039 San Miguel vs San Miguel Union c.

c. BUT the union failed to allege how these acts prevented them from
joining labor organizations because some of those promoted were
FACTS: members of said union also
1. SMC Union was the sole bargaining agent of all monthly paid 3. As regards the gross violation of CBA- the grievance machinery is not
employees of San Miguel Foods Inc. (SMFI) considered as an economic provision
2. Some SMFI employees of the Finance Department sent a grievance 4. As regards the violation of the job security provision
through the union against the manager for favoritism and a. Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that All doubts in the
discrimination, harassment, unfair labor practices, and not flexible implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this
(Sic) Code, including implementing rules and regulations, shall be
a. Because of promotion issues against the members of the union resolved in favor of labor. Since the seniority rule in the
b. Almost 9 months after the grievance meeting, the management promotion of employees has a bearing on salary and benefits,
was still unable to complete the work management review it may, following a liberal construction of Article 261 of the
3. The union filed a complaint with the NLRC for unfair labor practice Labor Code, be considered an economic provision of the CBA.
and unjust discrimination
a. For the promotion issues and the gross violation of the CBA by
SMFI (for violation of the grievance machinery of the CBA AND,
violation of the job security provision by promoting those
less senior)
b. SMFI filed a MTD- the issues are grievance issues and should be
resolved through the grievance machinery provided in the CBA
c. LA granted MTD; NLRC reversed; CA- Union should use CBA
grievance machinery

ISSUE: WON the charges are considered as unfair labor practice. YES, the
job security.

RATIO:
1. LC provides that discrimination with regard to wage, hours of work,
and other terms and conditions of employment to discourage
membership in labor organizations is unfair labor practice.
a. As regards the violation of CBA, it must be gross to be considered
as unfair labor practice, there must be flagrant and/or malicious
refusal to comply with the economic provisions of the agreement
2. SMFI says that the complaint filed with the LA states no COA, there
was no ultimate facts, thus LA has no jurisdiction
a. However, SC noted that in the Union’s position paper, the acts of
unfair labor practice were detailed
b. The rules of court do not apply strictly in the proceedings before
the LA
040 Reyes vs. CA, Philmalay
1. Reyes was the general manager of Philmalay Poultry Breeders.
a. Philmalay suffered losses and then undergone retrenchment
b. Reyes gave Lau a verbal notice informing him that he will be the
new general manager
c. Reyes confirmed his verbal notice of resignation and asked that he
be given the same benefits as the retrenched employees (1 month
per year of service) and requested payment of his underpaid
salary, a new car, office rentals for use of his home as Philmalay
office, and retention of the Quasha Law Firm because of the illegal
recruitment case filed against him because of his employment
with Philmalay
2. Philmalay only offered him 4 months’ separation pay which was not
accepted by Reyes
3. Reyes filed with the NLRC a complaint for underpayment of wages and
non-payment of separation pay, vacation leave, sick leave and other
benegtis
4. LA: in favor of Reyes;
a. NLRC deleted the awards for underpayment, vacation leave, car,
office rentals and insurance, exemplary and moral damages.
Reduced the separation pay to 8 years,
b. CA dismissed the petition for certiorari of Reyes because he failed
to attach his position paper filed before the LA, the LA decision
and the memorandum of appeal
WON Reyes is entitled to attorney’s fees. YES.
1. rules of procedure should not be applied in a very technical sense, for
they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice
a. the subsequent and substantial compliance of an appellant may
call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure
b. The same leniency should be applied to the instant case
considering that petitioner subsequently submitted with his
motion for reconsideration the certified true copy of the Labor
Arbiters decision, the complainants position paper and the
respondents memorandum of appeal
c. He demonstrated willingness to comply with the rules
2. Labor laws mandate the speedy disposition of cases, with the least
attention to technicalities but without sacrificing the fundamental
requisites of due process, thus, the SC ruled on the case instead of
remanding the same
a. SC found that the removal was pursuant to the retrenchment
because of the termination letter sent by Philmalay
b. Even if Reyes sent a resignation letter, there was no proof it was
accepted by Philmalay
c. Acceptance of a resignation tendered by an employee is necessary
to make the resignation effective
3. Unpaid salaries- NLRC was correct; there was no proof that Reyes
rendered services during the period he sought to recover salaries
from
a. Moral and exemplary damages- there was no basis; no bad faith
on the part of Philmalay
b. Car benefits- correctly deleted; it is only granted during the course
of the employment and not part of the separation package
c. Rental- LA only has jurisdiction over those which arise out of the
employer-employee relationship; rentals are based on contractual
relations
d. Sick and vacation leave payment- Reyes is entitled;
i. A former employee testified that vacation leave must be
availed of within the year and only sick leaves are
commutable to cash; and retrenched employees are entitled
to vacation and sick leave with pay
ii. Any ambiguity in such must be resolved against the one who
drafter such, Philmalay
e. Attorney’s fees- there are two kinds: ordinary (paid by client
to lawyer) AND extraordinary (deemed as indemnity for
damages paid by the losing party)
i. LC Art. 111 grants attorney’s fees in case of unlawful
withholding of wages equivalent to 10% of the amount of
wages recovered
ii. Bad faith is not necessary to prove withholding of wages
to be entitled to attorney’s fees.
iii. In carrying out and interpreting the Labor Code's
provisions and its implementing regulations, the
employees’ welfare should be the primordial and
paramount consideration
iv. Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that [a]ll doubts
in the implementation and interpretation of the
provisions of [the Labor] Code including its
implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in
 favor of labor, and Article 1702 of the Civil Code which
provides that [i]n case of doubt, all labor legislation and
all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the
safety and decent living for the laborer
v. In the case at bar, what was withheld from petitioner was
not only his salary, vacation and sick leave pay, and
13th month pay differential, but also his separation
pay. Hence, pursuant to current jurisprudence,
separation pay must be included in the basis for the
computation of attorneys fees. Petitioner is entitled to
attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of his total monetary
award
041 JK Mercado & Sons vs CA
1. Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board issued a wage
order granting a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) to covered workers
a. JK filed an application for exemption- denied
2. Despite such, JK’s employees were not given COLA benefits. They filed
a motion for execution with garnishment seeking enforcement of the
wage order
a. Regional Director issued the writ of execution
b. JK filed a motion to quash said writ of execution because they
failed to file such writ within the 3-year period provided for by the
labor code (Art. 291) and that it was not made a party to said case
filed by the employees- denied
WON the case has prescribed. NO.
1. Art. 291’s prescriptive period does not apply
a. This is because there had already been a decision denying the
application for exemption under the wage order- there was
already a final order
b. What is simply left is the execution of said final order
c. The law is clear the judgments may be executed on motion within
5 years from the date of entry or from the time it becomes final
and executory
2. a claimant has three years to press a money claim. Once
judgment is rendered in her favor, she has five years to ask for
execution of the judgment, counted from its finality. This is
consistent with the rule on statutory construction that a general
provision should yield to a specific one and with the mandate of
social justice that doubts should be resolved in favor of labor.
42 PNCC Union vs PNCC Skyway (supra)
1. This case was about the complaint filed by Union members alleging
they are entitled to schedule their own vacation leaves. Contrary to
what the management did by releasing a scheduled vacation leave of
each personnel.
2. The court held that the contention of the employees that doubts must
be construed in their favor is inapplicable.
a. This rule of construction does not benefit petitioners because,
as stated, there is here no room for interpretation. Since the
CBA is clear and unambiguous, its terms should be
implemented as they are written.
043 SHS vs Diaz
1. This case was regarding the complaint filed by Diaz for constructive
dismissal because it was refused by SHS to pay his salary, alleging that
he failed to work during the said period.
2. Diaz presented evidence (affidavits of clients and receipts) that he had
worked during said period.
a. Although these were only presented upon MR of Diaz, it is still
admissible because technical rules of procedure are not
controlling
b. The court further said that although it cannot be deemed with
certainty whether Diaz really worked during the period, the
rule is that: if doubt exists between the evidence presented by
the employer and that by the employee, the scales of justice
must be tilted in favor of the latter in line with the policy
mandated by Articles 2 and 3 of the Labor Code to afford
protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor.
c. Because SHS failed to present proof that he did not work, thus,
the presumption is he did, and thus entitled to his salary.
044 Racelis vs UPL
1. The case was about the death benefits claimed by the wife of Racelis
after Racelis had died due to Brainstem Cavenous Malformation
2. POEA SEC 2000 requires that the seafarer may be entitled to death
benefits if his death is work-related and if occurred during the term of
his contract
3. The court held that a strict and literal construction of the 2000 POEA-
SEC, especially when the same would result into inequitable
consequences against labor, is not subscribed to in this jurisdiction.
Concordant with the State’s avowed policy to give maximum aid and
full protection to labor as enshrined in ArticleXIII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, contracts of labor, such as the 2000 POEA-
SEC, are deemedto be so impressed with public interest that the more
beneficial conditions must be endeavoured in favor of the laborer. The
rule therefore is one of liberal construction.
a. Thus, medical repatriation should be considered as an
exception to the requirement that the death must occur during
the term of the employment. Rather, it is enough that the
seafarer’s work-related injury or illness which eventually
causes his death should have occurred during the term of his
employment.
045 Tamayo v. Manila Hotel Company
FACTS:
1. Manila Hotel was leased to a private concern
2. 265 employees of Manila Hotel had been dismissed and was paid
their accumulated leave under sec. 286 of Admin Code, as
amended by RA 611
3. Petitioners brought this action to recover additional amount for
accrued leave (with an aggregate value of more than 50,000) as
stated under the same section of the Admin Code, as later
amended by RA 1081 which was approved 15 days before they
were separated from service
4. LC dismissed the petition ; no cause of action for RA 1081 did not
have retroactive effect
5. Plaintiff appealed directly with this court
ISSUE: Whether or not there was cause of action. NO.
RATIO:
 Plaintiffs claim that they were entitled to ten months accrued
leave based on the amended Admin Code
 Civil Code provides that laws shall have no retroactive effect
unless contrary is provided, as RA 1081 does not provide such, it
can only be given effect from date of its approval
 As was explained by the Secretary of Justice (Tuason), when RA
1081 was enacted the result then is that upon the approval of the
amendatory law, no leave already earned in excess of the five-
month maximum stood to the credit of any officer or employee
(totally and absolutely lost and legally non-existent)
 It is a rule that courts will and should respect the
contemporaneous construction by executive officers
 Also, it is not only the executive branch who interpreted RA 1080
as having only perspective effect; Congress intended it to have a
retroactive effect, however, never became law because it was
vetoed for lack of funds
 1702 of CC which provides that in case of doubt, labor legislation
shall be construed in favor of the laborer cannot apply since in the
present case, no doubt exists.
046 Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees’ Union v. Inciong
FACTS:
1. Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent bank for payment
of holiday pay with the NLRC
2. LA rendered a decision granting payment of holiday pay
3. PD 850 was promulgated amending the right to holiday pay
4. Policy Instruction No. 9 was issued by Ministry of Labor
interpreting the rule;
a. In the case of monthly, only those whose monthly Salary
did not yet include payment for the 10 paid legal holidays
are entitled to benefit
b. New determining rule in order to be entitled to the benefit:
i. Receiving less than P 240 a month (minimum
wage)
ii. Monthly pay is not uniform from Jan. to Dec.
iii. Deductions are made from monthly salary on
account of holidays
5. Respondent bank, because of the aforementioned, stopped the
payment of holiday pay to its employees
6. Petitioners filed motion for a writ of execution
7. Bank argued that award was already repealed by PD 850 and
Policy No. 9 considering that
a. they are not receiving less than P 240
b. their monthly pay is uniform from Jan to Dec., and
c. that no deductions are made from its employees on
account of holidays
8. LA instead of issuing the writ, issued an order enjoining the bank
to pay employees their regular pay on the following grounds;
Judgment is already final, res judicata, decision had been partially
implemented by the bank, appeal is no longer available
9. NLRC dismissed bank’s appeal, ordered issuance of the writ
10. Bank filed MR with the Ministry of Labor
11. Minster of Labor Inciong dismised the case for lack of merit
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Policy Instruction No. 9 is valid. NO.
2. Whether or not LA awarding payment can still be set aside on
appeal by the Ministry of Labor. NO. (hindi ko na inexplain ‘to)
RATIO: 047 Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees’ Union v. Inciong
 Policy Instruction No. 9 is null and void since in clarifying LC’s
provision on holiday pay, they in effect amended them by Doctrine:
enlarging the scope of their exclusion Rule-making power, limitations
o It is clear that monthly paid employees are not excluded  Obviously, the Secretary (Minister) of Labor had exceeded his
from the benefits of holiday pay. However, the statutory authority granted by Article 5 of the Labor Code
implementing rules on holiday pay promulgated excludes authorizing him to promulgate the necessary implementing rules
monthly paid employees from the said benefits by and regulations
providing that: "employees who are uniformly paid by the  While it is true that the contemporaneous construction placed
month, irrespective of the number of working days upon a statute by executive officers whose duty is to enforce it
therein, with a salary of not less than the statutory or should be given great weight by the courts, still if such
established minimum wage shall be presumed to be construction is so erroneous, as in the instant case, the same must
paid for all days in the month whether worked or not.” be declared as null and void
 It is elementary in the rules of statutory construction that when
the language of the law is clear and unequivocal the law must be
taken to mean exactly what it says
 In the case at bar, the provisions of the Labor Code on the
entitlement to the benefits of holiday pay are clear and explicit
 In Policy Instruction No. 9, the then Secretary of Labor went as far
as to categorically state that the benefit is principally intended for
daily paid employees, when the law clearly states that every
worker shall be paid their regular holiday pay.

Construction in favor of labor

 This is a flagrant violation of the mandatory directive of Article 4
of the Labor Code, which states that "All doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code,
including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be
resolved in favor of labor." Moreover, it shall always be presumed
that the legislature intended to enact a valid and permanent
statute which would have the most beneficial effect that its
language permits
048 Bartolome v. SSS  The phrase “dependent” should include all parents, whether
legitimate or illegitimate and whether by nature or by adoption
FACTS:  When the law, does not distinguish, one should not distinguish.
1. John and his sister were adopted by their great grandfather, Plainly, “dependent parents” are parents, whether legitimate or
petitioner’s grandfather, Colcol illegitimate, biological or by adoption, who are in need of support
2. John, was employed as electrician by Scanmar Maritime Services, or assistance
Inc., on board Maersk Danville since 2008
3. He was enrolled under the government’s Employees’
Compensation Program (ECP)
4. an accident occurred on board a vessel whereby steel plates fell
on John, he died the following day
5. his mother Bartolome (sole remaining beneficiary), filed a claim
for death benefits under PD 626 with SSS
6. SSS denied the claim for she could no longer be considered as the
parent as he was legally adopted by Colcol
7. Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC) affirmed SSS, Colcol
is the one qualified as John’s beneficiary; the rights which
previously belonged to the biological parent of the adopted child
shall now be upon the adopting parent. Hence, in this case, the
legal parent referred to by P.D. 626, as amended, as the
beneficiary, who has the right to file the claim, is the adoptive
father of the deceased and not herein appellant

ISSUE: Are the biological parents of the covered, but legally adopted,
employee considered secondary beneficiaries? YES.

RATIO:
 Art. 167 (j) of the LC, as amended, defined the meaning of
beneficiaries. Concurrently, ECC issued Amended Rules on
employees’ Compensation interpreting Art. 167 (j)
 Examining the Amended Rules in light of the LC, as amended, ECC
indulged in an unauthorized administrative legislation
 ECC read into Art. 167 an interpretation not contemplated by the
provision
 Article 7 of the CC provides that Admin or exec acts, orders and
regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the
laws or the Constitution
 Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation is patently a
wayward restriction of and a substantial deviation from Art. 167
(j) of LC when it interpreted the phrase “dependent parents” to
refer to “legitimate parents”
049 Sim v. NLRC
FACTS:
1. Sim filed a case for illegal dismissal with LA, alleging that she was
initially employed by Equitable PCI Bank (respondent) in 1990 as
Italian Remittance Marketing Consultant to the Frankfurt
Representative Office
2. Eventually, promoted to Manager position until 1999, when she
received letter from her senior officer, European Head of PCI Bank
(David); that she was being dismissed due to loss of trust an
confidence based on mismanagement and misappropriation o
funds
3. Bank denied any employer-employee relationship between them,
and sought the dismissal
4. LA dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction
a. Labor relations system in the Philippines has no extra-
territorial jurisdiction
b. Limited to the relationship between labor and capital
within the Philppines
c. Also, Italian law allegedly provides severance pay which
was applied and extended to Sim
5. NLRC affirmed LA, Sim did not file MR and went straight to CA
6. CA denied appeal since Sim did not file MR with NLRC
7. Sim filed MR with CA but such was still denied
reconsideration with the NLRC, and considering that the Labor
Arbiter and the NLRC's factual findings as regards the validity of
petitioner's dismissal are accorded great weight and respect and
even finality when the same are supported by substantial
evidence, the Court finds no compelling reason to relax the rule on
the filing of a motion for reconsideration prior to the filing of a
petition for certiorari
o Petitioner does not deny having withdrawn the amount of
P3, 000,000.00 lire from the bank's account.
o What petitioner submits is that she used said amount for
the Radio Pilipinas sa Roma radio program of the
company.
o Bank, however, countered that at the time she withdrew
said amount, the radio program was already off the air.
o Respondent is a managerial employee. Thus, loss of trust
and confidence is a valid ground for her dismissal
 The mere existence of a basis for believing that a managerial
employee has breached the trust of the employer would suffice for
his/her dismissal.

ISSUE: Whether or not there LA had jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim.

YES.

RATIO:
 Section 10 of RA 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipino Act of 1995 provides that LA and NLRC shall have the
original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the claims
arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of
any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
deployment
 it is clear that labor arbiters have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-employee
relations, including termination disputes involving all workers,
among whom are overseas Filipino workers
 In any event, since the CA did not commit any error in dismissing
the petition before it for failure to file a prior motion for
050 Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew
FACTS:
1. Santiago had been working as a seafarer for Smith Bell
Management (respondent) for 5 years
2. In 1998 Santiago signed a new contract with Smith Bell with the
duration of 9 mos., the contract was approved by the POEA. He
was to be deployed on board MSV Seaspread which was to leave
port Manila for Canada after 10 days
3. A week before departure, Capt. Fernandez, respondent Vice
President, sent facsimile to the captain of MSV stating that a phone
call from the wife of Santiago asked not to send her husband to
MSV, other callers gave some feedback that Santiago might jump
ship in Canada like his brother.
4. MSV replied and said that they will cancel plans for him to return
to MSV
5. Santiago was thus told that he would not be leaving for Canada
anymore, but he was assured that he might be considered for
deployment in the future
6. Santiago filed complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent
and its foreign principal Cable and Wireless (Marine) Ltd.
7. LA – contract remained valid but had not commenced, Smith Bell
violated rules and regulations governing overseas employment
when it did not deploy Santiago. Smith Bell was ordered to pay
Actual damages, all other claims were dismissed
8. NLRC affirmed LA ruled that there is no ER-EE relationship
because under the POEA Standard Contract, employment contract
shall commence upon actual departure. In the absence of such
relationship, ALL claims should be dismissed. Smith Bell’s action
was a valid exercise of m.p.
9. CA- ang labo ng NLRC, ano pa ang I a-affirm niya e tinanggal niya
nga mimso yung order na magbayad ng actual damages. Damages
are not recoverable by a worker who was not deployed, valid
exercise of m.p.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contract is deemed consummated which
makes him an employee for all intents and purposes, and thus LA and/or
NLRC has jurisdiction to take cognizance of his claim. YES.
RATIO:
 Even before the start of any employer-employee relationship,
contemporaneous with the perfection of the employment contract
was the birth of certain rights and obligations, the breach of which
may give rise to a cause of action against the erring party
 Respondents act of preventing petitioner from departing the port
of Manila and boarding MSV Seaspread constitutes a breach of
contract, giving rise to petitioner’s cause of action
 Respondent unilaterally and unreasonably reneged on its
obligation to deploy petitioner and must therefore answer for the
actual damages he suffered
 Despite the absence of an employer-employee relationship
between petitioner and respondent, the Court rules that the NLRC
has jurisdiction over petitioner’s complaint. The jurisdiction of
labor arbiters is not limited to claims arising from employer-
employee relationships
 Section 10 of RA 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipino Act of 1995 provides that LA and NLRC shall have the
original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the claims
arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of
any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
deployment
 Since the present petition involves the employment contract
entered into by petitioner for overseas employment, his claims
are cognizable by the labor arbiters of the NLRC
 Respondents basis for not deploying petitioner is the belief that
he will jump ship just like his brother, a mere suspicion that is
based on alleged phone calls of several persons whose identities
were not even confirmed.
051 Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v Cabiles
Doctrine: (na mahaba haha)
 Employees are not stripped of their security of tenure when
they move to work in a different jurisdiction
 With respect to the rights of overseas Filipino workers, we follow
the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where
the contract is made) which governs in this jurisdiction
 There is no question that the contract of employment in this
case was perfected here in the Philippines
 Therefore, the Labor Code, its implementing rules and
regulations, and other laws affecting labor apply in this case.
Furthermore, settled is the rule that the courts of the forum will
not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum’s public
policy
 Here in the Philippines, employment agreements are more
than contractual in nature
 The Constitution itself, in Article XIII, Section 3, guarantees the
special protection of workers.
052 NASECO v. NLRC
FACTS:
1. Credo was an employee of NASECO (provides services and
manpower to PNB).
2. She was first employed as a guard, promoted to Clerk Typist,
Personnel Clerk and then Chief of Property and Records.
3. She was administratively charged by Lloren, Manager of a
Department of NASECO for her non-compliance with Lloren’s
memo regarding certain entry procedures in the Billings
Statement alleging that she showed disrespect by shouting and
uttering remarks in the presence of her co-employees.
4. Credo was asked to explain by Acting Gen. Manager. After meeting,
she was placed on “Forced Leave” status for 15 days.
5. Credo filed a complaint before the Ministry of Labor, against
NASECO for placing her on forced leave without due process.
6. NASECO’s Committee on Personnel Affairs deliberated and
recommended Credo’s termination with forfeiture of benefits.
7. Credo was handed a Notice of Termination after failing to explain
the charges against her.
8. Credo filed a supplemental complaint alleging lack of authorized
cause for her dismissal and no opportunity to be heard.
9. Labor Arbiter: Dismissed Credo’s complaint. Ordered NASECO to
pay her separation pay.
10. Both parties appealed.
11. NLRC: Directed NASECO to reinstate Credo, backwages.
12. NASECO: NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion. And that,
NLRC had no jurisdiction to order Credo’s reinstatement. As a
government corporation (being a subsidiary of NIDC, a subsidiary
of PNB, a government owned corporation), the terms and
conditions of employment of its employees are governed by the
Civil Service Law, rules and regulations.
ISSUE: Whether NLRC has jurisdiction to reinstate Credo, an employee of
a government corporation. YES.
RATIO:
 Under the 1973 Constitution, it was provided that “the civil service
embraces every branch, agency, instrumentality of the government,
including government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC).
 Under the 1987 Constitution, the provision was amended to
“including government-owned or controlled corporation WITH
ORIGINAL CHARTER.”
 According to the 1986 Constitutional Commission deliberation,
“original charter” means created by Act of Congress or special law.
The intention was to distinguish a GOCC created under the
Corporation law from a GOCC created by its own Charter.
 Hence, under the 1973 Constitution, all government corporations
irrespective of the manner of creation, whether by special charter or
by the private Corporation Law, are deemed to be covered by the Civil
Service Commission (CSC). But upon the ratification of the 1987
Constitution, it is the CSC that has jurisdiction over GOCC created
under special law but it is the NLRC that has jurisdiction over
GOCC created under the Corporation Law.
 On the premise that it is the 1987 Constitution that governs the
instant case because it is the Constitution in place at the time of
decision thereof, the NLRC has jurisdiction to accord relief to the
parties. As an admitted subsidiary of the NIDC, in turn a subsidiary of
the PNB, the NASECO is a government-owned or controlled
corporation without original charter.
053 DOH v. NLRC
FACTS:
1. Laur was employed at the Rodriguez Memorial Hospital as a
patient-assistant after being treated of Leprosy.
2. Specifically assigned as a member of the Patient-Assistant Police
Force, he was accorded salary that was chargeable to the
maintenance and operation expenses of the hospital.
3. Complaints for Alarms and Scandal, Oral Defamation, Grave
Threats, Concealment of Deadly Weapons, Violation of the Code of
Ethics of Policemen, and Conduct Unbecoming were filed against
Laur.
4. After finding guilt, he was meted the penalty of suspension for 60
days with a stern warning that repetition would result in outright
dismissal.
5. Laur then got involved in a mauling of one Bondoc with other
policemen.
6. Bondoc filed a complaint against Laur.
7. Laur was dismissed from the Hospital on the basus of the Public
Assistance Complaint Unit’s report.
8. Laur filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal with
claims for wage differentials, and other benefits.
9. Labor Arbiter: Ruled in his favor. He was an employee in
contemplation of the Labor Code, his employment not being just a
part of his medication and rehabilitative therapy. His function was
necessary for the hospital.
10. The Hospital/DOH: NLRC acted without jurisdiction when they
took cognizance of the complaint because it should have been filed
in the Civil Service Commission. The Hospital (DJRMH) is a
government hospital, its employees are covered by Civil Service
rules.
ISSUE: Whether NLRC had jurisdiction over the complaint. NO.
RATIO:
 DJRMH, originally known as the Tala Leprosarium, was one of three
leper colonies established under Commonwealth Act No. 161.
 Maintained to this day as a public medical center and health facility
attached to the Department of Health, the DJRMH exercises strictly
governmental functions relating to the management and control of
leprosy.
 It is clearly an agency of the Government, the DJRMH falls well within
the scope and/or coverage of the Civil Service Law in accordance with
Article IX B, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, EO 292 (Admin Code),
and PD 807 (Civil Service Decree).
 As the central personnel agency of the Government, the Civil Service
Commission administers the Civil Service Law. It is, therefore, the
single arbiter of all contests relating to the civil service.
 The Labor Code itself provides that “the terms and conditions of
employment of government employees shall be governed by the Civil
Service Law, rules and regulations.” Conformably to the foregoing, it
is, indeed, the Civil Service Commission which has jurisdiction over
the present controversy. Its decisions are subject to review by the
Supreme Court.
054 INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION v. PURA
CALLEJA
FACTS:
This case is a consolidated case involving the validity of the claim of
immunity by the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) and
the International Rice Research Institute, Inc. (IRRI) from the application
of Philippine Labor Law.
ICMC Case:
1. An agreement was forged between the Philippine and the United
Nations High Commissioner for Vietnamese refugees. An
operating center for processing Indo-Chinese refugees for
eventual resettlement to other countries was to be established in
Bataan.
2. ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine Government.
It is duly registered with the United Nations Economic and Social
Council.
3. Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed
for Certification Election among the rank and file members of the
ICMC. ICMC opposed the petition on the ground that it is an
international organization registered with the United Nations
and, hence, enjoys diplomatic immunity.
IRRI Case:
1. The Philippine Government and the Ford and Rockefeller
Foundations signed a Memorandum of Understanding
establishing IRRI.
2. Initially IRRI was organized and registered with the SEC.
However, by virtue of PD No. 1620, IRRI was granted the status,
prerogatives and immunities of an international organization.
3. Kapisanan filed a Petition for Direct Certification Election with
DOLE’s regional office (Region 4).
4. IRRI opposed the petition, invoking PD 1620 conferring upon it
the status of an international organization and granting it
immunity from all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings
under Philippine Laws.
ISSUE: Whether the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities
extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor Laws. YES.
RATIO: 055 CALLANTA v. CARNATION (supra)
 There can be no question that diplomatic immunity has, in fact, been
granted ICMC and IRRI. DOCTRINE:
 Article II of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Philippine  Public respondent dismissed the action for illegal dismissal on the
Government and ICMC provides that ICMC shall have a status "similar sole issue of prescription of actions. It did not resolve the case of
to that of a specialized agency." illegal dismissal on the merits. Nonetheless, to resolve once and for all
 IRRI is similarly situated, Pres. Decree No. 1620, Article 3, is explicit the issue of the legality of the dismissal, the Court finds that petitioner,
in its grant of immunity. who has continuously served respondent Carnation for five [5] years
 Department of Foreign Affairs, through its Legal Adviser, sustained was, under the attendant circumstances, arbitrarily dismissed from
IMCM’s invocation of immunity. Similarly, in respect of IRRI, DFA his employment.
maintained that IRRI enjoys immunity from the jurisdiction of DOLE.  The alleged shortage in his accountabilities should have been
 The foregoing opinions constitute a categorical recognition by the impartially investigated with all due regard for due process in view of
Executive Branch of the Government that ICMC and IRRI enjoy the admitted enmity between petitioner and E.L. Corsino,
immunities accorded to international organizations, which respondent's auditor.
determination has been held to be a political question conclusive upon
the Courts in order not to embarrass a political department of the
Government.
 The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to ICMC and IRRI is
clearly necessitated by their international character and
respective purposes. The objective is to avoid the danger of
partiality and interference by the host country in their internal
workings. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of
Labor in these instances would defeat the very purpose of
immunity, which is to shield the affairs of international
organizations, in accordance with international practice, from
political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice
of member States of the organization, and to ensure the
unhampered performance of their functions.
 ICMC's and IRRI's immunity from local jurisdiction by no means
deprives labor of its basic rights, which are guaranteed by Article II,
Section 18, Article III, Section 8, and Article XIII, Section 3, of the 1987
Constitution; and implemented by Articles 243 and 246 of the Labor
Code, relied on by the BLR Director and by Kapisanan.
 For, ICMC employees are not without recourse whenever there are
disputes to be settled. Section 31 of the Convention on the Privileges
and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations
provides that "each specialized agency shall make provision for
appropriate modes of settlement of: (a) disputes arising out of
contracts or other disputes of private character to which the
specialized agency is a party."
056 SUPREME STEEL CORP v. NMS-IND-APL employees “over and above” the amount they are receiving, even if
that amount already includes an anniversary increase.
FACTS:  Stipulations in a contract must be read together, not in isolation from
1. The Union filed a Notice of Strike with NCMB on the ground that one another. Section 2 states that “[a]ll salary increase granted by the
Supreme Steel violated certain provisions of the CBA. company shall not be credited to any future contractual or legislated
2. The Secretary of Labor certified the case to NLRC for compulsory wage increases.” Clearly then, even if petitioner had already awarded
arbitration. an anniversary increase to its employees, such increase cannot be
3. The Union alleged 11 CBA violations. credited to the “contractual” increase as provided in the CBA, which is
a) Denial to provide wage increase to 4 employees. considered “separate and distinct.”
b) Contracting-out labor (hiring of temporary workers).  A CBA, like any other contract, must be interpreted according to the
c) Failure to provide shuttle services. intention of the parties.
d) Refusal to answer for medical expenses.
e) Failure to comply with the time-off with pay provision.
f) Visitor’s free access to company premises.
g) Failure to comply with reporting time-off provision
h) Dismissal of a welder due to Diabetes
i) Denial of paternity leave benefit
j) Discrimination and harassment.
k) Non-implementation of COLA in certain wage orders.
4. NLRC: Only 8 of the issued were decided in favor of the Union. The
issue on paternity leave and discrimination ruled in favor of Supreme
Steel and the visitor’s free access was settled during the conference.
5. CA: Affirmed. Based on the wording of the CBA, “general increase” and
“over and above” intended to increase the wage based on the CBA
despite receipt of an anniversary increase.

ISSUE: Whether there were violations of the CBA. YES.

RATIO:
 The CBA is the law between the parties and compliance therewith is
mandated by the express policy of the law.
 If the terms of a CBA are clear and there is no doubt as to the intention
of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall
prevail.
 Moreover, the CBA must be construed liberally rather than narrowly
and technically and the Court must place a practical and realistic
construction upon it.
 Any doubt in the interpretation of any law or provision affecting labor
should be resolved in favor of labor.
 The wording of the CBA on general wage increase cannot be
interpreted any other way: The CBA increase should be given to all
057 MARIVELES SHIPYARD V. CA  Solidary liability of petitioner with that of Longest Force does not
preclude the application of the Civil Code provision on the right of
FACTS: reimbursement from his co-debtor by the one who paid.
 Mariveles engaged the services of Longest Force to render security  Petitioner and Longest Force are held liable jointly and severally for
services at its premises. underpayment of wages and overtime pay of the security guards,
 Mariveles complied with the terms of the security contract with without prejudice to petitioner’s right of reimbursement from
Longest Force by paying its bills and contract rates. Longest Force Investigation and Security Agency, Inc.
 Mariveles found the services being rendered by the guards (private
respondents) unsatisfactory and inadequate, causing it to terminate
its contract with LF.
 LF, in turn, terminated the employment of the security guards it had
deployed.
 The guards filed a case for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages,
etc. against LF and Mariveles before the Labor Arbiter.
 LF filed a cross-claim passing the liability to Mariveles regarding its
non-payment of wage differentials because the service fee paid by
Mariveles to it was way below legal rates.
 Mariveles: No employee-employer relationship. LF had benefited
from the contract and is now estopped from questioning the
agreement because it had made a bad deal.
 Labor Arbiter: LF and Mariveles solidarily liable to pay the money
claims and for them to reinstate the guards.
 NLRC: Affirmed. CA: Affirmed
 Mariveles: Should not be held liable with LF because it had been
religiously paying the bills sent by LF and that these are in accordance
with the minimum wage.

ISSUE: Whether LF and Mariveles should be held solidarily liable.

RATIO:
 Petitioner’s liability is solidary with LF pursuant to Articles 106, 107
and 109 of the Labor Code
 Petitioner cannot evade its liability by claiming that it had religiously
paid the compensation of guards as stipulated under the contract with
the security agency.
 Labor laws are considered written in every contract. Stipulations in
violation thereof are considered null. Similarly, legislated wage
increases are deemed amendments to the contract. Thus, employers
cannot hide behind their contracts in order to evade their liability for
noncompliance with the statutory minimum wage.