1 Labor Standards

Charilto Peñarada
vs.
Banganga Plywood Corporation and Hudson Chua
May 8, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts:

In June 1999, Charlito Peñarada was hired in Banganga Plywood Corporation (BPC) as an
employee to take charge of the operations and maintenance of its steam plant boiler. In may
2001, Peñarada filed a complaint before the NLRC against BPC and its general manager Hudson
Chua alleging that he was illegally terminated on December 19, 2000 without the benefit of due
process and valid grounds accordance with law. He also alleged that he was paid for overtime
pay, premium pay for working during holidays and rest days, nightshift differentials and claims
for payment of damages. BPC controverted said allegations by stating that the separation of
Peñarada was done pursuant to Article 283 of the Labor Code. BPC was on temporary closure
due to repair and general maintenance and it applied for clearance from DOLE Regional Office
to shut down and dismiss employees. Furthermore, Peñarada was paid of separation benefits
due to his insistence. Hence, he was not illegally terminated. Moreover, he is not entitled of
overtime pay being a managerial employee, and his services rendered beyond normal hours
were not authorized and there was no office order for him to do so.

Issue:

Whether or not Charlito Peñarada is a regular, common employee and as such is

entitled to monetary benefits such as overtime pay and premium pay.

Held:

The Implementing Rules of the Labor Code define member of managerial staff with the
following duties and responsibilities: 1.The primary duty consists of the performance of work
directly related to management policies of the employer. 2. Customarily and regularly exercises
discretion and independent judgment. Petitioner supervised the engineering section of the
steam plant boiler. His work involved overseeing the operation of the machines and the
performance of the workers in engineering section such duty necessarily required the use of
discretion and independent judgment. Petitioner, supervised the engineering section such duty
necessarily required the use of discretion and independent judgment to ensure the proper
functioning of the machines. As a supervisor and deemed to be a member of the managerial
staff, petitioner is therefore not entitled to overtime pay and premium pay for working rest
days.
2 Labor Standards
Standard Chartered Bank Employees union
vs.
Standard Charted Bank and Annmarie Durbin
April 22, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facts:

In May 2000, Standard Chartered bank Employees Union (SBEU) and Standard Chartered
Bank started negotiating for a new Collective bargaining agreement (CBA) as the 1998-2000
CBA already expired. However petitioner filed a notice of strike prompting the Secretary of
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to assume jurisdiction, due to a deadlock in the
negotiations. On may 31, 2001, the Secretary of DOLE issued an order with the following
decision: The Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union and Standard Chartered Bank are
directed to execute their Collective Bargaining Agreement effective April 1, 2001 until March
2003 incorporating therein the foregoing dispositions and the agreements reached in the
course of negotiations and conciliation. All other submitted issues that were not passed upon
are dismissed.

Issue:

1. Whether or not there was basis for receiving the scope of exclusions under the CBA.
2. Whether or not a one month or less temporary occupation of a position does not
merit adjustment in remuneration.

Held:

The disqualification of managerial and confidential employees from joining a bargaining

unit for rank and file employees is already well entrenched in jurisprudence for the reason that
the nature of their work involves primarily sensitive and highly confidential records. No
employee should be temporarily placed in apposition for more than one month without
corresponding adjustment in salary.
3 Labor Standards
Autobus Transport Systems, Inc.
vs.
Antonio Bautista
May 16, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts:

Antonio Baustista has been employed by Autobus Transport Systems Inc. since may 24,
1995 as driver-conductor and was paid on commission basis. On January 3, 2000, while
respondent was driving Autobus 114 along Sta. Fe, Nueva Vizcaya, the bus he was driving
accidentally bumped the rear portion of Autobus 124. Bautista alleged that the accident
happened because he was compelled to go back to Roxas Isabela, although he had not slept for
24 hours. He further alleged that he was not allowed to work until he fully paid the amount of
P75, 551.50 representing 30% of the cost of repair of the cost of repair of the damaged buses,
after a month he was terminated.

Issues:

1. Whether or not respondent is entitled to service incentive leave.

2. Whether or not the three (3) year prescriptive period provided under Article 281 of
the Labor Code, as amended, is applicable to respondent’s claim of service incentive
pay.

Held:

Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code delimited service of incentive
pay and apply only to those employer not explicitly excluded by law, Respondent Antonio
Bautista is a regular employee, accordingly entitled to the grant of service incentive leave. The
prescriptive period for incentive leave pay only commenced from the time the employer failed
to compensate employee with such and that is at the time of the dismissal. Antonio Bautista
filed the claim only after one month of his dismissal hence the prescriptive period has not yet
lapsed under Article 291 of the Labor Code.
4 Labor Standards
Far East agricultural Supply, Inc. and Alexander Uy
vs.
Jimmy Lebatique and The Honorable Court of Appeals
February 12, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts:

On March 4, 1996, Jimmy Lebatique was hired by Far East Agricultural Supply as truck
driver with daily wage of P223.00 On January 24, 2000 Lebatique complained of unpaid
overtime work particularly on January 22, 2000 when he was required to make a second
delivery in Novaliches, Quezon City. The same day Manuel Uy, brother of Far East General
Manager Alexander IY suspended Jimmy Lebatique for illegal use of vehicle and subsequently
terminated by Alexander Uy.

Issues:

1. Whether or not Jimmy Lebatique was illegally dismissed.

2. Whether or not Jimmy Lebatique was a field personnel and therefore not entitled to
overtime pay and service incentive pay.

Held:

Petitioner Far East Agricultural Supply Inc. and Alexander UY failed to prove that they
validly terminated the respondent Jimmy Lebatique. Lebatique is a regular employee whose
tasks are usually necessary and desirable to the usual trade and business of the company and
entitled to the benefits accorded for regular employee, he also timely filed his claim for
incentive leave; therefore he is entitled of such.
5 Labor Standards
Calamba Medical Center Inc.
vs.
NLRC, Rolando Lanzanas and Merciditha Lanzanas
November 25, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts:

The Calamba Medical Center hired the services of Dr. Rolando Lanzanas (March 1992)
and Dr. Merciditha Lanzanas (August 1995), reporting at the hospital twice-a-week on 24 hour
shifts with monthly retainer of P4, 800.00. Subsequently, Dr. Rolando Lanzanas was suspended
because of acts which deemed to be inimical to the interest of the hospital. Dr. Merciditha was
not given work schedule and the given reason by the Human Resource Development Officer
that it was a cost-cutting measure. On March 20, 1998, Dr. Rolando Lanzanas filed a complaint
for illegal suspension and subsequently Dr. Merciditha Lanzanas filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal. Dr. Rolando Lanzanas was dismissed forcing him to amend the complaint to includ4e
illegal dismissal. Their complaints were consolidated.

Issues:

1. Whether or not there exist an employer-employee relationship between petitioner

and the spouses respondent.
2. Whether or not the spouses respondent were illegally dismissed by the petitioner.

Held:

An employer-employee relationship exists between a hospital and a physician if the

hospital controls both the means and the details of the process by which the physician is to
accomplish his task. The petitioner exercised control over the respondent to any department of
the hospital for their acts are being monitored through its nurse supervisors, charge nurses and
orderlies. Moreover, petitioner also set work schedule for their physician. The fact that there
exist an employer-employee relationship between the parties and therefore they were illegally
dismissed for the petitioner did not observed due process in dismissing the spouses
respondent.
6 Labor Standards
Melancio Gabriel represented by surviving spouse Flordeliza Gabriel
vs.
Nelson Bilon, Angel Brazil and Ernesto Pagaygay
February 7, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts:

Petitioners were the owner –operator of a public transport business “Gabriel Jeepney”
with 54 fleet of Jeepneys. Petitioner had a pool of drivers, which included respondents,
operating on a “boundary system of P400 per day”. On November 15, 1995, respondents filed
their separate complaints for illegal dismissal, illegal deductions and separation pay against
petitioner with NLRC.

Issue:

Whether or not there exist an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and

respondents have a right for separation pay.

Held:

In the case of National Labor Union vs. Dinglasan “The relationship between jeepney
owners/operators and jeepney drivers under the boundary system is that of employer –
employee relationship and not a lessor-lessee.”Therefore, respondents are entitled of
separation pay. Moreover, they were also illegally dismissed as to the findings of the Court of
appeals and therefore entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges and to their full backwages.
7 Labor Standards

vs.
The Fifth Division of Court of Appeals, Philippine Daily Inquirer and Lethicia Jimenez
August 13, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts:

Philippine Daily Inquirer engaged the services of petitioner Lethicia Jimenez to write a
weekly column for its Lifestyle Section in March 1990. Petitioner submitted her articles regularly
every week except for a six-month stint in New York where she nonetheless submitted her
articles through mail. She is compensated P250 later increased to P300 for every column
published. On November 7, 1992 petitioner’s last column appeared and afterwhich the
petitioner’s column was terminated.

Issues:

1. Whether or not petitioner is an employee of Philippine Daily Inquirer.

2. Whether or not she was illegally dismissed.

Held:

Petitioner is an independent contractor engaged to do independent work. Petitioner

was engaged as a columnist for her talent, skill, experience and her unique viewpoint as a
feminist advocate. Hence, she is not an employee and since there is no employer-employee
relationship between petitioner and respondent Lethicia Jimenez she was not also illegally
dismissed.
8 Labor Standards
Television and Production Exponents Inc. and/or Antonio Tuviera
vs.
Roberto C. Servaña
January 28, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts:

Roberto Servaña had served as a Security Guard for Television and Production
exponents (TAPE) from March 1987 until he was dismissed on March 3, 2000. He filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits. He alleged that his dismissal was
without due process and violative of existing labor laws aggravated by non-payment of
separation pay.

Issue:

1. Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship.

2. Whether or not he is a regular employee and thus entitled to separation pay.

Held:

There is an employer-employee relationship since he worked under the control of TAPE

much more he is a regular employee for he has been performing work which is necessary or
desirable to the usual business of TAPE and therefore entitled for separation pay.
9 Labor Standards
Manila Electric Company
vs.
Rogelio Benamira, et. al
July 14, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts:

Rogelio Benamira, et. al were security guards employed by People’s Security Inc. (PSI)
and deployed at Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) Head Office and other MERALCO offices.
PSI and MERALCO’s agreement was terminated on November 30, 19990. Immediately
thereafter, fifty six of PSI’s guard including respondents filed a complaint for unpaid monetary
benefits against PSI and MERALCO.

Issues:

1. Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between MERALCO

and respondents.
2. Whether or not respondents are entitled of monetary benefits from MERALCO.

Held:

Respondents cannot bee considered as regular employees of LERALCO, although their

security services are necessary and desirable to the business of MERALCO, it is not directly
related to the principal business of MERALCO which is the distribution of electricity. The fact
that they are not regular employees and no employer-employee relationship between
MERALCO, they are not entitled to monetary benefits from MERALCO.
10 Labor Standards
Thelma Dumpit-Murillo
vs.
Court of Appeals, Associated Broadcasting Company, Jose Javier and Edward Tan
June 8, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts:

On October 2, 1995 ABC hired petitioner Thelma Dumpit-Murillo as a newscaster a co-

anchor then after in another program. Their contract was renewed until the fourth time. On
September 30, 1999 after four years , the contract expired. Two weeks after expiration,
Dumpit-Murillo sent a letter to Mr. Javier to inform the latter that she us still entitled interested
in renewing the contract subject to salary increase. Thereafter, petitioner stopped reporting for
work. On December 20, 1999, Petitioner filed a complaint against ABC, Mr. Javier and Mr. Tan,
for illegal constructive dismissal, non-payment of salaries, overtime pay, premium pay,
separation pay and holiday pay.

Issues:

1. Whether or not an employer-employee exists between petitioner and ABC.

2. Whether or not she is entitled to compensation she is praying for.

Held:

Petitioner was a regular employee under the contemplation of law. Having a fixed-term
contracts n the industry does not automatically make all talent contracts valid and complaint
with labor law. The assertion that a talent contract exists does not necessarily prevent a regular
employee status. As a regular employee, Dumpit-Murillo is entitled to security to tenure and
can be dismissed only after due process and just cause. Since respondents did not observe due
process in constructively dismissing Dumpit-Murillo, therefore she was illegally dismissed and
thus entitled for compensation she prayed for, reinstatement and backwages or separation pay,
13th month pay, service leave incentive pay, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.