CASE NO. 1 EDUARDO G. EVIOTA, Vs. THE HON.

COURT OF APPEALS,
THE HON. JOSE BAUTISTA, Presiding Judge of Branch 136, Regional Trial
Court of Makati, and STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
G.R. No. 152121, July 29, 2003

1. A money claim by a worker against the employer or vice-versa is within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the labor arbiter only if there is a "reasonable causal connection" between
the claim asserted and employee-employer relation. Absent such a link, the complaint will
be cognizable by the regular courts of justice.

2. Actions between employees and employer where the employer-employee relationship is

merely incidental and the cause of action precedes from a different source of obligation is
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular court.

Page 1 of 50
 CASE NO. 2 SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) AND BRENDA J. BETIA, PETITIONERS, VS.
MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO, MONTASSAH B. SACAR-ADIONG, ROUEN RUTH A.
CRISTOBAL A
ND LORAINE S. SCHNEIDER-CRUZ, RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015

1. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, "a court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its
jurisdiction where it is not the most 'convenient' or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking
remedies elsewhere3. The use of the word "may" (i.e., "may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction") in the decisions
shows that the matter of jurisdiction rests on the sound discretion of a court. Neither the mere invocation of forum
non conveniens nor the averment of foreign elements operates to automatically divest a court of jurisdiction.
Rather, a court should renounce jurisdiction only "after 'vital facts are established, to determine whether special
circumstances' require the court's desistance."4 It would be improper to dismiss an action pursuant to forum non
conveniens based merely on a perceived, likely, or hypothetical multiplicity of fora. Thus, a defendant must also
plead and show that a prior suit has, in fact, been brought in another jurisdiction.

2. Forum non conveniens relates to forum, not to the choice of governing law. That forum non conveniens may
ultimately result in the application of foreign law is merely an incident of its application. What justifies a court's
desistance from exercising jurisdiction is "[t]he difficulty of ascertaining foreign law" 5or the inability of a
"Philippine Court to make an intelligent decision as to the law.6

Page 2 of 50
3. Contracting parties may establish 'such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem
convenient7. Nevertheless, while a Philippine tribunal (acting as the forum court) is called upon to respect the
parties' choice of governing law, such respect must not be so permissive as to lose sight of considerations of law,
morals, good customs, public order, or public policy that underlie the contract central to the controversy. Especially
provisions relating to matters affected with public policy (such as fundamental equality of men and women) are
deemed written in the contract). Put a little differently, the governing principle is that parties may not contract
away applicable provisions of law especially peremptory provisions dealing with matters heavily impressed with
public interest8.

4. Constructive dismissal has been described as tantamount to "involuntarily resignation due to the harsh, hostile,
and unfavorable conditions set by the employer."9

5. "The gauge for constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would feel
compelled to give up his employment under the prevailing circumstances10.

6. [m]oral damages are awarded in termination cases where the employee's dismissal was attended by bad faith,
malice or fraud, or where it constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or where it was done in a manner contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy11."

7. Corporate directors and officers are not liable for the illegal termination of a corporation's employees. It is only
when they acted in bad faith or with malice that they become solidarity liable with the corporation12.
Page 3 of 50
 CASE NO. 3 JOSE EMMANUEL P. GUILLERMO, Petitioner, Vs.
CRISANTO P. USON, Respondent. G.R. No. 198967, March 07, 2016

1. Personal liability attaches only when, as enumerated by the said Section 31 of the Corporation Code, there
is a wilfull and knowing assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation, there is gross negligence or bad
faith in directing the affairs of the corporation, or there is a conflict of interest resulting in damages to the
corporation.13

2. The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is held to apply only in three (3) basic areas, namely: ( 1) defeat
of public convenience as when the corporate fiction is used as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing
obligation; (2) fraud cases or when the corporate entity is used to justify a wrong, protect fraud, or defend a
crime; or (3) alter ego cases, where a corporation is merely a farce since it is a mere alter ego or business
conduit of a person, or where the corporation is so organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted
as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of another corporation.14

3. Not all conflicts between a stockholder and the corporation are intra-corporate; an examination of the
complaint must be made on whether the complainant is involved in his capacity as a stockholder or director,
or as an employee15. If the complaint centered alone on dismissal as an employee then the matter is clearly
a labor dispute cognizable by the labor tribunals.16

Page 4 of 50
CASE NO. 4 ALLAN M. MENDOZA, Petitioner, Vs. OFFICERS OF MANILA
WATER EMPLOYEES UNION (MWEU),
namely, EDUARDO B. BORELA, ET AL., Respondents. January 25, 2016, G.R.
No. 201595

1. An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and among union members,
including grievances arising from any violation of the rights and conditions of membership,
violation of or disagreement over any provision of the union’s constitution and by-laws, or
disputes arising from chartering or disaffiliation of the union.17

2. Unfair labor practices may be committed both by the employer under Article 248 and by
labor organizations under Article 249 of the Labor Code,

3. The right of self-organization includes the right to organize or affiliate with a labor union
or determine which of two or more unions in an establishment to join, and to engage in
concerted activities with co-workers for purposes of collective bargaining through
representatives of their own choosing, or for their mutual aid and protection18
Page 5 of 50
 CASE NO. 5 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs.
TERESITA "TESSIE" LAOGO, Appellant. G.R. No. 176264, January 10, 2011

To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused, without being duly
authorized by law, gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or
ability to send them abroad for work, such that the latter were convinced to part with their
money in order to be employed. It is important that there must at least be a promise or offer
of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter, whether locally or abroad.19

Page 6 of 50
 CASE NO. 6 SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, Vs.
JOY C. CABILES, Respondent. G.R. No. 170139, August 05, 2014

1. Indeed, employers have the prerogative to impose productivity and quality standards at work. They may also impose
reasonable rules to ensure that the employees comply with these standards. Failure to comply may be a just cause for
their dismissal.20 Certainly, employers cannot be compelled to retain the services of an employee who is guilty of acts
that are inimical to the interest of the employer. While the law acknowledges the plight and vulnerability of workers, it
does not “authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer. 21This prerogative, however, should not be
abused. It is“tempered with the employee’s right to security of tenure.” 22Workers are entitled to substantive and
procedural due process before termination. They may not be removed from employment without a valid or just cause as
determined by law and without going through the proper procedure.

2. The provisions of the Constitution as well as the Labor Code which afford protection to labor apply to Filipino
employees whether working within the Philippines or abroad.

3. The burden of proving that there is just cause for termination is on the employer. “The employer must affirmatively
show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause.” 23Failure to show that there was valid
or just cause for termination would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal24

4. To show that dismissal resulting from inefficiency in work is valid, it must be shown that: 1) the employer has set
standards of conduct and workmanship against which the employee will be judged; 2) the standards of conduct and
workmanship must have been communicated to the employee; and 3) the communication was made at a reasonable time
prior to the employee’s performance assessment.
Page 7 of 50
5. Due process requires that the probationary employee be informed of such standards at the time of his or her engagement
so he or she can adjust his or her character or workmanship accordingly.

6. The regular employee must constantly attempt to prove to his or her employer that he or she meets all the standards
for employment. These standards to be met are set for the purpose of retaining employment or promotion. The employee
cannot be expected to meet any standard of character or workmanship if such standards were not communicated to him
or her25.

7. A valid dismissal requires both a valid cause and adherence to the valid procedure of dismissal. The employer is
required to give the charged employee at least two written notices before termination. One of the written notices must
inform the employee of the particular acts that may cause his or her dismissal. The other notice must “[inform] the
employee of the employer’s decision.” Aside from the notice requirement, the employee must also be given “an
opportunity to be heard.”26

8. The clause “or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” is unconstitutional for
violating the equal protection clause and substantive due process. Limiting wages that should be recovered by an illegally
dismissed overseas worker to three months is both a violation of due process and the equal protection clauses of the
Constitution. The subject clause creates a sub-layer of discrimination among OFWs whose contract periods are for more
than one year: those who are illegally dismissed with less than one year left in their contracts shall be entitled to their
salaries for the entire unexpired portion thereof, while those who are illegally dismissed with one year or more remaining
in their contracts shall be covered by the reinstated clause, and their monetary benefits limited to their salaries for three

Page 8 of 50
months only.” It is arbitrary as it deprives overseas workers of their monetary claims without any discernable valid
purpose.27

9. A law is void on this basis, only if classifications are made arbitrarily. There is no violation of the equal protection
clause if the law applies equally to persons within the same class and if there are reasonable grounds for distinguishing
between those falling within the class and those who do not fall within the class. 28A law that does not violate the equal
protection clause prescribes a reasonable classification. A reasonable classification “(1) must rest on substantial
distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4)
must apply equally to all members of the same class.29

10. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799 of June 21, 2013, which revised the interest rate for loan or forbearance
from 12% to 6%, is applicable only in loans and forbearance of money, goods, or credits, and in judgments when there
is no stipulation on the applicable interest rate. Further, it is only applicable if the judgment did not become final and
executory before July 1, 2013. That Circular No. 799 is not applicable when there is a law that states otherwise. While
the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas has the power to set or limit interest rates, these interest rates do not apply when the law
provides that a different interest rate shall be applied. “A Central Bank Circular cannot repeal a law. Only a law can
repeal another law.”30

11. Laws are deemed incorporated in contracts. “The contracting parties need not repeat them. They do not even have to
be referred to. Every contract, thus, contains not only what has been explicitly stipulated, but the statutory provisions that
have any bearing on the matter.”31

Page 9 of 50
12. When a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with the Constitution, the nullity cannot be cured
by reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar law or provision. A law or provision of law that was already
declared unconstitutional remains as such unless circumstances have so changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion.

13. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of
money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall
itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be
6% per annum to be computed from default.

14. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of
damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum.32

15. Foreign employer and the local employment agency are jointly and severally liable for money claims including claims
arising out of an employer-employee relationship and/or damages. Hence, in the case of overseas employment, either the
local agency or the foreign employer may be sued for all claims arising from the foreign employer’s labor law
violations.33

Page 10 of 50
 CASE NO. 7 LORENZO T. TANGGA-AN, vs. PIDLIPPINE TRANSMARINE
CARRIERS, INC., UNIVERSE TANKSHIP DELAWARE LLC, and CARLOS C.
SALINAS, G.R. NO. 180636, March 13, 2013

1. When the illegally dismissed employee's employment contract has a term of less than
one year, he/she shall be entitled to recovery of salaries representing the unexpired portion
of his/her employment contract.34

2. Whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or three (3)
months’ salary for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, comes into play
only when the employment contract concerned has a term of at least one (1) year or more.

3. The award of attorney's fees is proper, and there need not be any showing that the
employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. There need only be
a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly.'35

Page 11 of 50
 CASE NO. 8 POSEIDON INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SERVICES, INC.,
VS. TITO R. RAMALA, ET AL. GR NO. 186475 JUNE 26, 2013

1. The settled rule is that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to the review of questions of law36,
i.e., to legal errors that the CA may have committed in its decision37, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional errors
that we undertake in original certiorari actions under Rule 65.38

2. Viewed in this light, we do not re-examine the factual findings of the NLRC and the CA, nor do we substitute our own
judgment for theirs,39 as their findings of fact are generally conclusive on this Court.

3. We confirm in this regard that, by law and subject to the State’s corollary right to review its determination,40
management has the right to regulate the business and control its every aspect.41 Included in this management right is
the freedom to close or cease its operations for any reason, as long as it is done in good faith and the employer faithfully
complies with the substantive and procedural requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence.42

4. Generally, this Court looks with disfavor at quitclaims executed by employees for being contrary to public policy.43
Where the person making the waiver, however, has done so voluntarily, with a full understanding of its terms and with
the payment of credible and reasonable consideration, we have no option but to recognize the transaction to be valid and
binding.44

5. In the termination of employment under Article 283, Van Doorn, as the employer, is required to serve a written notice
to the respondents and to the DOLE of the intended termination of employment at least one month prior to the cessation
of its fishing operations.
Page 12 of 50
 CASE NO. 9 JULITA M. ALDOVINO, ET AL. VS. GOLD AND GREEN MANPOWER
MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., ET AL. GR NO. 200811 July 23, 2019

1. Both the Constitution and the Labor Code guarantee the security of tenure. It is not stripped off when Filipinos work
in a different jurisdiction.45 We follow the lex loci contractus principle, which means that the law of the place where the
contract is executed governs the contract.

2. Furthermore, settled is the rule that the courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum's
public policy.

3. Waivers and quitclaims executed by employees are generally frowned upon for being contrary to public policy. This
is based on the recognition that employers and employees do not stand on equal footing. 46

4. Along this line, we have more trenchantly declared that quitclaims and/or complete releases executed by the employees
do not estop them from pursuing their claims arising from unfair labor practices of the employer. The basic reason for
this is that such quitclaims and/or complete releases are against public policy and, therefore, null and void. The acceptance
of termination does not divest a laborer of the right to prosecute his employer for unfair labor practice acts.47

5. Quitclaims do not bar employees from filing labor complaints and demanding benefits to which they are legally
entitled.48 They are "ineffective in barring recovery of the full measure of a worker's rights, and the acceptance of benefits
therefrom does not amount to estoppel."49 The law does not recognize agreements that result in compensation less than
what is mandated by law.

Page 13 of 50
6. In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof that employees were validly dismissed rests on the employers. Failure
to discharge this burden means that the dismissal is illegal.50

7. A valid dismissal must comply with substantive and procedural due process: there must be a valid cause and a valid
procedure. The employer must comply with the two (2)notice requirement, while the employee must be given an
opportunity to be heard.51

8. Our laws afford protection to our workers, whether employed locally or abroad. It is this Court's bounden duty to
uphold these laws and dispense justice for petitioners.

9. Moral damages are recoverable when the dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an
act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public policy. Exemplary
damages, on the other hand, are recoverable when the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent
manner.52

10. Limiting wages that should be recovered by an illegally dismissed overseas worker to three months is both a violation
of due process and the equal protection clauses of the Constitution.53

11. A statute declared unconstitutional "confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no
office; it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all."54

Page 14 of 50
 CASE NO. 10 LEO V. MAGO AND LEILANIE E. COLOBONG VS.
SUN POWER MANUFACTURING LIMITED GR NO. 210961 January 24, 2018

1. Labor-only contracting as a situation "where the person supplying workers to an employer does not have
substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and
the workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal
business of such employer."55

2. Labor-only contracting shall refer to an arrangement where the contractor or subcontractor merely recruits,
supplies or places workers to perform a job, work or service for a principal, and any of the following elements are
present: i) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or investment which relates to the job,
work or service to be performed and the employees recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor or
subcontractor are performing activities which are directly related to the main business of the principal; or ii) The
contractor does not exercise the right to control over the performance of the work of the contractual employee.
Thus, in order to become a legitimate contractor, the contractor must have substantial capital or investment, and
must carry a distinct and independent business free from the control of the principal.

3. Furthermore, the Court considers job contracting or subcontracting as permissible when the principal agrees to
farm out the performance of a specific job, work or service to the contractor, for a definite or predetermined period
of time, regardless of whether such job, work, or service is to be performed or completed within or outside the
premises of the principal.56
Page 15 of 50
4. Substantial capital or investment is "capital stocks and subscribed capitalization in the case of corporations,
tools, equipment, implements, machineries and work premises, actually and directly used by the contractor or
subcontractor in the performance or completion of the job, work or service contracted out."57

5. The "right to control" shall refer to the right reserved to the person for whom the services of the contractual
workers are performed, to determine not only the end to be achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in
reaching that end.58

6. Job contracting is permissible "whether such job, work, or service is to be performed or completed within or
outside the premises of the principal"59 for as long as the elements of a labor-only contractor are not present.

7. The four-fold test is the established standard for determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship:60 (a) The selection and engagement of the employee; (b) The payment of wages; (c) The power of
dismissal; and (d) The power of control over the employee's conduct. Of the four elements, the power of control
is the most important.61

8. The Court recognized that while the employer is generally required to establish the legality of the employee's
termination, the employee should first establish the fact of dismissal from service. Failing such, as in this case, the
Court cannot rule that the employee was illegally dismissed.62

Page 16 of 50
 CASE NO. 11 PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION (PGIEU) VS.
CHEVRON GEOTHERMAL PHILS. HOLDING, INC. GR No. 229404 January 24, 2018

1. "Wage distortion"63 only cover wage adjustments and increases due to a prescribed law or wage order.

2. Where the application of any prescribed wage increase by virtue of a law or Wage Order issued by any Regional
Board results in distortions of the wage structure within an establishment, the employer and union shall negotiate to
correct the distortions. Any dispute arising from the wage distortions shall be resolved through the grievance
procedure under their collective bargaining agreement and, if it remains unresolved, through voluntary arbitration.

3. There are four elements of wage distortion, to wit: 64 (1) an existing hierarchy of positions with corresponding
salary rates; (2) a significant change in the salary rate of a lower pay class without a concomitant increase in the
salary rate of a higher one; (3) the elimination of the distinction between the two levels; and (4) the existence of the
distortion in the same region of the country.

4. Management prerogative gives an employer freedom to regulate according to their discretion and best judgment,
all aspects of employment including work assignment, working methods, the processes to be followed, working
regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of
workers.65 This right is tempered only by these limitations: that it must be exercised in good faith and with due regard
to the rights of the employees.66

Page 17 of 50
5. If the compulsory mandate under Article 124 to correct "wage distortion" is applied to voluntary and unilateral
increases by the employer in fixing hiring rates which is inherently a business judgment prerogative, then the hands
of the employer would be completely tied even in cases where an increase in wages of a particular group is justified
due to a re-evaluation of the high productivity of a particular group, or as in the present case, the need to increase the
competitiveness of Bankard's hiring rate. An employer would be discouraged from adjusting the salary rates of a
particular group of employees for fear that it would result to a demand by all employees for a similar increase,
especially if the financial conditions the business cannot address an across-theboard increase.67

6. An employer should not be held hostage by the whims and caprices of its employees especially when it has faithfully
complied with and executed the terms of the CBA.

It is the prerogative of management to regulate, according to its discretion and judgment all aspects of employment.
This flows from the established rule that labor law does not authorize the substitution of the judgment of the employer
in the conduct of its business. Such management prerogative may be availed of without fear of any liability so long
as it is exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or
circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or agreements and are not exercised in a malicious,
harsh, oppressive, vindictive or wanton manner or out of malice or spite.68

7. On a final note, the Court has ruled time and again that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have
acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality by the
courts when supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the CA, in the exercise of its expanded jurisdiction to
review findings of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Page 18 of 50
 CASE NO. 12 MARILYN B. ASENTISTA
Vs. JUPP & COMPANY, INC. GR No. 229404; January 24, 2018

1. Moreover, the silence of the employment agreement including sales commission as part of remuneration
does not affect her entitlement.

2. Employee's wage has been defined as "remuneration of earnings, however designated, capable of being
expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or
other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a written or
unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered and
includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, of board,
lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee."69

3. While commissions are, indeed, incentives or forms of encouragement to inspire employees to put a little
more industry on the jobs particularly assigned to them, still these commissions are direct remunerations for
services rendered. In fact, commissions have been defined as the recompense, compensation or reward of an
agent, salesman, executor, trustee, receiver, factor, broker or bailee, when the same is calculated as a
percentage on the amount of his transactions or on the profit to the principal.70

Page 19 of 50
4. It is a settled labor doctrine that in cases involving non-payment of monetary claims of employees, the
employer has the burden of proving that the employees did receive their wages and benefits and that the same
were paid in accordance with law.71

5. It is settled that once the employee has set out with particularity in his complaint, position paper, affidavits
and other documents the labor standard benefits he is entitled to, and which he alleged that the employer
failed to pay him, it becomes the employer's burden to prove that it has paid these money claims. One who
pleads payment has the burden of proving it, and even where the employees must allege non-payment, the
general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove
non-payment.72

6. In the absence of specific terms and conditions governing a car plan agreement between the employer and
employee, the former may not retain the installment payments made by the latter on the car plan and treat
them as rents for the use of the service vehicle, in the event that the employee ceases his employment and is
unable to complete the installment payments on the vehicle. The underlying reason is that the service vehicle
was precisely used in the former's business; any personal benefit obtained by the employee from its use is
merely incidental.73

Page 20 of 50
 CASE NO. 13 SLL INTERNATIONAL CABLES SPECIALIST and
SONNY L. LAGON Vs. NLRC GR No. 172161; March 2, 2011

1. Settled is the rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have
acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdiction, are generally accorded
not only respect but even finality, and bind the Court when supported by substantial
evidence. It is not the Court’s function to assess and evaluate the evidence all over again,
particularly where the findings of both the Labor tribunals and the CA concur.74

2. As a general rule, on payment of wages, a party who alleges payment as a defense has
the burden of proving it.75 Specifically with respect to labor cases, the burden of proving
payment of monetary claims rests on the employer, the rationale being that the pertinent
personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents — which will
show that overtime, differentials, service incentive leave and other claims of workers have
been paid — are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody and absolute control
of the employer.76

Page 21 of 50
3. Moreover, before the value of facilities can be deducted from the employees’ wages, the
following requisites must all be attendant: first, proof must be shown that such facilities
are customarily furnished by the trade; second, the provision of deductible facilities must
be voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee; and finally, facilities must be charged
at reasonable value.77 Mere availment is not sufficient to allow deductions from
employees’ wages.78

4. "Supplements," therefore, constitute extra remuneration or special privileges or benefits

given to or received by the laborers over and above their ordinary earnings or wages.
"Facilities," on the other hand, are items of expense necessary for the laborer's and his
family's existence and subsistence so that by express provision of law (Sec. 2[g]), they
form part of the wage and when furnished by the employer are deductible therefrom, since
if they are not so furnished, the laborer would spend and pay for them just the same.79

Page 22 of 50
 CASE NO. 14 OUR HAUS REALTY DEVELOPMENT CO.,
Vs. ALEXANDER PARIAN, ET AL.; GR No. 204651; August 6, 2014

1. Basic is the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition.80

2. The legal requirements before any deduction or charging can be made: a. Proof must be shown
that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade; b. The provision of deductible facilities
must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee; and c. The facilities must be charged at
fair and reasonable value. 81

3. In a string of cases, we have concluded that one of the badges to show that a facility is customarily
furnished by the trade is the existence of a company policy or guideline showing that provisions
for a facility were designated as part of the employees’ salaries.82

4. Lastly, even if a benefit is customarily provided by the trade, it must still pass the purpose test
set by jurisprudence. Under this test, if a benefit or privilege granted to the employee is clearly for
the employer’s convenience, it will not be considered as a facility but a supplement.83

Page 23 of 50
5. "Supplements", therefore, constitute extra remuneration or special privileges or benefits given to
or received by the laborers over and above their ordinary earnings or wages. "Facilities," on the
other hand, are items of expense necessary for the laborer's and his family's existence and
subsistence so that by express provision of law (Sec.2[g]),they form part of the wage and when
furnished by the employer are deductible therefrom, since if they are not so furnished, the laborer
would spend and pay for them just the same. In short, the benefit or privilege given to the employee
which constitutes an extra remuneration above and over his basic orordinary earning or wage is
supplement; and when said benefit or privilege is part of the laborers' basic wages, it is a facility.
The distinction lies not so much in the kind of benefit or item (food, lodging, bonus or sick leave)
given, but in the purpose for which it is given. In the case at bench, the items provided were given
freely by SLL for the purpose of maintaining the efficiency and health of its workers while they
were working at their respective projects.84 Ultimately, the real difference lies not on the kind of
the benefit but on the purpose why it was given by the employer. If it is primarily for the employee’s
gain, then the benefit is a facility; if its provision is mainly for the employer’s advantage, then it is
a supplement. Again, this is to ensure that employees are protected in circumstances where the
employer designates a benefit as deductible from the wages even though it clearly works to the
employer’s greater convenience or advantage.

Page 24 of 50
6. A facility may only be deducted from the wage if the employer was authorized in writing by the
concerned employee.85 As it diminishes the take home pay of an employee, the deduction must be
with his express consent.

7. Generally a party who alleges payment as a defense has the burden of proving it. Particularly in
labor cases, the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer on the
reasoning that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar
documents— which will show that over time, differentials, service incentive leave and other claims
of workers have been paid— are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody and absolute
control of the employer.86

8. It is settled that in actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate
and, thus, incur expenses to protect this rights and interest, the award of attorney's fees is legally
and morally justifiable.87

Page 25 of 50
 CASE NO. 15 RFM CORPORATION-FLOUR DIVISION, Et Al Vs.
KASAPIAN NG MANGGA-GAWANG PINAGKAISA-RFM, Et Al;
GR No. 162324; February 4, 2009

1. If the terms of a CBA are clear and have no doubt upon the intention of the contracting
parties, as in the herein questioned provision, the literal meaning thereof shall prevail. That
is settled.88 As such, the daily-paid employees must be paid their regular salaries on the
holidays which are so declared by the national government, regardless of whether they fall
on rest days.

2. Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that
the State shall afford protection to labor. Its purpose is not merely "to prevent diminution
of the monthly income of the workers on account of work interruptions. In other words,
although the worker is forced to take a rest, he earns what he should earn, that is, his holiday
pay.89

Page 26 of 50
 CASE NO. 16 NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF vs.
PHILIPPINE PLAZA HOLDINGS, INC.,
G.R. No. 177524 (July 23, 2014)

1. Jurisprudence settles that a CBA is the law between the contracting parties who are
obliged under the law to comply with its provisions.90

2. Like other causes of action, the prescriptive period for money claims under Article 291
of the Labor Code is subject to interruption. And, in the absence of an equivalent Labor
Code provision for determining whether Article 291’s three-year prescriptive period may
be interrupted, Article 1155 of the Civil Code 33 may be applied. Thus, the period of
prescription of money claims under Article 291 is interrupted by: (1) The filing of an
action; (2) A written extrajudicial demand by the creditor; and (3) A written
acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.

Page 27 of 50
 CASE NO. 17 PEDRO CHAVEZ vs.
NLRC, G.R. No. 146530 (January 17, 2005)

1. The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (1) the
selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of
dismissal; and (4) the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct.91

2. The most important element is the employer’s control of the employee’s conduct, not
only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to
accomplish it.

3. That the petitioner was paid on a per trip basis is not significant. This is merely a method
of computing compensation and not a basis for determining the existence or absence of
employeremployee relationship.

4. The respondents’ power to dismiss the petitioner was inherent in the fact that they
engaged the services of the petitioner as truck driver. They exercised this power by
Page 28 of 50
terminating the petitioner’s services albeit in the guise of "severance of contractual
relation" due allegedly to the latter’s breach of his contractual obligation.

5. While an independent contractor enjoys independence and freedom from the control and
supervision of his principal, an employee is subject to the employer’s power to control the
means and methods by which the employee’s work is to be performed and accomplished.

6. As a rule, the employer bears the burden to prove that the dismissal was for a valid and
just cause.92

7. The negligence, to warrant removal from service, should not merely be gross but also
habitual.

Page 29 of 50
 CASE NO. 18 P.I. MANUFACTURING, INC vs.
P.I. MANUFACTURING SUPERVISORS AND FOREMAN
ASSOCIATION, G.R. No. 167217 (February 4, 2008)

1. We believe and so hold that the re-establishment of a significant gap or

differential between regular employees and casual employees by operation of the
CBA was more than substantial compliance with the requirements of the several
Wage Orders (and of Article 124 of the Labor Code). That this reestablishment of a
significant differential was the result of collective bargaining negotiations, rather
than of a special grievance procedure, is not a legal basis for ignoring it.93

2. The provisions of the CBA should be read in harmony with the wage orders,
whose benefits should be given only to those employees covered thereby.94

Page 30 of 50
3. x x x To compel employers simply to add on legislative increases in salaries or
allowances without regard to what is already being paid, would be to penalize
employers who grant their workers more than the statutory prescribed minimum
rates of increases. Clearly, this would be counter-productive so far as securing the
interests of labor is concerned.95

4. [I]t must be emphasized that in the resolution of labor cases, this Court has always
been guided by the State policy enshrined in the Constitution that the rights of
workers and the promotion of their welfare shall be protected. However, consistent
with such policy, the Court cannot favor one party, be it labor or management, in
arriving at a just solution to a controversy if the party concerned has no valid support
to its claim, like respondents here.

Page 31 of 50
 CASE NO. 19 NORKIS FREE AND INDEPENDENT WORKERS UNION vs.
NORKIS TRADING COMPANY, INC., G. R. No. 157098 (June 30, 2005)

1. Stipulations in a contract must be read together, not in isolation from one another.

2. When the terms of its clauses are clear and leave no room for doubt as to the intention of the
contracting parties, it would not be necessary to interpret those terms, whose literal meanings should
prevail.

3. [T]here are two methods of adjusting the minimum wage. [T]here were identified as the "floor wage"
and the "salary-ceiling" methods. The "floor wage" method involves the fixing of a determinate amount
to be added to the prevailing statutory minimum wage rates. On the other hand, in the "salary-ceiling"
method, the wage adjustment was to be applied to employees receiving a certain denominated salary
ceiling.16 In other words, workers already being paid more than the existing minimum wage (up to a
certain amount stated in the Wage Order) are also to be given a wage increase.96

4. xxx the employees are not entitled to the claimed salary increase, simply because they are not within
the coverage of the Wage Order, as they were already receiving salaries greater than the minimum wage
fixed by the Order.
Page 32 of 50
 CASE NO. 20 PIGCAULAN vs. SECURITY and
CREDIT NVESTIGATION, INC. and/or RENE AMBY REYES, G.R. No. 173648
(January 16, 2012)

1. The filing of a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory so much so that non-

compliance could only be tolerated by special circumstances and compelling reasons.97
This Court has held that when there are several petitioners, all of them must execute and
sign the certification against forum shopping; otherwise, those who did not sign will be
dropped as parties to the case.98

2. The handwritten itemized computations are self-serving, unreliable and unsubstantial

evidence to sustain the grant of salary differentials, particularly overtime pay. Unsigned
and unauthenticated as they are, there is no way of verifying the truth of the handwritten
entries stated therein.

3. “Even when the plaintiff alleges non-payment, still the general rule is that the burden
rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment.
Page 33 of 50
 CASE NO. 21 NIÑA JEWELRY MANUFACTURING OF METAL ARTS, INC. vs.
MONTECILLO, G.R. No. 188169 (November 28, 2011)

1. x x x [I]n certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the appellate court does not assess
and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC based their conclusion.
The query in this proceeding is limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in
excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision.99 However, as an
exception, the appellate court may examine and measure the factual findings of the NLRC if the same are
not supported by substantial evidence. x x x.

2. Constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered
impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both; or when
a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee.100

3. While employers should generally be given leeways in their exercise of management prerogatives, we
agree with the respondents and the CA that in the case at bar, the petitioners had failed to prove that their
imposition of the new policy upon the goldsmiths under Niña Jewelry's employ falls under the exceptions
specified in Articles 113 and 114 of the Labor Code.

Page 34 of 50
 CASE NO. 22 ZAYBER JOHN B. PROTACIO vs.
LAYA MANANGHAYA & CO. and/or MARIO T. MANANGHAYA
GR No. 168654; March 25, 2009

1. As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the appellate court does
not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC based their
conclusion. The query in this proceeding is limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted
without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision. However,
as an exception, the appellate court may examine and measure the factual findings of the NLRC if the same
are not supported by substantial evidence.101

2. The distribution being merely discretionary, the year-end lump sum payment may properly be considered
as a year-end bonus or incentive. Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the granting of the year-end lump sum
amount was precisely dependent on the firm’s net income; hence, the same was payable only after the firm’s
annual net income and cash position were determined.102

3. A bonus is granted and paid to an employee for his industry and loyalty which contributed to the success
of the employer’s business and made possible the realization of profits.103

Page 35 of 50
4. Generally, a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable obligation. It is so only when it is made part of
the wage or salary or compensation. When considered as part of the compensation and therefore demandable
and enforceable, the amount is usually fixed. If the amount would be dependent upon the realization of
profits, the bonus is also not demandable and enforceable.104

5. If the bonus is paid only if profits are realized or a certain amount of productivity achieved, it cannot be
considered part of wages. If the desired goal of production is not obtained, of the amount of actual work
accomplished, the bonus does not accrue. Only when the employer promises and agrees to give without any
conditions imposed for its payment, such as success of business or greater production or output, does the
bonus become part of the wage.105

6. Respondents had consistently maintained from the start that petitioner was not entitled to the bonus as a
matter of right. The payment of the year-end lump sum bonus based upon the firm’s productivity or the
individual performance of its employees was well within respondent firm’s prerogative. Thus, respondent
firm was also justified in declining to give the bonus to petitioner on account of the latter’s unsatisfactory
performance.106

Page 36 of 50
 CASE NO. 23 JPL MARKETING PROMOTIONS vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
NOEL GONZALES, RAMON ABESA III and FAUSTINO ANINIPO; GR No. 151966; July 8, 2005

1. When that "floating status" of an employee lasts for more than six months, he may be considered to have
been illegally dismissed from the service. Thus, he is entitled to the corresponding benefits for his separation,
and this would apply to suspension either of the entire business or of a specific component thereof.107

2. In seeking and obtaining employment elsewhere, private respondents effectively terminated their
employment with JPL.108

3. JPL cannot escape the payment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay to private respondents.
Said benefits are mandated by law and should be given to employees as a matter of right.109

4. The difference between the minimum wage and the actual salary received by private respondents cannot
be deemed as their 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay as such difference is not equivalent to or
of the same import as the said benefits contemplated by law.110

Page 37 of 50
5. While computation for the 13th month pay should properly begin from the first day of employment, the
service incentive leave pay should start a year after commencement of service, for it is only then that the
employee is entitled to said benefit.111

6. These benefits are given by law on the basis of the service actually rendered by the employee, and in the
particular case of the service incentive leave, is granted as a motivation for the employee to stay longer with
the employer. There is no cause for granting said incentive to one who has already terminated his relationship
with the employer.112

7. The law in protecting the rights of the employees authorizes neither oppression nor selfdestruction of the
employer. It should be made clear that when the law tilts the scale of justice in favor of labor, it is but
recognition of the inherent economic inequality between labor and management. The intent is to balance the
scale of justice; to put the two parties on relatively equal positions. There may be cases where the
circumstances warrant favoring labor over the interests of management but never should the scale be so tilted
if the result is an injustice to the employer. Justitia nemini neganda est (Justice is to be denied to none).113

Page 38 of 50
 CASE NO. 24 PETROLEUM SHIPPING LIMITED
(formerly ESSO INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING (BAHAMAS) CO., LTD
vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and FLORELLO W. TANCHICO
GR No. 148130; June 16, 2006

1. It is clear that seafarers are considered contractual employees. They cannot be considered as
regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Their employment is governed by the
contracts they sign every time they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the
contract expires. Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time. They fall
under the exception of Article 280 whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of engagement
of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
employment is for the duration of the season. 114

2. This circumstance of continuous re-hiring was dictated by practical considerations that

experienced crew members are more preferred. Petitioners were only given priority or preference
because of their experience and qualifications but this does not detract the fact that herein
petitioners are contractual employees. They cannot be considered regular employees115
Page 39 of 50
3. Tanchico’s employment is governed by his Contract of Enlistment ("Contract"). It does not
provide for the payment of 13th month pay. The Contract of Employment, which is the standard
employment contract of the POEA, likewise does not provide for the payment of 13th month
pay.116

4. As a Filipino seaman, petitioner is governed by the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas
Employment and the said Rules do not provide for separation or termination pay.117

5. Since Tanchico received compensation during his vacation, the Contract did not terminate on the
day he returned to Manila. The Contract remained in force during Tanchico’s vacation period.118

Page 40 of 50
 CASE NO. 25 KING OF KINGS TRANSPORT INC.,
CLAIRE DELA FUENTE and MELISSA LIM vs.
SANTIAGO O. MAMAC; GR No. 166208; June 29, 2007

1. Due process under the Labor Code involves two aspects: first, substantive––the valid and authorized causes
of termination of employment under the Labor Code; and second, procedural––the manner of dismissal.119

2. Consultations or conferences are not a substitute for the actual observance of notice and hearing.120

3. The employee’s written explanation did not excuse the fact that there was a complete absence of the first
notice.121

4. Regardless of respondent’s written explanation, a hearing was still necessary in order for him to clarify
and present evidence in support of his defense.122

5. Bus drivers and conductors who are paid a fixed or guaranteed minimum wage in case their commission
be less than the statutory minimum, and commissions only in case where they are over and above the statutory
minimum, are entitled to a 13th-month pay equivalent to one-twelfth of their total earnings during the
calendar year.123

Page 41 of 50
 CASE NO. 26 LETRAN CALAMBA FACULTY and EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and
COLEGIO DE SANJUAN DE LETRAN CALAMBA, INC. GR No. 156225; January 29, 2008

1. The appellate court’s jurisdiction to review a decision of the NLRC in a petition for certiorari is confined to issues of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. An extraordinary remedy, a petition for certiorari is available only and
restrictively in truly exceptional cases. The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction
including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It does not include
correction of the NLRC’s evaluation of the evidence or of its factual findings. Such findings are generally accorded not
only respect but also finality. A party assailing such findings bears the burden of showing that the tribunal acted
capriciously and whimsically or in total disregard of evidence material to the controversy, in order that the extraordinary
writ of certiorari will lie.124 2. The findings of the LA, when affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, are binding on the
Supreme Court, unless patently erroneous. It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again
the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.125

3. In a petition for review on certiorari, this Court’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law in the absence of
any showing that the factual findings complained of are devoid of support in the records or are glaringly erroneous.126

4. This Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases. Findings of fact of administrative
agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific
matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality. 127

Page 42 of 50
5. The normal hours of work of teaching or academic personnel shall be based on their normal or regular teaching loads.
Such normal or regular teaching loads shall be in accordance with the policies, rules and standards prescribed by the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports, the Commission on Higher Education and the Technical Education and
Skills Development Authority. 128

6. Any teaching load in excess of the normal or regular teaching load shall be considered as overload. Overload partakes
of the nature of temporary extra assignment and compensation therefore shall be considered as an overload honorarium
if performed within the 8-hour work period and does not form part of the regular or basic pay. Overload performed
beyond the eight-hour daily work is overtime work.129

7. In the same manner that payment for overtime work and work performed during special holidays is considered as
additional compensation apart and distinct from an employee's regular wage or basic salary, an overload pay, owing to
its very nature and definition, may not be considered as part of a teacher's regular or basic salary, because it is being paid
for additional work performed in excess of the regular teaching load.130

8. If it is performed within the normal eight-hour working day, an overload is still an additional or extra teaching work
which is performed after the regular teaching load has been completed. Hence, any pay given as compensation for such
additional work should be considered as extra and not deemed as part of the regular or basic salary.131

Page 43 of 50
 CASE NO. 27 CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and GLORIA C. PALAD GR No. 152894; August 17, 2007

1. An apprenticeship program should first be approved by the DOLE before an apprentice may be hired, otherwise the
person hired will be considered a regular employee.132

2. It is mandated that apprenticeship agreements entered into by the employer and apprentice shall be entered only in
accordance with the apprenticeship program duly approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment. Prior approval by
the Department of Labor and Employment of the proposed apprenticeship program is, therefore, a condition sine qua non
before an apprenticeship agreement can be validly entered into.133

3. The act of filing the proposed apprenticeship program with the Department of Labor and Employment is a preliminary
step towards its final approval and does not instantaneously give rise to an employer apprentice relationship.134

4. Prior approval from the TESDA is necessary to ensure that only employers in the highly technical industries may
employ apprentices and only in apprentice able occupations. Thus, under RA 7796, employers can only hire apprentices
for apprentice able occupations which must be officially endorsed by a tripartite body and approved for apprenticeship
by the TESDA.135

5. When the alleged valid cause for the termination of employment is not clearly proven, as in this case, the law considers
the matter a case of illegal dismissal.136

Page 44 of 50
 CASE NO. 28 LORENZO T. TANGGA-AN vs. PIDLIPPINE TRANSMARINE
CARRIERS, INC., UNIVERSE TANKSHIP DELAWARE LLC, and
CARLOS C. SALINAS; G.R. No. 180636 March 13, 2013

1. More than the State guarantees of protection of labor and security of tenure, labor disputes
involve the fundamental survival of the employees and their families, who depend -upon the former
for all the basic necessities in life.137

2. An illegally dismissed overseas employees is not entitled to three (3) months salary only.138

3. In interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part or word thereof be given effect since
the lawmaking body is presumed to know the meaning of the words employed in the statute and to
have used them advisedly. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat.139

4. Article 279 of the Labor Code mandates that an employee’s full backwages shall be inclusive of
allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent.”140

Page 45 of 50
5. “It is the obligation of the employer to pay an illegally dismissed employee or worker the w hole
amount of the salaries or wages, plus all other benefits and bonuses and general increa ses, to which
he would have been normally entitled had he not been dismissed and had not st opped working.”141

6. Article 111 of the Labor Code, as amended, contemplates the extraordinary concept of attorney’s
fees and that Article 111 is an exception to the declared policy of strict construction in the award
of attorney’s fees. Although an express finding of facts and law is still necessary to prove the merit
of the award, there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith
when it withheld the wages.142

7. Settled is the rule that in actions for recovery of wages, or where an employee was forced to
litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and interests, a monetary award by way of
attorney's fees is justifiable under Article Ill of the Labor Code; Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of
its Implementing Rules; and paragraph 7, Article 208 of the Civil Code. The award of attorney's
fees is proper, and there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad
faith when it withheld the wages. There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not
paid accordingly.143

Page 46 of 50
 CASE NO. 29 TSPIC CORPORATION Vs
TSPIC Employees Union (FFW); GR No. 163419; February 13, 2008

1. A Collective bargaining agreement is the law between the parties. Thus, where the CBA
is clear and unambiguous, it becomes the law between the parties and compliance therewith
is mandated by the express policy of the law. Where the term/s in the CBA is clear and
unambiguous, but the parties differ in its interpretation, such must be interpreted according
to the intention of the parties.144

2. Diminution of benefits is the unilateral withdrawal by the employer of benefits already

enjoyed by the employees. However, an erroneously granted benefit may be withdrawn
without violating the prohibition against non-diminution of benefits.145

Page 47 of 50
 CASE NO. 30 INTEC CEBU INC., ET AL., VS.
CA, ET AL. GR No. 1899951; June 22, 2016

To constitute abandonment, there must be clear proof of deliberate and unjustified intent
to sever the employer-employee relationship. An employee who takes steps to protest his
dismissal cannot logically be said to have abandoned his work. The filing of such complaint
is proof enough of his desire to return to work, thus negating any suggestion of
abandonment.146

Page 48 of 50
 CASE NO. 31 CEBU PEOPLE’S MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE AND
MACARIO G QUEVEDO VS. NICERATO CARBONILLA, JR. GR No. 212070

The employer is allowed a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the services of

employees who perform functions by which their nature require the employer’s full trust
and confidence. Mere existence of basis for believing that the employee has breached the
trust and confidence of the employer is sufficient and does not require proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Thus, when an employee has been guilty of breach of trust or his
employer has ample reason to distrust him, a labor tribunal cannot deny the employer the
authority to dismiss him.147

Page 49 of 50
 CASE NO. 32 CAGAYAN ELECTRIC POWER & LIGHT CO., INC.
(CEPALCO), ET AL. VS. CEPALCO EMPLOYEE’S LABOR UNION-
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONSTRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE
PHILIPPINES (TUCP) G.R. NO. 211015 G.R. NO. 213835; June 20 2016

Labor-only contracting is considered as a form of ULP when the same is devised by the
employer to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization. Thus, the act of an employer in having work or certain services or
functions being performed by union members contracted out, even if considered labor-only
contracting, will not result in ULP if such does not interfere with, restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.148

Page 50 of 50