LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

CONTINENTAL STEEL V. MONTANO

FACTS:
Hortillano, an employee of petitioner Continental Steel, filed a claim for Paternity Leave,
Bereavement Leave and Death and Accident Insurance for dependent, pursuant to the CBA.
The claim was for Hortillanos unborn child who died. Hortillanos wife had a premature
delivery while she was on her 38th week of pregnancy. The female fetus died during the
labor. The company granted Hortillanos claim for paternity leave but denied his claims for
bereavement leave and death benefits. Hortillano claimed that the provision in CBS did not
specifically state that the dependent should have first been born alive or must have
acquired juridical personality. Petitioner argued that the said provision of CBA did not
contemplate death of an unborn child or a fetus without legal personality. They also claimed
that there are two elements for the entitlement of the benefit: 1) death; and 2) status of
legitimate dependent. None which existed in Hortillanos case. They further contend that the
only one with civil personality could die, based on Art 40-42 of Civil Code. Hence, according
to petitioner, the unborn child never died. Labor Arbiter Montana argued that the fetus had
the right to be supported by the parents from the very moment he/she was conceived.
Petitioner appealed to CA but CA affirmed Labor Arbiters decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE/s:
1. Whether or not only one with juridical personality can die.
2. Whether or not a fetus can be considered as a dependent.
HELD:
No. The reliance of Continental Steel on Articles 40, 41 and 42 of the Civil Code for
the legal definition of death is misplaced. Article 40 provides that a conceived child
acquires personality only when it is born, and Article 41 defines when a child is
considered born. Article 42 plainly states that civil personality is extinguished by
death. The issue of civil personality is irrelevant in this case. Arts 40-42 do not
provide at all definition of death. Life is not synonymous to civil personality. One need
not acquire civil personality first before s/he could die. The Constitution in fact
recognizes the life of the unborn from conception.
Yes. Even an unborn child is a dependent of its parents. The fetus would have not
reached 38-39 weeks without depending upon its mother.
STARPAPER VS. SIMBOL
FACTS:
At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
August 03, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 73477 reversing the decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) which affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. The following
facts were presented:

(a) The respondents were all regular employees of the company;

(b) On October 27, 1993, Simbol was hired by the company. He met Alma Dayrit, also an
employee of the company. He married her on June 27, 1998. Prior to the marriage, Ongsitco
advised the couple that should they decide to get married, one of them should resign
pursuant to a company policy promulgated in 1995. Simbol resigned on June 20, 1998.
(c) On February 5, 1997, Comia was hired by the company. She met Howard Comia, a coemployee whom she married on June 1, 2000. Ongsitco likewise reminded them pursuant to
the aforementioned company policy. Comia resigned on June 30, 2000.
(d) Simbol and Comia alleged that they did not resign voluntarily; they were compelled to
resign in view of an illegal company policy.
(e) On July 29, 1994, Estrella was hired by the company. She met Luisito Zuniga, also a coworker, whom petitioners claimed to be a married man who got Estrella impregnated. The
company allegedly could have terminated her services due to immorality but she opted to
resign on December 21, 1999.
(f) Estrella alleged that she had a relationship with co-worker Zuniga who misrepresented
himself as a married but a separated man. After he got her pregnant, she discovered that he
was not separated. Thus, she severed her relationship with him to avoid dismissal due to
company policy.
(g) On November 30, 1999, Estrella met an accident and had to recuperate for twenty-one
(21) days as advised by the doctor of the Orthopaedic Hospital. On December 21, 1999 but
she found out that her name was on hold at the gate. She was directed to the personnel
office and handed a memorandum that stated that she was being dismissed for immoral
conduct. Estrella was asked to submit an explanation but she was dismissed
nonetheless. She resigned because she was in dire need of money and resignation could
give her the thirteenth month pay.
On May 31, 2001, Labor Arbiter Del Rosario dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
On January, 11, 2002, NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
On August 8, 2002, NLRC denied the respondents Motion for Reconsideration through a
Resolution.
On August 3, 2004, the CA reversed the NLRC decision and declared that:
(a) The petitioners dismissal from employment was illegal:
(b) The private respondents are ordered to reinstate the petitioners to their former positions
without loss of seniority rights with full backwages from the time of their dismissal until
actual reinstatement; and
(c) The private respondents are to pay petitioners attorneys fees amounting to 10% of the
award and the cost of the suit.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:
The issues raised by this petition are:
(1) Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the subject 1995 policy/ regulation is
violative of the constituional rights towards marriage and the family of employees and of
Article 136 of the Labor Code: and
(2) Whether or not the respondents resignations were far from voluntary.
HELD:
(1) No. The CA did not err in holding that the subject 1995 policy/ regulation is violative of
the constitutional rights towards marriage and the family of employees and or Article 136 of
the Labor Code:
(ARTICLE 136. Stipulation against marriage. It shall be unlawful for an employer to require
as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman employee shall
not get married, or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married, a woman
employee shall be deemed resigned or separated, or to actually dismiss, discharge,
discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of her marriage.)
REVIDAD ET. AL. VS. NLRC
FACTS:
Private respondent Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. terminated the services
of 178 employees, including herein petitioners, under a redundancy program. As a
consequence, a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement was filed by
herein petitioners These cases were subsequently decided in favor of petitioners, as a result
of which they were reinstated and assigned to the Batangas plant of private respondent.
The records show, however, that pursuant to Presidential Directive No. 0191 issued on July
25, 1991 by the company's president and containing management's decision to lay off 40%
of the employees due to financial losses, AG & P implemented and effected the temporary
lay-off of some 705 employees. By reason thereof, the AG & P United Rank and File
Association (URFA, for facility), which was the employees' union, staged a strike.
The parties agreed to submit the legality of the lay-offs to voluntary arbitration. Accordingly,
the case was filed with Voluntary Arbitrator Romeo B. Batino, entitled "AG & P United Rank
and File Association vs. AG & P Company of Manila. Inc.,"
ISSUE:
Whether the massive lay-off due to financial reverses constituted a violation of their existing
collective bargaining agreement which would be tantamount to an unfair labor practice.
HELD:

AG & P had the right to exercise its management prerogative to temporarily lay off its
employees owing to the unfavorable business climate being experienced by the company
consequent to the financial reverses it suffered.
The temporary lay-off of herein petitioners is valid and justified, and that by reason of
management's failure to recall them, their services shall be considered duly terminated and
they shall be entitled to separation pay equivalent to one month pay or at least one-half ()
month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. The financial assistance which
petitioners have received shall be deducted from the amount of separation pay they will
receive.
Both the retrenchment program of private respondent and the dismissal of petitioners were
valid and legal.
The law in protecting the rights of the laborer authorizes neither oppression nor selfdestruction of the employer. While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social
justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every labor
dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has its own rights,
which as such are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. Out
of its concern for those with less privileges in life, the Supreme Court has inclined more often
than not toward the worker and upheld his cause with his conflicts with the employer. Such
favoritism, however, has not blinded the Court to rule that justice is in every case for the
deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law and
doctrine.
MERCURY DRUG CORP. VS. NLRC
FACTS:
Cesar Ladisla was employed by petitioner, Mercury Drug Corporation as Stock Analyst. On
Aug. 15, 1977, he was apprehended by representatives of Mercury Drug Corporation while in
the act of pilfering company property. He admitted the guilt to the investigating
representatives. Mercury drug filed an application for the termination of Ladislas
employment.
Private respondent opposed the aforesaid application for clearance to terminate his services
alleging among others, that his suspension and proposed dismissal were unfounded and
baseless being premised on the machinations and incriminatory acts of Ms. Leonora Suarez
and Edgardo Imperial, Manager and Retail Supervisor, respectively, of petitioner's Claro M.
Recto Branch; and that he was not given the opportunity to be heard nor allowed to explain
his side before he was summarily suspended.
However, NLRC ruled that Ladisla should be reinstated in his former position with full back
wages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Cesar Ladisla should be dismissed on the grounds of dishonesty and breach
of contract

HELD:
Dismissal of a dishonest employee is to the best interest not only of management but also of
labor. As a measure of self-protection against acts inimical to its interest, a company has the
right to dismiss its erring employees. An employer cannot be compelled to continue in
employment an employee guilty of acts inimical to its interest, justifying loss of confidence
in him. The law does not impose unjust situations on either labor or management.
While the constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of
laborers, it should not be supposed that labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor
of labor. Management has also its own rights which are the enforcement of interest of simple
fair play.
CALTEX VS. PHILIPPINE LABOR ORGANIZATION
FACTS:
Hipdion del Rosario was hired by Caltex as labourer in its Pandacan Terminal. After
twomonths he was suspended for insubordination. Caltex filed a petition with the Industrial
Courtfor authority to dismiss him. After hearing, the court found del Rosario guilty of the
actscomplained of but believing that a permanent dismissal was to severe a punishment, the
courtordered his reinstatement with payment of backwages.Caltex claims that the court
committed a serious mistake of law and grave abuse ofdiscretion in compelling it to retain
del Rosario in its employ and in substituting its judgment indetermining the fitness and
qualification of a temporary employee to become permanent orregular.
ISSUES:
Whether or not del Rosarios discharge was proper.
Whether or not the court has a right to substitute Caltexs judgment in determining
the fitnessand qualification of a temporary employee.
Held:
Del Rosarios discharge was proper. The acts of insubordination for which del Rosario
was found guilty consist of disorderly conduct and wilful disobedience which to note
was committedin a very short period of two months from the time of his hiring. Wilful
disobedience is a justifiable ground for an employees discharge.
Considering the period of time that del Rosario had been working for petitioner
(Caltex) beforehis suspension, it can be said that he was on temporary or trial basis.
Caltex has the right to place him under this condition to determine his fitness and
competency.
SAN MIGUEL BREWERY VS. OPLE
FACTS:
In 1979, SMC implemented its Complementary Distribution System (CDS) whereby
wholesalers can directly get beer products from any SMC offices. The SMB Union assailed
this program because it violates the CBA particularly the established scheme whereby route

salesmen have been given specific territories to sell beer products. The CDS scheme would
then lower the take home pay of the route salesmen. SMB Union then sued SMC for unfair
labor practices.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CDS is a violation of the CBA.
HELD:
No. The SC ruled that the CDS is an exercise of management prerogatives whereby the
management can implement schemes to optimize their profit. Further, the CDS provides for
a compensation clause as well for salesmen. San Miguel Corporations offer to compensate
the members of its sales force who will be adversely affected by the implementation of the
CDS by paying them a so-called back adjustment commission to make up for the
commissions they might lose as a result of the CDS proves the companys good faith and
lack of intention to bust their union.