LABOR RELATIONS RECIT QUESTIONS – ATTY.
JOYRICH GOLANGCO
1. What is Labor Relations?
Is the interactions between employer and employees or their
representatives and the mechanism by which the standards
and other terms and conditions of employment are
negotiated and conditions of employment are negotiated,
adjusted and enforced
2. What is Collective Bargaining?
A procedure looking toward making of collective bargaining
agreements between employer and accredited
representatives of employees concerning wages, hours, and
other conditions of employment, and requires that parties
deal with each other with open and fair minds and sincerely
endeavor to overcome obstacles existing between them to
the end that employment relations may be stabilized and
obstruction to free flow of commerce prevented.
Requisites:
(a) Possession of the status of majority representation
of the employees’ representatives in accordance
with any of the means of selection or designation in
the LC;
(b) Proof of majority representation; and
(c) A demand to bargain under Art. 251 (a) of the LC
3. Constitutional provisions upholding the rights of
employers and employees?
(Sec. 3, Art. XIII—guarantee to all workers certain rights)
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full
employment and equality of employment opportunities for
all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in
accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of
tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They
shall also participate in policy and decision-making
processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be
provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared
responsibility between workers and employers and the
preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes,
including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual
compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and
employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in
the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to
reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and
growth.
(Sec. 18, Art. II) The State affirms labor as a primary social
economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare.
(Sec. 20, Art. II) The State recognizes the indispensable role
of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and
provides incentives to needed investments.
4. Who is an employer?
(Art. 219) Includes any person acting in the interest of an
employer, directly or indirectly. The term shall not include
any labor organization or any of its officers except when
acting as an employer.
5. Who is an employee?
(Art. 219) Includes any person in the employ of an employer.
The term shall not be limited to the employees of a
particular employer unless this Code explicitly states. It shall
include any individual whose work has ceased as a result of
or in connection with any current labor dispute or because
of any unfair labor practice if he has not obtained any other
substantially equivalent and regular employment.
6. Article 218
A. It is the policy of the State:
(a) To promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective
bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary
arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling
labor or industrial disputes;
(b) To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the
enhancement of democracy and the promotion of social
justice and united labor movement;
(c) To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong
and united labor movement;
(d) To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning
their rights and obligations as union members and as
employees;
(e) To provide an adequate administrative machinery for
the expeditious settlement if labor or industrial disputes;
(f) To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace;
and
(g) To ensure the participation of workers in decision and
policy-making processes affecting their rights, duties and
welfare.
B. To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating the
relations between the employers and employees by means of
agreements freely entered into though collective bargaining,
no court or administrative agency or official shall have the
power to set or fix wages, rates of pay, hours of work or
LABOR RELATIONS RECIT QUESTIONS – ATTY. JOYRICH GOLANGCO
other terms and conditions of employment, except as
otherwise provided under this Code.
7. What is Arbitration?
Is the submission of a dispute to an impartial person for
determination on the basis of evidence and arguments of the
parties. The arbiter’s decision or award is enforceable upon
the disputants. This may be either voluntary or compulsory.
Is a dispute resolution mode more determinative than
conciliation or mediation but less formalistic or technical
than litigation.
8. What is Conciliation?
Consists in the efforts of a third party—someone other than
the immediate disputants—to assist the parties to end their
dispute perhaps by condoning each other’s fault or finding a
give-and-take compromise.
9. What is Mediation?
There is also conciliation but a mediator, within his
authority takes a more active role than a conciliator in
searching and formulating a solution.
10. Test to determine ER-EE Relationship?
(Four-fold Test)
1. Selection and engagement of the employee;
2. Payment of wages;
3. Power of dismissal; and
4. Power to Control.
11. What does control test provide?
Refers to the employer’s power to control or right to control
the employee not only as to the result of the work to be done
but also as to the means and methods by which the same is
to be accomplished.
12. Sonza v. ABS-CBN
Issue: Whether or not there is an employer-employee
relationship between petitioner and ABS-CBN.
Ruling: No e-e relationship (*application of four-fold test
pero emphasis on the control test ata*)
As to power of control, which is the most important:
Applying the control test to the present case, we find that
SONZA is not an employee but an independent contractor.
This test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises
over a worker. The greater the supervision and control the
hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an
employee. The converse holds true as well the less control
the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is considered
an independent contractor. ABS-CBN did not assign any
other work to SONZA. How SONZA delivered his lines,
appeared on television, and sounded on radio were outside
ABS-CBNs control. SONZA did not have to render eight hours
of work per day. The clear implication is that SONZA had a
free hand on what to say or discuss in his shows provided he
did not attack ABS-CBN or its interests.
13. How is Sonza case different with Dumpit-Murillo
case?
(*application of control test ata and yung sa existence of
fixed-term contract sa industry nila*)
The practice of having fixed-term contracts in the industry
does not automatically make all talent contracts valid and
compliant with labor law. The assertion that a talent
contract exists does not necessarily prevent a regular
employment status. The duties of Dumpit-Murillo as
enumerated in her employment contract indicate that ABC
had control over the work of petitioner. Aside from control,
ABC also dictated the work assignments and payment of her
wages. ABC also had the power to dismiss.
14. In Sonza case, how is power to dismiss
applied?
As to power of dismissal: For violation of any provision of the
Agreement, either party may terminate their relationship.
SONZA failed to show that ABS-CBN could terminate his
services on grounds other than breach of contract, such as
retrenchment to prevent losses as provided under labor
laws.
15. Francisco v. NLRC
Issue: Whether or not there is an employer-employee
relationship between petitioner and Kasei Corp.
Ruling: There is an e-e relationship.
There are instances when, aside from the employers power
to control the employee with respect to the means and
methods by which the work is to be accomplished, economic
realities of the employment relations help provide a
comprehensive analysis of the true classification of the
individual, whether as employee, independent contractor,
corporate officer or some other capacity.
The better approach would therefore be to adopt a two-
tiered test involving: (1) the putative employer’s power to
control the employee with respect to the means and methods
by which the work is to be accomplished; and (2) the
underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship.
The determination of the relationship between employer
and employee depends upon the circumstances of the whole
economic activity, such as: (1) the extent to which the
LABOR RELATIONS RECIT QUESTIONS – ATTY. JOYRICH GOLANGCO
services performed are an integral part of the employers
business; (2) the extent of the workers investment in
equipment and facilities; (3) the nature and degree of
control exercised by the employer; (4) the workers
opportunity for profit and loss; (5) the amount of initiative,
skill, judgment or foresight required for the success of the
claimed independent enterprise; (6) the permanency and
duration of the relationship between the worker and the
employer; and (7) the degree of dependency of the worker
upon the employer for his continued employment in that line
of business.
The proper standard of economic dependence is whether the
worker is dependent on the alleged employer for his
continued employment in that line of business.
16. What test was employed in Francisco case?
Two-tiered test:
1. The putative employer’s power to control employee
with respect to the means and methods by which
the work is to be accomplished; and
2. The underlying economic realities of the activity or
relationship.
17. David v. Macasio
Issue: Whether engagement on “pakyaw” or task basis
negates the existence of employer-employee relationship
between them the parties involved.
Ruling:
No. Engagement in “pakyaw” or task basis does not
characterize the relationship between the parties whether
employment or independent contractorship. It only
determines the manner of calculation of the wages due to
the employee which, is in this case, is the quantity or quality
of work done. Moreover, employing the control test,
employer-employee relationship exists in this case as shown
by the following circumstances:
1. David engaged the services of Macasio;
2. David paid Macasio’s wages;
3. David had been setting the day and time when Macasio
should report for work;
4. David rents the place where Macasio had been performing
his tasks;
5. Macasio would leave the workplace only after he had
finished chopping all of the hog meats given to him for the
day’s task; and
6. David would still engage Macasio’s services and have him
report for work even during the days when only few hogs
were delivered for butchering.
The totality of the surrounding circumstances of the present
case sufficiently points to an employer-employee
relationship existing between David and Macasio.
18. Guidelines in economic dependency test
(See answer in no. 15)
19. Valenzuela v. Alexander Mining Ventures
FACTS:
Valenzuela alleged that he was hired as a company driver of
AMOVI on January 12, 2008, with an eight-hour work shift
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and with a monthly salary of
P12,000.00. On June 15, 2013, after five years and five
months of service, he was told that he can no longer
continue to work as there were no forthcoming funds to pay
for his salary.
Alexandra Mining alleged that Valenzuela was actually
hired as a family driver of the Deteras. They alleged,
however, that the P12,000.00 monthly salary of Valenzuela
was charged to AMOVFs account for convenience. They
averred that on June 15, 2013, Valenzuela informed Cesar's
wife, Annlynn, that he was going home to his province to
visit his parents. Annlynn granted him leave but when she
asked him whether he can return for work the following
Monday, Valenzuela told her that he would give her a call.
Come Monday, Valenzuela did not show up for work and did
not also call to inform the Deteras of the reason behind his
absence.
LA: Valenzuela has been illegally dismissed. He was not a
family driver but an employee of AMOVI.
NLRC: Affirmed the decision of the LA.
CA: NLRC decision was affirmed with modification. Since
there was no clear evidence that Valenzuela was dismissed
by the respondents and, on the other hand, there was an
equal lack of proof of abandonment of work on the part of
Valenzuela. Following the ruling of the Court in Exodus
International Construction Corporation, et al. v. Biscocho, et
at. the remedy was to reinstate Valenzuela without
backwages.
ISSUE: W/N Valenzuela was illegally dismissed?
HELD: YES. In determining the existence of an employer-
employee relationship, jurisprudence spelled out the four-
fold test, to wit: (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 with respect to the means and methods by which
the work is to be accomplished, x x x.
It was [AMOVI] which hired [Valenzuela] in January 2008,
and which issued an identification card showing that
[Valenzuela] was an employee. [Valenzuela] was likewise
included in the payroll of [AMOVI], although it was claimed
LABOR RELATIONS RECIT QUESTIONS – ATTY. JOYRICH GOLANGCO
that it was merely "for convenience." We do not see what
kind of convenience is afforded to [AMOVI].
The power to discipline and to dismiss is also present, and it
was exercised by [Cesar] as President of [AMOVI] which
incidentally is a family corporation.
Finally, the control test is likewise satisfied. [Valenzuela] had
no choice as to who his passengers would be. He was a
company driver who was required to render service to the
President of the Corporation, including his nuclear family. It
was them who controlled and dictated the manner by which
he performed his job.
However, CA erred in applying the Exodus case since in the
case at hand, Cesar impliedly admitted dismissing
Valenzuela by invoking Art 150 of the LC to justify that as a
family driver, he may be terminated at will by his employer.
For a worker's dismissal to be considered valid, it must
comply with both procedural and substantive due process.
The legality of the manner of dismissal constitutes
procedural due process, while the legality of the act of
dismissal constitutes substantive due process.
Procedural due process in dismissal cases consists of the
twin requirements of notice and hearing. The employer must
furnish the employee with two written notices before the
termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first
notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or
omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the
second notice informs the employee of the employer's
decision to dismiss him. Before the issuance of the second
notice, the requirement of a hearing must be complied with
by giving the worker an opportunity to be heard. It is not
necessary that an actual hearing be conducted.
Substantive due process, on the other hand, requires that
dismissal by the employer be made under a just or
authorized cause under Articles 282 to 284 of the Labor
Code. Valenzuela was not at all informed of the ground of
his dismissal and was deprived the opportunity to explain his
side. He was rashly dismissed from service without a valid
ground and the required notices.
Consistent with the finding that Valenzuela had been
illegally dismissed, he is, therefore, entitled to reinstatement
and full backwages. In view, however, of the strained
relations between the parties, the award of separation pay
in lieu of reinstatement is a more feasible alternative. AMOVI
and Cesar shall be solidariy liable to Valenzuela.
20. Tongko v. Manufacturer’s Life Insurance
Issue: Whether or not an Employer-Employee relationship
exist between Tongko and Manulife.
Ruling: Yes. Manulife had the power of control over Tongko.
Under the Agreement executed between Tongko and
Manulife in 1977, the former must comply with the following
requirements: (1) compliance with the regulations and
requirements of the company; (2) maintenance of a level of
knowledge of the company’s products that is satisfactory to
the company; and (3) compliance with a quota of new
businesses. Tongko was required to comply with the
different codes of conduct of Manulife and he was also
tasked to perform administrative duties that established his
employment.
21. HSY Marketing Ltd. v. Villastiqui
FACTS:
January 3, 2003, HSY Marketing hired Villastique as a field
driver for Fabulous Jeans & Shirt & General Merchandise,
tasked to deliver ready-to-wear items and/or general
merchandise for a daily compensation of P370.00. On
January 10, 2011, Villastique figured in an accident when
the service vehicle he was driving bumped a pedestrian,
Ryan Dorataryo. Fabulous Jeans shouldered the
hospitalization and medical expenses of Dorataryo which
HSY was asked to reimburse, but to no avail. On February
24, 2011, Villastique was allegedly required to sign a
resignation letter, which he refused to do. A couple of days
later, he tried to collect his salary for that week but was told
that it was withheld because of his refusal to resign.
Convinced that he was already terminated on February 26,
2011,13 he lost no time in filing a complaint for illegal
dismissal with money claims against HSY, Fabulous Jeans
and Arqueza.
HSY contended that Villastique had committed several
violations in the course of his employment. After they paid
for Dorataryo's hospitalization and medical expenses,
Villastique went on absence without leave, presumably to
evade liability for his recklessness. Since Villastique was the
one who refused to report for work, he should be considered
as having voluntarily severed his own employment.
LA: Dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal but
directed HSY to pay Villastique separation pay and SIL pay.
LA dismissed the complaint against Fabulous Jeans and
Arqueza finding HSY to be Villastique’s employer.
NLRC: Affirmed LA’s decision.
CA: Affirmed in toto the NLRC Resolution.
ISSUES:
1) W/N Villastique was illegally dismissed?
2) W/N HSY should be liable for SIL pay?
HELD: NO. Other than Villastique’s unsubstantiated
allegation of having been verbally terminated from his work,
no substantial evidence was presented to show that he was
indeed dismissed or was prevented from returning to his
work. In the absence of any showing of an overt or positive
LABOR RELATIONS RECIT QUESTIONS – ATTY. JOYRICH GOLANGCO
act proving that petitioner had dismissed respondent, the
latter's claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained.
Similarly, HSY’s claims of respondent's voluntary resignation
and/or abandonment deserve scant consideration,
considering petitioner's failure to discharge the burden of
proving the deliberate and unjustified refusal of respondent
to resume his employment without any intention of
returning. It was incumbent upon petitioner to ascertain
respondent's interest or non-interest in the continuance of
his employment, but to no avail.
Hence, since there is no dismissal or abandonment to speak
of, the appropriate course of action is to reinstate the
employee (in this case, herein respondent) without, however,
the payment of backwages.
Notably, the reinstatement ordered here should not be
construed as a relief proceeding from illegal dismissal;
instead, it should be considered as a declaration or
affirmation that the employee may return to work because
he was not dismissed in the first place. For this reason, the
Court agrees with petitioner that the LA, the NLRC, and the
CA erred in awarding separation pay in spite of the finding
that respondent had not been dismissed. Properly
speaking, liability for the payment of separation pay is
but a legal consequence of illegal dismissal where
reinstatement is no longer viable or feasible. As a relief
granted in lieu of reinstatement, it goes without saying that
an award of separation pay is inconsistent with a finding
that there was no illegal dismissal.66This is because an
employee who had not been dismissed, much less
illegally dismissed, cannot be reinstated.67 Moreover, as
there is no reinstatement to speak of, respondent
cannot invoke the doctrine of strained relations. If
respondent voluntarily chooses not to return to work, he
must then be considered as having resigned from
employment. This is without prejudice, however, to the
willingness of both parties to continue with their former
contract of employment or enter into a new one whenever
they so desire.
2) YES. Villastique is not a field personnel since he is not
given the discretion to solicit, select and contact prospective
clients. he Court has already held that company drivers
who are under the control and supervision of
management officers like respondent herein are
regular employees entitled to benefits including service
incentive leave pay. "Service incentive leave is a right
which accrues to every employee who has served 'within 12
months, whether continuous or broken, reckoned from the
date the employee started working, including authorized
absences and paid regular holidays unless the working days
in the establishment as a matter of practice or policy, or that
provided in the employment contracts, is less than 12
months, in which case said period shall be considered as one
[(1)] year.' It is also commutable to its money equivalent if
not used or exhausted at the end of the year. In other words,
an employee who has served for one (1) year is entitled to it.
He may use it as leave days or he may collect its monetary
value."
22. Nestle Philippines v. Pineda
FACTS:
Puedan et. al. filled an amended complaint for illegal
dismissal against Nestle Philippines, Inc (NPI) and Ocho de
Septiembre, Inc. (ODSI) alleging that on various dates, ODSI
and NPI hired them to sell various NPI products in the
assigned covered area. After some time, respondents
demanded that they be considered regular employees of NPI,
but they were directed to sign contracts of employment with
ODSI instead. When respondents refused to comply with
such directives, NPI and ODSI terminated them from their
position. Thus, they were constrained to file the complaint,
claiming that: (a) ODSI is a labor-only contractor and, thus,
they should be deemed regular employees of NPI; and (b)
there was no just or authorized cause for their dismissal.
ODSI admitted that on various dates, it hired respondents as
its employees and assigned them to execute the
Distributorship Agreement it entered with NPI. However, the
business relationship between NPI and ODSI turned sour.
NPI downsized its marketing and promotional support from
ODSI which resulted to business reverses and in the latter's
filing of a petition for corporate rehabilitation and,
subsequently, the closure of its Nestle unit due to the
termination of the Distributorship Agreement and the
failure of rehabilitation. Under the foregoing circumstances,
ODSI argued that respondents were not dismissed but
merely put in floating status.
LA: Dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but ordered
ODSI and NPI to pay Puenda et. al nominal damages. LA
found that: (a) respondents were unable to prove that they
were NPI employees; and (b) respondents were not illegally
dismissed as ODSI had indeed closed down its operations due
to business losses.
NLRC: Reversed the decision of LA and ordered ODSI and
NPI to pay Puenda et all separation pay, nominal damages
and atty’s fees. NLRC found ODSI to be labor-only contractor
of NPI. Puenda moved for partial recon since it was only
ODSI that closed down operations and not NPI and,
considering the finding that the latter was deemed to be
their true employer, NPI should reinstate them, or if not
practicable, to pay them separation pay – DENIED.
CA: Affirmed the NLRC decision
ISSUE: W/N ODSI is a labor-only contractor of NPI and
consequently, NPI is Puenda’s true employer and thus, jointly
and severally liable with ODSI for Puenda, et al. monetary
claims?
HELD: NO. ODSI is not a labor only contractor of NPI. A
closer examination of the Distributorship Agreement reveals
that the relationship of NPI and ODSI is not that of a
LABOR RELATIONS RECIT QUESTIONS – ATTY. JOYRICH GOLANGCO
principal and a contractor (regardless of whether labor-only
or independent), but that of a seller and a buyer/re-seller.
Thus, the stipulations in the Distributorship Agreement do
not operate to control or fix the methodology on how ODSI
should do its business as a distributor of NPI products, but
merely provide rules of conduct or guidelines towards the
achievement of a mutually desired result - which in this case
is the sale of NPI products to the end consumer.
In Steelcase, Inc. v. Design International Selections,
Inc.,56 the Court held that the imposition of minimum
standards concerning sales, marketing, finance and
operations are nothing more than an exercise of sound
business practice to increase sales and maximize profits.
Verily, it was only reasonable for NPI - it being a local arm of
one of the largest manufacturers of foods and grocery
products worldwide - to require its distributors, such as
ODSI, to meet various conditions for the grant and
continuation of a distributorship agreement for as long as
these conditions do not control the means and methods on
how ODSI does its distributorship business, as shown in this
case. This is to ensure the integrity and quality of the
products which will ultimately fall into the hands of the end
consumer.
23. Bernarti v. PBA
Issue: Whether or not complainants are employees of the
PBA.
Ruling: No. (Apply Control Test) The contractual stipulations
do not pertain to, much less dictate, how and when
petitioner will blow the whistle and make calls. On the
contrary, they merely serve as rules of conduct or guidelines
in order to maintain the integrity of the professional
basketball league. As correctly observed by the Court of
Appeals, how could a skilled referee perform his job without
blowing a whistle and making calls? x x x [H]ow can the PBA
control the performance of work of a referee without
controlling his acts of blowing the whistle and making calls?
We agree with respondents that once in the playing court,
the referees exercise their own independent judgment, based
on the rules of the game, as to when and how a call or
decision is to be made. The referees decide whether an
infraction was committed, and the PBA cannot overrule
them once the decision is made on the playing court. The
referees are the only, absolute, and final authority on the
playing court. Respondents or any of the PBA officers cannot
and do not determine which calls to make or not to make
and cannot control the referee when he blows the whistle
because such authority exclusively belongs to the referees.
The very nature of petitioners’ job of officiating a
professional basketball game undoubtedly calls for freedom
of control by respondents.
24. What is labor organization?
(Art. 219) Any union or association of employees which
exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective
bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms
and conditions of employment.
25. What is legitimate labor organization?
(Art. 219) Any labor organization duly registered with the
DOLE, and includes any branch or local thereof.
26. What is labor dispute?
(Art. 219) Includes any controversy or matter concerning
terms or conditions of employment or the association or
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing or arranging the terms and conditions of
employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in
the proximate relation of employer and employee.
27. Citibank v. CA
Issue: Is there a labor dispute between Citibank and the
security guards, members of respondent CIGLA, regardless of
whether they stand in the relation of employer and
employees?
Ruling: No. It is a civil dispute. Article 212, paragraph l of
the Labor Code provides the definition of a "labor dispute". It
"includes any controversy or matter concerning terms or
conditions of employment or the association or
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing or arranging the terms and conditions of
employment,
regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate
relation of employer and employee."
If at all, the dispute between Citibank and El Toro security
agency is one regarding the termination or nonrenewal of
the contract of services. This is a civil dispute. El Toro was an
independent contractor. Thus, no employer-employee
relationship existed between Citibank and the security guard
members of the union in the security agency who were
assigned to secure the bank's premises and property. Hence,
there was no labor dispute and no right to strike against the
bank.
28. PAL v. NLRC
Issue: Can the NLRC, even without a complaint for illegal
dismissal filed before the labor arbiter, entertain an action
for injunction and issue such writ?
LABOR RELATIONS RECIT QUESTIONS – ATTY. JOYRICH GOLANGCO
Ruling: NO. Generally, injunction is not a cause of action in
itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main
suit. Relative to this, the power of the NLRC to issue an
injunctive writ originates from "any labor dispute.”
The term "labor dispute" is defined as "any controversy or
matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or
the association or representation of persons in negotiating,
fixing, maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and
conditions of employment regardless of whether or not the
disputants stand in the proximate relation of employers and
employees."
29. Who is a managerial employee?
One who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down
and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer,
suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign or discipline
employees.
Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the
employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if
the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or
clerical in nature but requires the use of independent
judgment.
All emplyees not falling within any of the above definitions
are rank-and-file employees.
30. SMCC v. Charter Chemical
Issue: Does the commingling of supervisory and rank-and-
file employees in a union divest it of its personality as a
legitimate labor organization?
Ruling:
NO. After a labor organization has been registered, it may
exercise all the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor
organization. Any mingling between supervisory and rank-
and-file employees in its membership cannot affect its
legitimacy for that is not among the grounds for
cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling was
brought about by misrepresentation, false statement or
fraud under Article 239 of the Labor Code.
Applying this principle to the case at bar, petitioner union
was not divested of its status as a legitimate labor
organization even if some of its members were supervisory
employees. It had the right to file the subject petition for
certification election. Besides, the legal personality of the
union cannot be collaterally attacked by the company in the
certification election proceedings the latter being – in the
eyes of the law – a mere bystander in such proceedings.
31. Penaranda v. Baganga
Issue: Is Peñaranda a managerial employee?
Ruling: NO. He was a member of the managerial staff. The
Implementing Rules of the Labor Code define members of a
managerial staff as those who customarily and regularly
exercise discretion and independent judgment.
As borne out by the facts, Peñaranda supervised the
engineering section of the steam plant boiler. His work
involved overseeing the operation of the machines and the
performance of the workers in the engineering section. This
work necessarily required the use of discretion and
independent judgment to ensure the proper functioning of
the steam plant boiler. As supervisor, he is deemed a
member of the managerial staff.
32. What is the NLRC?
It is an administrative body with quasi-judicial functions
and the principal government agency that hears and decides
labor-management disputes; attached to the OLE for
program and policy coordination only.
33. Powers and functions of NLRC
1. Power to investigate – involves the power to
investigate matters and hear disputes within its
jurisdiction/adjudicatory power including:
a. Original jurisdiction
b. Appellate jurisdiction
2. Power to issue Compulsory processes – involves the
following:
a. Administering oaths
b. Summoning Parties
c. Issuance of Subpoenas
3. Ocular inspection
4. Rule-making power – involves the promulgation of
rules and regulations of the Labor Code for
a. Disposition of cases
b. Internal functions
c. Matters which may be necessary to carry out
the purpose of the Labor Code
5. Power to issue injunctions and restraining orders;
and
6. Contempt power
34. How does the NLRC exercise the rule-making
power? (Note: inutusan ako ni ma’am humiram ng
whiteboard marker)
By promulgation of rules and regulations of the Labor Code
for disposition of cases, internal functions, and matters
LABOR RELATIONS RECIT QUESTIONS – ATTY. JOYRICH GOLANGCO
which may be necessary to carry out the purpose of the
Labor Code.
35. Daughter of PNP Chief is a lawyer who is
engaged in a practice of law for 20 years with 10-year
experience in the labor management relations. Can he
be appointed as LA?
No. RA 8042, as amended provides the prohibition
36. Who is a commission attorney?
(Art. 220) The Commission and its eight (8) divisions shall be
assisted by the Commission Attorneys in its appellate and
adjudicatory functions whose term shall be coterminous
with the Commissioners with whom they are assigned.
37. Qualifications of Commission Attorney?
(Art. 220)
a. Members of the Philippine Bar;
b. At least one (1) year experience or exposure in the
field of labor-management relations
38 – 40. Who is an Executive Clerk of Court?;
Qualifications of Executive Clerk of Court; Powers and
functions of Executive Clerk of Court
(Art. 220) The Chairman, aided by the Executive Clerk of the
Commission, shall have exclusive administrative supervision
over the Commission and its regional branches and all its
personnel, including the Labor Arbiters.
The Commission, when sitting en banc, shall be assisted by
the same Executive Clerk, and, when acting thru its division,
by said Executive Clerk for its first division and seven (7)
other Deputy Executive Clerks for the second x x x eight
Divisions, respectively, in the performance of such similar or
equivalent functions and duties as are discharged by the
Clerk of Court and deputy Clerks of Court of Appeals.
41 – 43. Powers and functions of LA; Cases which fall
within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of LA;
Article 224
(Art. 224) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the
Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
to hear and decide, within 30 calendar days, after the
submission of the case by the parties for decision without
extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the
following cases, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with claim for reinstatement, those
cases that workers may file involving wages, rates
of pay, hours of works and other terms and
conditions of employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damages arising from the employer-
employee relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of
this Code, including questions involving the legality
of strikes and lockouts; and
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social
Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other
claims arising from employer-employee relations,
including those of persons in domestic or household
service, involving an amount exceeding P5,000.00
regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement.
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over all cases decided by LA.
(c) Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation
of collective-bargaining agreements and those arising from
the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies shall be disposed of by the LA by referring the same
to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as
may be provide in said agreements.
44. What is an unfair labor practice.
(Art. 219) Means any unfair labor practice as expressly
defined by the Code.
(Art. 258) It shall be unfair for any person to:
1. Restrain;
2. Coerce;
3. Discriminate against; and
4. Unduly interfere with employees and workers in
their exercise of the right to self-organization.
45. What is a termination dispute?
(also known as illegal dismissal) The usual bone of
contention is the legality of dismissal. Its resolution depends
on the validity of the cause and the manner of the
employee’s dismissal, which matters are covered in Book VI
of the Code.
46. X, a union member. The By-laws of the union
provide that member can be expelled for disloyalty.
Union requests the company to terminate X, is there a
termination dispute?
LABOR RELATIONS RECIT QUESTIONS – ATTY. JOYRICH GOLANGCO
47. Locsin v. Nissan
Issue: Whether Locsin’s position as EVP/Treasurer makes
him a corporate officer thereby excluding him from the
coverage of the Labor Code?
Ruling:
YES. Locsin was undeniably Chairman and President, and
was elected to these positions by the Nissan board pursuant
to its By-laws. As such, he was a corporate officer, not an
employee. Section 25 of the Corporation Code provides that
corporate officers are the president, secretary, treasurer and
such other officers as may be provided for in the by-laws.
Given Locsin’s status as a corporate officer, the RTC, not the
Labor Arbiter or the NLRC, has jurisdiction to hear the
legality of the termination of his relationship with Nissan. A
corporate officers dismissal is always a corporate act, or an
intra-corporate controversy which arises between a
stockholder and a corporation so that RTC should exercise
jurisdiction based on Section 5(c) of PD 902-A.
48. Halguena v. PAL
Issue: Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the petitioners'
action challenging the legality or constitutionality of the
provisions on the compulsory retirement age contained in
the CBA between respondent PAL and FASAP?
Ruling: YES. The subject of litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation, exclusively cognizable by the RTC,
pursuant to Section 19 (1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended. Being an ordinary civil action, the same is beyond
the jurisdiction of labor tribunals. The said issue cannot be
resolved solely by applying the Labor Code. Rather, it
requires the application of the Constitution, labor statutes,
etc.
Not every controversy or money claim by an employee
against the employer or vice-versa is within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. 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. Here, the employer-
employee relationship between the parties is merely
incidental and the cause of action ultimately arose from
different sources of obligation, i.e., the Constitution and
CEDAW.
Thus, where the principal relief sought is to be resolved not
by reference to the Labor Code or other labor relations
statute or a collective bargaining agreement but by the
general civil law, the jurisdiction over the dispute belongs to
the regular courts of justice and not to the labor arbiter and
the NLRC.
49. Okol v. Slimmers World
Issue: Does NLRC have jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal
case filed by petitioner?
Ruling: NO. Section 25 of the Corporation Code enumerates
corporate officers as the president, secretary, treasurer and
such other officers as may be provided for in the by-laws. An
office is created by the charter of the corporation and the
officer is elected by the directors or stockholders. On the
other hand, an employee usually occupies no office and
generally is employed not by action of the directors or
stockholders but by the managing officer of the corporation
who also determines the compensation to be paid to such
employee.
The Amended By-Laws of Slimmers World which enumerate
the power of the board of directors as well as the officers of
the corporation clearly shows that Okol was a director and
officer of Slimmers World. In a number of cases, SC held that
a corporate officer’s dismissal is always a corporate act, or
an intra-corporate controversy which arises between a
stockholder and a corporation. The question of
remuneration involving a stockholder and officer, not a
mere employee, is not a simple labor problem but a matter
that comes within the area of corporate affairs and
management and is a corporate controversy in
contemplation of the Corporation Code.
50. PNB v. Cabansag
Issue: Whether or not the arbitration branch of the NLRC in
the National Capital Region has jurisdiction over the instant
controversy;
Ruling: YES. The jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC
is specified in Article 217.
More specifically, Section 10 of RA 8042 reads in part:
SECTION 10. Money Claims. Notwithstanding any
provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall
have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing
of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-
employee relationship or by virtue of any law or
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
LABOR RELATIONS RECIT QUESTIONS – ATTY. JOYRICH GOLANGCO
deployment including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages.
Based on the foregoing provisions, labor arbiters clearly
have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising
from employer-employee relations, including termination
disputes involving all workers, among whom are overseas
Filipino workers (OFW).
51. Manila Hotel v. NLRC
***
52. Austria v. NLRC
Issue: Does the LA have jurisdiction over the case?
Ruling: YES. Under the Labor Code, the provision which
governs the dismissal of employees, is comprehensive
enough to include religious corporations, such as the SDA, in
its coverage.
Article 278 of the Labor Code on postemployment states that
the provisions of this Title shall apply to all establishments
or undertakings, whether for profit or not. Obviously, the
cited article does not make any exception in favor of a
religious corporation.
This is made more evident by the fact that the Rules
implementing the Labor Code, particularly, Section 1, Rule 1,
Book VI on the Termination of Employment and Retirement,
categorically includes religious institutions in the coverage
of the law, to wit:
Section 1. Coverage. This Rule shall apply to all
stablishments and undertakings, whether operated for profit
or not, including educational, medical, charitable and
religious institutions and organizations, in cases of regular
employment with the exception of the Government and its
political subdivisions including government-owned or
controlled corporations.
With this clear mandate, the SDA cannot hide behind the
mantle of protection of the doctrine of separation of church
and state to avoid its responsibilities as an employer under
the Labor Code.
53. Santos v. Servier
Issue: Whether or not the claim of the petitioners fall within
the jurisdiction of the NLRC and LA.
Ruling: Petitioners claim for illegal deduction (for tax
purposes) falls within the tribunal’s jurisdiction. It is
noteworthy that petitioner demanded the completion of her
retirement benefits, including the amount withheld by
respondent for taxation purposes. The issue of deduction for
tax purposes is intertwined with the main issue of whether
or not petitioners benefits have been fully given her. It is,
therefore, a money claim arising from the employer-
employee relationship, which clearly falls within the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.
54. Santiago v. CF Sharp
Issue: WON the failure of CF Sharp to deploy Santiago
without a valid contract entitles the latter to relief sought
despite the non-commencement of the employer-employee
relationship?
Ruling: YES. The jurisdiction of labor arbiters is not limited
to claims arising from employer-employee relationships.
Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers Act), provides
that the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide, the claims arising xxx by
virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for
overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages.
Here, since the present petition involves the employment
contract entered into by petitioner for overseas employment,
his claims are cognizable by the labor arbiters of the NLRC.
55. Hijo Resources v. Mejares
***
56. Pepsi Cola v. Galang
Issue: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
Ruling: Yes. Not every controversy involving workers and
their employers can be resolved only by the labor arbiters.
This will be so only if there is a "reasonable causal
connection" between the claim asserted and employer-
employee relations to put the case under the provisions of
Article 217. Absent such a link, the complaint will be
cognizable by the regular courts of justice in the exercise of
their civil and criminal jurisdiction.
The case now before the Court involves a complaint for
damages for malicious prosecution which was filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Leyte by the employees of the
defendant company. It does not appear that there is a
"reasonable causal connection" between the complaint and
the relations of the parties as employer and employees. The
LABOR RELATIONS RECIT QUESTIONS – ATTY. JOYRICH GOLANGCO
complaint did not arise from such relations and in fact could
have arisen independently of an employment relationship
between the parties. No such relationship or any unfair
labor practice is asserted. What the employees are alleging
is that the petitioners acted with bad faith when they filed
the criminal complaint which the Municipal Trial Court said
was intended "to harass the poor employees" and the
dismissal of which was affirmed by the Provincial Prosecutor
"for lack of evidence to establish even a slightest probability
that all the respondents herein have committed the crime
imputed against them." This is a matter which the labor
arbiter has no competence to resolve as the applicable law is
not the Labor Code but the Revised Penal Code.
57. Banez v. Valdevilla
Issue: Whether RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
Ruling: NO. Article 217(a), paragraph 4 of the Labor Code,
ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission:
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms
of damages arising from the employer-employee
relations;
The above provisions are a result of the amendment by
Section 9 of R.A. No. 6715, which put to rest the earlier
confusion as to who between Labor Arbiters and regular
courts had jurisdiction over claims for damages as between
employers and employees.
By the designating clause "arising from the employer-
employee relations" Article 217 should apply with equal
force to the claim of an employer for actual damages
against its dismissed employee, where the basis for the claim
arises from or is necessarily connected with the fact of
termination, and should be entered as a counterclaim in the
illegal dismissal case.
In the case before us, private respondent's claim against
petitioner for actual damages arose from a prior employer-
employee relationship. In the first place, private respondent
would not have taken issue with petitioner's "doing business
of his own" had the latter not been concurrently its
employee.
Second, and more importantly, to allow respondent court to
proceed with the instant action for damages would be to
open anew the factual issue of whether petitioner's
installment sale scheme resulted in business losses and the
dissipation of private respondent's property. This issue has
been duly raised and ruled upon in the illegal dismissal case.
The Labor Arbiter, however, found to the contrary--that no
business losses may be attributed to petitioner as in fact, it
was by reason of petitioner's installment plan that the sales
of the Iligan branch reached its highest record level.
58. Kawachi v. Del Quero
Issue: Do the regular courts have jurisdiction over the claim
for damages?
Ruling: NO. The NLRC has jurisdiction over Del Quero’s
complaint for illegal dismissal and damages arising
therefrom. She cannot be allowed to file separate or
independent civil action for damages where the alleged
injury has a reasonable connection to her termination from
employment. Consequently, the action for damages filed
before the MeTC must be dismissed.
Jurisprudence has developed the reasonable causal
connection rule. Under this rule, if there is a reasonable
causal connection between the claim asserted and the
employer-employee relations, then the case is within the
jurisdiction of the labor courts; in the absence of such nexus,
it is the regular courts that have jurisdiction. In the instant
case, the allegations of Del Quero in her complaint for
damages show that her injury was the offshoot of Kawachi’s
immediate harsh reaction as her administrative superior to
the supposedly sloppy manner by which she had discharged
her duties. The allegations in Del Quero’s complaint
unmistakably relate to the manner of her alleged illegal
dismissal.
The Court further notes that for a single cause of action, the
dismissed employee cannot be allowed to sue in two forums:
one, before the labor arbiter for reinstatement and recovery
of back wages; and two, before a court of justice for recovery
of damages. Suing in the manner described is known as
splitting a cause of action, a practice engendering
multiplicity of actions.
59. Amesco Innovations case
Issue: Does the LA have jurisdiction over cases involving the
reimbursement of SSS contribution paid by the Amecos in
behalf of Lopez?
Ruling: YES. The LA has original and exclusive jurisdiction
over the matter, since the same necessarily flowed from the
employer-employee relationship between Amecos and Lopez.
In this connection, it is noteworthy to state that "the Labor
Arbiter has jurisdiction to award not only the reliefs
LABOR RELATIONS RECIT QUESTIONS – ATTY. JOYRICH GOLANGCO

provided by labor laws, but also damages governed by the

Civil Code."

At the same time, it cannot be assumed that since the

dispute concerns the payment of SSS premiums, Amecos’
claim should be referred to the Social Security Commission
(SSC).

As far as SSS is concerned, there is no longer a dispute with

respect to Amecos’ accountability to the System; Amecos
already settled their pecuniary obligations to it. Since there
is no longer any dispute regarding coverage, benefits,
contributions and penalties to speak of, the SSC need not be
unnecessarily dragged into the picture. Besides, it cannot be
made to act as a collecting agency for petitioners’ claims
against the respondent; the Social Security Law should not
be so interpreted, lest the SSC be swamped with cases of this
sort.

60. Milan v. NLRC

***