History

of Labor in the Philippines board from enforcing the minimum wage In a 5-3 vote, the court ruled that minimum
statute stating that it violated the Fifth wage laws for women are unconstitutional
Adkins vs Children’s Hospital (261 U.S. 525) Amendment Due Process Clause. because they interfere with the liberty of
(1923) contract guaranteed by the Fifth and
Both cases were affirmed by the supreme Fourteenth Amendments. The decision of
This was a U.S. Supreme Court case that Court of the District of Columbia. The Court
dealt with the constitutionality of a District of Columbia’s supreme court was
of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s affirmed.
minimum wage for women and children. decision. After rehearing in 1922, the
Background: This case was a part of the decision was reversed and a divided bench
Lochner Era cases which involved using went on to declare the law
unconstitutional. After more appeals the
substantive due process for constitutional
interpretation. In 1918, Congress case went to the Supreme Court of the G.R. No. L-22008 November 3, 1924
United States on March 4th, 1923 and was
established a price-fixing law that would
create a minimum wage for all women and decided April 9th, 1923. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
children in the District of Columbia. D.C’s plaintiff-appellee, vs. JULIO POMAR,
ISSUE: defendant-appellant.
Children’s Hospital brought a suit against
the wage board that was appointed to set Is the statute establishing a minimum wage FACTS:
the wage, which was headed by Adkins. for women and children in D.C.
They claimed that the statute violated the constitutional? Pomar is the manager and person in charge
freedom of contract found in the Due of La Flor de la Isabela, a tobacco factory
Process Clause of the 5th Amendment. The RULING: pertaining to La Campania General de
Supreme Court struck down the law The Court makes it clear that Liberty of Tabacos de Filipinas, a corporation duly
because it provided the same wages Contract is in fact protected by the authorized to transact business in Manila.
regardless of occupation and prohibited constitution because “the parties have an
women from being able to practice their One of his cigar makers, Macaria Fajardo,
equal right to obtain from each other the was allowed to have a vacation leave due to
5th Amendment right of freedom of best terms they can as the result of private
contract. The court also stated that the her pregnancy.
bargaining.” The court also cites a variety of
statute gave favor to women over men,
cases to show that the recently passed 19th However, Pomar did not pay her the wages
which was no longer necessary in light of Amendment is a “vanishing point” for she is entitled to corresponding to 30 days
the 19th Amendment. inequality among men and women. The before and 30 days after giving birth and
FACTS: court does however recognize that there is her confinement pursuant to Can No. 3071.
a difference between the physicality of men Despite demands made by Fajardo, Pomar
Willie Lyons was a 21 years old elevator and women but state that “women of still refused to pay.
operator who worked at the Congress Hall mature age” should not be stripped of their
Hotel in Washington DC. Lyons did not have ability to negotiate the terms of their jobs if Manila City Prosecutor charged defendant
any complaints or have any grievances with the same would not be done to men in a for violation of section 13 in connection
her job which she thought was easy, similar situation. The difference between with section 15 of Act No. 3071 of the
provided flexible hours, 2 meals a day and placing a limit on the number of hours an Philippine Legislature. Section 13 of Act No.
excellent working conditions. On employee can work and the amount of 3071 is as follows:
September 19, 1918, Congress passed a law money an employee can make is also Every person, firm or corporation owning or
establishing the District of Columbia mentioned. The court states that limiting managing a factory, shop or place of labor
Minimum Wage Board. This statute set the the amount of hours that a person works of any description shall be obliged to grant
minimum wage paid to any woman or child does not affect their ability to negotiate
to any woman employed by it as laborer
working in the nation’s capital based on wages as setting a minimum wage does.
who may be pregnant, thirty days vacation
what job they were performing. The law The court feels that the board appointed
with pay before and another thirty days
stated that women working in a place doesn’t take into consideration the after confinement: Provided, That the
where food is served should receive 16.50 a individual circumstances of the women that employer shall not discharge such laborer
week or more, and those who work in a the statute affects, it only takes into without just cause, under the penalty of
place such as a laundry mat would receive consideration what the board was able to being required to pay to her wages
15.00 a week. Based on this statute Lyons agree on and it applies to every occupation
equivalent to the total of two months
had to resign/be terminated or the no matter how much work it requires. The
counted from the day of her discharge.
Congress Hall Hotel would face legal issues. statute takes into consideration the needs
of the employee and not the employer. It Section 15 of the same Act is as follows:
First case: Willie Lyons petitioned the court doesn’t consider if the employer has
for an injunction under Jesse Adkins, enough money to pay the wage and the Any person, firm or corporation violating
arguing that she could not acquire a better negative effects that the penalties from the any of the provisions of this Act shall be
job with the salary she was receiving statute will have on the employer. The punished by a fine of not less than fifty
($35.00 a month). majority found that due to these reasons, a pesos nor more than two hundred and fifty,
minimum wage law is unconstitutional. or by imprisonment for not less than ten
Second case: The Children’s Hospital of the
District of Columbia sued to refrain the
days nor more than six months, or both, in shop or place of labor of any description the establishment of minimum wages for
the discretion of the court. within the Philippine Islands, of his right to women was constitutional. Echoing Muller
enter into contracts of employment upon v. Oregon (1908), the majority ruled that
In the case of firms or corporations, the such terms as he and the employee may the state may use its police power to
presidents, directors or managers thereof agree upon. The law creates a term in every restrict the individual freedom to contract.
or, in their default, the persons acting in such contract, without the consent of the The decision overruled Adkins and marked
their stead, shall be criminally responsible parties. Such persons are, therefore, the Court's departure from the expansive
for each violation of the provisions of this deprived of their liberty to contract. The view of the freedom to contract. The
Act. constitution of the Philippine Islands decision is generally regarded as having
The defendant demurred stating that the guarantees to every citizen his liberty and ended the Lochner era, a period in
facts did not constitute an offense. The one of his liberties is the liberty to contract. American legal history in which the
Supreme Court tended to invalidate
demurrer was overruled. The defendant
then questioned the constitutionality of Act legislation aimed at regulating business.
No. 3071. RATIO:
CA found defendant guilty. WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH(1937) That freedom of contract is a qualified, and
Said section 13 was enacted by the FACTS: not an absolute, right. There is no absolute
Legislature of the Philippine Islands in the freedom to do as one wills or to contract as
exercise of its supposed police power, with The appellant conducts a hotel. The one chooses. The guaranty of liberty does
appellee Elsie Parrish was employed as a not withdraw from legislative supervision
the praiseworthy purpose of safeguarding
the health of pregnant women laborers in chambermaid and (with her husband) that wide department of activity which
"factory, shop or place of labor of any brought this suit to recover the difference consists of the making of contracts, or deny
description," and of insuring to them, to a between the wages paid her and the to government the power to provide
certain extent, reasonable support for one minimum wage fixed pursuant to the state restrictive safeguards. Liberty implies the
month before and one month after their law. The minimum wage was $14.50 per absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity
delivery. week of 48 hours. The appellant challenged from reasonable regulations and
the act as repugnant to the due process prohibitions imposed in the interests of the
ISSUE: clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of community.
the Constitution of the United States.
WoN Act No. 3071 is a valid exercise of The fact 'that both parties are of full age,
Police power. The appellant relies upon the decision of and competent to contract, does not
this Court in Adkins v. Children's Hospital necessarily deprive the state of the power
RULING: It’s a No. which held invalid the District of Columbia to interfere, where the parties do not stand
The provisions of section 13 of Act No. 3071 Minimum Wage Act (40 Stat. 960) which upon an equality, or where the public heath
was attacked under the due process clause demands that one party to the contract
were held unconstitutional and void for it
of the Fifth Amendment. shall be protected against himself.' 'The
violates the constitutional right to liberty of
state still retains an interest in his welfare,
the employer and employee in accordance On the argument at bar, counsel for the
to their own terms and the liberty to however reckless he may be. The whole is
appellees attempted to distinguish the no greater than the sum of all the parts, and
contract. Adkins Case upon the ground that the when the individual health, safety, and
In section 13 it will be seen that no person, appellee was employed in a hotel and that welfare are sacrificed or neglected, the
firm, or corporation owning or managing a the business of an innkeeper was affected state must suffer.
factory shop, or place of labor of any with a public interest. That effort at
distinction is obviously futile, as it appears Lastly, the paternalistic rhetoric of this
description, can make a contract with a
that in one of the cases ruled by the Adkins decision is based on the belief that women,
woman without incurring the obligation,
whatever the contract of employment opinion the employee was a woman as the weaker gender, need to be protected
might be, unless he also promise to pay to employed as an elevator operator in a from exploitation and do not have as much
such woman employed as a laborer, who hotel. freedom to contract their labor as men do.
may become pregnant, her wages for thirty The Court also observed that the minimum
ISSUE: wage removes the burden on the state of
days before and thirty days after
financially supporting workers who have
confinement. In other words, said section The case presents the question of the
jobs but cannot support themselves
creates a term or condition in every constitutional validity of the minimum
contract made by every person, firm, or wage law of the state of Washington because of inadequate income.
corporation with any woman who may, entitled 'Minimum Wages for Women,'
during the course of her employment, authorizes the fixing of minimum wages for
become pregnant, and a failure to include women and minors.
in said contract the terms fixed to a fine and
imprisonment. Clearly, therefore, the law RULING:
has deprived, every person, firm, or In a 5-to-4 decision written by Justice
corporation owning or managing a factory,
Charles Evans Hughes, the Court held that
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE and enterprise, like all other freedoms, is detrimental and hazardous, requested for a
EXPORTERS, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. not free from restrictions, more so in this grievance conference. As none was
FRANKLIN M. DRILON as Secretary of Labor jurisdiction, where laissez faire has never arranged, they grouped together after the
and Employment, and TOMAS D. been fully accepted as a controlling end of their work that day with other
ACHACOSO, as Administrator of the economic way of life. employees and marched directly to the
Philippine Overseas Employment management's office to protest its long
Administration, respondents. The concern of the Government, however, silence and inaction on their complaints.
is not necessarily to maintain profits of
FACTS: business firms. In the ordinary sequence of private respondents were dismissed for
events, it is profits that suffer as a result of violation of company rules and regulations,
Petitioner Phil Ass of Serv Exporters a firm Government regulation. The interest of the more specifically of the provisions on
engaged principally in the recruitment of State is to provide a decent living to its security and public order and on inciting or
Filipino workers, male and female, for citizens. participating in illegal strikes or concerted
overseas placement filed this petition to the actions.
supreme court challenging the
constitutional validity of Department Order Private respondents lost no time in filing a
No. 1 which suspended the deployment of complaint for illegal dismissal against
Filipino women overseas workers to III. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS - IN petitioner and Mr. Gavino Bayan with the
particular countries because of work GENERAL - ARTICLE II SECS. 5,18 regional office of the NLRC
related violence and sexual harassment.
After due trial, Labor Arbiter Felipe
Petitioner contends that such order Garduque ordered petitioner to reinstate
violated right of freedom to contract labor. ARIS INC v NLRC within ten (10) days from receipt hereof,
herein complainants
ISSUE:
complainants (herein private respondents)
Whether or not such assailed order is Petitioner assails the constitutionality of filed a Motion For Issuance of a Writ of
violative of the constitution. the amendment introduced by Section 12 Execution
of Republic Act No. 6715 to Article 223 of
RULING: the Labor Code of the Philippines (PD No. petitioner filed its Appeal and Opposition
442, as amended) allowing execution alleging that Section 12 of R.A. No. 6715 on
No.
pending appeal of the reinstatement aspect execution pending appeal cannot be
The Constitution declares that: of a decision of a labor arbiter reinstating a applied retroactively and that allowing so
dismissed or separated employee and of will put additional burden to the employer
Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection Section 2 of the NLRC Interim Rules on and would also dilute its right to appeal
to labor, local and overseas, organized and Appeals under R.A. No. 6715 implementing since it would be burdened with the
unorganized, and promote full employment the same. consequences of reinstatement without
and equality of employment opportunities the benefit of a final judgment. That said
for all. SEC 12. Article 223 of the same code is portion also violates the due process clause
amended to read as follows: of the Constitution in that it is oppressive
"Protection to labor" does not signify the
promotion of employment alone. What ART. 223. Appeal. and unreasonable. It argues that a
concerns the Constitution more reinstatement pending appeal negates the
paramountly is that such an employment x x x x x x x x x right of the employer to self-protection for
be above all, decent, just, and humane. It is it has been ruled that an employer cannot
In any event, the decision of the Labor be compelled to continue in employment
bad enough that the country has to send its Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated an employee guilty of acts inimical to the
sons and daughters to strange lands employee, in so far as the reinstatement interest of the employer; the right of an
because it cannot satisfy their employment aspect is concerned, shall immediately be
needs at home. Under these circumstances, employer to dismiss is consistent with the
executory, even pending appeal. The legal truism that the law, in protecting the
the Government is duty-bound to insure employee shall either be admitted back to
that our toiling expatriates have adequate rights of the laborer, authorizes neither the
work under the same terms and conditions oppression nor the destruction of the
protection, personally and economically, prevailing prior to his dismissal or employer.
while away from home. In this case, the separation or, at the option of the
Government has evidence, an evidence the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. the Labor Arbiter issued an Order granting
petitioner cannot seriously dispute, of the The posting of a bond by the employer shall the motion for execution and the issuance
lack or inadequacy of such protection, and of a partial writ of execution10 as far as
not stay the execution for reinstatement
as part of its duty, it has precisely ordered provided therein. reinstatement of herein complainants is
an indefinite ban on deployment. concerned in consonance with the
1988, private respondents, who were provision of Section 2 of the rules
The non-impairment clause of the employees of petitioner, aggrieved by particularly the last sentence thereof.
Constitution, invoked by the petitioner, management's failure to attend to their
must yield to the loftier purposes targetted complaints concerning their working Unable to accept the above Order,
by the Government. Freedom of contract surroundings which had become petitioner filed the instant petition
 with him in accordance with Sec. 12, Rule 3, As to the BILL's title
Rules of Court, petitioners-appellants,
ISSUE:
vs. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION and
W/N the provision under RA 6715 Sec 12 is ADMINISTRATOR OF ECONOMIC No violation.
constitutional COORDINATION, respondents-appellees.
To lend approval to such a plea is to
FERNANDO, J.: construe the above constitutional provision
as to cripple or impede proper legislation.
RULING: FACTS: To impart to it a meaning which is
YES. The provision is constitutional. reasonable and not unduly technical, it
Alalayan and Philippine Power and must be deemed sufficient that the title be
Development Company (who later on comprehensive enough reasonably to
withdrew from the case) are franchise include the general object which the
These provisions are the quintessence of holders of electric plants in Laguna. statute seeks to effect without expressing
the aspirations of the workingman for each and every end and means necessary
In this petition, petitioner Alalayan
recognition of his role in the social and for its accomplishment. Thus, mere details
economic life of the nation, for the challenges the validity of a section of an
amendatory act,empowering respondent need not be set forth. The legislature is not
protection of his rights, and the promotion required to make the title of the act a
of his welfare. the State is mandated to National Power Corporation "in any
contract for the supply of electric power to complete index of its contents. The
afford full protection to labor, local and provision merely calls for all parts of an act
overseas, organized and unorganized, and a franchise holder," receiving at least 50%
relating to its subject finding expression in
promote full employment and equality of of its electric power and energy from it to
require as a condition that such franchise its title.18 More specifically, if the law
employment opportunities for all; to amends a section or part of a statute, it
guarantee the rights of all workers to self- holder "shall not realize a net profit of more
than twelve percent annually of its suffices if reference be made to the
organization, collective bargaining and legislation to be amended, there being no
negotiations, and peaceful concerted investments plus two-month operating
expenses." Respondent, under such need to state the precise nature of the
activities, including the right to strike in amendment.
accordance with law, security of tenure, provision, could likewise "renew all existing
human conditions of work, and a living contracts with franchise holders for the
supply of electric power and energy," so
wage.
that the provisions of the Act could be given As to deprivation of the liberty to contract
effect. This statutory provision was assailed without due process of law
on the ground that, being a rider, it is
Laws are presumed constitutional.24The violative of the constitutional provision
validity of the questioned law is a valid requiring that a bill, which may be enacted
exercise of the police power of the State. NO violation
into law, cannot embrace more than one
Then, by and pursuant to the same power, subject, which shall be expressed in its The due process objection is sought to be
the State may authorize an immediate title,3 as well as the due process guarantee, bolstered by an allegation that such power
implementation, pending appeal, of a the liberty to contract of petitioners being conferred in the challenged legislation to
decision reinstating a dismissed or infringed upon. limit the net profits to "12% annually of
separated employee since that saving act is [petitioner's] investments plus two-month
designed to stop, although temporarily operating expenses" has a confiscatory
since the appeal may be decided in favor of aspect. This argument has the ring of
the appellant, a continuing threat or danger This is all in pursuant to RA 3043 and the
amendments it offered to RA 2641. futility. Precisely, in Manila Electric Co. v.
to the survival or even the life of the Public Service Commission,49 this Court in
dismissed or separated employee and its The Lower Court sustained the validity and an opinion by the present Chief Justice
family. constitutionality of the challenged upheld such a figure as against the
provision. HENCE, this appeal. contention that it was rather too generous
to the public utility. To speak of it as
the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of confiscatory then is to employ the language
merit ISSUE: by hyperbole. Moreover, in the absence any
evidence to demonstrate the alleged
WHETHER OR NOT RA 3043 IS confiscatory effect of the provision in
CONSTITUTIONAL question, there would be no basis for its

nullification, in view of the well-known
presumption of validity that every statute
G.R. No. L-24396 July 29, 1968
RULING: has in its favor.
SANTIAGO P. ALALAYAN, ET AL., suing in his
behalf and for the benefit of all other YES
persons having common or general interest
The WELFARE STATE CONCEPT is not alien
to the philosophy of our Constitution. It is
implicit in quite a few of its provisions. It The Chairman of the National Traffic may at least be approximated. Social justice
suffices to mention two. Commission on July 18, 1940 means the promotion of the welfare of all
recommended to the Director of Public the people, the adoption by the
There is the clause on the promotion of Works with the approval of the Secretary of Government of measures calculated to
social justice to ensure the well-being and Public Works the adoption of the measure insure economic stability of all the
economic security of all the people,28 as proposed in the resolution aforementioned competent elements of society, through
well as the pledge of protection to labor in pursuance of the provisions of the the maintenance of a proper economic and
with the specific authority to regulate the Commonwealth Act No. 548 which social equilibrium in the interrelations of
relations between landowners and tenants authorizes said Director with the approval the members of the community,
and between labor and capital.29 This from the Secretary of the Public Works and constitutionally, through the adoption of
particularized reference to the rights of Communication to promulgate rules and measures legally justifiable, or extra-
working men whether in industry and regulations to regulate and control the use constitutionally, through the exercise of
agriculture certainly cannot preclude of and traffic on national roads. powers underlying the existence of all
attention to and concern for the rights of governments on the time honored principle
consumers, who are the objects of of salus populi est suprema lex.
solicitude in the legislation now complained
of. The police power as an attribute to On August 2, 1940, the Director
promote the common weal would be recommended to the Secretary the
diluted considerably of its reach and approval of the recommendations made by Social justice, therefore, must be founded
effectiveness if on the mere plea that the the Chairman of the National Traffic on the recognition of the necessity of
liberty to contract would be restricted, the Commission with modifications. The interdependence among divers and diverse
statute complained of may be Secretary of Public Works approved the units of a society and of the protection that
characterized as a denial of due process. recommendations on August 10,1940. The should be equally and evenly extended to
The right to property cannot be pressed to Mayor of Manila and the Acting Chief of all groups as a combined force in our social
such an unreasonable extreme. Police of Manila have enforced and caused and economic life, consistent with the
to be enforced the rules and regulation. As fundamental and paramount objective of
PETITION DISMISSED a consequence, all animal-drawn vehicles the state of promoting the health, comfort,
are not allowed to pass and pick up and quiet of all persons, and of bringing
passengers in the places above mentioned about "the greatest good to the greatest
to the detriment not only of their owners number. the writ of prohibition prayed for
but of the riding public as well. is hereby denied.
MAXIMO CALALANG vs A. D. WILLIAMS, ET
AL.,

G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940 The petitioner avers that the rules and
regulations complained of infringe upon the
Doctrine: Social Justice constitutional precept regarding the G.R. No. 148208 December 15, 2004
promotion of social justice to insure the CENTRAL BANK (now Bangko Sentral ng
well-being and economic security of all the Pilipinas) EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC.,
LAUREL, J.: people. petitioner, vs. BANGKO SENTRAL NG
PILIPINAS and the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
FACTS: respondents.
The National Traffic Commission, in its ISSUES:
FACTS:
resolution of July 17, 1940, resolved to 1. Whether the rules and regulations
recommend to the Director of the Public complained of infringe upon the On July 3, 1993, R.A. No. 7653 (the New
Works and to the Secretary of Public Works constitutional precept regarding the Central Bank Act) took effect. It abolished
and Communications that animal-drawn promotion of social justice to insure the the old Central Bank of the Philippines, and
vehicles be prohibited from passing along well-being and economic security of all the created a new BSP.
the following for a period of one year from people?
the date of the opening of the Colgante On June 8, 2001, almost eight years after
Bridge to traffic: the effectivity of R.A. No. 7653, petitioner
filed a petition for prohibition against BSP
1. Rosario Street extending from RULING: No. The promotion of social and the Executive Secretary of the Office of
Plaza Calderon de la Barca to Dasmariñas justice, however, is to be achieved not the President, to restrain respondents from
Street from 7:30 Am to 12:30 pm and from through a mistaken sympathy towards any further implementing the last proviso in
1:30 pm to 530 pm; given group. Social justice is "neither Section 15(c), Article II of R.A. No. 7653, on
communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, the ground that it is unconstitutional.
2. and along Rizal Avenue extending nor anarchy," but the humanization of laws
from the railroad crossing at Antipolo Street and the equalization of social and economic Section 15(c), Article II of R.A. No. 7653
to Echague Street from 7 am to 11pm. forces by the State so that justice in its provides that:
rational and objectively secular conception
Section 15. Exercise of Authority - In the within the BSP subject to prevailing laws The subsequent grant to the rank-and-file
exercise of its authority, the Monetary and policies of the national government. of the seven other GFIs and continued
Board shall: denial to the BSP rank-and-file employees
ISSUE: of the exemption from SSL breached the
(c) establish a human resource latter’s right to equal protection. The equal
management system which shall govern the WoN the last paragraph of Section 15(c),
Article II of R.A. No. 7653, runs afoul of the protection clause does not demand
selection, hiring, appointment, transfer, absolute equality but it requires that all
promotion, or dismissal of all personnel. constitutional mandate that "No person
shall be. . . denied the equal protection of persons shall be treated alike, under like
Such system shall aim to establish circumstances and conditions both as to
professionalism and excellence at all levels the laws."
privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.
of the Bangko Sentral in accordance with RULING: Yes.
sound principles of management.
Equal protection clause does not prevent
A compensation structure, based on job
the Legislature from establishing classes of
evaluation studies and wage surveys and individuals or objects upon which different
subject to the Board's approval, shall be G.R. No. 148208 December 15, 2004
rules shall operate – so long as the
instituted as an integral component of the classification is not unreasonable. Equality CENTRAL BANK (now Bangko Sentral ng
Bangko Sentral's human resource of operation of statutes does not mean Pilipinas) EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC.,
development program: Provided, That the indiscriminate operation on persons petitioner, vs. BANGKO SENTRAL NG
Monetary Board shall make its own system themselves, but on persons according to PILIPINAS and the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
conform as closely as possible with the
the circumstances surrounding them. It respondents.
principles provided for under Republic Act guarantees equality, not identity of rights.
No. 6758 [Salary Standardization Act]. FACTS:
Provided, however, That compensation and In the case at bar, it is clear in the legislative
wage structure of employees whose deliberations that the exemption of officers On July 3, 1993, R.A. No. 7653 (the New
positions fall under salary grade 19 and (SG 20 and above) from the SSL was Central Bank Act) took effect. It abolished
below shall be in accordance with the rates intended to address the BSP’s lack of the old Central Bank of the Philippines, and
prescribed under Republic Act No. 6758. competitiveness in terms of attracting created a new BSP.
competent officers and executives. It was On June 8, 2001, almost eight years after
Petitioners are questioning the not intended to discriminate against the
constitutionality of the said provision since the effectivity of R.A. No. 7653, petitioner
rank-and-file and the resulting filed a petition for prohibition against BSP
it makes an unconstitutional cut between discrimination or distinction has a rational
two classes of employees in the BSP: (1) the and the Executive Secretary of the Office of
basis and is not palpably, purely, and the President, to restrain respondents from
BSP officers or those exempted from the entirely arbitrary in the legislative sense.
coverage of the Salary Standardization Law further implementing the last proviso in
However, in the subsequent passages of Section 15(c), Article II of R.A. No. 7653, on
(exempt class); and (2) the rank-and-file
the amendment on the charters of other the ground that it is unconstitutional.
(Salary Grade [SG] 19 and below), or those GFI, the surrounding circumstances of the
not exempted from the coverage of the SSL case changed. Section 15(c), Article II of R.A. No. 7653
(non-exempt class). provides that:
The subsequent amendments of the other
Petitioners contend that for classification, GFIs’ charter (i.e., express authorization to Section 15. Exercise of Authority - In the
to be valid, must (1) rest on substantial determine and institute its own exercise of its authority, the Monetary
distinctions, (2) be germane to the purpose compensation and wage structure, and Board shall:
of the law, (3) not be limited to existing
explicit exemption – without distinction as
conditions only, and (4) apply equally to all to salary grade or position – all employees (c) establish a human resource
members of the same class. It is contended of the GFI from the SSL) resulted to the management system which shall govern the
that BSP’s classification is "a classic case of oppressive results of Congress’ inconsistent selection, hiring, appointment, transfer,
class legislation," allegedly not based on and unequal policy towards the BSP rank- promotion, or dismissal of all personnel.
substantial distinctions which make real and-file and those of the seven other GFI. In Such system shall aim to establish
differences, but solely on the Salary Grade the case at bar, it is precisely the fact that professionalism and excellence at all levels
of the BSP personnel's position. of the Bangko Sentral in accordance with
as regards the exemption from the SSL,
there are no characteristics peculiar only to sound principles of management.
petitioner posits that the classification is
not reasonable but arbitrary and capricious, the seven GFIs or their rank-and-file so as to
A compensation structure, based on job
and violates the equal protection clause of justify the exemption which BSP rank-and-
evaluation studies and wage surveys and
the Constitution. file employees were denied (not to mention subject to the Board's approval, shall be
the anomaly of the SEC getting one). The instituted as an integral component of the
The OSG supported the defendants that the distinction made by the law is not only Bangko Sentral's human resource
classification is based on actual and real superficial, but also arbitrary. It is not based development program: Provided, That the
differentiation, even as it adheres to the on substantial distinctions that make real
Monetary Board shall make its own system
enunciated policy of R.A. No. 7653 to differences between the BSP rank-and-file
conform as closely as possible with the
establish professionalism and excellence and the seven other GFIs.
principles provided for under Republic Act
No. 6758 [Salary Standardization Act]. In the case at bar, it is clear in the legislative (ART 2 SECT 18, NOT MEAN TO OPPRESS
Provided, however, That compensation and deliberations that the exemption of officers EMPLOYERS)
wage structure of employees whose (SG 20 and above) from the SSL was
positions fall under salary grade 19 and intended to address the BSP’s lack of FACTS:
below shall be in accordance with the rates competitiveness in terms of attracting
Private respondent Riviera Home
prescribed under Republic Act No. 6758. competent officers and executives. It was Improvements, Inc. is engaged in the
not intended to discriminate against the business of selling and installing
Petitioners are questioning the rank-and-file and the resulting
constitutionality of the said provision since ornamental and construction materials. It
discrimination or distinction has a rational employed petitioners Virgilio Agabon and
it makes an unconstitutional cut between basis and is not palpably, purely, and
two classes of employees in the BSP: (1) the Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice
entirely arbitrary in the legislative sense. installers. They were dismissed for
BSP officers or those exempted from the However, in the subsequent passages of
coverage of the Salary Standardization Law abandonment of work. Petitioners then
the amendment on the charters of other filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and
(exempt class); and (2) the rank-and-file GFI, the surrounding circumstances of the
(Salary Grade [SG] 19 and below), or those payment of money claims, the Labor Arbiter
case changed. rendered a decision declaring the dismissals
not exempted from the coverage of the SSL
(non-exempt class). The subsequent amendments of the other illegal and ordered private respondent to
GFIs’ charter (i.e., express authorization to pay the monetary claim,reinstatement to
Petitioners contend that for classification, determine and institute its own pay them their separation pay of one (1)
to be valid, must (1) rest on substantial compensation and wage structure, and month for every year of service Respondent
distinctions, (2) be germane to the purpose explicit exemption – without distinction as is further ordered to pay the complainants
of the law, (3) not be limited to existing to salary grade or position – all employees their holiday pay and service incentive leave
conditions only, and (4) apply equally to all of the GFI from the SSL) resulted to the pay as well as their premium pay for
members of the same class. It is contended oppressive results of Congress’ inconsistent holidays and rest days and Virgilio Agabon's
that BSP’s classification is "a classic case of and unequal policy towards the BSP rank- 13th month pay.
class legislation," allegedly not based on and-file and those of the seven other GFI. In
substantial distinctions which make real On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor
the case at bar, it is precisely the fact that
differences, but solely on the Salary Grade Arbiter because it found that the
as regards the exemption from the SSL, petitioners had abandoned their work, and
of the BSP personnel's position. there are no characteristics peculiar only to were not entitled to backwages and
petitioner posits that the classification is the seven GFIs or their rank-and-file so as to separation pay. The other money claims
not reasonable but arbitrary and capricious, justify the exemption which BSP rank-and- awarded by the Labor Arbiter were also
and violates the equal protection clause of file employees were denied (not to mention denied for lack of evidence. petitioners filed
the Constitution. the anomaly of the SEC getting one). The a petition for certiorari with the Court of
distinction made by the law is not only
Appeals. Petitioners assert that they were
The OSG supported the defendants that the superficial, but also arbitrary. It is not based dismissed because the private respondent
classification is based on actual and real on substantial distinctions that make real refused to give them assignments unless
differentiation, even as it adheres to the differences between the BSP rank-and-file they agreed to work on a "pakyaw"
enunciated policy of R.A. No. 7653 to and the seven other GFIs. basis.They did not agree on this
establish professionalism and excellence arrangement because it would mean losing
within the BSP subject to prevailing laws The subsequent grant to the rank-and-file
of the seven other GFIs and continued benefits as Social Security System (SSS)
and policies of the national government. members. Petitioners also claim that
denial to the BSP rank-and-file employees
of the exemption from SSL breached the private respondent did not comply with the
ISSUE:
latter’s right to equal protection. The equal twin requirements of notice and hearing.
WoN the last paragraph of Section 15(c), protection clause does not demand Private respondent, on the other hand,
Article II of R.A. No. 7653, runs afoul of the absolute equality but it requires that all maintained that petitioners were not
constitutional mandate that "No person persons shall be treated alike, under like dismissed but had abandoned their work. In
shall be. . . denied the equal protection of circumstances and conditions both as to fact, private respondent sent two letters to
the laws." privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. the last known addresses of the petitioners
advising them to report for work. Private
RULING: Yes. respondent's manager even talked to
petitioner Virgilio Agabon by telephone to
Equal protection clause does not prevent
the Legislature from establishing classes of tell him about the new assignment at Pacific
individuals or objects upon which different [G.R. NO. 158693 : November 17, 2004] Plaza Towers. However, petitioners did not
rules shall operate – so long as the report for work because they had
classification is not unreasonable. Equality JENNY M. AGABON and VIRGILIO C. subcontracted to perform installation work
AGABON, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR for another company. Petitioners also
of operation of statutes does not mean
RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), RIVIERA demanded for an increase in their wage to
indiscriminate operation on persons
HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. and VICENTE P280.00 per day. When this was not
themselves, but on persons according to
the circumstances surrounding them. It ANGELES, Respondents. granted, petitioners stopped reporting for
guarantees equality, not identity of rights. work and filed the illegal dismissal case.
 The constitutional policy to provide full Salazar filed a petition for illegal dismissal in
protection to labor is not meant to be a the NLRC. NLRC ruled in her favor and
RULING: sword to oppress employers. The ordered her reinstatement with
commitment of this Court to the cause of backwages.
labor does not prevent us from sustaining
the employer when it is in the right, as in Petitioner filed certiorari to SC contending
To dismiss an employee, the law requires
not only the existence of a just and valid this case.32 Certainly, an employer should grave abuse of discretion.
cause but also enjoins the employer to give not be compelled to pay employees for ISSUE:
the employee the opportunity to be heard work not actually performed and in fact
and to defend himself.Abandonment is the abandoned. Whether or not the preventive suspension
deliberate and unjustified refusal of an and dismissal of the respondent proper in
employee to resume his employment.14 It The employer should not be compelled to this case?
continue employing a person who is
is a form of neglect of duty, hence, a just
cause for termination of employment by admittedly guilty of misfeasance or RULING:
the employer.15 For a valid finding of malfeasance and whose continued
employment is patently inimical to the On preventive suspension Proper
abandonment, these two factors should be
present: (1) the failure to report for work or employer. The law protecting the rights of Thus, it is not correct to conclude that
absence without valid or justifiable reason; the laborer authorizes neither oppression petitioner GMCR had violated Salazar's
and (2) a clear intention to sever employer- nor self-destruction of the employer.33 right to due process when she was
employee relationship.Subcontracting for It must be stressed that in the present case, promptly suspended. If at all, the fault, lay
another company clearly showed the the petitioners committed a grave offense, with private respondent when she ignored
intention to sever the employer-employee i.e., abandonment, which, if the petitioner's memorandum of October 8,
relationship with private respondent. requirements of due process were 1984 "giving her ample opportunity to
complied with, would undoubtedly result in present (her) side to the Management."
After establishing that the terminations Instead, she went directly to the Labor
were for a just and valid cause, we now a valid dismissal.
Department and filed her complaint for
determine if the procedures for dismissal An employee who is clearly guilty of illegal suspension without giving her
were observed.Procedurally, (1) if the conduct violative of Article 282 should not employer a chance to evaluate her side of
dismissal is based on a just cause under be protected by the Social Justice Clause of the controversy.
Article 282, the employer must give the the Constitution. Social justice, as the term
employee two written notices and a suggests, should be used only to correct an On dismissal Illegal
hearing or opportunity to be heard if injustice.
requested by the employee before Art. 279 of the Labor Code, as amended,
terminating the employment provides:

The dismissal should be upheld because it Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular

was established that the petitioners employment, the employer shall not
abandoned their jobs to work for another GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO terminate the services of an employee
company. Private respondent, however, did CORPORATION, petitioner, except for a just cause or when authorized
not follow the notice requirements.The rule by this Title. An employee who is unjustly
vs. dismissed from work shall be entitled to
thus evolved: where the employer had a
valid reason to dismiss an employee but did NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS reinstatement without loss of seniority
not follow the due process requirement, COMMISSION and IMELDA SALAZAR, rights and other privileges and to his full
the dismissal may be upheld but the respondents. backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to
employer will be penalized to pay an his other benefits or their monetary
indemnity to the employee. This became FACTS: equivalent computed from the time his
known as the Wenphil or Belated Due compensation was withheld from him up to
Petitioner Globe Cable is the employer of the time of his actual reinstatement.
Process Rule. respondent Imelda Salazar who was
After carefully analyzing the consequences employed as a general systems analyst. Constitution Provides Article 2
of the divergent doctrines in the law on Salazar was later on preventively Sec. 9. The state shall afford protection to
employment termination, we believe that
suspended from work for being suspected labor, promote full employment and
in cases involving dismissals for cause but
of having close relations to one Delfin equality in employment, ensure equal work
without observance of the twin
Saldivar who was dismissed from work for opportunities regardless of sex, race, or
requirements of notice and hearing, the taking air conditioners for his private use creed, and regulate the relations between
better rule is to abandon the Serrano without the company’s consent and having workers and employers. The State shall
doctrine and to follow Wenphil by holding entered into partnerships with their ensure the rights of workers to self-
that the dismissal was for just cause but supplier corporation. She was ordered to organization, collective bargaining, security
imposing sanctions on the employer.
explain, however failing to do so she was of tenure, and just and humane conditions
RATIO: dismissed from work. of work. The State may provide for
compulsory arbitration.
To be sure, both Charters recognize It had also been established that
"security of tenure" as one of the rights of petitioner's doctors confirmed most of her
labor which the State is mandated to 3rd - 18 absences w/o notice; went to clinic sick leave out of compassion31 and that her
protect. nung nagwork medical records showed that there were
several warnings given her regarding her
To go back to the instant case, there being Reason: Sore eyes & fever but medical cert
shows otherwise (sytem viral infection unconfirmed sick leave.32Thus, her patent
no evidence to show an authorized, much abuse of her sick leave privileges is
less a legal, cause for the dismissal of nakalagay)
detrimental to petitioner's business.
private respondent, she had every right, not Sanction: terminated
only to be entitled to reinstatement, but ay While it is true that compassion and human
well, to full backwages. consideration should guide the disposition
of cases involving termination of
the Labor Arbiter issued its Decision employment since it affects one's source or
ordering PLDT to reinstate the complainant means of livelihood, it should not be

to her former position as telephone overlooked that the benefits accorded to
operator with all the rights, privileges and labor do not include compelling an
benefits appertaining thereto. The Labor employer to retain the services of an
PLDT v BALBASTRO Arbiter gave more credence to the doctor employee who has been shown to be a
who actually attended to private gross liability to the employer. The law in
respondent rather than to the medical protecting the rights of the employees
Amparo Balbastro (private respondent) was opinion of petitioner's doctors authorizes neither oppression nor self-
employed by petitioner in 1978 as its destruction of the employer.33 It should be

telephone operator until her questioned made clear that when the law tilts the scale
dismissal from employment on October 5, Petitioner filed its appeal with the National of justice in favor of labor, it is but a
1989. She was dismissed by petitioner for Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) but recognition of the inherent economic
her absences without authorized leave due affirmed the same inequality between labor and management.
to unconfirmed sick leave on June 28 to July The intent is to balance the scale of justice;
14, 1989, which constituted her third to put the two parties on relatively equal
offense3 punishable by dismissal under positions. There may be cases where the
petitioner filed with us a Petition for
petitioner's rules and regulations. circumstances warrant favoring labor over
Certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a
the interests of management but never
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). we
referred the petition to the CA which should the scale be so tilted if the result is
private respondent filed a Complaint5 with dismissed the petition and affirmed the an injustice to the employer.
the Labor Arbiter against petitioner and its NLRC Decision the instant petition is GRANTED
President, Antonio Cojuangco, for illegal
dismissal, non-payment of salary wage, Hence, petitioner filed the instant Petition
premium pay for rest day, 13th month pay, for Review on Certiorari

and damages ISSUE:

W/N private respondent Balbastro was
Petitioner filed its position paper with validly dismissed [G.R. NO. 143384 : February 4, 2005]
Motion to Dismiss6 alleging that private RULING: DR. ERNESTO I. MAQUILING, Petitioner, v.
respondent's habitual and unjustified PHILIPPINE TUBERCULOSIS SOCIETY, INC.,
absences was a just and valid cause for her YES. Private respondent was validly Respondent.
termination under its rules and regulations dismissed by petitioner.
TINGA, J.:
Under petitioner's Department Order No.
ADM-79-02, for the absence due to an FACTS:
1st - nine absences w/o notice
alleged illness to be considered
unauthorized, without pay, and subject to Dr. Maquiling was dismissed from service as
reason: marital obligations Deputy Executive Director after serving
disciplinary action, it must be shown that
Saction: 18days suspension the medical certificate is forged, altered as Philippine Tuberculosis Society (PTS) for 23
to the date and contents, false as to the years.
facts stated therein, issued by a doctor not The records disclose that Petitioner
2nd - 9 absences w/o notice; w/medical qualified to attend to the patient's illness, received a memo directing him to submit an
cert and there is patent abuse of sick leave explanation on the following matters:
privileges. The penalty for three offenses of
Reason: gastroenteritis unauthorized absences committed within 1. The delayed GSIS remittances;
the three-year period is dismissal.
Sanction: 15days suspension
2. The reported deficit of P7.3 million Under this second requirement, two conducted that will warrant his dismissal
appearing in our financial statement for notices must be sent to the employee who from service if found guilty of charges
1990; is the subject of an investigation for acts specified therein. Thus, such notice fell
which may warrant his eventual dismissal short of the requirement of law that an
3. The expenses you approved and incurred from employment. The notices required employee must be afforded the benefit of
in connection with the Dale Carnegie and before an employee may be validly the two-notice rule in dismissal cases
Silva Mind Control Seminar; dismissed are:
The Agabon doctrine applies in this case.
4. The P3.7 million miscellaneous expenses (a) a written notice served on the employee The Agabon doctrine enunciates the rule
appearing in our financial statement; specifying the grounds for termination and that if the dismissal is for just cause but
andcralawlibrary giving the employee reasonable statutory due process was not observed,
5. Your reasons for renewing our service opportunity to explain his/her side; the dismissal should be upheld. While the
procedural infirmity cannot be cured, it
contract with Ultra. (b) a hearing or conference wherein the should not invalidate the dismissal.
After such submission, he received a letter- employee, with the assistance of counsel if However, the employer should be held
notice informing him that the PTS Exec. so desired, is given opportunity to respond liable for non-compliance with the
Committe approved Soriano's (OIC-Exec. to the charge, present his evidence or rebut procedural requirements of due process.
Director) recommendations calling for his evidence presented against him/her; and
dismissal effective immediately. However,
(c) written notice of termination served on
Maquiling continued to report to work and the employee indicating that upon due
elevated the matter to PTS Board of consideration of all the circumstances,
Directors. Absence of any response from grounds have been established to justify
PTS and the non-payment of his salary termination.35 The twin requirements of
prompted petitioner to file a complaint [G.R. No. L-5621. March 25, 1953.]
notice and hearing constitute elements of
with the Labor Arbiter. due process in cases of employee's PHILIPPINE MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS’
PTS contends that the dismissal of Dr. dismissal; the requirement of notice is ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. PREMIERE
Maquiling was based on a just cause, intended to inform the employee PRODUCTIONS, INC., Respondent.
concerned of the employer's intent to
supported as it was by the evidence, law
and jurisprudence. The termination of Dr. dismiss and the reason for the proposed
Maquiling's employment was allegedly due dismissal; upon the other hand the
FACTS: On October 2, 1951, respondent
to loss of trust and confidence. It avers that requirement of hearing affords the filed with the Court of Industrial Relations
for gross mismanagement, for acts inimical employee an opportunity to answer his an urgent petition seeking authority to lay
to the interest of PTS, and also for reason employer's charges against him and off 44 men working in three of its
that PTS has lost its trust and confidence in accordingly to defend himself therefrom departments. The ground for the layoff is
before dismissal is effected
him, the financial losses which respondent was
Clearly, the first notice must inform allegedly suffering during the current year.
The Labor Arbiter ordered Maquiling's
outright the employee that an investigation Hon. Arsenio C. Roldan, presiding judge of
reinstatement which was upheld by NLRC the Court of Industrial Relations, held an
upon appeal by PTS. However, CA reversed will be conducted on the charges
particularized therein which, if proven, will ocular inspection of the studios and filming
the decisions by orderding the dismissal of premises of respondent in the course of
the complaint and declaring his dismissal result to his dismissal. Such notice must not
only contain a plain statement of the which he interrogated about fifteen
valid. laborers who were then present in the
charges of malfeasance or misfeasance but
must categorically state the effect on his place.
employment if the charges are proven to be
HENCE, this Petition for Review on On the strength of the evidence adduced
true. during the ocular inspection Judge Roldan
Certiorari
Absent such statement, the first notice falls issued an order on November 8, 1951,
ISSUE: short of the requirement of due process. allowing respondent to lay off the workers
mentioned in its petition; and those
WHETHER OR NOT DR. MAQUILING'S This is in consonance with the rule that all assigned to the Ground Maintenance
DISMISSAL WAS FOR JUST CAUSE doubts in the implementation and Department subject to the condition that,
interpretation of the provisions of the Labor in the event that work is available in the
RULING:
Code, including its implementing rules and future, they should be reemployed.
YES. regulations, shall be resolved in favor of Petitioner moved for the reconsideration,
labor. which motion the court in banc. Hence this
After careful perusal of the factual petition for review.
backdrop of the case, we rule that Dr. IN THE INSTANT CASE, it is noteworthy that
Maquiling was indeed validly dismissed for the first notice is a mere instruction to ISSUE: May the Court of Industrial Relations
just cause. However, PTS was remiss in its explain the matters enumerated therein. It authorize the layoff of workers on the basis
duty to observe procedural due process in did not apprise Dr. Maquiling of any of an ocular inspection without receiving
effecting the dismissal of Dr. Maquiling. investigation to be conducted or being
full evidence to determine the cause or certain cardinal primary rights which the weeks before the first day of classes of the
motive of such layoff? Court of Industrial Relations must respect in next school year.
the trial of every labor case. One of them is
RULING: No. the right to a hearing which includes the On April 1980, Notre Dame Director Fr.
right of the party interested to present his Gonzales required petitioner to report
With respect to the findings made by Judge during that summer to help in the library.
Roldan in this ocular inspection he reached own case.
Petitioner questioned the order since it was
the conclusion that the petition for layoff Considering the merits of the controversy not in her field of expertise and requested
was justified because there was no more before us, we are of the opinion that the a change in the terms and conditions.
work for the laborers to do in connection required due process has not been
with the different jobs given to them. It is; followed. The court a quo merely acted on Fr. Gonzales was replaced by Fr. Pablo
now contended that such a procedure is the strength of the ocular inspection it Garcia, an American. Fr. Garcia requested
unfair to the labor union in that it deprived conducted in the premises of the Sibal to work during the summer. Sibal
the workers affected of the opportunity to respondent company. The petition for informed Father Garcia that her contract
disprove what apparently was represented layoff was predicated on the lack of work does not require her to work during
to the court during the ocular inspection and of the further fact that the company summer. Garcia ignored it. Thus, in order
which at best may only be the result of a was incurring financial losses. These that her failure to report for work may not
prearrangement devised by the company to allegations cannot be established by a mere be misinterpreted, petitioner filed leaves of
justify its claim of lack of work and that inspection of the place of labor specially absence extending from April 1, 1981 to
what the court should have done was to when such inspection was conducted at the June 14, 1981, Petitioner failed to receive
make a full-dress investigation if not a request of the interested party. As counsel her vacation pay.
formal hearing giving both parties all the for petitioner says, such inspection could at
time and opportunity to present their During school year 1981-1982, petitioner
best witness "the superficial fact of was assigned to teach health subjects to
evidence before deciding such an cessation of work but it could not be
important matter which affects the position 900 students spread out in nineteen (19)
determinative of the larger and more sections of the entire high school
and the only means of livelihood of the fundamental issue of lack of work due to
workers affected by the petition. In other department because the two teachers had
lack of funds." This fundamental issue
words, the petitioning labor union claims left the school. Sibal was not compensated
cannot be determined without looking into for this.
that with the procedure adopted by the the financial situation of the respondent
court the workers were deprived of their company. In fact, this matter is now being Fr. Garcia still hadn’t payed Sibal her due
employment without due process of law. looked into by the court a quo in connection vacation leave.
Because the matter does not appear clear, with the fourteen demands of the labor
union, but before finishing its inquiry it In December 1981, petitioner received her
we are inclined to resolve the doubt in favor 13th month pay which was computed on
decided to grant the lay-off pending final
of labor considering the spirit of our the basis of a 10-month period only despite
Constitution. The right to labor is a determination of the main case. This action
is in our opinion premature and has worked working for the whole year.
constitutional as well as a statutory right.
Every man has a natural right to the fruits of injustice to the laborers. On April 5, 1982, Fr. Garcia again required
his own industry. A man who has been petitioner to work during that summer to
employed to undertake certain labor and update all the clinical records of the
has put into it his time and effort is entitled students (Rec. p. 242). In a letter dated April
to be protected. The right of a person to his 7, 1982, petitioner objected to the order by
labor is deemed to be property within the reiterating that her contract does not
meaning of constitutional guarantees. That G.R. No. 75093 February 23, 1990 require her to report for work during
is his means of livelihood. He cannot be summer. In addition, she reminded Fr.
deprived of his labor or work without due DELIA R. SIBAL, petitioner, vs. NOTRE DAME Garcia that she had not received any
process of law. OF GREATER MANILA, NATIONAL LABOR compensation for teaching health subjects
RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents. the past school year.
Although the Court of Industrial Relations,
in the determination of any question or FACTS: On April 14, 1982, petitioner, apart from
controversy, may adopt its own rules of reiterating her objection to the order,
procedure and may act according to justice Sibal was employed as school nurse by called the attention of Fr. Garcia to the
and equity without regard to technicalities, private respondent Notre Dame of Greater school's failure to pay the deficiencies in
and for that matter is not bound by any Manila starting January 1973 working only her salary. Fr. Garcia adamantly refused to
technical rules of evidence (section 20, for a 10-month period. She was not consider petitioner's demands and
Commonwealth Act No. 103), this broad required to report for work during the threatened to take drastic measures
grant of power should not be interpreted to summer and Christmas breaks. against her
mean that it can ignore or disregard the
on March 10, 1976, respondent's director, On May 10, 1982, petitioner filed a
fundamental requirements of due process
Fr. Enrique Gonzales, requested her to complaint against the school and Fr. Garcia.
in the trials and investigations of cases
shorten her summer vacation, from two That same day, Sibal was given her letter of
brought before it for determination. As weeks after the last day of classes to two
aptly pointed out by this court, there are termination. The following day, petitioner
filed an amended complaint, adding two working hours, petitioner's teaching the According to Rodolfo Marin (a factory co-
more charges: illegal dismissal and unfair subject in the classroom and her worker of private respondent Calangi), at
labor practice. administering to the health needs of around 12:15 a.m. on 4 June 1983 and
students in the clinic involve two different within company premises, he chanced
The Faculty of the institution rose against and distinct jobs. They cannot be equated upon "Gatchie" Torrena (a machine
Fr. Garcia with the Ministry of Education, with each other for they refer to different operator at petitioner's factory) and
Culture, and Sports (MECS). Fr. Garcia was functions. Teaching requires preparation of noticed the latter mixing some substance
eventually replaced by Fr. Jose Arong. lesson plans, examinations and grades, with the drinking water contained in a
Respondent NLRC affirmed the decision of while clinical work entails preparation of pitcher from which Meliton and Santos
the Labor Arbiter separating and, in effect, clinical records and treating illnesses of regularly drank. Before anyone could take a
dismissing petitioner on the basis of her students in school. There can be no doubt drink from the pitcher, Marin reported
that teaching health subjects is extra work what he had observed to Meliton who, in
perception that petitioner and the director
could no longer work harmoniously. The for petitioner, and therefore necessitates turn, informed Santos of the same. Soon
award of separation pay would defeat and extra compensation. after, Meliton and Santos took possession
render nugatory the Constitutional of the pitcher of water and filed a formal
report of the incident with company
guaranty of security of tenure.
Art. 118 of the Labor Code provides: management. 2 The contents of the pitcher
ISSUE: were subsequently brought to and analyzed
Retaliatory measures. — It shall be unlawful by chemists at the Philippine Constabulary
WoN the award of separation pay instead of for an employer to refuse to pay or reduce Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame, Quezon
reinstatement is the proper remedy under the wages and benefits, discharges or in any City who found the presence of a toxic
the circumstances. manner discriminate against any employee chemical (formaldehyde) therein. 3
WoN petitioner is entitled to compensation who has filed any complaint or instituted
any proceeding under this Title or has In the police investigation that followed,
for teaching health subjects. Torrena confessed that private respondent
testified or is about to testify in such
RULING: proceedings. Calangi personally instructed him, and he
agreed, to place formaldehyde in the
First ISSUE: It’s a No. Thus, too, Art. 249 (f) provides: pitcher of water. Torrena also admitted that
he and private respondent were then
he Labor Arbiter herself had found that the Art. 249. Unfair tabor practice of motivated by a desire to avenge themselves
termination of petitioner was not employers. — It shall be unlawful for an upon Meliton and Santos, both of whom
supported by any just cause or reason. Yet, employer to commit any of the following had instigated their (i.e., Torrena's and
she erroneously ordered separation pay unfair labor practice. private respondent's) suspension from
instead of reinstatement with backwages work several times in the past. 4 These
based on the alleged reason that (f) to dismiss, discharge, or
circumstances moved petitioner
petitioner's working relations with the otherwise prejudice or discriminate against
Corporation preventively to suspend
former director, Father Garcia, had become an employee for having given or being
about to give testimony under this Code, Torrena and private respondent Calangi,
so strained and deteriorated that it became and eventually to dismiss them from its
impossible for them to work harmoniously employ. private respondent Calangi filed a
again. And the NLRC affirmed such finding Complaint 5 for illegal dismissal private
which is untrue and merely speculative. respondent alleged in his complaint that
"[p]rior to his preventive suspension
It should be noted that the alleged conflict
neither the company nor any of its officers
between the petitioner and the director
furnished him [with] a copy of their charges,
was strictly official in nature, the cause of
if any, nor afforded him the opportunity to
which was the violation of the terms of G.R. No. 77859 May 25, 1988
employment by the latter. Petitioner's answer the same and defend himself
assertion of her right to unpaid salaries and CENTURY TEXTILE MILLS, INC. and ALFREDO Labor Arbiter dismissed private
bonus differential was not motivated by any T. ESCAÑO, petitioners, respondent's Complaint.NLRC reversed it.
personal consideration. Rather, she simply
claimed benefits which, under the law, she vs. ISSUE:
was entitled to and legally due her. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS whether or not private respondent Calangi
Petitioner's termination was a blatant COMMISSION, HON. LABOR ARBITER FELIPE
disregard of due process and Constitutional was illegally dismissed from his job as
P. PATI, and EDUARDO CALANGI, machine operator without due process.
guarantee of protection to labor.
respondents.
Second ISSUE: YES. RULING:
(DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENT IN
Petitioner is entitled to compensation for DISMISSAL) We sustain the ruling of public respondent
Commission that private respondent
teaching health subjects. Although the FACTS: Calangi had been dismissed without just
subject taught is Health and allied to her
profession, and is taught during regular
cause from his employment by petitioner Corporation should not be compelled to participating in a strike conducted because
Corporation. take back in its fold an employee who, at of bargaining deadlock due to
least in the minds of his employers, poses a disagreements on salary increases and
Public respondent Commission found that significant threat to the lives and safety of benefits.
private respondent Calangi was effectively company workers.
denied his right to due process in that, prior Said strike was allegedly conducted by
to his preventive suspension and the blocking the entrance and exits of the
termination of his services, he had not been company premises allegedly paralyzing the
given the opportunity either to affirm or RATIO: operations of the corporation.
refute the charges proferred against him by The twin requirements of notice and
petitioner Corporation. Petitioners allege Days later after the strike was conducted
hearing constitute essential elements of said workers were dismissed from work.
however that private respondent Calangi due process in cases of employee dismissal:
had been previously informed of and given
the requirement of notice is intended to Respondent filed a complaint for unfair
the chance to answer the company's inform the employee concerned of the labor practice and illegal dismissal.
accusations against him, but that he had employer's intent to dismiss and the reason
"kept silent" all the while. for the proposed dismissal; upon the other ISSUE:

A Memorandum issued by petitioner's hand, the requirement of hearing affords Whether or not the strike conducted by
Personnel Manager on 10 June 1983 the employee an opportunity to answer his PILA in accordance with the law.
(Calangi's first day of preventive employer's charges against him and
suspension) was cited in this accordingly to defend himself therefrom RULING:
connection.Petitioners contend that the before dismissal is effected. Neither of
these two requirements can be dispensed No. Hence dismissal was proper.
Memorandum "clearly shows that prior
investigation and consultation with the with without running afoul of the due
Strike was initially valid
union was made," and "will therefore process requirement of the 1987
negate the theory of respondents that Constitution. Requisites of a valid strike
respondent Calangi was not afforded the The record of this case is bereft of any “the decision to declare a strike must be
chance to present his side for the memo
indication that a hearing or other gathering exercised responsibly and must always rest
itself speaks otherwise. was in fact held where private respondent on rational basis, free from emotionalism,
Santos. A finding of private respondent's Calangi was given a reasonable opportunity and unswayed by the tempers and
participation in the alleged criminal to confront his accuser(s) and to defend tantrums of hot heads; it must focus on
conspiracy cannot, however, be made to against the charges made by the latter. legitimate union interests. To be legitimate,
rest solely on the unilateral declaration of Petitioner Corporation's "prior a strike should not be antithetical to public
Mr. Torrena himself a confirmed "co- consultation" with the labor union with welfare, and must be pursued within legal
conspirator." Such declaration must be which private respondent Calangi was bounds. The right to strike as a means of
corroborated by other competent and affiliated, was legally insufficient. So far as attaining social justice is never meant to
convincing evidence. In. the absence of the record shows, neither petitioner nor oppress or destroy anyone, least of all, the
such other evidence, Mr. Torrena's the labor union actually advised Calangi of employer”
"confession" implicating Mr. Calangi must the matters at issue. The Memorandum of
petitioner's Personnel Manager certainly Procedurally, for a strike to be valid, it must
be received with considerable caution. The comply with Article 26316 of the Labor
very least that petitioner Corporation offered no helpful particulars.
Code, which requires that:
should have done was to confront private

respondent with Torrena's sworn (a) a notice of strike be filed with the
statement; the record does not show that Department of Labor and Employment
petitioner Corporation did so. The burden (DOLE) 30 days before the intended date
of showing the existence of a just cause for
thereof, or 15 days in case of unfair labor
terminating the services of private PHIMCO INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, vs. practice;
respondent Calangi lay on the petitioners. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES LABOR ASSOCIATION
Petitioners have not discharged that (b) a strike vote be approved by a majority
(PILA) of the total union membership in the
burden.
FACTS: bargaining unit concerned, obtained by
It remains only to note that the criminal secret ballot in a meeting called for that
complaint for attempted murder against PHIMCO is a corporation engaged in the purpose; and
Mr. Calangi was dismissed by the Provincial production of matches. Respondent
Fiscal of Rizal. Phimco Industries Labor Association (PILA) (c) a notice be given to the DOLE of the
is the duly authorized bargaining results of the voting at least seven days
Court beheves that reinstatement of representative of PHIMCO’s daily-paid before the intended strike.
private respondent to his former position—
workers. These requirements are mandatory, and
or to any other equivalent position in the
company — will not serve the best interests In this case petitioner corporation the union’s failure to comply renders the
of the parties involved. Petitioner dismissed 47 officers and members for strike illegal.
In the present case, the respondents fully RULING: he was a member of the Elizalde Rope
satisfied the legal procedural requirements; Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as
a strike notice was filed; a strike vote was YES. The Court upheld the constitutionality Union) which had with the Company a
reached; notification of the strike vote was of the power of the Court of Industrial collective bargaining agreement containing
filed with the DOLE. Relations to determine and fix minimum a closed shop provision which reads as
wages for workers. follows:
However Strike may be illegal for
commission of prohibited acts In answer to the contention of the Membership in the Union shall be required
petitioner that the doctrine laid down in the as a condition of employment for all
Despite the validity of the purpose of a appealed decision in effect "has deprived permanent employees workers covered by
strike and compliance with the procedural the company of its rights to enter into this Agreement.
requirements, a strike may still be held contract of employment as it and the
illegal where the means employed are employee may agree," it is sufficient to The collective bargaining agreement
illegal quote the following pronouncements of the expired on March 3, 1964 but was renewed
United States Supreme Court: "The fact that the following day, March 4, 1964
Article 264(e) of the Labor Code which both parties are of full age and competent
provides: to contract does not necessarily deprive the Under Section 4(a), paragraph 4, of
State of the power to interfere where the Republic Act No. 875, prior to its
No person engaged in picketing shall amendment by Republic Act No. 3350, the
commit any act of violence, coercion or parties do not stand upon an equality, or
where the public health demands that one employer was not precluded "from making
intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to an agreement with a labor organization to
party to the contract shall be protected
or egress from the employer's premises for require as a condition of employment
lawful purposes, or obstruct public against himself. The State still retains an
interest in his welfare, however reckless he membership therein, if such labor
thoroughfares. organization is the representative of the
may be. The whole is no greater than the
While the strike undisputably had not been sum of all the parts, and where the employees." On June 18, 1961, however,
marred by actual violence and patent individual health, safety and welfare are Republic Act No. 3350 was enacted,
intimidation, the picketing that respondent sacrificed or neglected, the State must introducing an amendment to - paragraph
PILA officers and members undertook as suffer."cralaw virtua1aw library (4) subsection (a) of section 4 of Republic
Act No. 875, as follows: ... "but such
part of their strike activities effectively
blocked the free ingress to and egress from The Court of Industrial Relations has the agreement shall not cover members of any
PHIMCO’s premises, thus preventing non- power to extend wage increases and other religious sects which prohibit affiliation of
striking employees and company vehicles benefits to workers who were not parties to their members in any such labor
from entering the PHIMCO compound. the case and who did not declare a strike organization".chanroblesvirtualawlibrarych
against the petitioner. anrobles virtual law library

SEC 18 (2) INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE Being a member of a religious sect that
prohibits the affiliation of its members with
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE DEFINED any labor organization, Appellee presented
his resignation to appellant Union in 1962,
Note: Art 300, Labor Code, Termination by
LEYTE LAND TRANSPORTATION CO. v LEYTE Employee and when no action was taken thereon, he
FARMERS and WORKERS UNION reiterated his resignation on September 3,
1974. Thereupon, the Union wrote a formal
The petitioner contends that the Court of letter to the Company asking the latter to
Industrial Relations made a mistake in separate Appellee from the service in view
conceding salary or wage increases, after of the fact that he was resigning from the

being "convinced that the basic salary of Union as a member. The management of
P100 for drivers and P80 for conductors is G.R. No. L-25246 September 12, 1974 the Company in turn notified Appellee and
just taking into consideration the financial BENJAMIN VICTORIANO, Plaintiff-Appellee, his counsel that unless the Appellee could
condition of the corporation just now," and vs. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS' UNION and achieve a satisfactory arrangement with the
merely because such increases will enable ELIZALDE ROPE FACTORY, INC., defendants, Union, the Company would be constrained
the workers "to meet the high cost of living ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS' UNION, to dismiss him from the service. This
now in Tacloban in order to help them buy Defendant-Appellant. prompted Appellee to file an action for
the necessities for a decent livelihood." It is injunction, in the Court of First Instance of
intimated in this connection that the total ZALDIVAR, J.: Manila to enjoin the Company and the
amount of the increases, "if added to the Union from dismissing Appellee. In its
FACTS:
crippling losses will throw the Company answer, the Union invoked the "union
into bankruptcy. Benjamin Victoriano (hereinafter referred security clause" of the collective bargaining
to as Appellee), a member of the religious agreement; assailed the constitutionality of
ISSUE: sect known as the "Iglesia ni Cristo", had Republic Act No. 3350; and contended that
been in the employ of the Elizalde Rope the Court had no jurisdiction over the case
W/N the Court of Industrial Relations may
determine and fix the wages for workers Factory, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
Company) since 1958. As such employee,
CFI favored petitioner and enjoined employee rights, and a new source of their
defendant from the dismissing plaintiff. frustration. Moreover, when the Union
interacts with management, it produces yet
Hence, the Union appealed directly to the a third aggregate of group strength from
SC by Rule 45. Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) v. Presidential
which the individual also needs protection -
Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), et al., G.R.
ISSUE: the collective bargaining relationship. No. 171101, November 22, 2011
31chanrobles virtual law library
1. WHETHER OR NOT RA 3350 introducing VELASCO, JR., J.:
an amendment to paragraph (4) subsection The aforementioned purpose of the
(a) of section 4 of Republic Act No. 875, as amendatory law is clearly seen in the FACTS:
follows: ... "but such agreement shall not Explanatory Note to House Bill No. 5859,
which later became Republic Act No. 3350, On July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court en banc
cover members of any religious sects which voted unanimously (11-0) to DISMISS/DENY
as follows:
prohibit affiliation of their members in any the petition filed by HLI and AFFIRM with
such labor organization" is unconstitutional MODIFICATIONS the resolutions of the
2. WHETHER OR NOT RA 3350 providing for PARC revoking HLI’s Stock Distribution Plan
It would be unthinkable indeed to refuse (SDP) and placing the subject lands in
exemption from closed shop agreements employing a person who, on account of his
violate the impairment of contract clause of Hacienda Luisita under compulsory
religious beliefs and convictions, cannot coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian
the constitution. accept membership in a labor organization Reform Program (CARP) of the government.
RULING: although he possesses all the qualifications
for the job. This is tantamount to punishing
1. NO. It is constitutional. It may not such person for believing in a doctrine he
be amiss to point out here that the free has a right under the law to believe in. The The Court however did not order outright
exercise of religious profession or belief is law would not allow discrimination to land distribution. Voting 6-5, the Court
superior to contract rights. In case of flourish to the detriment of those whose noted that there are operative facts that
conflict, the latter must, therefore, yield to religion discards membership in any labor occurred in the interim and which the Court
the former. The Supreme Court of the organization. Likewise, the law would not cannot validly ignore. Thus, the Court
United States has also declared on several commend the deprivation of their right to declared that the revocation of the SDP
occasions that the rights in the First work and pursue a modest means of must, by application of the operative fact
Amendment, which include freedom of livelihood, without in any manner violating principle, give way to the right of the
religion, enjoy a preferred position in the their religious faith and/or belief. original 6,296 qualified farmworkers-
constitutional system. 33Religious 32chanrobles virtual law li beneficiaries (FWBs) to choose whether
freedom, although not unlimited, is a they want to remain as HLI stockholders or
fundamental personal right and liberty, tt cannot be denied, furthermore, that the [choose actual land distribution]. It thus
34and has a preferred position in the means adopted by the Act to achieve that ordered the Department of Agrarian
purpose - exempting the members of said Reform (DAR) to “immediately schedule
hierarchy of values. Contractual rights,
therefore, must yield to freedom of religious sects from coverage of union meetings with the said 6,296 FWBs and
religion. It is only where unavoidably security agreements - is explain to them the effects, consequences
necessary to prevent an immediate and reasonable.chanroblesvirtual and legal or practical implications of their
grave danger to the security and welfare of choice, after which the FWBs will be asked
ADDITIONAL LANG JUST IN CASE to manifest, in secret voting, their choices
the community that infringement of
religious freedom may be justified, and only - did not violate equal protection clause. in the ballot, signing their signatures or
to the smallest extent necessary to avoid The classification rests on real or placing their thumbmarks, as the case may
the danger. substatntial distinction. The purpose of the be, over their printed names.”
law is precisely to avoid those who cannot, The parties thereafter filed their respective
2. NO. it is Constitutional because of their religious belief, join labor motions for reconsideration of the Court
The questioned Act also provides unions, from being deprived of their right to decision.
protection to members of said religious work and from being dismissed fromtheir
sects against two aggregates of group work because of the union shop security II. THE ISSUES
strength from which the individual needs agreements.
(1) Is the operative fact doctrine available
protection. The individual employee, at -did not violate the concept of social justice in this case?
various times in his working life, is as well since RA 3350 promotes the welfare
confronted by two aggregates of power - of those who, because of their relgiious (2) Is Sec. 31 of RA 6657 unconstitutional?
collective labor, directed by a union, and belief, cannot join labor unions; the Act
collective capital, directed by management. (3) Can’t the Court order that DAR’s
prevents their being deprived of work and compulsory acquisition of Hacienda Lusita
The union, an institution developed to of the means of livelihood. In line, therefore
organize labor into a collective force and cover the full 6,443 hectares allegedly
with the concept of social justice. covered by RA 6657 and previously held by
thus protect the individual employee from
the power of collective capital, is, Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco),
paradoxically, both the champion of
and not just the 4,915.75 hectares covered distribution scheme, they were also given considering that matters involving strictly
by HLI’s SDP? the option to choose for themselves the administrative implementation and
whether they want to remain as enforcement of agrarian reform laws are
(4) Is the date of the “taking” (for purposes stockholders of HLI or not.] within the jurisdiction of the DAR, it is the
of determining the just compensation latter which shall determine the area with
payable to HLI) November 21, 1989, when which each qualified FWB will be awarded.
PARC approved HLI’s SDP?
2. NO, Sec. 31 of RA 6657 NOT On the other hand, the majority likewise
(5) Has the 10-year period prohibition on unconstitutional. [The Court maintained reiterated its holding that the 500-hectare
the transfer of awarded lands under RA that the Court is NOT compelled to rule on portion of Hacienda Luisita that have been
6657 lapsed on May 10, 1999 (since the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, validly converted to industrial use and have
Hacienda Luisita were placed under CARP reiterating that it was not raised at the been acquired by intervenors Rizal
coverage through the SDOA scheme on earliest opportunity and that the resolution Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC)
May 11, 1989), and thus the qualified FWBs thereof is not the lis mota of the case. and Luisita Industrial Park Corporation
should now be allowed to sell their land Moreover, the issue has been rendered (LIPCO), as well as the separate 80.51-
interests in Hacienda Luisita to third parties, moot and academic since SDO is no longer hectare SCTEX lot acquired by the
whether they have fully paid for the lands one of the modes of acquisition under RA government, should be excluded from the
or not? 9700. The majority clarified that in its July 5, coverage of the assailed PARC resolution.
2011 decision, it made no ruling in favor of The Court however ordered that the
(6) THE CRUCIAL ISSUE: Should the ruling in the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, unused balance of the proceeds of the sale
the July 5, 2011 Decision that the qualified but found nonetheless that there was no
FWBs be given an option to remain as of the 500-hectare converted land and of
apparent grave violation of the Constitution the 80.51-hectare land used for the SCTEX
stockholders of HLI be reconsidered? that may justify the resolution of the issue be distributed to the FWBs.]
III. THE RULING of constitutionality.]

[The Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the
motions for reconsideration of respondents 4. YES, the date of “taking” is November
3. NO, the Court CANNOT order that DAR’s 21, 1989, when PARC approved HLI’s SDP.
PARC, et al. with respect to the option compulsory acquisition of Hacienda Lusita
granted to the original farmworkers- cover the full 6,443 hectares and not just
beneficiaries (FWBs) of Hacienda Luisita to the 4,915.75 hectares covered by HLI’s SDP.
remain with petitioner HLI, which option [For the purpose of determining just
the Court thereby RECALLED and SET ASIDE. [Since what is put in issue before the Court compensation, the date of “taking” is
It reconsidered its earlier decision that the is the propriety of the revocation of the November 21, 1989 (the date when PARC
qualified FWBs should be given an option to SDP, which only involves 4,915.75 has. of approved HLI’s SDP) since this is the time
remain as stockholders of HLI, and agricultural land and not 6,443 has., then that the FWBs were considered to own and
UNANIMOUSLY directed immediate land the Court is constrained to rule only as possess the agricultural lands in Hacienda
distribution to the qualified FWBs.] regards the 4,915.75 has. of agricultural Luisita. To be precise, these lands became
land. Nonetheless, this should not prevent subject of the agrarian reform coverage
1. YES, the operative fact doctrine is the DAR, under its mandate under the through the stock distribution scheme only
applicable in this case. agrarian reform law, from subsequently upon the approval of the SDP, that is, on
[The Court maintained its stance that the subjecting to agrarian reform other November 21, 1989. Such approval is akin
operative fact doctrine is applicable in this agricultural lands originally held by Tadeco to a notice of coverage ordinarily issued
case since, contrary to the suggestion of the that were allegedly not transferred to HLI under compulsory acquisition. On the
but were supposedly covered by RA 6657. contention of the minority (Justice Sereno)
minority, the doctrine is not limited only to
invalid or unconstitutional laws but also that the date of the notice of coverage
[after PARC’s revocation of the SDP], that is,
applies to decisions made by the President
or the administrative agencies that have the However since the area to be awarded to January 2, 2006, is determinative of the just
force and effect of laws. Prior to the each FWB in the July 5, 2011 Decision compensation that HLI is entitled to
nullification or recall of said decisions, they appears too restrictive – considering that receive, the Court majority noted that none
may have produced acts and consequences there are roads, irrigation canals, and other of the cases cited to justify this position
involved the stock distribution scheme.
that must be respected. It is on this score portions of the land that are considered
that the operative fact doctrine should be commonly-owned by farmworkers, and Thus, said cases do not squarely apply to
applied to acts and consequences that these may necessarily result in the decrease the instant case. The foregoing
resulted from the implementation of the of the area size that may be awarded per notwithstanding, it bears stressing that the
PARC Resolution approving the SDP of HLI. FWB – the Court reconsiders its Decision DAR's land valuation is only preliminary and
The majority stressed that the application and resolves to give the DAR leeway in is not, by any means, final and conclusive
of the operative fact doctrine by the Court adjusting the area that may be awarded per upon the landowner. The landowner can
file an original action with the RTC acting as
in its July 5, 2011 decision was in fact FWB in case the number of actual qualified
favorable to the FWBs because not only FWBs decreases. In order to ensure the a special agrarian court to determine just
were they allowed to retain the benefits proper distribution of the agricultural lands compensation. The court has the right to
and homelots they received under the stock of Hacienda Luisita per qualified FWB, and review with finality the determination in
the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial fall short of the 295,112,101 shares needed association or organization that they
function.] by the FWBs to acquire control over HLI. disaffiliate themselves, otherwise they
would be expelled from the church.

Side note on Jurisdiction (Kasi hindi naman
5. NO, the 10-year period prohibition on ito topic natin, baka lang tanungin): the
the transfer of awarded lands under RA present controversy comes under the
6657 has NOT lapsed on May 10, 1999;
exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of
thus, the qualified FWBs should NOT yet be G.R. No. L-26097 November 29, 1977 Agrarian Relations, suffice it, to state, that
allowed to sell their land interests in the latter court was created for 'the
Hacienda Luisita to third parties. DOMINADOR ANUCENSION AND 114 enforcement of all laws and regulations
OTHER IGLESIA NI CRISTO AGRICULTURAL governing the relation of capital and labor
[Under RA 6657 and DAO 1, the awarded WORKERS OF HACIENDA LUISITA, on all agricultural lands under any system of
lands may only be transferred or conveyed petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR UNION,
after 10 years from the issuance and cultivation'
TARLAC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
registration of the emancipation patent AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Upon the passage by Congress of Republic
(EP) or certificate of land ownership award respondents. Act No. 3350 which provides:
(CLOA). Considering that the EPs or CLOAs
have not yet been issued to the qualified FACTS: SEC. 4. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.
FWBs in the instant case, the 10-year
prohibitive period has not even started. Petitioner union and the Hacienda (a) It shall be unfair labor practice for
Significantly, the reckoning point is the (Hacienda Luisita) entered into a collective an employer.
issuance of the EP or CLOA, and not the bargaining agreement on August 2, 1962,
(4) To discriminate in regard to hire
placing of the agricultural lands under CARP which, among others, embodies union
security provisions. or tenure of employment or any term or
coverage. Moreover, should the FWBs be condition of employment to encourage or
immediately allowed the option to sell or From sections 3, 4, and 5, it simply requires discourage membership in any labor
convey their interest in the subject lands, that members of the Iglesia ni Cristo who organization: Provided, That nothing in this
then all efforts at agrarian reform would be are employees but are not members of the act or in any other act or statute of the
rendered nugatory, since, at the end of the
Union shall have 15 days to apply Republic of the Philippines shall preclude an
day, these lands will just be transferred to employer from making an agreement with
membership to the Union, otherwise they
persons not entitled to land distribution a labor organization to require as a
shall be discharged for disloyalty, violation
under CARP.] of the Constitution or By-Laws of the condition of employment membership
UNION, or for any valid cause, but it therein, if such labor organization is the
assumes no obligation to discharge any representative of the employees as
6. YES, the ruling in the July 5, 2011 employee if it has reasonable grounds. provided in section twelve, but such
Decision that the qualified FWBs be given agreement shall not cover members of any
an option to remain as stockholders of HLI In a letter to the union president, Rufino D. religious sects which prohibit affiliation of
should be reconsidered. Lagman, dated May 8, 1964, a group of their members in any such labor
more than one hundred and fifty person organization.
representing themselves to be members of
the United Luisita Union and followers of a The NLRC ruled that Act No. 3350 is
[The Court reconsidered its earlier decision religious sect known as the Iglesia ni Cristo, unconstitutional because:
that the qualified FWBs should be given an made manifest their 'irrevocable
option to remain as stockholders of HLI, resignation' from the United Luisita (a) It abridges the freedom of
inasmuch as these qualified FWBs will never Workers' Union, herein called the UNION, workers to form associations for purposes
gain control [over the subject lands] given not contrary to law;
for short. The letter ended with the
the present proportion of shareholdings in statement that: “We believe our
HLI. The Court noted that the share of the (b) It impairs the obligation of
resignation is legal and it is within the contracts;
FWBs in the HLI capital stock is [just] purview of the freedom of religion
33.296%. Thus, even if all the holders of this guaranteed by our Constitution. Hence, it (c) It discriminates in favor of the
33.296% unanimously vote to remain as HLI cannot be made a ground for the religious sect known as Iglesia ni Cristo in
stockholders, which is unlikely, control will termination of our employment nor a cause violation of the constitutional provision
never be in the hands of the FWBs. Control
for discrimination against us.” prohibiting legislation for the support of
means the majority of [sic] 50% plus at least any religious sect; and
one share of the common shares and other the followers of Iglesia ni Cristo were
voting shares. Applying the formula to the prompted to resign from the union because (d) It denies to the workers their
HLI stockholdings, the number of shares of the circular, dated April 1, 1959, from the constitutional right to equal on of the laws.
that will constitute the majority is Iglesia ni Cristo, thru its Secretary General,
295,112,101 shares (590,554,220 total HLI Teofilo Ramos, enjoining all members of the ISSUE:
capital shares divided by 2 plus one [1] HLI sect not to join any outside association or WoN Act No. 3350 is constitutional; in
share). The 118,391,976.85 shares subject organization of whatever kind or nature or relation to;
to the SDP approved by PARC substantially that if they are already members of such
WoN the petitioners may be dismissed on constitutional prohibition the State
the ground of resignation from the union. continues to possess authority to safeguard
the vital interests of its people. Legislation Petitioner contends that the subject clause
appropriate to safeguard said interest may is unconstitutional because it unduly
modify or abrogate contracts already in impairs the freedom of OFWs to negotiate
RULING: for and stipulate in their overseas
effect. For not only are existing laws read
First ISSUE: Yes. into contracts in order to fix the obligations employment contracts a determinate
as between the parties but the reservation employment period and a fixed salary
The purpose of Republic Act No. 3350 is of essential attributes of sovereign power is package.32 It also impinges on the equal
secular, wordly, and temporal, not spiritual also read into contracts as a postulate of protection clause, for it treats OFWs
or religious or holy and eternal. It was the legal order. All contracts made with differently from local Filipino workers (local
intended to serve the secular purpose of reference to any matter that is subject to workers) by putting a cap on the amount of
advancing the constitutional right to the regulation under the police power must be lump-sum salary to which OFWs are
free exercise of religion, by averting that understood as made in reference to the entitled in case of illegal dismissal, while
certain persons be refused work, or be possible exercise of that power. Otherwise, setting no limit to the same monetary
dismissed from work, or be dispossessed of important and valuable reforms may be award for local workers when their
their right to work and of being impeded to precluded by the simple device of entering dismissal is declared illegal; that the
pursue a modest means of livelihood, by into contracts for the purpose of doing that disparate treatment is not reasonable as
reason of union security agreements. To which otherwise maybe prohibited. there is no substantial distinction between
help its citizens to find gainful employment the two groups;33 and that it defeats
whereby they can make a living to support Section 18,34 Article II of the Constitution
themselves and their families is a valid which guarantees the protection of the
objective of the state. rights and welfare of all Filipino workers,
whether deployed locally or overseas
Furthermore, let it be noted that coerced
unity and loyalty even to the country, and a ANTONIO M. SERRANO VS. GALLANT
fortiori to a labor union assuming that such MARITIME SERVICES, INC.
unity and loyalty can be attained through Sec. 10. Money Claims. - x x x In case of
termination of overseas employment
coercion - is not a goal that is (NON IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE)
constitutionally obtainable at the expense without just, valid or authorized cause as
of religious liberty. A desirable end cannot FACTS: defined by law or contract, the workers
be promoted by prohibited means. shall be entitled to the full reimbursement
Petitioner Antonio Serrano was hired by of his placement fee with interest of twelve
Second ISSUE: it’s a No. respondents Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries
and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., under a for the unexpired portion of his
The Court come to the inescapable POEA-approved contract of employment employment contract or for three (3)
conclusion that the petitioners cannot be for 12 months, as Chief Officer, with the months for every year of the unexpired
summarily dismissed from their basic monthly salary of US$1,400, plus term, whichever is less.
employment in the Hacienda as a result of $700/month overtime pay, and 7 days paid
their resignation from vacation leave per month. Petitioner also appealed16 to the NLRC on
the sole issue that the LA erred in not
the respondent Union, notwithstanding the On the date of his departure, Serrano was applying the ruling of the Court in Triple
existence of a union shop security clause in constrained to accept a downgraded Integrated Services, Inc. v. National Labor
the Collective Bargaining Agreement of employment contract upon the assurance Relations Commission17 that in case of
August 2, 1962, since Republic Act 3350, and representation of respondents that he illegal dismissal, OFWs are entitled to their
which is constitutional, exempts them from would be Chief Officer by the end of April salaries for the unexpired portion of their
joining any labor organization, when such is 1998. contracts.
contrary to their religious beliefs and
convictions. Respondents did not deliver on their ISSUE:
promise to make Serrano Chief Officer.
Respondent contends that Act No. 3350 w/n
impairs contract rights. The court did not Hence, Serrano refused to stay on as
agree. second Officer and was repatriated to the
Philippines, serving only two months and 7
subject clause violates Section 10, Article III
It should not be overlooked, however, that days, leaving an unexpired portion of nine
the prohibition to impair the obligation of months and twenty-three days. of the Constitution on non-impairment of
contracts is not absolute and unqualified. contracts;
The prohibition is general, affording a broad Upon complaint filed by Serrano before the
Labor Arbiter (LA), the dismissal was RULING:
outline and requiring construction to fill in
the details. The prohibition is not to read declared illegal. The unanimous finding of the LA, NLRC and
with literal exactness like a mathematical On appeal, the NLRC modified the LA CA that the dismissal of petitioner was
formula for it prohibits unreasonable decision based on the provision of RA 8042. illegal is not disputed.
impairment only. In spite of the
 praying that AIBC and BRII be declared in It must be here emphasized that the right
default. to a speedy disposition of a case, like the
right to speedy trial, is deemed violated
Petitioners filed an "Urgent Motion for only when the proceeding is attended by
The answer is in the negative. Petitioner’s Summary Judgment." On the same day, the vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
claim that the subject clause unduly POEA issued an order directing AIBC and
interferes with the stipulations in his delays; or when unjustified postponements
BRII to file their answers to the "Amended of the trial are asked for and secured, or
contract on the term of his employment Complaint," otherwise, they would be
and the fixed salary package he will receive when without cause or justified motive a
deemed to have waived their right to long period of time is allowed to elapse
is not tenable. present evidence and the case would be without the party having his case tried.
The subject clause may not be declared resolved on the basis of complainant's
unconstitutional on the ground that it evidence. The cases at bench are not of the run-of-
the-mill variety, such that their final
impinges on the impairment clause, for the At the hearing on June 19, 1987, AIBC
law was enacted in the exercise of the disposition in the administrative level after
submitted its answer to the complaint. seven years from their inception, cannot be
police power of the State to regulate a
business, profession or calling, particularly The POEA Administrator allowed private said to be attended by unreasonable,
the recruitment and deployment of OFWs, respondents to file their answers in two arbitrary and oppressive delays as to violate
with the noble end in view of ensuring years (on June 19, 1987) after the filing of the constitutional rights to a speedy
respect for the dignity and well-being of the original complaint (on April 2, 1985) disposition of the cases of complainants.
OFWs wherever they may be
employed.Police power legislations They filed a certiorari with SC alleging that
adopted by the State to promote the they were deprived by NLRC and the POEA
health, morals, peace, education, good of their right to a speedy disposition of their
order, safety, and general welfare of the cases as guaranteed by Section 16, Article
people are generally applicable not only to III of the 1987 Constitution.
BPI v BPI EMPLOYEES UNION - DAVAO
future contracts but even to those already ISSUE: CHAPTER - FEDERATION OF UNIONS in BPI
in existence, for all private contracts must UNIBANK
yield to the superior and legitimate Won the petitioners in this cases were
measures taken by the State to promote deprived of their right to speedy petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands
public welfare.62 disposition. (BPI) moves for reconsideration holding
that former employees of the Far East Bank
RULING: and Trust Company (FEBTC) "absorbed" by
NO BPI pursuant to the two banks’ merger in
2000 were covered by the Union Shop
BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN, ET AL., Right to Speedy Disposition is also available Clause in the then existing collective
petitioners, vs. HON. NATIONAL LABOR for Labor Cases bargaining agreement (CBA)2 of BPI with
RELATIONS COMMISSION, BROWN & ROOT respondent BPI Employees Union-Davao
INTERNATIONAL, INC. and/or ASIA Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI
INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS CORPORATION, speedy disposition of their cases before all Unibank (the Union)
respondents. judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative
bodies. Union Shop Clause.
FACTS:
It is true that the constitutional right to "a Section 2. Union Shop - New employees
Petitioners in these consolidated cases speedy disposition of cases" is not limited falling within the bargaining unit as defined
instituted a class suit in 1985 with the to the accused in criminal proceedings but in Article I of this Agreement, who may
Philippine Overseas Employment extends to all parties in all cases, including hereafter be regularly employed by the
Administration POEA for money claims civil and administrative cases, and in all Bank shall, within thirty (30) days after they
against respondent Brown Root Inc and proceedings, including judicial and quasi- become regular employees, join the Union
Asia International Builders which are judicial hearings. as a condition of their continued
corporations who are engaged in employment.
construction and the other in deployment However, "speedy disposition of cases" is a
of Filipino workers overseas. relative term. Just like the constitutional The dispute between the parties was
guarantee of "speedy trial" accorded to the whether or not the "absorbed" FEBTC
1984, the POEA Administrator issued an accused in all criminal proceedings, "speedy employees fell within the definition of "new
order directing AIBC and BRII to file their disposition of cases" is a flexible concept. It employees" under the Union Shop Clause,
answers within ten days from receipt of the is consistent with delays and depends upon such that they may be required to join
order. the circumstances of each case. What the respondent union and if they fail to do so,
Constitution prohibits are unreasonable, the Union may request BPI to terminate
1985, AIBC and BRII appealed to NLRC arbitrary and oppressive delays which their employment, as the Union in fact did
seeking the reversal of the said order of the render rights nugatory. in the present case
POEA Administrator. Petitioners opposed
the appeal, claiming that it was dilatory and
Although BPI won the initial battle at the allow themselves to be absorbed by BPI. Hon. Quisumbing, DOLE Secretary, acted on
Voluntary Arbitrator level, BPI’s position Certainly nothing prevented the FEBTC’s the matter in favor of the School by reason
was rejected by the Court of Appeals which employees from resigning or retiring and that the Union cannot invoke the equal
ruled that the Voluntary Arbitrator’s seeking employment elsewhere instead of protection clause due to the fact that there
interpretation of the Union Shop Clause going along with the proposed absorption. is a substantial distiction between foreign
was at war with the spirit and rationale why Employment is a personal consensual hires and local hires, the former enjoying
the Labor Code allows the existence of such contract and absorption by BPI of a former only a limited tenure, having no amenities
provision. FEBTC employee without the consent of the of their own in the Philippines and have to
employee is in violation of an individual’s be given a good compensation package in
On review with this Court, we upheld the freedom to contract. order to attract them to join the teaching
appellate court’s ruling faculty of the School.

ISSUE: ISSUE:

W/N employees are ipso jure absorbed in a WHETHER OR NOT the Union can invoke
merger of the two corporations the equal protection clause to justify its
RULING: INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF claim of parity.
EDUCATORS (ISAE), petitioner, vs. HON.
NO. [H]uman beings are never embraced in LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING in his capacity
the term “assets and liabilities. In fact, the as the Secretary of Labor and Employment; RULING:
Corporation Code does not also mandate HON. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO in his
the absorption of the employees of the capacity as the Acting Secretary of Labor YES. SC does not agree with DOLE Sec.
non-surviving corporation by the surviving and Employment; DR. BRIAN MACCAULEY
corporation in the case of a merger. That public policy abhors inequality and
in his capacity as the Superintendent of discrimination is beyond contention. Our
International School-Manila; and Constitution and laws reflect the policy
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, INC., against these evils. The Constitution8 in the
[The] Court cannot uphold the reasoning respondents. Article on Social Justice and Human Rights
that the general stipulation regarding exhorts Congress to "give highest priority to
transfer of FEBTC assets and liabilities to BPI KAPUNAN, J.:
the enactment of measures that protect
as set forth in the Articles of Merger FACTS: and enhance the right of all people to
necessarily includes the transfer of all human dignity, reduce social, economic,
FEBTC employees into the employ of BPI The private respondent, International and political inequalities." The very broad
and neither BPI nor the FEBTC employees School, Inc. pursuant to Presidential Decree Article 19 of the Civil Code requires every
allegedly could do anything about it. Even 732, is a domestic educational institution person, "in the exercise of his rights and in
if it is so, it does not follow that the established primarily for dependents of the performance of his duties, [to] act with
absorbed employees should not be subject foreign diplomatic personnel and other justice, give everyone his due, and observe
to the terms and conditions of employment temporary residents. honesty and good faith.
obtaining in the surviving corporation.
The school grants foreign-hires certain The employer in this case has failed to
benefits not accorded to local hires. These discharge this burden. There is no evidence
include housing, transportation, shipping here that foreign-hires perform 25% more
Furthermore, [the] Court believes that it is costs, taxes, and home leave travel
contrary to public policy to declare the efficiently or effectively than the local-
allowance. Foreign hires are also paid a hires. Both groups have similar functions
former FEBTC employees as forming part of salary rate twenty-five percent (25%) more
the assets or liabilities of FEBTC that were and responsibilities, which they perform
than local hires. The School justifies the under similar working conditions.
transferred and absorbed by BPI in the difference on two “significant economic
Articles of Merger. Assets and liabilities, in disadvantages” foreign-hires have to The School cannot invoke the need to
this instance, should be deemed to refer endure, namely (a) the “dislocation factor” entice foreign-hires to leave their domicile
only to property rights and obligations of and (b) limited tenure. to rationalize the distinction in salary rates
FEBTC and do not include the employment without violating the principle of equal
contracts of its personnel. The compensation scheme is simply the work for equal pay.
School’s adaptive measure to remain
competitive on an international level in
terms of attracting competent
Certainly, if BPI as an employer had the While we recognize the need of the School
right to choose who to retain among professionals in the field of international
education. to attract foreign-hires, salaries should not
FEBTC’s employees, FEBTC employees had be used as an enticement to the prejudice
the concomitant right to choose not to be Local hires filed a petition claiming that of local-hires. The local-hires perform the
absorbed by BPI. Even though FEBTC point-of-hire classification employed by the same services as foreign-hires and they
employees had no choice or control over School is discriminatory to Filipinos and that ought to be paid the same salaries as the
the merger of their employer with BPI, they the grant of higher salaries to foreign-hires latter. For the same reason, the "dislocation
had a choice whether or not they would constitutes racial discrimination. factor" and the foreign-hires' limited tenure
also cannot serve as valid bases for the test of an asserted bargaining unit's Petitioners also claim that private
distinction in salary rates. The dislocation acceptability is whether or not it is respondent did not comply with the twin
factor and limited tenure affecting foreign- fundamentally the combination which will requirements of notice and hearing. Private
hires are adequately compensated by best assure to all employees the exercise of respondent, on the other hand, maintained
certain benefits accorded them which are their collective bargaining rights. that petitioners were not dismissed but had
not enjoyed by local-hires, such as housing, abandoned their work.
transportation, shipping costs, taxes and It does not appear that foreign-hires have
home leave travel allowances. indicated their intention to be grouped ISSUE: WON petitioners were illegally
together with local-hires for purposes of dismissed.
The Constitution enjoins the State to collective bargaining. The collective
"protect the rights of workers and promote bargaining history in the School also shows RULING:
their welfare," "to afford labor full that these groups were always treated Accordingly, petitioners’ dismissal was for a
protection." The State, therefore, has the separately. Foreign-hires have limited
just cause. They had abandoned their
right and duty to regulate the relations tenure; local-hires enjoy security of tenure. employment and were already working for
between labor and capital. These relations Although foreign-hires perform similar another employer.
are not merely contractual but are so functions under the same working
impressed with public interest that labor conditions as the local-hires, foreign-hires To dismiss an employee, the law requires
contracts, collective bargaining agreements are accorded certain benefits not granted not only the existence of a just and valid
included, must yield to the common good. to local-hires. These benefits, such as cause but also enjoins the employer to give
Should such contracts contain stipulations housing, transportation, shipping costs, the employee the opportunity to be heard
that are contrary to public policy, courts will taxes, and home leave travel allowance, are and to defend himself.
not hesitate to strike down these reasonably related to their status as
stipulations. foreign-hires, and justify the exclusion of Abandonment is the deliberate and
the former from the latter. To include unjustified refusal of an employee to
In this case, we find the point-of-hire foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with local- resume his employment. It is a form of
classification employed by respondent hires would not assure either group the neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for
School to justify the distinction in the salary exercise of their respective collective termination of employment by the
rates of foreign-hires and local hires to be bargaining rights. employer.
an invalid classification. There is no
reasonable distinction between the WHEREFORE, the petition is GIVEN DUE After establishing that the terminations
services rendered by foreign-hires and COURSE. The petition is hereby GRANTED were for a just and valid cause, we now
local-hires. The practice of the School of IN PART. determine if the procedures for dismissal
according higher salaries to foreign-hires were observed.
contravenes public policy and, certainly,
The procedure for terminating an employee
does not deserve the sympathy of this
is found in Book VI, Rule I, Section 2(d) of
Court.
the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor

Code:
Standards of due process: requirements of
ADDITIONAL (sorry ang haba)
[G.R. NO. 158693 : November 17, 2004] notice. – In all cases of termination of
We agree, however, that foreign-hires do employment, the following standards of
not belong to the same bargaining unit as JENNY M. AGABON and VIRGILIO C. due process shall be substantially observed:
the local-hires. AGABON, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), RIVIERA For termination of employment based on
A bargaining unit is "a group of employees just causes as defined in Article 282 of the
HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. and VICENTE
of a given employer, comprised of all or less ANGELES, Respondents. Code:
than all of the entire body of employees,
consistent with equity to the employer, FACTS: 1. A written notice served on the
indicate to be the best suited to serve the employee specifying the ground or grounds
reciprocal rights and duties of the parties Private respondent Riviera Home for termination, and giving to said
under the collective bargaining provisions Improvements, Inc. is engaged in the employee reasonable opportunity within
of the law." 29 The factors in determining business of selling and installing which to explain his side;
the appropriate collective bargaining unit ornamental and construction materials. It
employed petitioners Virgilio Agabon and 1. A hearing or conference during
are (1) the will of the employees (Globe
Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice which the employee concerned, with the
Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the assistance of counsel if the employee so
employees' interest, such as substantial installers on January 2, 1992 until February
23, 1999 when they were dismissed for desires, is given opportunity to respond to
similarity of work and duties, or similarity of the charge, present his evidence or rebut
compensation and working conditions abandonment of work. Thus, Petitioners
then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal the evidence presented against him; and
(Substantial Mutual Interests Rule); (3)
prior collective bargaining history; and (4) and payment of money claims (c) A written notice of termination served
similarity of employment status. The basic on the employee indicating that upon due
consideration of all the circumstances, shall be entitled to the full reimbursement
grounds have been established to justify his of his placement fee with interest of twelve
termination. G.R. No. 167614 March 24, 2009 percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries
ANTONIO M. SERRANO, Petitioner, vs. for the unexpired portion of his
In case of termination, the foregoing employment contract or for three (3)
notices shall be served on the employee’s Gallant MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and
MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., INC., months for every year of the unexpired
last known address. term, whichever is less.
Respondents.
Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the
a just cause under Article 282, the employer FACTS:
Petitioner and ordered the respondent to
must give the employee two written notices Petitioner was hired by Gallant Maritime pay EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED
and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., SEVENTY U.S. DOLLARS (US $8,770.00),
requested by the employee before Ltd. (respondents) under a Philippine representing the complainant’s salary for
terminating the employment: a notice three (3) months of the unexpired portion
Overseas Employment Administration
specifying the grounds for which dismissal (POEA)-approved Contract of Employment of the aforesaid contract of employment.
is sought a hearing or an opportunity to be with the following terms and conditions:
heard and after hearing or opportunity to In awarding petitioner a lump-sum salary of
be heard, a notice of the decision to Duration of contract 12 US$8,770.00, the LA based his computation
dismiss; and (2) if the dismissal is based on months on the salary period of three months only -
authorized causes under Articles 283 and - rather than the entire unexpired portion
284, the employer must give the employee Position Chief Officer of nine months and 23 days of petitioner's
and the Department of Labor and employment contract - applying the subject
Basic monthly salary
Employment written notices 30 days prior clause. However, the LA applied the salary
US$1,400.00
to the effectivity of his separation. rate of US$2,590.00, consisting of
Hours of work petitioner's
From the foregoing rules four possible 48.0 hours per week
situations may be derived: (1) the dismissal "[b]asic salary, US$1,400.00/month +
is for a just cause under Article 282 of the Overtime US$700.00 US$700.00/month, fixed overtime pay, +
Labor Code, for an authorized cause under per month US$490.00/month, vacation leave pay =
Article 283, or for health reasons under US$2,590.00/compensation per month."
Article 284, and due process was observed; Vacation leave with pay
(2) the dismissal is without just or 7.00 days per month Petitioner also appealed to the NLRC that
authorized cause but due process was the LA did not apply the ruling of the Court
On March 19, 1998, the date of his in Triple Integrated Services, Inc. v. National
observed; (3) the dismissal is without just or departure, petitioner was constrained to
authorized cause and there was no due Labor Relations Commission that in case of
accept a downgraded employment contract illegal dismissal, OFWs are entitled to their
process; and (4) the dismissal is for just or
for the position of Second Officer with a salaries for the unexpired portion of their
authorized cause but due process was not
monthly salary of US$1,000.00, upon the contracts.
observed.
assurance and representation of
The present case squarely falls under the respondents that he would be made Chief The NLRC modified the decision and
fourth situation. The dismissal should be Officer by the end of April 1998. corrected the LA's computation of the
upheld because it was established that the Respondents did not deliver on their lump-sum salary awarded to petitioner by
petitioners abandoned their jobs to work promise to make petitioner Chief Officer. reducing the applicable salary rate from
for another company. Private respondent, Hence, petitioner refused to stay on as US$2,590.00 to US$1,400.00 because R.A.
however, did not follow the notice Second Officer and was repatriated to the No. 8042 "does not provide for the award
requirements and instead argued that Philippines on May 26, 1998. of overtime pay, which should be proven to
sending notices to the last known addresses have been actually performed, and for
The employment contract was for 12 vacation leave pay."
would have been useless because they did
months, but at time of the repatriation
not reside there anymore. Unfortunately Serrano only served 2 months. The Petitioner appealed, but the CA
for the private respondent, this is not a valid affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
excuse because the law mandates the twin Petitioner filed with the labor arbiter
notice requirements to the employee’s last against the respondents for constructive ISSUE:
known address. Thus, it should be held dismissal and money claims in the total
liable for non-compliance with the WoN Section 10 (par 5) of RA 8042 is
amount of US$26,442.73, with regard to
procedural requirements of due process. unconstitutional.
the last clause in the 5th paragraph of
Section 10, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042,2 WoN the CA and the Labor Tribunals err in
Petition denied. CA affirmed with to wit:
modifications not applying the decision of the Supreme
Sec. 10. Money Claims. - x x x In case of Court involving similar issue of granting
unto the migrant worker back wages equal
termination of overseas employment
without just, valid or authorized cause as to the unexpired portion of his contract of

defined by law or contract, the workers
employment instead of limiting it to three monetary benefits in case of illegal contract is unwarranted since the same is
(3) months. dismissal. Their claims were subjected to a given during the actual service of the
uniform rule of computation: their basic seamen.
WoN the overtime and leave pay should salaries multiplied by the entire unexpired
form part of the salary basis in the portion of their employment contracts.
computation of his monetary award.
The enactment of the subject clause in R.A.
RULING: No. 8042 introduced a differentiated rule of
First ISSUE: Yes. computation of the money claims of
illegally dismissed OFWs based on their WENPHIL CORPORATION, petitioner,
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, employment periods, in the process
or property without due process of law nor singling out one category whose contracts vs.
shall any person be denied the equal have an unexpired portion of one year or
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
protection of the law. more and subjecting them to the peculiar
COMMISSION AND ROBERTO MALLARE,
disadvantage of having their monetary
respondents.
awards limited to their salaries for 3 months
Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article or for the unexpired portion thereof, FACTS:
XIII accord all members of the labor sector, whichever is less, but all the while sparing
the other category from such prejudice, Private respondent was hired by petitioner
without distinction as to place of as a crew member at its Cubao Branch.
simply because the latter’s unexpired
deployment, full protection of their rights
contracts fall short of one year.
and welfare. He was later dismissed from service after he
Prior to R.A. No. 8042, a uniform system of and one other employee had a heated
To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed altercation and shouting profane words and
under the foregoing constitutional computation of the monetary awards of
illegally dismissed OFWs was in place. This phrases at each other. He also refused to
provisions translate to economic security see the manager after said altercation even
and parity: all monetary benefits should be uniform system was applicable even to local
workers with fixed-term employment. when ordered to do so.
equally enjoyed by workers of similar
category, while all monetary obligations The subject clause does not state or imply He then filed a complaint for illegal
should be borne by them in equal degree; any definitive governmental purpose; and it dismissal before the Labor Arbiter however
none should be denied the protection of is for that precise reason that the clause the case was later dismissed because of
the laws which is enjoyed by, or spared the violates not just petitioner’s right to equal failure to attend of the respodent’s counsel.
burden imposed on, others in like protection, but also her right to substantive
circumstances. Respondent then appealed to the NLRC
due process under Section 1, Article III of which reversed the Arbiters decision
Imbued with the same sense of “obligation the Constitution. ordering for his reinstatement ruling that
to afford protection to labor,” the Court in The subject clause being unconstitutional, respondent was illegally dismissed without
the present case also employs the standard petitioner is entitled to his salaries for the due process because no investigation was
of strict judicial scrutiny, for it perceives in entire unexpired period of nine months and conducted before such dismissal.
the subject clause a suspect classification 23 days of his employment contract,
prejudicial to OFWs. Hence Petitioner filed this certiorari on
pursuant to law and jurisprudence prior to
ground of grave abuse of discretion.
Upon cursory reading, the subject clause the enactment of R.A. No. 8042.
appears facially neutral, for it applies to all ISSUE:
Third ISSUE: It’s a No.
OFWs. However, a closer examination WON the right of petitioner to due process
reveals that the subject clause has a The word salaries in Section 10(5) does not
was violated in this case?
discriminatory intent against, and an include overtime and leave pay. For
invidious impact on OFWs seafarers like petitioner, DOLE Department RULING:
Order No. 33, series 1996, provides a
The subject clause does not state or imply Standard Employment Contract of Well yes, however the court ruled that the
any definitive governmental purpose; and it Seafarers, in which salary is understood as dismissal was valid.
is for that precise reason that the clause the basic wage, exclusive of overtime, leave
violates not just petitioner’s right to equal Under Section 1, Rule XIV of the
pay and other bonuses; whereas overtime
protection, but also her right to substantive Implementing Regulations of the Labor
pay is compensation for all work
due process under Section 1, Article III of Code, it is provided that "No worker shall be
“performed” in excess of the regular eight
the Constitution. dismissed except for just or authorized
hours, and holiday pay is compensation for
cause provided by law and after due
Second ISSUE: Yes. any work “performed” on designated rest
process."
days and holidays.
It is plain that prior to R.A. No. 8042, all Same rules require that before an employer
OFWs, regardless of contract periods or the
may dismiss an employee the latter must be
unexpired portions thereof, were treated In the same vein, the claim for the day’s given a written notice stating the particular
alike in terms of the computation of their leave pay for the unexpired portion of the act or omission constituting the grounds
thereof; that the employee may answer the 1988, he became head of the Security YES. Petitioner was validly dismissed.
allegations within a reasonable period; that Checkers Section of private respondent.2
the employer shall afford him ample
opportunity to be heard and to defend
the "[management of a company] cannot
himself with the assistance of his
Sometime in 1991, as a cost-cutting be denied the faculty of promoting
representative, if he so desires; and that it measure, private respondent decided to efficiency and attaining economy by a study
is only then that the employer may dismiss phase out its entire security section and of what units are essential for its operation.
the employee by notifying him of the engage the services of an independent To it belongs the ultimate determination of
decision in writing stating clearly the security agency. Petitioner was terminated whether services should be performed by
reasons therefor. and was notified via memorandum. its personnel or contracted to outside
The failure of petitioner to give private agencies . Consequently, absent proof that
management acted in a malicious or
respondent the benefit of a hearing before
he was dismissed constitutes an arbitrary manner, the Court will not
The loss of his employment prompted
infringement of his constitutional right to petitioner to file a complaint for illegal interfere with the exercise of judgment by
due process of law and equal protection of dismissal, illegal layoff, unfair labor an employer.12
the laws. The standards of due process in practice, underpayment of wages, and
judicial as well as administrative nonpayment of salary and overtime pay.
proceedings have long been established. In In the case at bar, we have only the bare
its bare minimum due process of law simply assertion of petitioner that, in abolishing
means giving notice and opportunity to be the security section, private respondent's
the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision
heard before judgment is rendered. real purpose was to avoid payment to the
finding petitioner to have been illegally
dismissed -- that private respondent failed security checkers of the wage increases
However, it is a matter of fact that when the provided in the collective bargaining
private respondent filed a complaint to establish that it had retrenched its
security section to prevent or minimize agreement approved.13 Such an assertion
against petitioner he was afforded the right is not sufficient basis for concluding that the
to an investigation by the labor arbiter. He losses to its business; that private
respondent failed to accord due process to termination of petitioner's employment
presented his position paper as did the
petitioner; was not a bona fide decision of
petitioner. If no hearing was had, it was the management to obtain reasonable return
fault of private respondent as his counsel from its investment, which is a right

failed to appear at the scheduled hearings. guaranteed to employers under the
The labor arbiter concluded that the that private respondent failed to establish Constitution.14 Indeed, that the phase-out
dismissal of private respondent was for just that it had retrenched its security section to of the security section constituted a
cause. He was found guilty of grave prevent or minimize losses to its business; "legitimate business decision" is a factual
misconduct and insubordination. This is that private respondent failed to accord finding of an administrative agency which
borne by the sworn statements of due process to petitioner; must be accorded respect and even finality
witnesses. The Court is bound by this by this Court since nothing can be found in
finding of the labor arbiter.
the record which fairly detracts from such
Although belatedly, private respondent was Private respondent appealed to the NLRC finding.15
afforded due process before the labor which reversed the decision of the Labor
Arbiter and ordered petitioner to be given Accordingly, we hold that the termination
arbiter wherein the just cause of his of petitioner's services was for an
dismissal bad been established. With such separation pay -- that the phase-out of
private respondent's security section and authorized cause, i.e., redundancy. Hence,
finding, it would be arbitrary and unfair to pursuant to Art. 283 of the Labor Code,
order his reinstatement with back wages. the hiring of an independent security
petitioner should be given separation pay at
agency constituted an exercise by private
the rate of one month pay for every year of
respondent of "[a] legitimate business
decision whose wisdom we do not intend to service.
inquire into and for which we cannot
substitute our judgment
WENPHIL SERRANO DOCTRINE - The
SERRANO DOCTRINE - Serrano v. NLRC dismissal is for a just and authorized cause
but due process was not observed.
Hence this petition

Petitioner was hired by private respondent
Isetann Department Store as a security The dismissal is legal but the employee is
ISSUE:
checker to apprehend shoplifters and entitled to damages by way of
prevent pilferage of merchandise. Initially W/N the termination was valid indemnification for the violation of the right
hired on contractual basis, petitioner or other stiffer sanctions.
eventually became a regular employee. In

RULING:
 Labor Arbiter: illegally dismissed and
ordered private resp. to pay the monetary
claims Under Book VI, Rule I, Section 2(d) of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
[G.R. NO. 158693 : November 17, 2004] Code:
JENNY M. AGABON and VIRGILIO C. On appeal, NLRC: reversed the Labor “In all cases of termination of employment,
AGABON, Petitioners, v.NATIONAL LABOR Arbiter because it found that the the following standards of due process shall
RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), RIVIERA petitioners had abandoned their work, and be substantially observed:
HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. and VICENTE were not entitled to backwages and
ANGELES,Respondents. separation pay. I. For termination of employment based on
just causes as defined in Article 282 of the
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. CA: ruled that the dismissal of the Code:
FACTS: petitioners was not illegal because they had
abandoned their employment but ordered (a) A written notice served on the employee
the payment of money claims. specifying the ground or grounds for
Private respondent Riviera Home
Improvements, Inc. is engaged in the termination, and giving to said employee
business of selling and installing Hence, this petition reasonable opportunity within which to
ornamental and construction materials. It explain his side;
ISSUE:
employed petitioners Virgilio Agabon and (b) A hearing or conference during which
Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice Whether or not petitioners were dismissed the employee concerned, with the
installers on January 2, 19922 until for just cause assistance of counsel if the employee so
February 23, 1999 when they were desires, is given opportunity to respond to
dismissed for abandonment of work.
the charge, present his evidence or rebut
RULING: the evidence presented against him; and

Petitioners assert that they were dismissed YES (c) A written notice of termination served
because the private respondent refused to on the employee indicating that upon due
To dismiss an employee, the law requires consideration of all the circumstances,
give them assignments unless they agreed not only the existence of a just and valid
to work on a "pakyaw" basis when they grounds have been established to justify his
cause but also enjoins the employer to give termination.
reported for duty on February 23, 1999. the employee the opportunity to be heard
They did not agree on this arrangement
and to defend himself. (ART. 282 labor code
because it would mean losing benefits as enumerates just causes)
Social Security System (SSS) members. In case of termination, the foregoing
Petitioners also claim that private notices shall be served on the employee's
respondent did not comply with the twin last known address.”
requirements of notice and hearing. Petitioners were frequently absent having
subcontracted for an installation work for
another company. Subcontracting for
another company clearly showed the (ang daming concepts. Sorry ang haba
Private respondent, on the other hand, nanaman. Para sure lang in case matanong)
intention to sever the employer-employee
maintained that petitioners were not relationship with private respondent. This
dismissed but had abandoned their work. In
was not the first time they did this.
fact, private respondent sent two letters to Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on
the last known addresses of the petitioners Private respondent at that time warned a just cause under Article 282, the employer
advising them to report for work. Private petitioners that they would be dismissed if must give the employee two written notices
respondent's manager even talked to this happened again. Petitioners and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if
petitioner Virgilio Agabon by telephone disregarded the warning and exhibited a requested by the employee before
sometime in June 1999 to tell him about the clear intention to sever their employer- terminating the employment: a notice
new assignment at Pacific Plaza Towers employee relationship. specifying the grounds for which dismissal
involving 40,000 square meters of cornice is sought a hearing or an opportunity to be
installation work. However, petitioners did
heard and after hearing or opportunity to
not report for work because they had Hence, a clear showing of abandonment, a be heard, a notice of the decision to
subcontracted to perform installation work just cause to terminate an employment by dismiss; and
for another company. Petitioners also
the employer
demanded for an increase in their wage to (2) if the dismissal is based on authorized
P280.00 per day. When this was not causes under Articles 283 and 284, the
granted, petitioners stopped reporting for employer must give the employee and the
work and filed the illegal dismissal case. HOWEVER, despite showing of a valid and Department of Labor and Employment
just cause for termination, this case is not written notices 30 days prior to the
without any procedural infirmities. effectivity of his separation.
 termination under the Labor Code; and
procedural, i.e., the manner of dismissal.
From the foregoing rules four possible Procedural due process requirements for
situations may be derived: dismissal are found in the Implementing
Rules of P.D. 442, as amended, otherwise
(1) the dismissal is for a just cause under
Article 282 of the Labor Code, for an known as the Labor Code of the Philippines
authorized cause under Article 283, or for in Book VI, Rule I, Sec. 2, as amended by
health reasons under Article 284, and due Department Order Nos. 9 and 10. Breaches
process was observed; of these due process requirements violate
the Labor Code. Therefore statutory due
process should be differentiated from
failure to comply with constitutional due
(2) the dismissal is without just or process.
authorized cause but due process was
observed; Constitutional due process protects the
individual from the government and
assures him of his rights in criminal, civil or
(3) the dismissal is without just or administrative proceedings; while statutory
authorized cause and there was no due due process found in the Labor Code and
Implementing Rules protects employees
process; and
from being unjustly terminated without just
cause after notice and hearing.

(4) the dismissal is for just or authorized PETITION DENIED

cause but due process was not observed.



The fourth situation applies in this case. The
dismissal should be upheld. While the
procedural infirmity cannot be cured, it
should not invalidate the dismissal.
However, the employer should be held
liable for non-compliance with the
procedural requirements of due process.

THE REASON BEING IS THAT

CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS IS
DIFFERENT FROM STATUTORY DUE
PROCESS

To be sure, the Due Process Clause in Article

III, Section 1 of the Constitution embodies a
system of rights based on moral principles
so deeply imbedded in the traditions and
feelings of our people as to be deemed
fundamental to a civilized society as
conceived by our entire history. Due
process is that which comports with the
deepest notions of what is fair and right and
just.26 It is a constitutional restraint on the
legislative as well as on the executive and
judicial powers of the government provided
by the Bill of Rights.

Due process under the Labor Code, like

Constitutional due process, has two
aspects: substantive, i.e., the valid and
authorized causes of employment