the petitioner
only in November 2002, and that their inability to reinstate
him was without valid ground, they were liable to pay his
salaries accruing from the time of the decision of the LA (i.e.,
September 3, 2001) until his reinstatement in November
2002. It did not matter that the respondents had yet to
exercise their option to choose between actual or payroll
reinstatement at that point because the order of
reinstatement was immediately executory.

LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 7

Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Reynaldo V. Paz, G.R. No.

192924, 26 November 2014
The rule is that the employee is entitled to reinstatement
salaries notwithstanding the reversal of the LA decision
granting him said relief. The test is two-fold: (1) there must
be actual delay or the fact that the order of reinstatement
pending appeal was not executed prior to its reversal; and
(2) the delay must not be due to the employers unjustified
act or omission. If the delay is due to the employers
unjustified refusal, the employer may still be required to
pay the salaries notwithstanding the reversal of the Labor
Arbiters decision.
A scrutiny of the circumstances, however, will show that the
delay in reinstating the respondent was not due to the
unjustified refusal of PAL to abide by the order but because
of the constraints of corporate rehabilitation. The
inopportune event of PALs entering rehabilitation
receivership justifies the delay or failure to comply with the
reinstatement order of the LA. In light of the fact that PALs
failure to comply with the reinstatement order was justified
by the exigencies of corporation rehabilitation, the
respondent may no longer claim salaries which he should
have received during the period that the LA decision
ordering his reinstatement is still pending appeal until it
was overturned by the NLRC.
Globe Mackay v. NLRC. G.R. No. 82511; March 3, 1992
When the employer can no longer trust the employee and
vice-versa, or there were imputations of bad faith to each
other, reinstatement could not effectively serve as a
remedy. This doctrine applies only to positions which
require trust and confidence.
Wenphil Corporation vs. Abing, G.R. No. 207983, 7 April
2014
Even outside the theoretical trappings of the discussion and
into the mundane realities of human experience, the
refund doctrine easily demonstrates how a favorable
decision by the Labor Arbiter could harm, more than help, a
dismissed employee. The employee, to make both ends
meet, would necessarily have to use up the salaries received
during the pendency of the appeal, only to end up having to
refund the sum in case of a final unfavorable decision. It is
mirage of a stop-gap leading the employee to a risky cliff of
insolvency.
Unilever Philippines v Rivera, G.R. No. 201701 (2013)
As a general rule, an employee who has been dismissed for
any of the just causes enumerated under Article 282 of the
Labor Code is not entitled to a separation pay. In
exceptional cases, however, the Court has granted
separation pay to a legally dismissed employee as an act of
social justice or on equitable grounds. In both instances,
it is required that the dismissal (1) was not for serious
misconduct; and (2) did not reflect on the moral character
of the employee. In this case, the transgressions were
serious offenses that warranted employees dismissal from

employment. Hence, employee is not entitled to separation

pay.
Agricultural and Industrial Supplies Corp. et al vs.
Jueber P. Siazar, G.R. No. 177970 August 25, 2010
In awarding separation pay to an illegally dismissed
employee, in lieu of reinstatement, the amount to be
awarded shall be equivalent to one month salary for every
year of service reckoned from the first day of employment
until the finality of the decision. Payment of separation pay
is in addition to payment of backwages. And if separation
pay is awarded instead of reinstatement, backwages shall
be computed from the time of illegal termination up to the
finality of the decision.
Zenaida Paz v Northern Tobacco Redrying Co., Inc., et
al., G.R. No. 199554, 18 February 2015
The award of financial assistance to an employee who
rendered almost three decades of dedicated service to an
employer without a single transgression or malfeasance of
any company rule or regulation, coupled with her old age
and infirmity which now weaken her chances of
employment is justified and allowed under special
circumstances. These circumstances indubitably merit
equitable concessions, via the principle of compassionate
justice for the working class.
Central Pangasinan Electric Cooperative Inc. vs NLRC.
G.R. No. 163561, July 24, 2007
Although long years of service might generally be
considered for the award of separation benefits or some
form of financial assistance to mitigate the effects of
termination, this case is not the appropriate instance for
generosity under the Labor Code nor under our prior
decisions. The fact that private respondent served
petitioner for more than twenty years with no negative
record prior to his dismissal, in our view of this case, does
not call for such award of benefits, since his violation
reflects a regrettable lack of loyalty and worse, betrayal of
the company. If an employees length of service is to be
regarded as a justification for moderating the penalty of
dismissal, such gesture will actually become a prize for
disloyalty, distorting the meaning of social justice and
undermining the efforts of labor to cleanse its ranks of
undesirables.
Conrado A. Lim v. HMR Philippines, Inc., et al., G.R. No.
201483, 04 August 2014
No essential change is being made (in a final judgment) by
a recomputation because such is a necessary consequence
which flows from the nature of the illegality of the dismissal.
To reiterate, a recomputation, or an original computation, if
no previous computation was made, as in the present case,
is a part of the law that is read into the decision, namely,
Article 279 of the Labor Code and established
jurisprudence. Article 279 provides for the consequences of
illegal dismissal, one of which is the payment of full
backwages until actual reinstatement, qualified only by
jurisprudence when separation pay in lieu of reinstatement
LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 8

is allowed, where the finality of the illegal dismissal

decision instead becomes the reckoning point.
The nature of an illegal dismissal case requires that
backwages continue to add on until full satisfaction. The
computation required to reflect full satisfaction does not
constitute an alteration or amendment of the final decision
being implemented as the illegal dismissal ruling stands.
Thus, in the present case, a computation of backwages until
actual reinstatement is not a violation of the principle of
immutability of final judgments.
Zuellig Pharma Corporation v Sibal, et al., G.R. NO.
173587 (2013)
In the present case, the CBA contains specific provisions
which effectively bar the availment of retirement benefits
once the employees have chosen separation pay or vice
versa. Section 2 of Article XIV explicitly states that any
payment of retirement gratuity shall be chargeable against
separation pay. Clearly, respondents cannot have both
retirement gratuity and separation pay, as selecting one will
preclude recovery of the other. To illustrate the mechanics
of how Section 2 of Article XIV bars double recovery, if the
employees choose to retire, whatever amount they will
receive as retirement gratuity will be charged against the
separation pay they would have received had their
separation from employment been for a cause which would
entitle them to severance pay. These causes are enumerated
in Section 3, Article XIV of the CBA (i.e., retrenchment,
closure of business, merger, redundancy, or installation of
labor-saving device). However, if the cause of the
termination of their employment was any of the causes
enumerated in said Section 3, they could no longer claim
retirement gratuity as the fund from which the same would
be taken had already been used in paying their separation
pay. Put differently, employees who were separated from
the company cannot have both retirement gratuity and
separation pay as there is only one fund from which said
benefits would be taken. Inarguably, Section 2 of Article XIV
effectively disallows recovery of both separation pay and
retirement gratuity. Consequently, respondents are entitled
only to one. Since they have already chosen and accepted
redundancy pay and have executed the corresponding
Release and Quitclaim, they are now barred from claiming
retirement gratuity.
Grace Christian High School, represented by its
Principal, Dr. James Tan v Filipinas A. Lavandera, G.R.
No. 177845, 20 August 2014
RA 7641, which was enacted on December 9, 1992,
amended Article 287 of the Labor Code, providing for the
rules on retirement pay to qualified private sector
employees in the absence of any retirement plan in the
establishment. The said law states that an employees
retirement benefits under any collective bargaining
[agreement (CBA)] and other agreements shall not be less
than those provided under the same that is, at least onehalf () month salary for every year of service, a fraction of
at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year
and that [u]nless the parties provide for broader

inclusions, the term one-half () month salary shall mean

fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month
pay and the cash equivalent of not more than five (5) days
of service incentive leaves.
The foregoing provision is applicable where (a) there is no
CBA or other applicable agreement providing for
retirement benefits to employees, or (b) there is a CBA or
other applicable agreement providing for retirement
benefits but it is below the requirement set by law. Verily,
the determining factor in choosing which retirement
scheme to apply is still superiority in terms of benefits
provided.
The Court, in the case of Elegir v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,
has recently affirmed that one-half () month salary
means 22.5 days: 15 days plus 2.5 days representing onetwelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the remaining 5
days for [SIL]. The Court sees no reason to depart from this
interpretation. GCHS argument therefore that the 5 days
SIL should be likewise pro-rated to their 1/12 equivalent
must fail.
Noriel R. Montierro v Rickmers Marine Agency Phils.,
Inc., G.R. No. 210634, January 14, 2015
When a seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury
while on board the vessel, his fitness for work shall be
determined by the company-designated physician. The
physician has 120 days, or 240 days, if validly extended, to
make the assessment. If the physician appointed by the
seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the companydesignated physician, the opinion of a third doctor may be
agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer,
whose decision shall be final and binding on them.
Sealanes Marine Services, Inc., et al. v Arnel G. Dela
Torre, G.R. No. 214132, 18 February 2015
For the purpose of determining temporary total disability,
the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment
medical examination by a company-designated physician
within three working days upon his return except when he
is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written
notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as
compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the
mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his
forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. If a doctor
appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a
third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer
and the seafarer. The third doctors decision shall be final
and binding on both parties.
LABOR RELATIONS
Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation vs. Hon.
Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al., G.R. No.
162355, August 14, 2009
Article 212(g) of the Labor Code defines a labor
organization as any union or association of employees
which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective
LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 9

bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms

and conditions of employment. Upon compliance with all
the documentary requirements, the Regional Office or
Bureau shall issue in favor of the applicant labor
organization a certificate indicating that it is included in the
roster of legitimate labor organizations. Any applicant labor
organization shall acquire legal personality and shall be
entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to
legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the
certificate of registration.
T&H Shopfitters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation,
et al. v T&H Shopfitters Corporation Corporation/Gin
Queen Workers Union, et al., G.R. No. 191714 (2014)
The test of whether an employer has interfered with and
coerced employees in the exercise of their right to selforganization, is, whether the employer has engaged in
conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere
with the free exercise of employees rights; and that it is not
necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee
was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats
of the employer if there is a reasonable inference that the
anti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse
effect on self-organization and collective bargaining.
Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation vs. Hon.
Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al., G.R. No.
162355, August 14, 2009
A bargaining unit is a group of employees of a given
employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body
of employees, consistent with equity to the employer,
indicated to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights
and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining
provisions of the law. The fundamental factors in
determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are:
(1) the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine);(2) affinity
and unity of the employees interest, such as substantial
similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation
and working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests
Rule);(3) prior collective bargaining history; and(4)
similarity of employment status.
Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc., vs DOLE. G.R. No.
157117,November 20, 2006
Under Article 245 of the Labor Code, supervisory
employees are not eligible for membership in a labor union
of rank-and-file employees. The supervisory employees are
allowed to form their own union but they are not allowed to
join the rank-and-file union because of potential conflicts of
interest. Further, to avoid a situation where supervisors
would merge with the rank-and-file or where the
supervisors labor union would represent conflicting
interests, a local supervisors union should not be allowed
to affiliate with the national federation of unions of rankand-file employees where that federation actively
participates in the union activity within the company. Thus,
the limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors
wanting to join a rank-and-file union. The prohibition
extends to a supervisors local union applying for

membership in a national federation the members of which

include local unions of rank-and-file employees.
San Miguel Foods, Inc. vs. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors
and Exempt Union. G.R. No. 146206. August 1, 2011
The general rule is that an employer has no standing to
question the process of certification election, since this is
the sole concern of the workers. Law and policy demand
that employers take a strict, hands-off stance in certification
elections. The bargaining representative of employees
should be chosen free from any extraneous influence of
management. The only exception is where the employer
itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 258 of the
Labor Code because of a request to bargain collectively.
Holy Child Catholic School v Hon. Sto Tomas, et al., G.R.
No. 179146 (2013)
A certification election is the sole concern of the workers,
except when the employer itself has to file the petition
pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, but
even after such filing its role in the certification process
ceases and becomes merely a bystander. The employer
clearly lacks the personality to dispute the election and has
no right to interfere at all therein.
Inclusion of supervisory employees in a labor organization
seeking to represent the bargaining unit of rank-and-file
employees does not divest it of its status as a legitimate
labor organization.
NUWHRAIN MPHC v. SLE. G.R. No. 181531, July 31,
2009
It is wellsettled that under the double majority rule for
there to be a valid certification election, majority of the
bargaining unit must have voted and the winning union
must have garnered majority of the valid votes cast.
Following the ruling that all the probationary employees
votes should be deemed valid votes while that of the
supervisory Ees should be excluded, it follows that the
number of valid votes cast would increase. Under Art. 256
of the LC, the union obtaining the majority of the valid votes
cast by the eligible voters shall be certified as the sole
exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the
appropriate bargaining unit. This majority is 50% + 1.
Benguet Consolidated Inc. v. BCI Ees and Workers
UnionPAFLU. G.R. No. L24711, April 1968
The Er cannot revoke the validly executed CB contract with
their Er by the simple expedient of changing their
bargaining agent. The new agent must respect the contract.
It cannot be invoked to support the contention that a newly
certified CB agent automatically assumes all the personal
undertakings of the former agentlike the no strike clause
in the CBA executed by the latter.
Takata Philippines Corporation vs Bureau of Labor
Relations, G.R. No. 196276, 4 June 2014
For the purpose of de-certifying a union such as respondent,
it must be shown that there was misrepresentation, false
LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 10

statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or

ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments
thereto, the minutes of ratification; or, in connection with
the election of officers, the minutes of the election of
officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these
documents together with the list of the newly electedappointed officers and their postal addresses to the BLR.
The bare fact that two signatures appeared twice on the list
of those who participated in the organizational meeting
would not, to our mind, provide a valid reason to cancel
respondents certificate of registration. The cancellation of
a unions registration doubtless has an impairing dimension
on the right of labor to self-organization. For fraud and
misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union
registration under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud
and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling
enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union
members.
Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free
workers vs. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., G.R. No. 190515.
June 6, 2011
A local union may disaffiliate at any time from its mother
federation, absent any showing that the same is prohibited
under its constitution or rules. Such disaffiliation, however,
does not result in it losing its legal personality. A local union
does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is
affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association
owing its creation to the will of its members. The mere act
of affiliation does not divest the local union of its own
personality, neither does it give the mother federation the
license to act independently of the local union. It only gives
rise to a contract of agency where the former acts in
representation of the latter. In the present case, whether the
FFW went against the will of its principal (the memberemployees) by pursuing the case despite the signing of the
MOA, is not for the Court, nor for 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 in an
action at the instance of either or both the FFW and the
union or a rival labor organization, but not the employer as
in this case.
Legend International Resorts Limited v. Kilusang
Manggagawa ng Legenda. G.R. No. 169754, February 23,
2011
The pendency of a petition for cancellation of union
registration does not preclude collective bargaining, and
that an order to hold a certification election is proper
despite the pendency of the petition for cancellation of the
unions registration because at the time the respondent
union filed its petition, it still had the legal personality to
perform such act absent an order cancelling its registration.
The legitimacy of the legal personality of respondent cannot
be collaterally attacked in a petition for certification

election proceeding but only through a separate action

instituted particularly for the purpose of assailing it.
The Implementing Rules stipulate that a labor organization
shall be deemed registered and vested with legal
personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of
registration. Once a certificate of registration is issued to a
union, its legal personality cannot be subject to a collateral
attack. It may be questioned only in an independent petition
for cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of
Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules.
Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association v
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No. 170007,
7 April 2014
The duty to bargain does not compel any party to accept a
proposal or to make any concession. While the purpose of
collective bargaining is the reaching of an agreement
between the employer and the employees union resulting
in a binding contract between the parties, the failure to
reach an agreement after negotiations continued for a
reasonable period does not mean lack of good faith. The
laws invite and contemplate a collective bargaining contract
but do not compel one. For after all, a CBA, like any contract
is a product of mutual consent and not of compulsion. As
such, the duty to bargain does not include the obligation to
reach an agreement.
Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing
United Workers of the Phils v. NLRC. G.R. No. 113856,
Sept. 7, 1998
There is no perfect test of good faith (GF) in bargaining. The
GF or BF is an inference to be drawn from the facts and is
largely a matter for the NLRCs expertise. The charge of BF
should be raised while the bargaining is in progress. With
the execution of the CBA, BF can no longer be imputed upon
any of the parties thereto. All provisions in the CBA are
supposed to have been jointly and voluntarily incorporated
therein by the parties. This is not a case where private
respondent exhibited an indifferent attitude towards CB
because the negotiations were not the unilateral activity of
petitioner union. The CBA is good enough that private
respondent exerted reasonable effort of GF bargaining.
FVC Labor Union-Philippine Transport and General
Workers Organization (FVCLU-PTGWO) Vs. Samasamang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa FVC-Solidarity
of Independent and General Labor Organization
(SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO. G.R. No. 176249, 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
LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 11

than five y ears, 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.

certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless he or

she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement,
remains a member in good standing of a union entirely
comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a
part.

Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Services Inc., v.

Confessor. G.R. No. 111809, May 5, 1997
The signing of the CBA does not determine whether the
agreement was entered into within the 6 month period
from the date of expiration of the old CBA. In the present
case, there was already a meeting of the minds between the
company and the union prior to the end of the 6 month
period after the expiration of the old CBA. Hence, such
meeting of the mind is sufficient to conclude that an
agreement has been reached within the 6 month period as
provided under Art. 253A of the LC.

In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing

the Union Security Clause, the employer needs only to
determine and prove that:
(1) the union security clause is applicable;
(2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union
security provision in the CBA; and
(3) there is sufficient evidence to support the unions
decision to expel the employee from the union or company.

Teodoro S. Miranda, Jr. vs. Asian Terminals, Inc. and

Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 174316, June 23, 2009
A shop steward leads to the conclusion that it is a position
within the union, and not within the company. A shop
steward is appointed by the union in a shop, department, or
plant and serves as representative of the union, charged
with negotiating and adjustment of grievances of
employees with the supervisor of the employer. He is the
representative of the union members in a building or other
workplace. Blacks Law Dictionary defines a shop steward
as a union official elected to represent members in a plant
or particular department. His duties include collection of
dues, recruitment of new members and initial negotiations
for the settlement of grievances. A judgment of
reinstatement of the petitioner to the position of union Shop
Steward would have no practical legal effect since it cannot
be enforced. Based on the requirements imposed by law
and the APCWU-ATI CBA, and in the nature of things, the
subsequent separation of the petitioner from employment
with respondent ATI has made his reinstatement to union
Shop Steward incapable of being enforced.
Herminigildo Inguillom, et al. vs. First Philippine Scales,
Inc., et al. G.R. No. 165407, June 5, 2009
Union security is a generic term, which is applied to and
comprehends closed shop, union shop, maintenance of
membership or any other form of agreement which
imposes upon employees the obligation to acquire or retain
union membership as a condition affecting employment.
There is union shop when all new regular employees are
required to join the union within a certain period as a
condition for their continued employment. There is
maintenance of membership shop when employees, who
are union members as of the effective date of the agreement,
or who thereafter become members, must maintain union
membership as a condition for continued employment until
they are promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit
or the agreement is terminated. A closed-shop, on the other
hand, may be defined as an enterprise in which, by
agreement between the employer and his employees or
their representatives, no person may be employed in any or

Standard Chartered Bank v. Confessor. G.R. No. 114974,

June 16, 2004
Whether or not the union is engaged in bluesky bargaining
is determined by the evidence presented by the union as to
its economic demands. Thus, if the union requires
exaggerated or unreasonable economic demands, then it is
guilty of ULP. In order to be considered as unfair labor
practice, there must be proof that the demands made by the
union were exaggerated or unreasonable. In the minutes of
the meeting show that the union based its economic
proposals on data of rank-and-file employees and the
prevailing economic benefits received by bank employees
from other foreign banks doing business in the Philippines
and other branches of the bank in the Asian region. Hence,
it cannot be said that the union was guilty of ULP for bluesky bargaining.
General Santos Coca Cola Plant Free Workers UnionTupas vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. G.R. No.
178647. Feb. 13, 2007
Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers
right to organize. The prohibited acts are related to the
workers right to self-organization and to the observance of
a CBA. Without that element, the acts, even if unfair, are not
unfair labor practices.
Arellano University Employees and Workers Union vs
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139940, September 19, 2006
To constitute ULP, however, violations of the CBA must be
gross. Gross violation of the CBA, under Article 261 of the
Labor Code, means flagrant and/or malicious refusal to
comply with the economic provisions thereof. Evidently, the
University can not be faulted for ULP as it in good faith
merely heeded the above-said request of Union members.
Salunga v. CIR. G.R. No. L22456, Sep. 27, 1967
Labor unions are not entitled to arbitrarily exclude
qualified applicants for membership and a closed shop
applicants provision will not justify the employer in
discharging, or a union in insisting upon the discharge of an
employee whom the union thus refuses to admit to
membership without any reasonable ground thereof.
Phil. Can Co. v. CIR. G.R. No. L3021, July 13, 1950
LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 12

A coercive measure resorted to by laborers to enforce their

demands. The idea behind a strike is that a company
engaged in a profitable business cannot afford to have its
production or activities interrupted, much less, paralyzed.
Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc., etc. vs.
Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt-National Union
of Workers in the Hotel Restaurant, etc., G.R. No.
165756, June 5, 2009
The requisites for a valid strike are:
(a) a notice of strike filed with the DOLE 30 days before the
intended date thereof or 15 days in case of ULP;(b) a strike
vote approved by a majority of the total union membership
in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot
in a meeting called for that purpose; and
(c) a notice to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least
seven (7) days before the intended strike. The requirements
are mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith
renders the strike illegal.
Club Filipino, Inc., et al. v Benjamin Bautista, et al., G.R.
No. 168406, January 2015
The Implementing Rules of the Labor Code states the
companys counter-proposal shall be attached to the notice
of strike as far as practicable. In this case, attaching the
counter-proposal of the company to the notice of strike of
the union was not practicable. It was absurd to expect the
union to produce the companys counter-proposal which it
did not have. Indeed, compliance with the requirement was
impossible because no counter-proposal existed at the time
the union filed a notice of strike.
NSFW vs. Ovejera. G.R. No. 59743, May 31, 1982
The coolingoff period in Art. 264(c) and the 7day strike
ban after the strikevote report prescribed in Art. 264 (f)
were meant to be mandatory. The law provides that the
labor union may strike should the dispute remain
unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days
from the filing of the notice, this clearly implies that the
union may not strike before the lapse of the coolingoff
period. The coolingoff period is for the Ministry of Labor
and Employment to exert all efforts at mediation and
conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. The mandatory
character of the 7day strike ban is manifest in the provision
that in every case the union shall furnish the MOLE with
the results of the voting at least 7 days before the intended
strike. This period is to give time to verify that a strike vote
was actually held.
In the event the result of the strike/lockout ballot is filed
within the coolingoff period, the 7day requirement shall
be counted from the day following the expiration of the
coolingoff period.
Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Greenfield
v. Ramos. G.R. No. 113907, Feb. 28, 2000
A no strike/lockout clause is legal, but it is applicable only
to economic strikes, not ULP strikes. As a provision in the

CBA, it is a valid stipulation although the clause may be

invoked by an employer (Er) only when the strike is
economic in nature or one which is conducted to force wage
or other concessions from the Er that are not mandated to
be granted by the law itself. It would be inapplicable to
prevent a strike which is grounded on ULP.
Interphil Laboratories Ees UnionFFW v. Interphil
Laboratories, Inc. G.R. No. 142824, Dec. 19, 2001
The concept of a slowdown is a strike on the installment
plan. It is a willful reduction in the rate of work by
concerted action of workers for the purpose of restricting
the output of the employer (Er), in relation to a labor
dispute; as an activity by which workers, without a
complete stoppage of work, retard production or their
performance of duties and functions to compel
management to grant their demands. Such a slowdown is
generally condemned as inherently illicit and unjustifiable,
because while the employees (Ees) continue to work and
remain at their positions and accept the wages paid to
them, they at the same time select what part of their
allotted tasks they care to perform of their own volition or
refuse openly or secretly, to the Ers damage, to do other
work; in other words, they work on their own terms.
Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph
International, et al. vs. Secretary of Department of
Labor and Employment, et al./Triumph International
(phils.), Inc. vs. Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng
Triumph International, et al., G.R. No. 167401, July 5,
2010
The assumption of jurisdiction powers granted to the Labor
Secretary under Article 263(g) is not limited to the grounds
cited in the notice of strike or lockout that may have
preceded the strike or lockout; nor is it limited to the
incidents of the strike or lockout that in the meanwhile may
have taken place. As the term assume jurisdiction
connotes, the intent of the law is to give the Labor
Secretary full authority to resolve all matters within the
dispute that gave rise to or which arose out of the strike or
lockout, including cases over which the labor arbiter has
exclusive jurisdiction.
Sarmiento v. Tuico. G.R. Nos. 7527173, June 27, 1988
Where the return to work order is issued pending the
determination of the legality of the strike, it is not correct to
say that it may be enforced only if the strike is legal and may
be disregarded if illegal. Precisely, the purpose of the return
to work order is to maintain the status quo while the
determination is being made.
Manila Diamond Hotel Ees Union v. SLE, G.R. No.
140518, Dec. 16, 2004
Payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement but
there must be showing of special circumstances rendering
actual reinstatement impracticable, or otherwise not
conducive to attaining the purpose of the law in providing
for assumption of jurisdiction by the SLE in a labor dispute
that affects the national interest.
LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 13

Solid Bank Corp. Ernesto U. Gamier, et al. and Solid

Bank Corp., et al. vs. Solid Bank Union and its Dismissed
Officers and Members, et al. G.R. No. 159460 and G.R.
No. 159461, November 15, 2010
Under Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, a
strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by the
Secretary of Labor of an assumption order and/or
certification is illegal. So is a declaration of a strike during
the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the
strike. In the present case, there is no dispute that when
respondents conducted their mass actions on April 3 to 6,
2000, the proceedings before the Secretary of Labor were
still pending as both parties filed motions for
reconsideration of the March 24, 2000 Order. Clearly,
respondents knowingly violated the aforesaid provision by
holding a strike in the guise of mass demonstration.
Jackbilt Industries, Inc. Vs. Jackbilt Employees Workers
Union-Naflu-KMU, G.R. No. 171618-19, March 13, 2009
Article 264(e) of the Labor Code prohibits any person
engaged in picketing from obstructing the free ingress to
and egress from the employers premises. Since respondent
was found in the July 17, 1998 decision of the NLRC to have
prevented the free entry into and exit of vehicles from
petitioners compound, respondents officers and
employees clearly committed illegal acts in the course of the
March 9, 1998 strike. The use of unlawful means in the
course of a strike renders such strike illegal. Therefore,
pursuant to the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, the
March 9, 1998 strike was ipso facto illegal. The filing of a
petition to declare the strike illegal was thus unnecessary.
Yolito Fadriquelan, et al. vs. Monterey Foods
Corporation/Monterey Foods Corporation v. Bukluran
ng mga Manggagawa sa Monterey-ILAW, et al., G.R. No.
178409/G.R. No. 178434, June 8, 2011
A distinction exists between the ordinary workers liability
for illegal strike and that of the union officers who
participated in it. The ordinary worker cannot be
terminated for merely participating in the strike. There
must be proof that he committed illegal acts during its
conduct. On the other hand, a union officer can be
terminated upon mere proof that he knowingly participated
in the illegal strike. Moreover, the participating union
officers have to be properly identified. In the present case,
with respect to those union officers whose identity and
participation in the strike having been properly established,
the termination was legal.
Gold City Integrated Port Services, Inc. v. NLRC. G.R. No.
86000, Sep. 21, 1990
No backwages will be awarded to union members as a
penalty for their participation in the illegal strike. As for the
union officers, for knowingly participating in an illegal
strike, the law mandates that a union officer may be
terminated from employment and they are not entitled to
any relief.

MSF Tire & Rubber v. CA, G.R. 128632, Aug. 5, 1999

The innocent by stander must show: Compliance with the
grounds specified in Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, and That
it is entirely different from, without any connection
whatsoever to, either party to the dispute and, therefore,
its interests are totally foreign to the context thereof.
Victor Meteoro, et al. v. Creative Creatures, Inc. G.R No.
171275, July 13, 2009
In sum, respondent contested the findings of the labor
inspector during and after the inspection and raised issues
the resolution of which necessitated the examination of
evidentiary matters not verifiable in the normal course of
inspection. Hence, the Regional Director was divested of
jurisdiction and should have endorsed the case to the
appropriate Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. Considering,
however, that an illegal dismissal case had been filed by
petitioners wherein the existence or absence of an
employer-employee relationship was also raised, the CA
correctly ruled that such endorsement was no longer
necessary.
Honda Cars Philippines, Inc. v. Honda Cars Technical
Specialist and Supervisors Union, G.R. No. 204142, 19
November 2014
The Voluntary Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to settle tax
matters. The Voluntary Arbitrator has no competence to
rule on the taxability of the gas allowance and on the
propriety of the withholding of tax. These issues are clearly
tax matters, and do not involve labor disputes. To be exact,
they involve tax issues within a labor relations setting as
they pertain to questions of law on the application of
Section 33 (A) of the NIRC. They do not require the
application of the Labor Code or the interpretation of the
MOA and/or company personnel policies.
The University of the Immaculate Conception, et al. vs.
NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 181146, January 26, 2011
Article 217 of the Labor Code states that unfair labor
practices and termination disputes fall within the original
and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. As an
exception, under Article 262 the Voluntary Arbitrator, upon
agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all other
labor disputes including unfair labor practices and
bargaining deadlocks. For the exception to apply, there
must be agreement between the parties clearly conferring
jurisdiction to the voluntary arbitrator. Such agreement
may be stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement.
However, in the absence of a collective bargaining
agreement, it is enough that there is evidence on record
showing the parties have agreed to resort to voluntary
arbitration.
Samar-Med Distribution v National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 162385 (2013)
The non-inclusion in the complaint of the issue of dismissal
did not necessarily mean that the validity of the dismissal
could not be an issue. The rules of the NLRC require the
submission of verified position papers by the parties should
LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 14

they fail to agree upon an amicable settlement, and bar the

inclusion of any cause of action not mentioned in the
complaint or position paper from the time of their
submission by the parties. In view of this, respondents
cause of action should be ascertained not from a reading of
his complaint alone but also from a consideration and
evaluation of both his complaint and position paper.
Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd., et al. vs.
Estanislao Surio, et al. G.R. No. 154213, August 23, 2012
Although Republic Act No. 8042, through its Section 10,
transferred the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and decide money claims involving overseas Filipino
workers from the POEA to the Labor Arbiters, the law did
not remove from the POEA the original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide all disciplinary action cases
and other special cases administrative in character
involving such workers. The obvious intent of Republic Act
No. 8042 was to have the POEA focus its efforts in resolving
all administrative matters affecting and involving such
workers. The NLRC had no appellate jurisdiction to review
the decision of the POEA in disciplinary cases involving
overseas contract workers.
Peoples Broadcasting Service vs. The Secretary of
Labor and Employment. G.R. No. 179652, March 6, 2012
If the DOLE finds that there is no employer-employee
relationship, the jurisdiction is properly with the NLRC. If a
complaint is filed with the DOLE, and it is accompanied by a
claim for reinstatement, the jurisdiction is properly with the
Labor Arbiter, under Art. 217(3) of the Labor Code, which
provides that the Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive
jurisdiction over those cases involving wages, rates of pay,
hours of work, and other terms and conditions of
employment, if accompanied by a claim for reinstatement.
If a complaint is filed with the NLRC, and there is still an
existing employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is
properly with the DOLE. The findings of the DOLE, however,
may still be questioned through a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Rolando L. Cervantes vs. PAL Maritime Corporation
and/or Western Shipping Agencies. G.R. No. 175209.
January 16, 2013
There was substantial compliance with the NLRC Rules of
Procedure when the respondents PAL Maritime
Corporation and Western Shipping Agencies, Pte., Ltd. filed,
albeit belatedly, the Joint Declaration Under Oath, which is
required when an employer appeals from the Labor
Arbiters decision granting a monetary award and posts a
surety bond. Under the NLRC rules, the following requisites
are required to perfect the employers appeal: (1) it must be
filed within the reglementary period; (2) it must be under
oath, with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and
the posting of a cash or surety bond; and (3) it must be
accompanied by typewritten or printed copies of the
memorandum of appeal, stating the grounds relied upon,
the supporting arguments, the reliefs prayed for, and a
statement of the date of receipt of the appealed decision,

with proof of service on the other party of said appeal. If the

employer posts a surety bond, the NLRC rules further
require the submission by the employer, his or her counsel,
and the bonding company of a joint declaration under oath
attesting that the surety bond posted is genuine and that it
shall be in effect until the final disposition of the case.
In the case at bar, the respondents posted a surety bond
equivalent to the monetary award and filed the notice of
appeal and the appeal memorandum within the
reglementary period. When the NLRC subsequently
directed the filing of a Joint Declaration Under Oath, the
respondents immediately complied with the said order.
There was only a late submission of the Joint Declaration.
Considering that there was substantial compliance with the
rules, the same may be liberally construed. The application
of technical rules may be relaxed in labor cases to serve the
demands of substantial justice.
Mcburnie v Ganzon, et al., G.R. No. 178034 (2013)
While the bond may be reduced upon motion by the
employer, this is subject to the conditions that (1) the
motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious
grounds; and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the
monetary award is posted by the appellant, otherwise the
filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the
running of the period to perfect an appeal. The qualification
effectively requires that unless the NLRC grants the
reduction of the cash bond within the 10-day reglementary
period, the employer is still expected to post the cash or
surety bond securing the full amount within the said 10-day
period. If the NLRC does eventually grant the motion for
reduction after the reglementary period has elapsed, the
correct relief would be to reduce the cash or surety bond
already posted by the employer within the 10-day period.
AGG Trucking and/or Alex Ang Gaeid vs. Melanio B.
Yuag. G.R. No. 195033, October 12, 2011
On the issue of the propriety of entertaining the Petition for
Certiorari
despite
the
prescribed
Motion
for
Reconsideration with the NLRC, the SC found that the CA
committed error when it entertained the petition for
certiorari and explained that when respondent failed to file
a Motion for Reconsideration of the NLRCs 30 November
2006 Resolution within the reglementary period, the
Resolution attained finality and could no longer be modified
by the Court of Appeals. Untimeliness in filing motions or
petitions is not a mere technical or procedural defect, as
leniency regarding this requirement will impinge on the
right of the winning litigant to peace of mind resulting from
the laying to rest of the controversy.
MARTIN FUNERAL HOME v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866,
September 16, 1998
Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P.
No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme
Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and
refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65.
Consequently, all such petitions should hence forth be
LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 15

initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of

the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the appropriate
forum for the relief desired.
Manila Pavilion Hotel, etc. vs. Henry Delada. G.R. No.
189947, January 25, 2011
In Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. v. Deputy Administrator
Magsalin, the Supreme Court ruled that the voluntary
arbitrator had plenary jurisdiction and authority to
interpret the agreement to arbitrate and to determine the
scope of his own authority subject only, in a proper case,
to the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court. It was also held in
that case that the failure of the parties to specifically limit
the issues to that which was stated allowed the arbitrator to
assume jurisdiction over the related issue. In Ludo & Luym
Corporation v. Saornido, the Supreme Court recognized that
voluntary arbitrators are generally expected to decide only
those questions expressly delineated by the submission
agreement; that, nevertheless, they can assume that they
have the necessary power to make a final settlement on the
related issues, since arbitration is the final resort for the
adjudication of disputes. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled
that even if the specific issue brought before the arbitrators
merely mentioned the question of whether an employee
was discharged for just cause, they could reasonably
assume that their powers extended beyond the
determination thereof to include the power to reinstate the
employee or to grant back wages. In the same vein, if the
specific issue brought before the arbitrators referred to the
date of regularization of the employee, law and
jurisprudence gave them enough leeway as well as
adequate prerogative to determine the entitlement of the
employees to higher benefits in accordance with the finding
of regularization. Indeed, to require the parties to file
another action for payment of those benefits would
certainly undermine labor proceedings and contravene the
constitutional mandate providing full protection to labor
and speedy labor justice.
Philippine Electric Corporation v Court of Appeals, et
al., G.R. No. 168612, 10 December 2014
The rule is that a Voluntary Arbitrators award or decision
shall be appealed before the Court of Appeals within 10
days from receipt of the award or decision. Should the
aggrieved party choose to file a motion for reconsideration
with the Voluntary Arbitrator, the motion must be filed
within the same 10-day period since a motion for
reconsideration is filed within the period for taking an
appeal.
Peoples Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo Phils) v.
Secretary of Labor, et al. GR No. 179652, May 8, 2009
It can be assumed that the DOLE in the exercise of its
visitorial and enforcement power somehow has to make a
determination of the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. Such prerogatival determination, however,
cannot be coextensive with the visitorial and enforcement
power itself. Indeed, such determination is merely
preliminary, incidental and collateral to the DOLEs primary

function of enforcing labor standards provisions. The

determination of the existence of employer-employee
relationship is still primarily lodged with the NLRC. This is
the meaning of the clause in cases where the relationship
of employer-employee still exists in Art. 128(b).
Thus, if a complaint is brought before the DOLE to give
effect to the labor standards provisions of the Labor Code
or other labor legislation, and there is a finding by the DOLE
that there is an existing employer-employee relationship,
the DOLE exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the NLRC.
If the DOLE finds that there is no employer-employee
relationship, the jurisdiction is properly with the NLRC. If a
complaint is filed with the DOLE , and it is accompanied by
a claim for reinstatement, the jurisdiction is properly with
the Labor Arbiter, under Art. 217(3) of the Labor Code,
which provides that the Labor Arbiter has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over those cases involving wages,
rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions
of employment, if accompanied by a claim for
reinstatement. If a complaint is filed with the NLRC, and
there is still an existing employer- employee relationship,
the jurisdiction is purely with the DOLE. The findings of the
DOLE, however may still be questioned through a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Manolito Barles, et al. v. Hon. Benedicto Bitonio, et al.
GR No. 120270, June 16, 1999
The BLR shall have original and exclusive authority to act,
at their own initiative or upon request of either or both
parties, on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts. As
already held by the Court in La Tondena Workers Union v.
Secretary of Labor, intra-union conflicts such as
examinations of accoutns are under the jurisdiction of the
BLR. However, the Rules of Procedure on MediationArbitration purpose and expressly separated or
distinguished examinations of union accounts from the
genus of intra-union conflict and provided a different
procedure for the resolution of the same. Original
jurisdiction over complaints for examinations of union
accounts is vested on the Regional Director and appellate
jurisdiction over decisions of the former is lodged with the
BLR. This is apparent from Sections 3 and 4 of the MedArbitration Rules as already mentioned. Contrast these two
sections from Section 2 and Section 56 of the same rules.
Section 2 expressly vests upon Med-Arbiters original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide inter alia all other
inter-union or internal union disputes. Section 5 states that
the decisions of the Med-Arbiter shall be appealable to the
DOLE Secretary. Without a doubt, the rules of Procedure on
Mediation-Arbitration did not amend or supplant
substantive law but implemented and filled in details of
procedure left vacuous or ambiguous by the Labor Code and
its Implementing Rules.
Araullo v Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No.
194169 (2013)
The Writ of Execution in the instant case was procedurally
irregular, as it pre-empted the NLRC Rules which require
LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 16

that where further computation of the award in the decision

is necessary during the course of the execution proceedings,
no Writ of Execution shall be issued until after the
computation has been approved by the Labor Arbiter in an
order issued after the parties have been duly notified and
heard on the matter. When the writ was issued, there was
as yet no order approving the computation made by the
NLRC Computation and Examination Unit, and there was a
pending and unresolved Motion to Recompute filed by Club
Filipino. A cursory examination of the motion reveals that it
raised valid issues that required determination in order to
arrive at a just resolution, so that none of the parties would
be unjustly enriched.
Virgilio Anabe v. Asian Construction. GR No. 183233,
December 23, 2009
To properly construe Article 291 of the Labor Code, it is
essential to ascertain the time when the third element of a
cause of action transpired. Stated differently, in the
computation of the three-year prescriptive period, a
determination must be made as to the period when the act
constituting a violation of the workers right to the benefits
being claimed was committed. For if the cause of action
accrued more than three (3) years before the filing of the
money claim, said cause of action has already prescribed in
accordance with Article 291.
George A. Arriola v Pilipino Star .Ngayon, Inc. and/or
Miguel G. Belmont, G.R. No. 175689, 13 August 2014
This court ruled that Callantas complaint for illegal
dismissal had not yet prescribed. Although illegal dismissal
is a violation of the Labor Code, it is not the offense
contemplated in Article 290. Article 290 refers to illegal acts
penalized under the Labor Code, including committing any
of the prohibited activities during strikes or lockouts, unfair
labor practices, and illegal recruitment activities. The threeyear prescriptive period under Article 290, therefore, does
not apply to complaints for illegal dismissal.
Instead, by way of supplement, Article 1146 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines governs complaints for illegal
dismissal. Under Article 1146, an action based upon an
injury to the rights of a plaintiff must be filed within four
years. This court explained:
. . . when one is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job
or means of livelihood, the action instituted to contest the
legality of ones dismissal from employment constitutes, in
essence, an action predicated upon an injury to the rights
of the plaintiff, as contemplated under Art. 1146 of the New
Civil Code, which must be brought within four [4] years.
This four-year prescriptive period applies to claims for
backwages, not the three-year prescriptive period under
Article 291 of the Labor Code. A claim for backwages,
according to this court, may be a money claim by reason of
its practical effect. Legally, however, an award of
backwages is merely one of the reliefs which an illegally
dismissed employee prays the labor arbiter and the NLRC
to render inhis favor as a consequence of the unlawful act

committed by the employer. Though it results in the

enrichment of the individual [illegally dismissed], the
award of backwages is not in redress of a private right, but,
rather, is in the nature of a command upon the employer to
make public reparation for his violation of the Labor Code.
Actions for damages due to illegal dismissal are likewise
actions upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff. Article
1146 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, therefore, governs
these actions.
SOCIAL LEGISLATION
SSS v. Aguas. G.R. No. 165546; February 27, 2006
A wife who is already separated de facto from her husband
cannot be said to be dependent for support upon the
husband, absent any showing to the contrary. Conversely, if
it is proved that the husband and wife were still living
together at the time of his death, it would be safe to presume
that she was dependent on the husband for support, unless
it is shown that she is capable of providing for herself.
Bernardina P. Bartolome v Social Security System, et al.,
G.R. No. 192531, 12 November 2014
Cornelios adoption of John, without more, does not deprive
petitioner of the right to receive the benefits stemming from
Johns death as a dependent parent given Cornelios
untimely demise during Johns minority. Since the parent by
adoption already died, then the death benefits under the
Employees Compensation Program shall accrue solely to
herein petitioner, Johns sole remaining beneficiary. The
rule limiting death benefits claims to the legitimate parents
is contrary to law.
The phrase dependent parents should, therefore, include
all parents, whether legitimate or illegitimate and whether
by nature or by adoption.
Hacienda Cataywa, et al. v Rosario Lorezo, G.R. No.
179640, 18 March 2015)
To be exempted from the coverage of SSS Law on the basis
of casual employment, the services must not merely be
irregular, temporary or intermittent, but the same must not
also be in connection with the business or occupation of the
employer. The primary standard, therefore, of determining
a regular employment is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the employee
in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer.
The test is whether the former is usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The
connection can be determined by considering the nature of
the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the
particular business or trade in its entirety.
GSIS vs. De Leon. G.R. No. 186560; November 17, 2010
Thus, where the employee retires and meets the eligibility
requirements, he acquires a vested right to benefits that is
protected by the due process clause. Retirees enjoy a
LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 17

protected property interest whenever they acquire a right

to immediate payment under pre-existing law. Thus, a
pensioner acquires a vested right to benefits that have
become due as provided under the terms of the public
employees pension statute. No law can deprive such person
of his pension rights without due process of law, that is,
without notice and opportunity to be heard.
GSIS vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 128524; April 20,
1999
The 24-hour duty doctrine should not be sweepingly
applied to all acts and circumstances causing the death of a
police officer but only to those which, although not on
official line of duty, are nonetheless basically police service
in character.
Iloilo Dock & Engineering Co. vs. ECC. G.R. No. L-26341.
Nov. 27, 1968
When the injury is sustained when the employee is
proceeding to or from his work on the premises of the
employer, the injury is compensable.
Enao v. ECC G.R. No. L-46046; April 5, 1985
The company which provides the means of transportation
in going to, or coming from the place of work, is liable to the
injury sustained by the employees while on board said
means of transportation.

LABOR MUST READ CASES AY15-16 | 18