Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Held: Yes. Every worker should be paid his regular daily wage
during regular holidays even if the worker does no work on
these holidays (except in retail and service establishments
regularly employing less than 10 workers.
Held:
• But the Court here did not apply the Eagle case
because the petitioner is equally guilty by not
abiding to the law in the subsequent change of
Philippine Fisheries Development Authority v. NLRC, contract even when the WO6 was already
213 SCRA 621 (1992) implemented.
Issue 1: WON an indirect employer is bound by the ruling of • Therefore, security guards immediate recourse is
NLRC which made the indirect employer liable when the with direct employer but the latter is not prejudiced
guards are not employees of the petitioner because the as to the claim of ½ of the wages it shall give the
contract of services explicitly states that the security guards guards.
are not their employees thus, no employer-employee
relationship, thus the jurisdiction of the CSC may not be Doctrine: Principal liable for Wage Orders mandating
invoked in this case. wage increases. But when principal cannot pay,
contractor is the immediate recourse and should pay the
Held: whole claim with right to reimbursement from principal.
But if contractor is at fault, will be liable to ½ of the
• Notwithstanding that the petitioner is a government claim.
agency, its liabilities, which are jointly and solidary
with that of the contractor are provided in Art. 106, Aklan Electric Corp., Inc. v. NLRC, 323 SCRA 259
107 and 109. (2000)
• Its liabilities are under the NLRC scope and in
addition, book three title ii on wages provides that
the term employer includes any person acting Facts:
directly or indirectly in the interest of an
employer in relation to an employee and shall Employees working at Lezo but were told to transfer to
include the Government and all its branches, Kalibo but they did not transfer. Claiming salaries, wages and
subdivisions and instrumentalities, all GOCCs benefits.
and institutions as well as non-profit private
institutions or organizations. Issue: WON they are entitled to salaries and benefits.
Issue 2: Who should carry the burden of the wage increases? Held: No. The employer gave orders to the employees to
transfer office because of the dangers the environment
Held: poses to the company, yet the employees disobeyed.
Moreover, the transfer of office was approved by NEA
Administrator in its exercise of supervision and control over
• It is settled that in job contracting, the petitioner as
all electric cooperatives. When the business transferred,
principal is jointly and severally liable with the
what was left to the employees to work on? Thus no basis
contractor for the payment of unpaid wages. In the
that the employees continued to report for work in Lezo.
case at bar, the action was for the payment of
unpaid wage differentials under Wage Order No. 6.
The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and
capital, or management and employee of a “fair day’s
• In the case of Eagle Security vs. NLRC: wage for a fair day’s labor” remains as the basic factor in
determining employee’s wages. If there is no work performed
“The solidary liability of PTSI and EAGLE, however, does not by the employee there can be no wage or pay unless, of
preclude the right of reimbursement from his co-debtor by course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but
the one who paid. It is with respect to this right of was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed, or
reimbursement that petitioners can find support in the otherwise illegally prevented from working, a situation we
aforecited contractual stipulation and Wage Order provision. find is not present in the instant case. It would neither be fair
nor just to allow private respondents to recover something
The Wage Orders are explicit that the payment of the they have not earned and could have not earned because
increases are “to be borne” by the principal or client. “To be they did not render services at the Kalibo office during the
borne”, however, does not mean that the principal, PTSI in stated period.
this case, would directly pay the security guards the wage
and allowance increases because there is no privity of
contract between them. The security guards’ contractual Bankard Employers Union v. NLRC, 423 SCRA 148
relationship is with their immediate employer, EAGLE. As an (2004)
employer, EAGLE is tasked, among others, with the payment
of their wages. Facts:
Premises considered, the security guards’ immediate Petitioners questioning the new salary increase to new
recourse for the payment of the increases is with their direct employees which were higher than the regular employees.
employer, EAGLE. However, in order for the security agency They claim that there was wage distortion, thus the request
to comply with the new wage and allowance rates it has to for an across-the-board increase.
facto result to an obligation to rectify it, absent a law
Held: No wage distortion. or other source of obligation which requires its
rectification.
Wage distortion: a situation where an increase in prescribed
wage rates results in the elimination or severe contraction of Moreover, in this case, the CBA between the Union and
intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates Management gives the Company the right to establish such
between and among employee groups in an establishment minimum salaries as it may hereafter find appropriate for
as to effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such specific jobs and to adjust the rates of the employees
wage structure based on skills, length of service, or other thereby affected xxx.
logical bases of differentiation.
The Court has taken judicial notice of the fact that some
salesman do not receive any basic salary but depend entirely
on commissions and allowances or commissions alone,
although an employer-employee relationship exists.
Issues:
Discussion:
4
period of her employment ended. She was fired without The Court cited several examples: RA 6727 (1989)-
basis. In fact, the Court said that she was a victim of explicitly prohibits discrimination against women with
discrimination. It follows that if she was not unfairly respect to terms and conditions of employment, promotion,
dismissed, she would have finished the probationary period and training opportunities. RA 6955 (1990) - which bans the
and she would become regular. (My view.) "mail-order-bride" practice for a fee and the export of female
2
Management prerogative involves “prescriptions encompass labor to countries that cannot guarantee protection to the
the matter of hiring, supervision of workers, work rights of women workers. RA 7192, The Women in Nation-
assignments, working methods and assignments, as well as Building Act (1992) - affords women equal opportunities
regulations on the transfer of employees, lay-off of workers, with men to act and to enter into contracts, and for
and the discipline, dismissal, and recall of employees. 19 As appointment, admission, training, graduation, and
put in a case, an employer is free to regulate, according to his commissioning in all military or similar schools of the Armed
discretion and best business judgment, all aspects of Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police;
employment, "from hiring to firing," except in cases of Republic Act No. 7322 15 increasing the maternity benefits
unlawful discrimination or those which may be provided granted to women in the private sector. RA 7322 (1995) -
by law.” increasing the maternity benefits granted to women in the
3 private sector. RA 7877 (1995) which outlaws and punishes
The State recognizes the role of women in nation- sexual harassment in the workplace and in the education and
building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality training environment. RA 8042, The Migrant Workers and
before the law of women and men (Sec.14, Art. II). Overseas Filipino Act of 1995.
parties already agreed to allow Grace to pay for employees of competing drug companies; and if
the unremitted funds. management found that such relationship posed a
possible conflict of interest, to resign from the
4. The Court ended with a discussion of Art. 136 of the company.
Labor Code, above. It’s a substantial discussion and
has a relation to the next case (Duncan v. Glaxo). Nonetheless, Tecson became romantically involved with
Bettsy, an employee of a rival pharmaceutical firm Astra
Pharmaceuticals ("Astra"). The two eventually married in
• In Zialcita v. PAL, the court declared the PAL September of 1998. The relationship, including the
policy of firing flight attendants after they get subsequent marriage, was cause for consternation to Glaxo.
married saying it is incompatible to Art. 136 of On January 1999, Tecson's superiors informed him that his
the Labor Code. “Article 136 is not intended to marriage to Bettsy had given rise to a conflict of interest.
apply only to women employed in ordinary Negotiations ensued, with Tecson adverting to his wife's
occupations, or it should have categorically possible resignation from Astra, and Glaxo making it known
expressed so. The sweeping intendment of the that they preferred to retain his services owing to his good
law, be it on special or ordinary occupations, is performance. Yet no resolution came to pass. In September
reflected in the whole text and supported by 1999, Tecson applied for a transfer to Glaxo's milk division,
Article 135 that speaks of non-discrimination on but his application was denied in view of Glaxo's "least-
the employment of women.” movement-possible" policy. Then in November 1999, Glaxo
• The judgment of the Court of Appeals in
transferred Tecson to the Butuan City-Surigao City-Agusan
del Sur sales area. Tecson asked Glaxo to reconsider its
Gualberto, et al. vs. Marinduque Mining &
decision, but his request was denied.
Industrial Corporation 34 considered as void a
policy of the same nature. In said case, The matter was then brought to the Glaxo Grievance
respondent, in dismissing from the service the Committee, and subsequently to a voluntary arbitrator. The
complainant, invoked a policy of the firm to National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) rendered
consider female employees in the project it was its decision, declaring as valid Glaxo's policy on relationships
undertaking as separated the moment they get between its employees and persons employed with
married due to lack of facilities for married competitor companies, and affirming Glaxo's right to transfer
women. Branding the policy of the employer as Tecson to another sales territory.
an example of "discriminatory chauvinism"
tantamount to denying equal employment Issues:
opportunities to women simply on account of 1. Petitioners claim that the company rule applied to
their sex, the appellate court struck down said him was invalid. It violates the equal protection
employer policy as unlawful in view of its clause of the Constitution because it creates invalid
repugnance to the Civil Code, Presidential distinctions among employees on account only of
Decree No. 148 and the Constitution. This is marriage. They claim that the policy restricts the
called sex-plus discrimination under US employees’ right to marry.
jurisprudence. 2. It was also alleged that Tecson’ s transfer to
• However, the ruling in Gualberto cited Agusan, diminution in pay he suffered, his exclusion
instances when such discrimination of marriage from seminars and training sessions for medical
may be considered valid: “Upon the other hand, representatives, and the prohibition in promoting
a requirement that a woman employee must respondent’s products which were competing with
remain unmarried could be justified as a "bona Astra’s products all amounted to a constructive
fide occupational qualification," or BFOQ, where dismissal.
the particular requirements of the job would
justify the same, but not on the ground of a Decision: CA upheld.
general principle, such as the desirability of
spreading work in the workplace. A requirement Discussion:
of that nature would be valid provided it
reflects an inherent quality reasonably
necessary for satisfactory job performance. 1. The company policy on marriage was valid. It
Thus, in one case, a no-marriage rule applicable does not prohibit marriage per se. employees
to both male and female flight attendants, was are free to marry who they want. What it
regarded as unlawful since the restriction was seeks to prevent is conflict of interest, which
not related to the job performance of the flight may be too detrimental in a very competitive
attendants.”(45A Am Jur. 2d Job Discrimination business like the pharma industry. (Court cited
Sec. 506 p486.) a similar case in the US state of Georgia, Emory v.
Georgia Hospital)
5
It involved a complaint filed by a medical
representative against his employer drug company for
illegal dismissal for allegedly terminating his
Makati Haberdashery vs NLRC, 179 SCRA 449 (89)
employment when he refused to accept his
reassignment to a new area. Penned by Justice Fernan
Nature:
Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the NLRC Held: There is such relationship because in the application of
which affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter who jointly the four-fold test, it was found that petitioners had control
heard and decided two cases filed by the Union in behalf of over the respondents not only as to the result but also as to
the private respondents the means and method by which the same is to be
accomplished. Such control is proven by a memorandum
Facts: which enumerates procedures and instructions regarding job
• Private complainants are working for Makati orders, alterations, and their behavior inside the shop.
Haberdashery Inc as tailors, seamstress, sewers,
basters, and plantsadoras and are paid on a piece- • Minimum Wage
rate basis (except two petitioners who are paid on a Held: No dispute that entitled to minimum wage but court
monthly basis) and in addition, they are given a dismissed case for lack of sufficient evidence to support
daily allowance of P 3.00 provided they report claim that there was in fact underpayment which was ruled
before 9:30 a.m. by the LA and which the private resp did not appeal to in the
• Work sked: 9:30-6 or 7 p.m., Mondays to Saturdays NLRC nor in the SC. Well-settled is the rule that “an appellee
and even on Sundays and holidays during peak who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from the
periods. appellate court any affirmative relief other than the ones
• Union’s first case was on: granted in the decision of the court below”.
underpayment of
• basic wage • COLA
• living allowance Held: Entitled. They are regular employees. IRR of Wage No.
1, 2, and 5 provide that “all workers in the private sector,
non-payment of
regardless of their position, designation of status, and
• holiday pay
irrespective of the method by which their wages are
• service incentive pay paid” are entitled to such allowance.
• 13th month pay
• benefits provided for under Wage • 13th Month pay
Orders 1-5 Held: Entitled under Sec. 3(e) of the IRR of PD 851 which is
• While the first case was pending decision, Pelobello an exception to the exception of such provision which states
left an open package containing a jusi barong that employers whose workers are paid on piece-rate basis in
tagalong with salesman Rivera. He was caught and which are covered by such issuance in so far as such workers
confronted about this and he explained that this are concerned.
was ordered by Zapata, also a worker, for his
(personal) customer. Zapata allegedly admitted that • Illegal dismissal
he copied the design of the company but later Held: Dismissed for justifiable ground based on Article 283
denied ownership of the same. (a) and (c). Inimical to the interest of the employer. Not
• They were made to explain why no action should be dismissed just because of union activities.
taken against them for accepting a job order which
is prejudicial and in direct competition with the
business. However they did not submit and went on
AWOL until the period given for them to explain
expired hence the dismissal.
• Illegal dismissal complaint on the second case filed
before the LA Diosana.
• LA declared petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal and
ordered to reinstate Pelobello and Zapata and found
petitioners violating decrees of COLA, service
incentive and 13th month pay. Commission analyst
was directed to compute the monetary awards
which retroacts to three years prior to filing of case.
• NLRC affirmed but limited backwages to one year.
Ratio:
As to the service incentive leave pay: as piece-rate
workers being paid at a fixed amount for performing
work irrespective of time consumed in the
performance thereof, they fall under the exceptions
stated in Sec 1(d), Rule V, IRR, Book III, Labor Code.
• ER-EE relationship
dismissal, such rule is not applicable when the
complainants expressly reject this relief and ask for
separation pay instead.
• SC (with conviction): “You are wrong SolGen! How
Sentinel Security Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, 295 SCRA 123 dare you be wrong? You know that abandonment
1998) requires a deliberate and unjustified refusal of an
employee to resume to his work coupled with a
Penned by Justice Panganiban clear absence of any intention to return to his/her
work and the fact that complainants did not pray for
Nature: reinstatement is not a sufficient proof of
Certiorari seeking the reversal of the two petitions to the abandonment, you moron. They reported to the
NLRC Agency on several dates but it did not give any
reassignment. Abandonment has been ruled to be
Facts: incompatible with constructive dismissal as stated
in Escobin vs NLRC. Because I am infallible and you
• Five employees of Sentinel Security Agency filed for are in dire need of enlightenment, let me
illegal dismissal against the Agency and its Client demonstrate the correct reasoning why they are
Philamlife Cebu and prayed for payment of salary illegally dismissed.”
differential, service incentive pay, and separation • It has been recognized that the management has a
pay. prerogative to transfer an employee from one office
• The complainants were assigned to Philamlife Cebu to another within the same business establishment
but after nearly 20 years for some employees and as the exigency of the business may require
more than 20 years for some, Philam requested on provided that transfer:
Dec 16, 1993 that security guards be replaced in - does not result in a demotion in rank
the Client’s offices in Cebu, Bacolod, CDO, Dipolog - diminution in salary, benefits, and other privileges
and Iligan. - not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the
• Agency issued a Relief and Transfer Order replacing latter
the guards and for them to be reassigned to other - not used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid
clients effective on Jan 16 1994. On Jan 18 and Feb himself of an undesirable worker
4 1994, the employees filed an illegal dismissal • SC: “Solgen, in case you don’t know what a transfer
complaint because of a threat from the personnel means, let me extend my unparalleled mastery of
manager who told them that they were replaced this craft which,unfortunately, you don’t have:
because they were old. - Transfer may mean two things: a) from one position to
• Hence the complaint against the Agency and the another of equivalent rank, level or salary b) from one
Client. office to another within the same business
• Client and Agency’s defense: No dismissal because establishment. Oh please, do not even think this is
the contract allows them to recall security guards equivalent to promotion because the latter involves a
from assigned posts at the will of either party and scalar ascent.”
that the Agency is allowed for a period of not more • It should have been a mere changing of the guards, a
than six months, to retain the complainants on reshuffling or exchange of their posts or assignments
floating status. Agency should have been given a to their posts and such that no security guard would
chance to give new assignments to complainants. be without assignment. But did the Agency implement
• Client’s defense: No ER-EE relationship. Job such recognized concept? NO!!! It hired new security
contract, separate corporate personalities and not guards, younger, braver, full of life men whose age
necessary and desirable to the business or trade. are in their prime! This resulted in a lack of posts to
which the senile, used and wrinkled men could have
LA: Agency and Client ordered to pay solidarily complainants been reassigned.
13th month pay and service incentive leave benefits • Floating status – requires the dire exigency of the
amounting to a little more than P60K. employer’s bona fide suspension of operation,
business or undertaking. In security services, this
NLRC: There was constructive dismissal. Modified awards. happens when the clients do not renew their contracts
Deleted 13th month pay for previous years. Twin remedies. with a security agency but in the case at bar, the
Ordered: Client awarded a new contract to the Agency. No
1) Agency to give separation pay at the rate of ½ surplus of security guards over available assignments.
month pay for every year of service and No suspension of operation that would have justified
placing the complainants off-detail and making them
2) Agency and Client to solidarily pay backwages and
wait for 6 months.
13th month pay for one year (Jan 1994-1995).
• SC: “The logical conclusion here Solgen, in case you
don’t know what’s logical, is that the Agency illegally
Issue: 1) WON there was illegal dismissal
dismissed the complainants.
2) And if so, WON Philam may be held liable
2)Only solidarily to the service incentive leave pay.
Held:
Since no ER-EE relationship between Client and
complainants, cannot be held liable for separation
1)Yes there was illegal dismissal but SC does not agree
pay and backwages.
with NLRC for its reasons for ruling that there was
ID. NLRC’s reason: Client and Agency wanted to • Art 106, 107 and 109 provide when the principal who
circumvent the Retirement Law. SC: You NLRC are contracted the contractor/subcontractor may be
speculating and your contention is unsupported! held solidarily liable. Art 109 states that every
employer or indirect employer shall be held
• SOLGEN: Complainants were placed on temporary off-
responsible with his contractor or subcontractor for
detail which is a standard stipulation in employment
any violation of any provision of this Code. In
contracts since the availability of assignment for
determining the extent of their civil liability under
security guards is dependent on contracts entered
this Chapter, they shall be considered direct
into by the agency. Off-detail or Floating status
employers.
means “waiting to be posted” and this is not
dismissal so long as such status does not continue • Such liability covers service incentive leave pay of the
beyond a reasonable time. complainant during the time they were posted at
the Cebu Branch. Service had been rendered,
• However SOLGEN made a pronouncement that
although abandonment is inconsistent with illegal
liability accrued even when they were eventually b) Project employees: whose
transferred or reassigned.
employment has been fixed
• Art. 95 of the LC expressly provides that service for a specific project or
incentive leave is expressly granted to every undertaking the completion
employee who has rendered at least one year or or termination of which has
service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive been determined at the
leave of five days with pay. time of the engagement of
• IRR of the LC: Unused service incentive leave is the employee or where the
commutable to its money equivalent as provided by work or services to be
Sec. 5: The service incentive leave shall be performed is seasonal in
commutable to its money equivalent if not used or nature and the employment
exhausted at the end of the year is for the duration of the
season.
Pau: May the contrary be stipulated? If yes, when?
Supposing the employer gives more than 5 days of
service incentive leave, can they now stipulate that such c) Casual employees: those
leaves may not be converted to its money equivalent? who are neither regular not
When can such leaves be not converted into cash? project.
• Philippine Federation of Credit The contract between the petitioner and the respondent was
Cooperatives, Inc. v. NLRC, 300 scrutinized and the Court arrived at a conclusion that the
SCRA 72 (1998) contract was ambiguous, and in a contract of adhesion, if it is
ambiguous, any ambiguity therein should be construed
Facts: strictly against the part who prepared it. (Contract: xxx
probationary status for a period not to exceed six (6) months
Victora Abril was employed by PFCCI which was engaged in from said effectivity subject to renewal of this contract
organizing services to credit and cooperative entities as should the employee’s performance be satisfactory).
Auditor/Field Examiner and thereafter held position in
different capacities as office secretary and cashier-designate Regardless of the designation the petitioner company may
from 1982 to 1988. have conferred upon resp employment status, it is
uncontroverted that the latter, having completed the
She gave birth and upon her return in November 1989, a probationary period and allowed to work thereafter, became
certain Vangie Santos had been permanently appointed to a regular employee who may be dismissed only for just or
her former position. She accepted then a position as authorized causes.
Regional Field Officer on a probationary basis for 6 months.
Period elapsed but respondent was given another
employment contract for one year until 1991 after which • Pangilinan v. General Milling
period, her employment was terminated. corp., 434 SCRA 159 (2004)
Illegal dismissal was filed. LA dismissed her file but NLRC Facts:
reversed and ordered reinstatement.
General Milling Corporation (GMC) is in production and sale
Issue: WON she was illegally dismissed and WON she was a of livestock and poultry. It is also a distributor of dressed
regular employee. chicken. It employs hundreds of employees on regular or
casual basis (“emergency workers”).
Held: Yes. She was illegally dismissed and YES she was a
regular employee. The petitioners were emergency workers under
temporary/casual employment contracts “for a period of five
Art. 281 of the LC allows the employer to secure services of months”. They were chicken dressers, packers and helpers.
an employee on a probi basis which allows him to terminate Upon expiration of contracts, their services were terminated.
the latter for just cause or upon failure to qualify in
accordance with reasonable standards. Filed for illegal dismissal on the basis that based on the
nature of their work, they were regular employees.
Probationary Employee: one who is on trial by an
employer during which the employer determines whether or LA: They are regular employees.
nor he is qualified for permanent employment. A NLRC: They are regular employees.
probationary employment is made to afford the employer an Issue: WON they are regular employees.
opportunity to observe the fitness of a probationer while at
work, and to ascertain whether he will become a proper and Held: No. Art. 280 comprehends 3 kinds of employees (see
efficient employee. Probationary employees, notwithstanding above).
their limited tenure, are also entitled to security of tenure.
Except for just cause or under employment contract, a probi On regular employee:
employee cannot be terminated.
A regular employee is one who is engaged to perform
Petitioner alleged that she has abandoned her work for 8 activities which are necessary and desirable in the usual
months (due to childbirth) and the position she applied for as business or trade of the employer as against those which are
RFO was fixed for a specific period thus she is considered as undertaken for a specific project or are seasonal.
a casual or contractual employee under Art. 280.
There two separate instances whereby it can be determined
that an employment is regular:
Three kinds of employees:
1) if the particular activity performed b the employee
is necessary or desirable in the usual business or
a) Regular employees: whose trade of the employer
work is necessary or 2) if the employee has been performing the job for at
desirable to the usual least a year
business of the employer
In St. Theresa’s School of Novaliches vs NLRC, it was held
that Art. 280 does not prohibit an employment contract with
a fixed period. It does not necessarily follow that where the regular with respect to the activity he performed and while
duties of the employee consist of activities usually necessary such activity actually exists.
or desirable in the usual bisness of the employer, the parties
are forbidden from agreeing on a period of time for the
performance of such activities. There is thus nothing The primary standard in determining a regular
essentially contradictory between a definite period of employment:
employment and the nature of the employee’s duties.
Reasonable connection between the particular activity
The records reveal that the stipulations in the employment performed by the employee in relation to the usual business
contracts were knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the or trade of the employer. The test is whether the former is
petitioners without force, duress or improper pressure or any usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
circumstances that vitiated their consent. of the employer. The connection can be determined by
considering the nature of the work performed and its relation
They were hired as emergency workers and while their to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its
employment was necessary and desirable in the usual entirety.
business of the resp, they were employed on a mere
temporary basis since their employment was limited to a Also, if the employee has been performing the job for at least
fixed period. a year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely
intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing
There was no illegal dismissal when the petitioners’ services need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the
were terminated by reason of the expiration of their necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the
contracts. Lack of notice of termination is of no consequence, business. Hence, the employment is also considered regular,
because when the contract specifies the period of its but only with respect to such activity and while such activity
duration, it terminates on the expiration of such period. A exists.
contract for employment for a definite period terminates by
its own term at the end of such period. The law demands that the nature and entirety of the
activities performed by the employee be considered. If his
job was truly only to paint a building, there would have been
• De Leon v. NLRC, 176 SCRA 615 (1989) no basis for giving him other work assignments in between
painting activities.
SOLGEN: The dismissal of the petitioner after he demanded Violeta worked in CDCP, a sister corporation of DISC from
to be regularized was a subterfuge to circumvent the law on Dec 1980 to Feb 1981. Then hired him as Erector II at a
regular employment. He further recommends that the project for Philphos in Nov 1982 to Dec 1984. Then in Jan
questioned decision and resolution of the NLRC be annulled 1985 he was reassigned as Erector for Five Stand TCM
and that the order of the LA directeing the reinstatement and Project with vacation and sick leaves and was designated as
payment of backwages and other benefits be upheld. regular project employee at one project with NSC. Again
rehired in June 1989 and another in Feb 1992. Because of the
SC: NLRC decision should be reversed. completion of the particular item of work, termination of
services.
An employment is deemed regular when the activities
performed by the employee are usually necessary or Baltazar worked in CDCP in June 1980 as lead carpenter and
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. just like Violeta, he was transferred from one project to
another as a regular project employee. He was separated in
Not considered regular are the so-called “project 1991 as a result of the completion of the said item of work.
employment” the completion of termination of which is
more or less determinable at the time of employment, such Quitclaims were executed.
as those employed in connection with a particular
construction project and seasonal employment which by its Filed for illegal dismissal contending that they are already
nature is only desirable for a limited period of time. regular employees who cannot be dismissed on the ground
of completion of the particular project where they are
However, an employee who has rendered at least one year of engaged.
service, whether continuous or intermittent, is deemed
LA: dismissed for lack of merit but ordered for separation pay On the gaps of employment: Art. 280 contemplates both
because it was the policy of DISC to give separation pay to continuous and broken services.
employees who have rendered one year of service. The
conclusion was based on the pet admission that they are • San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, 297
regular project employees thus, their employment was SCRA 277 (1998)
deemed coterminous with the project for which their
employer engaged them. Facts:
NLRC: Reversed. Although the appointment specified fixed De Guzman was hired by SMC as helper/bricklayer for a
terms or periods of employment, the fact that hey were hired specific project, the repair and upgrading of furnace C and
and transferred from one project to another made both his contract was for a specific period (4 months). He was
petitioners non-project employees who cannot be terminated again hired but this time for the draining/cooling down of
by reason alone of the completion of the project. They were furnace F and the emergency repair of furnace E. Upon the
hired no only for one particular project but different projects completion of the last task, termination of services. Illegal
one after the other. dismissal was filed.
BUT! Same division of NLRC reversed itself upon motion of Issue: Regular employee or Project employee?
the private resp. Their basis was the employment of
petitioners in one of the last projects (ETL #3 Civil Works), it Held: Project employee.
was for a specific or fixed period thus making them project
employees. He was hired for a specific project that was not within the
regular business of the corporation. Petitioner is not engaged
ISSUE: WON they are regular employees. in the business of repairing furnaces. Although the activity
was necessary to enable petitioner to continue
HELD: Yes. They are regular (non-project) and not project manufacturing glass, the necessity therefore arose only
employees. when a particular furnace reached the end of its life or
operating cycle. Or, as in the second undertaking, when a
In order to properly characterize petitioners’ employment, it particular furnace required an emergency repair.
is important to ascertain whether or not their employment
falls under the exceptions provided in Article 280 of the The undertakings have specified goals and purposes which
Code. are fulfilled once the designated work was completed.
Moreover, undertaking were also indentifiably separate and
The principal test for determining whether particular distinct from the usual, ordinary or regular business
employees are properly characterized as “project operations of petitioner, which is glass manufacturing.
employees”, as distinguished from “regular employees” is
whether or not the “project employees” were assigned to These undertakings, the duration and scope of which had
carry out a “specific project or undertaking”, the duration been determined and made known to private resp at the
(and scope) of which were specified at the time the time of his employment, clearly indicated the nature of his
employees were engaged for that project. employment as a project employee. Thus, his services were
terminated legally after the completion of the project.
Project employees: those workers hired
RATIO:
Art. 280, Labor Code comprehends 3 kinds of
employees:
1) REGULAR EMPLOYEES or those whose work is
necessary or desirable to the usual business of
the employer
2) PROJECT EMPLOYEES or those whose
employment has been fixed for a specific
project or undertaking the completion or
termination of which has been determined at
the time of the engagement of the employee or
where the work or services to be performed is
seasonal in nature and the employment is for
the duration of the season
3) CASUAL EMPLOYEES or those who are neither
regular nor project employees
There are 2 separate instances whereby it can be
determined that an employment is regular:
1) If the particular activity performed by the
employee is necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer
2) If the employee has been performing the job for
at least a year
The employment contracts entered into by the
PANGILINAN V. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION petitioners showed that their employment was
FACTS: limited to a fixed period, usually five or six months,
1. General Milling Corp. (GMC) is a domestic and did not go beyond such period. The records
corporation engaged in the production and sale of reveal that the stipulations in the contracts were
livestock and poultry. It is also a distributor of knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by petitioners
dressed chicken to various restaurants and without force, duress or improper pressure, or any
establishments nationwide. circumstances that vitiated their consent. Also,
2. Petitioners were employed by GMC as “emergency nothing therein shows that these contracts were
workers” at its Cainta poultry plant under separate used as a subterfuge by the respondent GMC to
“temporary/casual contracts of employment” for a evade the provisions of Arts. 279-280 of the Labor
period of five months. They worked as chicken Code.
dressers, packers or helpers. While petitioners’ employment as chicken dressers
is necessary and desirable in the usual business of
3. Upon expiration of the employment contracts, GMC, they were employed on a mere temporary
petitioners’ services were terminated. They filed basis, since their employment was limited to a fixed
separate complaints for illegal dismissal and non- period. As such, they are merely “contractual
payment of holiday pay, 13th month pay, night shift employees and thus, there was no illegal dismissal
differential and service incentive leave pay before
Lack of notice of termination is of no consequence
the NLRC.
because when the contract specifies the period of
4. Petitioners allege that they were regular employees
its duration, it terminates on the expiration of such
of GMC since their work as chicken dressers was
period. A contract for employment for a definite
necessary and desirable in the usual business of
period terminates by its own term at the end of
GMC, and that GMC terminated their services
such period.
without just cause and due notice. They further
argued that GMC could not rely on the
OTHER ISSUES:
nomenclature of their employment as “temporary or
casual.”
A copy of the Labor Arbiter’s decision was sent by
5. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favour of petitioners
registered mail addressed to Atty. Emmanuel Pacsi,
declaring that they were regular employees and
GMC’s counsel, but it was Beth Cacal, a clerk of
that they were illegally dismissed.
GMC, who received the copy of the decision on
6. The NLRC rendered a decision reversing that of the
October 28, 1997. Contending that the copy was
Labor Arbiter. It held that petitioners were
received only on November 3,1997, GMC filed an
temporary or contractual employees of GMC and
appeal on November 12,1997 before the NLRC.
that they were legally terminated upon the
Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss GMC’s appeal
expiration of their respective contracts. Citing the
on the ground that the latter was filed five days
case of Brent School Inc. V. Zamora, the NLRC
late. GMC opposed the motion, contending that
explained that while petitioners’ work was
Cacal was a mere clerk and not a member of the
necessary and desirable in the usual business of
staff of the Legal Department, and thus Cacal’s
GMC, they cannot be considered regular employees
receipt of the decision was not equivalent to receipt
since they agreed to a fixed term.
by GMC’s counsel.
7. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC. The CA
ruled that where the duties of the employee consist
The NLRC ruled that GMC filed its appeal within the
of activities usually necessary or desirable in the
reglementary period. Service by registered mail is
usual business of the employer, it does not
completed on “upon actual receipt thereof by the
necessarily follow that the parties are forbidden
addressee.” The CA and SC affirmed, ruling that a
from agreeing on a period of time for the
service of a copy of a decision on a person who is
neither a clerk nor one in charge of the attorney’s That Faburada worked only on a part-time basis
office is invalid. does not mean that he is not a regular employee.
Regularity of employment is not determined by the
PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC. (PHCCI) V. number of hours one works but by the nature and
FABURADA length of time one has been in that particular job.
The above elements are present here. PHCCI through its The private respondents were project employees whose
Manager Mr. Edilberto Lantaca, Jr. hired respondents as work was coterminous with the project for which they
computer programmer and clerks. They worked regular were hired
working hours, were assigned specific duties, were paid
regular wages, and made to accomplish regular time records, - Project employees are those “where the
and worked under the supervision of the manager. employment has been fixed for a specific
project or undertaking the completion or
Art. 280, Labor Code comprehends 3 kinds of termination of which has been determined at
employees: the time of the engagement of the employee”
1) REGULAR EMPLOYEES or those whose work is (Art. 281, LC)
necessary or desirable to the usual business of - Project employees are those employed in
the employer connection with a particular construction
2) PROJECT EMPLOYEES or those whose project. Regular employees are those
employment has been fixed for a specific employed by a construction company without
project or undertaking the completion or reference to any particular project (Policy
termination of which has been determined at Instruction No. 20)
the time of the engagement of the employee or
where the work or services to be performed is Workers who are hired by a firm whose work is solely
seasonal in nature and the employment is for contracting for the repair of vessels are “project
the duration of the season employees” who may be automatically laid off after the
3) CASUAL EMPLOYEES or those who are neither project is completed. Here, it is significant to note that
regular nor project employees Sandoval Shipyards does not construct vessels for sale
or otherwise which will demand continuous productions
There are 2 separate instances whereby it can be of ships and will need permanent or regular workers. It
determined that an employment is regular: merely accepts contracts for shipbuilding or repair of
1) If the particular activity performed by the vessels from third parties and only on those occasions
employee is necessary or desirable in the usual that it hires workers to do the job which lasts only for
business or trade of the employer less than ayear or longer
2) If the employee has been performing the The completion of the project automatically terminates
job for at least a year the employment, and the employer is only obliged to
report the termination of the employment with the
Private respondents were rendering services Ministry of Labor.
necessary to the day-to-day operations of PHCCI.
This alone qualified them as regular employees. CHUA V. CA
Moreover, all of them except one worked with PHCCI
for more than 1 year. FACTS:
1. Private respondents filed a petition with the Social Subsequently, he was designated Assistant
Security Commission for SSS coverage and Electrician and then promoted to the rank of
constributions against petitioner Chua, claiming that Electrician. Meanwhile, petitioner Enero claims that
they were all regular employees in the latter’s he was employed in 1990 by private respondents as
construction business. a member of the shooting crew. Petitioners’ tasks
2. Private respondents claimed they were assigned by consisted of loading, unloading and arranging movie
petitioner Chua, owner of Prime Mover Construction equipment in the shooting area as instructed by the
Development, as carpenters, masons and fine graders in cameraman, returning the equipment to Viva’s
the latter’s various construction projects. They allege warehouse, assisting in the fixing of the lighting
that Chua dismissed them without justifiable grounds system and performing other tasks that the
and without notice to them and the Ministry of Labor. cameraman/director may assign.
3. Petitioner Chua claimed that private respondents 2. In May 1992, petitioners sought the assistance of
had no cause of action against him, and assuming there their supervisor Cesario to facilitate their request
was any, the same was barred by prescription and that private respondents adjust their salary in
laches. He also claimed that the workers were not accordance with the minimum wage law. Cesario
regular but project employees, and thus not covered by informed them that their salary would be increased
SSS. Granting that private respondents were entitled to only if they signed a blank employment contract.
SSS coverage, his failure to remit contributions was due Petitioners refused to sign. As a result their
to an honest belief that respondents are project services were terminated. Petitioners sued for
employees. illegal dismissal
4. SSC ruled in favour of private respondents. The CA 3. Private respondents assert that Viva is primarily
affirmed. engaged in the distribution and exhibition of movies
but not in the business of making movies. Vic del
ISSUE: WON private respondents are entitled to compulsory Rosario is merely and executive producer – a
SSS coverage financier who invests a certain sum of money for
the production of movies. They claim that there is
HELD: YES no employer-employee relationship between them
and petitioners. Viva contracts persons called
RATIO: “associate producers” to produce or make movies,
and that petitioners are project employees of the
The Social Security Act was enacted “to develop, associate producers.
establish gradually and perfect a social security system 4. LA ruled in favour of petitioners. The NLRC
which shall be suitable to the needs of the labourers reversed.
throughout the Phil, and shall provide protection against
the hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death.” ISSUES:
It provides for compulsory coverage of all employees not WON an employer-employee relationship existed
over 60 years old and their employers. Mandatory between petitioners and Viva
coverage is premised on the existence of and employer- WON petitioners are project employees of associate
employee relationship. All employees, regardless of producers who are in turn independent contractors
tenure, would classify for compulsory membership in the
SSS, except those classes of employees contemplated in HELD: YES. NO.
Section 8 (j) of the Social Security Act.
Private respondents are regular employees. As masons, RATIO:
carpenters and fine graders in petitioner’s various A job contractor under Sec. 8, Rule VIII, Bk III of the
construction projects, they performed work which was Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code must
usually necessary and desirable to petitioner’s business have tools, equipment, machinery, work premises
which involves construction of roads and bridges. It is and other materials necessary for the conduct of
not enough that an employee is hired for a specific the business. Here, the associate producers have
project or phase of work. There must also be a none of these; all the equipment is owned by Viva
determination of, and a clear agreement on, the and the associate producer merely leases the
completion or termination of the project at the time the equipment from Viva. The relationship between
employee is engaged (Violeta v. NLRC) Viva and the associate producers is that of agency,
The repeated re-hiring and continuing need for as the latter make movies on behalf of Viva, whose
respondents’ services over a long span of time (shortest business is to make movies. As such, the
is 2 years and the longest 8 years) have made them employment relationship between petitioners and
regular employees producers is actually one between petitioners and
Also, petitioner was unable to show that private Viva, with the latter being the direct employer
respondents were appraised of the project nature of The employer-employee relationship can further be
their employment. He failed to show employment established by the control test. The 4 elements of
contracts and records that would indicate dates of hiring selection, payment of wages, power of dismissal
and termination. Also, no proof that he submitted and control are present and can be shown in the ff
reports of termination with the Ministry of Labor circumstance
No prescription: only 8 years had passed from the time
delinquency of employer was discovered. Period of - The producer has to work within the limits of
prescription is 20 years the budget he is given by the company
No laches: no proof that private respondents had failed - Viva employs a Supervising Producer, who acts
or neglected to assert their right, considering that they as the eyes and ears of the company to monitor
filed their claim within the prescriptive period the progress of the associate producer’s work
Good faith of employer is irrelevant since the law does accomplishment. He conducts rounds of
not distinguish inspection in the field to see if there is any
problem that the associate producer is
MARAGUINOT V. NLRC encountering and to make sure that the film
project is finished on schedule and that any
FACTS: additional budget requested by the associate
producer is really justified
1. Petitioner Maraguinot maintains that he was - Viva requires that the end result must be a
employed in 1989 by private respondents Vic del “quality film acceptable to the company”
Rosario and Viva Films as part of the filming crew. - The appointment slips issued to all crew
members contain the words “superiors” and
“top management” which can only refer to the Acedillo’s work as helper-electrician was an
superiors and top management of Viva. Also, it activity necessary and desirable in the usual
is Viva’s corporate name which appears on the business or trade of the employer, since
heading. refrigeration requires considerable electrical
- It is Viva that paid wages to petitioners, work.
evidenced by vouchers containing Viva’s Petitioner admits maintaining 2 sets of workers,
letterhead i.e., those permanently employed regardless of
Petitioners were part of a work pool. While they the availability of work and those hired on a
were initially hired as project employees, they project basis. The practice of keeping a work
had attained regular status since the following pool renders untaenable the position that
conditions concur: Acedillo is not a regular employee: “Members
1) there is continuous rehiring of project of a work pool from a which a construction
employees even after cessation of the company draws its project employees, if
project considered employees of the construction
2) the tasks performed are vital, company while in the work pool, are non-
necessary and indispensable to the project employees or employees for an
usual business or trade of the indefinite period. If they are employed in a
employer particular project, the completion of the project
Here, Maraguinot was employed for 3 years and or any phase thereof will not mean severance
worked on 23 projects, while Enero for 2 years and of the employer-employee relationship” (PNCC
on 18 projects v. NLRC)
A work pool may exist although the workers in
the pool do not receive salaries and are free to
© UNION OF SUPERVISORS (RB) NATU vs. SEC. OF LABOR
seek other employment during temporary
breaks in the business, provided that the
worker shall be available when called to report March 29, 1984
for a project. Although primarily applicable to
regular seasonal workers, this set-up can
Nature: Petition to review the decision of the Secretary of
likewise be applied to project workers insofar as
Labor
the effect of temporary cessation of work is
concerned. This is beneficial to both the
employer and employee for it prevents the Facts:
unjust situation of coddling labor at the
expense of capital and at the same time
· In 1974, a complaint for unfair labor practice was filed
enables the workers to attain the status of
by Norberto Luna against Republic Bank.
regular employees
J&DO AGUILAR CORPORATION V. NLRC · While the case was still pending, there was a
substantial change in the corporate structure of Republic
FACTS: Bank. To save the bank from financial collapse, an
1. Private respondent Acedillo began working for agreement was entered into between the old stockholders
petitioner J&DO Aguilar (engaged in the business of that the Philippine Sugar Commission (PSC) will buy a
refrigeration) in Feb 1989 as helper-electrician. In substantial portion of the bank to inject fresh capital.
Jan 1992, his services were terminated allegedly
due to lack of available projects and excess in the
· As a consequence of this reorganization, the old
number of workers needed. He filed a case for
Republic Bank became the Republic Planters Bank, with new
illegal dismissal when he learned that new workers
controlling stockholders, board membership and
were being hired by petitioner while his request for
management. The bank was also made the financing arm of
work was ignored
the PSC.
2. Petitioner company maintains that its workers were
hired on a contractual basis and their employment
deemed terminated upon completion of the project · On November 12, 1981, the Supreme Court rendered
for which they were hired. It claims that Acedillo a decision finding that Luna was illegally dismissed by
was not a regular employee because his Republic Bank. The court held that Luna is entitled to
employment was for a definite period and made reinstatement to his former position as San Juan Branch
only to augment the regular workforce Manager, without loss of seniority rights and other benefits
3. The LA ruled in favour of respondent Acedillo. The and increases recognized by law or granted by the bank
NLRC affirmed. during the period of the illegal dismissal, with backwages
limited to three years. Republic Planters Bank only learned
ISSUE: WON Acedillo is a project employee of this case after it was furnished a copy of the decision. The
old management did not advise the present management of
HELD: NO the pendency of the case.
RATIO:
· Thus, the bank filed a manifestation and motion to
Project employees are those whose
bring to the attention of the SC these facts and
employment has been fixed for a specific
circumstances that occurred while the case was still
project or undertaking the completion or
pending. The bank argues that it should not be made to
termination of which has been determined at
suffer the consequences of the unfair labor practices of the
the time of the engagement of the employee or
old management. The bank also manifested reinstatement
where the work or services to be performed is
of Luna to his old position would disturb the current
seasonal in nature and the employment is for
organizational structure of the company.
the duration of the season
Here, the petitioner did not specify the duration
and scope of the project when it hired Acedillo.
It failed to present an employment contract
showing that Acedillo was engaged only for a · Before the court ruled on the motion, the bank paid
specific project. It is not even clear if Acedillo Luna his backwages equivalent to three years without
signed an employment contract qualification.
Issue: WON Luna should be reinstated to his former position (2) Can the bank deduct the income derived by Luna from
other sources during his illegal dismissal from the amount of
backwages to be paid?
Held: NO, he should be reinstated to a substantially
equivalent position.
Generally YES. An employer is entitled to deduct from what
the Court orders to be paid as backwages whatever an
Ratio:
employee has earned elsewhere during the period for which
backwages are supposed to be paid. Such qualification is
· Reinstatement is a restoration to a state from which implied in all judgments ordering reinstatement, unless
one has been removed or separated. It is the return to the otherwise expressly ordered by the Court. (NOTE: This
position from which he was removed and assuming again the ruling no longer applies after RA 6715 was enacted on March
functions of the office already held. 21, 1989. See Bustamante vs. NLRC case)
Reinstatement presupposes that the previous position from However, the bank can no longer make deductions because
which one had been removed still exists, or that there is an it has already paid the full amount to Luna. Equity must
unfilled position more or less of similar nature as the one operate in favor of the employee equally as it favors the
previously occupied by the employee. employer.
· Section 4, Rule 1, Book VI of the Implementing Rules Nature: Petition to review the decision of the NLRC.
states that:
FACTS:
“An employee who is separated from work without just cause
should be reinstated to his former position unless such
· Luz Catenza, a high school teacher of Divine Word
position no longer exists, at the time of his reinstatement, in
College, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against her
which case he shall be given a substantially equivalent
employer. In her complaint, Catenza alleged that she went
position in the same establishment without loss of seniority
on a vacation leave but when she tried to report back to
rights.
work, she was informed that she is not anymore allowed to
teach because of the “misdeeds” and “immoral acts” of her
Even though his former position still exists, Luna cannot be husband Pablo, who was then the principal of the same
reinstated as San Juan Branch Manager because such school
position relates to trust and confidence and therefore the
incumbent manager who has already won the company’s
· In its answer to the complaint, the school alleged that
trust and confidence should not be dismissed in favor of
Catenza was dismissed not because of the acts of her
Luna, whose competence and integrity has not been tested.
husband, but because of her own contemporaneous and
subsequent conduct of covering up and concealing the
The fact that Luna had worked for the bank for 22 years immoral acts of her husband. Catenza apparently
without any showing of irregularity in the performance of his threatened to kill Remie Ignacio, the victim of her husband’s
duties DOES NOT prove that he has the trust and confidence immoral acts.
of the bank.
· The Labor Arbiter held that there was illegal dismissal,
· Economic and Business Conditions - The and ordered the reinstatement of Catenza. The NLRC
reinstatement remedy must always be adapted to economic- modified this decision by giving Catenza a choice of whether
business conditions. The bank had to undergo innovations she wanted to be reinstated with full backwages or be
(such as the replacement of management, hiring of new separated from the service with termination pay. (NOTE:
managers) to ensure recovery. To order the reinstatement The NLRC considered the moral repercussions of Catenza’s
of Luna to his former position would undermine the bank’s act which it may have towards the minds of the students of
efforts at recovery the Divine Word, which was a catholic institution. )
Espejo v. NLRC, 255 SCRA 430 (1996) · However, the amount of backwages should only cover
the time when Espejo was illegally dismissed up to the time
when he reached sixty (from October 11, 1989 to January 31,
FACTS:
1990)..
Issues:
Lack of notice only makes termination Ineffectual
Puno, Dissenting
2. No. The SC do not agree that to disregard the notice
requirement by an employer renders the dismissal of
employment null and void. Such a stance is actually a We must immediately set Wenphil in its proper perspective
reversion to the discredited pre-Wenphil rule ordering an as it is a very exceptional case. Its doctrine must be limited
employee to be reinstated and paid backwages when it is to its distinct facts. In Wenphil, it was clearly established that
shown that he has not given notice and hearing although his the employee had a violent temper, caused trouble during
dismissal or layoff is later found to be a just or authorized office hours and even defied his superiors as they tried to
cause. Such rule is abandoned in Wenphil because it is really pacify him. The Labor Arbiter proved that the employee was
unjust to require an employer to keep in his service one who guilty of grave misconduct and insubordination; we
is guilty, for example, of an attempt on the life of the concluded with the rule that it would be highly prejudicial to
the interest of the employer to reinstate the employee, but Employer has a standing policy prohibiting the encashment
the employer must indemnify the employee the amount of of checks of its employees and officials even if endorsed by
P1000.00 for dismissing him without notice. top executives of the company. Employee herein was
terminated for such encashment after she was assured that
the executive VP approved of it. However, it is found that
At the outset, Puno emphasized that Wenphil itself held, and
such prohibition policy has been relaxed and that respondent
repeatedly held that “the failure of petitioner to give private
employer was informed of such encashment but only acted
respondent the benefit of hearing before he was dismissed,
upon it when checks bounced. They are thus estopped from
constitutes an infringement of his constitutional right to due
imposing the penalty of termination. An alleged just cause
process of law and equal protection of the laws.
for termination cannot be used as a shield to dismiss an
employee arbitrarily. (Llosa Tan v. Silahis International Hotel)
Before Wenphil, we protected employees with the ruling that
dismissals without prior notice are illegal and the illegally
Interorient Maritime Enterprises Inc. v. NLRC, 235 SCRA 268
dismissed employee must be reinstated with backwages.
(1994)
Wenphil diluted that rule when it held that due process is
satisfied if the employee is given the opportunity to be heard
by the Labor Arbiter. It further held that an employee cannot FACTS:
be reinstated if it is established in the hearing that his
dismissal is for a just cause. The failure of the employer is for
Captain Tayog was hired by Trenda World Shipping
a just cause. The failure of the employer to give a pre-
and Sea Horse Hip Management Inc thru petitioner as Master
dismissal notice is only to be penalized by payment of an
of the M/V Oceanic Mindoro.
indemnity. The dilution of the rule has been abused by
unscrupulous employers who then followed the “dismiss now,
pay later” strategy. This evil practice of employers was what He was given the instruction to assume the
Puno expected the majority to address in re-examining the command of the vessel at Port of Hongkong where he was to
Wenphil doctrine. At the very least, Puno thought the replenish bunker and diesel fuel and to sail forthwith to
majority would restore the balance of rights between an Richard Bay, South Africa in order to load 120,000 metric
employee and an employer by giving back the employee’s tons of coal. Upon hearing that storm Gordon was
mandatory right to notice before dismissal. to hit Hongkong, Tayog followed up the request for oxygen
and acetylene which were necessary for the repaid of the
turbo-charger and the economizer. The ship’s agent
LLOSA TAN V. SILAHIS INTERNATIOINAL HOTEL
however informed them that the supplies could be delivered
only at 0800 hours, 7 hours after the ETD from the port to
J. ; 1990 Africa. Tayog waited for the supplies and voyage
was delayed. Upon arriving at Richard bay, he was instructed
to turn-over his post to a new captain and thereafter was
FACTS: Was front office cashier of Silahis
repatriated to the Philippines. He was not informed of
International Hotel since November 2, 1976. Since
charges. POEA: validly dismissed NLRC: illegal: no
1977, Corporate Policy No. 014 was issued to minimize
opportunity to be heard, no evidence to prove loss of trust or
losses experienced by company because of checks encashed
confidence
by them which later bounced. Petitioner allegedly
violated said policy when she encashed $1200 check of Mr.
Gayondato, the general cashier of Puerto Azul Beach resort Issue: WON he was validly dismissed
and nephew of EVP. Suatengco ordered petitioner
to explain and also placed her under preventive suspension.
Held: NO
Petitioner wrote a letter of explanation but her
services were nevertheless terminated on October 30, 1982.
LA: illegal dismissal: reinstate NLRC: set aside decision, 1. Confidential employees cannot be arbitrarily dismissed
dismissed complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit at any time, and without cause as reasonably established in
an investigation.
Issue: WON petitioner was validly dismissed on the ground of
gross negligence Ø never informed of charges
1. gross negligence: the want of any right or slight care or Ø he had valid and justifiable reasons for causing the delay
the utter disregard of consequencesà not proven
2. Captains are confidential employees who perform both
2. encashment violated policy but: management and fiduciary functions
b. policy not strictly enforced b. commander and technical director of the vessel
c. superiors were aware: petitioner told Assistant c. representative of the country under whose flag he
manager Grulla who assured her that such is alright navigates
3. The right of employer to freely select or discharge his Azcor Manufacturing v. NLRC, 303 SCRA 26 (1999)
employees is regulated by the state because the
preservation of the lives of the citizens is a basic duty of the
FACTS:
state, more vital than the preservation of corporate profit.
ISSUE/HELD:
- since Azcor was the party who presented the above Castro was hired as manifesting clerk by PAL. Together with
pieces of evidence, it was incumbent upon them to prove a coemployee, he was apprehended by government
their authenticity authorities while about to board a flight en route to
Hongkong in possession of P39,850.00 in violation of a
central bank circular. PAL was informed of the incident, and
after failure of the respondent to explain why he should not
be charged administratively, it placed him on preventive
OSS Security & Allied Services vs. NLRC suspension effective March 27, 1984 for grave misconduct.
His suspension lasted until September 18, 1987 (it was for 3
years and 6 months). PAL found him guilty of the offense
Facts:
charged but decided to reinstate him, with the period within
which he was out of work serving as his penalty for
Legaspi worked as a lady security guard of OSS Security and suspension. Upon reinstatement, he filed a claim against PAL
was assigned at the Vicente Madrigal Condominium II in for the backwages and salary increases granted under the
Ayala Avenue Makati . Due to a memorandum sent by the CBA covering the period of his suspension. PAL denied his
condominium’s administrator to the security agency’s claim.
president, Legaspi and another lady guard were relieved of
their assignments in the condominium. The memorandum
Labor Arbiter – PAL should pay complainant his salaries and
contained a complaint (about the laxity of the guards
benefits from April 26, 1984 up to September 18, 1987 .
assigned in the condo in enforcing security measures, their
alleged falsification of logbook entries, and the dissemination
of intrigues among the employees) and a request for the NLRC – affirmed LA
reorganization of the personnel and replacement of some
women complement.
Issue: WON respondent who was preventively suspended for
more than 30 days is entitled to backwages and salary
Legaspi was detailed to Minami International Corp in Taytay increases granted under the CBA for the period beyond the
Rizal to replace a lady guard going on vacation leave. But 30 day limit imposed by law
she did not report for work and 3 days after she was
informed of her new assignment, she filed a complaint for
Held: Yes, for the period beyond the first 30 days of the
underpayment and constructive dismissal.
suspension, he is entitled to the backwages and salary
increases.
Sec 3 and 4, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing impair at least 25% of paid-up capital). This criterion, Nasipit
the Labor Code is clear that preventive suspension cannot failed to meet.
last longer than 30 days. The employer may extend the - Further, by exempting all establishments in a distressed
period of suspension provided that during the period of industry, RTWPB takes away the mandated increase in
extension, he pays the wages and other benefits due to the minimum wage awarded to affected workers, which is
workers. SC affirmed the decision of the LA and NLRC. against declared State policy to rationalize fixing of minimum
wage.
-Thus, Guideline No. 3 is void, not only because it lacks
NWPC approval and contains an arbitrarily inserted
exemption, but also because it is inconsistent with avowed
Sate policies protective of labor.
EXTRA:
- Further, stevedoring charges were collected from shippers
themselves; Escano is not the one obliged to pay such
charges.
- With regard to payment of backwages (because some
stevedores were not allowed to work certain jobs and thus
denied a share in the price therefor), vacation and sick leave,
accident, insurance, etc., the Court held that these must be
sought through labor organizations by collective bargaining.