Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1) Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the Social justice must be founded on the recognition of the
respondents pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units
NO. 548 constitute an unlawful inference with legitimate of a society and of the protection that should be equally and
business or trade and abridged the right to personal liberty and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social
freedom of locomotion? and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and
paramount objective of the state of promoting health, comfort
Held: Issue:
No. I is to be admitted of course that property rights find shelter Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed.
in specific constitutional provisions, one of which is the due
process clause. It is equally certain that our fundamental law Held:
framed at a time of “surging unrest and dissatisfaction”,26
when there was the fear expressed in many quarters that a Accordingly, petitioners’ dismissal was for a just cause. They
constitutional democracy, in view of its commitment to the had abandoned their employment and were already working
claims of property, would not be able to cope effectively with for another employer.
the problems of poverty and misery that unfortunately afflict so
many of our people, is not susceptible to the indictment that To dismiss an employee, the law requires not only the
the government therein established is impotent to take the existence of a just and valid cause but also enjoins the
necessary remedial measures. employer to give the employee the opportunity to be heard and
It is to be remembered that the liberty relied upon is not to defend himself.
freedom of the mind, which occupies a preferred position, nor
freedom of the person, but the liberty to contract, associated Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an
with business activities, which, as has been so repeatedly employee to resume his employment. It is a form of neglect of
announced, may be subjected, in the interest of the general duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the
welfare under the police power, to restrictions varied in employer.
A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground Petition denied. CA affirmed with modifications.
or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee
reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side; PAL VS NLRC
A hearing or conference during which the employee
concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so Facts:
desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present
his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; and On March 15, 1985, the Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL)
(c) A written notice of termination served on the employee completely revised its 1966 Code of Discipline. The Code was
indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, circulated among the employees and was immediately
grounds have been established to justify his termination. implemented, and some employees were forthwith subjected
to the disciplinary measures embodied therein.
In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on
the employee’s last known address. On August 20, 1985, the Philippine Airlines Employees
Association (PALEA) filed a complaint before the National
Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for unfair labor practice
under Article 282, the employer must give the employee two with the following remarks: “ULP with arbitrary implementation
written notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if of PAL’s Code of Discipline without notice and prior discussion
requested by the employee before terminating the with Union by Management”. In its position paper, PALEA
employment: a notice specifying the grounds for which contended that PAL, by its unilateral implementation of the
dismissal is sought a hearing or an opportunity to be heard and Code, was guilty of unfair labor practice, specifically
after hearing or opportunity to be heard, a notice of the Paragraphs E and G of Article 249 and Article 253 of the Labor
decision to dismiss; and (2) if the dismissal is based on Code. PALEA alleged that copies of the Code had been
authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284, the employer circulated in limited numbers; that being penal in nature the
must give the employee and the Department of Labor and Code must conform with the requirements of sufficient
Employment written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity of publication, and that the Code was arbitrary, oppressive, and
his separation. prejudicial to the rights of the employees. It prayed that
implementation of the Code be held in abeyance; that PAL
From the foregoing rules four possible situations may be should discuss the substance of the Code with PALEA; that
derived: (1) the dismissal is for a just cause under Article 282 employees dismissed under the Code be reinstated and their
of the Labor Code, for an authorized cause under Article 283, cases subjected to further hearing; and that PAL be declared
or for health reasons under Article 284, and due process was guilty of unfair labor practice and be ordered to pay damages.
observed; (2) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause
but due process was observed; (3) the dismissal is without just
Some of the alleged members of the union filed an intervention The contracting out business or services is an exercise of
and reconsideration as well as the supervisors union. They business judgment if it is for the promotion of efficiency and
were ordered to file comments.Petitioner warns that if the attainment of economy. Management must be motivated by
wage increase of P2,200.00 per month as ordered by the good faith and contracting out should not be done to
Secretary is allowed, it would simply pass the cost covering circumvent the law. Provided there was no malice or that it was
such increase to the consumers through an increase in the not done arbitrarily, the courts will not interfere with the
rate of electricity. This is a non sequitur. The Court cannot be exercise of this judgment.
threatened with such a misleading argument. An increase in
the prices of electric current needs the approval of the PAL EMPLOYEES SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION VS
appropriate regulatory government agency and does not NLRC
automatically result from a mere increase in the wages of
petitioner’s employees. Facts:
An estimate by the All Asia financial analyst stated that The private respondent (ANGEL ESQUEJO) used to be a
petitioner’s net operating income for the same year was about security guard under the employment of the petitioner
P5.7 billion, a figure which the Union relies on to support its company. He works for 12 hours a day and is receiving a
claim. Assuming without admitting the truth thereof, the figure monthly salary. He was then dismissed by the petitioner
is higher than the P4.171 billion allegedly suggested by company. Because of this, the respondent filed a complaint
petitioner as its projected net operating income. The P5.7 with the Labor Arbiter for the payment of his overtime pay. The
billion which was the Secretary’s basis for granting the Labor Arbiter ruled that the respondent is entitled to an
P2,200.00 is higher than the actual net income of P5.1 billion overtime pay. The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor
admitted by petitioner. It would be proper then to increase this Arbiter. Hence, the current petition.
Court’s award of P1,900.00 to P2,000.00 for the two years of The petitioner contends that the fact that the monthly salary of
the CBA award. For 1992, the agreed CBA wage increase for the petitioner is higher than the minimum wage provided by
rank-and-file was P1,400.00 and was reduced to P1,350.00; law is already compensatory of the excess of 4 hours of work
for 1993; further reduced to P1,150.00 for 1994. For rendered by the said employee. It argues that the salary of the
supervisory employees, the agreed wage increase for the petitioner already includes the payment for the excess of 4
years 1992-1994 are P1,742.50, P1,682.50 and P1,442.50, hours of work rendered by the respondent. It also contends
respectively. Based on the foregoing figures, the P2,000.00 that since there is a meeting of the minds between the
increase for the two-year period awarded to the rank-and-file is respondent and the petitioner, there is already a perfected
much higher than the highest increase granted to supervisory contract which means that the parties are bound by their
employees. agreements.
Issue: Issue:
W/N matters of salary are part of management prerogative 1. WON the contract (overtime pay for work rendered for
four (4) hours in excess of the eight (8) hour regular
working period is already included in the P1,990.00
Held: basic salary), between the parties is binding.
HELD: Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII accord all
members of the labor sector, without distinction as to place of
On the first issue. deployment, full protection of their rights and welfare.
The answer is in the negative. Petitioner's claim that the To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the foregoing
subject clause unduly interferes with the stipulations in his constitutional provisions translate to economic security and
contract on the term of his employment and the fixed salary parity: all monetary benefits should be equally enjoyed by
package he will receive is not tenable. workers of similar category, while all monetary obligations
Section 10, Article III of the Constitution should be borne by them in equal degree; none should be
provides: No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be denied the protection of the laws which is enjoyed by, or
passed. spared the burden imposed on, others in like circumstances.
The prohibition is aligned with the general principle that laws Such rights are not absolute but subject to the inherent power
newly enacted have only a prospective operation, and cannot of Congress to incorporate, when it sees fit, a system of
affect acts or contracts already perfected; however, as to laws classification into its legislation; however, to be valid, the
already in existence, their provisions are read into contracts classification must comply with these requirements: 1) it is
and deemed a part thereof. Thus, the non-impairment clause based on substantial distinctions; 2) it is germane to the
under Section 10, Article II is limited in application to laws purposes of the law; 3) it is not limited to existing conditions
about to be enacted that would in any way derogate from only; and 4) it applies equally to all members of the class.
existing acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any
manner changing the intention of the parties thereto. There are three levels of scrutiny at which the Court reviews
the constitutionality of a classification embodied in a law: a) the
As aptly observed by the OSG, the enactment of R.A. No. deferential or rational basis scrutiny in which the challenged
8042 in 1995 preceded the execution of the employment classification needs only be shown to be rationally related to
contract between petitioner and respondents in 1998.Hence, it serving a legitimate state interest; b) the middle-tier or
cannot be argued that R.A. No. 8042, particularly the subject intermediate scrutiny in which the government must show that
clause, impaired the employment contract of the the challenged classification serves an important state interest
parties. Rather, when the parties executed their 1998 and that the classification is at least substantially related to
employment contract, they were deemed to have incorporated serving that interest; and c) strict judicial scrutiny in which a
into it all the provisions of R.A. No. 8042. legislative classification which impermissibly interferes with the
exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar
But even if the Court were to disregard the timeline, the subject disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional,
clause may not be declared unconstitutional on the ground that and the burden is upon the government to prove that the
it impinges on the impairment clause, for the law was enacted classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state
In the present case, the Court dug deep into the records but When the Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial
found no compelling state interest that the subject clause may review of the acts of its co-equals, such as the Congress, it
possibly serve. does so only when these conditions obtain: (1) that there is an
actual case or controversy involving a conflict of rights
While Article 605 has remained good law up to the present, Trans-global similarly denied Lagda’s request for availment of
Article 299 of the Code of Commerce was replaced by Art. the optional early retirement scheme on the same grounds
1586 of the Civil Code of 1889, to wit: upon which Millares request was denied.
Article 1586. Field hands, mechanics, artisans, and
Unable to return for contractual sea service after his leave of
other laborers hired for a certain time and for a certain
absence expire, Lagda was also dropped from the roster of
work cannot leave or be dismissed without sufficient cause,
before the fulfillment of the contract. crew members effective September 1, 1989.
SECOND ISSUE: