FACTORS AFFECTING THE RULING

TITLE PETITIONERS RESPONDENT WHAT HAPPENED ISSUE LABOR ARBITER NLRC CA SC

OF THE SC

G.R. No 73681 Colgate Hon. Blas F. Ople; - CPSU filed a notice of strike with the Bureau of 1. WON Minister - Found no merit in the -Nil- -Nil- 1. Reversing and Setting When Minister certified the Union, he
(Certiorari with Palmolive Colgate Palmolive Labor Relations on the ground of unfair labor committed grave complaint of the union Aside the order of the disregarded the procedures and its legal
prayer for TRO) Philippines Sales Union (CPSU) practice: abuse of discretion - Found dismissal of the 3 Minister for grave abuse requirements.
1. refusal to bargain when salesmen valid. Ordered of discretion. - Union did not pray for certification
2. dismissal of union officers/members notwithstanding his reinstatement of the 2. For the dismissed but merely finding of unfair labor
3. coercing employees to retract membership ruling that there was salesmen on the ground employees, since they practice
with the union and restraining non-union just cause for that they were first were first offenders, - He impliedly established a
members from joining dismissal, he offenders. company is ordered to procedural short-cut to obtaining
- Amicable settlement was not successful ordered - Directly certified the give them separation pay. certification by merely filing a notice
- Petitioners contention: reinstatement. respondent Union as the of strike.
1. No legal basis for the charges against refusal 2. WON committed collective bargaining agent
to bargain, since union is not the certified grave abuse of of salesmen of the Order of the Minister to reinstate
union of the company salesmen. discretion when he company. employees is not in the conformity with
2. Union status is still under question certified the Union, law.
3. Preventive suspensions of salesmen on the basis that it Petition for reconsideration - Reinstatement is incompatible with
(Sayson, Reynante, Mejia), and their enjoys majority of filed by petitioner was denied finding guilt.
eventual dismissal were pursuant to the right the salesforce. - Evidence were sufficient to render
of the company to discipline employees. dismissal without making any
Based on prelim investigation, distinction between first or habitual
aforementioned had substantial ground for offender.
violation of company rules. - Employer cannot be compelled to
4. Membership of the aforementioned with the continue with the employment of a
Union were not the cause of dismissal. person.
5. Company never coerced employees.
- Respondents Contention
1. Union is composed of 87 salesmen (2/3) of
the total number of salesmen of the
company.
2. Survey sheets on union membership were
distributed to newly hired, when the company
learned about the formation of the union.

G.R.No. 85668 Gelmart The Hon. NLRC; - Felix Francis is an auto-mechanic for Gelmart. His 1. WON NLR C LA ruled that private - GELMART appealed -Nil- - Issued TRO State policy to bridge the gap between
(Certiorari with Industries Phils. Felix Francis work consisted of repair and entrusted with tool committed grave respondent was illegally - Does not fully concur with 1. Finds no merit in the the workmen and employers.
prayer for Inc. (GIPI) and spare parts. abuse of discretion dismissed, ordered LA. However, affirmed the petition of Gelmart.
issuance of - F. Francis was caught taking out 16 ounces of in ordering the reinstatement with full back decision of the LA with Petition is dismissed. NLRC Contention
TRO) used motor oil without necessary gate pass as reinstatement of the wages up to the time of modification. Gelmart is Restraining order is lifted - Francis violated the rule requiring a
required by company policy. respondent to his reinstatement. directed to reinstate Francis and enjoining the gate pass for taking company
- Francis was placed under preventive suspension former position with to his former position enforcement of the NLRC property.
pending investigation. payment of back -The decision was based on without loss of seniority and decision. - Used motor oil is not plain waste as
- He was found guilty of theft of property, as a wages. the ground that the property payment of back wages what LA contends, since it had its
consequence, his service was severed. that must be stolen must have equivalent to 6 months use to Gemart’s motor pool
- Francis filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal value; wherein in this case it - No Motion for - It is not for Francis, but Gelmart
before the NLRC did not have any. Thus, Reconsideration was filed who has the right to interpret the
Francis did not deprive rule and to exact discipline to its
Gelmart of anything. workforce.
- Dismissal was unwarranted since
penalty of preventive suspension
was sufficient.
 Francis has no previous derogatory
record in his 15 years of service with
Gelmart.

The value of the property pilfered is very

minimal

Gelmart faild to establish that non-

dismissal would work undue prejudice to
the viability of their operation
GR No. 121004 Romeo Lagatic NLRC; Cityland - Lagatic was employed by Cityland as a 1. WON NLRC LA dismissed the petition for NLRC affirmed the decision -Nil- 1. Petitioners’ dismissal 1. For valid dismissal 2 requisites
(Certiorari) Development probationary officer, and later as marketing committed grave lack of merit of LA. was for a just and valid must be met: (1) employee afforded
Corporation; specialist. He was tasked to: abuse of discretion cause, his claims for due process (2) dismissal must be
Stephen Roxas; 1. Soliciting sales in not finding moral and exemplary for a valid cause.
Jesus Go; Grace 2. Accepting call-ins, referrals petitioner was damages, as well as - Clients argument, that non
Liuson; Andrew 3. Making client calls and cold calls illegally dismissed attorney’s fee are denied. submission of cold call reports does
Liuson - Cityland requires all marketing specialist to make 2. WON NLRC 2. Petitions is dismissed not qualify as disobedience, is
cold calls. In order to assess cold calls, as well as committed grave for lack of merit. The specious. Employer is free to
to determine the result, the company requires the abuse of discretion assailed decision of regulate.
submission of daily progress report. in ruling that NLRC is affirmed. - Company policies are generally
- The company issued written reprimand to Lagatic petitioner is not valid and binding between parties.
for his failure to submit cold call reports. entitled to salary - Employer may validly dismiss
- Lagatic failed to submit again cold call reports, differentials etc. employees, and he cannot be
thus, he was made to explain his inaction with a expected to retain those who has
warning that further noncompliance would result no regard for rules.
in his termination. On the procedural aspect of dismissal
- Lagatic in his explanation, claimed that this was - Lagatic was notified of charges
an honest omission brought about by against him and was made to
concentration on other aspects of the job. explain.
- The company found the excuse inadequate, - He was given notice of his
hence, he was suspended for 3 days with a similar termination
warning.
- Again, petitioner continuously fail to submit cold 2. Petitioner receives basic salary
call reports. He was verbally reminded to submit without deductions.
and was given a deadline.
- Lagatic wrote a note TO HELL WITH COLD There is no law requires employers
CALLS WHO CARES and exhibited them to his to pay commission
coworkers. He left the note on his desk.
- Cityland issued a memorandum requiring him to Overtime cannot be offset by
explain his actions. He replied in his explanation undertime.
that cold call report should not be deemed gross
insubordination, while he denied knowledge of the Lagatic failed to show evidence for
said statement. entitlement of overtime and rest day
- Cityland dismissed him. pay
- Lagatic filed for illegal dismissal, underpayment,
overtime and rest day pay, damages and
attorney’s fee.
GR No. 156515 China Banking Mariano M. - Borromeo is a branch manager of CBC Cagayan 1. WON restitution of LA dismissed the respondent’s NLRC dismissed the appeal CA found merit in the Petition Granted. CA 1. Code of Ethics expressly sanction
(Review on Corporation Borromeo De Oro branch. the money is proper complaint. Borromeo as an and affirmed in toto the contention of Borromeo, resolution is reversed and the imposition of restitution of
Certiorari) - For years he has received high satisfactory 2. WON Borromeo officer of the bank committed findings and conclusion of that he was denied of due set aside. Decision of LA benefits.
performance rating was denied of due serious infraction. LA process. and NLRC is reinstated.
- Prior to the last promotion of Borromeo as SM1, process by the LA It was within the prerogative of the
Borromeo without authority from the EXCOM / and NLRC LA held that CBC’s act of Held LA failed to afford bank to impose upon the
BOD approved BP accommodations amounting to withholding the benefits was Borromeo due process. respondent what it considered
P2.4M in favor of Joel Maniwan with E. Ramos as justified under the Code of CA set aside the decision appropriate penalty.
surety. Ethics. of the NLRC and ordered
- The BP accommodations (total of 10 checks) that the case be CBC’s business is essentially
were returned unpaid. imbued with public interest; thus, it
 - Borromeo wrote a memorandum to the SMC remanded to LA for is expected to exercise the highest
requesting grant of 2.4 M loan to Maniwan, to further hearings. degree of diligence in the selection
regularize the BP availments. and supervision of their employees
- CBC came to know the aforementioned CBC filed motion for
transaction. reconsideration. 2. NLRC and LA is and administrative
- The said transaction exceeded the limit granted to body are not bound by the technical
client and were granted without prior notice and CA denied the MR. necessities of the law. Decisions
already past due. may be reached on the basis of
- FVP Chiong sought clarification from Borromeo position paper. Holding formal
via a memorandum. In his explanation, Borromeo hearing is discretionary and not a
stated that he accepts full responsibility for matter of right,
committing an error in judgment and is ready to
face the consequences. Rationale and purpose of admin
- Borromeo sent another letter notifying FVP hearings are summary in nature.
Chiong of his intention to resign, and that he was
sorry.
- SVP Yang informed Borromeo that such Factual findings of LA and NLRC which
transaction violated Bank’s Code of Ethics. He is material to their decision:
was directed to pay 1.5M (90%) of the 1.6M loss - He was an officer of the bank
incurred by the bank. In view of his resignation - By his admission, he granted the
and years in service, the management earmarked BP in excess of the authority given
only 836K from his total separation benefits. to him
- In a letter from the HR, abovementioned - Bank’s Code of Ethics provide
information was stated. It was added that the restitution of benefits
amount withheld would be released upon - Infraction of bank SOP
recovery of the money from Maniwan in civil case. - He resigned
- Borromeo via his counsel made a demand for
payment of separation pay and benefits.
- CBC maintained its position
- Borromeo filed with NLRC complaint for payment
of separation pay and other benefits.
GR No. 112546 North Davao NLRC; LA Antonio - North Davao is a company forced by huge 1. WON employer LA ordered North Davao to NLRC affirmed the decision -Nil- SC rendered modifying 1. (Art. 283 of the LC) … In case of
(Certiorari) Mining M. Villanueva; business losses to close its business. whose business pay Guillema and others of LA. the resolution of the retrenchment to prevent losses in
Corporation Eilfredo Guilema - Guillema was one of the several employees of ceased to operate additional separation pay of NLRC, setting aside the cases of closure not due to serious
and Asset North Davao who were separated by reason of due to serious 17.5 days for every year of additional separation pay, business losses, the separation pay
Privatization company closure. business losses is service, back wages, and affirming it in all other shall be equivalent to 1 month or at
Trust - When North Davao ceased operation, its obliged to pay transportation cost, and other aspects. least ½ month pay for every year of
remaining employees were separated and given separation pay to its benefits service.
equivalent of 12.5 days pay per year of service. employees Closure of North Davao is due to
- However, during the life of the company, it was 2. WON time collecting business losses. The LC does not
giving out separation pay equivalent to 30 days wages in a place impose any obligation to the employer to
pay per year of service. other than the place pay separation benefits.
- Employees had to collect their salaries at a Bank of employment is
in Tagum, Davao del Norte compensable Contention of the SC as to why the
- Complaint was filed by Guillema and 271 others 3. WON respondents respondents should not be given
for payment of additional pay, back wages, and are entitled to additional separation pay
other benefits. transportation - Company’s practice of giving 1
expenses month’s pay for every year of
service could no longer be
continued precisely because they
could not afford it anymore.
- It gave 1-month separation pay to
its employees when it was still
operating
2. Payment of back wages and
transportation allowance supported
by the following facts:

GR No. 80680 Danilo B. Tabas California - Tabas an employee of Livi Manpower Services
(Certiorari) Manufacturing Inc. was assigned to work as promotional
Company merchandiser of California Manufacturing.
- The agreement (Manpower Supply Agreement)
provided that California has no control or
supervision over Livis workers. Included in the
contract is the relationship of principal-agent-
employee; where it was stated that the sole
responsibility pertinent to employment of labor is
vested with Livi.
- It was stipulated in the contract that the workers
shall be on a seasonal and contractual basis.
- Petitioners were made to sign employment
contract for 6 months. Thereafter, they signed new
contracts with the same company for another 6
months
- Tabas and several others filed with NLRC petition
for payment of various benefits.
- Consequently, California notified the petitioners
that they would not be rehired.
- Hence, petitioners filed an amended complaint
charging California or illegal dismissal.
WON petitioners are
California or Livi’s
employees
LA ruled against the existence
of any employer-employee
relationship. LA absolved Livi
from any obligation because
the retrenchment was beyond
its control
- Workers travel 2.5 hours from work
to the bank to claim their pay
- Risk in commuting all the time in
collecting salaries
- DOLE found out that petitioner
violated labor standards one of
which was place of payment of
wages
NLRC affirmed the decision -Nl- SC grants the petition. SC There exists an employer-employee
of LA set aside the decision of relationship supported by the following
NLRC, ordering California facts:
to reinstate the - The Manpower Supply Agreement
employees. Also, was between Livi and California,
ordering Livi and they alone are bound by it, and
California to pay jointly petitioners cannot be made to
and severally the suffer.
petitioners for the claimed - Livi performs manpower services,
benefits. meaning it contracts out labor in
favor of clients. They supplied
California with workers to pursue
the latter’s business. When it
provided California with personnel,
as if such personnel had been
directly hired by California.
- Petitioners were charged with
merchandising promotion including
task and occasional price tagging,
an activity that is an integral part of
the manufacturing business
- They were given an initial 6-month
contract, renewed or another six
months. Under Art.281, they have
acquired security of tenure.

GR No. L- Philippine Philippine Air Lines - PAL dismissed 4 employees who are members of WON employees are CIR granted the motion. -Nil- -Nil- SC affirms the ruling of Insofar as Christmas bonus, the
21129 Airlines Inc. Employees PALEA. entitled to benefits CIR, except as the free accumulated sick leave privileges and
(Certiorari) (PAL) Association - The dismissed employees filed a case for illegal allegedly provided for in trip passes for the layoff transportation allowance, Pal’s
(PALEA); Court of dismissal to CIR. CIR resolution of July 13, period. contention is without merit:
Industrial Relations - The said employees were reinstated and their 1954. - The aforementioned benefits shall
back wages were computed at the rate of their be considered in the light of the
compensation at the time of dismissal less wages entire context of the 1954
and salaries earned by them elsewhere. resolution- ordering reinstatement
- Again, the employees filed a petition to the CIR, of the said employees without
objecting to the said deduction. CIR sustained prejudice to their seniority or other
them. While SC overturned the ruling of CIR rights and privileges.
- PALEA moved for the execution of CIR resolution
of July 13,1954, as regards the other rights and
privileges.
GR No. 114733 Aurora Land NLRC; Honorio - Dagui was hired by Donya Aurora to take charge 1. WON there exists LA ruled in favor of Dagui, NLRC affirmed the decision -Nil- SC party granted and 1. Dagui was an employee of Aurora
(Certiorari) Projects Corp. Dagui of the maintenance and repair of the Tanjangco and employer- ordering Aurora Plaza/ of LA with modification on modified the resolution of Plaza
(Aurora Plaza); apartment and residential buildings. Dagui employee Teresita Quazon to pay Dagui the separation pay amount. NLRC. - Dagui was hired by Donya Aurora,
Teresita T. performed carpentry, plumbing, electrical, and relationship his separation pay plus 10% who was then the one in-charge of
Quazon masonry. 2. WON Dagui was attorney’s fees the administration of Tanjangco’s
- Upon the death of Dony Aurora, her daughter illegally dismissed properties.
Teresita took over. .Teresita appealed to the - He was employed as stay-in worker
- Dagui was told by Teresita that he would no NLRC - Upon the demise of Donya Aurora,
longer work for the Tanjangco’s on the alleged Teresita continued to employ Dagui
ground that his work was unsatisfactory. up to the time he was dismissed.
 - Dagui filed a complaint for illegal dismissal - Dagui earns 180 per day as salary.
- Dagui reports to work from 7 am up
to 4pm. Dagui had to observe the
instructions and specifications
given.
- Dagui rendered his service for the
Tanjangcos for 38 years.

2. Dagui was illegally dismissed

- Daguis was dismissed without
written notice informing the worker
the cause of termination.
- There was no hearing conducted
- Undignified manner by which Dagui
was terminated smacks of absolute
denial of the employee’s right to
due process
GR No. 95845 William L. Tiu NLRC; Hermes Dela - William Tiu, operator of D’Rough Riders WON Hermes was an LA found Hermes to be an NLRC affirms the decision -Nil- SC denies the petition of Hermes was an employee supported by
(Certiorari) Cruz Transportation, is engaged in the transportation of employee employee of the petitioner. of LA. William Tiu. the following:
passengers from Cebu city to the northern towns - Chief Dispatcher, Regino, took
of Cebu. charge of the hiring of men and paid
- Hermes worked for the petitioner’s bus terminal as their wages.
a dispatcher. - Payment of salaries and wages
- Hermes was paid a regular daily wage of 20php. came from William
- The arrangement with the dispatchers were made - Regino filled-out and signed daily
possible due to the efforts and representation of time records for dispatchers and
the chief dispatcher, Hermes’ father- Regino. took disciplinary action against the
- Hermes was caught taking a bath inside the erring employees in accordance
terminal, consequently, he was dismissed from with the instruction of William.
his job. Such was subsequent to the warning - Regino was also an employee of
given by William to Hermes, when he was initially the petitioner.
caught inside the terminal.
- Hermes filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
violation of the minimum wage law, and non-
payment of various incentives.
- William denied that the petitioner was his
employee. He alleges that Hermes was with the
so-call tambays who hung around the terminal.
GR No. 111870 Air Material NLRC; Atty. Luis - Atty. Luis Salas was appointed as notarial and WON there exists LA dismissed most of Atty. NLRC affirmed the decision -Nil- SC affirmed the decision There exists an employer-employee
(Certiorari) Wing Savings Salas legal counsel of AMWSLAI. employer-employee Salas’ claims. It was held that of LA of NLRC with modification relationship
and Loan - Appointment was renewed for 3 consecutive relationship he was not illegally dismissed. that the award of notarial - The terms and conditions of the
Association Inc. years He was, however, granted fees and attorney’s fees contract entered by Atty. Salas and
(AMWSLAI) - Approaching the end of his contract, AWMSLAI, payment for his notarial fees, is disallowed. AMWSLAI show that he was an
issued an order reminding Atty. Salas of the and 10% attorney’s fees. employee
approaching termination of his legal services - Selection as the company counsel
under the contract. was done by the BOD
- Atty. Salas filed a complaint for separation pay, - He was paid monthly compensation
vacation and sick leave benefits, etc. for his services
- AMWSLAI moved to dismiss the case for lack of - Though appointment was fixed for
jurisdiction, contending that there was no 3 years, AMWSLAI reserved its
employee-employer relationship. power of dismissal for cause or as
it may deem necessary
- AMWSLAI exercise its power of
control by defining Atty. Salas’
duties and functions as its legal
counsel.
GR No. L- Elias Villuga; NLRC; Broad Street - Elias was employed as a cutter of Broad Street 1. WON their exists LA ordered the dismissal of the NLRC affirmed the decision -Nil- SC assailed the decision 1. Their exists an employer-employee
75038 Renato Tailoring and / or Tailoring. Other petitioners were ironers, employer-employee complaint for unfair labor of LA. of NLRC with relationship;
(Certiorari) Abistado; Jill Rodolfo Zapanta repairment, and sewers. relationship practices, illegal dismissal, modification. Villuga be In the case of Villuga he was not a
Mendoza et. al - He was paid fixed monthly salary, and month 2. WON petitioners and money claims. NLRC ruled that VIlluga falls granted his benefits, and managerial employee because:
transportation allowance. were illegally within the category of the rest of the petitioners - Primary work of Villugas was to cut
- He was also assigned the chore of distributing dismissed managerial employee; that 13th month pay. The case prepare patters for item sewn not to
work to the shop’s tailors when the shop the petitioners were not is remanded to the NLRC lay down management policies.
managers would be absent. He saw to it that the dismissed by reason of for computation of claims - He distributes or assigns work, but
work done conforms to the pattern prepared. union activities; petitioners such duty is occasional and not
- Petitioners did not fill up any time record since were not employees but customary
they did not observe regular work hours. mere contractors - He does not participate in policy
- They were allowed to perform their work at home. making, rather, his function
- Villuga failed to report due to illness, without involves execution of the said
properly notifying the employer. policies.
- Broad Street Tailoring refused admittance when In the case of other petitioners that there
he reported back to work. Other petitioners were exists employer-employee relationship
also dismissed from their jobs, allegedly because - Petitioners were paid on a piece-
they joined a Union rate basis
- Petitioners filed for illegal dismissal - Petitioners who are either sewer,
repairmen, or ironer have been in
the employ for more than a year,
rendering services necessary for
the business.
- Petitioners observing management
approved standards for their
respective line of work, as well as
customer’s specifications.

2. Charges of Illegal dismissal plus

remuneration

In the case of Villuga, he was illegally

dismissed, and he should be given the
benefits:
- On the ground that he was a
managerial employee that he was
excluded from the said benefits is
unwarranted. He was definitely a
rank and file employee hired to
perform work of a cutter
- He was uniformly paid by the month
- Villuga absented himself without
leave and without submitting a
medical certificate, warrants a
sanction but not dismissal.
In the case of other petitioners, that they
were not illegally dismissed:
- Self-serving allegations that Mr.
Zapanta new about the union and
accordingly reacted against their
membership would not suffice.
GR No. 84484 Insular Life NLRC; Melecio - Basiao entered into a contract with Insular life, to WON Basiao was an LA ruled that the first contract NLRC affirmed the decision -Nil- SC set aside the NLRC Basiao is not an employee but rather a
(Certiorari) Assurance Co. Basiao be an insurance agent for the company. employee of Insular Life entered by both parties decision, dismissing the commission agent/ independent
Ltd. (Insular - 4 years later, both parties entered into another or was he an established the employer- case at hand contractor.
Life) contract - Agency Manager Contract; the independent contractor employee relationship. LA
company hiring Basiao’s organized agency. ordered payment of his There are no showing that company
- Insular Life terminated the Agency Contract. unpaid commission plus rules and regulations that the company
attorney’s fees might prescribe from time to time which
 - Basiao sued insular life for such action, effectively controlled or restricted his
prompting insular life to terminate the latter as Insular Life appealed with the choice of methods of selling insurance.
agent of the company, and stop payment of his NLRC
commission Basiao’s status under the first contract
- Basiao filed with Ministry of Labor recovery of and not the length of the relationship
commission plus attorney’s fees with the company.
- Insular Life disputed the jurisdiction of the
Ministry of Labor since Basiao is not an
employee.
GR No. 83380- Makati NLRC; Ceferina - The members of the Sandigan have been working 1. WON there exists LA ruled that Makati NLRC affirmed the decision -Nil- SC modified the decision 1. There exists and employer-
81 Haberdashery, Diosana; Sandigan with Makati Haberdashery as tailors, seamstress, an employer- Haberdashery is guilty of of LA but limiting the back of the NLRC and LA. employee relationship evidenced
(Certiorari) Inc.; ng Manggagawang sewers, basters, and ironers. employee illegal dismissal, ordering the wages of Pelobello and Complaint filed by by:
Jorge Pilipino - The respondents were paid on a piece-rate basis. relationship. reinstatement of Pelobello, Zapata. Pelobello and Zapata for - Makati Haberdashery directs an
Ledesma; In addition, they were given daily allowance 2. WON respondents and Zapata. The charge of illegal dismissal was employee to take the customer’s
Cecilio provided they report to work before 930 am. are entitled to unfair labor and claim for dismissed. Award of measurements, and to sew the
Inocencio - The respondents are required to work 930 up to monetary claims underpayment were service incentive pay to pants, coat or shirt as specified by
6pm/ 7pm from Monday to Saturday. 3. WON Pelobello and dismissed. the private respondents the customer.
- Sandigan filed a complaint with NLRC for Zapata were were deleted. - Memorandum issued by the
underpayment of wages, and other benefits illegally dismissed assistant manager regarding the
- During pendency of the case, Pelobello (one of new procedures that shall be
the respondents) left with a salesman of Makati followed by he respondents.
Haberdashery, an open package which contains - Respondents have to report to work
a jusi barong. regularly. Respondents are paid
- Pelobello was confronted by the management, he additional allowance if they report
told that the said barong was ordered by another before the allotted time of work
respondent Zapata for his customer. 2. Respondents are entitled to the
- Zapata admitted that he copied the design of minimum wage but there was no
Haberdashery. underpayment.
- Memorandum was issued to both Pelobello and - Lack of sufficient evidence
Zapata to explain the incident and why no action supporting their claim
should be taken against them. - Respondents did not appeal the
- Both did not submit any explanation and did not ruling of the NLRC on the said issue
report to work. Hence, they were dismissed As regular employees, respondents
- Pelobello and Zapata filed for Illegal dismissal are entitled to Minimum wage,
with NLRC COLA, and 13th month pay but they
are not entitled to service incentive
because they are piece-rate
workers
3. It shows that respondents
(Pelobello and Zapata) violated the
employer’s rules evidenced by:
- Copied barong tagalog was in the
possession of Pelobello who
pointed to Zapata as the owner.
- When required to explain, they
failed to submit, and went AWOL
- Their blatant disregard of their
employer’s memorandum is
undoubtedly an open defiance to
the lawful orders, which is justifiable
ground for termination.
GR No. L- Investment Social Security - Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in WON petitioner’s -Nil- -Nil- -Nil- Resolution of respondent - They exert mental and physical
19124 Planning System (SSS) business management and sale of securities. registered is reversed and set aside. efforts in the performance of their
(Certiorari) Corporation of - Petitioner has two classes of agents: (1) salaried representatives are service.
the Philippines (2) registered representatives employees within the - They receive compensation;
(IPCP) - Petitioner applied to SSS for exemption o meaning of Social however, it is not for those efforts
registered representatives from compulsory Security Act. but for the results they make.
coverage of Social Security Act.
 - Application was denied by SSS. MR was filed and - The contract from petitioner and its
was also denied. registered representatives showed
- The matter was elevated to SC for review that nothing therein would indicate
control in respect of the means and
methods employed in the
performance of work.
GR No. 114787 MAM Realty NLRC; Celso - Balbastro was employed by MAM as a pump WON there exists an LA dismissed the complaint for NLRC set aside the decision -Nil- SC modifies the ruling of SC finds that Balbastro is an employee of
(Certiorari) Development Balbastro operator in 1982 and performed work at is Rancho employer-employee lack of merit of LA, remanding the case NLRC, remanding to the MAM realty according to the following
Corporation; Estate. relationship to Arbiter Tamayo NLRC for the re- facts:
Manuel - He earned basic monthly salary for 7 days of work computation of private - Balbastro’s employment with MAM
Centeno week from 6am to 6pm After considering the report respondents’ monetary was registered with SSS
- Balbastro was said to be previously been of LA Tamayo, NLRC awards which shall be - He receives basic monthly salary
employed by Cacho, developer of Rancho Estate; ordered payment sum of paid solely by MAM - He works from 6am to 6pm
He was contracted by MAM for operation of the money to Balbastro by MAM Realty Development. - The power of control, the most
water pump. and its VP jointly and important feature refers merely to
- MAM alleges that he was hired not as an severally. the existence of the power and not
employee but as a service contractor at an agreed to the actual exercise thereof.
fee. Similar contract was entered by MAM with
one of the security guards.
- He worked for only a maximum period of 3 hours
a day and made use of his free time offering
plumbing services to the residents of the
subdivision.
- MAM executed deed of Transfer of the Rancho
Estates in favor of the Rancho Estates Phase 3
Homeowners Association, Inc., conveying to the
latter all its rights and interests in the water system
- Balbastro filed with LA for wage differentials
against MAM and its VP.
GR. No. Zanotte Shoes / NlRC; Hon. Benigno - Respondents worked with the Petitioner for a 1. WON there exists LA rendered judgment in favor NLRC sustained the -Nil- SC affirmed the ruling of 1. There exists an employer-
100665 Leonardo Villarente, Jr; minimum of 12 hours/day. an employer- of respondents. Declaring that findings of the LA. NLRC and LA that there employee relationship
(Certiorari) Lorenzo Joseph Lluz; Lolito - They were paid on piece-work basis. employee there was an employee- exists and employer- - The work of the respondents is
Lluz; Noel Adarayan; - Respondents alleged that Mr. Lorenzo prevented relationship employer relationship. LA employee relationship but clearly related to and in the pursuit
Rogelio Sira et. Al them from entering the work premises, when they 2. WON there was directed Zanotte shoes to pay with modification, deleting of the business of the petitioner.
requested to be made members of SSS and that illegal dismissal all complainants separation the award of separation - It is natural to expect that those
they would have an increase in their pay rate. pay. pay and corresponding working under Zanotte would
- Petitioner claimed that their business is only attorney’s fees observe the requirements of the
seasonal. He avers that the respondents were size and quality.
engaged on purely contractual basis and paid the - Since the work is done in the
rates conformably with their agreements. establishment it can be inferred that
- Respondents filed for illegal dismissal and various the proprietor could easily exercise
monetary claims, plus damages and attorney’s control
fees against Zanotte Shoes 2. There was no illegal dismissal nor
- In their supplemental position paper, they abandonment.
abandoned the monetary claims. - Even during conciliation stage,
Zanotte shoes were willing to
accept back all complainants
- The respondents’ steadfast refusal
of the offer

GR No. L- Dr. Carlos L. CA; Tourist World - A contract was entered by Mrs. Noguera, Tourist 1. WON Lina Sevilla The trial court held that TWSI -Nil- CA affirmed the decision CS reversed and set 1. Mrs. Sevilla was not an employee
41182-3 Sevilla and Lina Service, Inc.; Eliseo World Service Inc., and Ms. Sevilla; wherein, was an employee of was the true lessee; thus, it of the trial court. aside the decision of CA. evidenced by the following:
(Certiorari) Sevilla S. Canilao; TWSI leased the premises of Ms. Noguera to use TWSI. was within its prerogative to TWSI and Eliseo Canilao - Under the contract of lease, she
Segundina Noguera as a branch office. 2. WON padlocking of terminate the lease and was ordered to indemnify bound herself solidarily liable for
- In the said contract, Ms. Sevilla was solidarily the premises padlock the premises. It also the petitioner rental payments.
liable for the prompt payment of the monthly without the ruled that Mrs. Sevilla, was a - When the branch opened, the
rental. knowledge and mere employee of TWSI branch was run by Mrs. Sevilla. It
Consent of Mrs. means she in pursuing the
 - The said branch was run by Ms.Sevilla, wherein, Sevilla entitled her business, she had to rely on her
she earns 7% total commission, 4% commission to her relief of own gifts and capabilities to gain
was hers and 3% were withheld by TWSI. damages. customers.
- TWSI was informed that Ms. Sevilla was - Sevilla was not in the company’s
connected with the rival firm. Consequently, since payroll. For her efforts she retained
the branch office run by Mrs. Sevilla was losing, 4% of the commission. She earned
the company considered closing it down. fluctuating amounts of
- 2 resolutions were mad by the BOD; first, compensation depending on her
abolishing the position of Mrs. Sevilla, and booking success.
authorizing the corp. secretary to take over. - Their relationship appeared to be
- Further, the contract for the use of the said branch an agent-employer relationship.
was terminated. 2. TWSI and Canlao be held liable for
- Because of the aforementioned, and to comply damages.
with the mandate of TWSI, Canlao the corp. - TWSI was the lessee named in the
secretary went to said branch padlocked the lease contract, but it did not accord
premises. any authority to terminate the
- Since Mrs. Sevilla was and her employees could contract without notice to its
enter the premises, she filed a complaint against occupants, and to padlock the
TWSI. premises.
- For the lack of interest of both parties, the trial - Sevilla acquired personal stake in
court dismissed the case. the business
- Mrs. Sevilla refiled her case. - Sevilla was a third party in charge
with rental payment
GR No. 106108 Cabalan NLRC; Fernando - CAPANELA is an association composed of 1. WON there exists LA ruled in favor of Fernando, NLRC dismiss he appeal -Nil- SC reversed and set 1. Fernando was not an employee of
(Certiorari) Pastulan Sanchez Negritos who worked inside the American naval an employer- declaring that his dismissal aside the ruling of NLRC. CAPANELA but rather the US
Negrito Labor base in Subic. employee was illegal. Ordering Government acting through the
Association - Fernando was employed by CAPANELA as a relationship CAPANELA and Alviz to pay military base authorities. Such is
(CAPANELA); foreman with a monthly salary of 3.2K, until he 2. WON the dismissal Fernando the back wages and evidenced by the following facts:
Jose Alviz, Sr. was illegally dismissed of Fernando was reinstate him. However, moral - CAPANELA through its officers saw
- Fernando filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, legal. and exemplary damages were to it that its members reported for
nonpayment of back wages and other benefit. dismissed. work, recorded their attendance,
- No amicable settlement was reached between and distributed the workers’
parties. salaries paid by the Base.
- US Government paying for the
wages.
- Through the intervention of
CAPANELA, Fernando, was
cleared of the charge of larceny of
US Government property.
CAPANELA could only intervene in
behalf of its members through
recommendatory action request for
favorable consideration.
- CAPANELA could only impose
disciplinary sanctions upon its
members for infraction of its own
rules and regulations.
2. Considering that petitioner cannot
legally be considered as employer,
it follows that it cannot be made
liable to bear the responsibility for
the consequences of the charge of
illegal dismissal.

The action shall be directed against

the US Government
GR. No. L- Continental NLRC; LA Jose - Rodito was appointed plant manager of WON there exist an LA rendered judgment in favor NLRC dismissed the appeal -Nil- SC ruled that the ruling of Rodito was not an employee of
43825 Marble Corp.; Collado; Rodito Continental Marble with an alleged compensation employer-employee of Rodito, ordering Continental on the ground that the NLRC be reversed and Continental Marble but rather an
(Certiorari) Felipe David Nasayao of 3K/month. relationship Marble to pay. decision appealed from is set aside. The temporary independent contractor. This is
- Rodito was in-charge of keeping the machinery in final, and immediately restraining order is made supported by the following:
good working condition and return he would get Petitioner appealed to the executory. permanent/ - It was illogical for Continental
contracts from end-users for the installation of NLRC Marble to hire Rodito as a plant
marble products. Petitioners appealed before manager with monthly salary of
- Continental Marble allegedly failed to pay his SC also praying issuance of 3k/month, since the business was
salary for 3 consecutive months TRO, restraining losing and was about to close shop
- Petitioner contends that Rodito would receive respondent from enforcing when he was hired.
amount equivalent to 25% of the net profit that the the ruling of NLRC - There is nothing on record to
company would realize, should there be any. support that he was an employee.
- Rodito filed a complaint with NLRC for recovery of He was not included in the payroll
unpaid varies or list of employees.
- Element of control was lacking. The
company had no control over the
conduct of Rodto in the
performance of his work. He
decided for himself what was to be
don and worked at his own
pleasure.
- He was not subject to definite hours
- He was compensated according to
the result of his own effort.

GR No. L- Feati University Hon. Jose S. - President of PAFLU wrote a letter to the president
21278 Bautista; Feati of Feati, informing her of the organization of the
GR No. L- University Faculty faculty club into a registered union.
21462 Club- PAFLU - The president of the PAFLU sent another letter
(Certiorari) containing 26 demands in connection with the
employment of the members and requesting an
answer within 10 day.
- The president of Feati answered, requesting that
she be given at least 30 days.
- Counsel of Feati to whom the demands were
referred to, wrote a letter to the president of
PAFLU demanding proof of its majority status, and
designation as bargaining representative.
- President of PAFLU again wrote the president of
Feati rejecting the letter request for extension of
time.
- On the same day, PAFLU filed a notice to strike
with the Bureau of Labor, alleging refusal to
bargain collectively.
- Members of PAFLU declared strike and
established picket lines inside the premises of the
University, thus, disrupting classes.
- Conciliation efforts failed. Thus, the President of
the Philippines certified to the Court of Industrial
Relations of the said dispute.
- Relying on the certification of the President of the
Philippines, Judge Bautista set the case for
hearing.
- Feati filed for dismissal of the case on th ground
that CIR has no jurisdiction for Feati being an
education institution, and its faculty as an
independent contractor. Feati alleges that there
WON there exists an Judge Bautista dismissed the
employer within the petition of Feati to dismiss the
purview of the Industrial said case. He declared that the
Peace Act. Industrial Peace Act applicable
to both parties. That CIR
acquired jurisdiction over the
case. Further, the judge
ordered the strikers to return to
work, and that the University to
take them back.
-Nil- -Nil- SC dismissed the petition
filed by Feati. The orders
and resolution of the CIR
are affirmed.
SC ruled that educational institutions who
operates for profit are within the purview
of RA875.
The Act does not give comprehensive
definition of employer. In this act,
employer simply means as the one who
employs the services of others; one for
whom employees work and who pays
their wages or salaries.
Feati was an employer, and the teachers
are its employees.
- University is operated for profit
hence it falls in the term of
employer
- The professors who are under
contract to teach are paid for their
services. In such case, falls under
the definition of employees
- The university controls the work of
the members of its faculty; such
that they are the ones who
prescribe the courses and the
subjects.
- The work of the professors are
characterized by regularity and
continuity for fixed duration.
- Professors cannot substitute others
to do their work without the consent
of the university
- Professors can be laid off if work is
found not satisfactory
 was no industrial dispute to be covered by the
Industrial Peace Act.
- Feati hired professors to take the place of those
professors who went on strike. Thus, Feati filing
with CIR, petition to declare Feati in contempt of
the work order, for refusal to accept the strikers
back to work.
GR No. L- Far Eastern CIR; Philippine - Tomas Aguirre a faculty member of FEU in the WON employment of - CIR dismissed the Majority of the judges -Nil- SC affirmed the Aguirre was an instructor in Tagalog, his
17620 University Association of boy’s high school department. Aguirre to CBP and CPP complaint, acting upon affirmed the decision of resolution of the NLRC. position as researcher in the CBP has no
(Certiorari) Colleges and - Aguirre joined the PACUP. Upon orders of the are equivalent to his Aguirre’s motion. Judge Martinez, insofar as future for him.
University president of the union, Aguirre started recruiting former position which - However, the order of the commission of unfair His work in CBP is inferior to his job as a
Professors (PACUP) members for PACUP. bars his reinstatement. dismissal was set aside labor practice, and payment full-time instructor because of the future
- FEU formed a committee to classify all faculty for the reason that the of the salary and back his position as instructor in the university
members and determine the rates of their back expected amicable wages. offers him as a career is non-existent in
pay and assignments. settlement had not the CBP.
- Aguirre was classified as a full-time instructor materialized However, they held that
- Eventually, FEU gave Aguirre less compensation, - Consequently, FEU filed Aguirre’s employment with
and they stopped giving Aguirre teaching a supplemental pleading CBP and part-time position
assignments. to the motion to dismiss in PCC are not substantial
- Aguirre claims that this was due to his activities for but was denied by the equivalent to his former
the Union court. position. Thus, reinstating
- FEU claims that their action was due decrease in Aguirre to his former
enrollment. CIR rendered their decision, position.
- The dean, where Aguirre was teaching, admitted finding FEU guilty of unfair
assignment of subjects to faculty, the length of labor practice, sentencing the FEU appealed to SC.
service and experience, and several more where institution to pay Aguirre salary
considered. differential, and back wages.
- However, if these were taken into account Aguirre
should have been given a teaching load instead of MR was filed by FEU
the 3 part-time teachers who started teaching after
him.
- The other members who were given the teaching
assignment were not members of PACUP.
- Aguirre brought charge against FEU before the
DepEd when his teaching load was reduced
- The Director of Private School directed FEU to
pay the salary differential, and to give him
teaching load in the college department.
- The Secretary of Education affirmed the decision
of the Director of Private School. Executive
Secretary, by authority of the President of the
Philippines affirmed the decision.
- Decision states that, back wages are ordinarily
granted whenever finding of unfair labor practices.
However, the permanent employment obtained by
Aguirre in the Central Bank of the Philippines as
well as being a part-time teacher in the Philippine
College of Commerce is substantial under the
Industrial Peace Act to bar his reinstatement to
FEU.
- Thus, PACUP and Tomas Aguirre filed a
complaint for unfair labor practice against FEU
- Aguirre filed a motion to withdraw the aforesaid
complaint upon the ground that the Director of
Private Schools ordered his reinstatement and
payment of back wages. Wherein, FEU was using
the pendency of the case as a ground for
noncompliance.
GR No. L-9417 Isabelo Doce Workmen’s - Jadao filed with Workmen’s Compensation WON employer- Rendered the decision holding The Commission affirmed -Nil- SC affirmed the decision There exists an employer-employee
Compensation Commission a claim for compensation against employee relationship that a conductor under the the decision of the Referree of the CommissionG relationship because:
Commission; Doce for injuries he suffered in an accident that existed between Jadao boundary system is - a driver of a jeep who operates
Dado Jadao occurred while working as conductor of a bus and Doce considering the considered an employee of the under the boundary system is
belonging to the latter under a boundary system. boundary system. latter. As such, Doce is considered an employee.
- The accident was that Jadao was pinned by two responsible to pay Jadao - The only feature that would make
buses on Quezon Blvd. thus, suffering injuries. compensation prescribed in the relationship of lessor and
- Under the boundary system, the driver and the Workmen’s Compensation lessee, are the fact that he does not
conductor of the bus gave to the owner a fixed Act. Doce was ordered to pay pay them any fixed wage but their
amount of the daily earnings. The owner supplied Jadao compensation plus compensation is the excess of the
the gasoline at the beginning of the trip but is later medical and surgical total amount of fares earned over
reimbursed. The remainder of the amount earned expenses. and above the amount which they
for the day is divided between the conductor and agreed to pay Doce plus the cost of
the driver. gasoline for the day.
- Not having any interest in the
business since they did not invest
anything, and did not participate in
the management, their service as
drivers of the jeep being the only
contribution, cannot sustain the
lessor-lessee relationship.
GR No. L- Alipio Ruga; NLRC; De Guzman - Petitioners were fishermen-crew members of a 1. WON fishermen- LA rendered a joint decision, NLRC affirmed the decision -Nil- SC granted the petition. - Petitioners were directly hired by
72654-61 Jose Parma; Fishing Enterprises fishing vessel owned by De Guzman Fishing crew are employees dismissing all the complaints of the LA. Resolution of the NLRC is private respondent through its
(Certiorari) Eladio and/ or Arsenio De Enterprises. of De Guzman of petitioners on finding that a reversed and set aside. general manager.
Calderon et.al Guzman - Petitioners were paid on percentage commission Fishing Enterprises. joint fishing venture and not De Guzman is ordered to - Hiring of the petitioners to perform
of the proceeds of the sale of the fish-catch. 2. WON they were one of employer-employee reinstate the petitioner work which is necessary or
Commission is paid in cash by Mrs. De Guzman. illegally dismissed. relationship existed. desirable in the usual business for
- In one instance, upon arrival at the fishing port, a period of 8-15 years qualify them
petitioners were told by Mr De Guzman to proceed Petitioners appealed before as regular employees.
to the police station for investigation on the report the NLRC - Petitioners received compensation
that they sold some of their fish-catch at mid-sea. on a percentage commission.
- Petitioner denied the charge, claiming that the - On the mere suspicion on the
said move was a result of the fact that the reports that petitioners allegedly
petitioners formed a labor union. sold their fish-catch mid-sea without
- No witnesses were presented to prove the charge the knowledge and consent of the
against the petitioners. Hence, no criminal respondent, petitioners were not
charges were filed. allowed to board the vessel. Such
- However, respondent refused to allow the act reveals disciplinary power
petitioners to return to the fishing vessel exercised by respondent.
- Petitioners filed for illegal dismissal and - A joint venture presupposes that
nonpayment of 13th month pay, ECOLA, and each party exercises equal lights in
service incentive pay with the Ministry the conduct of the business. Hence,
- Amicable settlement was not successful it would be inconsistent with the
nature of joint venture when
respondent outrightly exclude
petitioners from the conduct of
business.
GR No. L- Visayan CIR; United - VISTRANCO is engaged in the loading and 1. WON there is an LA ruled in favor of the CIR affirmed the ruling of LA -Nil- SC affirmed the 1. The respondents are employees of
21696 Stevedore Workers’ and unloading of vessels in Negros Occidental, under employer-employee respondents resolution of NLRC. VISTRANCO evidenced by:
(Certiorari) Transportation Farmers’ the management of Xaudaro. relationship - There was no independent contract
Company Association - Its workers is supplied by UWFA, whose men 2. WON the Company between UWFA and VISTRANCO.
(VISTRANCO); (UWFA); Venancio have regularly worked as laborers of the company is guilty of unfair The respondents merely reported to
Rafael Xaudaro Dana- during every milling season until the time that the labor practice work beginning of each succeeding
og;Buenaventura company refused to engage their services. 3. WON reinstatement milling season
Agarcio; et.al - The complainants filed for unfair labor practice of complainants with - Their services were invariably
against VISTRANCO with CIR. backpay is a availed by the Company.
reversible error.
 - Respondents worked under the
direction and control of the officers
of the Company
- The disbursing officer paid the
corresponding compensation
directly to the respondents
2. Labor practice charge against
VISTRANCO is substantially borne
out by evidence:
- When the company branch
manager had told the respondent
point-blank that severance of their
connection with UWFA was the
remedy if they wanted to continue
working with the company.
3. CIR has the discretion to order the
reinstatement with backpay of
laborers.
GR No. 109704 Alfredo Felix Dr. Brigada - Dr. Alfredo Felix joined the National Center for WON removal of the MPSB dismissed the petition Civil Service dismissed the -Nil- SC dismissed for lack of There is a deliberate and dishonest
(Certiorari) Buenaseda; Isabelo Mental Health as a resident physician. petitioner from his for lack of merit. petition. MR was denied. merit attempt to skirt the fundamental issue by
Banez, Jr.; Civil - He was promoted to the position of senior resident position as Medical The said decision was The petitioner appealed falsely claiming that petitioner was forced
Service Commission physician, a position he held until the Specialist 1 is valid. appealed by petitioner to the before the SC. to submit courtesy resignation when he
reorganization of the National Center for Mental Civil Service Commission. actually did not
Health
- Under the reorganization, the petitioner was Petitioner accepted a temporary
appointed in same position in a temporary appointment. Civil Service Commission
capacity. pointed out that petitioner’s appointment
- The petitioner was promoted to the position of was definite and renewable period which,
Medical Specialist 1 still under temporary status. when it was not renewed, did not involve
- DOH issued DO No. 347, requiring board a dismissal but an expiration of the
certification as prerequisite for renewal of petitioner’s term.
specialist position
- Petitioner was one of the hundreds of government
medical specialist who would have been
adversely affect by the DO.
- After reviewing the petitioner’s service record and
performance, the committee of NCMH
recommended non-renewal of his appointment.
- He was, however, allowed to continue in the
service, and receive his salary and benefits even
after being informed of the termination.
- In one meeting, the direct supervisor pointed out
petitioner’s poor performance as one of the factors
responsibly for the recommendation not to renew
his appointment.
- The said matter was thereafter referred to the Civil
Service Commission, which ruled the temporary
appointment of the petitioner can be terminated at
any time.
- Consequently, in a memorandum petitioner was
advised to vacate the cottage since he was no
longer entitled to accommodation.
- Petitioner filed a petition with the MSPB about the
alleged harassment by the respondent and
questioning non-renewal of his appointment.
GR No. 76452 Philippine Hon. Armando - Paterno filed a letter of complaint to the insurance WON the resolution of the --Nil -Nil- -Nil- SC granted the petition of The insurance commissioner has the
(Certiorari) American Life Ansaldo; Ramon commissioner alleging certain problems by legality of the Contract of PhilAm Life. Order of the authority to regulate the business of
Insurance Montilla Paterno, Jr. agents, supervisors, managers and public Agency falls within the insurance. However,the contract entered
 Company; consumers of the Philippine Life Insurance jurisdiction of the Insurance Commission is into between PhilamLIfe and its agents is
Rodrigo De Los Company (PhilamLife) as a result of certain Insurance Commissioner set aside. not included within the meaning of
Reyes practices by the said company. insurance business, the Insurance code
- Insurance commissioner requested the president cannot be invoked to give jurisdiction
PhilamLife, Rodrigo to comment on the said over the same to Insurance
complaint. Commissioner.
- Rodrigo through a letter to the commissioner,
suggested that Peterno should submit some sort The quasi-judicial power of the insurance
of a bill of particulars’ listing and citing actual commission is limited by law to claims
cases, facts, and all other pertinent data. and complaints.
- Hearing on the said complaint was done by the
commissioner, to specify the provisions of the The insurance code does not have
contract which he claimed to be illegal. provisions governing the relations
- Respondent’s complaint prays that the provision between insurance companies and their
on the charges and fees stated in the contract agents. It follows that the Insurance
between PhilamLife and its agents as well as Commissioner cannot assume
implementing provisions be declared null and jurisdiction over the controversies.
void.
- Ortega, SAVP of Philamlife asked that
commissioner first rule on the questions of the
jurisdiction of the insurance commissioner over
the subject matter of the letters-complaint.
- Insurance set the case for hearing. Ortega filed a
motion to quash. Motion was denied
GR No. L- Mafinco Hon. Blas Ople; - Cosmos Aerated Water Factory Inc., “Cosmos” WON Repomanta and Recommended the dismissal Adopted the -Nil- SC set aside the order of Repomanta and Moralde were not
37790 Trading NLRC; Rodrigo appointed Mafinco as the sole distributor of Moralde are employees of the complaint recommendation to dismiss the Secretary of Lanor, employees but were independent
(Certiorari) Corporation Repomanta; Rey Cosmos soft drinks in Manila of MAFINCO the complaint. and affirming the order of contractors. Evidenced by the following:
Moralde - Repomanta and Mafinco executed a peddling NLRC. - The peddler contract indicates that
contract, wherein, Repomanta agreed to buy and Secretary of Labor reversed they are independent contractors.
sell Cosmos soft drinks the order of NLRC. He ruled They were distributors of COSMOS
- The same contract was entered by Moralde. that Repomanta and soft drinks with their own capital
- Mafinco shall provide the peddlers with delivery Moralde were employees of and employees.
trucks, gasoline and oil to run the truck, bear the Mafinco. He ruled that the - An employee does not execute a
cost of maintenance and repairs. complainants were driver- formal contract of employment, he
- Mafinco terminated the contract of Repomanta salesmen of the company. is simply hired, and he works under
and Moralde the direction of the employer.
- Repomanta and Moralde through their union filed MAFINCO filed for MR Repomanta and Moralde
a complaint with NLRC which was denied by the Voluntarily executed with
secretary. MAFINCO formal peddling
contracts.
GR No. 64948 Manila Golf and IAC; Fermin Llamar - Fermin Llamar and his fellow caddies filed with WON Llamar is an SSC dismissed the petition IAC ruled that there exists -Nil- SC reversed and set SC does not agree that the said fact point
(Certiorari) Country Club Social Security Commission for coverage and employee of Manila Golf stating that the caddies were an employer employee aside the decision of IAC, to employer-employee relationship. As
availment of benefits as employees of Manila never employees of Manila between Llamar and Manila declaring private such it is supported by the following facts:
Golf, under the Social Security Act,. Golf Golf respondent Llamar is not - Detailing the various matters of
- Subsequently, all but 2 of the original petitioners an employee; and that conduct, dress, language covered
withdrew their claim petitioner is under no by the petitioner’s regulations does
- SSC dismissed the petition stating that the obligation to report him not circumscribe the actions nor
caddies were never employees of Manila Golf. for compulsory coverage limit the freedom of choice of the
- The respondents filed an appeal IAC to SSS. caddies carrying out their service.
- Group rotation system is more of an
assurance that the work is fairly
distribute. A caddy who is absent
when his number is called simply
loses his turn to serve.
- The petitioner has no way of
compelling the presence of the
caddies in the premises. They are
 not required to render a definite
number of hours
- The players is at liberty to choose a
caddy of his own choice regardless
of the group rotation order.

GR No. 118101 Eddie Domasig NLRC; Cata - Domasig filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, WON NLRC gravely LA held that Domasig was NLRC resolved to remand -Nil- SC set aside the decision -In the administrative and quasi-judicial
(Certiorari) Garments unpaid commission and other monetary claims abused its discretion in illegally dismissed and entitled the case to LA for further of NLRC. The decision of proceedings, substantial evidence is
Corporation and / or against Cata Garments and its owners, Otto and remanding the case to the to reinstatement and back proceedings due to the fact the LA is reinstated and sufficient for the basis of judgment on the
Otto Ong; Catalina Catalina arbitration branch of wages, and other monetary that decision was not affirmed. existence of employer-employee
Co - Domasig alleged that he started working for the origin for further incentives. supported by evidence relationship.
respondent as a salesman proceedings
- He was dismissed when respondents learned that The proof that there exists, and
he was being pirated by a rival corporation which employer-employee relationship are as
offer he refused. follows:
- Respondents claim that he was a mere - Identification cards are usually
commission agent who receives commission per provided in business
piece of article sold; in addition, he received a establishments not only as a
fixed allowance/month. security measure but mainly to
- He had no regular time schedule identify the holder thereof as a bona
- Respondent added that Domasig failed to turn fide employee of the firm that issues
over to them his collection from 2 buyers it.
prompting them to initiate criminal proceedings - The cash vouchers covering
petitioner’s salaries for the month
- Domasig being an employee of
private respondents for more than a
year, is considered a regular
employee under the law.
GR No. 155463 Cebu Metal Gregorio Saliling; - Cebu Metal is a corporation engaged in the WON respondents are LA ruled that respondents NLRC reversed the decision CA reversed the decision SC granted the petition. SC held that the respondent were not
(Review on Corporation Elias Bolido; Manuel buying and selling of scrap iron. regular employees of the were illegally dismissed, of the LA. of the NLRC Decision of CA is set regular employees of the petition
Certiorari) Alquiza; Benji - The workers who unload the scrap are company ordering the petitioner to aside and reversed. The - The petty cash vouchers
Amparado undertaking pakiao work reinstate them plus back Said decision was brought decision of NLRC show that complainants are
- Among those workers who presented for wages about by the irregular nature reinstated. not paid on hourly or daily
work in the unloading of scrap iron in the of the work involved. The basis but on pakiao basis.
area are the unemployed person by in the Petitioner appealed to NLRC respondents were free to There is no basis that
vicinity. offer their services to others. respondents are underpaid
- Respondents filed a complaint for since there is no minimum
underpayment of wages and non-payment wage in this type of work,
of benefits. - Respondents’ earning
- Respondents included in their complaint depend upon their own
claim for illegal dismissal since they were diligence and speed un
dismissed after they filed the previous unloading.
petition. - It depends upon the
availability of scrap iron to
be unloaded and stockpiled.
-
GR No. 170087 Angelia NLRC; Kasei - Francisco was hired by Kasei Corporation WON an employer- LA found that petitioner was NLRC affirmed the decision CA reversed the NLRC SC granted the petition of The better approach would therefore be
(Review on Francisco Corporation; as an accountant and corporate secretary. employee relationship illegally dismissed of LA, with modification. decision. Francisco. The decision to adopt a two-tiered test involving: (1)
Certiorari) Seichiro Takahashi; - She was also designated as liaison officer exists of CA is annulled and set the putative employer’s power to control
Timoteo Acedo; of Makati to secure business permits, and aside. The decision of the employee with respect to the means
Delfin Liza; Iren alike. NLRC is reinstated. The and methods by which the work is to be
Ballesteros; Trinidad - Subsequently, she was also designated case is remanded to LA accomplished; and (2) the underlying
Liza; Ramon acting manager for 5 years, until she was for the recomputation of economic realities of the activity or
Ascueta replaced. monetary claims. relationship.
- She was assured by the company that she
will remain connected with Kasei SC held that Francisco is a regular
Corporation as technical consultant. employee, evidenced by:
 - Thereafter, Kasei Corporation reduced her Under the control test:
salary until it was eventually withheld. - She was under the direct
- When petitioner asked for her salary, she control and supervision of
was informed that she is no longer Seiji Kamura, the
connected with the company. corporation’s technical
- Petitioner filed an action for constructive consultant.
dismissal against Kasei. - She reported regularly for
work
- Served various capacities in
the company, performing
function necessary and
desirable for the proper
operation of the corporation.
Under the economic reality test:
- She had served the
company for 6 years before
her dismissal.
- She was receiving check
vouchers indicating her
salaries/ and monetary
benefits received.
- Francisco’s membership in
the SSS as manifested by a
copy of the SSS specimen
signature card which was
signed by the President of
Kasei Corporation
- Francisco is economically
dependent for her continued
employment in Kasei’s line
of business.

GR No. 154185 Amelia J. Delos Jebsen Maritime Inc. - Husband of Amelia was hired by Jebsen as third 1. WON provisions of LA favored Ameila, ordering NLRC agreed with CA denied petition for SC denied the petition of SC Agrees with the contention of CA that
Santos engineer of MV Wild Iris for and in behalf of Aboitiz the Labor Code or Jebsen and Aboitiz to jointly modification in the ruling of certiorari filed by Jebsen, Ameila, affirming the the governing law shall be the Labor
(Review on Shipping Co. the POEA-SEC and severally pay for the LA, now including disability finding no grave abuse of decision of CA Code.
Certiorari) - The contract was fixed for 1 month and for a shall govern the medical expenses, sick wage compensation benefit, and discretion on the part of
specific undertaking of conducting the vessel to employment allowance, attorneys fees, and sickness wage NLRC. CA affirmed CA contention for the ruling
and from Japan. The contract includes basic relations of Delos moral damages. NLRC’s decision with - The contract covered by the
salary and benefits in US dollar. Santos upon his Contention for the ruling modification, deleting the POEA-SEC is Delos Sant’s
- Upon return of the vessel to the Philippines, Delos return from its 1- Jebsen appealed was the theory that POEA- disability compensation contract with Jebsen for a
Santos remained on board since Jebsen retained month voyage to Approved contract of benefits and sickness duration of 1 month. However,
his service while the vessel underwent repair. and from Japan employment continued to wages. said contract has already
After repair, the vessel sailed within the domestic govern Delo Santos when expired. After the lapse of the
waters. he contracted his illness. Amelia filed for MR but period the contract is considered
- During Delos Santos’ employment he received his Thus, entitling him to the was denied. terminated.
pay in PHP thru Phil. Com and Industrial Bank payment of disability and - Rationale for the execution of the
- 5 months into the inter-island voyage of the like benefits. POEA_SEC had already been
vessel, Delos Santos was temporarily paralyzed. served and achieved.
 - He was brought to Manila Doctor’s where he - Delos Santos continued to work
underwent surgery. Jebsen shouldered all in the same vessel which sailed
expenses including post-op confinement. within the Philippines and not on
- Sps. Delos Santos paid all expenses of the 2 nd a foreign shore. Thus, provisions
spinal surgery as well as subsequent medical of the Labor Code shall prevail
treatment. - Reasons to believe that Jebsen
- Amelia demanded for reimbursement of the retained the services of Delos
expenses incurred involving the 2nd surgery but Santos under domestic terms
she was denied by Jebsen. and conditions evidence by (1)
- Amelia filed for complaint against Jebsen and reduced salary (2) Vessel was no
Aboitiz for recovery of disability benefits, other longer engaged in foreign
allowance, and reimbursement of medical trading.
expenses.
GR No.152427 Integrated NLRC; Glen Solon - ICPW is a plumbing contractor, where Solon 1. WON solon was a LA ruled in favor of Solon that NLRC affirmed the decision CA affirmed the decision SC affirms the decision of 1. Principal test in determining
(Review of Contractor and worked. project or regular he was a regular employee of LA with modification on of the NLRC CA with modification. SC whether employee is a project
Certiorari) Plumbing - When Solon was about to log out from work, he employee of the and could only be removed for the amount and orders the (1) employee or regular is, whether
Works Inc. was told by the warehouseman that the main company. cause. ICPW was ordered to computation of what he was reinstatement of Solon he is assigned to carry out a
(ICPW) office instructed the latter to tell Solon that he was 2. WON he was reinstate him with full back supposed to receive. without loss of seniority specific project, duration and
being terminated. illegally dismissed wages until his reinstatement, rights and privileges (2) scope is specified.
- Solon went to the petitioner to verify his status, service incentive leave pay, ICPW filed for MR but was ICPW to pay his back
finding that he was indeed terminated. plus 13th month pay for 3 denied. Further, appealed to wages, 13th month pay, SC was convinced that Solon was initially
- When he went to sign his clearance so he could years. CA. and Service Incentive a project employee but should be
claim his 13th month pay and tax refund, he Leave Pay. considered as regular employees for the
refused to sign the document since it indicated ICPW appealed to NLRC following reasons:
that he was the one who resigned.
- He filed for illegal dismissal. - He had been a project employee
for several times. His
employment ceased to be
coterminous with specific
projects when he was repeatedly
re-hired
- (DOLE Policy instruction No. 20
and Department Order No. 19
provides that Termination Report
is one of the indications of project
employment) There was only 1
list of terminated workers
submitted to DOLE. If Solon was
a project employee, ICPW
should have submitted
termination report for every
project completion.

2. SC finding Solon as a regular

employee, he is entitled to
security of tenure and can only
be removed for cause.
GR No. 164736 URC and / Benito Catapang; - Randy Gregorio is the manager of URC’s duck WON Catapang et. Al LA rendered a decision in NLRC affirmed the decision CA denied the petition for SC denies the petition, SC ruled that Catapang et al. were
(Review of Randy Gregorio Carlos Ararao; Alvin farm in Laguna. were regular employees favor of Catapang et.al. of the LA with modification lack of merit. and affirms the ruling of regular employees of URC considering
Certiorari) Alcantara, et.al - Catapang and other respondents were hired by of URC. URC was ordered to reinstate to the awards. CA. the finding of the CA that petitioners act
URC on various dates to work at its duck farm. them without loss of seniority CA’s contention: of repeatedly and continuously hiring
They were hired under employment contract and payment of back wages. URC filed for certiorari with - Rendering more private respondent in a span of 3 to 5
provided for 5-month period. CA than 1 year of years negates the contention that
- After expiration of the contract, company would URC filed for MR and Motion service, respondents were project employees.
renew and re-employ them. to Quash (MQ) the Alias writ of respondents
- Such practice continued, until URC informed them execution. became regular
that their contract will no longer be renewed. LA denied the petition. LA employees
directed URC that failure to
 - Catapang et.al filed complaint for illegal dismissal, comply with the reinstatement, - URC repeatedly
reinstatement, payment of back wages plus the company shall pay them and continuously
damages. separation pay instead. hiring the
- After the decision of LA, URC manifested that they respondent
could only take 17 out of the 30 employees URC filed for a memorandum negates the fact
mentioned. Later, URC manifested with LA plus prayer for TRO. that they were
closure of the duck farm. hired for a
specific project.
GR No. 79869 Fortunato NLRC; LA Luciano - Mercado et. al filed for illegal dismissal, WON petitioners were LA ruled in favor of the private NLRC ruled in favor of the -Nil- SC dismissed the SC finds that the decision of LA in the
(Certiorari) Mercado Sr. Aquino; Aurora L. underpayment of wages, and nonpayment of regular employees and respondents and held that respondents affirming the petition. The decision of case are ably supported by evidence. No
et.al. Cruz; Sps. Francisco benefits. permanent farm workers, petitioners were not regular decision of the LA with the NLRC was affirmed. circumstance would warrant reversal.
and Leticia De Borja; - Mercado et. al alleged that they were agricultural thus, entitled to the employees since their hiring modification of the deletion
Sto. Nino Realty Inc. workers of the private respondents for their sugar benefits. were required to perform of the financial assistance. The decision was supported by the ff
land, up until they were allegedly dismissed. phases of agricultural work for. facts:
- Aurora Cruz denied that the petitioners were her Definite period of time after Petitioners filed for MR, the - Terms and conditions of the
regular employees and averred that she only which their services would be petition was denied. hiring revealed that petitioners
engaged their services thru Sps. Mercado. available to other farmers. were required to perform phases
- Other private respondents also denied having any Petition for Certiorari was of agricultural work for a definite
relationship with the petitioners and state that they Petitioners were hired by the filed period.
were merely registered owners of the land in respondent Cruz as casuals, - Services are available to any
question. on an on and off basis; thus, it farm owner, thereafter.
is the prerogative of the - Rice and sugar cane do not entail
respondent to either accept or whole year operation
not the petitioner. - Area in question is comparatively
small
LA awarded petitioners with - Fortunato Mercado, Jr stated that
financial assistance by Aurora they were only hired as casuals
Cruz to be divided. on an on-and-off basis. it is the
prerogative of the respondent to
Both parties filed their appeal either accept or not the petitioner.
before the NLRC
GR No. 118475 Elvira Abasolo; NLRC; LA Ricardo - LUTORCO owned by See Lin Chan is engaged in 1. WON employment LA dismissed the complaint for NLRC affirmed the -Nil- SC granted the petition, 1. Petitioners were not formally
(Certiorari) Antonio Abay, N. Olairez; La Union the tobacco leaves business. of the petitioners lack of merit. dismissal of the and the decision of NLRC notified of the impending sale of
Catalina Tobacco Redrying - Petitioners were employed by LUTORCO for were terminated consolidated complaints for was reversed and set LUTORCO to TABACALERA..
Abellera, et.al Corporation several years until Compania General de 2. WON petitioners are The LA declared that separation pay. aside.
(LUTORCO); See Tobaccos de Filipinas took over LUTORCO’s regular employees petitioners were not entitled to They came to know of the sale
Lin Chan operation. entitled to benefits the benefits of LC Art. 283 The decision was based on SC orders LUTORCO to when the latter took over.
Sign boards were posted indicating change in stated in Art. 283 of since the company ceased to the following: pay petitioners separation
management the LC operate due to serious - There was no closure pay, and attorney’s fees Petitioners were required to file
- LUTORCO asked the petitioners to file their business losses. of establishment or of the petitioner. In new applications for employment
respective application for employment to Consequently, TABACALERA termination of services addition, NLRC was
TABACALERA has assumed the seniority - There was no ordered to compute the Thus, under the aforementioned
- Petitioner alleged that they were not informed of rights of the petitioners and termination but a non- total amount of circumstances the employment
the change in management and its effect on the employment liabilities. hiring due to volition of separation pay for each of the petitioners was technically
status of their employment the petitioners. petitioner. terminated.
- Petitioner filed before NLRC for payment of Petitioners filed an appeal to - Benefits under Art.283
separation pay against LUTORCO NLRC. of the LC applies only 2. It may appear that petitioners are
- Respondent contends that it is exempted to pay to regular employees seasonal employees, but the fact
separation pay and denied that it terminated the In the opposition to appeal, not seasonal. remains that they have served
services of the petitioner. That its operation LUTORCO alleged that the the company for many years
stopped due to losses incurred. company never ceased performing services necessary
- Respondent avers that they entered into an operation even after and indispensable to
agreement with TABACALERA hoping that they TABACALERA took over the LUTORCO’s business.
would recover from the losses, and create a operations.; that the
continuing source of income for the petitioners petitioners were not Seasonal workers who are called
- Further, respondents manifested that they are terminated, however, they to work from time to time are not
willing to provide financial assistance to the were the ones who refused to separated from service but are
petitioners, if and when LUTORCO could recover. work with TABACALERA merely considered on leave
 despite the notice given to the
petitioners to return.
GR No. 151827 Josefina Jaime Pancho; - Pancho et al. were workers for a sugar farm, 1. WON respondents LA dismissed the complaint for NLRC found that Pancho CA affirmed the NLRC SC denies the petition. 1. If the employee has been
(Review of Benares Rodolfo Pancho Jr.; Hacienda Maasin II, a sugar can plantation in are regular lack of merit. et.al were illegally ruling with modification Assails the decision of the performing the job for at least a
Certiorari) Joselito Medalla; Murcia, Negros Occidental owned by Josefina employees of dismissed and awarded that the back wages and CA.F year even if the performance is
Paquito Magallanes Benares. Hacienda Maasin, Pancho et. al appealed to their money claim other benefits shall be not continuous and merely
et.al - Pancho thru counsel wrote to DOLE for thus, entitled to NLRC. computed from the time it intermittent, the law deems
intercession in the matter of wages and other monetary claim. Benares filed for MR. The was withheld. repeated and continuing need for
benefits 2. WON respondents MR was denied its performance as sufficient
- Routine inspection was conducted by DOLE. were illegally Benares filed for MR. The evidence of the necessity of that
Accordingly, a report and recommendation was terminated latter was dismissed for activity to the business. Hence,
made, thus, recommendation of the case to lack of merit. employment is considered
NLRC. regular, but only with respect to
- Pancho et al allegedly were terminated without such activity.
being paid termination benefits as retaliation to
their aforesaid report to DOLE. Respondents have acquired the
- Complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims status of regular seasonal
were filed. employees for having worked for
more than a year, whether
continuous or broken in the
hacienda.
2. Respondents were illegally
terminated when there is no
showing of clear, valid and legal
cause for their termination.
Petitioner failed to prove that
termination was for a just cause.
GR No. 149440 Hacienda National Federation - Respondent were workers in Hacienda Fatima. 1. WON the LA ruled in favor of Hacienda NLRC reversed the decision CA affirmed the decision SC denied the petition, 1. For respondents to be excluded
(Review of Fatima and/or of Sugarcane - Respondents formed a union duly certifies as the respondents were Fatima, that the respondents of LA. of NLRC assailing the decision of from those classified as regular
Certiorari) Patricio Workers-Food and collective bargaining representative regular or seasonal refused to work and were the CA. employees, it is not enough they
Villegas; General Trade - Hacienda Fatima did not look with favor workers’ employees choosy in the kinds of job. CA ruled that the while perform work that are seasonal in
Alfonso (NFSWFGT) for organizing themselves into a union. 2. WON CA committee the work of respondents nature. They must also been
Villegas; - When the union was certified, the petitioner grave abuse of were seasonal in nature, employed only for the duration of
Christine refused to sit down with the union for the purpose discretion upholding they were considered to one season.
Segura of entering into a collective bargaining agreement. NLRC’s conclusion be merely on leave during
- Consequently, the respondents were not given that the the off-season and were The fact that respondents
work for more than a month. respondents were therefore still employed repeatedly worked as sugarcane
- Respondent staged a strike as a sign of protest, illegally dismissed, by petitioners. workers for the petitioners for
which was however settled upon the signing of the that the petitioners several years.
MOA. were guilty of unfair CA found that the
- However, one of the stipulations of the MOA was labor practice, and contention of the They performed the same tasks
not complied with by the respondents. The that the union be petitioner that it was the every season
petitioner employed all means including use of awarded moral and respondents who refused
private armed guards to prevent the respondents exemplary to work was neither with General rule of regular
from entering the premises. damages rhyme nor reason; since, employees is applicable.
- Petitioner did not anymore give work assignments the evidence of the case 2. SC finding petitioner guilty of
to the respondents forcing the union to stage a shows the replete unfair labor practice evidenced
strike. persistence and by:
- Dole made conciliation efforts, wherein, another determination of the
MOA was signed by both parties respondents to work. Refusal of the petitioner to
- When petitioner reneged on its commitments, the bargain.
respondent filed the complainant filed the present
case. Acts of economic inducement
- Petitioner accused the respondents of refusing to resulting to the promotion of
work and being choosy in the kind of work they those who withdrew from the
have to perform. union
 Use of armed guards to prevent
organizers to come in the
property

Dismissal of union officials and

members
GR No. 152777 Lolita R. Ateneo De Manila - ADMU hired on a contractual basis Ms. Lacuesta WION petitioner was LA held that petitioner may not NLRC reversed the decision CA dismissed the petition SC denied the petition for The Manual of Regulation for Private
(Review on Lacuesta University; Dr. as a part-time lecturer in its English Department illegally dismissed be terminated by mere lapse of of LA, and ruled that saying that there was no lack of merit. Affirming the Schools and not the Labor Code,
Certiorari) Leovino Ma. Garcia; for the second semester. the probationary period but petitioner was not illegally grave abuse of discretion, decision of the CA.GR determines whether or not a faculty
Dr. Marijo Ruiz - She was re-hired on a contractual basis for the only for just cause. dismissed. affirming the NLRC member in an educational institution has
first and second semester for another year. decision. attained regular or permanent status
- Petitioner was appointed as full-time instructor on Further, LA stated that the Petitioner sought
probation quitclaim, discharge and reconsideration but was As per MR for Private Schools a part-time
- Petitioner was rehired for 2-consecutive years release signed by the denied. teacher cannot acquire permanent
renewing her contract as faculty on probation. petitioner does not bar her status. In this case, when petitioner
- Dr. Garcia (dean of graduate school and CAS) from filing a complaint for She filed petition for served 3 semesters as part-time lecturer
notified the petitioner that her contract would no illegal dismissal. certiorari cannot be credited to the computation of
longer be renewed as she did not integrate well the number of years to qualify for
with the English Department. Respondent appealed before permanent status.
- Petitioner appealed. The school president, Fr. NLRC
Bernas, stated that she was not being terminated Completing the probation period does not
but her contract would simply expire. Further, he automatically qualify her to become a
stated that the univ. pres only makes permanent permanent employee. She could only
appointment upon recommendation of the dean. qualify upon fulfilling the reasonable
- In another letter, Fr. Bernas offered the petitioner standards for permanent employment as
the job as book editor in the University Press faculty. An institution of higher learning
under the same terms as that of a faculty member has the prerogative to provide standards
- Petitioner applied for clearance to collect her final for its teachers and determine whether
salary. these standards have been met.
- Petitioner accepted the job offered by Fr. Bernas
for 1 year plus 2 months extension after expiration Petitioner did not attain permanent status
of contract. and was not illegally dismissed.
- Petitioner applied again for clearance. However,
she agreed to renew her contract as editor once Lastly, petitioner signed a valid quitclaim
again. After such extension, she decided to no and discharge and release which bars
longer have her contract renewed due to a severe the said case. In the said case, there was
back problem. no evidence showing that petitioner was
- Petitioner filed for illegal dismissal with prayer for coerced into signing the quitclaim
reinstatement, and payment of claims. Dr. Garcia
and Dr. Ruiz were sued in their official capacities
as dean of CAS.
GR No. 159828 Kasapian ng CA; Coca-Cola - The CBA executed between the petitioners’ union 1. WON respondent Secretary of Labor assumed NLRC dismissed the CA ruled against the SC assailed the decision 1. Respondent violated the
(Review on Malayang Bottlers’ Phils., Inc. and the respondent expired. violated the terms jurisdiction, certified the case complaint for lack of merit. contention of the of the CA and NLRC with provisions of the MIA when it did
Certiorari) Manggagawa - KASAMMA submitted its demand to the company and conditions in to NLRC for compulsory Petitioner is directed to petitioner, assailing the modification. not consider the regularization of
sa Coca-Cola for another round of collective bargaining the MOA arbitration. grant separation package to decision of NLRC. the 61 employees effective
(KASAMMA- negotiations. However, parties failed to reach 2. WON closure of the affected employees The 61 regularized December 1.
CO)-CFW mutual agreement Manila and Antipolo Petition for MR was employees were declared
Local 245 - KASAMMA filed a notice to strike with the NCMB plants, resulting to Under the MOA signed by denied regular employees as of Under, Art. 280 of the LC, any
on the ground of CBA negotiation deadlock. termination was the parties: the 61 December 1, and are employee who has rendered at
Conciliation conference were conducted, but still legal regularized employees are entitled to the CBA least 1 year of service shall be
parties failed to reach settlement. not entitled to their claims, benefits considered a regular employee.
- KASAMMA held the strike in Manila and Antipolo and that only those regular Hence, even without subject to
plants. employees by July 98 and MOA, the 61 regularized
- Through the efforts of NCMB, the parties came to continued to be one upon employees must be extended
an agreement. Parties signed a MOA containing signing of the said MOA regular status.
salary increase, and regularization of contractual. deserve retroactive 2. Closure of Manila and Antipolo
- Pursuant to the MOA, parties identified 64 vacant payment of the benefits plants and the resulting
position that may be filled by existing casuals. 58 stated in the MOA. termination is not tainted with bad
passed the screening and were regularized, 6 faith.
failed. Those who failed the med exam, were The 61 regularized
granted 6 months to secure a clean bill of health. employees were regularized The decision to close the plants
3 of the 5 were declared fit to work and accorded after the signing of the MOA, was a result of the study
regular status. hence, they would have no conducted which established the
- KASAMMA demanded payment of salary to the claim to the said benefits said course of action.
aforementioned newly regularized employees be
retroactive on December 1 in accord with the MOA Also, there was no illegal Petitioner failed to show
- Respondents refused the demand claiming that dismissal. There was evidence that closure was done
the date of effectivity is on May 1. inadequate water supply in in bad faith.
- Petitioner filed before NLRC violation of the MOA Manila and Antipolo plants;
- Petitioner was declared by DOLE as the sole and thus, company could not The employees were served
exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file efficiently continue its notice that their employment
employees of coke for Manila and Antipolo operation. Hence, there was were being severed more than 30
- KASAMMA demanded renegotiation of the CBA, indeed redundancy in days from closure of the plants;
the request was denied by the company since services of employees. however they were not required
there was already an existing CBA. to report they will continue to
- Respondent closed its Manila and Antipolo plants Dismissal was also legal, receive their salary. Said act
resulting to termination of employment. Same day since the company constitutes substantial
as the closure, 500 workers were given notice of observed the requirements compliance required by the LC
termination effective 3 months after. of due process, serving the
- Affected employees were considered on paid written notice to its affected
leave. employees more than 30
- Petitioner amended its complaint before NLRC to days from its closure.
include union busting, illegal dismissal, and
underpayment. Petitioner filed for MR which
Consequently, KASAMMA filed notice to strike was denied. Thus, filing of
which was held for more than a month. petition for certiorari