Labor Relations 1

Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN Thus, DWUEU-ALU filed with the

v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND National Conciliation and Mediation Board
EMPLOYMENT of the DOLE a notice of strike on the
G.R. No. 91915 grounds of bargaining deadlock.
September 11, 1992
Romero, J. Issue: Whether there was refusal to
bargain and an impasse in the collective
Facts: Med-Arbiter Bienvenido C. Elorcha bargaining process?
certified the Divine Word University
Employees Union as the sole and exclusive Held: Yes. A thorough study of the records
bargaining agent of the Divine Word reveals that there was no “reasonable
University. DWUEU submitted its effort at good faith bargaining” especially
collective bargaining proposals. The on the part of the University. Its
University replied and requested for a indifferent attitude towards collective
preliminary conference. However, two bargaining inevitably resulted in the
days before the scheduled conference, failure of the parties to arrive at an
DWUEU’s resigned vice-president Mr. agreement. As it was evident that
Brigido Urminita wrote a letter addressed unilateral moves were being undertaken
to the University unilaterally withdrawing only by the DWUEU-ALU, there was no
the CBA proposals. “counteraction” of forces or an impasse to
speak of. While collective bargaining
After three years, DWUEU should be initiated by the union, there is a
requested a conference with the corresponding responsibility on the part
University for the purposes of continuing of the employer to respond in some
the collective bargaining negotiations. The manner to such acts.
University did not reply, thus, DWUEU-
ALU sent a follow-up letter for the
request. But despite this, no word was
received from the University.

COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN v.
ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES AND
FACULTY OF LETRAN
G.R. No. 141471
September 18, 2000
Kapunan, J.
Facts: During the renegotiation of the
respondent unions Collective Bargaining
Agreement with the petitioner, Eleonor
Ambas emerged as the newly elected
President of the union. Ambas wanted to
continue the renegotiation of the CBA but
petitioner, claimed that the CBA was
already prepared for signing by the
parties. However, the union members
rejected the said CBA. Thereafter,
petitioner accused the union officers of
bargaining in bad faith before the NLRC.
The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of the
petitioner. This decision was reversed on
appeal with the NLRC.
Issue: Whether petitioner is guilty of
unfair labor practice by refusing to
bargain with the union?
Held: No, the duty to bargain collectively
includes the mutual obligation to meet
and convene promptly and expeditiously
in good faith for the purpose of
Labor Relations 2
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
negotiating an agreement. Petitioner
failed to make a timely reply to the unions
proposals, thereby violating the proper
procedure in collective bargaining as
provided in Article 250. In order to allow
the employer to validly suspend the
bargaining process, there must be a valid
PCE raising a legitimate representation
issue, in this case, the petition was filed
outside the 60-day freedom period;
therefore there was no legitimate
representation issue and the filing of the
PCE did not constitute to the ongoing
negotiation.
The petitioner’s failure to act upon
the submitted CBA proposal within the
ten-day period exemplified in Article 250
of the Labor Code is a clear violation of
the governing procedure of collective
bargaining.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
EMPLOYEES UNION v. THE HONORABLE
MA. NIEVES R. CONFESOR
G.R. No. 114974
June 16, 2004
Callejo, Sr. J.
Facts: Bank and the Union signed a five-
year collective bargaining agreement with
 Labor Relations 3
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

a provision to renegotiate the terms to Divinagracia is an anti-union conduct

thereof on the third year. Prior to the from which it can be inferred that the
expiration of the three-year period but Bank consciously adopted such act to yield
within the sixty-day freedom period, the adverse effects on the free exercise of the
Union initiated the negotiations. The Bank right to self-organization and collective
attached its counter-proposal to the non- bargaining of the employees, especially
economic provisions proposed by the considering that such was undertaken
Union. previous to the commencement of the
negotiation and simultaneously with
Except for the provisions on Divinagracia’s suggestion that the bank
signing bonus and uniforms, the Union lawyers be excluded from its negotiating
and the Bank failed to agree on the panel. It is clear that such ULP charge was
remaining economic provisions of the merely an afterthought. The accusation
CBA. The Union declared a deadlock. On occurred after the arguments and
the other hand, the Bank filed a complaint differences over the economic provisions
for Unfair Labor Practice and Damages became heated and the parties had
before the Arbitration Branch of the become frustrated.
National Labor Relations Commission. It
contended that the Union demanded "sky INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE EMPLOYEES-
high economic demands," indicative of NATO v. INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE LTD
blue-sky bargaining. G.R. No. L-25291
January 30, 1971
Issue: Whether the Union was able to Castro, J.
substantiate its claim of unfair labor
practice against the Bank arising from the Facts: The Unions, while still members of
latter’s alleged “interference” with its the Federation of Free Workers, entered
choice of negotiator? into separate collective bargaining
agreements with the Insular Life
Held: No. The circumstances that Assurance Co., Ltd. and the FGU Insurance
occurred during the negotiation do not Group. The Unions jointly submitted
show that the suggestion made by Diokno proposals to the Companies for a modified

renewal of their respective collective
bargaining contracts which were then due
to expire on September 30, 1957. The
parties negotiated on the labor demands
but with no satisfactory result due to a
stalemate on the matter of salary
increases. The Unions demanded from the
Companies final counter-proposals on
their economic demands, particularly on
salary increases. Instead of giving counter-
proposals, the Companies presented facts
and figures and requested the Unions to
submit a workable formula which would
justify their own proposals. Forthwith the
Unions voted to declare a strike in protest
against what they considered the
Companies' unfair labor practices. The
Companies through their acting manager,
sent to each of the strikers a letter to
desist to the strike.
Issue: Whether the Companies are guilty
of unfair labor practice in sending out
individually to the strikers the letters?
HELD: Yes, the act of an employer in
notifying absent employees individually
during a strike following unproductive
efforts at collective bargaining that the
plant would be operated the next day and
that their jobs were open for them should
Labor Relations 4
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
they want to come in has been held to be
an unfair labor practice, as an active
interference with the right of collective
bargaining through dealing with the
employees individually instead of through
their collective bargaining
representatives.
Indeed, it is an unfair labor
practice for an employer operating under
a collective bargaining agreement to
negotiate or to attempt to negotiate with
his employees individually in connection
with changes in the agreement.
CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER OF
CONCERNED EMPLOYEES-UNIFIED
FILIPINO SERVICE WORKERS v. HON.
BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA
G.R. No. 118915
February 4, 1997
Hermosisima, JR. J.
Facts: Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Abdullah
issued an Order which granted union's
petition for certification election. CMC
appealed the Order to the Office of the
Secretary by questioning the legal status
of respondent union's affiliation with the
Alliance of Filipino Workers. Respondent
union, presented economic proposals for

the negotiation of a collective bargaining
agreement. However, respondent CMC
contended that CBA negotiations should
be suspended in view of the Order by
Med-Arbiter declaring the registration of
respondent union as null and void. In spite
of the refusal of respondent CMC,
respondent union still persisted in its
demand for CBA negotiations.
Due to respondent CMC's refusal
to bargain collectively, respondent union
filed a notice of strike. On November 18,
1994, public respondent rendered a
Resolution granting the appeal.
Issue: Whether there was deadlock in the
collective bargaining?
Held: Yes. There was a deadlock. A
"deadlock" is the counteraction of things
producing entire stoppage; There is a
deadlock when there is a complete
blocking or stoppage resulting from the
action of equal and opposed forces
Although there is no "deadlock" in
its strict sense as there is no
"counteraction" of forces present in this
case nor "reasonable effort at good faith
bargaining," such can be attributed to
CMC's fault as the bargaining proposals of
Labor Relations 5
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
respondent union were never answered
by CMC. In fact, what happened in this
case is worse than a bargaining deadlock
for CMC employed all legal means to block
the certification of respondent union as
the bargaining agent of the rank-and-file;
and use it as its leverage for its failure to
bargain with respondent union. Thus, we
can only conclude that CMC was unwilling
to negotiate and reach an agreement with
respondent union. CMC has not at any
instance shown willingness to discuss the
economic proposals given by respondent
union.
SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC., v. SAN
MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES
UNION-PTWGO
G.R. No. 168569
October 5, 2007
Carpio- Morales, J.
Facts: Employees of SMFI’s Finance
Department brought a grievance against
Finance Manager Gideon Montesa before
SMFI Plant Operations Manager. Almost
nine months after the grievance meeting
was held, SMFI rendered a decision
stating that it was still in the process of
completing the work management review,
hence, the Union’s requests could not be

granted. The Union thereupon filed a
complaint before for unfair labor practice
and unjust discrimination in matters of
promotion.
SMFI et al. filed a motion to
dismiss, contending that the issues raised
in the complaint were grievance issues
and therefore should be resolved in the
grievance machinery provided in the
collective bargaining agreement.
The Labor Arbiter granted SMFI et
al.’s motion to dismiss and ordered the
remand of the case to the grievance
machinery for completion of the
proceedings. The Union appealed the said
order.
Issue: Whether the Labor Arbiter has
jurisdiction over the complaint of
respondent Union?
Held: No although the Union mentioned
the particular acts of ULP and the ultimate
facts in support thereof.
For a ULP case to be cognizable by
the Labor Arbiter, and the NLRC to
exercise its appellate jurisdiction, the
allegations in the complaint should show
Labor Relations 6
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
prima facie the concurrence of two things,
namely: (1) gross violation of the CBA; and
(2) the violation pertains to the economic
provisions of the CBA.
In the case at bar, the Union
charges SMFI to have violated the
grievance machinery provision in the CBA.
DAVAO INTEGRATED PORT
STEVEDORING SERVICES v. RUBEN V.
ABARQUEZ
G.R. No. 102132
March 19, 1993
Romero, J.
Facts: Petitioner Davao Integrated Port
Stevedoring Services and private
respondent ATU-TUCP, entered into a
collective bargaining agreement which
provide for sick leave with pay benefits.
During the effectivity of the CBA,
all the field workers of petitioner were
extended sick leave with pay benefits. Any
unenjoyed portion thereof at the end of
the current year was converted to cash.
The commutation of the
unenjoyed portion of the sick leave was,
however, discontinued or withdrawn. The

Union objected to the said discontinuance
of commutation or conversion to cash of
the unenjoyed sick leave.
Upon failure of the parties to
amicably settle the issue, the Union
brought the matter for
arbitration before the
Conciliation and Mediation Board.
Issue: Whether intermittent workers are
entitled to commutation of their
unenjoyed sick leave with pay benefits?
Held: Yes, a collective
agreement, as used in Article 252 of the
Labor Code, refers to a contract executed
upon request of either the employer or
the exclusive bargaining representative
incorporating the agreement reached.
It is thus erroneous for petitioner
to isolate Section 1, Article VIII of the 1989
CBA from the other related section on sick
leave with pay benefits, in its attempt to
justify the discontinuance or withdrawal
of the privilege. The manner they were
deprived of the privilege previously
recognized and extended to them, is not
only tainted with arbitrariness
likewise discriminatory in
Petitioner-company is of the mistaken
Labor Relations 7
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
notion that since the privilege of
commutation or conversion to cash of the
unenjoyed portion of the sick leave with
pay benefits is found in Section 1, Article
VIII, only the regular non-intermittent
workers and no other can avail of the said
voluntary privilege because of the proviso found in
National the last sentence thereof.
PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE
CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. No. 118978
bargaining May 23, 1997
Regalado, J.
Facts: PT&T Union-ALU was charging
petitioner PT&T with unfair labor practice
acts and underpayment of statutory and
contractual benefits claimed to be due
pursuant to Wage Orders. PT&T denied
the charges. Labor Arbiter issued an order
to PT&T to pay respondent their salary
differentials in accordance to the Wage
Orders and/or their CBA. PT&T appealed
to NLRC but NLRC dismissed the appeal
for lack of merit.
but Issue: Whether the PT&T shall be
nature. obligated to pay both the CBA and
statutory Wage Orders increase?
 Labor Relations 8
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

Held: No, the common provisions of given under agreement fall short in
Wage Orders, state that: “All increases in amount of those fixed by law, the
wages and/or allowances granted or paid difference must be made up by the
by employers shall be credited as employer.
compliance with the minimum wage and
allowance adjustments prescribed herein, RFM CORP FLOUR DIVISION v. KAMPI-
provided that where the increases are less NAFLU-KMU
than the applicable amount provided in GR No. 162324
this Order, the employer shall pay the February 4, 2009
difference. Such increases shall not Carpio- Morales, J.
include anniversary wage increases
provided in collective bargaining Facts: Petitioner and respondent entered
agreements unless the agreements into a Collective Bargaining Agreement.
expressly provide otherwise.” Under the CBA, RFM agreed to make
payment to all daily paid employees on
The CBA between the parties Black Saturday, November 1 and
reveal sufficiently the parties' intention to December 31 if declared as special
consider salary increases provided in the holidays by the national government.
CBA to be creditable to wage increases During the first year of the effectivity of
that are or may be mandated within the the CBAs in 2000, December 31 which fell
applicable period by law. on a Sunday was declared by the national
government as a special holiday.
In Filipinas Golf and Country Club, Respondent unions thus claimed payment
Inc., vs. National Labor Relations of their members’ salaries, invoking the
Commission, 176 SCRA 625, we have said CBA provision. RFM refused the claims for
that such agreements merely create an payment, averring that December 31,
equivalence between legal and 2000 was not compensable as it was a rest
contractual imperatives, rendering both day.
obligations susceptible performance by
compliance with either, subject only to The controversy resulted in a
the condition that where the increases deadlock, drawing the parties to submit

the same for voluntary arbitration. The
Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) declared that
the provision of the CBA is clear,ruling in
favor of KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU and SUMAPI-
NAFLU-KMU and ordered RFM to pay
their salaries. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision.
Issue: Whether the employees are
entitled to the questioned salary
according to the provision of the CBA?
Held: Yes, 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.
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.
Labor Relations 9
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
G.R. No. 99266
March 2, 1999
Purisima, J.
Facts: San Miguel Corporation, alleging
the need to streamline its operations due
to financial losses, shut down some of its
plants and declared 55 positions as
redundant. Consequently, the private
respondent SMCEU union filed several
grievance cases for the said retrenched
employees, praying for the redeployment
of the said employees to the other
divisions of the company.
SMCEU filed with the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board of the
Department of Labor and Employment a
notice of strike. San Miguel Corporation,
on the other hand, moved to dismiss the
notice of strike but the NCMB failed to act
on the motion.
Issue: Whether there is a failure to
exhaust all the steps in the grievance
machinery and arbitration proceedings?

Held: Yes, for failing to exhaust all the
steps in the grievance machinery and
arbitration proceedings provided in the
Collective Bargaining Agreement, the
notice of strike should have been
dismissed by the NLRC.
In the case under consideration,
the grounds relied upon by the private
respondent union are non-strikeable. The
issues which may lend substance to the
notice of strike filed by the private
respondent union are: collective
bargaining deadlock and petitioners
alleged violation of the collective
bargaining agreement.
Collective Bargaining Deadlock is
defined as the situation between the labor
and the management of the company
where there is failure in the collective
bargaining negotiations resulting in a
stalemate. This situation, is non-existent
in the present case since there is a Board
assigned of the grievance machinery to
resolve the conflicting views of the
parties.
MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MGA
MANGGAGAWA SA M GREENFIELD v.
RAMOS
Labor Relations 10
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
G.R. No. 113907
February 28, 2000
Purisima, J.
Facts: Petitioner, Malayang Samahan ng
mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield, Inc, is
an affiliate of the private respondent,
United Lumber and General Workers of
the Philippines. The two established a
collective bargaining agreement between
MSMG and M. Greenfield, Inc.
A local union election was held
under the auspices of the ULGWP wherein
the herein petitioner, Beda Magdalena
Villanueva, and the other union officers
were proclaimed as winners. Minutes of
the said election were duly filed with the
Bureau of Labor Relations. However, a
Petition for Impeachment was filed with
the national federation ULGWP by the
defeated candidates in the
aforementioned election.
The federation conducted an audit
of the local union funds. The investigation
did not yield any unfavourable result and
the local union officers were cleared of
the charges of anomaly in the custody,
handling and disposition of the union
funds.

Issue: Whether it is proper for the Labor
Arbiter to declare the strike illegal?
Held: No, a no strike, no lock out provision
can only be invoked when the strike is
economic in nature. Such a provision
cannot be used to assail the legality of a
strike which is grounded on unfair labor
practice. Again, whether or not there was
indeed unfair labor practice does not
affect the strike.
On the submission that the strike
was illegal for being grounded on a non-
strikeable issue, that is, the intra-union
conflict between the federation and the
local union, it bears reiterating that when
respondent company dismissed the union
officers, the issue was transformed into a
termination dispute and brought
respondent company into the picture.
BPI v. BPI UNION
G.R. No. 164301
August 10, 2010
Leonardo- De Castro, J.
Facts: Far East Bank was absorbed by the
Bank of the Philippine Islands. Now BPI
has an existing Union Shop Clause
Labor Relations 11
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
agreement with the BPI Employees Union-
Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in
BPI Union bank whereby it is a pre-
condition that new employees must join
the union before they can be regularized
otherwise they will not have a continued
employment.
By reason of the failure of the FEB
employees to join the union, BPI Union
recommended to BPI their dismissal. BPI
refused. The issue went to voluntary
arbitration where BPI won but the Court
of Appeals reversed the Voluntary
Arbitrator. BPI appealed to the Supreme
Court.
Issue: Whether the Union Shop
agreement violated the constitutional
right of security of tenure of the FEB
employees absorbed by BPI?
Held: No, as a general rule, the State
protects the workers right to security of
tenure. An employee’s services can only
be terminated upon just and authorized
causes.
In this case, the presence of a
Union Shop Clause in the CBA between
BPI and BPI Union must be respected.
 Labor Relations 12
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

Failure of an employee to join the union Pagkalinawan regarding his excessive

pursuant to the clause is an authorized tardiness. One week after complainant
cause for BPI not to continue employing submitted his explanation, he was handed
the employee concerned and BPI must his notice of dismissal on the ground of
respect that provision of the CBA. "poor performance”.

In the hierarchy of labor rights, Respondents averred that

unionism is favored over security of complainant Alfante was dismissed for
tenure. A contrary interpretation of the "poor performance" and after being
Union Shop Clause would dilute its forewarned that complainant may be
efficacy and put the certified union that is removed if there was no showing of
supposedly being protected thereby at improvement.
the mercy of management. Nevertheless,
the FEB employees are still entitled to the After trial, the Court of Appeals
twin notice rule this is to afford them granted the award of funeral or
ample opportunity to whether or not join bereavement aid but only after
the union. submission of conclusive proofs that the
deceased is a parent, either father or

PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC., v. mother, of the employees concerned, as

JOURNAL EMPLOYEES UNION well as the death certificate to establish

G.R. No. 192601 the fact of death of the deceased legal

June 3, 2013 dependent.

Bersamin, J.
Issue: Whether petitioner’s denial of

Facts: Complainant Michael L. Alfante respondents’ claims for funeral and

alleged that he started to work with bereavement aid constituted a diminution

respondents as computer technician. of benefits?

Sometime in 2001, Rico Pagkalinawan

replaced Torrecampo, which was opposed Held: Yes, the coverage of the term legal

by complainant. Complainant Alfante dependent as used in a stipulation in a

received a memorandum from collective bargaining agreement, granting

 Labor Relations 13
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

funeral or bereavement benefit to a their hospitalization insurance claims, not

regular employee for the death of a legal
dependent, if the CBA is silent about it, is
to be construed as similar to the meaning
that contemporaneous social legislations
have set. This is because the terms of such
social legislations are deemed
incorporated in or adopted by the CBA.
A statutory definition of
dependent provides that the civil status of
the employee as either married or single
is not the controlling consideration in
order that a person may qualify as the
employee’s legal dependent.
the full amount.
Claiming that under the CBA, they
are entitled to hospital benefits which
should not be reduced by the amounts
paid by MEDICard, Calida, Oabel and
Martin asked for reimbursement from
MMPC. However, MMPC denied the
claims contending that double insurance
would result if the said employees would
receive from the company the full amount
of hospitalization expenses despite having
already received payment of portions
thereof from other health insurance
providers.

MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILIPPINES Issue: Whether recovery from both the

SALARIED EMPLOYEES UNION v. CBA and other insurance companies is

MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILIPPINES allowed and not prohibited by law or by

CORPORATION jurisprudence?

G.R. No. 175773

June 17, 2013 Held: No, to allow reimbursement of

Del Castillo, J. amounts paid under other insurance

policies shall constitute double recovery

Facts: The parties’ CBA provides for the which is not sanctioned by law. The CBA

hospitalization insurance benefits for the has provided for MMPC’s limited liability

covered dependents. On separate which extends only up to the amount to

occasions, three members of MMPSEU, be paid to the hospital and doctor by the

filed claims for reimbursement of employees’ dependents, excluding those

hospitalization expenses of their paid by other insurers. Consequently, the

dependents. MMPC paid only a portion of covered employees will not receive more
 Labor Relations 14
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

than what is due them; neither is MMPC Sicaltek agreed that SEU-ADFLO will
under any obligation to give more than withdraw the labor case in exchange for
what is due under the CBA. the company’s voluntary recognition of
SEU-ADFLO as the sole bargaining agent of
Moreover, since the subject CBA its employees.
provision is an insurance contract, the
rights and obligations of the parties must ADFLO then prepared a motion to
be determined in accordance with the dismiss the labor case, but petitioners
general principles of insurance law. Being refused to sign it. This prompted
in the nature of a non-life insurance petitioners to disaffiliate from SEU-ADFLO.
contract and essentially a contract of They formed another union, the Sicaltek
indemnity, the CBA provision obligates Workers Union, and filed a petition for
MMPC to indemnify the covered certification election. The petition was,
employees’ medical expenses incurred by however, dismissed due to the earlier
their dependents but only up to the certification order by the Med-Arbiter.
extent of the expenses actually incurred.
SEU-ADFLO, through its new
OLVIDO v. COURT OF APPEALS President, respondent, forthwith
G.R. Nos. 141166-67 demanded that Sicaltek dismiss
October 15, 2007 petitioners as provided in the Modified
Quisumbing, J. Union Shop Provision in the CBA.
Petitioners countered that the demand
Facts: Suico and Macasinag with the for their dismissal was pure harassment
assistance of respondent president of filed since the certification issue between the
a complaint for illegal lay-off, illegal two unions was still pending at the time.
deduction, non-payment of overtime pay,
premium pay and other benefits. Issue: Whether the Petitioners are
Entitled to back wages?
In the meantime SEU-ADFLO filed a
petition for certification election during Held: No, we have recently ruled under
the certification proceedings ADFLO and Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended
 Labor Relations 15
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

by Republic Act No. 6715. It is now the new CBA and authorization for the
provided in the Labor Code that an Company to deduct union dues.
employee who is unjustly dismissed from
work shall be entitled to reinstatement Subsequently however, members
without loss of seniority rights and other of the Union submitted documents to the
privileges and to his full backwages, Company stating that although they have
inclusive of allowances computed from ratified the new CBA, they are
the time his compensation was withheld withdrawing or disauthorizing the
from him up to the time of his actual deduction of any amount from their CBA
reinstatement. Thus, where reinstatement lump sum.
is adjudged, the award of back wages and
other benefits continues beyond the date On account of the above-
of the Labor Arbiter's decision ordering mentioned disauthorization, the
reinstatement and extends up to the time Company, being in a quandary as to whom
said order of reinstatement is actually to remit the payment of the questioned
carried out. amount, filed an action for interpleader
with the Bureau of Labor Relations in

CARMELITO L. PALACOL v. PURA FERRER- order to resolve the conflicting claims.

CALLEJA Issue: Can a special assessment be validly

G.R. No. 85333 deducted by a labor union from the lump-

February 26, 1990 sum pay of its members, granted under a

Gancayco, J. collective bargaining agreement?

Held: No, the principle "that employees

Facts: The respondent Manila CCBPI Sales
are protected by law from unwarranted
Force Union, as the collective bargaining
practices that diminish their
agent of all regular salesmen concluded a
compensation without their known edge
new collective bargaining agreement with
and consent" is in accord with the
the latter. On the same day, the president
constitutional principle of the State
of the Union submitted to the Company
affording full protection to labor.
the ratification by the union members of
 Labor Relations 16
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

The respondent-Union brushed Holy Cross President replied that he had

aside the defects pointed out by no objection to the extension sought.
petitioners in the manner of compliance
with the legal requirements as Jose Lagahit convoked a meeting
"insignificant technicalities." On the of the KAMAPI membership for the
contrary, the failure of the Union to purpose of electing a new set of union
comply strictly with the requirements set officers, at which Rodolfo Gallera won
out by the law invalidates the questioned election as president. To the surprise of
special assessment. Substantial many, Galera forthwith initiated
compliance is not enough in view of the discussions for the unions disaffiliation
fact that the special assessment will from the KAMAPI Federation. Galleras
diminish the compensation of the union group subsequently formed a separate
members. Their express consent is organization known as the Holy Cross of
required, and this consent must be Davao College Teachers Union.
obtained in accordance with the steps
outlined by law, which must be followed Thereafter, there ensued between
to the letter. No shortcuts are allowed. the two unions a full-blown action on the
basic issue of representation.
HOLY CROSS OF DAVAO COLLEGE, INC., v. Issue: Whether the employer is liable for
HON. JEROME JOAQUIN failing to implement the check-off
G.R. No. 110007 provision?
October 18, 1996
Narvsa, C.J. Held: No the employer is not liable. A
check-off is a process or device whereby
Facts: A collective bargaining agreement, the employer, on agreement with the
was entered into between petitioner and union recognized as the proper bargaining
the affiliate labor organization representatives, or on prior authorization
representing its employees. Shortly before from its employees, deducts union dues
the expiration of the agreement, KAMAPI or agency fees from the latter's wages and
President wrote Holy Cross expressing his remits them directly to the union. Its
unions desire to renew the agreement. desirability to a labor organization is quite
 Labor Relations 17
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

evident; by it, it is assured of continuous denominated as "Petisyon" to FPSI's

funding. Indeed, this Court has general manager seeking the termination
acknowledged that the system of check- of the services of some employees.
off is primarily for the benefit of the union
and, only indirectly, of the individual On May 16, 1996, respondents
laborers. terminated the services of the employees
mentioned in the "Petisyon." The
The only obligation of the following day, two (2) separate complaints
employer under a check-off is to effect for illegal dismissal were filed against
the deductions and remit the collections respondents. Some of the complainants
to the union. The principle of unjust agreed to amicably settle their cases.
enrichment necessarily precludes Bergante and Inguillo, the remaining
recovery of union dues -- or agency fees -- complainants, were directed to submit
from the employer, these being, to their respective position papers, after
repeat, obligations pertaining to the which their complaints were submitted
individual worker in favor of the for resolution.
bargaining union.
Issue: Whether the enforcement of the

HERMINIGILDO INGUILLO AND ZENAIDA aforesaid Union Security Clause justified

BERGANTE v. FIRST PHILIPPINE SCALES herein petitioners' dismissal?

G.R. No. 165407

June 5, 2009 Held: Yes, the enforcement justified

Peralta, J. petitioner’s dismissal. In terminating the

employment of an employee by enforcing

Facts: FPSI and First Philippine Scales the Union Security Clause, the employer

Industries Labor Union entered into a needs only to determine and prove that:

Collective Bargaining Agreement. During (1) the union security clause is applicable;

the lifetime of the CBA, several FPSI (2) the union is requesting for the

employees joined another union. The enforcement of the union security

executive board and members of the provision in the CBA; and (3) there is

FPSILU addressed a document sufficient evidence to support the union's


decision to expel the employee from the
union or company.
We hold that all the requisites
have been sufficiently met and FPSI was
justified in enforcing the Union Security
Clause.
To safeguard the rights of the
employees, the dismissals pursuant to
union security clauses are valid and legal,
subject only to the requirement of due
process, that is, notice and hearing prior
to dismissal.
PICOP RESOURCES, INCORPORATED v.
TANECA ET. AL,
G.R. No. 160828
August 9, 2010
Peralta, J.
Facts: Respondents were regular rank-
and-file employees of PRI and bona fide
members of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa
PRI Southern Philippines Federation of
Labor (NAMAPRI-SPFL), which is the
collective bargaining agent for the rank-
and-file employees of petitioner PRI. PRI
has a collective bargaining agreement
with NAMAPRI-SPFL for a period of five (5)
years.
Labor Relations 18
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Atty. Proculo P. Fuentes, sent a
letter to the management of PRI
demanding the termination of employees
who allegedly campaigned for and signed
the Petition for Certification Election of
the Federation of Free Workers Union
(FFW) during the effectivity of the CBA.
NAMAPRI-SPFL considered said act of
campaigning for and signing the petition
for certification election of FFW as an act
of disloyalty and a valid basis for
termination for a cause in accordance
with its Constitution and By-Laws, and the
terms and conditions of the CBA.
Issue: Whether there was just cause to
terminate the employment of
respondents?
Held: No, PRI argued that the dismissal of
the respondents was valid and legal. It
claimed to have acted in good faith at the
instance of the incumbent union pursuant
to the Union Security Clause of the CBA.
Citing Article 253 of the Labor Code PRI
contends that as parties to the CBA, they
are enjoined to keep the status quo and
continue in full force and effect the terms
and conditions of the existing CBA during
the 60-day period and/or until a new
agreement is reached by the parties.
Petitioner's argument is untenable.
 Labor Relations 19
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

CREA began a strike and set up a

The mere signing of the picket in the premises of CALTEX. In the
authorization in support of the Petition course of the strike, DOLE Undersecretary
before the "freedom period," is not interceded and conducted several
sufficient ground to terminate the conciliation meetings between the
employment. Nothing in the records contending parties. Thereafter, the
would show that respondents failed to contending parties filed their position
maintain their membership in good papers pertaining to unresolved issues.
standing in the Union. Respondents did Because of the strike, CALTEX terminated
not resign or withdraw their membership the employment of some officers of
from the Union to which they belong. petitioner union.
Respondents continued to pay their union
dues and never joined the FFW.
Issue: Whether the Honorable Secretary

CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES of DOLE committed grave abuse of

ASSOCIATION v. HON. JOSE S. discretion in resolving the instant labor

BRILLANTES dispute?

G.R. No. 123782

September 16, 1997 Held: No, in the present case, the

Panganiban, J. condition sine qua non for its grant for a

non-strike was not complied with. The

Facts: Petitioner and private respondent parties acknowledge that during the

negotiated the terms and conditions of negotiations which resulted in the

employment to be contained in a new execution of this Agreement, each of

CBA. Some items in the new CBA were them had the unlimited opportunity to

unresolved. To settle the unresolved make demands and proposals. Therefore,

issues, meetings were conducted. Because the Company and the Union during the

the parties failed to reach any significant life of this Agreement, each voluntarily

progress, petitioner declared a deadlock and unqualifiedly waives the right and

and filed a notice of strike. each agrees that the other shall not be
obligated to bargain collectively with

respect to any subject or matter referred
to in this Agreement even though such
subject or matter may not have been
within the knowledge or contemplation of
either or both parties at the time they
negotiated or signed this Agreement.
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v.
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
EMPLOYEES UNION- METRO MANILA
G.R. No. 175678
August 22, 2012
Peralta, J.
Facts: Respondent BPIEU-MM and
petitioner BPI have an existing CBA. The
CBA provides for loan benefits and
relatively low interest rates. Thereafter,
petitioner issued a "no negative data bank
policy" for the implementation of the
manpower loans which the respondent
objected to, thus, resulting into labor-
management dialogues. Unsatisfied with
the result of those dialogues, respondent
brought the matter to the grievance
machinery, the issue, not having been
resolved raised it to the Voluntary
Arbitrator.
Petitioner’s allege that the "No
NDB policy" is a reasonable requirement
that is consistent with sound banking
Labor Relations 20
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
practice and is meant to inculcate among
officers and employees of the element of
trust that is paramount.
Issue: Whether No NDP policy conforms
to the CBA?
Held: A CBA refers to the negotiated
contract between a legitimate labor
organization and the employer concerning
wages, hours of work and all other terms
and conditions of employment in a
bargaining unit. As in all other contracts,
there must be clear indications that the
parties reached a meeting of the minds.
Therefore, the terms and conditions of a
CBA constitute the law between the
parties.
The CBA in this case contains no
provision on the "no negative data bank
policy" as a prerequisite in the
entitlement of the benefits it set forth for
the employees. In fact, a close reading of
the CBA would show that the terms and
conditions contained therein relative to
the availment of the loans are plain and
clear, thus, all they need is the proper
implementation in order to reach their
objective. The CA was, therefore, correct
when it ruled that, although it can be said
that petitioner is authorized to issue rules
 Labor Relations 21
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

and regulations under the CBA, the The PPHI also disputes what it
additional rules and regulations, however, considers as the Union's strained
must not impose new conditions which interpretation of the CBA exception of
are not contemplated in the CBA and "Negotiated Contracts" as applicable to
should be within the realm of airline contracts only.
reasonableness.
Issue: Whether the excepted “ negotiated
NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN contracts” and “special rates” are only
HOTEL RESTAURANT AND ALLIED applicable to airline contracts?
INDUSTRIES v. PHILIPPINE PLAZA
HOLDINGS, INC., Held: No, A collective bargaining
G.R. No. 177524, agreement, as used in Article 252 of the
July 23, 2014 Labor Code, is a contract executed at the
Brion, J. request of either the employer or the
employees' exclusive bargaining
Facts: The PPHI and the Union executed representative with respect to wages,
the "Third Rank-and-File Collective hours of work and all other terms and
Bargaining Agreement as Amended”. The conditions of employment, including
CBA provided, among others, for the proposals for adjusting any grievances or
collection, of a ten percent service charge questions under such agreement.
on the sale of food, beverage,
transportation, laundry and rooms. As a contract and the governing
law between the parties, the general rules
The Union's Service Charge of statutory construction apply in the
Committee informed the Union President, interpretation of its provisions. Only
through an audit report of uncollected when the words used are ambiguous and
service charges for the last quarter of doubtful or leading to several
1998. Through a letter, the PPHI admitted interpretations of the parties' agreement
liability. The PPHI denied the rest of the that a resort to interpretation and
Union's claims. construction is called for. No service
charges were due from the specified
 Labor Relations 22
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

entries; they either fall within the CBA- their sole and exclusive bargaining
excepted "Negotiated Contracts" and representative. GAW Trading Inc. received
"Special Rates" or did not involve "a sale the Letter of ALU as acknowledged
of food, beverage, etc." thereunder indicating its recognition of
ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining
Notably, the CBA does not agent .
specifically define the terms "negotiated
contracts" and "special rates." The Southern Philippines
Nonetheless, the CBA likewise does not Federation of Labor together with
explicitly limit the use of these terms to Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa GAW
specified transactions. With particular undertook a strike after it failed to get the
reference to "negotiated contracts," the management of GAW Trading Inc. to sit
CBA does not confine its application to for a conference respecting its demands.
"airline contracts" as argued by the Union.
Thus, as correctly declared by the CA, the Issue: Whether the Collective Bargaining
term "negotiated contracts" should be Agreement applies?
read as applying to all types of negotiated
contracts and not to "airlines contracts" Held: No, the collective bargaining
only. This is in line with the basic rule of agreement in question is indeed defective.
construction. We have previously held that the
mechanics of collective bargaining are set

ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS v. HON. in motion only when the following

PURA FERRER-CALLEJA jurisdictional preconditions are present,

G.R. No. L-77282 namely, (1) possession of the status of

May 5, 1989 majority representation by the

Regalado, J. employees' representative in accordance

with any of the means of selection and/or

Facts: The associated Labor Unions thru designation provided for by the Labor

its regional Vice-Presidents informed GAW Code; (2) proof of majority

Trading, Inc. that majority of the latter's representation; and (3) a demand to

employees have authorized ALU to be


bargain under Article 251, paragraph (a),
of the New Labor Code.
In the present case, the standing of
petitioner as an exclusive bargaining
representative is dubious. It may be
recalled that respondent company, in a
letter addressed to petitioner, merely
indicated that it was "not against the
desire of (its) workers" and required
petitioner to present proof that it was
supported by the majority thereof in a
meeting to be held on the same date. The
only express recognition of petitioner as
said employees' bargaining representative
that we see in the records is in the
collective bargaining agreement entered
into two days thereafter.
Evidently, there was precipitate
haste on the part of respondent company
in recognizing petitioner union, which
recognition appears to have been based
on the self-serving claim of the latter that
it had the support of the majority of the
employees in the bargaining unit.
E. RAZON, INC. v. THE HONORABLE
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT
G.R. No. 85867
Labor Relations 23
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
May 13, 1993
Melo, J.
Facts: Petitioner E. Razon, Inc. is a
corporation organized principally to bid
for the right to operate arrastre services.
Through public bidding, ERI and the
government, executed a management
contract covering all the piers in South
Harbor, Manila for a term of five years
renewable for another five years.
ERI became Metro Port Services,
Inc. when parties close to then President
Marcos, specifically his brother-in-law,
allegedly coerced Enrique Razon, who
owned 93% of ERI's equity, into endorsing
in blank stock certificates covering 60% of
such equity.
On July 19, 1986 or two years
before the expiration of the eight-year
term, the PPA cancelled the management
contract for alleged violations thereof.
The employees who were
members of the Associated Workers
Union (AWU) filed a notice. This move
prompted the PPA, MARINA, ERI, and
representatives of the AWU, Associated

Port Checkers Workers Union and Marina
Management Employees to meet and
forge an Agreement.
The MPSI then requested the
Secretary of Labor and Employment to
immediately assume jurisdiction over the
dispute to prevent paralyzation of the
vital operations of the Port of Manila.
Issue: Whether the Marina assumed the
liability for paying the benefit of the
employees concerned?
Held: No, by absorbing ERI/MPSI
employees and honoring the terms and
conditions in the collective bargaining
agreement between ERI/MPSI and the
employees, Marina did not assume the
responsibility of ERI/MPSI to pay
separation pay to its employees. As
correctly put by public respondent,
Paragraph 7, insofar as it refers to
employees' benefits, should be applied
prospectively with respect to Marina. This
conclusion is supported by Paragraph 14
of Permit No. 104286 granted to Marina.
It should be recalled, however,
there is no law that requires the
purchaser to absorb the employees of the
Labor Relations 24
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
selling corporation. As such, when Marina
rehired the ERI/MPSI employees, it had all
the right to consider them as new ones.
On the other hand, ERI/MPSI, to whom
years of service had been rendered by its
suddenly jobless employees, had the
corresponding obligation to grant them
what is theirs under the law and the
collective bargaining agreement. After all,
a collective bargaining agreement is the
law between the parties.
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST
COMPANY EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU-TUCP
v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
G.R. No. 102636
September 10, 1993
Vitug, J.
Facts: The bank entered into a collective
bargaining agreement with the MBTCEU.
Barely a month later Republic Act 6727
took effect. Pursuant to the provisions,
the bank gave the P25 increase per day to
its probationary employees and to those
who had been promoted to regular or
permanent status. The bank refused to
give the same increase to its regular
employees.

Petitioner Union alleged that there
emerged a substantially reduced salary
gap, and sought from the bank the
correction of the alleged distortion in pay.
Issue: Whether the Labor Arbiter’s
computation was proper?
Held: No, the cited Wage Order should
apply instead. Giving the employees an
across-the-board increase may not be
conducive to the policy of encouraging
"employers to grant wage and allowance
increases to their employees higher than
the minimum rates of increases
prescribed by statute or administrative
regulation," particularly in this case where
both Republic Act 6727 and the CBA allow
a credit for voluntary compliance.
Hence, the formula offered and
incorporated in Wage Order No. IV-02
issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages
and Productivity Commission for
correction of pay scale structures in case
of wage distortion as in the case at bar
would be the most equitable and fair
under the circumstances obtaining in this
case.
Labor Relations 25
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
We find the formula suggested
then by Commissioner Bonto-Perez, which
has also been the standard considered by
the regional Tripartite Wages and
Productivity Commission, to well be the
appropriate measure to balance the
respective contentions of the parties in
this instance.
BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC. v. BCI
EMPLOYEES and WORKERS UNION-
PAFLU,
G.R. No. L-24711
April 30, 1968
Bengzon, J.P, J.
Facts: Union 1 was the bargaining
representative, and entered into a CBA
with Benguet Consolidated. The CBA
contained a no strike/lock-out clause.
Union 1 still conducted a strike. Later on,
there was a change in the bargaining
representative, Union 2. Bengeut sought
to make Union 2 liable for the damage of
the strike orchestrated by Union 1, and
invoked the substitutionary doctrine as
the basis for its claims.
Issue: Whether the Collective Bargaining
Contract executed between Benguet and
BBWU automatically bind UNION-PAFLU

upon its certification after there was a
change in the sole bargaining
representative of all Benguet employees?
Held: No, the new bargaining
representative of Benguet employees
cannot be made liable for the damage
caused by the previous strike which was
orchestrated by the previous bargaining
representative. Benguet’s reliance on the
‘substitutionary doctrine’ is misplaced.
The “substitutionary” doctrine only
provides that the employees cannot
revoke the validly executed collective
bargaining contract with their employer
by the simple expedient of changing their
bargaining agent. It only means that the
employees, thru their new bargaining
agent, cannot renege on their collective
bargaining contract, except of course to
negotiate with management for the
shortening thereof.
The “substitutionary” doctrine
cannot be invoked to support the
contention that a newly certified
collective bargaining agent automatically
assumes all the personal undertakings.
When BBWU bound itself and its officers
not to strike, it could not have validly
Labor Relations 26
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
bound also all the other rival unions
existing in the bargaining units in
question. BBWU was the agent of the
employees, not of the other unions which
possess distinct personalities.
NATIONAL BREWERY AND ALLIED
INDUSTRIES LABOR UNION OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY,
INC.,
G.R. No. L-19017
December 27, 1963
Bautista Angelo, J.
Facts: The National Brewery and Allied
Industries Labor Union of the Philippines
filed against the San Miguel Brewery, Inc.
a complaint alleging that said union and
the company entered into a collective
bargaining agreement which provides:
“The Company agrees to pay the basic
daily rates of those workers within the
bargaining unit who may participate in the
Labor Day parade held on May 1st of
every year”
Plaintiff’s mother union decided to
hold its Labor Day parade in the morning
where about 600 members of the union
joined and participated. The company
knew about the members’ participation

but when the union demanded the
payment to said members, the company
refused to honor its obligation in bad
faith.
The company is of the view that
since the provision regarding payment is
of the basic daily wage to the members of
the union contained in the collective
bargaining agreement runs to the benefit
of the members concerned said provision
confers a right which is unique and
personal to the employees with the result
that they are the ones who are the real
parties in interest with regard to the
collection of their individual basic wages.
Issue: Whether the Court of First Instance
have jurisdiction over the case and can
the union sue in behalf of its members?
Held: Yes, the Supreme Court held that
the complaint filed by the union comes
under the jurisdiction of the court a quo
for the same is based upon the collective
bargaining agreement concluded between
the union and the company. The basis of
the right which is sought to be enforced is
the agreement itself and not the wages to
be collected.
Labor Relations 27
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
The situation would be different if
the purpose of the action were merely to
collect wages that ordinarily accrue to
members of the union because of work or
services rendered in connection with their
employment. Not so when the wages
accrue mainly on the strength of an
agreement entered into between the
union and the company, as is the instant
case.
The action then may be brought in
the name of the union that has obliged
itself to secure those wages for its
members. In this sense, the cases cited by
the company are inapplicable.
NEW PACIFIC TIMBER SUPPLY COMPANY,
CO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
G.R. No. 124224
March 17, 2000
Kapunan, J.
Facts: The National Federation of Labor
was certified as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative. As such, NFL
started to negotiate for better terms and
conditions of employment for the
employees in the bargaining unit which it
represented. However, the same was

allegedly met with stiff resistance by
petitioner Company, so that the former
was prompted to file a complaint for
unfair labor practice against the latter on
the ground of refusal to bargain
collectively.
Executive Labor Arbiter Hakim S.
Abdulwahid issued an order declaring
herein petitioner Company guilty of ULP.
Petitioner Company appealed the
above order to the NLRC. The NLRC
rendered a decision dismissing the appeal
for lack of merit. Unsatisfied, petitioner
Company filed a petition for certiorari
with this Court. But the Court dismissed
said petition in a Resolution, dated
January 21, 1991.
Issue: Whether the term of a Collective
Bargaining Agreement as to its economic
provisions be extended beyond the term
expressly stipulated therein?
Held: Yes, until a new Collective
Bargaining Agreement has been executed
by and between the parties, they are
duty-bound to keep the status quo and to
continue in full force and effect the terms
and conditions of the existing agreement.
Labor Relations 28
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
In the case at bar, no new
agreement was entered into by and
between petitioner Company and NFL
pending appeal of the decision in NLRC.
In a recent case, the Court had
occasion to rule that Articles 253 and 253-
A mandate the parties to keep the status
quo and to continue in full force and
effect the terms and conditions of the
existing agreement during the 60-day
period prior to the expiration of the old
CBA and/or until a new agreement is
reached by the parties. Consequently, the
automatic renewal clause provided for by
the law, which is deemed incorporated in
all CBA's, provides the reason why the
new CBA can only be given a prospective
effect.
GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION v.
GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-
INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU)
G.R. No. 183889
June 15, 2011
Perez, J.
Facts: GMC and the Union entered into a
collective bargaining agreement which
provided, among other terms, the latter’s
representation of the collective bargaining

unit for a three-year term. Before the
expiration of the subject CBA, the Union
sent a draft CBA proposal to GMC, with a
request for counter-proposals from the
latter. In view of GMC’s failure to comply
with said request, the Union commenced
the complaint for unfair labor practice
which was dismissed for lack of merit. The
decision of the NLRC was, however,
reversed by the CA, thus, the complaint
for unfair labor practice was dismissed by
the said court.
GMC’s failure to make a timely
reply to the proposals presented by the
union is indicative of its utter lack of
interest in bargaining with the union. Its
excuse that it felt the union no longer
represented the worker, was mainly
dilatory as it turned out to be utterly
baseless.
Issue: Whether the imposed CBA has full
force and effect?
Held: Considering that no new CBA had
been, in the meantime, agreed upon by
GMC and the Union, pursuant to Article
253 of the Labor Code the provisions of
the imposed CBA continues to have full
Labor Relations 29
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
force and effect until a new CBA has been
entered into by the parties.
Article 253 mandates the parties
to keep the status quo and to continue in
full force and effect the terms and
conditions of the existing agreement
during the 60-day period prior to the
expiration of the old CBA and/or until a
new agreement is reached by the parties.
In the same manner that it does not
provide for any exception nor qualification
on which economic provisions of the
existing agreement are to retain its force
and effect, the law does not distinguish
between a CBA duly agreed upon by the
parties and an imposed CBA like the one
under consideration.
FVC LABOR UNION-PHILIPPINE
TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS
ORGANIZATION v. SAMA-SAMANG
NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA SA FVC-
SOLIDARITY OF INDEPENDENT AND
GENERAL LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
G.R. No. 176249
November 27, 2009
Brion, J.
Facts: FVCLU-PTGWO is the recognized
bargaining agent of the rank-and-file
employees of the FVC Philippines

Incorporated. It signed a five-year CBA
with the company. At the end of the third
year of the five-year term and pursuant to
the CBA, FVCLU-PTGWO and the company
entered into a re-negotiation of the CBA.
9 days before the expiration of the
originally-agreed CBA term, SANAMA-
SIGLO filed before DOLE a petition for
certification election for the same rank-
and-file covered by FVCLU-PTGWO.
FVCLU-PTGWO moved to dismiss
the petition on the ground that the
certification election petition was filed
outside the freedom period or outside the
60 days before the expiration of the CBA.
The DOLE Acting Secretary held
that the amended CBA, had been ratified
by members of the bargaining unit some
of whom later organized themselves as
SANAMA-SIGLO.
Issue: Whether the amendment of the
CBA extending its term carry with it an
extension of the union’s exclusive
bargaining status?
Held: No, any agreement on such other
provisions of the Collective Bargaining
Labor Relations 30
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Agreement entered into within six (6)
months from the date of expiry of the
term of such other provisions as fixed in
such Collective Bargaining Agreement,
shall retroact to the day immediately
following such date. If any such
agreement is entered into beyond six
months, the parties shall agree on the
duration of retroactivity thereof. In case
of a deadlock in the renegotiation of the
collective bargaining agreement, the
parties may exercise their rights under
this Code.
By express provision of the Article
253-A, the exclusive bargaining status
cannot go beyond five years and the
representation status is a legal matter not
for the workplace parties to agree upon.
Despite an agreement for a CBA
with a life of more than five years, either
as an original provision or by amendment,
the bargaining unions exclusive bargaining
status is effective only for five years and
can be challenged within sixty (60) days
prior to the expiration of the CBAs first
five years.
UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES v.
NLRC and NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC.

G.R. No. 91025
December 19, 1990
Medialdea, J.
Facts: The petitioner Union of the Filipino
Employees, the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of all rank-and-file
employees of Nestle Philippines, filed a
Notice of Strike at the DOLE raising the
issues of CBA deadlock and unfair labor
practice. Private respondent assailed the
legal personality of the proponents of the
said notice of strike to represent the
Nestle employees, before the NCMB.
Thereafter, Company terminated
from employment all UFE Union officers,
and all the members of the negotiating
panel for instigating and knowingly
participating in a strike.
The union filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal. Subsequently, company
concluded separate CBAs. Assailing the
validity of these agreements, the union
filed a case of ULP against the company
with the NLRC-NCR Arbitration Branch
Efforts to resolve the dispute amicably
were taken by the NCMB but yielded
negative result.
Labor Relations 31
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Issue: Whether the second division of
NLRC acted beyond its jurisdiction in
rendering the assailed resolution?
Held: No, this case was certified when
existing rules prescribed that, it is
incumbent upon the Commission en banc
to decide or resolve a certified dispute.
However, R.A. 6715 took effect during the
pendency of this case. Aside from vesting
upon each division the power to
adjudicate cases filed before the
Commission, said Act further provides
that the divisions of the Commission shall
have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
cases within their respective territorial
jurisdiction.
In view of the enactment of
Republic Act 6715, the aforementioned
rules requiring the Commission en banc to
decide or resolve a certified dispute have
accordingly been repealed. Moreover, it is
to be emphasized and it is a matter of
judicial notice that since the effectivity of
R.A. 6715, many cases have already been
decided by the 5 divisions of the NLRC.
We find no legal justification in
entertaining petitioner’s claim considering
that the clear intent of the amendatory

provision is to expedite the disposition of
labor cases filed before the Commission.
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. THE
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR
G.R. No. 127598
January 27, 1999
Martinez, J.
Facts: The court directed the parties to
execute a CBA incorporating the terms
involving wages. Dissatisfied, some
members of the union filed a motion for
intervention/reconsideration. Petitioner
warns that is the wage increase of
Php2,000.00 per month as ordered is
allowed, it would pass the cost covering
such increase to the consumers through
an increase rate of electricity. On the
retroactivity of the CBA arbitral award, the
parties reckon the period as when
retroaction shall commence.
Issue: Whether the retroactivity of arbitral
awards shall commence at such time as
granted by Secretary?
Held: Yes, a deadlock developed during
CBA negotiations between management
unions. The Secretary assumed
jurisdiction and ordered the retroaction of
Labor Relations 32
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
the CBA to the date of expiration of the
previous CBS. The Court ratiocinated thus:
In the absence of a specific provision of
law prohibiting retroactive of the
effectivity of arbitral awards issued by the
Secretary pursuant to article 263(g) of the
Labor Code, public respondent is deemed
vested with the plenary and discretionary
powers to determine the effectivity
thereof.
In general, a CBA negotiated within
six months after the expiration of the
existing CBA retroacts to the day
immediately following such date and if
agreed thereafter, the effectivity depends
on the agreement of the parties. On the
other hand, the law is silent as to the
retroactivity of a CBA arbitral award or
that granted not by virtue of the mutual
agreement of the parties but by
intervention of the government. In the
absence of a CBA, the Secretary’s
determination of the date of retroactivity
as part of his discretionary powers over
arbitral awards shall control.
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY vs. HON.
SECRETARY OF LABOR
G.R. No. 127598
February 22, 2000

Ynares- Santiago, J.
Facts: A Decision was promulgated on
January 27, 1999. The modifications of the
public respondent’s resolutions include
the following: Retroactivity -Dec 28, 1996-
Dec 27, 199(9) from Dec 1, 1995.
Dissatisfied with the Decision,
some alleged members of
respondent union filed a motion for
intervention and a motion
reconsideration of the said Decision.
When the Secretary of Labor assumed
jurisdiction and granted the arbitral
awards, there was no question that these
arbitral awards were to be
retroactive effect. However, the parties
dispute the reckoning period
retroaction shall commence. Petitioner
claims that the award should retroact only
from such time that the Secretary of Labor
rendered the award, invoking the 1995
decision in Pier case where the Court,
citing Union of Filipino Employees v. NLRC,
said:
Issue: When shall the award retroact?
Held: The Court in the January 27, 1999
Decision, stated that the CBA shall be
Labor Relations 33
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
"effective for a period of 2 years counted
from December 28, 1996 up to December
27, 1999." Parenthetically, this actually
covers a three-year period. Labor laws are
silent as to when an arbitral award in a
labor dispute where the Secretary had
assumed jurisdiction by virtue of Article
263 (g) of the Labor Code shall retroact.
private In general, a CBA negotiated within
six months after the expiration of the
for existing CBA retroacts to the day
immediately following such date and if
agreed thereafter, the effectivity depends
on the agreement of the parties. On the
other hand, the law is silent as to the
given retroactivity of a CBA arbitral award or
that granted not by virtue of the mutual
when agreement of the parties but by
intervention of the government.
Despite the silence of the law, the
Court rules herein that CBA arbitral
awards granted after six months from the
expiration of the last CBA shall retroact to
such time agreed upon by both employer
and the employees or their union. Absent
such an agreement as to retroactivity, the
award shall retroact to the first day after
the six-month period following the
expiration of the last day of the CBA
 Labor Relations 34
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

should there be one. In the absence of a

CBA, the Secretary’s determination of the From April 25 to May 6, 1958, the parties
date of retroactivity as part of his negotiated on the labor demands but with
discretionary powers over arbitral awards no satisfactory result due to a stalemate
shall control. on the matter of salary increases.

INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO, ET AL. VS. ISSUE: Whether the Companies are guilty
INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO, ET AL. of ULP?
G.R. No. L-25291 January 30, 1971
HELD: YES. Indeed, it is an unfair labor
Facts: The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., practice for an employer operating under
Employees Association-NATU, FGU a collective bargaining agreement to
Insurance Group Workers & Employees negotiate or to attempt to negotiate with
Association-NATU, and Insular Life his employees individually in connection
Building Employees Association-NATU with changes in the agreement. And the
(hereinafter referred to as the Unions), basis of the prohibition regarding
while still members of the Federation of individual bargaining with the strikers is
Free Workers (FFW), entered into that although the union is on strike, the
separate collective bargaining agreements employer is still under obligation to
with the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. bargain with the union as the employees'
and the FGU Insurance Group (hereinafter bargaining representative (Melo Photo
referred to as the Companies). Supply Corporation vs. National Labor
Relations Board, 321 U.S. 332).
The Unions jointly submitted proposals to
the Companies for a modified renewal of Indeed, some such similar actions are
their respective collective bargaining illegal as constituting unwarranted acts of
contracts which were then due to expire interference. Thus, the act of a company
on September 30, 1957. The parties president in writing letters to the strikers,
mutually agreed and to make whatever urging their return to work on terms
benefits could be agreed upon inconsistent with their union membership,
retroactively effective October 1, 1957. was adjudged as constituting interference

with the exercise of his employees' right
to collective bargaining (Lighter
Publishing, CCA 7th, 133 F2d 621).
De Leon vs NLRC (2001) 358 SCRA 274
FACTS: On August 23, 1980, Fortune
Tobacco Corporation (FTC) and Fortune
Integrated Services, Inc. (FISI) entered into
a contract for security services where the
latter undertook to provide security
guards for the protection and security of
the former. The petitioners were among
those engaged as security guards
pursuant to the contract.
On October 15, 1991, FTC terminated the
contract for security services which
resulted in the displacement of some five
hundred eighty-two (582) security guards
assigned by FISI/MISI to FTC, including the
petitioners. Petitioners alleged that they
were regular employees of FTC which was
also using the corporate names Fortune
Integrated Services, Inc. and Magnum
Integrated Services, Inc. They were
assigned to work as security guards at the
company's main factory plant, its tobacco
redrying plant and warehouse. They
averred that they performed their duties
under the control and supervision of FTC's
Labor Relations 35
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
security supervisors. Their services,
however, were severed in October 1991
without valid cause and without due
process. Petitioners claimed that their
dismissal was part of respondents' design
to bust their newly-organized union which
sought to enforce their rights under the
Labor Standards law.
Issue: W/N there was unfair labor practice
commited
HELD: Yes. Respondent FTC is liable.
An examination of the FACTS of this case
reveals that there is sufficient ground to
conclude that respondents were guilty of
interfering with the right of petitioners to
self-organization which constitutes unfair
labor practice under Article 248 of the
Labor Code.
The records show that the two
corporations had identical stockholders
and the same business address. FISI also
had no other clients except FTC and other
companies belonging to the Lucio Tan
group of companies. Moreover, the early
payslips of petitioners show that their
salaries were initially paid by FTC. To
enforce their rightful benefits under the
laws on Labor Standards, petitioners
 Labor Relations 36
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

formed a union which was later certified pretext that the result was on appeal,
as bargaining agent of all the security refused to sit down with the union for the
guards. purpose of entering into a collective
bargaining agreement. Moreover, the
The test of whether an employer has workers including NATIONAL FEDERATION
interfered with and coerced employees OF SUGARCANE WORKERS-FOOD AND
within the meaning of section (a) (1) is GENERAL TRADE herein were not given
whether the employer has engaged in work for more than one month. In
conduct which it may reasonably be said protest, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
tends to interfere with the free exercise of SUGARCANE WORKERS-FOOD AND
employees' rights under section 3 of the GENERAL TRADE staged a strike which was
Act, and it is not necessary that there be however settled upon the signing of a
direct evidence that any employee was in Memorandum of Agreement.
fact intimidated or coerced by statements
of threats of the employer if there is a Moreover, starting September 1991,
reasonable inference that anti-union HACIENDA FATIMA did not any more give
conduct of the employer does have an work assignments to the NATIONAL
adverse effect on self-organization and FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE WORKERS-
collective bargaining. FOOD AND GENERAL TRADE forcing the
union to stage a strike on January 2, 1992.
Hacienda Fatima vs. National Federation But due to the conciliation efforts by the
of Sugarcane Workers- Food and General DOLE, another Memorandum of
Trade Agreement was signed by the NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE WORKERS-
FACTS: It would appear that HACIENDA FOOD AND GENERAL TRADE and
FATIMA did not look with favor workers' HACIENDA FATIMA.
having organized themselves into a union.
Thus, when complainant union was Issue: Whether or not HACIENDA FATIMA
certified as the collective bargaining is guilty of unfair labor practice.
representative in the certification
elections, HACIENDA FATIMA under the
 Labor Relations 37
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

HELD: YES. The NLRC also found herein FACTS: Garcia et.al. charged Prince
HACIENDA FATIMA guilty of unfair labor Transport with illegal dismissal, unfair
practice. It ruled as follows: labor practice and illegal deductions. They
alleged that they were hired either as
"Indeed, from HACIENDA FATIMA refusal drivers, conductors, mechanics or
to bargain, to their acts of economic inspectors, except for respondent
inducements resulting in the promotion of Diosdado Garcia (Garcia). In addition to
those who withdrew from the union, the their regular monthly income, they also
use of armed guards to prevent the received commissions equivalent to 8 to
organizers to come in, and the dismissal of 10% of their wages
union officials and members, one cannot
but conclude that HACIENDA FATIMA did Thereafter, the commissions were
not want a union in their hacienda—a reduced to 7 to 9%. Claros, the president
clear interference in the right of the of PTI made known to Garcia his objection
workers to self-organization." to the formation of a union.

We uphold the CA's affirmation of the
above findings. Indeed, factual findings of
labor officials, who are deemed to have
acquired expertise in matters within their
respective jurisdictions, are generally
accorded not only respect but even
finality. Their findings are binding on the
Supreme Court. Verily, their conclusions
are accorded great weight upon appeal,
especially when supported by substantial
evidence.
PRINCE TRANSPORT, Inc. (PTI) vs.
DIOSDADO GARCIA et.al.
Eventually, Garcia et.al. formed a union
for their mutual aid and protection. In
order to block the continued formation of
the union, PTI caused the transfer of all
union members and sympathizers to one
of its sub-companies, Lubas Transport
(Lubas).
PTI denied the in the complaints
contending that Garcia et.al. were no
longer their employees, since they all
transferred to Lubas. PTI contends that it
has nothing to do with the management
and operations of Lubas.

Issue: Is PTI guilty of unfair labor practice?
HELD: Yes. Garcia et.al.’s transfer of work
assignments to Lubas was designed by PTI
as a ploy to impair the former’s right to
organize themselves into a union. Under
Article 248 (a) and (e) of the Labor Code,
an employer is guilty of unfair labor
practice if it interferes with, restrains or
coerces its employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization or if it
discriminates in regard to wages, hours of
work and other terms and conditions of
employment in order to encourage or
discourage membership in any labor
organization.
Indeed, evidence of PTI’s unfair labor
practice is shown by the established fact
that, after respondents' transfer to Lubas,
PTI left them high and dry insofar as the
operations of Lubas was concerned.
Prince Transport made the decision to
transfer its employees to Lubas. What is
telling is the fact that in a memorandum
issued by PTI, it admitted that Lubas is one
of its sub-companies. Moreover, PTI failed
to refute the contention of respondents
that despite the latter’s transfer to Lubas
of their daily time records, reports, daily
Labor Relations 38
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
income remittances of conductors,
schedule of drivers and conductors were
all made, performed, filed and kept at the
office of PTI. In fact, respondents’
identification cards bear the name of PTI.
T & H Shoplifters Corporation v. T & H
Shoplifters Coporation/ Gin Queen
Labors Union
FACTS: The respondents and respondent
union, all of whom are officers and/or
members of THSGQ union, filed their
Complaint for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP)
by way of union busting, and Illegal
Lockout before the Labor Arbiter (LA).
An agreement between petitioners and
THS-GQ Union was reached. Petitioners
agreed to give priority to regular
employees in the distribution of work
assignments. Respondents averred,
however, that petitioners never complied
with its commitment but instead hired
contractual workers.
Respondents averred that the following
week after the certification elections were
HELD, petitioners retrenched THG-GQ
Union officers and members assigned at
the Zambales plant.
 Labor Relations 39
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

ISSUE: W/N there was unfair labor bargaining agent of the Divine Word
practice University. The union submitted its
proposals on March 7, 1985. The
HELD. Yes, In the case at bench, University’s reply requested that a
petitioners are being accused of violations preliminary conference be HELD on May
of paragraphs (a), (c), and (e) of Article 28, 1985. Before the conference the VP of
257 (formerly Article 248) of the Labor the union resigned and withdrew the
Code. proposals hence the PC was cancelled.

Indeed, such were all orchestrated to
restrict respondents’ free exercise of their
right to self-organization. Petitioner’s
actions prior and immediately before the
scheduled certification election, while
seemingly innocuous, unduly meddled in
the affairs of its employees in selecting
their exclusive bargaining representative.
The fact and peculiar timing of the field
trip sponsored by petitioners for its
employees not affiliated with THS-GQ
Union, although a positive enticement,
was undoubtedly extraneous influence
designed to impede respondents in their
quest to be certified.
DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN
VS SECRETARY OF LABOR
FACTS: On Sept 6, 1984 the med-arbiter
certified the Divine Word University
Employees Union as the sole and exclusive
After three years, the affiliate of the
union, Associated Labor Union, requested
a conference with the University for the
purposes of continuing the bargaining
negotiations. Not having heard from the
university, a follow up request was sent
and warned the university from
interference. The university maintained it
silence.
The union thereafter filed a notice of
strike on the grounds of bargaining
deadlock and ULP, refusal to bargain,
discrimination and coercion. Conferences
were HELD after the filing of the notice of
strike and the parties came to an
agreement.
The union then submitted proposals
which were again ignored by the
university. Marathon conciliations were
HELD to no avail.

ISSUE: Whether or not certification
election can be HELD after CBA was
agreed.
HELD: An employer who is requested to
bargain collectively may file a petition for
certification election any time except
upon clear showing the existence of
either:
1) petition is filed within one year from
the issuance of a final certification
election result 2) when a bargaining
deadlock had been submitted
conciliation or arbitration or had become
the subject of a valid notice of strike or
lockout.
Deadlock is the counteraction of things
producing entire stoppage: a state of
inaction or of neutralization caused by the
opposition of persons or factions. There is
a deadlock when there is a complete
blocking or stoppage resulting from the
action of equal and opposed forces.
The records of the case show that there
was no reasonable effort at good faith
bargaining on the part of the university.
The union after submitting proposals
which were ignored by the university,
Labor Relations 40
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
remained passive. Technically, the
university has the right to file the petition
for certification election as there was no
bargaining deadlock. However, such right
was forfeited by its inaction.
MANILA MANDARIN EMPLOYEES UNION
v. NLRC and MELBA C. BELONCIO
FACTS: Private respondent, Melba C.
Beloncio, assistant head waitress at the
hotel's coffee shop, was expelled from the
to Manila Mandarin Employees Union for
acts allegedly inimical to the interests of
the union. The charge of disloyalty against
Beloncio arose from her emotional remark
to a waitress who happened to be a union
steward, "Wala akong tiwala sa Union
ninyo." The remark was made in the
course of a heated discussion regarding
Beloncio's efforts to make a lazy and
recalcitrant waiter adopt a better attitude
towards his work. The union demanded
the dismissal from employment of
Beloncio on the basis of the union security
clause of their collective bargaining
agreement and the Hotel acceded by
placing Beloncio on forced leave. the
Labor Arbiter HELD that the union was
guilty of unfair labor practice when it
demanded the separation of Beloncio and

the employer was ordered to reinstate
her.
ISSUES: Is petitioner union is guilty of ULP
by reason of the arbitrary use of the union
security clause in the CBA?
HELD: Yes. The Hotel would not have
compelled Beloncio to go on forced leave
were it not for the union's insistence and
demand to the extent that because of the
failure of the hotel to dismiss Beloncio as
requested, the union filed a notice of
strike with the Ministry of Labor and
Employment on the issue of unfair labor
practice. Although the CBA contained a
union security clause or closed-shop
agreement, it is, however, stressed that
such are also governed by law and by
principles of justice, fair play, and legality.
Union security clauses cannot be used by
union officials against an employer, much
less their own members, except with a
high sense of responsibility,
fairness, prudence, and judiciousness.
A union member may not be expelled
from her union, and consequently from
her job, for personal or impetuous
reasons or for causes foreign to the
closed-shop agreement and in a manner
characterized by arbitrariness and
Labor Relations 41
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
whimsicality. Beloncio was merely trying
her best to make a hotel bus boy do his
work promptly and courteously so as to
serve hotel customers in the coffee shop
expeditiously and cheerfully. Union
membership does not entitle waiters,
janitors, and other workers to be sloppy in
their work, inattentive to customers, and
disrespectful to supervisors. The Union
should have disciplined its erring and
troublesome members instead of causing
so much hardship to a member who was
only doing her work for the best interests
of the employer, all its employees, and
the general public whom they serve.
General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free
Workers Union v. Coca Cola Bottlers
FACTS: Sometime in the late 1990s, CCBPI
experienced a significant decline in
profitability due to the Asian economic
crisis, decrease in sales, and tougher
competition. To curb the negative effects
on the company, it implemented three (3)
waves of an Early Retirement Program.
Meanwhile, there was an inter-office
memorandum sent to all of CCBPI's Plant
Human Resources Managers/Personnel
Officers, including those of the CCBPI
General Santos Plant (CCBPI Gen San)

mandating them to put on hold "all
requests for hiring to fill in vacancies in
both regular and temporary positions in
[the] Head Office and in the Plants."
Because several employees availed of the
early retirement program, vacancies were
created in some departments, including
the production department of CCBPI Gen
San, where members of petitioner Union
worked. This prompted petitioner to
negotiate with the Labor Management
Committee for filling up the vacancies
with permanent employees. No resolution
was reached on the matter.
On January 21, 2002, petitioner filed with
the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board (NCMB) a Notice of Strike on the
ground of alleged unfair labor practice
committed by CCBPI Gen San for
contracting-out services regularly
performed by union members ("union
busting"). However, parties failed to
amicably settle.
CCBPI filed a Petition for Assumption of
Jurisdiction with the Office of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment. On
July 26, 2002, the Secretary of Labor
issued an Order enjoining the threatened
Labor Relations 42
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
strike and certifying the dispute to the
NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
ISSUE: Whether CCBPI's contracting-out of
jobs to JLBP amounted to unfair labor
practice.
HELD: No. An examination of the issues
raised by petitioner reveals that they are
questions of fact. Factual findings of the
NLRC, an administrative agency deemed
to have acquired expertise in matters
within its jurisdiction, are generally
accorded not only respect but finality
especially when such factual findings are
affirmed by the CA.
The SC found no reversible error in the
assailed Decision.
Article 248 of the Labor Code provides:
ART. 248. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OF
EMPLOYERS. - It shall be unlawful for an
employer to commit any of the following
unfair labor practices:
x x x(c) To contract out services or
functions being performed by union
members when such will interfere with,
restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization;
xxx

Unfair labor practice refers to "acts that
violate the workers' right to organize."
The prohibited acts are related to the
workers' right to self-organization and to
the observance of a CBA. Without that
element, the acts, even if unfair, are not
unfair labor practices.
Both the NLRC and the CA found that
petitioner was unable to prove its charge
of unfair labor practice. It was the Union
that had the burden of adducing
substantial evidence to support its
allegations of unfair labor practice, which
burden it failed to discharge.
Manila Mining Corp. Employees v. Manila
Mining Corp
FACTS: Respondent Manila Mining
Corporation (MMC) is a publicly-listed
corporation engaged in large-scale mining
for gold and copper ore. MMC is required
by law to maintain a tailings containment
facility to store the waste material
generated by its mining operations.
Consequently, MMC constructed several
tailings dams to treat and store its waste
materials.
Labor Relations 43
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
On 3 March 2000, the Union filed with the
Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) all the requirements for its
registration. The Union acquired its
legitimate registration status on 30 March
2000. Subsequently, it submitted letters
to MMC relating its intention to bargain
collectively. On 11 July 2001, the Union
submitted its Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) proposal to MMC.
The labor arbiter ruled in favor of MMC
and HELD that the temporary shutdown of
the mining operation, as well as the
temporary lay-off of the employees, is
valid.
Issue: Whether the suspension of the
negotiation for a CBA constitutes unfair
labor practice.
HELD: No. Despite all efforts exerted by
MMC, it did not succeed in obtaining the
consent of the residents of the community
where the tailings pond would operate,
one of the conditions imposed by DENR-
EMB in granting its application for a
permanent permit. It is precisely MMCs
faultless failure to secure a permit which
caused the temporary shutdown of its
mining operations.

For a charge of unfair labor practice to
prosper, it must be shown that the
employer was motivated by ill-will, bad
faith or fraud, or was oppressive to labor.
The employer must have acted in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs,
or public policy causing social humiliation,
wounded feelings or grave anxiety. While
the law makes it an obligation for the
employer and the employees to bargain
collectively with each other, such
compulsion does not include the
commitment to precipitately accept or
agree to the proposals of the other. All it
contemplates is that both parties should
approach the negotiation with an open
mind and make reasonable effort to reach
a common ground of agreement.
Gold CIty Integrated Port Services v.
NLRC
FACTS: Early in the morning of April 30,
1985, petitioner's employees stopped
working and gathered in a mass action to
express their grievances regarding wages,
thirteenth month pay and hazard pay.
Said employees were all members of the
Macajalar Labor Union — Federation of
Free Workers (MLU-FFW) with whom
Labor Relations 44
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
petitioner had an existing collective
bargaining agreement.
Petitioner was engaged in stevedoring and
arrastre services at the port of Cagayan de
Oro. The strike paralyzed operations at
said port.
ISSUE: whether or not the strike was
illegal
HELD: Yes. A strike, considered as the
most effective weapon of labor, is defined
as any temporary stoppage of work by the
concerted action of employees as a result
of an industrial or labor dispute. A labor
dispute 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 or not the
disputants stand in the proximate relation
of employers and employees.
The individual notices of strike filed by the
workers did not conform to the notice
required by the law to be filed since they
were represented by a union (MLU-FFW)
which even had an existing collective
bargaining agreement with INPORT.

Neither did the striking workers observe
the strike vote by secret ballot, cooling-off
period and reporting requirements.
LAPANDAY WORKERS UNION, et al. VS.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION & DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
FACTS:
Private respondents are sister companies
engaged in the production of bananas.
Their agricultural establishments are
located in Davao City.
On the other hand, petitioner Lapanday
Workers' Union (Union) is the duly
certified bargaining agent of the rank and
file employees of private respondents.
Records show that petitioner Union has a
CBA with private respondents. A few
months before the expiration of their CBA,
private respondents initiated certain
management policies which disrupted the
relationship of the parties.
Private respondents contracted Philippine
Eagle Protectors and Security Agency, Inc.
he Union accused the guards
intimidating and harassing their members.
Labor Relations 45
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
The Union, led by petitioners Arquilao
Bacolod and Rene Arao, picketed the
premises of the Philippine Eagle
Protectors to show their displeasure on
the hiring of the guards. It accused the
company of unfair labor practices
consisting of coercion of employees,
intimidation of union members and union-
busting.
On October 3, 1988, a strike vote was
canducted among the members of the
Union and those in favor of the strike won
overwhelming support from the workers.
The result of the strike vote was then
submitted to the NCMB.
ISSUE: Whether the strike legal?
HELD: NO. We rule that strike conducted
by the union on October 12, 1988 is
plainly illegal as it was HELD within th
seven (7) day waiting period provided for
by paragraph (f), Article 263 of the Labor
Code, as amended.
A strike is "any temporary stoppage of
work by the concerted action of
of employees as a result of an industrial or
labor dispute."4 It is the most preeminent

of the economic weapons of workers
which they unsheathe to force
management to agree to an equitable
sharing of the joint product of labor and
capital. Undeniably, strikes exert some
disquieting effects not only on the
relationship between labor and
management but also on the general
peace and progress of society. Our laws
thus regulate their exercise within reasons
by balancing the interests of labor and
management together with the
overarching public interest.
Some of the limitations on the exercise of
the right of strike are provided for in
paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the
Labor Code, as amended, supra. They
Provide for the procedural steps to be
followed before staging a strike — filing of
notice of strike, taking of strike vote, and
reporting of the strike vote result to the
Department of Labor and Employment. In
National Federation of Sugar Workers
(NFSW) vs. Overseas, et al., 5 we ruled
that these steps are mandatory in
character, thus:
Great Pacific Life Employees Union vs
Grepalife 303 SCRA 113 (1999)
Labor Relations 46
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
FACTS: GREAT PACIFIC LIFE EMPLOYEES
UNION and Great Pacific Life Assurance
Corporation entered sometime in 1990
into a Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) to take effect 1 July 1990 until 30
June 1993.
On 18 May 1993, or about a month and a
half before the expiration of the CBA, the
parties submitted their respective
proposals and counter-proposals to serve
as bases for their discussions on its
projected renewal.
The ensuing series of negotiations
however resulted in a deadlock prompting
petitioner Great Pacific Life Employees
Union (UNION hereon) on 23 September
1993 to file a notice of strike with the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB) of the Department of Labor.
Despite several conciliatory conferences
before the Board, the impasse could not
be resolved.
Thus, on 3 November 1993 petitioner
UNION led by its President Isidro Alan B.
Domingo and Vice President Rodel P. de la
Rosa went on strike.

They were warned that failure to submit
their explanations within the prescribed
period would be construed as waiver of
their right to be heard. The company
directive was apparently triggered by
some violent incidents that took place
while the strike was in progress. Strikers
reportedly blocked all points of ingress
and egress of the company premises in
Makati City thus preventing GREPALIFE
employees reporting for work from
entering their respective offices. These
employees and third persons doing
business with the company, including
lessees of the GREPALIFE building, were
allegedly forced by the strikers to submit
their cars/vehicles, bags and other
belongings to illegal search.
Issue: Whether or not the strike was a
valid exercise
HELD: No. The strike was not valid
The right to strike, while constitutionally
recognized, is not without legal
constrictions. The Labor Code is emphatic
against the use of violence, coercion and
intimidation during a strike and to this
end prohibits the obstruction of free
Labor Relations 47
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
passage to and from the employer’s
premises for lawful purposes. The
sanction provided in par. (a) of Art. 264
thereof is so severe that “any worker or
union officer who knowingly participates
in the commission of illegal acts during a
strike may be declared to have lost his
employment status.
GREPALIFE submitted before the Labor
Arbiter several affidavits of its employees
which de la Rosa did not refute. With
these documents, two (2) specifically
described the incidents that transpired
during the strike that the Union’s Officers
and Employees had participated and
employed such illegal acts.
Thus, declaring the staged strike illegal
and from that will not constitute ULP.
Assoc. Of Independent Unions in the
Phils. Vs. NLRC
FACTS: Joel Densing, Henedino
Mirafuentes, Christopher Patentes, and
Andres Tejana, the petitioners herein,
were casual employees of respondent
CENAPRO Chemicals Corporation. In the
said company, the collective bargaining
representative of all rank and file
employees was CENAPRO Employees
 Labor Relations 48
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

Association (CCEA), with which A strike is a legitimate weapon in the

respondent company had a collective
bargaining agreement (CBA).
On May 4 and July 3 1990, ASSOCIATION
OF INDEPENDENT UNIONS IN THE
PHILIPPINES (AIUP) filed a notice of strike,
minutes of strike vote, and the needed
documentation, with the Department of
Labor and Employment.
Subsequently, or on July 25, 1990, to be
precise, the respondent company filed a
complaint for illegal strike. The day
before, July 24, 1990, petitioners filed a
complaint for unfair labor practice and
illegal lockout against the respondent
company.
Issue: Whether or not the strike staged by
ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT UNIONS
IN THE PHILIPPINES (AIUP) was legal and
valid.
HELD: NO. From the gamut of evidence on
hand, it can be gathered that the strike
staged by the ASSOCIATION OF
INDEPENDENT UNIONS IN THE
PHILIPPINES (AIUP) was illegal for reasons.
universal struggle for existence. It is
considered as the most effective weapon
in protecting the rights of the employees
to improve the terms and conditions of
their employment. But to be valid, a strike
must be pursued within legal bounds.
Even if the strike is valid because its
objective or purpose is lawful, the strike
may still be declared invalid where the
means employed are illegal. For instance,
the strike was considered illegal as the
"strikers formed a human cordon along
the side of the Sta. Ana wharf and blocked
all the ways and approaches to the
launches and vessels of Petitioners".
Union officers are duty bound to guide
their members to respect the law. If
instead of doing so, the officers urge the
members to violate the law and defy the
duly constituted authorities, their
dismissal from the service is a just penalty
or sanction for their unlawful acts. The
officers' responsibility is greater than that
of the members.
ALEX Q. NARANJO, DONNALYN DE
GUZMAN, RONALD V. CRUZ, ROSEMARIE
P. PIMENTEL, and ROWENA B. BARDAJE,

vs.
BIOMEDICA HEALTH CARE, INC. and
CARINA "KAREN" J. MOTOL
FACTS: Biomedica is engaged in
distribution of medical equipment.
Naranjo et.al. were all absent for personal
reasons. The following day, they were not
allowed to report for work. They were
told to look for another work. Biomedica
issued suspension notices which indicated
an accusation that Naranjo conducted an
illegal strike.
Naranjo et.al. filed a complaint with the
NLRC for constructive dismissal and non-
payment of salaries, overtime pay, 13th
month pay etc.
Biomedica served notices of termination
to Naranjo et.al.
Issue: Did Naranjo et.al. stage a mass
leave in violation of company policy?
HELD: The workers did not stage a mass
leave. The accusation is for engaging in a
mass leave tantamount to an illegal strike.
The term “Mass Leave” has been left
undefined by the Labor Code. Plainly, the
legislature intended that the term’s
ordinary sense be used. “Mass” is defined
Labor Relations 49
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
as “participated in, attended by, or
affecting a large number of individuals;
having a large-scale character.”34 While
the term “Leave” is defined as “an
authorized absence or vacation from duty
or employment usually with pay.
Thus, the phrase “mass leave” may refer
to a simultaneous availment of authorized
leave benefits by a large number of
employees in a company. It is undeniable
that going on leave or absenting one’s self
from work for personal reasons when they
have leave benefits available is an
employee’s right.
The workers have a right to a security of
tenure. They cannot be terminated
without just cause. Due process must be
followed if they are to be dismissed.
Pilipino Telephone Corp v. Pilipino
Telephone Employess Assn
FACTS: The Union submitted to the
Company its proposals for the
renegotiation of the non-representation
aspects of their CBA. As there was a
standstill on several issues, the parties
submitted their dispute to the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB)

for preventive mediation. The conciliation
proceedings failed.
On July 13, 1998, the Union filed a Notice
of Strike with the NCMB for unfair labor
practice due to the alleged acts of
“restraint and coercion of union members
and interference with their right to self-
organization” committed by the Company
to wit:
Preventing employees from displaying
Union flags and CBA’s slogans.
Utilizing security guards to harass
employees who participate in Union
activities by requiring the guards to take
down the names of employees who
participate in the Union activities.6
The Union filed a second Notice of Strike8
with the NCMB on the grounds of: a)
union busting, for the alleged refusal of
the Company to turn over union funds;
and b) the mass promotion of union
members during the CBA negotiation,
allegedly aimed at excluding them from
the bargaining unit during the CBA
negotiation. On the same day, the Union
went on strike.
Labor Relations 50
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
The company assailed the CA decision
decreasing the penalty of the union
officers while the Union and its dismissed
officers assailed the decision declaring the
strike illegal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Union’s strike
is illegal.
HELD: YES. Article 263 of the Labor Code,
outline the following procedural
requirements for a valid strike.
In the case at bar, the Union staged the
strike on the same day that it filed its
second notice of strike. The Union
violated the seven-day strike ban. This
requirement should be observed to give
the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) an opportunity to verify whether
the projected strike really carries the
approval of the majority of the union
members.
Toyota Motor Phis Workers Assn.
(TMPCWA) vs. NLRC 537 SCRA 171 (2007)
FACTS: Toyota challenged the Order made
by the DOLE Secretary declaring the Union
as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
of all the Toyota rank and file employees.
 Labor Relations 51
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

In the meantime, the Union submitted its committed on May 23 and 28, 2001
CBA proposals to Toyota, but the latter should be HELD as illegal strikes.
refused to negotiate in view of its pending
appeal. Consequently, the Union filed a HELD: YES. The alleged protest rallies in
notice of strike on January 16, 2001 based front of the offices of BLR and DOLE
on Toyotas refusal to bargain. Secretary and at the Toyota plants
constituted illegal strikes
Toyota filed a petition to declare the
strike illegal. The DOLE Secretary issued A strike means any temporary stoppage of
an Order directing all striking workers to work by the concerted action of
return to work at their regular shifts by employees as a result of an industrial or
April 16, 2001. On the other hand, it labor dispute. A labor dispute, in turn,
ordered Toyota to accept the returning includes any controversy or matter
employees under the same terms and concerning terms or conditions of
conditions obtaining prior to the strike or employment or the association or
at its option, put them under payroll representation of persons in negotiating,
reinstatement. The parties were also fixing, maintaining, changing, or arranging
enjoined from committing acts that may the terms and conditions of employment,
worsen the situation. The Union ended regardless of whether the disputants
the strike on April 12, 2001. The union stand in the proximate relation of the
members and officers tried to return to employer and the employee.
work on April 16, 2001 but were told that
Toyota opted for payroll-reinstatement With respect to the strikes committed
authorized by the Order of the DOLE from March 17 to April 12, 2001, those
Secretary. were initially legal as the legal
requirements were met.
Issue: Whether the Union officers and
members act of holding the protest rallies However, on March 28 to April 12, 2001,
in front of the BLR office and the Office of the Union barricaded the gates of the
the Secretary of Labor and Employment Bicutan and Sta. Rosa plants and blocked
on February 22 and 23, 2001 and those the free ingress to and egress from the

company premises. Toyota employees,
customers, and other people having
business with the company were
intimidated and were refused entry to the
plants. As earlier explained, these strikes
were illegal because unlawful means were
employed. The acts of the Union officers
and members are in palpable violation of
Art. 264(e), which proscribes acts of
violence, coercion, or intimidation, or
which obstruct the free ingress to and
egress from the company premises.
Undeniably, the strikes from March 28 to
April 12, 2001 were illegal.
Capitol Medical Center v. Laguesma
G.R. No. 118915
February 4, 1997
FACTS: Respondent union filed petition
for certification election. The Med-Arbiter
granted the petition for certification
election. Respondent Capitol Medical
Center (CMC) appealed to the Office of
the Secretary. But the Order granting the
certification election was affirmed.
Subsequently, elections were HELD with
respondent union garnering 204 votes,
168 in favor of no union and 8 spoiled
ballots out of a total of 380 votes cast.
Labor Relations 52
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Med-Arbiter issued an Order certifying
respondent union as the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of the
rank and file employees at CMC.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a
bargaining deadlock between CMC and
respondent union (NO)
HELD: No. While it is true that one year
had lapsed since the time of declaration of
a final certification result, and that there is
no collective bargaining deadlock, public
respondent did not commit grave abuse
of discretion when it ruled in respondent
union’s favor since the delay in the forging
of the CBA could not be attributed to the
fault of the latter.
After respondent union was certified as
the bargaining agent of CMC, it invited the
employer hospital to the bargaining table
by submitting its economic proposal for a
CBA. However, CMC refused to negotiate
with respondent union and instead
challenged the latter’s legal personality
through a petition for cancellation of the
certificate of registration which eventually
reached this Court. The decision affirming
the legal status of respondent union
should have left CMC with no other

recourse but to bargain collectively; but
still it did not. Respondent union was left
with no other recourse but to file notice
of strike against CMC for unfair labor
practice with the NCMB. This eventually
led to a strike.
A “deadlock” is the counteraction of
things producing entire stoppage; There is
a deadlock when there is a complete
blocking or stoppage resulting from the
action of equal and opposed forces. The
word is synonymous with the word
impasse, which presupposes reasonable
effort at good faith bargaining which,
despite noble intentions, does
conclude in agreement between the
parties.
Although there is no “deadlock” in its
strict sense as there is no “counteraction”
of forces present in this case nor
“reasonable effort at good
bargaining,” such can be attributed to
CMC’s fault as the bargaining proposals of
respondent union were never answered
by CMC.
It is only just and equitable that the
circumstances in this case should be
considered as similar in nature to a
Labor Relations 53
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
“bargaining deadlock” when no
certification election could be HELD. This
is also to make sure that no floodgates
will be opened for the circumvention of
the law by unscrupulous employers to
prevent any certified bargaining agent
from negotiating a CBA. Thus, Section 3,
Rule V, Book V of the Implement Rules
should be interpreted liberally so as to
include a circumstance, e.g. where a CBA
could not be concluded due to the failure
of one party to willingly perform its duty
to bargain collectively.
Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union
not v. NLRC
FACTS: Subsequent to its certification as
the sole bargaining agent of the
employees of RBAI, the Rural Bank of
Alaminos Employees Union (hereinafter
called the Union) submitted proposals
faith with respect to salary/wage increases.
RBAIs counter-proposals not acceptable to
it, the Union, went on strike on April 3,
1989. Its position being that the strike
staged by the Union is illegal and in
violation of Article 248 (e) of the Labor
Code, RBAI instituted a petition for the
declaration of the strike as illegal and for

actual damages it incurred by way of loss
of earnings.
The Union, assailing the alleged
constructive dismissal of its members
brought about or resulting from the strike,
lodged against RBAI a complaint for unfair
labor practice.
Issue: Whether the filing of a petition for
cancellation of the Union's registration is a
form of Unfair Labor Practice?
HELD: NO, a lock-out means the
temporary refusal of an employer to
furnish work as a result of an industrial or
labor dispute. As correctly found by the
NLRC, in the case under consideration
evidence of illegal lock-out is wanting such
that there can be no conclusive
determination by the NLRC as to the
charge.
Petitioners failed to present sufficient
proof to support the allegation of illegal
lock-out. No evidence was adduced by the
Union to show that the Bank really
refused them employment during the
pendency of the strike. As to the
allegation that the Bank was interfering
with and restraining the employees in the
Labor Relations 54
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
exercise of their right to self-organization,
suffice it to state that filing a petition for
cancellation of the Unions registration is
not per se an act of unfair labor practice.
It must be shown by substantial evidence
that the filing of the petition for
cancellation of union registration by the
employer was aimed to oppress the
Union.
As to the legality of the strike conducted:
It appears that the Union filed its notice of
strike on March 3, 1989 and that it
commenced its strike thirty (30) days
thereafter, or on April 3, 1989. Obviously,
the Union had duly observed the
mandatory cooling-off period such that
the strike it eventually undertook
complied with what is required by the
Labor Code. Hence, our finding that the
strike is legal.
Biflex Phils Labor Union v. Fiflex Int’l and
Mig.
FACTS: Petitioners in this case were the
officers of Biflex (Phils.) Inc. Labor Union
and Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing
Labor Union.

On October 24, 1990, the labor sector
staged a welga ng bayan to protest the
accelerating prices of oil. On even date,
petitioner-unions, led by their officers,
herein petitioners, staged a work
stoppage which lasted for several days,
prompting respondents to file on October
31, 1990 a petition to declare the work
stoppage illegal for failure to comply with
procedural requirements.
Petitioners further assert that
respondents were "slighted" by the
workers' no-show, and as a punishment,
the workers as well as petitioners were
barred from entering the company
premises.
ISSUE: Whether or not the staged strike is
illegal and a ground for the lost of
employment status of the union officers
HELD: YES Stoppage of work due to welga
ng bayan is in the nature of a general
strike, an extended sympathy strike. It
affects numerous employers including
those who do not have a dispute with
their employees regarding their terms and
conditions of employment.
Labor Relations 55
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Employees who have no labor dispute
with their employer but who, on a day
they are scheduled to work, refuse to
work and instead join a welga ng bayan
commit an illegal work stoppage.
Even if petitioners' joining the welga ng
bayan were considered merely as an
exercise of their freedom of expression,
freedom of assembly or freedom to
petition the government for redress of
grievances, the exercise of such rights is
not absolute. For the protection of other
significant state interests such as the
"right of enterprises to reasonable returns
on investments, and to expansion and
growth" enshrined in the 1987
Constitution must also be considered,
otherwise, oppression or self-destruction
of capital in order to promote the
interests of labor would be sanctioned.
There being no showing that petitioners
notified respondents of their intention, or
that they were allowed by respondents, to
join the welga ng bayan on October 24,
1990, their work stoppage is beyond legal
protection.
Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast v.
NLRC

FACTS: Petitioner and Nagkakaisang Lakas
ng Manggagawa sa Stayfast (NLMS-Olalia)
sought to be the exclusive bargaining
agent of the employees of respondent
company, Stayfast Philippines, Inc. A
certification election was conducted.
For garnering 109 of 223 votes, the Med-
Arbiter who supervised the certification
election issued an Order certifying NLMS-
Olalia as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of all rank and file employees of
respondent company.
Petitioner appealed the Order of the Med-
Arbiter to the Secretary of Labor of
Employment which denied the same.
Petitioner elevated the matter via petition
for certiorari to this Court.
NLMS-Olalia demanded to collectively
bargain with respondent company. The
latter rejected petitioner’s demand,
insisting that it would negotiate a
collective bargaining agreement only with
whichever union is finally certified as the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the
workers.
Consequently, on July 23, 1997, petitioner
staged a strike and filed a complaint for
Labor Relations 56
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
unfair labor practice, union busting and
illegal lockout against respondent
company and its General Manager, Maria
Almeida, in the NLRC.
ISSUE: Whether the strike valid?
HELD: NO, according to the NLRC, the
actuations of petitioner were patently
illegal because the sit-down strike staged
on July 21, 1997 was made barely a week
after petitioner withdrew its notice of
strike, with prejudice, on account of the
concessions agreed upon by the parties.
Petitioner filed no new notice of strike
that could have supported its charges of
discriminatory acts and unfair labor
practice.
Petitioner’s case rests on the alleged
discriminatory acts of respondent
company against petitioner’s officers and
members. However, both the Labor
Arbiter and the NLRC HELD that there was
no sufficient proof of respondent
company’s alleged discriminatory acts.
Thus, petitioner’s unfair labor practice,
union-busting and unlawful lockout claims
do not hold water. Moreover, the
established FACTS as found by the NLRC
are as follows: the "sit-down strike" made
 Labor Relations 57
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

by petitioner’s officers and members was

in violation of respondent company’s In October of 1997, Soriano, Gonzales and
rules, and petitioner’s officers and Badilla were dismissed from work for
members ignored the opportunity given allegedly stealing company properties. As
by respondent company for them to a result, respondents filed complaints for
explain their misconduct, which resulted illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, and
in the termination of their employment. payment of moral and exemplary
damages and attorney's fees, before the
Pa Hotel v. Manolo Soriano Labor Arbiter (LA). In their complaints,
G.R. No. 171118 respondents alleged that the real reason
September 10, 2012 for their dismissal was that they were
organizing a union for the company's
FACTS: Petitioner Park Hotel is a employees.
corporation engaged in the hotel
business. Petitioners Gregg Harbutt Issue: whether the respondents were
(Harbutt) and Bill Percy (Percy) are the validly dismissed
General Manager and owner, respectively,
of Park Hotel. Percy, Harbutt and Atty. HELD: The LA, the NLRC and the CA were
Roberto Enriquez are also the officers and unanimous in their findings that
stockholders of Burgos Corporation respondents were dismissed without just
(Burgos), a sister company of Park Hotel. cause and due process. They were also in
agreement that unfair labor practice was
Respondent Manolo Soriano (Soriano) was committed against respondents.
hired by Park Hotel in July 1990 as
Maintenance Electrician, and then In the case before us, both elements are
transferred to Burgos in 1992. completely lacking. Respondents were
Respondent Lester Gonzales (Gonzales) dismissed without any just or authorized
was employed by Burgos as Doorman, and cause and without being given the
later promoted as Supervisor. Respondent opportunity to be heard and defend
Yolanda Badilla (Badilla) was a bartender themselves. The law mandates that the
of J's Playhouse operated by Burgos. burden of proving the validity of the
 Labor Relations 58
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

termination of employment rests with the On August 16, 1954 a day before the date
employer. Failure to discharge this set for the second conference, MARITIMA
evidentiary burden would necessarily concluded with another labor union, the
mean that the dismissal was not justified Marine Officers Association of the
and, therefore, illegal. Unsubstantiated Philippines (MOAP) a collective bargaining
suspicions, accusations, and conclusions agreement covering the Maritima officers
of employers do not provide for legal and engineers. The second conference
justification for dismissing employees. In was HELD as scheduled, but the parties
case of doubt, such cases should be were unable to come to any settlement of
resolved in favor of labor, pursuant to the their disputes.
social justice policy of labor laws and the
Constitution. PHILIPPINE MARINE OFFICERS' GUILD
pertains to three (3) alleged unfair labor
Phil. Marine Officers Guild v. Compania practices committed by MARITIMA.
Maritima
Issue: Whether or not PHILIPPINE MARINE
FACTS: The respondents Compañia OFFICERS' GUILD committed unfair labor
Maritima, Philippine Steamship practices.
Navigation Company and Madrigal
Shipping Company [hereinafter referred HELD: NO. PHILIPPINE MARINE OFFICERS'
to as MARITIMA, PHILSTEAM, and GUILD did not commit unfair labor
MADRIGAL, respectively, and as practices.
COMPANIES jointly] are domestic
corporations engaged in the operation of The court found that the slaying of
motor ships and vessels in the different Modesto Rodriguez was manifestly
ports of the Philippines, while the committed without the concurrence of
petitioner, Philippine Marine Officers' the will of Alarcon as it has not been
Guild (hereinafter referred to as PMOG), is proved that he participated or agreed
a labor organization composed of marine with the criminal design of the actual
officers and engineers. killer. As has been heretofore stated, the
presence of Alarcon in the scene of the

commotion was for the purpose of
performing his duty as security guard of
the Compañia Maritima, and not to kill or
harm anybody.
Accordingly, it cannot be said that in this
particular connection MARITIMA
interfered with the freedom of the strikers
to pursue union activities.
United Seamen’s Union of the Phils
(USUP) v. Davao Shipowners Assn (DSA)
FACTS: On August 4, 1959, USUP
demanded from DSA union recognition,
union security, standardization of wages
and other benefits.
In response, the ship owners (DSA)
brought to the attention of the USUP the
existence of a CBA with the Davao Marine
Association (DMA), where all of the
crewmen of their launches belonged. DSA
suggested to the USUP that they first take
the necessary steps for certification as the
collective bargaining agent, as the ship
owners were bound by the CBA.
However, even before receiving the ship
owner’s response to its demands, the
USUP had filed a Notice of Strike against
Labor Relations 59
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
the individual ship owners with the
Department of Labor Davao Office.
The Chief of the Labor Operations Section
of the Davao Office requested for a
conference to solve the conflict. Both
parties reached a covenant stating the
withdrawal of the Notice of Strike, as well
as the observance of the status quo
regarding the jobs incident to the
businesses of the DSA and the withdrawal
of the civil case of the DMA against the
USUP.
The shipping companies filed a petition
for writ of injunction, as a necessity due to
irreparable damage to properties due to
“coercion, violence and illegal picketing”.
The USUP filed an unfair labor practice
(ULP) case against the ship owners and
DSA, alleging that the ship owners
interfered, and continued to interfere
with their right to self-organization by
discrimination against employees.
Issue:
Did CIR gravely abused its discretion by
declaring the strike as illegal?

HELD: The Supreme Court found that the
USUP’s Notice of Strike was but a direct
offshoot of the “losing effort” to compel
the DSA and the ship owners to recognize
USUP as the sole collective bargaining
agent of the employees, to the exclusion
of the DMA as the existing collective
bargaining agent of the DSA.
First, the Court noted that the USUP filed
its Notice of Strike even before its receipt
of the ship owner’s answers to its set of
demands, thereby showing that the USUP
was already set on continuing the strike
with or without the answer of the ship
owners. This, according to the Court was a
clear showing that USUP was aware of the
existence of DMA as a valid collective
bargaining agent, operating as a legal bar
to entertaining USUP’s demands.
Second, the Court stated that USUP
completely disturbed the status quo the
return to normal and original operating
practices through the strike that was done
by USUP. By striking, USUP impaired
existing CBA between the ship owners and
the DMA which recognized "the right of
the Employer to hire, promote and
transfer and for legal cause suspend, lay-
off or discharge employees subject to the
Labor Relations 60
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
right of the union (referring to the DMA)
to notification and to ask reconsideration
of any action of the Employer in the
premises."
Allied Banking Corp v. NLRC
G.R. No. 116128
July 12, 1996
FACTS: The dispute between petitioner
and respondent Union started when their
collective bargaining agreement which
was to expire on June 30, 1984 came up
for renewal. They failed to reach an
amicable settlement particularly on the
wage increase issue. Respondent Union
thereupon filed a notice of strike with the
Bureau of Labor Relations.
On December 16, 1984, then Minister of
Labor and Employment, Blas Ople
assumed jurisdiction over the dispute
pursuant to Article 263 (g) of the Labor
Code of the Philippines, as amended.
The parties failed to break the deadlock
and so, Minister Ople issued an Order,
dated January 31, 1985, directing them to
incorporate in their collective agreement
the awards granted.

In spite of these notices, respondents
failed to report for work on the stated
deadline. Respondents explained that the
resumption of their picketing activities
was brought about by their belief that
Minister Ople's decision, dated January
31, 1985, was not based on justice, equity
and reason.
Issue:
Whether the striking union members
terminated for abandonment of work
after failing to obey the return-to-work
order of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment is justified.
HELD: Yes. We agree with respondents'
contention that mere participation of
union members in an illegal strike should
not automatically result in their
termination from employment. However,
the case at bar involves a different issue
as a perusal of the records shows that
respondents were terminated from
employment by reason of their defiance
to the return-to-work order of the
Secretary of Labor. Respondents staged a
strike on January 3 and 4, 1985 or
fourteen (14) days after then Labor
Minister Ople assumed jurisdiction over
the dispute between them and the bank.
Labor Relations 61
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Thereafter, respondents again staged a
strike from February 11 up to March 11,
1985 while their labor dispute with the
Bank was still pending before Minister
Ople.
Alcantara and Sons v CA
G.R. No. 155109
September 29, 2010
FACTS: C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc., (the
company) is a domestic corporation
engaged in the manufacture and
processing of plywood. Nagkahiusang
Mamumuo sa Alsons-SPFL (the Union) is
the exclusive bargaining agent of the
Companys rank and file employees. The
other parties to these cases are the Union
officers and their striking members.
The Company and the Union entered into
a CBA that bound them to hold no strike
and no lockout in the course of its life. At
some point the parties began negotiating
the economic provisions of their CBA but
this ended in a deadlock, prompting the
Union to file a notice of strike. After
efforts at conciliation by the DOLE failed,
the Union conducted a strike vote that
resulted in an overwhelming majority of
its members favoring it. The Union

reported the strike vote to the DOLE and,
after the observance of the mandatory
cooling-off period, went on strike.
The company filed a petition for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction with prayer for the issuance of
a TRO with the NLRC to enjoin the strikers
from intimidating, threatening, molesting,
and impeding by barricade the entry of
non-striking employees at the Companys
premises. However, several attempts to
implement the writ failed.
ISSUES: Whether or not the Union staged
an illegal strike (YES)
HELD: Yes. A strike may be regarded as
invalid although the labor union has
complied with the strict requirements for
staging one as provided in Article 263 of
the Labor Code when the same is HELD
contrary to an existing agreement, such as
a no strike clause or conclusive arbitration
clause. Here, the CBA between the parties
contained a no strike, no lockout provision
that enjoined both the Union and the
Company from resorting to the use of
economic weapons available to them
under the law and to instead take
Labor Relations 62
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
recourse to voluntary arbitration in
settling their disputes.
No law or public policy prohibits the
Union and the Company from mutually
waiving the strike and lockout maces
available to them to give way to voluntary
arbitration. Indeed, no less than the 1987
Constitution recognizes in Section 3,
Article XIII, preferential use of voluntary
means to settle disputes. The Court finds
no compelling reason to depart from the
findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC,
and the CA regarding the illegality of the
strike. Social justice is not one-sided. It
cannot be used as a badge for not
complying with a lawful agreement.
CLUB FILIPINO, INC. v. BENJAMIN
BAUTISTA
G.R. No. 168406
January 14, 2015
FACTS: Before CLUFEA and Club Filipino,
Inc.’s last collective bargaining agreement
expired and within the 60-day freedom
period, CLUFEA had made several
demands on Club Filipino, Inc. to
negotiate a new agreement. Club Filipino,
Inc., however, replied that its Board of

Directors could not muster a quorum to
negotiate with CLUFEA.
CLUFEA then formally submitted its
proposals to Club Filipino Inc.’s
negotiating panel. Still, Club Filipino, Inc.
failed to negotiate. To compel Club
Filipino, Inc. to negotiate with it, CLUFEA
filed before the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (NCMB) a request for
preventive mediation.
The negotiating panels of CLUFEA and
Club Filipino, Inc. finally met on April 5,
2001. However, the meeting ended with
the parties’ respective panels declaring a
deadlock in negotiation.
Thus, CLUFEA filed with the NCMB a
Notice of Strike on the ground of
bargaining deadlock. Club Filipino, Inc.
filed before the National Capital Regional
Arbitration Branch of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) a Petition to
Declare [CLUFEA’s] Strike Illegal.
According to Club Filipino, Inc., CLUFEA
failed to file a Notice of Strike and to
conduct a strike vote, in violation of the
legal requirements for staging a strike.
Labor Relations 63
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Issue: Whether Union Members who
participated in an illegal strike be awarded
of separation pay?
HELD: In an action for declaration of illegal
strike, the cause of action is premised on a
union or a labor organization’s conduct of
a strike without compliance with the
statutory requirements.
On the other hand, in an action for illegal
dismissal, the cause of action is premised
on an employer’s alleged dismissal of an
employee without a just or authorized
cause as provided under Articles 282, 283,
and 284 of the Labor Code.
In respondents’ action for illegal dismissal,
respondents were found to have been
dismissed by virtue of a valid
retrenchment program. The NLRC then
ordered that they be paid separation pay
based on the parties’ collective bargaining
agreement.
In petitioner Club Filipino, Inc.’s action for
declaration of illegal strike, the Labor
Arbiter’s finding that respondents
conducted an illegal strike resulted in
their dismissal. Respondents were
ordered to receive separation pay "similar
 Labor Relations 64
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

in terms with those offered to the FACTS: In July 1990, San Miguel
employees affected by the retrenchment Corporation, alleging the need to
program of the club." streamline its operations due to financial
losses, shut down some of its plants and
Thus, to prevent double compensation, declared 55 positions as redundant.
the Court of Appeals ordered that those Consequently, the private respondent
who already retired and received their union filed several grievance cases for the
benefits may no longer claim full said retrenched employees, praying for
backwages, benefits, and separation pay the redeployment of the said employees
under the decision in the illegal strike to the other divisions of the company.
case. This is with respect to respondents
Benjamin Bautista and Laureno Fegalquin During the grievance proceedings,
who already executed their quitclaims. however, most of the employees were
redeployed, while others accepted early
In the present case where the recipients retirement. In a meeting on October 26,
are responsible union officers who have 1990, petitioner informed private
regularly acted in behalf of their members respondent union that if by October 30,
in the discharge of their union duties and 1990, the remaining 17 employees could
where there is no direct evidence of not yet be redeployed, their services
coercion or vitiation of consent, we would be terminated on November 2,
believe we can safely conclude that the 1990. The said meeting adjourned when
petitioners Bautista and Fegalquin fully Mr. Daniel S. L. Borbon II, a representative
knew that they entered into when they of the union, declared that there was
accepted their retirement benefits and nothing more to discuss in view of the
when they executed their quitclaims. deadlock.

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION vs NLRC On November 7, 1990, the private

AND SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION respondent filed with the National
EMPLOYEES UNION (SMCEU) Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB)
G.R. No. 99266 of the Department of Labor and
March 2, 1999 Employment (DOLE) a notice of strike

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a valid
notice of strike.
HELD: Collective Bargaining Deadlock is
defined as the situation between the labor
and the management of the company
where there is failure in the collective
bargaining negotiations resulting in a
stalemate. This situation, is non-existent
in the present case since there is a Board
assigned on the third level (Step 3) of the
grievance machinery to resolve the
conflicting views of the parties. Instead of
asking the Conciliation Board composed of
five representatives each from the
company and the union, to decide the
conflict, petitioner declared a deadlock,
and thereafter, filed a notice of strike. For
failing to exhaust all the steps in the
grievance machinery and arbitration
proceedings provided in the Collective
Bargaining Agreement, the notice of strike
should have been dismissed by the NLRC
and private respondent union ordered to
proceed with the grievance and
arbitration proceedings. In the case of
Liberal Labor Union vs. Phil. Can Co., the
court declared as illegal the strike staged
by the union for not complying with the
grievance procedure provided in the
collective bargaining agreement
Labor Relations 65
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corp v. NLRC
FACTS: Respondent National Labor Union-
Trade Union Congress of the Philippines
(NLU-TUCP), a national federation of labor
unions, filed with the then Ministry of
Labor and Employment, in behalf of its
local chapter, the Filipino Pipe Workers
Union-National Labor Union (FPWU-NLU,
hereinafter referred to as Union), a notice
of strike signed by its national president,
Atty. Eulogio R. Lerum, against the
petitioner, Filipino Pipe and Foundry
Corporation, alleging as grounds therefor
union busting and non-implementation of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The initial conciliation conference was set
on February 24, 1986 but due to lack of
notice thereof to petitioner company, as
well as the failure of FPWU-NLU to furnish
the latter a copy of the notice of strike,
the initial conciliation conference was re-
set to March 3, 1986.
On April 8, 1986, petitioner company
interposed before the Arbitration Branch
of the then Ministry of Labor and
Employment, a petition to declare the
strike illegal.

Issue: Is the strike legal?
HELD: The failure of the union to serve
petitioner company a copy of the notice
of strike is a clear violation of Section 3 of
the aforestated Rules. The constitutional
precepts of due process mandate that the
other party be notified of the adverse
action of the opposing party. So also, the
same Section provides for a mandatory
thirty (30) day cooling-off period which
the union ignored when it struck on
March 3, 1986, before the 30th day from
the time the notice of strike was filed on
February 10, 1986.
What is more, the same strike blatantly
disregarded the prohibition on the doing
of any act which may impede or disrupt
the conciliation proceedings, when the
union staged the strike in the early
morning of March 3, 1986, the very same
day the conciliation conference was
scheduled by the former Ministry of
Labor.
In light of the foregoing, it is beyond cavil
that subject strike staged by the union
was illegal.
Labor Relations 66
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
FIRST CITY INTERLINK TRANSPORTATION
CO., INC., v. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY
MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR
G.R. No. 106316
May 5, 1997
FACTS: Petitioner First City Interlink
Transportation Co., Inc., is a public utility
corporation doing business under the
name and style Fil Transit. Respondent
Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Fil Transit-
National Federation of Labor (NMF-NFL) is
a labor union composed of employees of
Fil Transit.
On May 27, 1986, the Fil Transit
Employees Union filed a notice of strike
with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)
because of alleged unfair labor practice of
petitioner. Despite several conciliation
conferences, the parties failed to reach an
agreement, so that, on June 17, 1986, the
Union went on strike. As a result several
workers were dismissed.
Petitioners main contention is that the
strike called by the Union was illegal.
Petitioner contends that the strike staged
by the Union was illegal because no strike
vote had been taken before the strike was
called. The Unions failure to do so raises

the strong probability that there was no
strike vote taken.
ISSUE: Whether the strike valid?
HELD: NO. Even assuming that a strike
vote had been taken, we agree with
petitioner that the Union nevertheless
failed to observe the required seven-day
strike ban from the date the strike vote
should have been reported to the DOLE
up to the time the Union staged the strike
on June 17, 1986. As the records will bear
out, the private respondent had clearly
acted in bad faith when it went on strike.
Annex F of the petition (June 13, 1986
Minutes of Conciliation Proceedings)
attached to the records of the case, shows
that at the time the strike was staged,
conciliation meetings were going on. In
fact, said Annex F reveals that the parties
met in a conciliation meeting on June 13,
1986 and agreed to meet further on June
17, 1986 at 2:00 P.M. (Please see Annex
F). Instead of meeting with petitioner on
the scheduled conciliation meeting on
June 17, 1986 as agreed upon, private
respondent went on strike. Certainly, this
act of the private respondent cannot be
Labor Relations 67
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
characterized as having been made in
good faith.
Indeed, there is no finding in this case that
petitioner was guilty of the alleged unfair
labor practices as charged by the Union.
People’s Indl & Comml. V. PICC
FACTS: FFW filed a case for unfair labor
practice (ULP) against People’s Industrial
and Commercial Corp. (PICC).
The Federation of Tenants and Labor
Organization (FTLO) entered into a CBA
with PICC. Thereafter, an election of union
officers of FTLO Rizal Chapter was
conducted.
Ernesto Pagayatan, as president, filed a
notice of strike, alleging as cause the
employer's refusal to bargain. PICC
dismissed Ernesto Pagayatan and his
companions from employment.
Petitioner-union, through its president,
signified the intention to return to work.
None of the strikers, however, were
allowed to work.

FTLO filed a case for unfair labor practice
in staging an illegal strike after they were
already dismissed from the company.
Issue: Was the strike conducted by the
employees valid (due to ULP)?
HELD: Yes. We do not agree with the
finding of the Hearing Officer that the
strike was staged to force recognition.
Since the strike of the union was in
response to what it was warranted in
believing in good faith to be unfair labor
practice on the part of the management,
said strike did not result in the
termination of the striking members'
status as employees.
It is not even required that there be in fact
an unfair labor practice committed by the
employer. It suffices, if such a belief in
good faith is entertained by labor as the
inducing factor for staging a strike.
PHILIPPINE METAL FOUNDRIES INC., v.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
G.R. No. L-34948-49
May 15, 1979
FACTS: Petitioner, in its complaint dated
November 21, 1963 charged the Regal
Labor Relations 68
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Manufacturing Employees Associations
FTUP and its members, with unfair labor
practice for declaring a strike on October
5, 1963 and picketing the company's
premises without filing a notice of strike in
spite of the existence of a no strike, no
lockout clause and grievance procedure in
the collective bargaining agreement
entered into between the petitioner and
the Union.
In their answer, the Union and its
members denied the charge and, alleged
that the Union requested the
management for a grievance conference,
but the company, through its General
Manager, refused and instead handed the
Union's President a memorandum
dismissing him from work and told the
Union members not to report for work,
which is in violation of the no lockout and
no strike clause of the contract.
Issue: Whether the strike declared by the
Union on October 5, 1963, is legal or not?
HELD: The strike declared by the Union in
this case cannot be considered a violation
of the "no strike" clause of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement because it was due
to the unfair labor practice of the
 Labor Relations 69
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

employer. Moreover, a no strike clause brevity) is a duly organized corporate

prohibition in a Collective Bargaining entity engaged in steel fabrication and
Agreement is applicable only to economic other related business activities.
strikes. Sometime in February 1987, the Master
Iron Labor Union (MILU) entered into a
When the Union declared a strike in the CBA with the Corporation for the three-
belief that the dismissal of Baylon was due year period. Right after the signing of the
to union activities, said strike was not CBA, the Corporation subcontracted
illegal. It is not even required that there outside workers to do the usual jobs done
be in fact an unfair labor practice by its regular workers including those
committed by the employer. It suffices, if done outside of the company plant. As a
such a belief in good faith is entertained result, the regular workers were
by labor, as the inducing factor for staging scheduled by the management to work on
a strike. a rotation basis allegedly to prevent
financial losses thereby allowing the
The strike cannot be declared as illegal for workers only ten (10) working days a
lack of notice. In strikes arising out of and month. Thus, MILU requested
against a company's unfair labor practice, implementation of the grievance
a strike notice is not necessary in view of procedure which had also been agreed
the strike being founded on urgent upon in the CBA, but the Corporation
necessity and directed against practices ignored the request.
condemned by public policy, such notice
being legally required only in cases of MILU filed a notice of strike with the
economic strikes. Department of Labor and Employment.
The Corporation and MILU reached an
Master Iron Labor Union v. NLRC agreement whereby the Corporation
G.R. No. 92009 acceded to give back the usual work to its
February 17, 1993 regular employees who are members of
MILU.
FACTS: The Master Iron Works
Construction Corporation (Corporation for

ISSUE: Whether or not the strike was
illegal because of the no-strike clause (NO)
HELD: No. It is non-economic in nature.
Much more than an economic issue, the
said practice of the Corporation was a
blatant violation of the CBA —and unfair
labor practice on the part of the employer
under Article 248(i) of the Labor Code.
All told, the strike staged by the
petitioners was a legal one even though it
may have been called to offset what the
strikers believed in good faith to be unfair
labor practices on the part of the
employer (Ferrer, et al. vs. Court of
Industrial Relations, et al., 17 SCRA 352
[1966]). Verily, such presumption of
legality prevails even if the allegations of
unfair labor practices are subsequently
found out to be untrue.
TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTORS
EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW, et al. vs CA and
TEMIC TELEFUNKEN MICROELECTRONICS,
(PHILS.), INC.
G.R. NOS. 143013-14
December 18, 2000
FACTS: The labor dispute started on
August 25, 1995 when the Company and
Labor Relations 70
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
the Union reached a deadlock in their
negotiations for a new collective
bargaining agreement. On August 28,
1995, the Union filed a Notice of Strike
with the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (NCMB). The Acting
DOLESec intervened and assumed
jurisdiction over the dispute and thus
enjoined any strike or lockout, whether
actual or intended, between the parties.
Despite the assumption Order, the Union
struck on September 14, 1995. Two (2)
days later, Notice of the Return-to-Work
Order was sent to the striking Union
members but still some of them refused
to heed the order and continued with
their picket. On September 23, 1995,
violence erupted in the picket lines. The
service bus ferrying non-striking workers
was stoned, causing injuries to its
passengers. Thereafter, complaints for
threats, defamation, illegal detention and
physical injuries were filed against the
strikers.
The Company thereafter issued letters of
termination for cause to the workers who
did not report back to work despite the
Notice of Assumption and Return-to-Work
Orders.
 Labor Relations 71
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

Issue: Whether or not defiance to the petitioners refused to acknowledge this

assumption and return-to-work orders of directive of the Secretary of Labor on
the Secretary of Labor after assumption of September 8, 1995 thereby necessitating
jurisdiction is a valid ground to terminate the issuance of another order expressly
the employment of striking members. directing the striking workers to cease and
desist from their actual strike, and to
Held: YES. The need to determine the immediately return to work but which
individual liabilities of the striking directive the herein petitioners opted to
workers, the union officers and members ignore. In this connection, Article 264(a)
alike, was correctly dispensed with by the of the Labor Code.
Secretary of Labor after he gave sufficient
opportunity to the striking workers to UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE,
cease and desist from continuing with CONCEPCION, INC., v. THE HONORABLE
their picket. Ensconced in the Labor Code SECRETARY OF LABOR
of the Philippines. G.R. No. 151379
January 14, 2005
It is clear from the foregoing legal
provision that the moment the Secretary FACTS: this case stemmed from the
of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor collective bargaining negotiations
dispute in an industry indispensable to between petitioner University of
national interest, such assumption shall Immaculate Concepcion, Inc.
have the effect of automatically enjoining (UNIVERSITY) and respondent The UIC
the intended or impending strike. It was Teaching and Non-Teaching Personnel and
not even necessary for the Secretary of Employees Union (UNION). The UNION, as
Labor to issue another order directing the certified bargaining agent of all rank
them to return to work. The mere and file employees of the UNIVERSITY,
issuance of an assumption order by the submitted its collective bargaining
Secretary of Labor automatically carries proposals to the latter.
with it a return-to-work order, even if the
directive to return to work is not expressly The UNIVERSITY gave the individual
stated in the assumption order. However, respondents two choices: to resign from

the UNION and remain employed as
confidential employees or resign from
their confidential positions and remain
members of the UNION.
UNION filed another notice of strike, this
time citing as a reason the UNIVERSITYs
termination of the individual respondents.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Secretary of
Labor, after assuming jurisdiction over a
labor dispute involving an employer and
the certified bargaining agent of a group
of employees in the workplace, may
legally order said employer to reinstate
employees terminated by the employer
even if those terminated employees are
not part of the bargaining unit.
HELD: Yes. In Metrolab Industries, Inc. v.
Roldan-Confessor, this Court declared that
it recognizes the exercise of management
prerogatives and it often declines to
interfere with the legitimate business
decisions of the employer. This is in
keeping with the general principle
embodied in Article XIII, Section 3 of the
Constitution, which is further echoed in
Article 211 of the Labor Code.However, as
expressed in PAL v. National Labor
Relations Commission, this privilege is not
Labor Relations 72
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
absolute, but subject to exceptions. One
of these exceptions is when the Secretary
of Labor assumes jurisdiction over labor
disputes involving industries indispensable
to the national interest under Article
263(g) of the Labor Code
When the Secretary of Labor ordered the
UNIVERSITY to suspend the effect of the
termination of the individual respondents,
the Secretary did not exceed her
jurisdiction, nor did the Secretary gravely
abuse the same. It must be pointed out
that one of the substantive evils which
Article 263(g) of the Labor Code seeks to
curb is the exacerbation of a labor dispute
to the further detriment of the national
interest.
The act of the UNIVERSITY of dismissing
the individual respondents from their
employment became the impetus for the
UNION to declare a second notice of
strike. It is not a question anymore of
whether or not the terminated
employees, the individual respondents
herein, are part of the bargaining unit.
Any act committed during the pendency
of the dispute that tends to give rise to
further contentious issues or increase the
tensions between the parties should be

considered an act of exacerbation and
should not be allowed.
CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION - FFW
v. CIRTEK ELECTRONICS
G.R. No. 190516
June 6. 2011
FACTS: In 2005, a CBA dispute arose
between Cirtek Electronics and Cirtek
Employees Labor Union (CELU). The
dispute revolved around the provisions on
the yearly wage increase. A deadlock
ensued as well as a strike. The Secretary
of Labor took over the case.
While the case was pending, Cirtek and
CELU entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) whereby Cirtek agreed
to increase the wage by P9.00 per day.
Later, Secretary of Labor finally came up
with a decision ordering Cirtek to increase
the employees’ wages by a minimum of
P10.00 to a maximum of P15.00 per day
(depending on seniority?).
Cirtek assailed the order of the Secretary
on the ground that it violates the MOA.
CELU on the other hand agreed with the
Secretary invoking that Cirtek agreed that
should the Secretary order for a higher
Labor Relations 73
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
wage increase, the same should be
followed and not the MOA. This
agreement was however not included in
the MOA but was embodied in the
minutes of the meeting when the MOA
was done.
Furthermore, respondent-movant
maintains that the Secretary of Labor
cannot insist on a ruling beyond the
compromise agreement entered into by
the parties; and that, as early as February
5, 2010, petitioner Union had already filed
with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) a resolution of
disaffiliation from the Federation of Free
Workers resulting in the latters lack of
personality to represent the workers in
the present case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Secretary of
Labor may issue an order superseding the
said MOA.
HELD: Yes. The order was issued in
resolution of the CBA dispute over which
the Secretary assumed jurisdiction. The
order is an arbitral award which can be
considered an approximation of a
collective bargaining agreement which
would otherwise have been entered into

by the parties, hence, it has the force and
effect of a valid contract obligation.
Yes. In labor cases pending before the
Commission or the Labor Arbiter [in this
case, the Secretary of Labor], the rules of
evidence prevailing in courts of law or
equity are not controlling. Rules of
procedure and evidence are not applied in
a very rigid and technical sense in labor
cases. Hence, the Labor Arbiter is not
precluded from accepting and evaluating
evidence other than, and even contrary
to, what is stated in the CBA. Therefore,
the agreement binds Cirtek and can be
proven by mere presentation of the
minutes. In short, the parol evidence rule
is not applicable to labor cases.
Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union
v. CA
FACTS: On November 11, 1996, the Union
filed a petition for a certification election
so that it may be declared the exclusive
bargaining representative of the Hotel’s
employees for the purpose of collective
bargaining. The petition was dismissed by
the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE).
Labor Relations 74
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
After a few months, despite the dismissal
of their petition, the Union sent a letter to
the Hotel informing the latter of its desire
to negotiate for a collective bargaining
agreement. The Hotel, however, refused
to negotiate with the Union, citing the
earlier dismissal of the Union’s petition for
certification by DOLE.
Failing to settle the issue, the Union
staged a strike against the Hotel.
Numerous confrontations followed,
further straining the relationship between
the Union and the Hotel.
The Hotel claims that the strike was illegal
and dismissed some employees for their
participation in the allegedly illegal
concerted activity. The Union, on the
other hand, accused the Hotel of illegally
dismissing the workers.
The Secretary of Labor Trajano issued an
Order directing the striking officers and
members of the Union to return to work
within twenty-four (24) hours and the
Hotel to accept them back under the same
terms and conditions prevailing prior to
the strike.

After receiving the above order the
members of the Union reported for work,
but the Hotel refused to accept them.
Acting Secretary of Labor Español
modified the one earlier issued by
Secretary Trajano and instead directed
that the strikers be reinstated only in the
payroll.
The union alleged that the Secretary of
Labor committed grave abuse
discretion for modifying its earlier order
and requiring instead the reinstatement
of the employees in the payroll.
Issue: Was it proper for the employees be
reinstated only in the payroll? (NO)
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the
Secretary of Labor committed grave
abused of discretion in ordering payroll
reinstatement in lieu of actual
reinstatement.
In this case, there is no compelling reason
that called for payroll reinstatement as an
alternative remedy.
A strained relationship between the
striking employees and management is no
Labor Relations 75
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
reason for payroll reinstatement in lieu of
actual reinstatement.
Under Article 263(g), all workers must
immediately return to work and all
employers must readmit all of them under
the same terms and conditions prevailing
before the strike or lockout.
The Court pointed out that the law uses
the precise phrase of “under the same
of terms and conditions,” revealing that it
contemplates only actual reinstatement.
This is in keeping with the rationale that
any work stoppage or slowdown in that
particular industry can be inimical to the
national economy.
The Court reiterates that Article 263(g)
was not written to protect labor from the
excesses of management, nor was it
written to ease management from
expenses, which it normally incurs during
a work stoppage or slowdown. This law
was written as a means to be used by the
State to protect itself from an emergency
or crisis. It is not for labor, nor is it for
management.
It is, therefore, evident from the foregoing
that the Secretary’s subsequent order for

mere payroll reinstatement constitutes
grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Indeed, this Court has always recognized
the great breadth of discretion by the
Secretary once he assumes jurisdiction
over a labor dispute. However, payroll
reinstatement in lieu of
reinstatement is a departure from the rule
in these cases and there must be showing
of special circumstances rendering actual
reinstatement impracticable, as in the UST
case aforementioned, or otherwise not
conducive to attaining the purpose of the
law in providing for assumption of
jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment in a labor dispute that affects
the national interest.
SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. ERNESTO
U. GAMIER
G.R. No. 159460
November 15, 2010
Villarama, Jr., J.
FACTS: Sometime in October 1999,
petitioner Solidbank and respondent
Solidbank Employees Union (Union) were
set to renegotiate the economic
provisions of their Collective Bargaining
Labor Relations 76
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Agreement (CBA) to cover the remaining
two years thereof. Negotiations
commenced but seeing that an agreement
was unlikely, the Union declared a
deadlock and filed a Notice of Strike. In
view of the impending actual strike, then
Secretary of Labor and Employment
Bienvenido E. Laguesma assumed
actual jurisdiction over the labor dispute,
pursuant to Article 263 (g) of the Labor
Code, as amended. In his Order, Secretary
Laguesma resolved all economic and non-
economic issues.
Dissatisfied with the Secretarys ruling, the
Union officers and members decided to
protest the same by holding a rally. As a
result of the employees concerted actions,
Solidbanks business operations were
paralyzed. On the same day, then
President of Solidbank, Deogracias N.
Vistan, issued a memorandum addressed
to all employees calling their absence
from work and demonstration infront of
the DOLE office as an illegal act, and
reminding them that they have put their
jobs at risk as they will be asked to show
cause why they should not be terminated
for participating in the union-instigated
concerted action. The employees work
 Labor Relations 77
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

abandonment/boycott lasted for three Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, as
days, from April 3 to 5, 2000. amended, also considers it a prohibited
activity to declare a strike during the
Issue: Whether the protest rally and pendency of cases involving the same
concerted work abandonment/boycott grounds for the same strike. There is no
staged by the respondents violated the dispute that when respondents conducted
Order dated January 18, 2000 of the their mass actions on April 3 to 6, 2000,
Secretary of Labor? the proceedings before the Secretary of
Labor were still pending as both parties
HELD: Yes, applying pertinent legal filed motions for reconsideration of the
provisions and jurisprudence, we rule that March 24, 2000 Order. Clearly,
the protest actions undertaken by the respondents knowingly violated the
Union officials and members are not valid aforesaid provision by holding a strike in
and proper exercises of their right to the guise of mass demonstration
assemble and ask government for redress simultaneous with concerted work
of their complaints, but are illegal strikes abandonment/boycott.
in breach of the Labor Code. The Unions
position is weakened by the lack of permit Solidbank v. Solidbank Union et. al.
from the City of Manila to hold rallies.
They were in reality temporary stoppages FACTS: Sometime in October 1999,
of work perpetrated through the petitioner Solidbank and respondent
concerted action of the employees who Solidbank Employees Union (Union) were
deliberately failed to report for work on set to renegotiate the economic
the convenient excuse that they will hold provisions of their Collective Bargaining
a rally. Agreement (CBA) to cover the remaining
two years thereof. Negotiations
The right to strike, while constitutionally commenced but seeing that an agreement
recognized, is not without legal was unlikely, the Union declared a
constrictions. Article 264 (a) of the Labor deadlock and filed a Notice of Strike. In
Code. view of the impending actual strike, then
Secretary of Labor and Employment

Bienvenido E. Laguesma assumed
jurisdiction over the labor dispute,
pursuant to Article 263 (g) of the Labor
Code, as amended. In his Order, Secretary
Laguesma resolved all economic and non-
economic issues.
Dissatisfied with the Secretarys ruling, the
Union officers and members decided to
protest the same by holding a rally. As a
result of the employees concerted actions,
Solidbanks business operations were
paralyzed. On the same day, then
President of Solidbank, Deogracias N.
Vistan, issued a memorandum addressed
to all employees calling their absence
from work and demonstration infront of
the DOLE office as an illegal act, and
reminding them that they have put their
jobs at risk as they will be asked to show
cause why they should not be terminated
for participating in the union-instigated
concerted action. The employees work
abandonment/boycott lasted for three
days, from April 3 to 5, 2000.
On the third day of the concerted work
boycott (April 5, 2000), Vistan issued
another memorandum,[8] this time
declaring that the bank is prepared to take
back employees who will report for work
Labor Relations 78
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
starting April 6, 2000 provided these
employees were/are not part of those
who led or instigated or coerced their co-
employees into participating in this illegal
act. Out of the 712 employees who took
part in the three-day work boycott, a total
of 513 returned to work and were
accepted by the bank.
ISSUE: Whether the protest rally and
concerted work abandonment staged by
the respondents violated the Order of the
Secretary of Labor?
HELD: Yes. Applying pertinent legal
provisions and jurisprudence, we rule that
the protest actions undertaken by the
Union officials and members are not valid
and proper exercises of their right to
assemble and ask government for redress
of their complaints, but are illegal strikes
in breach of the Labor Code. The Unions
position is weakened by the lack of permit
from the City of Manila to hold rallies.
They were in reality temporary stoppages
of work perpetrated through the
concerted action of the employees who
deliberately failed to report for work on
the convenient excuse that they will hold
a rally.

Moreover, it is explicit from the directive
of the Secretary in his January 18, 2000
Order that the Union and its members
shall refrain from committing any and all
acts that might exacerbate the situation,
which certainly includes concerted
actions.
The right to strike, while constitutionally
recognized, is not without legal
constrictions. Article 264 (a) of the Labor
Code.
MSF Tire and Rubber v. CA
FACTS: The Union filed a notice of strike
in the NCMB charging (Phildtread) with
unfair labor practice. Thereafter, they
picketed and assembled outside the gate
of Philtread’s plant. Philtread, on the
other hand, filed a notice of lockout.
Subsequently, the Secretary of Labor
assumed jurisdiction over the labor
dispute and certified it for compulsory
arbitration. During the pendency of the
labor dispute, Philtread entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement with Siam
Tyre whereby its plant and equipment
would be sold to a new company, herein
petitioner, 80% of which would be owned
by Siam Tyre and 20% by Philtread, while
Labor Relations 79
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
the land on which the plant was located
would be sold to another company, 60%
of which would be owned by Philtread
and 40% by Siam Tyre.
MSF then asked the workers Union to
desist from picketing outside its plant. As
the workers Union refused MSF’s request,
petitioner filed a complaint for injunction
with damages before the RTC. Worker’s
Union moved to dismiss the complaint
alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of
the trial court. MSF asserts that its status
as an “innocent bystander” with respect
to the labor dispute between Philtread
and the Union entitles it to a writ of
injunction from the civil courts.
Issue: WON petitioner has shown a clear
legal right to the issuance of a writ of
injunction under the “innocent bystander”
rule.
HELD: No. The corporate fiction may be
disregarded where it is used to defeat
public convenience, justify wrong, protect
fraud, defend crime, or where the
corporation is used as a mere alter-ego or
business conduit, it is not these standards
but those of the innocent bystander rule
which govern whether or not petitioner is

entitled to an injunctive writ. Since
petitioner is not an innocent bystander,
the trial courts order, dated July 2, 1996,
is a patent nullity, the trial court having no
jurisdiction to issue the writ of injunction.
No motion for reconsideration need be
filed where the order is null and void.
Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Ees Union v.
Coca-Cola Bottlers
FACTS: The Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant
Employees Union (Union) is the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of the
regular daily paid workers and the
monthly paid non-commission-earning
employees of the Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc. (Company) in its Sta.
Rosa, Laguna plant. The individual
petitioners are Union officers, directors,
and shop stewards.
The Union and the Company had entered
into a three-year Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) effective July 1, 1996 to
expire on June 30, 1999. Upon the
expiration of the CBA, the Union informed
the Company of its desire to renegotiate
its terms. On August 30, 1999, the Union,
its officers, directors and six shop
stewards filed a Notice of Strike with the
Labor Relations 80
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
NCMB. The petitioners relied on two
grounds: (a) deadlock on CBA ground
rules; and (b) unfair labor practice arising
from the companys refusal to bargain.
The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss
alleging that the reasons cited by the
Union were not valid grounds for a strike.
The Union then filed an Amended Notice
of Strike. Meanwhile, on September 15,
1999, the Union decided to participate in
a mass action organized by the Alyansa ng
mga Unyon sa Coca-Cola in front of the
Companys premises set for September 21,
1999.
Issue: WON the strike, dubbed by
petitioner as picketing, is illegal.
HELD: The term strike encompasses not
only concerted work stoppages, but also
slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-downs,
attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage
plant equipment and facilities, and similar
activities.
Picketing involves merely the marching to
and fro at the premises of the employer,
usually accompanied by the display of
placards and other signs making known
the FACTS involved in a labor dispute. As

applied to a labor dispute, to picket
means the stationing of one or more
persons to observe and attempt to
observe. The purpose of pickets is said to
be a means of peaceable persuasion.
The basic elements of a strike are present
in this case. They marched to and fro in
front of the company’s premises during
working hours. Thus, petitioners engaged
in a concerted activity which already
affected the company’s operations. The
mass concerted activity constituted a
strike.
Liwayway Publications v. Permanent
Concrete Workers Union
FACTS: Liwayway Publications, Inc.
brought an action in the CFI-Manila
against Permanent Concrete Workers
Union, et al. for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction and for damages it
incurred when its employees were
prevented from getting their daily supply
of newsprint from its bodega.
On October 3, 1964 for unknown reasons
and without legal justification, Permanent
Concrete Workers Union and its members
picketed, stopped and prohibited
plaintiff's truck from entering the
Labor Relations 81
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
compound to load newsprint from its
bodega. The union members intimidated
and threatened with bodily harm the
employees who were in the truck.
Union members stopped and prohibited
the general manager, personnel manager,
bodega-in-charge and other employees of
the plaintiff from getting newsprint in
their bodega.
Issue: Whether or not the lower court has
jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary
injunction.
HELD: Yes. The question that strikes Us to
be of determinative significance is
whether or not this case involves or has
arisen out of a labor dispute. Appellee is
not in any way related to the striking
union except for the fact that it is the
sublessee of a bodega in the company's
compound. The picketers belonging to the
appellant union had stopped and
prohibited the truck of the appellee from
entering the compound to load newsprint
from its bodega, the union members
intimidating and threatening with bodily
harm the employees of the appellee who
were in the truck. In such a factual
 Labor Relations 82
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

situation, the query to be resolved is San Miguel Brewery v. Ople

whether the appellee is a third party or an
"innocent bystander" whose right has Facts: The labor union (herein petitioner)
been invaded and, therefore, entitled to filed a complaint for unfair labor practice
protection by the regular courts. in the Ministry of Labor, with a notice of
strike on the ground that the CDS was
We find and hold that there is no contrary to the existing marketing scheme
connection between the appellee whereby the Route Salesmen were
Liwayway publications, Inc. and the assigned specific territories within which
striking Union, nor with the company to sell their stocks of beer, and
against whom the strikers staged the wholesalers had to buy beer products
strike, and neither are the acts of the from them, not from the company. It was
driver of the appellee, its general alleged that the new marketing scheme
manager, personnel manager, the man in- violates Section 1, Article IV of the
charge of the bodega and other collective bargaining agreement because
employees of the appellee in reaching the the introduction of the CDS would reduce
bodega to obtain newsprint therefrom to the take-home pay of the salesmen and
feed and supply its publishing business their truck helpers for the company would
interwoven with the labor dispute be unfairly competing with them.
between the striking Union and the
Permanent Concrete Products company. If Issue: Whether the CDS violates the
there is a connection between appellee collective bargaining agreement.
publishing company and the Permanent
Concrete Products company; it is that Held: So long as a company's
both are situated in the same premises, management prerogatives are exercised
which can hardly be considered as in good faith for the advancement of the
interwoven with the labor dispute employer's interest and not for the
pending in the Court of Industrial purpose of defeating or circumventing the
Relations between the strikers and their rights of the employees under special laws
employer. or under valid agreements, this Court will
uphold them. San Miguel Corporation's

offer to compensate the members of its
sales force who will be adversely affected
by the implementation of the CDS by
paying them a so-called "back adjustment
commission" to make up for
commissions they might lose as a result of
the CDS proves the company's good faith
and lack of intention to bust their union.
Lilia Labadan v. Forest Hills Academy
Facts: LABADAN filed a complaint against
Forest Hills and its administrator Naomi
Cabaluna for illegal dismissal,
payment of overtime pay, holiday pay,
allowances, 13th month pay, service
incentive leave, illegal deductions, and
damages.
In her Position Paper, LABADAN alleged
that she was allowed to go on leave from
Forest Hills, and albeit she had exceeded
her approved leave period, its extension
was impliedly approved by the school
principal because she received no warning
or reprimand and was in fact retained in
the payroll up to 2002.
Issue: Whether or not FOREST HILLS
ACADEMY dismissed LABADAN illegally.
Labor Relations 83
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Held: While in cases of illegal dismissal,
the employer bears the burden of proving
that the dismissal is for a valid or
authorized cause, the employee must first
the establish by substantial evidence the fact
of dismissal.
The records do not show that LABADAN
was dismissed from the service. They in
fact show that despite LABADAN’s
absence from July 2001 to March 2002
which, by her own admission, exceeded
her approved leave, she was still
non- considered a member of the Forest Hills
faculty which retained her in its payroll.
Javier v. Fly Ace Corporation
Facts: Javier filed a complaint against Fly
Ace before the NLRC for underpayment of
salaries and other labor standard benefits.
He alleged that during his employment, he
was not issued an identification card and
pay slips by the company. He reported for
work but he was no longer allowed to
enter the company premises. Javier was
terminated from his employment without
notice; and that he was neither given the
opportunity to refute the cause/s of his
dismissal from work.

Issue: Who has the burden of proving the
fact of dismissal first?
Held: In this case, Javier needs to show by
substantial evidence that he was indeed
an employee of the company against
which he claims illegal dismissal. He must
also prove the fact of dismissal first.
In sum, the rule of thumb remains: the
onus probandi falls on petitioner to
establish or substantiate such claim by the
requisite quantum of evidence. Whoever
claims entitlement to the benefits
provided by law should establish his or
her right thereto x x x. Sadly, Javier failed
to adduce substantial evidence as basis
for the grant of relief.
Supreme Steel Pipe Corp v. Berdaje
Facts:When respondent reported back to
work a month after, he was served with a
Notice dated September 8, 1999,
terminating his employment effective
September 23, 1999. Petitioner SSPC had
taken into account the August 19, 1999
incident as well as respondent’s "previous
infractions of company rules." Petitioner
SSPC declared that respondent’s
continued employment would pose
Labor Relations 84
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
serious and imminent threat to the lives
of his co-workers and to the property of
the corporation and its employees.
Alleging that his dismissal from service
was illegal, respondent filed a Complaint
on September 29, 1999 against petitioner
and its President, Regan Sy.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent
herein was illegally dismissed.
Held: We agree with the Labor Arbiter’s
conclusion that respondent’s misconduct
on August 19, 1999 does not warrant the
imposition of the ultimate sanction of
dismissal. Undeniably, the altercation
between respondent and Barrios was
nipped in the bud by the timely
intervention of other employees. The
momentary work stoppage did not pose a
threat to the safety or peace of mind of
the workers. Neither did such disorderly
behavior cause substantial prejudice to
the business of respondent SSPC.
Time and again, we have held that it is
cruel and unjust to impose the drastic
penalty of dismissal if not commensurate
to the gravity of the misdeed.

Alex Gurango v. Best Chemicals and
Plastics Inc.
Facts: BCPI dismissed Gurango effective
20 May 2003. BCPI stated that: Gurango
committed Offenses under the Company’s
Code of Discipline xxx Based on the
foregoing, and in view of the gravity of the
offenses that you have committed which
constitute gross misconduct, the Company
is constrained to terminate your
employment for cause effective May 20,
2003, at the close of business hours.
Gurango filed with the NLRC a complaint
against BCPI and Hong for illegal dismissal.
Issue: WON GURANGO was illegally
dismissed.
Held: The surrounding circumstances
show that Gurango did not engage in a
fistfight:
(1) in his 9 May 2003 letter to BCPI,
Juanitas corroborated Gurango’s version
of the facts;
(2) nobody corroborated Albao’s version
of the facts;
(3) in his medical report, Dr. Aguinaldo
found that Gurango suffered physical
injuries;
Labor Relations 85
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
(4) Gurango filed with the MCTC a
complaint against Albao, Cordero and
Pablis for slight physical injury;
(5) the Labor Arbiter found Gurango’s
statement credible and unblemished;
(6) the Labor Arbiter found Albao’s
statement contradictory;
(7) the Labor Arbiter stated, "I am
convinced Albao lied in his statement";
(8) the NLRC found that Gurango did not
start a fight;
(9) the NLRC found Albao’s statement
unbelievable and exaggerated; and
(10) the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the
findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC is baseless.
Northwest Airlines v. Concepcion Del
Rosario
Facts: Del Rosario was informed of her
termination from the service. Northwest
stated that based on the results of the
investigation, Del Rosario and Gamboa
had engaged in a fight on board the
aircraft, even if there had been no actual
physical contact between them; and that
because fighting was strictly prohibited by
Northwest to the point that fighting could
entail dismissal from the service even if
committed for the first time, Northwest

considered her dismissal from the service
justified and in accordance with the Rules
of Conduct for Employees.
Issue: Was Del Rosario's dismissal from
the service valid?
Held: Based on the foregoing, the incident
involving Del Rosario and Gamboa could
not be justly considered as akin to the
fight contemplated by Northwest. In the
eyes of the NLRC, Del Rosario and
Gamboa were arguing but not fighting.
The understanding of fight as one that
required physical combat was absent
during the incident of May 18, 1998.
Moreover, the claim of Morales that Del
Rosario challenged Gamboa to a brawl
(sabunutan) could not be given credence
by virtue of its being self-serving in favor
of Northwest, and of its being an apparent
afterthought on the part of Morales
during the investigation of the incident,
without Del Rosario having the
opportunity to contest Morales'
statement. In that context, the
investigation then served only as
Northwest's means to establish that the
grounds of a valid dismissal based on
serious misconduct really existed.
Labor Relations 86
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Cesar Naguit v. San Miguel Corp
Facts: Petitioner claims that the
altercation sprung from an event when
Regala distributed libellous materials
against the union which Petitioner is a
union steward. Upon investigation of the
Respondent Company’s Human Resource
Department, petitioner chose to remain
silent and did not address the charges
against him. He was later terminated.
Issue: Whether or not Petitioner had been
illegally dismissed and is entitled to
reinstatement and full back wages.
Held: The settled rule is that fighting
within company premises is a valid ground
for the dismissal of an employee.
Moreover, the act of assaulting another
employee is serious misconduct which
justifies the termination of employment.
Where the totality of the evidence was
sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the
employees, the law warrants their
dismissal without making any distinction
between a first offender and a habitual
delinquent.
 Labor Relations 87
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

Sim v. NLRC Respondent is a managerial employee.

Thus, loss of trust and confidence is a valid
Facts: Corazon Sim (petitioner) filed a case ground for her dismissal. The mere
for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter, existence of a basis for believing that a
alleging that she was initially employed by managerial employee has breached the
Equitable PCI-Bank (respondent) in 1990 trust of the employer would suffice for
as Italian Remittance Marketing his/her dismissal.
Consultant to the Frankfurt
Representative Office. Eventually, she was Tirazona v. Phil. Eds Techno-Service
promoted to Manager position, until
September 1999, when she received a Facts: In our 14 March 2008 Decision, we
letter from Remegio David -- the Senior subscribed to the factual findings of the
Officer, European Head of PCIBank, and NLRC and the CA that Tirazona, being the
Managing Director of PCIB- Europe -- Administrative Manager of Philippine EDS
informing her that she was being Techno-Service, Inc. (PET), was a
dismissed due to loss of trust and managerial employee who held a position
confidence based on alleged of trust and confidence; that after PET
mismanagement and misappropriation of officers/directors called her attention to
funds. her improper handling of a situation
involving a rank-and-file employee, she
Issue: Is there a valid dismissal? claimed that she was denied due process;
that she admitted to reading a
Held: Petitioner does not deny having confidential letter addressed to PET
withdrawn the amount of P3,000,000.00 officers/directors containing the legal
lire from the bank's account. What opinion of the counsel of PET regarding
petitioner submits is that she used said her case; and that she was validly
amount for the Radio Pilipinas sa Roma terminated from her employment on the
radio program of the company. ground that she willfully breached the
Respondent, however, countered that at trust and confidence reposed in her by her
the time she withdrew said amount, the employer.
radio program was already off the air.

Issue: Whether the termination was valid.
Held: The actions of Tirazona reflected an
obdurate character that is arrogant,
uncompromising, and hostile.
immediately and unreasonably adopting
an adverse stance against PET, she sought
to impose her will on the company and
placed her own interests above those of
her employer. Her motive for her actions
was rendered even more questionable by
her exorbitant and arbitrary demand for
P2,000,000.00 payable within five days
from demand. Her attitude towards her
employer was clearly inconsistent with
her position of trust and confidence. Her
poor character became even
evident when she read what
supposed to be a confidential letter of the
legal counsel of PET to
officers/directors expressing his legal
opinion on Tirazonas administrative case.
PET was, therefore, fully justified in
terminating Tirazonas employment for
loss of trust and confidence.
Villamor Golf Club v. Pehid
Facts: Pehid averred that he
dismissed without just cause and due
process of law; that there was no basis or
Labor Relations 88
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
evidence to show that he had custody of
the common fund which was used for his
own benefit; that he incurred the ire of his
superiors for testifying in support of
By Asterio Tansiongco, a former Director of
Personnel who was dismissed by VGC; and
that one of Tansiongco’s accusers was
Dario Velasquez, the brother of Cesar
Velasquez, one of the locker boys who
complained against him.
Issue: Whether or not PEHID was legally
dismissed based on alleged misconduct
through misappropriation.
Held: Clearly, based on the grounds of
more termination provided under Article 282 of
was the Labor Code and the VGC Rules and
Regulations, the common denominator
PET thereof to constitute gross misconduct as
a ground for a valid termination of the
employee, is that – it is committed in
connection with the latter’s work or
employment. In the instant case, as
previously pointed out, the alleged
VILLAMOR GOLF CLUB’s misappropriation
or malversation was committed, assuming
it to be true, against the common funds of
was the Locker Room personnel, which did not
belong nor sanctioned by VGC. A fortiori,

VGC was not prejudiced or damaged by
the loss or misappropriation thereof.
Bughaw Jr. v. Treasure Island
Facts: Notwithstanding said Memo,
petitioner failed to appear before the
respondents legal counsel on
scheduled hearing date and to explain his
side on the matter.
Consequently, respondent, in a third
letter[8] dated 21 August 2001 addressed
to petitioner, terminated the latters
employment retroactive to 11 June 2001
for using illegal drugs within company
premises during working hours, and for
refusal to attend the administrative
hearing and submit written explanation
on the charges hurled against him.
On 20 July 2001, petitioner filed a
complaint[9] for illegal dismissal against
respondent and its President, Emmanuel
Ong.
Issue: WHETHER PETITIONER
ILLEGALLY DISMISSED
EMPLOYMENT
Labor Relations 89
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Held: The charge of drug abuse inside the
companys premises and during working
hours against petitioner constitutes
serious misconduct, which is one of the
just causes for termination. Misconduct is
improper or wrong conduct. It is the
transgression of some established and
the definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction of duty, willful in character,
and implies wrongful intent and not
merely an error in judgment. The
misconduct to be serious within the
meaning of the Act must be of such a
grave and aggravated character and not
merely trivial or unimportant. Such
misconduct, however serious, must
nevertheless, in connection with the work
of the employee, constitute just cause for
his separation.[27] This Court took judicial
notice of scientific findings that drug
abuse can damage the mental faculties of
the user. It is beyond question therefore
that any employee under the influence of
drugs cannot possibly continue doing his
duties without posing a serious threat to
the lives and property of his co-workers
WAS and even his employer.
FROM
Plantation Bay Resort and Spa v. Dubrico
Facts: Respondent Dubrico failed to take
the drug test conducted on September

2004, hence, he was issued a based on their own evidence. Thus, we
memorandum requiring him to appear in
a mandatory conference. He explained in
writing his failure to undergo the drug
test, he averring that, inter alia, the
procedure for the random drug testing
was not followed such that he was not
informed about his selection; and that he
was at the appointed time and place for
the pre-test meeting but that the duty
manager was not around, hence, he left
and failed to be tested.
Issue: Whether or not the respondents
were proven to be really using drugs.
Held: Needless to say, the drug testing
should always come ahead of the
confirmatory testing, not the other way
around. We thus agree with complainants
that if the drug tests against them were
true, the supposed confirmatory tests
conducted on them were not based on
their urine samples that were the subject
of the drug tests. Or that is the
confirmatory tests were correct, these
could not have been gotten from their
urine samples which were yet to undergo
drug testing. At any rate, there is not only
doubt that on the version of respondents
but also their conduct is highly suspicious
Labor Relations 90
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
now rule that respondents were not really
into drugs.
White Diamond Trading Corporation v.
NLRC
Facts: Escoto consummated the sale of a
Toyota Town Ace to Teodoro Abejar
Aquino (Aquino) for ₱200,000.00. Aquino
tried but failed to haggle for a lower price.
While the purchase price indicated in the
original copy of the receipt issued to
Aquino was ₱200,000.00, it was only
₱190,000.00 in the duplicate copy that
remained with the company. The receipt
was issued by Omela to Aquino after he
gave Omela ₱200,000.00 in cash, which
amount Aquino counted in the presence
of Pastoril. Pastoril then took out the deed
of sale and handed it to Aquino. The deed
showed that the consideration for the sale
to be ₱190,000.00.
Issue: Whether Pastoril had been illegally
dismissed.
Held: The Court found that that Pastoril
was as actively involved as Escoto and
Omela in the sale of the Toyota Town Ace
that resulted in a loss to the company. All
three participated in making the company

believe that Aquino bought the Toyota
Town Ace for ₱190,000.00 when in fact,
Aquino paid ₱200,000.00 for the vehicle.
The company was completely in the dark
about the actual purchase price until it
learned about the irregularity and
commenced an investigation.
Sargasso Construction and Development
v. NLRC
Facts: later as payloader operator at its
crusher site at Sitio Lapak, La Castellana,
Negros Occidental; that on 29 June 1995,
or two (2) months and eleven (11) days
after complainant was hired, he was
caught together with another
respondent's employee, Aldrin Rasote, a
dump truck driver, stealing crushed
aggregate belonging to respondent
company; that complainant operated his
payloader on the unholy hour of 2:00
o'clock in the early morning and loaded
the crushed aggregate unto the dump
truck; that this act of loading crushed
aggregates during this particular date and
time was unauthorized, as there was no
memorandum nor instruction from the
management for complainant to perform
his job on that particular day.
Issue: Was there a valid dismissal?
Labor Relations 91
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Held: From the foregoing, it is quite clear
that the evidence presented in this case
did not reach the level required to find
respondent Mongcal guilty of conspiring
to commit theft of company property.
Indeed, respondent Mongcal loaded the
dump truck with aggregates at 2:30
o'clock in the morning despite the lack of
a trip ticket, but petitioner utterly failed to
rebut Mongcal's explanation that it was
not unusual for them to perform such
tasks even at an early hour, because truck
drivers tried to reach the delivery quotas
that petitioner had set. This was never
denied or rebutted by petitioner in any of
its pleadings. Petitioner merely harped on
the fact that no trip ticket was issued for
that particular delivery. However, even if
petitioner established that it was
company policy to have trip tickets for
every delivery of aggregates, it failed to
prove that it was the payload operators
like respondent Mongcal who had the
duty of requiring dump truck drivers to
show their trip tickets before the trucks
could be loaded with aggregates.
Petitioner failed to prove that respondent
Mongcal was involved at all or agreed
with the scheme to steal aggregates from
petitioner. There was no showing
whatsoever, that respondent Mongcal

had any knowledge that Aldrin Rasote had
the intention of stealing company
property.
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hyatt v.
Magsalin
Facts:When Mike Moral, the manager of
Hyatts Cafe Al Fresco and Caragdags
immediate superior, was about to counsel
two staff members, Larry Lacambacal and
Allan Alvaro, at the training room,
Caragdag suddenly opened the door and
yelled at the two with an enraged look. In
a disturbing voice he said, Ang titigas
talaga ng ulo nyo.Sinabi ko na sa inyo na
huwag kayong makikipagusap sa
management habang ongoing pa ang
kaso! (You are very stubborn. I told you
not to speak to management while the
case is ongoing!) Moral asked Caragdag
what the problem was and informed him
that he was simply talking to his staff.
Moral also told Caragdag that he did not
have the right to interrupt and intimidate
him during his counseling session with his
staff.
Issue: Whether Caragdag was validly
dismissed on the ground of serious
misconduct. Corollarily, whether or not he
Labor Relations 92
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
is entitled to financial assistance on the
ground of equity.
Held: Caragdags dismissal was due to
several instances of willful disobedience
to the reasonable rules and regulations
prescribed by his employer. The Voluntary
Arbitrator pointed out that according to
the hotels Code of Discipline, an employee
who commits three different acts of
misconduct within a twelve (12)-month
period commits serious misconduct. He
stressed that Caragdags infractions were
not even spread in a period of twelve (12)
months, but rather in a period of a little
over a month. Records show the various
violations of the hotels rules and
regulations were committed by Caragdag.
He was suspended for violating the hotel
policy on bag inspection and body frisking.
He was likewise suspended for
threatening and intimidating a superior
while the latter was counseling his
staff.He was again suspended for leaving
his work assignment without permission.
Evidently, Caragdags acts constitute
serious misconduct.

Collegio de San Juan de Letran- Calamba
v. Villa
Facts: BELEN P. VILLAS alleged that she
intended to utilize the first semester of
her study leave to finish her masteral
degree at the Philippine Women’s
University (PWU). Unfortunately, it did
not push through so she took up an Old
Testament course in a school of religion
and at the same time utilized her free
hours selling insurance and cookware to
augment her family’s income. However,
during the second semester of her study
leave, she studied and passed 12 units of
education subjects at the Golden Gate
Colleges in Batangas City. In response to
the letters sent her by COLEGIO DE SAN
JUAN DE LETRAN – CALAMBA to justify
her study leave, she submitted
certification from Golden Gate Colleges
and a letter explaining why she took up an
Old Testament course instead of enrolling
in her masteral class during the first
semester.
Issue: Whether or not VILLAS is guilty of
serious misconduct to warrant valid
termination.
Labor Relations 93
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Held: Her alleged failure to report for
work exactly on April 1, 1996 is not
equivalent to "failure to return for work,"
a sanctionable offense under the Faculty
Manual. As correctly pointed out by the
VA, COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN –
CALAMBA failed to establish that there
was a distinct and definite assignment
that needed to be done personally by
BELEN P. VILLAS, and specifically on April
1, 1996, which she failed to do on said
date. Although we give credence to
COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN –
CALAMBA’s argument that a private high
school teacher still has work at the end of
the schoolyear – to assist in the
graduation preparations – and in the
beginning of the school year – to assist in
the enrollment – such tasks cannot be
a considered a teacher’s main duties, the
failure to perform which would be
tantamount to dereliction of duty or
abandonment. Besides, there is no
disagreement that BELEN P. VILLAS
reported for work on May 15, 1996 at
which time COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE
LETRAN – CALAMBA could have asked her
to assist in the enrollment period. At
most, BELEN P. VILLAS failed to help out
during the preparations for graduation
and this, to us, was not a significant
 Labor Relations 94
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

reason for terminating or dismissing her character, and implies wrongful intent and
from her job not mere error in judgment. The
misconduct to be serious must be of such
Samson v. NLRC grave and aggravated character and not
Facts: Samson’s dismissal was brought merely trivial and unimportant. Such
about by the utterances he made during misconduct, however serious, must,
an informal Christmas gathering of nevertheless, be in connection with the
respondent company’s Sales and employees work to constitute just cause
Marketing Division. He was heard to have for his separation.
uttered, "Si EDT (referring to Epitacio D.
Titong, General Manager and President of In this case, the alleged misconduct of
respondent company), bullshit yan," petitioner, when viewed in its context, is
"sabihin mo kay EDT yan" and "sabihin mo not of such serious and grave character as
kay EDT, bullshit yan," while making the to warrant his dismissal.
"dirty finger" gesture. He likewise told his
co-employees that the forthcoming Punzal v. ESTI Technologies
national sales conference of respondent
company would be a "very bloody one." Facts: Geisert obtained a copy of the
email and asked petitioner for an
Issue: Is uttering invectives tantamount to explanation. She replied that she had no
gross misconduct that will justify malicious intention in sending the second
dismissal? e-mail message and that she "never
expected such kind of words can be called
Held: It was improper for the NLRC to rule as ‘acts of discourtesy or disrespect.’"
that such as of Samson is tantamount to Geisert and Remurado found her
gross misconduct justifying his dismissal. explanation "not acceptable" and
terminating her services, effective
Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct. immediately.
It is the transgression of some established
and definite rule of action, a forbidden Petitioner filed before the National Labor
act, a dereliction of duty, willful in Relations Commission (NLRC) a

complaint7 for illegal dismissal against
ETSI, Geisert, and Remudaro.
Issue: Whether there was illegal
termination.
Held: In the case at bar, the disapproval of
the plan to hold the Halloween party on
October 31, 2001 may not be considered
to have been actuated by bad faith. As the
Labor Arbiter noted:
Given the reasonableness of Geisert’s
decision that provoked petitioner to send
the second e-mail message,
observations of the Court of Appeals that
"the message x x x resounds of subversion
and undermines the authority
credibility of management” and that
petitioner "displayed a tendency to act
without management’s approval, and
even against management’s will" are well
taken.
The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf Philippines
v. Arenas
Facts: The duty manager of CBTL, while
conducting a routine inspection, noticed
an iced tea bottle being chilled inside the
bin where the ice for customers’ drinks is
Labor Relations 95
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
stored. Investigation showed the
respondent was responsible for it, in
violation of company policy. Based on the
foregoing infractions coupled with a
record of reporting late for work on
several occasions, Arenas was dismissed
from the service.
Arenas prevailed in his case before the
Labor Arbiter and the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC). The Court
of Appeals (CA) sustained their findings
ruling that Arenas’ offenses fell short of
the required legal standard to justify his
the dismissal; and that these do not constitute
serious misconduct or willful
disobedience, and gross negligence, to
and merit his termination from service.
Issue: Is the CA ruling justified?
Held: We rule that Arenas’ three counts of
tardiness cannot be considered as gross
and habitual neglect of duty. The
infrequency of his tardiness already
removes the character of habitualness.
These late attendances were also broadly
spaced out, negating the complete
absence of care on Arenas’ part in the
performance of his duties. Even CBTL
admitted in its notice to explain that this
 Labor Relations 96
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

violation does not merit yet a disciplinary refused to heed his instructions and sent
action and is only an aggravating an e-mail to him stating that she would go
circumstance to Arenas’ other violations. on with its presentation. Such an act of
insubordination resulted in the
GTE Directories v. Sanchez management's loss of trust and
confidence in her.
Facts: Clarifying that this was merely a
case of miscommunication and that she Lores Realty Enterprises v. Pacia
had no intention to disregard the order to
postpone the implementation of the new Facts: Pacia received a notice of
training process, Cabansay submitted two termination stating, among others, that
memoranda dated April 8 and 11, 2002. she was being dismissed because of her
willful disobedience and their loss of trust
However, on April 11, 2002, the same day and confidence in her.
she submitted her second explanation,
Cabansay received a memorandum from Pacia then filed a Complaint for Unfair
the HR Department/Office of the Labor Practice due to Harassment,
President notifying her that she had been Constructive Dismissal, Moral and
terminated from the service effective Exemplary Damages against LREI and
immediately for having committed an act Sumulong. Subsequently, Pacia filed an
of insubordination resulting in the Amended Complaint to include the
management's loss of trust and charges of illegal dismissal and non-
confidence in her. payment of salaries.

Issue: Whether or not respondent Issue: Whether Pacia’s dismissal was

Cabansay was illegally dismissed. justified under the circumstances.

Held: NO. They found that Ballesteros Held: Pacia’s initial reluctance to prepare
made a lawful order to postpone the the checks, however, which was
implementation of the new training seemingly an act of disrespect and
process, yet respondent incorrigibly defiance, was for honest and well

intentioned reasons. Protecting LREI and
Sumulong from liability under
Bouncing Checks Law was foremost in her
mind. It was not wrongful or willful.
Neither can it be considered an obstinate
defiance of company authority. The Court
takes into consideration that Pacia,
despite her initial reluctance, eventually
did prepare the checks on the same day
she was tasked to do it.
Tide Water Association Oil Co. v. Victory
Employees and Laborer’s Assocation
Facts: Guillermo Bautista was a checker of
the respondent company for a period of
eighteen years, more or less. Bautista was
instructed to deliver 7502 gallons of
gasoline to the Concepcion, and, another
750 gallons to Aquilino Fernandez in
accordance with the "first come, first
served" rule.
Instead of making delivery first to
Concepcion, Fernandez was
preference to receive the gasoline ahead
of Concepcion. The arrangement was
made with the knowledge of his superior.
Issue: Whether the dismissal valid?
Labor Relations 97
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Held: NO. There could be no doubt that
the the switching of the two orders for the
delivery of gasoline intended for
Concepcion and Fernandez was made by
Bautista, and such act was undoubtedly
repugnant to the regulations of the
respondent company. Record also shows
that the regulation of the company with
respect to making deliveries and giving
preference to those who come first were
at times relaxed upon instruction of the
management. So, it could not be said that
invariably the aforementioned regulations
of the company were strictly in all
occasions observed.
Dr. Phylis Rio et. al. v. Colegio De Sta.
Rosa-Makati
Facts: Petitioner was made to answer for
the following: (1) nine (9) students have
medical records for school years during
which they were not in the school yet,
thus could not have been the subject of
given medical examination/evaluation; (2)
seventy-nine (79) students of several
classes/sections during certain school
years were not given any medical/health
evaluation/examination; and (3) failure to
conduct medical/health examination on
all students of several classes of different
 Labor Relations 98
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

grade levels for the school year 2001- Facts: It appears from his employment
2002. records, however, that Arsenio has
repeatedly violated the Company Code of
Petitioner denied the charges through a Employee Discipline and has exhibited
letter to respondent on 2 August 2002. On poor performance in the latter part of his
9 August 2002 petitioner filed a complaint employment. He was suspended for
for constructive dismissal and illegal excessive absences.
suspension against respondents Colegio
de Sta. Rosa-Makati and Gustilo before An investigation was conducted due to his
the Labor Arbiter. unauthorized and unexcused absences.
Petitioner was required to appear at the
Issue: Whether or not there was illegal investigation and to present his evidence
dismissal. in support of his defense. However,
despite receipt of such notice, petitioner
Held: No. Dr. Phylis was legally did not participate in the investigation.
terminated. Respondent Colegio de Sta.
Rosa-Makati had enough reason to, as it Issue: Is Arsenio’s dismissal from
did, terminate the services of petitioner. employment proper?

Based on Article 282 of the Labor Code, in Held: Petitioner’s unauthorized absences
relation to Section 94 of the 1992 Manual as well as tardiness are habitual despite
of Regulations for Private Schools, having been penalized for past infractions.
petitioner was legally dismissed on the A series of irregularities when put
ground of gross inefficiency and together may constitute serious
incompetence, and negligence in the misconduct. We also held that gross
keeping of school or student records, or neglect of duty becomes serious in
tampering with or falsification of records. character due to frequency of instances.
Serious misconduct is said to be a
Arsenio Quiambao v. Manila Electric transgression of some established and
Company definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction of duty, willful in character,

and indicative of wrongful intent and not
mere error of judgment.
Mansion Printing Center v. Bitara Jr.
Facts: Mansion engaged the services of
Bitara as a helper (kargador). Respondent
was later promoted as the company’s sole
driver tasked , among others, to deliver
the products to the clients within the
delivery schedules.
Petitioners aver that the timely delivery of
the products to the clients is one of the
foremost considerations material to the
operation of the business. It being so, they
closely monitored the attendance of
respondent. They noted his habitual
tardiness and absenteeism.
Issue: Was there gross and habitual
neglect of duty on the part of Bitara,
warranting his dismissal from service.
Held: In the present case, however,
petitioners have repeatedly called the
attention of respondent concerning his
habitual tardiness. The Memorandum
dated 23 June 1999 of petitioner Cheng
required him to explain his tardiness. Also
in connection with a similar infraction,
Labor Relations 99
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
respondent even wrote petitioner Cheng a
letter dated 29 November 1999 where he
admitted that his tardiness has affected
the delivery schedules of the company,
offered an apology, and undertook to
henceforth report for duty on time.
Despite this undertaking, he continued to
either absent himself from work or report
late during the first quarter of 2000.
Essencia Manarpiis v. Texan Philippines
Facts: Texan Philippines, Inc. (TPI) is
engaged in the importation, distribution
and marketing of imported fragrances and
aroma and other specialized products and
services. It hired Essencia Q. Manarpiis
(petitioner) as Sales and Marketing
Manager. She was later dismissed on July
25, 2000 when she received a notice of
termination on the ground of dishonesty,
loss of confidence based on alleged
collusion in defrauding the company
financed. Another ground was also for
abandonment of work. Claiming
insurmountable losses, respondents
served a written notice addressed to all
their employees that TPI will cease
operations by August 31, 2000.

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, non-payment of overtime pay,
holiday pay, service incentive leave pay,
unexpired vacation leave and 13th month
pay and with prayer for moral and actual
damages.
Issue: Whether Petitioner was illegally
dismissed.
Held: Yes. Petitioner was dismissed
without just or authorized cause, and that
the announced cessation of business
operations was a mere subterfuge for
getting rid of petitioner. The CA’s finding
of serious business losses is not borne by
the evidence on record. The financial
statements supposedly bearing the stamp
mark of BIR were not signed by an
independent auditor. Besides, the non-
compliance with the requirements under
Article 283 of the Labor Code, as
amended, gains relevance in this case not
for the purpose of proving the illegality of
the company closure or cessation of
business, which did not materialize, but as
an indication of bad faith on the part of
respondents in hastily terminating
petitioner’s employment.
Lakpue Drug v. Balga
Labor Relations 100
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Facts: Belga who was pregnant
experienced labor pains and gave birth on
the same day. On March 22, 2001, or two
days after giving birth, Tropical
summoned Belga to report for work but
the latter replied that she could not
comply because of her situation. Belga
requested that the conference be moved
to April 4, 2001 as her newborn was
scheduled for check-up on April 2, 2001.
When Belga attended the clarificatory
conference on April 4, 2001, she was
informed of her dismissal effective that
day.
Issue: Is dismissal too harsh in this case?
Held: Belgas failure to formally inform
Tropical of her pregnancy can not be
considered as grave misconduct directly
connected to her work as to constitute
just cause for her separation.
The charge of disobedience for Belgas
failure to comply with the memoranda
must likewise fail. Disobedience, as a just
cause for termination, must be willful or
intentional. Willfulness is characterized by
a wrongful and perverse mental attitude
rendering the employees act inconsistent
with proper subordination. In the instant

case, the memoranda were given to Belga
two days after she had given birth. It was
thus physically impossible for Belga to
report for work and explain her absence,
as ordered.
Hormillosa v. Coca Cola
Facts: Hormillosa was employed as a route
salesman by Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc.
(CBPI). His duties included, among others,
selling CBPI’s soft drink products, either
on cash or on credit basis; receiving
payments from proceeds of the sale or
payments of past due or current accounts;
issuing sales invoices; and receiving empty
bottles and cases of soft drinks (empties).
CBPI District Sales Supervisor, Tiosayco,
conducted a verification and audit of the
accounts handled by Hormillosa. He
discovered transactions in violation of
CCBPI Employee Code of Disciplinary Rules
and Regulations, specifically "Fictitious
sales transactions; Falsification of
company records/ data/ documents/
invoices/ reports; fictitious issuances of
TCS/ COL (Temporary Credit Sales/
Container on Loan); non-issuance or mis-
issuance of invoices and receipts as well
as commercial documents to dealers;
Labor Relations 101
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
forgery; misuse, abuse or defalcation of
funds form market development
program."
Issue: Whether the dismissal based on
loss of confidence valid?
Held: There is a high degree of trust and
confidence reposed on route salesman,
and when confidence is breached, the
employer may take proper disciplinary
action on them. The work of a salesman
exposes him to voluminous financial
transactions involving his employer’s
goods. The life of the soft drinks company
depends not so much on the bottling or
production of the product since this is
primarily done by automatic machines
and personnel who are easily supervised
but upon mobile and far-ranging salesmen
who go from store to store all over the
country or region. Salesmen are highly
individualistic personnel who have to be
trusted and left essentially on their own. A
high degree of confidence is reposed on
them because they are entrusted with
funds or properties of their employer.
In the case at bench, the cause for the
dismissal from employment of Hormillosa
clearly falls under Article 282 of the Labor

Code. Therefore, he is not entitled to any
separation pay.
De Leon Cruz v. BPI
Facts: Petitioner was hired by Far East
Bank and Trust Company (now BPI) in
1989. After 13 years of continuous
service, respondent terminated petitioner
on grounds of gross negligence and
breach of trust. Petitioner's dismissal was
brought about by the fraud perpetrated
against three depositors.
On April 19, 2002, BPI Vice-President
Edwin S. Ragos issued a memorandum3
directing petitioner to explain within 24
hours the aforementioned unauthorized
pre-terminations/withdrawals of US dollar
deposits at the BPI Ayala Avenue Branch.
Issue: Whether petitioner was validly
terminated.
Held: Petitioner was remiss in the
performance of her duty to approve the
pre-termination of certificates of deposits
by legitimate depositors or their duly-
authorized representatives, resulting in
prejudice to the bank, which reimbursed
the monetary loss suffered by the affected
Labor Relations 102
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
clients. Hence, respondent was justified in
dismissing petitioner on the ground of
breach of trust. As long as there is some
basis for such loss of confidence, such as
when the employer has reasonable
ground to believe that the employee
concerned is responsible for the
purported misconduct, and the nature of
his participation therein renders him
unworthy of the trust and confidence
demanded of his position, a managerial
employee may be dismissed.
Mapili v. Phil Rabbit Bus Line
Facts: Petitioner was preventively
suspended and was directed to appear in
an administrative investigation.
Thereafter, a formal hearing was
conducted during which petitioner was
given an opportunity to present and
explain his side. Consequently, through a
memorandum, petitioner was terminated
from employment for committing a
serious irregularity by extending a free
ride to a passenger in violation of
company rules. Notably, that was already
the third time that petitioner committed
said violation.

Petitioner filed with the NLRC a Complaint
for illegal dismissal against PRBLI, Nisce,
and Ricardo Paras (Paras), PRBLI's General
Manager.
Issue: WHETHER THERE IS A VALID
GROUND FOR DISMISSAL.
Held: Based on this testimony, it is quite
apparent that petitioner was aware that
the infraction he committed constituted a
grave offense but he still persisted in
committing the same out of gratitude to
the passenger. Hence, as correctly found
by the CA, there was deliberate intent on
the part of the petitioner to commit the
violation in order to repay a personal debt
at the expense of the company.
Petitioner chose to violate company rules
for his benefit without regard to his
responsibilities to the company. Also, if
not for the inspector who discovered the
incident, the company would have been
defrauded by the amount of fare.
Century Iron Works v. Banas
FACTS: Bañas responded to his dismissal
by filing a complaint for illegal dismissal
with prayer for reinstatement and money
claims.
Labor Relations 103
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
According to Century Iron, Bañas worked
as an inventory comptroller. Sometime in
2002, Century Iron received letters of
complaint from its gas suppliers regarding
alleged massive shortage of empty gas
cylinders. In the investigation that Century
Iron conducted in response to the letters,
it found that Bañas failed to make a report
of the missing cylinders. Century Iron
required Bañas to explain within 48 hours
from receipt of its letter why no
disciplinary action should be taken against
him for loss of trust and confidence and
for gross and habitual neglect of duty.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bañas occupied a
position of trust and confidence, or was
routinely charged with the care and
custody of Century Iron’s money or
property
HELD: No. The CA properly affirmed the
NLRC’s ruling that Bañas was a rank-and-
file employee who was not charged with
the care and custody of Century Iron’s
money or property.
The ruling of the CA, finding no grave
abuse of discretion in the LA and the NLRC
rulings and are supported by substantial
evidence, is, to our mind, correct.

The evidence on record supports the
holding that Bañas was an ordinary
employee. There is no indication that the
NLRC’s decision was unfair or arbitrary. It
properly relied on Century
numerous memoranda where Bañas was
identified as an inventory clerk. It
correctly observed that Century Iron
unequivocably declared that Bañas was an
inventory clerk in its July 29, 2002
termination report with the Department
of Labor and Employment.
Phil. Transmarine Carriers v. Carilla
FACTS: Their approved POEA contract
provided that respondent would get a
basic monthly pay of US$1700.00, fixed
monthly overtime of US$765.00, master's
allowance of US$170.00 and leave with
pay of six days per month or US$340.00 or
a total of US$2,975.00 a month.
On November 29, 1993, respondent
boarded the vessel in Abidjan, Ivory Coast,
Africa. On June 6, 1994, while the vessel
was in Bombay, India, respondent was
dismissed and repatriated to
Philippines.
Labor Relations 104
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
On August 25, 1994, respondent filed with
the Philippine Overseas and Employment
Agency (POEA) a complaint for illegal
dismissal with claims for salaries and
Iron’s other benefits for the unexpired portion
of his contract as well as unremitted
allotments and damages.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent was
validly terminated
HELD: No. Petitioner's claim that it has a
wider latitude of discretion in terminating
respondent, since the latter was a
managerial employee, is not plausible.
It is well settled in these jurisdiction that
confidential and managerial employees
cannot be arbitrarily dismissed at any
time, and without cause as reasonably
established in an appropriate
investigation.
Such employees, too, are entitled to
security of tenure, fair standards of
employment and the protection of labor
laws. Managerial employees, no less than
rank-and-file laborers, are entitled to due
process.
the
Tirazona v. CA
Facts: Private respondents Ken Kubota,
Mamoru Ono and Junichi Hirose are all

Japanese nationals, the first being the
President and the latter two being the
directors of PET.
On 21 July 1999, PET employed Ma.
Wenelita S. Tirazona (Tirazona) as
Administrative Manager. Being the top-
ranking Filipino Manager, she acted as the
liaison between the Japanese
management and the Filipino staff.
On 15 January 2002, Fe Balonzo, a rank-
and-file employee, wrote a letter that was
addressed to nobody in particular, but
was later acquired by PET management.
Issue: Whether or not Tirazona was legally
dismissed from employment.
Held:
In employee termination cases, the well-
entrenched policy is that no worker shall
be dismissed except for a just or
authorized cause provided by law and
after due process. Clearly, dismissals have
two facets: first, the legality of the act of
dismissal, which constitutes substantive
due process; and second, the legality in
the manner of dismissal, which
constitutes procedural due process.
Under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code,
loss of trust and confidence is one of the
just causes for dismissing an employee. It
Labor Relations 105
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
is an established principle that loss of
confidence must be premised on the fact
that the employee concerned holds a
position of trust and confidence.
This situation obtains where a person is
entrusted with confidence on delicate
matters, such as care and protection,
handling or custody of the employer’s
property.
But, in order to constitute a just cause for
dismissal, the act complained of must be
"work-related" such as would show the
employee concerned to be unfit to
continue working for the employer.
Besides, for loss of confidence to be a
valid ground for dismissal, such loss of
confidence must arise from particular
proven facts.
Eats Cetera Food Services v. Letran
Facts: On November 20, 2002, when she
reported for duty, Espadero discovered
that her time card was already punched
in. After asking around, she found out that
a certain Joselito Cahayagan was the one
who punched in her time card. Espadero,
however, failed to report the incident to
her supervisor, Clarissa Reduca.

This prompted Reduca to report the
incident to the personnel manager, Greta
dela Hostria. Espadero contended that she
was dismissed outright without being
given ample opportunity to explain her
side. She claimed that on November 21,
2002, petitioners called her and asked her
to make a letter of admission as a
condition for her reemployment.
Issue: Whether Espaderos infraction was
serious enough to warrant the penalty of
dismissal.
Held: We sustain petitioners reasoning
that Espaderos position as a cashier is one
that requires a high degree of trust and
confidence, and that her infraction
reasonably taints such trust and
confidence reposed upon her by her
employer.
A position of trust and confidence has
been defined as one where a person is
entrusted with confidence on delicate
matters, or with the custody, handling, or
care and protection of the employers
property and/or funds. One such position
is that of a cashier.
Labor Relations 106
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
A cashier is a highly sensitive position
which requires absolute trust and honesty
on the part of the employee.
It is for this reason that the Court has
sustained the dismissal of cashiers who
have been found to have breached the
trust and confidence of their employers.
In one case, the Court upheld the validity
of the dismissal of a school cashier despite
her 19 years of service after evidence
showed that there was a discrepancy in
the amount she was entrusted to deposit
with a bank.
Eric Dela Cruz v. Coca-Cola Bottlers
Facts: Sales was hospitalized in Lorma
Medical Center in San Fernando, La Union
where he was observed to have been
under the influence of liquor at the time
of the accident. The August 12, 2000
police blotter of the incident indeed
indicates that Sales was under the
influence of liquor. Respondent soon
discovered that Sales co-employees
secured an August 15, 2000 police report
and an August 14, 2000 medical certificate
which omitted the statement that Sales
was under the influence of liquor.
Issue: Was the termination valid

Held: Yes,petitioners contend, however,
that for loss of trust and confidence to be
a ground for termination of employment,
it must be willful and must be connected
with the employees work.
The Court of Appeals, thus:
The records of the case are rife with proof
that the supervisors committed acts which
are inimical to the interests and stability,
not only of management, but of the
company itself. They did so, through
deceitful means and methods.
The detailed account of what transpired
between August 12 to 16, 2002 by
Asuncion, Calderon, the witnesses and the
supervisors themselves were not only
substantial proof of the grave infraction
committed by them but indubitable proof
of their anomalous acts.
EDI Staffbuilders Intl. v. NLRC
FACTS: ESI is another recruitment agency
which collaborated with EDI to process
the documentation and deployment of
private respondent to Saudi Arabia.
Private respondent Gran was an OFW
recruited by EDI, and deployed by ESI to
work for OAB, in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. OAB informed EDI that, from the
Labor Relations 107
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
applicants' curricula vitae submitted to it
for evaluation, it selected Gran for the
position of "Computer Specialist."
ISSUE: Whether the termination of Gran
valid?
HELD: NO. Petitioner failed to prove that
Gran was justifiably dismissed due to
incompetence, insubordination, or willful
disobedience. In Prieto, this Court ruled
that "[i]t is presumed that before their
deployment, the petitioners were
subjected to trade tests required by law to
be conducted by the recruiting agency to
insure employment of only technically
qualified workers for the foreign
principal."
According to petitioner, the Prieto ruling
is not applicable because in the case at
hand, Gran misrepresented himself in his
curriculum vitae as a Computer Specialist;
thus, he was not qualified for the job for
which he was hired.
Torreda v. Toshiba Info Equip.
Facts: On July 22, 1998, Sepulveda opened
Torreda’s personal computer and read his
Lotus Notes mail and other personal files,
specifically the report he had sent to

Tanaka about her. She reprimanded
Torreda and told him that he should not
send mails to Tanaka without her
approval. Upset over Sepulveda’s
actuations, Torreda reported the incident
via electronic mail. He complained that
Sepulveda had no right to open the
computer because it was his, and it
contained his personal files. He told
Tanaka that Sepulveda used to open the
employees’ computers; hence, she could
no longer be trusted.
Issue: Whether or not TORREDA
committed serious misconduct that
warrants dismissal from employment.
Held: YES. TORREDA’s dismissal is proper
since he committed serious misconduct.
Indeed, an employee may be dismissed
from employment for acts punishable by
dismissal under Article 282(a) of the Labor
Code. Misconduct has been defined as
improper or wrong conduct. It is the
transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction of duty, willful in character,
and implies wrongful intent and not mere
error of judgment. The misconduct to be
serious must be of such grave and
Labor Relations 108
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
aggravated character and not merely
trivial and unimportant.
Sebugero v. NLRC
Facts: The 16 petitioners are among the
36 regular employees of GTI Sportswear
who were initially under "temporary lay-
off", yet were no longer recalled after the
lapse of 6 months.Believing that their
"temporary lay-off" was a ploy to dismiss
them because of their union activities,
they filed a case for illegal dismissal, unfair
labor practice, and underpayment of
wages with the Labor Arbiter's office.
Issue: may Sebugero et.al. claim the
awards they pray for?
Held: The SC settled that where the
dismissal of an employee is in fact for a
just and valid cause, and is so proven, but
he or she was not accorded with due
process, the dismissal must be sanctioned.
In this case, the petitioners are entitled to
Atty's fees. Redundancy exists where the
services of an employee are in excess of
what is reasonably As to redundancy:
demanded by the actual requirements of
the enterprise. A position is redundant
where it is superfluous, and superfluity of

a position or positions may be the
outcome of a number of factors, such as
overhiring of workers, decreased volume
of business, or dropping of a particular
product line or service activity previously
manufactured or undertaken by the
enterprise.
Nelson Culili v. Eastern Telecom
Facts: As a result, Culili’s position was
abolished due to redundancy and his
functions were absorbed by Andre
Andrada, another employee already with
the Business and Consumer Accounts
Department.
In a letter, ETPI, informed Culili of his
termination from employment effective
April 8, 1999. On February 8, 2000, Culili
filed a complaint against ETPI and its
officers for illegal dismissal
Issue: W/N petitioner there was illegal
dismissal. No.
Held: Culili asserted that he was illegally
dismissed because there was no valid
cause to terminate his employment. He
claimed that ETPI failed to prove that his
position had become redundant and that
Labor Relations 109
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
ETPI was indeed incurring losses. Culili
further alleged that his functions as a
Senior Technician could not be considered
a superfluity because his tasks were
crucial and critical to ETPI’s business.
Under our laws, an employee may be
terminated for reasons involving
measures taken by the employer due to
business necessities.
This Court has been consistent in holding
that the determination of whether or not
an employee’s services are still needed or
sustainable properly belongs to the
employer. Provided there is no violation
of law or a showing that the employer was
prompted by an arbitrary or malicious act,
the soundness or wisdom of this exercise
of business judgment is not subject to the
discretionary review of the Labor Arbiter
and the NLRC.
General Milling Corporation v. Viajar
Facts: GMC alleged that it has been
gradually downsizing its Vismin (Visayas-
Mindanao) Operations in Cebu where a
sizeable number of positions became
redundant over a period of time.
In her Position Paper, Viajar alleged that
she was employed by GMC on August 6,

1979 as Invoicing Clerk. Through the
years, the respondent held various
positions in the company until she
became Purchasing Staff.
ISSUE: Whether or not GMC validly
dismissed Viajar on the ground of
redundancy which is one of the
authorized causes for termination of
employment.
HELD: Article 283 of the Labor Code
provides that redundancy is one of the
authorized causes for dismissal.
Article 283. Closure of establishment and
reduction of personnel. The employer
may also terminate the employment of
any employee due to the installment of
labor-saving devices, redundancy,
retrenchment to prevent losses or the
closing or cessation of operation of the
establishment or undertaking unless the
closing is for the purpose of circumventing
the provisions of this Title, by serving a
written notice on the worker and the
Ministry of Labor and Employment at least
one (1) month before the intended date
thereof.
In the instant case, the Court agrees with
the CA when it held that the petitioner
Labor Relations 110
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
failed to present substantial proof to
support GMCs general allegations of
redundancy.
San Miguel Jeepney v. NLRC
Fact: Petitioner SMJS had a contract with
the U.S. Naval Base Facility located in San
Miguel, San Antonio, Zambales, to provide
transportation services to personnel and
dependents inside said facility. When the
said contract expired on 02 May 1988,
petitioner Galace, owner and general
manager of SMJS, opted not to renew the
existing contract nor bid on the new
contract, due to financial difficulties, he
having suffered a net loss the prior year.
As a consequence, the services of the
complainants were terminated. By that
time, however, the 23 had already filed a
complaint for non-compliance with the
minimum wage law from 1980 onwards,
plus non-payment of the 13th month pay,
legal holiday pay, overtime pay, service
incentive leave pay and separation pay.
Petitioners on the other hand rejected any
liability for the money claims. Petitioners
concede that the NLRC may have been
correct after all in holding that
complainants/private respondents were

regular employees, for they
acknowledged albeit grudgingly that the
above ruling seems to be tinged with
reason and authority. Nevertheless, they
contend that they cannot be held liable
for separation pay for petitioner SMJS had
been experiencing financial reverses since
1986.
Issue: Whether there were factual bases
for serious business losses?
Held: No Serious Business Losses.
As petitioners themselves admitted, what
they suffered were sliding incomes, in
other words, decreasing gross revenues.
What the law speaks of is serious business
losses or financial reverses. Clearly, sliding
incomes are not necessarily losses, much
less serious business losses within the
meaning of the law.
We have also held that adverse business
conditions justify the exercise of
management prerogative to retrench in
order to avoid the not-so-remote
possibility of closure of the entire
business.
At the other end of the spectrum, it seems
equally clear that not every asserted
Labor Relations 111
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
possibility of loss is sufficient legal warrant
for reduction of personnel. In the nature
of things, the possibility of incurring losses
is constantly present, in greater or lesser
degree, in the carrying on of business
operations, since some, indeed many, of
the factors which impact upon the
profitability or viability of such operations
may be substantially outside the control
of the employer.
Navotas Shipyard Corporation and Jesus
Villaflor v. Innocencio Montallana
FACTS: Since then, they were not allowed
to report for work but Villaflor’s promise
to give them separation pay never
materialized despite their persistent
demands and follow ups.
Navotas Shipyard, on the other hand,
claimed that due to the “seasonal lack of
fish caught and uncollected receivables,
the company suffered financial reverses. It
was thus constrained to temporarily cease
operations. They projected that the
company could resume operations before
the end of six months. It reported the
temporary shutdown to the DOLE,
National Capital Region and filed an
Establishment Termination Report.

ISSUE
Whether or not Navotas Shipyard is liable
for the payment of separation pay (YES)
HELD
Yes. Although Article 283 provides that in
cases of closures or cessation of
operations of establishment or
undertaking not due to serious business
losses or financial reverses, the company
is obliged to give sepration pay, and
considering that the company’s closure
was due to serious financial reverses, it
follows that is therefore not legally bound
to give the separated employees
separation pay.
Nonetheless, we note, however, that in
his meeting with the employees, including
the respondents, Villaflor told them that
he would be giving them separation pay
as a consequence of the company’s
closure. He should now honor his
undertaking to the respondents and grant
them separation par. Except for the
petitioners’ claim that “they gave the
separation pays of their employees,” they
failed to present proof of actual payment.
In this light, Villaflor’s grants of separation
pay to the respondents has still to be
fulfilled.
Labor Relations 112
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
North Davao Mining v. NLRC
FACTS: Later, the Philippine National Bank
(PNB) became part owner thereof as a
result of a conversion into equity of a
portion of loans obtained by North Davao
from said bank. On June 30, 1986, PNB
transferred all its loans to and equity in
North Davao in favor of the national
government which, by virtue of
Proclamation No. 50 dated December 8,
1986, later turned them over to petitioner
Asset Privatization Trust (APT).
As of December 31, 1990, the national
government held 81.8% of the common
stock and 100% of the preferred stock of
said company.
ISSUE: Whether or not they are entitled to
separation pay
HELD: NO. As already stated, Art. 283 of
the Labor Code does not obligate an
employer to pay separation benefits when
the closure is due to losses. In the case
before us, the basis for the claim of the
additional separation benefit of 17.5 days
is alleged discrimination, i.e.. unequal
treatment of employees, which is
proscribed as an unfair labor practice by
Art. 248 (e) of said Code.

Under the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the grant of a lesser amount
of separation pay to private respondent
was done, not by reason of discrimination,
but rather, out of sheer financial
bankruptcy — a fact that is not controlled
by management prerogatives.
Stated differently, the total cessation of
operation due to mind-boggling losses
was a supervening fact that prevented the
company from continuing to grant the
more generous amount of separation pay.
The fact that North Davao at the point of
its forced closure voluntarily paid any
separation benefits at all — although not
required by law — and 12.5-days’ worth
at that, should have elicited
administration instead of condemnation.
Virgilio Anabe v. Asia Konstruct
Facts: By notice dated September 8, 1999,
he was advised that his services would be,
as he was in fact, terminated effective
October 8, 1999 on the ground of
retrenchment. Petitioner thus filed on
February 10, 2000 a complaint for illegal
dismissal and illegal deduction and
payment of overtime pay, premium pay,
Labor Relations 113
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
holiday pay, service incentive leave pay,
and 13th month pay.
Petitioner maintains that he was illegally
dismissed as Asiakonstrukt failed to prove
that it was suffering business losses to
warrant a valid retrenchment of its
employees; and Asiakonstrukt belatedly
submitted financial statements were not
shown to be newly found evidence and
unavailable during the proceedings before
the Labor Arbiter to thus cast doubts as to
their veracity.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner was
illegally dismissed.
Held: Retrenchment is the termination of
employment initiated by the employer
through no fault of and without prejudice
to the employees, it is resorted to during
periods of business recession, industrial
depression, or seasonal fluctuations or
during lulls occasioned by lack of orders,
shortage of materials, conversion of the
plant for a new production program or the
introduction of new methods or more
efficient machinery or of automation. It is
a management prerogative resorted to, to
avoid or minimize business losses, and is
recognized by Article 283 of the Labor
Code.

Sebugero v. NLRC
Facts: Believing that their "temporary lay-
off" was a ploy to dismiss them, resorted
to because of their union activities and
was in violation of their right to security of
tenure since there was no valid ground
therefor, the 38 laid-off employees filed
with the Labor Arbiter's office in the
National Capital Region complaints for
illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice,
underpayment of wages under Wage
Orders Nos. 01 and 02, and non-payment
of overtime pay and 13th month pay.
Private respondent GTI denied the claim
of illegal dismissal and asserted that it was
its prerogative to lay-off its employees
temporarily for a period not exceeding six
months to prevent losses due to lack of
work or job orders from abroad, and that
the lay-off affected both union and non-
union members. It justified its failure to
recall the 38 laid-off employees after the
lapse of six months because of the
subsequent cancellations of job orders
made by its foreign principals, a fact which
was communicated to the petitioners and
the other complainants who were all
offered severance pay. Twenty-two (22) of
the 38 complainants accepted the
Labor Relations 114
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
separation pay. The petitioners herein did
not.
The NLRC concurred with the findings of
the Labor Arbiter that there was a valid
lay-off of the petitioners due to lack of
work, but disagreed with the latter's
ruling granting back wages after 22 July
1991.
Unable to accept the NLRC judgment, the
petitioners filed this special civil action for
certiorari.
They contend that the NLRC acted without
or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion when it: (a) ruled that
there was a valid and legal reduction of
business and in sustaining the theory of
redundancy in justifying the dismissal of
the petitioners;
Issue: Is there redundancy in this case?
Held: The petitioners' first contention is
based on a wrong premise or on a
miscomprehension of the statement of
the NLRC. What the NLRC sustained and
affirmed is not redundancy, but
retrenchment as a ground for termination
of employment. They are not synonymous
but distinct and separate grounds under

Article 283 of the Labor Code, as
amended.
Redundancy exists where the services of
an employee are in excess of what is
reasonably demanded by the actual
requirements of the enterprise. A position
is redundant where it is superfluous, and
superfluity of a position or positions may
be the outcome of a number of factors,
such as overhiring of workers, decreased
volume of business, or dropping of a
particular product line or service activity
previously manufactured or undertaken
by the enterprise.
Retrenchment, on the other hand, is used
interchangeably with the term "lay-off." It
is the termination of employment
initiated by the employer through no fault
of the employee's and without prejudice
to the latter, resorted to by management
during periods of business recession,
industrial depression, or seasonal
fluctuations, or during lulls occasioned by
lack of orders, shortage of materials,
conversion of the plant for a new
production program or the introduction of
new methods or more efficient
machinery, or of automation.11 Simply
put, it is an act of the employer of
Labor Relations 115
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
dismissing employees because of losses in
the operation of a business, lack of work,
and considerable reduction on the volume
of his business, a right consistently
recognized and affirmed by this Court.
Capitol Medical Center v. Meris
Closure
Facts: Until the closure of the ISU on April
30, 1992, Dr. Meris performed dual
functions of providing medical services to
Capitol’s more than 500 employees and
health workers as well as to employees
and workers of companies having retainer
contracts with it. On March 31, 1992, Dr.
Meris received from Capitol’s president
and chairman of the board, Dr. Thelma
Navarette-Clemente (Dr. Clemente), a
notice advising him of the management’s
decision to close or abolish the ISU and
the consequent termination of his services
as Chief thereof, effective April 30, 1992.
Please be formally advised that the
hospital management has decided to
abolish CMC’s Industrial Service Unit as of
April 30, 1992 in view of the almost
extinct demand for direct medical services
by the private and semi-government
corporations in providing health care for
 Labor Relations 116
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

their employees. Such a decision was Benson Industries Employees UNION v.

arrived at, after considering the existing Benson
trend of industrial companies allocating
their health care requirements to Health FACTS: Benson sent its employees,
Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) or including herein petitioners, a notice5
thru a tripartite arrangement with medical informing them of their intended
insurance carriers and designated termination from employment, to be
hospitals. effected on March 15, 2008 on the ground
of closure and/or cessation of business
Issue: whether the closure was valid operations. In consequence, petitioners
filed a notice of strike, claiming that the
Held: NO company’s supposed closure was merely a
The right to close the operation of an ploy to replace the union members with
establishment or undertaking is explicitly lower paid workers, and, as a result,
recognized under the Labor Code as one increase its profit at their expense.
of the authorized causes in terminating
employment of workers, the only Petitioners invoked Section 1, Article VIII
limitation being that the closure must not of the existing collective bargaining
be for the purpose of circumventing the agreement (CBA) executed by and
provisions on termination of employment between the Union and Benson which
embodied in the Labor Code. states that [Benson] shall pay to any
employee/laborer who is terminated from
ART. 283. Closure of establishment and the service without any fault attributable
reduction of personnel. to him, a Separation Pay equivalent to not
The records of the case, however, fail to less than nineteen (19) days pay for every
impress that there was indeed extinct year of service based upon the latest rate
demand for the medical services rendered of pay of the employee/laborer
by the ISU. The ISU’s Annual Report for concerned.
the fiscal years 1986 to 1991, submitted
by Dr. Meris to Dr. Clemente, and ISSUE: Whether the termination valid? YES
uncontroverted by Capitol.

HELD: Yes, closure of business may be
considered as a reversal of an employer’s
fortune whereby there is a complete
cessation of business operations and/or
an actual locking-up of the doors of the
establishment, usually due to financial
losses. Under the Labor Code, it is treated
as an authorized cause for termination,
aimed at preventing further financial drain
upon an employer who cannot anymore
pay its employees since business has
already stopped.
It is manifestly clear that petitioner was
very much aware of the imminence and
possibility of business losses owing to the
1997 financial crisis.
Romeo Villaruel v. Yeo Han Guan
FACTS: Petitioner alleged that in June
1963, he was employed as a machine
operator by Ribonette Manufacturing
Company, an enterprise engaged in the
business of manufacturing and selling PVC
pipes and is owned and managed by
herein respondent Yeo Han
Guan.Petitioner further alleged that in
October 1998, he got sick and was
confined in a hospital; In December 1998,
he reported for work but was no longer
Labor Relations 117
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
permitted to go back because of his
illness; he asked that respondent allow
him to continue working but be assigned a
lighter kind of work but his request was
denied; instead, he was offered a sum of
P15,000.00 as his separation pay;
however, the said amount corresponds
only to the period between 1993 and
1999; petitioner prayed that he be
granted separation pay computed from
his first day of employment in June 1963,
but respondent refused.
On the other hand, respondent averred
that petitioner was hired as machine
operator from March 1993 until he
stopped working sometime in February
1999 on the ground that he was suffering
from illness; after his recovery, petitioner
was directed to report for work, but he
never showed up. Respondent was later
caught by surprise when petitioner filed
the instant case for recovery of separation
pay.
ISSUE: is Villaruel entitled to separation
pay?
HELD: YES, but only financial assistance as
a measure of social justice
Article 284 of the Labor Code reads:

An employer may terminate the services
of an employee who has been found to be
suffering from any disease and whose
continued employment is prohibited by
law or is prejudicial to his health as well as
to the health of his co-employees:
Provided, That he is paid separation pay
equivalent to at least 1 month salary or to
½ month salary for every year of service
whichever is greater, a fraction of at least
six months being considered as 1 whole
year.
A plain reading of the abovequoted
provision clearly presupposes that it is the
employer who terminates the services of
the employee found to be suffering from
any disease and whose continued
employment is prohibited by law or is
prejudicial to his health as well as to the
health of his co-employees. It does not
contemplate a situation where it is the
employee who severs his or her
employment ties.
Resignation is defined as the voluntary act
of an employee who finds himself in a
situation where he believes that personal
reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of
the exigency of the service and he has no
Labor Relations 118
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
other choice but to disassociate himself
from his employment
Wuerth Philippines Inc. v. Ynson
Facts: Respondent suffered a stroke, and
on the succeeding days, he was confined
at the Davao Doctor's Hospital. He
immediately informed petitioner about his
ailment.
Respondent sent an e-mail7 to petitioner,
informing the latter that he can return to
work but in view of the recommendation
of doctors that he should continue with
his rehabilitation until July, he requested
that administrative work be given to him
while in Davao City, until completion of his
therapy.
Issue: W/N respondent may be
terminated due to his illness. Yes.
Held: We agree. With regard to disease as
a ground for termination, Article 284 of
the Labor Code provides that an employer
may terminate the services of an
employee who has been found to be
suffering from any disease and whose
continued employment is prohibited by

law or is prejudicial to his health, as well
as to the health of his co-employees.
Thus, as of June 4, 2003, respondent
would have been capable of returning to
work. However, despite notices sent by
the petitioner requiring respondent to
attend an investigation set on July 14,
2003. Despite the completion of his
treatment, respondent failed to attend
the investigations set on July 25, 2003 and
August 18, 2003. Thus, his unexplained
absence in the proceedings should be
construed as waiver of his right to be
present therein in order to adduce
evidence that would have justified his
continued absence from work.
First Gen. Marketing v. NLRC
FACTS: Paramount and FGMC were
merged to enable Uy to meet the rising
volume of purchase orders and export
demands. By agreement dated March 16,
1988 between Jose Uy and ANGLO
(Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor
Organizations), the workers of Paramount
were absorbed by FGMC. The private
respondents, who were regular cutters at
Paramount, were assigned as "temporary
trimmers" in FGMC's finishing section.
Labor Relations 119
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Later, Uy asked them to sign probationary
contracts with FGMC either as sewers or
cutters, to exclude them from the new
company's bargaining unit.
HELD: The petition has no merit. Jose Uy
signed the agreement as President and
General Manager of both Paramount
Gloves Phils. Inc. and FGMC. Therefore, he
is estopped from disclaiming any liability
under it. The probationary employment
contracts which the private respondents
were made to sign on May 23, 1988, a
week after the execution of the merger
agreement on March 16, 1988, violated
the terms of the merger agreement and
the employees' right to security of tenure.
Manlimos v. NLRC
Facts: A new owner/management group
headed by Alfredo Roxas acquired
complete ownership of the corporation.
The petitioners were advised of such
change of ownership; however, the
petitioners continued to work for the new
owner and were considered terminated,
with their conformity, when they received
their separation pay, 13th month pay, and
all other benefits due them computed as
of the said month. Each of them then

executed a Release and Waiver which
they acknowledged before Atty. Nolasco
Discipulo, Hearing Officer of the Butuan
City District Office of the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE).
The new owner caused the publication of
a notice for the hiring of workers,
indicating therein who of the separated
employees could be accepted on
probationary basis. The petitioners then
filed their applications for employment.
Except for Rosario Cuarto, they were hired
on probationary basis for six months as
patchers or tapers, but were compensated
on piece-rate or task basis.
Issue: Whether there was a closing or
cessation of business operations which
could have operated as a just cause for
the termination of employment.
Held:Yes. In the case at bar, there was
only a change of ownership of Super
Mahogany Plywood Corporation which
resulted in a change of ownership. In
short, the corporation itself, as a distinct
and separate juridical entity, continues to
exist.
The issue of whether there was a closing
or cessation of business operations which
Labor Relations 120
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
could have operated as a just cause for
the termination of employment was not
material. The change in ownership of the
management was done bona fide and the
petitioners did not for any moment before
the filing of their complaints raise any
doubt on the motive for the change. On
the contrary, upon being informed thereof
and of their eventual termination from
employment, they freely and voluntarily
accepted their separation pay and other
benefits and individually executed the
Release or Waiver which they
acknowledged before no less than a
hearing officer of the DOLE.
JRS Business v. NLRC
FACTS: In September 1988, Dela Cerna,
petitioner's Internal Auditor, conducted
an audit of its Davao office. The audit
revealed a shortage totalling P145,564.33
arising from undeposited cash sales and
unexplained cash shortages from charge
sales. On the basis that it was the
responsibility of petitioner to deposit the
proceeds of sales with the office cashier,
Munoz, petitioner's Treasurer, called
private respondent's attention to the cash
shortage. He was directed to explain in
writing within 72 hours from receipt of
 Labor Relations 121
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

the notice why he should not be relieved purchased by her husband from Hongkong
from his position. and Shanghai Banking Corporation.
Upon verification, it was uncovered that
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner the demand draft was deposited on 10
violated the maximum 30 day preventive June 1988 with FCDU Savings Account
suspension under the Labor Code? (S/A) No. 1083-4, an account under the
name of Sonia Alfiscar (Alfiscar). Further
HELD: Yes. Sections 3 and 4, Rule XIV, investigation revealed that the demand
Book V of the Omnibus Rules draft, together with four (4) other checks,
Implementing the Labor Code, was made to appear as only one deposit
Termination of Employment. Petitioner covered by HSBC Check No. 979120 for
having violated the maximum 30-day One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-two
preventive suspension under Section 4, Dollars (US$1,232.00).
Rule XIV, Book of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code, a sanction ISSUE: Whether or not a preventive
is imposed on him in consonance with our suspension is necessary
ruling in Great Pacific Life Assurance
Corporation v. National Labor Relations HELD: NO. Petitioners insist that
Commission, 187 SCRA 694 (1990). respondent bank never lost trust and
Petitioner must indemnify private confidence in them as it did not place
respondent in the amount of One them under preventive suspension, and
Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00). more tellingly, it even promoted them
after the labor arbiter had ordered their
Cadiz v. CA reinstatement.

FACTS: The anomalies in question arose Preventive suspension, which is never

when Rosalina B. Alqueza (Alqueza) filed a
complaint with PCIB for the alleged non-
receipt of a Six Hundred Dollar ($600.00)
demand draft drawn against it which was
obligatory on the part of the employer,
may be resorted to only when the
continued employment of the employee
poses "a serious and imminent threat to
the life or property of the employer or of

his co-workers." The bank points out that
the Alfiscar account, through which the
anomalous transactions were coursed,
was no longer active at the time the fraud
was discovered.
Clearly, the bank had reason to conclude
that the imminence of the threat posed by
the employees was not as vital as it would
have been had the dubious account still
been open.
McMer Corporation Inc. v. NLRC
Facts: According to private respondent,
for quite some time, he and petitioners,
specifically Macario D. Roque, Jr. (Roque)
and Cecilia R. Alvestir (Alvestir), McMer’s
General Manager and President,
respectively, have been on a cold war
brought often by the disagreement in the
design and implementation of company
policies and procedures.
However, the subsisting rift between him
and petitioners heightened on July 10,
2007 when petitioner McMer started
verbally and maliciously imputing against
Ms. Ginalita C. Guiao, Department Head
III, Logistics Department, and another
officer of the Logistics Department, Ms.
Marissa A. Rebulado, Department Head I,
Labor Relations 122
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
certain unfounded score of inefficient
performance of duty.
Issue: Whether or not private respondent
was constructively dismissed.
Held: Yes, constructive dismissal as a
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.
The test of constructive dismissal is
whether a reasonable person in the
employee’s position would have felt
compelled to give up his position under
the circumstances. It is an act amounting
to dismissal but made to appear as if it
were not. Constructive dismissal is,
therefore, a dismissal in disguise. As such,
the law recognizes and resolves this
situation in favor of employees in order to
protect their rights and interests from the
coercive acts of the employer. In fact, the
employee who is constructively dismissed
may be allowed to keep on coming to
work.

Bebina Salvaloza v. NLRC, Gulf Pacific
Agency et. al.
Facts: In his position paper,6 Gregorio
alleged that, in August 1996, he was
employed by Gulf Pacific as a security
guard, working from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m., Mondays to Sundays, receiving a
monthly salary of ₱4,000.00. He stated
that he was assigned to several
establishments, working continuously for
almost five (5) years until his alleged
termination in August 2001. According to
him, he reported daily to Gulf Pacific,
waiting for his new assignment, but he
was not given any because there was no
position available for him. His last visit to
Gulf Pacific’s office was in February 2002,
but still no assignment was given to him.
Issue: Is there constructive dismissal?
Held: Temporary "off-detail" or "floating
status" is the period of time when security
guards are in between assignments or
when they are made to wait after being
relieved from a previous post until they
are transferred to a new one. It takes
place when the security agency’s clients
decide not to renew their contracts with
the agency, resulting in a situation where
Labor Relations 123
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
the available posts under its existing
contracts are less than the number of
guards in its roster.
It also happens in instances where
contracts for security services stipulate
that the client may request the agency for
the replacement of the guards assigned to
it even for want of cause, such that the
replaced security guard may be placed on
temporary "off-detail" if there are no
available posts under the agency’s existing
contracts.
Nippon Housing Inc et. al. v. Maia Reyes
Facts: Having gained the Bay Gardens
Condominium Project (the Project) of the
Bay Gardens Condominium Corporation
(BGCC) as its first and only building
maintenance client, NHPI hired
respondent Maiah Angela Leynes (Leynes)
as Property Manager.
On 22 February 2002, Leynes was further
served by petitioner Yasuhiro Kawata and
Noboyushi Hisada, NHPIs Senior Manager
and Janitorial Manager,with a letter and
memorandum from Reyes, relieving her
from her position and directing her to

report to NHPIs main office while she was
on floating status.
Issue: Whether or not putting Leynes on
floating status is tantamount
constructive dismissal
Held: No, traditionally invoked by security
agencies when guards are temporarily
sidelined from duty while waiting to be
transferred or assigned to a new post or
client, Article 286 of the Labor Code has
been applied to other industries when, as
a consequence of the bona
suspension of the operation of a business
or undertaking, an employer
constrained to put employees on floating
status for a period not exceeding six
months.
In brushing aside respondents reliance on
said provision to justify the act of putting
Leynes on floating status, the CA ruled
that no evidence was adduced to show
that there was a bona fide suspension of
NHPIs business. What said court clearly
overlooked, however, is the fact that NHPI
had belatedly ventured into building
management and, with BGCC as its only
client in said undertaking, had no other
Labor Relations 124
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Property Manager position available to
Leynes.
Nasampit Lumber vs. NOWM
to
FACTS: These workers were members of
the respondent, the National Organization
of Workingmen (NOWM), which belonged
to the Western Agusan Workers Union
(WAWU-ALU-TUCP) which, in turn, was
the certified bargaining unit in the said
plant.
fide The petitioners aver that they suspended
their operations in January 1996 due to
is serious business reverses as evidenced by
their Statements of Income and Expenses
for the years 1994 and 1995 and that they
did not terminate the employment of the
individual respondents. The respondents
had resorted to a concerted action
resulting in the stoppage of
work/suspension of operations and later
on claimed that they were constructively
dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioners suspended
their operations on account of
considerable losses incurred in the years
1994 and 1995?

HELD: NO. Petitioners failed to prove with
convincing evidence a bona fide
suspension of their operations in 1994,
1995 and even in January 1996 due to
acute economic losses in their operations.
We find that, based on the records, the
petitioners merely downscaled their
operations in 1995, and did not suspend
the same because of economic difficulties.
The respondents continued to work at the
Nasipit Processing Plant although each of
them received a monthly pay of only
P600.00. The petitioners dismissed the
respondents when the latter refused to
report for work.
We agree with the NLRC and the CA that
the petitioners' claim of suspending
operations in 1994 and 1995 was merely
an afterthought to justify their dismissal
of the respondents. It must be stressed
that the petitioners obstinately refused to
heed and agree to the respondents' just
demands to pay their monetary benefits
and backlog wages amounting to
P1,800,000.00, which ultimately led to the
latter's dismissal from employment.
Mendoza v. NLRC
Labor Relations 125
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Facts: Petitioner was a regular employee
(salesman) of private respondent San
Miguel Corporation (SMC), Magnolia
Division, assigned to its Baguio Sales
Office.
On June 2, 1988, petitioner submitted to
private respondent Conrad B. Yumang III,
then Regional Sales Supervisor, an
accident report. In a memorandum dated
July 5, 1988, petitioner was relieved by
private respondent SMC of the duties and
responsibilities as tetra salesman of the
Baguio Sales Office.
On August 15, 1988, petitioner was served
a letter of termination.
Issue: Did the employer give due process
in the termination of the employee?
(Yes)
Held: During the investigation, it appears
that he knew all the time that the
investigation involves his administrative
responsibility to his superior. In no
uncertain terms he admitted the gravity of
his offense and asked that a heavy penalty
should be imposed on him. Due process
contemplates freedom from arbitrariness.
What it requires is fairness or justice; the
substance' rather than the form being

paramount. When a party has been given
the opportunity to be heard, then he was
afforded due process.
Villeno v. NLRC
Facts: The petitioner without seeking
permission left the vessel purportedly to
settle a marital problem. Before leaving
he disconnected the ship's steering line
cable so that the vessel could not leave
port without him. His explanation was
that he wanted to prevent pranksters
from toying around with the steering
wheel as what had happened in the past.
When he returned to the port he was
prevented by a representative
respondent corporation from boarding
the vessel. It turned out that the vessel
had hired another electrician to reconnect
the steering line cable. The consequence
of petitioner's actuation was that the
departure of the vessel was further
delayed.
Issue: W/N his dismissal was valid. Yes.
Held: The crux of the controversy now is
whether petitioner's act of disconnecting
the steering line cable and disembarking
from the vessel without permission
Labor Relations 126
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
constitute serious misconduct and willful
disobedience justifying his dismissal.
The misconduct must be related to the
performance of his duties and of such
grave character rendering him unfit to
continue working for the employer. As
regards willful disobedience, at least two
(2) requisites must concur: (1) the
employee's assailed conduct must have
been willful or intentional, the willfulness
being characterized by a "wrongful and
perverse attitude;" and, (2) the order
violated must have been reasonable,
lawful, made known to the employee and
must pertain to the duties which he had
been engaged to discharge.
of
Citibank NA v. Gatchalian
Facts: Petitioner bank received thirty-one
(31) applications from alleged APBCI
employees1 for the issuance of Citibank
credit cards, popularly known as
Mastercard. Petitioner bank's policy is for
new and unsigned credit cards to be
released only to the cardholders
concerned or their duly authorized
representatives. However, a Citibank
employee may himself take delivery of
new and unsigned credit cards after
accomplishing a Card Pull-Out Request

Form wherein the employee assumes the
responsibility of delivering the same to
the cardholder concerned.
Issue: Whether Llonillo was guilty of gross
negligence which warrants her dismissal
Held: Yes. Llonillo committed gross
negligence in the performance of her
duty. The law requires that an employee's
negligence, to be a valid ground for
dismissal, must be both gross and
habitual. Gross negligence implies a want
or absence of or failure to exercise slight
care or diligence, or the entire absence of
care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of
consequences without exerting any effort
to avoid them.
Reynaldo Moya v. First Solid Rubber
FACTS: Moya’s contentions- Through his
Reply, added that his termination fell
short of any of the just causes of serious
misconduct, gross and habitual neglect of
duties and willful breach of trust. He
pointed out that the company failed to
prove that his act fell within the purview
of improper or wrong misconduct, and
that a single act of negligence as
compared to eleven years of service of
Labor Relations 127
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
good record with the company will not
justify his dismissal.
Company’s contentions- Moya, who was
exercising supervision and control over
the employees as a department head,
failed to exercise the diligence required of
him to see to it that the machine
operator, Melandro Autor, properly
operated the machine. This act is
considered as a gross and habitual neglect
of duty which caused actual losses to the
company.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner
employee is entitled to separation pay
based on his length of service. (NO)
HELD: No. Petitioner is not entitled to
separation pay. Payment of separation
pay cannot be justified by his length of
service. It must be stressed that Moya was
not an ordinary rank-and-file employee.
He was holding a supervisory rank being
an Officer-in-Charge of the Tire Curing
Department. The position, naturally one
of trust, required of him abiding honesty
as compared to ordinary rank-and-file
employees. When he made a false report
attributing the damage of five tires to
machine failure, he breached the trust

and confidence reposed upon him by the
company.
Leonardo v NLRC
FACTS: Reynaldo’s denied the charge; it
was simply carrying out a policy designed
to encourage work efficiency and
competitiveness by giving out extra
allowances and choice assignments to
employees who meet the required quota.
Failure to maintain such quota simply
means loss of the assignment and extra
allowances.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was
constructively dismissed.
HELD: No. Constructive dismissal is an
involuntary resignation resorted to by an
employee when his continued
employment becomes impossible,
unreasonable, or unlikely or when there is
demotion in rank or diminution in pay, or
when a clear determination, insensibility
or disdain by the employer becomes
unbearable.
Private respondents’ justification is well-
illustrated in the record. He was unable to
meet his quota for five months in 1991,
Labor Relations 128
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
from July to November of that year.
Complainant Fuertes failure to meet his
sales quota which caused his demotion
and the subsequent withdrawal of his
allowance is fully supported by Exhibit "4"
showing that his performance for the
months of July 1991 to November 1991 is
below par.
Cathedral School of Technology v. NLRC
Facts: After sometime she decided not be
a nun instead she worked as library aide
for the said school. But due to
unfavorable behavior and attitude of the
private respondent, as according to
complaints received against her, her
attention was called but instead of
heeding the advice of her superior she
was arrogant to accept her fault.
Because of her unlikely behavior she was
given a 30-day notice of termination until
such time she was not allowed to enter
the school premises. Aggrieved, she filed
for illegal dismissal against petitioner
before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter as
affirmed by the NLRC ruled in her favor
assailing that the dismissal was illegal due
to lack of due process.

Issue: Whether or not lack of due process
is a valid ground for illegal dismissal?
Held: The Court held, the existence of an
employer-employee relationship is
essentially a factual question and the
respondent commission's findings thereon
are accorded great weight and respect
and even finality when the same are
supported by substantial evidence.
We find no reason to overrule the same.
An evaluative review of the records of this
case nonetheless supports a finding of a
just cause for termination. The reason for
which private respondent's services were
terminated, namely, her unreasonable
behavior and unpleasant deportment in
dealing with the people she closely works
with in the course of her employment, is
analogous to the other "just causes"
enumerated under the Labor Code, as
amended:
Heavylift Manila Inc. v. NLRC
Facts: Heavylift, a maritime agency, thru a
letter signed by petitioner Josephine
Evangelio, Administrative and Finance
Manager of Heavylift, informed
respondent Ma. Dottie Galay, Heavylift
Insurance and Provisions Assistant, of her
Labor Relations 129
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
low performance rating and the negative
feedback from her team members
regarding her work attitude. The letter
also notified her that she was being
relieved of her other functions except the
development of the new Access program.
Subsequently, on August 16, 1999, Galay
was terminated for alleged loss of
confidence. Thereafter, she filed with the
Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal
dismissal and nonpayment of service
incentive leave and 13th month pay
against petitioners.
Issue: Was there just cause in the
termination of Galay?
Held: An employee who cannot get along
with his co-employees is detrimental to
the company for he can upset and strain
the working environment. Without the
necessary teamwork and synergy, the
organization cannot function well. Thus,
management has the prerogative to take
the necessary action to correct the
situation and protect its organization.
When personal differences between
employees and management affect the
work environment, the peace of the
company is affected.
 Labor Relations 130
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

Thus, an employee’s attitude problem is a Held: yes, this Court, after a review of the
valid ground for his termination. It is a NLRC finding that respondent did not
situation analogous to loss of trust and commit serious misconduct, finds
confidence that must be duly proved by otherwise. While the labor arbiter did not
the employer. Similarly, compliance with explicitly rule that respondent committed
the twin requirement of notice and serious misconduct, his decision leads to
hearing must also be proven by the that conclusion, for the documentary
employer. evidence which it cites as basis to prove
her work inefficiency shows, upon close
Citibank NA v. NLRC examination, also her commission of
serious misconduct.
Facts: Sometime in the early part of 1993,
as a result of the reorganization, the bank These performance appraisals, however,
declared certain officers and employees, did not merely show that respondent was
or their positions/functions, redundant. not able to meet performance targets.
Among these affected was complainant More relevantly, they also consistently
Paragas. However, to accommodate the noted significant behavioral and
union officers’ request, complainant’s attitudinal problems in respondent.
employment was not terminated but was
assigned to Records Management Unit of Mendoza vs. HMS Credit
the Quality Assurance Division as bank
statement retriever, a filing clerk job FACTS: During her employment, she
described by complainant as "non-brainer simultaneously serviced three other
job." respondent companies. Respondent Luisa
was the Managing Director of HMS Credit,
Issue: whether or not the actuations of while respondent Felipe was the company
Paragas for which petitioner had officer to whom Mendoza directly
dismissed her are on the ground of reported. Respondents maintain that
Serious Misconduct? Mendoza was hired on the basis of her
qualification as a Certified Public
Accountant (CPA), which turned out to be

a misrepresentation. Not only did she fail
to disclose knowledge of the resignations
of two HMS Group officers, Labasan and
de la Cruz, and their subsequent transfer
to a competitor company, but she also
had a hand in pirating them. She allegedly
told them that if they had lost their trust
in her, it would be best for them to part
ways. Accordingly, they purportedly asked
her to propose an amount representing
her entitlement to separation benefits.
ISSUE: Whether Mendoza resigned
voluntarily?
HELD: Resignation — the formal
pronouncement or relinquishment of a
position or office — is the voluntary act of
an employee who is in a situation where
he believes that personal reasons cannot
be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of
the service, and he has then no other
choice but to disassociate himself from
employment.
The intent to relinquish must concur with
the overt act of relinquishment; hence,
the acts of the employee before and after
the alleged resignation must be
considered in determining whether he in
fact intended to terminate his
Labor Relations 131
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
employment. In illegal dismissal cases,
fundamental is the rule that when an
employer interposes the defense of
resignation, on him necessarily rests the
burden to prove that the employee
indeed voluntarily resigned.
Quevedo v. Benguet Electric Cooperative,
Inc.
Facts: Before 1999, BENECO started
automating its operations, rendering
superfluous functions performed by some
employees, including petitioners. Instead
of terminating petitioners’ employment
outright for redundancy and paying them
the statutory benefits, BENECO offered
petitioners the option to retire under a
newly created optional retirement
program (Early Voluntary Retirement
[EVR]) guaranteeing petitioners bigger
benefits.
After unsuccessfully requesting BENECO
to retain their services, petitioners
accepted BENECO’s offer, received
payments, and released BENECO from
further liability in individually executed
contracts. In September 2000, nearly four
months after leaving BENECO, petitioners
sued BENECO at the National Labor
 Labor Relations 132
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

Relations Commission (NLRC) Arbitration On May 16, 2001, Becton, Asia announced
Branch, Cordillera Administrative Region, the appointment of petitioner Wilfredo
Baguio City for illegal dismissal. Joaquin, a former Filipino citizen who later
acquired American citizenship, as the new
Issue: Is BENECO liable for illegal Country Manager of Becton, Phils.
dismissal?
Being a stranger to the company’s
Held: Retirement from service is operations, as well as to the customers of
contractual (i.e.based on the bilateral Becton, Phils., Joaquin sought
agreement of the employer and respondent’s assistance to address serious
employee), while termination of problems of the company, and to orient
employment is statutory (i.e. governed by him in the mechanics of the company’s
the Labor Code and other related laws as sales and marketing efforts in the
to its grounds, benefits and procedure). Philippines.
The benefits resulting from termination
vary, depending on the cause. For Issue: W/N the termination is valid. No.
retirement, Article 287 of the Labor Code
gives leeway to the parties to stipulate Held: The record supports the finding that
above a floor of benefits. the Company and Joaquin disregarded
Petitioners’ Retirement from Service was totally the Company’s guidelines in
Voluntary declaring [respondent’s] position
redundant. There is no clear proof that
Becton Dickinson Phils v. NLRC [respondent’s] services are in excess of
the Company’s reasonable demands and
Facts: The "Self-Managed Team" was requirements; and that there is no other
composed of seven (7) members alternative available to the Company
consisting of four (4) Filipinos and three except to dismiss.
(3) foreigners. Respondent was named
one of the four (4) Filipino members of Lourdes Domingo v. Rogelio Rayala
the said team.
 Labor Relations 133
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

FACTS: Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo regardless of whether the demand,

(Domingo), then Stenographic Reporter III request or requirement for submission is
at the NLRC, filed a Complaint for sexual accepted by the object of said Act. (a) In a
harassment against Rayala, the chairman work-related or employment
of NLRC. She alleged that Rayala called her environment, sexual harassment is
in his office and touched her shoulder, committed when: (1) The sexual favor is
part of her neck then tickled her ears. made as a condition in the hiring or in the
Rayala argued that his acts does not employment, re-employment or
constitute sexual harassment because for continued employment of said individual,
it to exist, there must be a demand, or in granting said individual favorable
request or requirement of sexual favor. compensation, terms, conditions,
promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to
ISSUE: Whether or not Rayala commit grant the sexual favor results in limiting,
sexual harassment. segregating or classifying the employee
which in a way would discriminate,
HELD: Yes. The law penalizing sexual deprive or diminish employment
harassment in our jurisdiction is RA 7877. opportunities or otherwise adversely
Section 3 thereof defines work-related affect said employee; (2) The above acts
sexual harassment in this wise: Sec. 3. would impair the employee’s rights or
Work, Education or Training-related privileges under existing labor laws; (3)
Sexual Harassment Defined. – Work, The above acts would result in an
education or training-related sexual intimidating, hostile, or offensive
harassment is committed by an employer, environment for the employee.
manager, supervisor, agent of the
employer, teacher, instructor, professor,
coach, trainor, or any other person who, Cheryll Santos Leus v. St. Scholastica’s
having authority, influence or moral College
ascendancy over another in a work or Facts: Cheryll Santos Leus (petitioner) was
training or education environment, hired by St. Scholastica's College
demands, requests or otherwise requires Westgrove (SSCW), a Catholic educational
any sexual favor from the other, institution, as a non-teaching personnel,

engaged in pre-marital sexual relations,
got pregnant out of wedlock, married the
father of her child, and was dismissed by
SSCW.
Issue: Whether Santos’ conduct
constitutes a ground for dismissal.
Held: The determination of whether a
conduct is disgraceful or immoral involves
a two-step process: first, a consideration
of the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the conduct; and second, an
assessment of the said circumstances vis-
à-visthe prevailing norms of conduct, i.e.,
what the society generally considers
moral and respectable.
That the petitioner was employed by a
Catholic educational institution per se
does not absolutely determine whether
her pregnancy out of wedlock is
disgraceful or immoral. There is still a
necessity to determine whether the
petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock is
considered disgraceful or immoral in
accordance with the prevailing norms of
conduct.
Labor Relations 134
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Cadiz v. Brent Hospital and Colleges
Facts: The cause of suspension was Cadiz's
Unprofessionalism and Unethical Behavior
Resulting to Unwed Pregnancy.
It appears that Cadiz became pregnant
out of wedlock, and Brent imposed the
suspension until such time that she
marries her boyfriend in accordance with
law.
Cadiz then filed with the Labor Arbiter
(LA) a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice,
Constructive Dismissal, Non-Payment of
Wages and Damages with prayer for
Reinstatement
Issues: Is the pregnancy a ground for
termination? NO.
Held: Jurisprudence has already set the
standard of morality with which an act
should be gauged - it is public and secular,
not religious. Whether a conduct is
considered disgraceful or immoral should
be made in accordance with the prevailing
norms of conduct, which, as stated in
Leus, refer to those conducts which are
proscribed because they are detrimental
to conditions upon which depend the
existence and progress of human society.
 Labor Relations 135
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

The fact that a particular act does not
conform to the traditional moral views of
a certain sectarian institution is not
sufficient reason to qualify such act as
immoral unless it, likewise, does not
conform to public and secular standards.
More importantly, there must
substantial evidence to establish that
premarital sexual relations and pregnancy
out of wedlock is considered disgraceful
or immoral.
CTA. She again requested Ruby to
accompany her.
Forthwith, respondent approached Ruby,
asked her what she was looking for and
stepped out of the office. When he
be returned, Ruby said she found what she
was looking for and left. Respondent then
approached complainant saying, me gusto
akong gawin sa iyo kahapon pa.
Thereupon, he tried to grab her.

Atty. Susan Aquino v. Hon. Ernesto Issue: was there sexual harassment?
Acosta
Held: No. Administrative complaints
Facts: In her affidavit-complaint, against members of the judiciary are
complainant alleged several instances viewed by this Court with utmost care, for
when respondent judge sexually harassed proceedings of this nature affect not only
her. the reputation of the respondents
In the morning of February 14, 2001, concerned, but the integrity of the entire
respondent called complainant, judiciary as well.
requesting her to go to his office. She then
asked Ruby Lanuza, a clerk in the Records We have reviewed carefully the records of
Section, to accompany her.Fortunately, this case and found no convincing
when they reached his chambers, evidence to sustain complainants charges.
respondent had left. What we perceive to have been
committed by respondent judge are
The last incident happened the next day. casual gestures of friendship and
At around 8:30 a.m., respondent called camaraderie, nothing more, nothing less.
complainant and asked her to see him in In kissing complainant, we find no
his office to discuss the Senate bill on the indication that respondent was motivated

by malice or lewd design. Evidently, she
misunderstood his actuations and
construed them as work-related sexual
harassment under R.A. 7877.
As aptly stated by the Investigating
Justice:
"A mere casual buss on the cheek is not a
sexual conduct or favor and does not fall
within the purview of sexual harassment
under R.A. No. 7877.
Toledo vs. Atty. Toledo
FACTS: Complainants accused respondent
of immorality. They allege that they have
personal knowledge of the fact that
respondent is living with his common-law
wife, Normita, whom he allegedly treats
as a "maid servant." They further allege
that during the hearings of their cases,
respondent was seen with a woman, not
Normita, who was always at his side, and
they were very sweet to each other. They
also attribute his unruly and bullying
behavior to his being a drunkard with a
fondness for the "night life."
ISSUE: Whether petitioner Toledo is liable
for gross immoral conduct?
Labor Relations 136
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
HELD: No, this Court has previously
defined immoral conduct as "that conduct
which is willful, flagrant, or shameless,
and which shows a moral indifference to
the opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community. In
disbarment cases, this Court has ruled
that the mere fact of sexual relations
between two unmarried adults is not
sufficient to warrant administrative
sanction for such illicit behavior. Whether
a lawyer’s sexual congress with a woman
not his wife or without the benefit of
marriage should be characterized as
"grossly immoral conduct" will depend on
the surrounding circumstances.
Inguillo v. First Phil Scales
Facts: The first Union filed a petition with
First Phil. seeking the termination of the
services of certain employees including
Inguillo. Inguillo filed a complaint against
First Phil. for illegal withholding of salary
and for damages with the NLRC. First Phil.
terminated the services of the employees.
Thus, a complaint for illegal dismissal was
filed against them.

Issue: Whether the termination instigated
by the Union on the account of union
security clause legal?
Held: Under the Labor Code, there are
several provisions under which an
employee may be validly terminated, i.e.:
1. just causes under Art. 282
2. authorized causes under Art. 283
3. termination due to disease under Art.
284
4. termination by the employee or
resignation Art. 285
While these causes did not mention as a
ground for termination the enforcement
of the Union Security Clause (USC) in the
CBA, the dismissal from employment
based on the same is recognized and
accepted in our jurisdiction.
Pido v. NLRC
Facts: Federito B. Pido was a guard
observing the elevators in Ayala Museum.
Alcantara filed a complaint for Gross
Misconduct, claiming that when he
directed petitioner to present his security
license, petitioner angrily and on top of
his voice questioned his authority. And
Alcantara recommended that petitioner
Labor Relations 137
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
be relieved from his post, and that
immediate disciplinary action against him
be taken.
Respondent ccnducted an investigation.
Petitioner was later to claim that he was
suspended by respondent following his
argument with Alcantara.
Issue: W/N there was constructive
dismissal.
Held: This Court finds that, indeed,
petitioner was constructively dismissed.
Verily, a floating status requires the dire
exigency of the employer's bona fide
suspension of operation of a business or
undertaking. In security services, this
happens when the security agency’s
clients which do not renew their contracts
are more than those that do and the new
ones that the agency gets.
Also, in instances when contracts for
security services stipulate that the client
may request the agency for the
replacement of the guards assigned to it
even for want of cause, the replaced
security guard may be placed on
temporary "off-detail" if there are no

available posts under respondent’s
existing contracts.
King of Kings Transport v. Mamac
FACTS: He was one of the few people who
established Damayan ng mga
Manggagawa, Tsuper at Conductor-
Transport Workers Union. Pending the
union’s certification election, respondent
was transferred to KKTI.
The KKTI employees later organized the
Kaisahan ng mga Kawani sa King of Kings
(KKKK) which was registered with DOLE.
Respondent was elected KKKK president.
Upon audit of the October 28, 2001
Conductor’s Report of respondent, KKTI
noted an irregularity. It discovered that
respondent declared several sold tickets
as returned tickets causing KKTI to lose an
income of eight hundred and ninety
pesos. While no irregularity report was
prepared on the October 28, 2001
incident, KKTI nevertheless asked
respondent to explain the discrepancy. In
his letter, respondent said that the
erroneous declaration in his October 28,
2001 Trip Report was unintentional.
Labor Relations 138
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent was
given due process in his termination.
HELD: There was failure to observe the
requirements of due process.
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.
The first written notice to be served on
the employees should contain the specific
causes or grounds for termination against
them, and a directive that the employees
are given the opportunity to submit their
written explanation within a reasonable
period. “Reasonable opportunity” under
the Omnibus Rules means every kind of
assistance that management must accord
to the employees to enable them to
prepare adequately for their defense.
Magro Placement v. Hernandez
FACTS: Hernandez was hired as Auto
Electrician of (Al Yamama) in Jeddah,
K.S.A. for a two-year contract thus, he
resigned from Toyota. Because of lack of

equipment or tools, the work became
harder.
After 10 days, his employer took his
passport and brought him to Orbit. His
employer told the agency that Hernandez
did not know his job as electrician.
Hernandez explained that since he used to
repair Japanese cars only, he needed time
to adjust to American cars. Respondent
further stated that he was willing to
continue his job. When respondent was
subjected to a trade test using an
American car, he failed.
ISSUE: WON Hernandez was accorded
procedural due process before his
separation from work.
HELD: NO. In dismissing an employee, the
employer has the burden of proving that
the dismissed worker has been served two
notices: (1) the first to inform the
employee of the particular acts or
omissions for which the employer seeks
his dismissal; and (2) the second to inform
the employee of his employer’s decision
to terminate him. The first notice must
state that the employer seeks dismissal
for the act or omission charged against
Labor Relations 139
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
the employee, otherwise, the notice does
not comply with the rules.
Al Yamama failed to satisfy the two-notice
requirement. Without prior notice or
explanation, Al Yamama took
respondent's passport and simply brought
him to petitioner's foreign principal, Orbit,
and told the latter that respondent did
not know his job as electrician.
Respondent heard his employer's
complaint against him at that instance
only.
Genuino v. NLRC
Facts: Genuino was employed by Citibank
sometime in January 1992 as Treasury
Sales Division Head with the rank of
Assistant Vice-President. In the same
letter, Genuino was informed she was
under preventive suspension. Genuino’s
counsel replied through a letter dated
September 17, 1993, demanding for a bill
of particulars regarding the charges
against Genuino. Genuino’s employment
was terminated by Citibank on grounds of
(1) serious misconduct, (2) willful breach
of the trust reposed upon her by the bank,
and (3) commission of a crime against the
bank

Issue: Whether the dismissal is for a just
cause and with the observance of due
process.
Held: Genuino was dismissed for just
cause but without the observance of due
process. The Labor Arbiter found that
Citibank failed to adequately notify
Genuino of the charges against her. On
the contrary, the NLRC held that “the
function of a ‘notice to explain’ is only to
state the basic facts of the employer’s
charges
Unilever v. Ma. Ruby Rivera
FACTS She was primarily tasked with
managing the sales, distribution and
promotional activities in her area and
supervising Ventureslink, a third party
service provider for the company’s
activation projects. Sometime in 2007,
Unilever’s internal auditor conducted a
random audit and found out that there
were fictitious billings and fabricated
receipts supposedly from Ventureslink
and that the fund deviations were upon
the instruction of Rivera. Unilever issued a
show-cause notice to Rivera asking her to
explain the following charges, to wit: a)
Conversion and Misappropriation of
Labor Relations 140
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Resources; b) Breach of Fiduciary Trust; c)
Policy Breaches; and d) Integrity Issues.
ISSUES: Whether or not there was a
violation of procedural due process in
cases of termination of employment
based on just causes (YES)
HELD: Yes. In this case, Unilever was not
direct and specific in its first notice to
Rivera. The words it used were couched in
general terms and were in no way
informative of the charges against her
that may result in her dismissal from
employment. Evidently, there was a
violation of her right to statutory due
process warranting the payment of
indemnity in the form of nominal
damages. Hence, the Court finds no
compelling reason to reverse the award of
nominal damages in her favor. As a
general rule, an employee who has been
dismissed for any of the just causes
enumerated under Article 28215of the
Labor Code is not entitled to a separation
pay.16 Section 7, Rule I, Book VI of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
Code provides:
 Labor Relations 141
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

Dolores Esguerra v. Valle Verde Country due process notice and hearing must,
Club likewise, be observed. Without the
concurrence of the two, the termination
FACTS: Esguerra was tasked to oversee would be illegal.
the seminar. The Valle Verde
Management found out the following day Wenphil v. NLRC
that only the proceeds from the Tanay
Room had been remitted to the Facts: He thereafter became the assistant
accounting department. There were also head of the Backroom department of the
unauthorized charges of food. To resolve same branch. Mallare had an altercation
the issue, Valle Verde conducted an with a co-employee, Job Barrameda, as a
investigation. Valle Verde sent a result of which he and Barrameda were
memorandum to Esguerra requiring her to suspended and subsequently Mallare was
show cause as to why no disciplinary advised of his dismissal from the service in
action should be taken against her for the accordance with their Personnel Manual.
non-remittance. The notice of dismissal was served on
private respondent on May 25, 1985.
ISSUE: Whether Esguerra was illegally
dismissed? Thus private respondent filed a complaint
against petitioner for unfair labor practice,
HELD: No, the Court fail to find any illegal suspension and illegal dismissal.
irregularities in the service of notice to After submitting their respective position
Esguerra. Esguerras allegation that the papers to the Labor Arbiter and as the
notice was insufficient since it failed to hearing could not be conducted due to
contain any intention to terminate her is repeated absence of counsel for
incorrect. Under the Labor Code, the respondent, the case was submitted for
requirements for the lawful dismissal of resolution. Thereafter a decision was
an employee are two-fold: the substantive rendered by the Labor Arbiter on
and the procedural aspects. Not only must December 3, 1986 dismissing the
the dismissal be for a just or authorized complaint for lack of merit.
cause, the rudimentary requirements of

Issue: Whether or not an employee
dismissed for just cause but without due
process be reinstated to work.
Held: No. The failure of petitioner to give
private respondent the benefit of a
hearing before he was dismissed
constitutes an infringement of his
constitutional right to due process of law
and equal protection of the laws. The
standards of due process in judicial as well
as administrative proceedings have long
been established. In its bare minimum due
process of law simply means giving notice
and opportunity to be heard before
judgment is rendered.
The claim of petitioner that a formal
investigation was not necessary because
the incident which gave rise to the
termination of private respondent was
witnessed by his co- employees and
supervisors is without merit. The basic
requirement of due process is that which
hears before it condemns, which proceeds
upon inquiry and renders judgment only
after trial.
Serrano v. NLRC
FACTS: As a cost-cutting measure, private
respondent decided to phase out its
Labor Relations 142
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
security section engage the services of an
independent security agency.
Petitioner was then terminated prompting
him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.
NLRC ordered petitioner to be given
separation pay holding that the phase-out
of the security section was a legitimate
business decision.
However, respondent was denied the
right to be given written notice before
termination of his employment.
ISSUE:
What is the effect of violation of the
notice requirement when termination is
based on an authorized cause?
HELD: The Wenphil doctrine stated that it
was unjust to require an employer to
reinstate an employee if, although
termination is made with cause, if due
process was not satisfied. The remedy was
to order the payment to the employees of
full backwages from the time of his
dismissal until the court finds that the
dismissal was for a just cause. But his
dismissal must be upheld and he should
not be reinstated. This is because the
dismissal is ineffectual. In termination of
employment under Art. 283, the violation
of notice requirements is not a denial of
 Labor Relations 143
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

due process as the purpose is not to employee the opportunity to be heard

afford the employee an opportunity to be and to defend himself. Article 282 of the
heard on any charge against him for there Labor Code enumerates the just causes
is none. The purpose is to give him time to for termination by the employer.
prepare for the eventual loss of his job
and the DOLE to determine whether Abandonment is the deliberate and
economic causes do exist justifying the unjustified refusal of an employee to
termination of his employment. resume his employment. It is a form of
neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for
Agabon v. NLRC termination of employment by the
employer. For a valid finding of
Facts: Petitioners then filed a complaint abandonment, these two factors should
for illegal dismissal and payment of be present: (1) the failure to report for
money claims and on December 28, 1999, work or absence without valid or
the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention
declaring the dismissals illegal and to sever employer-employee relationship,
ordered private respondent to pay the with the second as the more
monetary claims. determinative factor which is manifested
by overt acts from which it may be
Issue: whether petitioners were illegally deduced that the employees has no more
dismissed intention to work. The intent to
discontinue the employment must be
Held: No. Accordingly, the Court of shown by clear proof that it was
Appeals, after a careful review of the deliberate and unjustified.
facts, ruled that petitioners dismissal was
for a just cause. They had abandoned Perez v. Philippine Telegraph and
their employment and were already Telephone Company
working for another employer. To dismiss FACTS: Acting on an alleged unsigned
an employee, the law requires not only letter regarding anomalous transactions at
the existence of a just and valid cause but the Shipping Section, respondents formed
also enjoins the employer to give the

a special audit team to investigate the
matter.
It was discovered that the Shipping
Section jacked up the value of the freight
costs for goods shipped and that the
duplicates of the shipping documents
allegedly showed traces of tampering,
alteration and superimposition.
Petitioners were placed on preventive
suspension for 30 days for their alleged
involvement in the anomaly. Thereafter, a
memorandum was issued by respondents,
dismissed petitioners from service for
having falsified company documents.
ISSUE: Whether petitioners were illegally
dismissed? YES
HELD: YES. The burden of proof rests on
the employer to establish that the
dismissal is for cause in view of the
security of tenure that employees enjoy
under the Constitution and the Labor
Code. The employer’s evidence must
clearly and convincingly show the facts on
which the loss of confidence in the
employee may be fairly made to rest. It
must be adequately proven by substantial
evidence. Respondents failed to discharge
this burden.
Labor Relations 144
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Respondent’s illegal act of dismissing
petitioners was aggravated by their failure
to observe due process.
To meet the requirements of due process
in the dismissal of an employee, an
employer must furnish the worker with
two written notices: (1) a written notice
specifying the grounds for termination
and giving to said employee a reasonable
opportunity to explain his side and (2)
another written notice indicating that,
upon due consideration of all
circumstances, grounds have been
established to justify the employer's
decision to dismiss the employee.
Bernardo v. NLRC
Facts: Petitioners maintain that they
should be considered regular employees,
because their task as money sorters and
counters was necessary and desirable to
the business of respondent bank. They
further allege that their contracts served
merely to preclude the application of
Article 280 and to bar them from
becoming regular employees.
Private respondent, on the other hand,
submits that petitioners were hired only
as “special workers and should not in any

way be considered as part of the regular
complement of the Bank.” Rather, they
were “special” workers under Article 80 of
the Labor Code.
Issue: Whether or not the dismissal was
illegal
Held: Yes. The dismissal of the 27 regular
employees were illegal. The other sixteen
were validly dismissed. As held by the
Court, Articles 280 and 281 of the Labor
Code put an end to the pernicious practice
of making permanent casuals of our lowly
employees by the simple expedient of
extending to them probationary
appointments, ad infinitum. The contract
signed by petitioners is akin to a
probationary employment, during which
the bank determined the employees
fitness for the job. When the bank
renewed the contract after the lapse of
the six-month probationary period, the
employees thereby became regular
employees.
Lopez v. Alturas Group
Facts: Ten years later or sometime in
November 2007, he was dismissed after
he was allegedly caught by respondent’s
security guard in the act of attempting to
Labor Relations 145
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
smuggle out of the company premises 60
kilos of scrap iron worth ₱840 aboard
respondents’ Isuzu Cargo Aluminum Van
with Plate Number PHP 271 that was then
assigned to him. When questioned,
petitioner allegedly admitted to the
security guard that he was taking out the
scrap iron consisting of lift springs out of
which he would make axes.
Petitioner thereupon filed a complaint
against respondent company for illegal
dismissal and underpayment of wages. By
Decision of June 30, 2008, the Labor
Arbiter, holding that the pendency of the
criminal case involving the scrap iron did
not warrant the suspension of the
proceedings before him, held that
petitioner’s dismissal was justified, for he,
a truck driver, held a position of trust and
confidence, and his act of stealing
company property was a violation of the
trust reposed upon him.
Issue: Whether or not ALTURAS violated
QUIRICO’s right to due process when
QUIRICO did not exercise the right to
counsel.
Held: No. The right to counsel is not
mandatory or indispensable as part of due
 Labor Relations 146
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

process. The Court finds that it was error worked as a team, delivering packages to
for the NLRC to opine that petitioner their respective addresses or consignees.
should have been afforded counsel or Petitioners denied any involvement
advised of the right to counsel. The right therein. petitioners were given notices by
to counsel and the assistance of one in management, placing them under
investigations involving termination cases preventive suspension.
is neither indispensable nor mandatory,
except when the employee himself Issue: Whether who has the burden of
requests for one or that he manifests that proving due process and just cause for
he wants a formal hearing on the charges termination?
against him.
Held: No evidence was presented to show
In petitioner’s case, there is no showing that AFCI was motivated by any ill feeling
that he requested for a formal hearing to or bad faith in dismissing petitioners.
be conducted or that he be assisted by AFCI’s decision to terminate petitioners'
counsel. Verily, since he was furnished a services was prompted by the necessity to
second notice informing him of his protect its good name and interests.
dismissal and the grounds therefor, the
twin-notice requirement had been AFCI’s documentary evidence showing the
complied with to call for a deletion of the culpability of petitioners should prevail
appellate court’s award of nominal over petitioners' uncorroborated
damages to petitioner. explanations and self-serving denials
regarding their involvement in the
Segismundo v. NLRC pilferages.

Facts: Roberto Segismundo and Rogelio All administrative determinations require

Montalvo were regular employees only substantial proof and not clear and
Associated Freight Consolidators, Inc., convincing evidence. Proof beyond
(AFCI) Segismundo was a driver and reasonable doubt of the employee's
Montalvo was a loader/helper. They misconduct is not required, it being
sufficient that there is some basis for the

same or that the employer has reasonable
ground to believe that the employee is
responsible for the misconduct, and his
participation therein renders him
unworthy of the trust and confidence
demanded by his position.
Domasig v. NLRC
Facts: Petitioner started working with the
respondent as Salesman. Three (3) years
ago, because of a complaint against
respondent by its workers, its changed its
name to Cata Garments Corporation. He
was dismissed when respondent learned
that he was being pirated by a rival
corporation which offer he refused.
Respondent denied complainant's claim
that he is a regular employee contending
that he is a mere commission agent. In
support of its claim that complainant is a
commission agent, respondent submitted
the List of Sales Collections, Computation
of Commission due, expenses incurred,
cash advances received.
Issue: W/N he was validly terminated. No.
Labor Relations 147
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Held: In a business establishment, an
identification card is usually provided not
only as a security measure but mainly to
identify the holder thereof as a bona fide
employee of the firm that issues it.
Together with the cash vouchers covering
petitioner's salaries for the months stated
therein, we agree with the labor arbiter
that these matters constitute substantial
evidence adequate to support a
conclusion that petitioner was indeed an
employee of private respondent.
In the case at bar, we do not believe that
the labor arbiter acted arbitrarily.
Contrary to the finding of the NLRC, her
decision at least on the existence of an
employer-employee relationship between
private respondents and petitioner, is
supported by substantial evidence on
record.
Medenilla v. Phil Veterans Bank
FACTS: Philippine Veterans Bank was
liquidated under the auspecies of the
Monetary Board. As a result, petitioners
were terminated but immediately rehired.
The liquidator also had the right to
terminate the employee any time, if the

latter was found to be incompetent,
unqualified, etc. Subsequently, the
petitioners were dismissed. The reason
given for the dismissal was to reduce costs
inherent to the liquidation process. The
petitioners then filed an illegal dismissal
case.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was an illegal
dismissal.
HELD: In cases of illegal dismissal, the
burden is on the employer to prove that
there was a valid ground for dismissal.
Mere allegation of reduction of costs
without any proof to substantiate the
same cannot be given credence by the
Court. As the respondents failed to rebut
petitioners evidence, the irresistible
conclusion is that the dismissal in question
was illegal.
Thus the failure of respondent bank to
dispute complainants evidence pertinent
to the various unnecessary and highly
questionable expenses incurred renders
the termination process as a mere
subterfuge, as the same was not on the
basis as it purports to see, for reason that
immediately after the termination from
their respective positions, the same were
Labor Relations 148
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
given to other employees who appear not
qualified.
What respondents counsel did was merely
to dispute by pleadings the jurisdiction of
this Office and the claims for damages,
which evidentiary matters respondent is
required to prove to sustain the validity of
such dismissals.
De Guzman v. NLRC
FACTS: As reason for the applications,
petitioner alleged that he was
experiencing chronic pain from the
gunshot wounds he sustained in January
1984 when he tried to defend the
earnings of the company from "brigands."
According to petitioner, this incident
resulted in life-threatening injuries. His leg
shrunk by at least two (2) inches and three
(3) feet of his intestines had to be
removed. A bullet was still imbedded in
his leg which allegedly still gave him
chronic pain.
In a notice, the company’s Operations
Manager, informed De Guzman that he
was being placed under preventive
suspension for his absence without an

approved leave of absence. Later he
received a memorandum, stating that
ISSUE: WON the Bus company sufficiently
discharged the Burden of Proof (NO)
HELD: In the case at bar, the Bus Company
contend that petitioner was validly
dismissed for abandonment of work.
To constitute abandonment, two
elements must concur: (1) the failure to
report for work or absence without valid
or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear
intention to sever the employer-employee
relationship, with the second element as
the more determinative factor and being
manifested by some overt acts. Mere
absence is not sufficient.
The burden of proof is on the employer to
show an unequivocal intent on the part of
the employee to discontinue employment.
Philippine Airlines v. NLRC
Facts: Philippine Airlines hired respondent
Raul Diamante as Integrated Ticket
Representative for Bacolod City station.
Edgardo Pineda, and 3 others went to
Bacolod Airport to have their tickets
booked for their flight to Manila.
Labor Relations 149
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Issue: Whether National Labor Relations
Commission committed a grave error in
ruling that private respondent was not
accorded his full constitutional right to
due process of law.
Held: No, the dismissal was valid.
The respondent was found to have
violated the Company Code of Discipline.
We recognize the right of an employer to
regulate all aspects of employment.
This right, aptly called management
prerogative, gives employers the freedom
to regulate, according to their discretion
and best judgment, all aspects of
employment, including work assignment,
working methods, processes to be
followed, working regulations, transfer of
employees, work supervision, lay-off of
workers and the discipline, dismissal and
recall of workers.
In general, management has the
prerogative to discipline its employees
and to impose appropriate penalties on
erring workers pursuant to company rules
and regulations.

Unilever v. Ruby Rivera
FACTS: Unilever is a company engaged in
the production, manufacture, sale, and
distribution of various food, home and
personal care products, while Rivera was
employed as its Area Activation Executive
for Area 9 South in the cities of Cotabato
and Davao. She was primarily tasked with
managing the sales, distribution and
promotional activities in her area and
supervising Ventureslink, a third party
service provider for the company’s
activation projects.
ISSUES: Whether or not there was a
violation of procedural due process in
cases of termination of employment
based on just causes?
HELD: Yes. In this case, Unilever was not
direct and specific in its first notice to
Rivera. The words it used were couched in
general terms and were in no way
informative of the charges against her
that may result in her dismissal from
employment. Evidently, there was a
violation of her right to statutory due
process warranting the payment of
indemnity in the form of nominal
damages. Hence, the Court finds no
Labor Relations 150
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
compelling reason to reverse the award of
nominal damages in her favor. The Court,
however, deems it proper to increase the
award of nominal damages from
₱20,000.00 to ₱30,000.00, as initially
awarded by the NLRC, in accordance with
existing jurisprudence.
Dario Nacar v. Gallery Frames et. al.
Facts: Gallery Frames appealed all the way
to the Supreme Court (SC). The Supreme
Court affirmed the decision of the Labor
Arbiter and the decision became final on
May 27, 2002. The LA denied the motion
as he ruled that the reckoning point of the
computation should only be from the time
Nacar was illegally dismissed (January 24,
1997) until the decision of the LA (October
15, 1998). The LA reasoned that the said
date should be the reckoning point
because Nacar did not appeal hence as to
him, that decision became final and
executory.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Labor Arbiter is
correct?
Held: No. A recomputation (or an original
computation, if no previous computation
has been made) is a part of the law –

specifically, Article 279 of the Labor Code
and the established jurisprudence on this
provision – that is read into the decision.
By the nature of an illegal dismissal case,
the reliefs continue to add up until full
satisfaction, as expressed under Article
279 of the Labor Code.
The recomputation of the consequences
of illegal dismissal upon execution of the
decision does not constitute an alteration
or amendment of the final decision being
implemented. The illegal dismissal ruling
stands; only the computation of monetary
consequences of this dismissal is affected,
and this is not a violation of the principle
of immutability of final judgments.
Banares v. Tabaco Women Transport
Services
Facts: The LA rendered a Decision finding
for petitioner. Since TAWTRASCO opted
not to appeal, the LA Decision soon
became final and executory. In fact,
TAWTRASCO in no time paid petitioner
the amount of PhP 119, 600 by way of
damages and backwages corresponding to
the period March 6, 2006 to August 22,
2006.
Labor Relations 151
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
But petitioner was not immediately
reinstated. Owing to the strained
employer-employee relationship
perceived to exist between them,
TAWTRASCO offered to pay petitioner
separation pay of PhP 172, 296, but
petitioner rejected the offer. Eventually,
the two entered into a Compromise
Agreement, in which petitioner waived a
portion of his monetary claim, specifically
his backwages for the period.
Issue: Was there a proper and genuine
reinstatement of petitioner to his former
position of General Manager of
TAWTRASCO without loss of seniority
rights and privileges? (NO)
Held: Reinstatement, as a labor law
concept, means the admission of an
employee back to work prevailing prior to
his dismissal; restoration to a state or
position from which one had been
removed or separated, which presupposes
that there shall be no demotion in rank
and/or diminution of salary, benefits and
other privileges; if the position previously
occupied no longer exists, the restoration
shall be to a substantially equivalent
position in terms of salary, benefits and
other privileges.

Management’s prerogative to transfer an
employee from one office or station to
another within the business
establishment, however, generally
remains unaffected by a reinstatement
order, as long as there is no resulting
demotion or diminution of salary and
other benefits and/or the action is not
motivated by consideration less than fair
or effected as a punishment or to get back
at the reinstated employee.
Garcia v. NLRC
Facts: On December 12, 1990 respondent
Luzmart, Inc., acquired NAPCO in a
foreclosure sale. Both companies were
managed by respondent Delfin Garcia.
On January 28, 1993, there was a mauling
incident which involved the complainant
and Julius Z. Viray, his immediate
supervisor and allegedly a friend and
compadre of respondent Garcia. As
complainant suffered injuries as a result
thereof he reported the matter to police
authorities and he sought treatment at
the Teofilo Sison Memorial Provincial
Hospital. Both the complainant and Viray
were asked to explain their sides. After
the submission of the written
explanations, Delfin Garcia suspended
Labor Relations 152
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
both of them from work for a period of
one month effective April 15, 1993.
Issue: was there valid dismissal
Held: No, LUZMARTs reliance on the
March 31, 1993 memorandum and the
February 1-15, 1993 payroll to prove that
LACSON was merely suspended is
therefore unavailing. The March 31, 1993
memorandum is at most self-serving; a
ploy to cover up the dismissal of LACSON
since this was issued after LUZMART had
knowledge of the illegal dismissal case
filed against it by LACSON on February 11,
1993.
Likewise, the veracity of the February 1-
15, 1993 payroll that purportedly shows
that LACSON was included in LUZMARTs
payroll is of doubtful probative value.
Zamboanga City Electric Coop v. Buat
FACTS: Petitioner is an electric
cooperative organized pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 269, as amended
by P.D. No. 1645, under the general
supervision and control of the National
Electrification Administration (NEA).
Private respondent was employed by
petitioner in 1974, starting as an ordinary

rank-and-file employee and rising from
the ranks until he became the general
manager. Private respondent filed a
complaint against petitioner for illegal
dismissal claiming that he was entitled to
moral and exemplary damages.
ISSUE: Whether petitioner liable for the
damages claimed?
HELD: NO. Private respondent is not
entitled to the recovery of moral damages
since these are recoverable only where
the dismissal of the employee was
attended by bad faith or fraud, or
constituted an act oppressive to labor, or
was done in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy.
Before private respondent was dismissed
from the service, petitioner created a
committee to investigate the charges
against him. The committee was
composed of highly respectable members
of the community. Private respondent
was given an opportunity to answer all the
charges against him, which he did. After
almost one year of investigation, the
committee recommended that private
respondent be dismissed from service.
Labor Relations 153
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Ford Phils. V. NLRC
Facts: To the fullest extent, the
retirement, death, and disability benefits
accorded participants under the terms of
this Plan shall be deemed integrated with
and in lieu of, statutory benefits in the
New Labor Code, as well as other similar
laws, as now or hereafter amended,
analogous benefits granted under present
or future Collective Bargaining
Agreements, and other employee benefit
plans providing analogous benefits which
may be imposed by future legislations.
Issue: Whether or not the Retirement
Fund can be charged for payment of the
employees' separation benefits (YES)
Held: Yes. The Retirement Fund can be
charged. The fact that, since the
establishment and effectivity of the
Retirement Plans, it had been the policy
and practice of the companies to charge
termination, retirement and analogous
benefits for separated employees to the
Retirement Fund, without a single
complaint or dissent on the part of the
unions or any employee, for that matter,
is a manifestation on the part of the
unions that separation benefits (not

necessarily retirement benefits) are
covered by the "integration provision" of
the Retirement Plans and are chargeable
to and deductible from the Retirement
Fund.
The purpose of the Plans or Fund, as
provided in Article 1, Section 2 of the
Retirement Plans, is "to assist the
employees financially in providing for
their retirement years."
Nueva Ecija Electric Coop v. NLRC
Facts: They were members of petitioner
NEECO I Employees Association, a labor
organization established for the mutual
aid and protection of its members.
Petitioner Rodolfo Jimenez was the
president of the association. On October
5, 1991 and February 28, 1992, the
applications of Petronilo Baguisa and Ever
Guevarra, respectively, were approved.
They were paid the appropriate
separation pay.
Issue: Whether or not the employees
association should be awarded moral and
exemplary damages.
Labor Relations 154
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Held: Yes. However, it should be factored
of the business, social and financial
position of the offended parties. Thus, the
amount of damages be reduced.
To warrant an award of moral damages, it
must be shown that the dismissal of the
employee was attended to by bad faith, or
constituted an act oppressive to labor, or
was done in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy.17 The
Labor Arbiter ruled that there was unfair
labor practice:
Permex Inc. v. NLRC
Facts: Permex is a company engaged in
the business of canning tuna and sardines,
both for export and domestic
consumption. Co-petitioners Edgar Lim
and Jean Punzalan are its Manager and
Personnel Manager, respectively.
Emmanuel Filoteo, an employee of
Permex, was terminated allegedly for
flagrantly and deliberately violating
company rules and regulations. More
specifically, he was dismissed allegedly for
falsifying his daily time record.
 Labor Relations 155
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

Issue: Was Filoteo illegally dismissed? Issue: W/N the reduction of Attorney’s
(Yes) fees is proper?

Held: the NLRC found that the two-fold Held: A contingent fee arrangement is an
requirements for a valid dismissal were agreement laid down in an express
not satisfied by the petitioners. Whether contract between a lawyer and a client in
private respondent was illegally dismissed which the lawyer's professional fee,
or not is governed by Article 282 of the usually a fixed percentage of what may be
Labor Code. To constitute a valid dismissal recovered in the action is made to depend
from employment, two requisites must upon the success of the litigation.
concur: (a) the dismissal must be for any
of the causes provided for in Article 282 of This arrangement is valid in this
the Labor Code; and (b) the employee jurisdiction. It is, however, under the
must be afforded an opportunity to be supervision and scrutiny of the court to
heard and defend himself. protect clients from unjust charges. We
agree with the NLRC's assessment that
Taganas v. NLRC fifty percent of the judgment award as
attorney's fees is excessive and
Facts: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of unreasonable. The financial capacity and
private respondents. During the execution economic status of the client have to be
stage of the decision, petitioner moved to taken into account in fixing the
enforce his attorney's charging lien. reasonableness of the fee.
Private respondents, aggrieved for
receiving a reduced award due to the Tangga-an v. Phil Transmarine Carriers
attorney's charging lien, contested the Inc.
validity of the contingent fee arrangement
they have with petitioner, albeit four of FACTS: He was to be paid a basic salary of
the fourteen private respondents have US$5,000.00; vacation leave pay
expressed their conformity thereto. equivalent to 15 days a month or
US$2,500.00 per month and tonnage

bonus in the amount of US$700.00 a
month.
On February 2002, Tangga-an was
deployed but was dismissed on April
2002. Tangga-an filed a Complaint for
illegal dismissal with prayer for payment
of salaries for the unexpired portion of his
contract, leave pay, exemplary and moral
damages, attorney’s fees and interest.
The Labor Arbiter found petitioner to be
illegally dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether or not an illegally
dismissed overseas employee is only
entitled to 3 months back salaries.
HELD: NO. Thus, petitioner must be
awarded his salaries corresponding to the
unexpired portion of his six-months
employment contract, or equivalent to
four months. This includes all his
corresponding monthly vacation leave pay
and tonnage bonuses which are expressly
provided and guaranteed in his
employment contract as part of his
monthly salary and benefit package.
These benefits were guaranteed to be
paid on a monthly basis, and were not
made contingent.
Czarina Malvar v. Kraft Food Phils.
Labor Relations 156
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
FACTS: The case initially concerned the
execution kof a final decision of the CA in
a labor litigation, but has mutated into a
dispute over attorney's fees between the
winning employee and her attorney after
she entered into a compromise
agreement with her employer under
circumstances that the attorney has
bewailed as designed to prevent the
recovery of just professional fees.
ISSUE: WON the Motion for Intervention
to protect attorney’s rights can prosper,
and, if so, how much could it recover as
attorney’s fees. (YES)
HELD: CLIENT’S RIGHT TO SETTLE
LITIGATION BY COMPROMISE
AGREEMENT, AND TO TERMINATE
COUNSEL; A compromise agreement is a
contract, whereby the parties undertake
reciprocal obligations to avoid litigation,
or put an end to one already commenced.
The client may enter into a compromise
agreement with the adverse party to
terminate the litigation before a judgment
is rendered therein. If the compromise
agreement is found to be in order and not
contrary to law, morals, good customs and
public policy, its judicial approval is in
order. A compromise agreement, once

approved by final order of the court, has
the force of res judicata between the
parties and will not be disturbed except
for vices of consent or forgery.
Carmen Dy-Dumalas v. Domingo Sabado
Fernandez
Facts: On October 23, 2001, respondents
filed a Complaint against HELIOS,
docketed as NLRC-NCR South Sector Case
No. 30-10-04950-01, for illegal dismissal
or illegal closure of business, non-
payment of salaries and other money
claims against HELIOS. The complaint was
later consolidated with another case filed
by similarly situated employees ofHELIOS,
docketed as NLRC-NCR South Sector Case
No. 30-11-05301-01.
Both complaints also impleaded HELIOS
members of the Board of Directors (The
Board) including herein petitioner. Atty.
Arturo Balbastro, one of the members of
the Board, was subsequently dropped
from the complaint, upon manifestation
of respondents.
Issue: What is the liability of the
petitioner?
Labor Relations 157
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Held: Only joint. The Labor Arbiter thus
concluded that indeed, fraud and bad
faith on the part of the management are
well-established and, as such, HELIOS et
al. are liable for the judgment award.
While the appellate court reinstated the
Labor Arbiters decision, it held that since
its fallo did not indicate with certainty the
solidary nature of the obligation, the
obligation is merely joint. The Court finds
this ruling well-taken. It is an elementary
principle of procedure that the resolution
of the court in a given issue as embodied
in the dispositive part of a decision or
order is the controlling factor as to
settlement of rights of the parties.
Lynvil Fishing Enterprises Inc. v. Ariola
FACTS: Lynvil received a report from
Romanito Clarido, one of its employees,
that on 31 July 1998, he witnessed that
while on board the company vessel
Analyn VIII, Lynvil employees, namely:
Andres G. Ariola (Ariola), the captain
Alcovendas, Chief Mate Calinao, Chief
Engineer Nubla, cook Bañez, oiler
Sebullen, bodegero, conspired with one
another and stole eight (8) tubs of
"pampano" and "tangigue" fish and
delivered them to another vessel, to the

prejudice of Lynvil. The said employees
were engaged on a per trip basis or "por
viaje" which terminates at the end of each
trip.
ISSUES: Whether or not De Borja is jointly
and severally liable with Lynvil (NO)
Ruling: Jurisprudence laid two conditions
for the validity of a fixed-contract
agreement between the employer and
employee. Fixed period of employment
was knowingly and voluntarily agreed
upon by the parties without any force,
duress, or improper pressure being
brought to bear upon the employee and
absent any other circumstances vitiating
his consent;... it satisfactorily appears that
the employer and the employee dealt
with each other on more or less equal
terms with no moral dominance exercised
by the former or the latter.
Park Hotel et. al. v. Manolo
FACTS: Petitioner Park Hotel is
corporation engaged in the hotel
business. Petitioners Gregg Harbutt
(Harbutt) and Bill Percy (Percy) are the
General Manager and owner, respectively,
of Park Hotel. Percy, Harbutt and Atty.
Labor Relations 158
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Roberto Enriquez are also the officers and
stockholders of Burgos Corporation
(Burgos), a sister company of Park Hotel.
ISSUE: W/N Percy and Harbutt are exempt
from liability for the termination of
Soriano
HELD: No. Although the corporate veil
between Park Hotel and Burgos cannot be
pierced, it does not necessarily mean that
Percy and Harbutt are exempt from
liability towards respondents. Verily, a
corporation, being a juridical entity, may
act only through its directors, officers and
employees. Obligations incurred by them,
while acting as corporate agents, are not
their personal liability but the direct
accountability of the corporation they
represent.
However, corporate officers may be
deemed solidarily liable with the
corporation for the termination of
employees if they acted with malice or
bad faith.
a
Serrano vs. NLRC
Facts: In 1988, he became head of the
Security Checkers Section of private
respondent. Sometime in 1991, as a cost-

cutting measure, private respondent
decided to phase out its entire security
section and engage the services of an
independent security agency.
Consequently, Serrano was notified of his
termination on October 11, 1991 thru a
Memorandum, it is to be noted that under
the said memorandum he was informed
that his termination was effective on that
same day (October 11, 1991).
Serrano, thus filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, illegal layoff, unfair labor
practice, underpayment of wages, and
nonpayment of salary and overtime pay.
Issue: Is it an authorized causes for
dismissal under Art. 283 of the Labor
Code?
Held: Yes, under Art. 283 which provides:
Closure of establishment and reduction of
personnel. - The employer may also
terminate the employment of any
employee due to the installation of labor-
saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment
to prevent losses or the closing or
cessation of operations of the
establishment or undertaking unless the
closing is for the purpose of circumventing
the provisions of this Title, by serving a
Labor Relations 159
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
written notice on the workers and the
Department of Labor and Employment at
least one (1) month before the intended
date thereof. In case of termination due
to the installation of labor-saving devices
or redundancy, the worker affected
thereby shall be entitled to a separation
pay equivalent to at least one (1) month
pay or to at least one (1) month pay for
every year of service, whichever is higher.
In case of retrenchment to prevent losses
and in cases of closure or cessation of
operations of establishment or
undertaking not due to serious business
losses or financial reverses, the separation
pay shall be equivalent to at least one (1)
month pay or at least one-half (1/2)
month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher. A fraction of at least
six (6) months shall be considered as one
(1) whole year.
Agabon v. NLRC
Facts: It employed petitioners Virgilio
Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum
board and cornice installers on January 2,
1992 until February 23, 1999 when they
were dismissed for abandonment of work.

Petitioners then filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal and payment of money
claims.
Issue: Were petitioners illegally dismissed
even if there was no due process? (NO)
Held: The dismissal should be upheld
because it was established that the
petitioners abandoned their jobs to work
for another company. Private
respondent, however, did not follow the
notice requirements and instead argued
that sending notices to the last known
addresses would have been useless
because they did not reside there
anymore. Unfortunately for the private
respondent, this is not a valid excuse
because the law mandates the twin notice
requirements to the employees last
known address.
Thus, it should be held liable for non-
compliance with the procedural
requirements of due process.
Aurora Land Projects v. NLRC
Facts: He was to perform carpentry,
plumbing, electrical and masonry work.
Upon the death of Doa Aurora Tanjangco
in 1982, her daughter, petitioner Teresita
Labor Relations 160
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Tanjangco Quazon, took over the
administration of all the Tanjangco
properties. On June 8, 1991, private
respondent Dagui received the shock of
his life when Mrs. Quazon suddenly told
him: "Wala ka nang trabaho mula
ngayon," on the alleged ground that his
work was unsatisfactory.
On August 29, 1991, private respondent,
who was then already sixty-two (62) years
old, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
with the Labor Arbiter.
Issue: Whether or not private respondent
Honorio Dagui was illegally dismissed
Held: Yes, the twin requirements of notice
and hearing constitute the essential
elements of due process. This simply
means that the employer shall afford the
worker ample opportunity to be heard
and to defend himself with the assistance
of his representative, if he so desires.
These mandatory requirements were
undeniably absent in the case at bar.
Petitioner Quazon dismissed private
respondent on June 8, 1991, without
giving him any written notice informing
the worker herein of the cause for his
termination.

Carag v. NLRC
FACTS: That on July 8, 1993, without
notice of any kind filed in accordance with
pertinent provisions of the Labor Code,
[MAC], for reasons known only by herself
ceased operations with the intention of
completely closing its shop or factory.
Such intentions was manifested in a
letter, allegedly claimed by MAC as its
notice filed only on the same day that the
operations closed.
That at the time of closure, employees
who have rendered one to two weeks
work were not paid their corresponding
salaries/wages, which remain unpaid until
time of this writing. Such that, award of all
damages (actual, exemplary and moral), is
illegible to set an example to firms who in
the future will illegible the idea of simply
prematurely closing without complying
with the basic requirement of Notice of
Closure.
ISSUE: Whether respondents are guilty of
illegal closure?
HELD: NO. Bad faith arise automatically
just because a corporation fails to comply
with the notice requirement of labor laws
Labor Relations 161
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
on company closure or dismissal of
employees. The failure to give notice is
not an unlawful act because the law does
not define such failure as unlawful. Such
failure to give notice is a violation of
procedural due process but does not
amount to an unlawful or criminal act.
Such procedural defect is called illegal
dismissal because it fails to comply with
mandatory procedural requirements, but
it is not illegal in the sense that it
constitutes an unlawful or criminal act.
For a wrongdoing to make a director
personally liable for debts of the
corporation, the wrongdoing approved or
assented to by the director must be a
patently unlawful act. Mere failure to
comply with the notice requirement of
labor laws on company closure or
dismissal of employees does not amount
to a patently unlawful act. Patently
unlawful acts are those declared unlawful
by law which imposes penalties for
commission of such unlawful acts. There
must be a law declaring the act unlawful
and penalizing the act.

Vivero v. CA
Facts: The Collective Bargaining
Agreement entered into by AMOSUP and
private respondents provides, among
others -
Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of an
employee constitute a "grievance
between the parties," as defined under
the provisions of the CBA
Held: Private respondents attempt to
justify the conferment of jurisdiction over
the case on the Voluntary Arbitrator on
the ground that the issue involves the
proper interpretation and implementation
of the Grievance Procedure found in the
CBA.
They point out that when petitioner
sought the assistance of his Union to avail
of the grievance machinery, he in effect
submitted himself to the procedure set
forth in the CBA regarding submission of
unresolved grievances to a Voluntary
Arbitrator.
The argument is untenable. The case is
primarily a termination dispute. It is clear
from the claim/assistance request form
Labor Relations 162
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
submitted by petitioner to AMOSUP that
he was challenging the legality of his
dismissal for lack of cause and lack of due
process.
Tabigue et. al. v. Intl Opra Export Corp
Facts: As the parties failed to reach a
settlement before the NCMB, petitioners
requested to elevate the case to voluntary
arbitration. The NCMB thus set a date for
the parties to agree on a Voluntary
Arbitrator.
Issue: Whether or not the grievances of a
said employees, not authorized to
represent the union, can be submitted for
voluntary arbitration.
Held: NO. As they are not authorized to
represent the union, the said grievance
cannot be submitted to voluntary
arbitration. Respecting petitioners’ thesis
that unsettled grievances should be
referred to voluntary arbitration as called
for in the CBA, the same does not lie. In
case of any dispute arising from the
interpretation or implementation of this
Agreement or any matter affecting the
relations of Labor and Management.
 Labor Relations 163
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

Goya Inc. v. Goya Employees Union Following the said categories, the
Company should have observed and
Facts: When the matter remained complied with the provision of their CBA.
unresolved, the grievance was referred to Since the Company had admitted that it
the National Conciliation and Mediation engaged the services of PESO to perform
Board (NCMB) for voluntary arbitration. temporary or occasional services which is
During the hearing the Company and the akin to those performed by casual
Union manifested before Voluntary employees, the Company should have
Arbitrator (VA) Bienvenido E. Laguesma tapped the services of casual employees
that amicable settlement was no longer instead of engaging PESO.
possible.

The Union asserted that the hiring of We confirm that the VA ruled on a matter
contractual employees from PESO is not a that is covered by the sole issue submitted
management prerogative and in gross for voluntary arbitration. Resultantly, the
violation of the CBA tantamount to unfair CA did not commit serious error when it
labor practice (ULP). sustained the ruling that the hiring of
contractual employees from PESO was not
Issue: Was it proper for the voluntary in keeping with the intent and spirit of the
arbitrator to rule that the engagement of CBA.
PESO is not in keeping with the intent of
the CBA? Indeed, the opinion of the VA is germane
to, or, in the words of the CA,
Held: A careful reading of the above- "interrelated and intertwined with," the
enumerated categories of employees sole issue submitted for resolution by the
reveals that the PESO contractual parties.
employees do not fall within the
enumerated categories of employees Master Iron Labor Union v. NLRC
stated in the CBA of the parties.
Facts: Right after the signing of the CBA
with petitioner, the respondent

Corporation subcontracted outside
workers to do the usual jobs done by its
regular workers including those done
outside of the company plant.
As a result, the regular workers were
scheduled by the management to work on
a rotation basis allegedly to prevent
financial losses thereby allowing the
workers only ten (10) working days a
month. Thus, MILU requested
implementation of the grievance
procedure which had also been agreed
upon in the CBA, but the Corporation
ignored the request.
Issue: W/N the strike was illegal. Legal.
Strike was not economic but founded on
ULP.
Held: In holding that the strike was illegal,
the NLRC relied solely on the no-strike no-
lockout provision of the CBA aforequoted.
A no-strike clause in a CBA is applicable
only to economic strikes. Corollarily, if the
strike is founded on an unfair labor
practice of the employer, a strike declared
by the union cannot be considered a
violation of the no-strike clause.
An economic strike is defined as one
which is to force wage or other
concessions from the employer which he
Labor Relations 164
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
is not required by law to grant. In this
case, petitioners enumerated in their
notice of strike the following grounds:
violation of the CBA or the Corporation's
practice of subcontracting workers;
discrimination; coercion of employees;
unreasonable suspension of union
officials, and unreasonable refusal to
entertain grievance.
San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC
FACTS: He was also an active and militant
member of a labor organization called
Ilaw Buklod Manggagawa (IBM)-SMC
Chapter. According to SMC’s Policy on
Employee Conduct, absences without
permission or AWOPs, which are absences
not covered either by a certification of the
plant doctor that the employee was
absent due to sickness or by a duly
approved application for leave of absence
filed at least 6 days prior to the intended
leave, are subject to disciplinary action
characterized by progressively increasing
weight. The same Policy on Employee
Conduct also punishes falsification of
company records or documents with
discharge or termination for the first
offense if the offender himself or
somebody else benefits from falsification

or would have benefited if falsification is
not found on time.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of
Appeals erred in sustaining the findings of
the labor arbiter and the NLRC and in
dismissing SMC’s claims that respondent
was terminated from service with just
cause.
HELD: Yes. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt is not required as a basis for
judgment on the legality of an employer’s
dismissal of an employee, nor even
preponderance of evidence for that
matter, substantial evidence being
sufficient. In the instant case, while there
may be no denying that respondent’s
medical card had falsified entries in it,
SMC was unable to prove, by substantial
evidence, that it was respondent who
made the unauthorized entries. Besides,
SMC’s (Your) Guide on Employee Conduct
punishes the act of falsification of
company records or documents; it does
not punish mere possession of a falsified
document.
Labor Relations 165
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Deltaventures Resources inc. v. Judge
Cabato
Facts: The NLRC declared the respondents
Green Mountain Farm, Roberto Ongpin
and Almus Alabe guilty of Illegal Dismissal
and Unfair Labor Practice and ordered
them to pay the complainants, in solidum.
Subsequently a writ of execution was
issued. Sheriff Ventura then proceeded to
enforce the writ. Findings that said
judgment debtors do not have sufficient
personal properties, the Sheriff proceeded
to levy upon a real property of Ongpin.
Issue: Whether or not the trial court may
take cognizance of the complaint filed by
petitioner and consequently provide the
injunction relief sought?
Held: No. Ostensibly the complaint before
the trial court was for the recovery of
possession and injunction, but in essence
it was an action challenging the legality or
propriety of the levy visa-vis the alias writ
of execution, including the acts performed
by the Labor Arbiter and the Deputy
Sheriff implementing the writ. The
complainant was in effect a motion to
quash the writ of execution of a decision
rendered on a case properly within the

jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, to wit:
Illegal Dismissal and Unfair Labor Practice.
Considering the factual setting, it is then
logical to conclude that the subject matter
of the third party claim is but an incident
of the labor case, a matter beyond the
jurisdiction of regional trial courts.
Bisig ng Manggagawa sa Concrete
Aggregates Inc. v. NLRC
FACTS: The labor conflict between the
parties broke out in the open when the
petitioner union struck on April 6, 1992
protesting issues ranging from unfair labor
practices and union busting allegedly
committed by the private respondent. The
union picketed the premises of the private
respondent. On April 8, 1992, Concrete
Aggregates filed with the NLRC a petition
for injunction (with a prayer for TRO) to
stop the strike which it denounced as
illegal. It alleged that:
ISSUE:Whether or not the NLRC commit
grave abuse of discretion in issuing a
TRO/writ of preliminary injunction?
HELD: Yes. Strike has been considered the
most effective weapon of labor in
protecting the rights of employees to
Labor Relations 166
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
improve the terms and conditions of their
employment. It may be that in highly
developed countries, the significance of
strike as a coercive weapon has shrunk in
view of the preference for more peaceful
modes of settling labor disputes.
In underdeveloped countries, however,
where the economic crunch continues to
enfeeble the already marginalized working
class, the importance of the right to strike
remains undiminished as indeed it has
proved many a time as the only coercive
weapon that can correct abuses against
labor. It remains as the great equalizer.
San Miguel v. NLRC
FACTS: Petitioner San Miguel Corporation
(SMC) and respondent Ilaw at Buklod ng
Manggagawa (IBM), exclusive bargaining
agent of petitioners daily-paid rank and
file employees, executed a Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) under which
they agreed to submit all disputes to
grievance and arbitration proceedings.
The CBA also included a mutually
enforceable no-strike no-lockout
agreement.
ISSUE: W/N the injunction case filed by
respondent will proceed

HELD: We find for the petitioner. Article
254 of the Labor Code provides that no
temporary or permanent injunction or
restraining order in any case involving or
growing out of labor disputes shall be
issued by any court or other entity except
as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and
264 of the Labor Code.
Under the first exception, Article 218 (e)
of the Labor Code expressly confers upon
the NLRC the power to enjoin or restrain
actual and threatened commission of any
or all prohibited or unlawful acts, or to
require the performance of a particular
act in any labor dispute which, if not
restrained or performed forthwith, may
cause grave or irreparable damage to any
party or render ineffectual any decision in
favor of such party
St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC
Facts: Petitioner’s (St. Martin Funeral
Homes) contention is that the respondent
is not an employee due to the lack of an
employer-employee contract. In addition,
respondent is not listed on St. Martin’s
monthly payroll.
Labor Relations 167
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
The labor arbiter ruled in favor of
petitioner, confirming that indeed, there
was no employer-employee relationship
between the two and hence, there could
be no illegal dismissal in such a situation.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner’s
appeal/petition for certiorari was properly
filed in the Supreme Court.
Held: No. Historically, decisions from the
NLRC were appealable to the Secretary of
Labor, whose decisions are then
appealable to the Office of the President.
However, the new rules do not anymore
provide provisions regarding appellate
review for decisions rendered by the
NLRC. However in this case, the Supreme
Court took it upon themselves to review
such decisions from the NLRC by virtue of
their role under the check and balance
system and the perceived intention of the
legislative body who enacted the new
rules.
Veloso v. China Airlines Ltd
Facts: Petitioner was employed as
supervisor of the ticketing section at the
Manila branch office of respondent China
Airlines Ltd. (CAL).

Private respondent K.Y. Chang, then
district manager of the Manila branch
office of CAL, informed petitioner that
management had decided to temporarily
close its ticketing section in order to
prevent further losses. Feeling aggrieved,
petitioner sent a letter to private
respondent Chang assailing the validity of
her termination from the service.
Issue: Whether or not a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 is proper. (NO)
Held: This precipitate filing of petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 without first
moving for reconsideration of the assailed
resolution warrants the outright dismissal
of this case.
As we have consistently held in numerous
cases, a motion for reconsideration is
indispensable, for it affords the NLRC an
opportunity to rectify errors or mistakes it
might have committed before resort to
the courts can be had.
Association of Trade unions v. Abella
Facts: Respondent company is a domestic
corporation engaged in road construction
projects of the government. It engaged
the services of a number of workers to
Labor Relations 168
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
work on various projects. In February
1989, the workers joined petitioner union
as members.
Accordingly, petitioner union filed a
petition for certification election with the
regional office of the labor department.
Respondent company opposed the
petition on the ground that the workers
were project employees and therefore not
qualified to form part of the rank and file
collective bargaining unit. Not for long,
the Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition for
certification election. On appeal, the
Secretary of Labor and Employment
reversed the Med-Arbiter's decision and
ordered the immediate holding of a
certification election.
Issue: Was the petition valid?
Held: No, petitioners neither assail the
jurisdiction of public respondent nor
attribute any grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the labor tribunal. Necessarily,
this petition must fail, for lack of
substantial requisites under Rule 65.
It is settled that certiorari will lie only if
there is no appeal or any other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the
 Labor Relations 169
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

ordinary course of law against acts of reinstatement of private respondent with

public respondents. award of backwages has no factual and
legal basis.
Philippine Airlines v. NLRC Our query is limited to the determination
of whether or not public respondent acted
FACTS: Private respondent Pescante and without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
Vicente, were assigned to handle grave abuse of discretion in rendering the
petitioner's flight PR 841 bound for Cebu assailed decisions. But when the findings
as load controller and check-in clerk, of the NLRC contradict those of the labor
respectively. As load controller, private arbiter, this Court, in the exercise of its
respondent's main task is to manifest the equity jurisdiction, must of necessity
baggage of passengers with reference to review the records of the case to
their respective weights and to determine determine which findings should be
the proper load balance of the aircraft. As preferred as more conformable to the
check-in clerk, Vicente's duty is to check- evidentiary facts, as in this case.
in the passengers and place the
corresponding tags on their luggage. As a MC Engineering v. NLRC
policy, load controllers are prohibited
from assisting in the checking-in of Facts: Petitioner Hanil Development Co.,
passengers to prevent collusion with the Ltd. (hereinafter Hanil) is the overseas
check-in clerks. employer of all contract workers deployed
by petitioner MC Engineering, Inc.
ISSUE: Whether NLRC committed grave (hereinafter MCEI) under a Service
abuse of discretion in reversing and Contract Agreement between the two
setting aside the LA's decision finding petitioners. Contract workers deployed
private respondent's dismissal to be valid by MCEI for Hanil for overseas work enter
and for just cause? into an employment contract with MCEI in
accordance with the terms and conditions
HELD: Yes, private respondent's dismissal set forth by Philippine Overseas
was for just and valid cause, and the order Employment Administration (hereinafter
of public respondent for the POEA) Regulations and the Service

Contract Agreement between MCEI and
Hanil.
Issue: Whether or not the requirement
laid forth on Rule 46 Sec.3 and Rule 13
Sec. 11 was complied with?
Held: Yes. There was substantial
compliance with Rule 46, however Rule 13
was not complied with
In the case at bar, the petition for
certiorari filed by petitioners before the
Court of Appeals contains a certification
against forum shopping. However, the
said certification was signed only by the
corporate secretary of petitioner MCEI.
No representative of petitioner Hanil
signed the said certification. As such, the
issue to be resolved is whether or not a
certification signed by one but not all of
the parties in a petition constitutes
substantial compliance with the
requirements regarding the certification
of non-forum shopping.
Tancinco v. GSIS
Facts: SPO1 Tancinco was a member of
the NCR Security Protection Group of the
Philippine National Police, and at the time
Labor Relations 170
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
of his death, was assigned as part of the
close-in security detail of then Vice-
President Joseph E. Estrada. His widow,
petitioner Rufina Tancinco, filed a claim
for benefits before the Government
Service Insurance System (GSIS).
On February 19, 1996, the GSIS denied
petitioner's claim on the ground that
there was no proof that petitioner's
husband's death was work-related.
Petitioner appealed the denial to the
Employees' Compensation Commission
(Commission) which, on December 19,
1996, issued a Resolution dismissing the
appeal for lack of merit.
Issue: Whether or not the petition can still
be entertained despite the lapse of time
to appeal.
Held: NO. Being not timely filed, the
petition should fail as the time to appeal
had already prescribed. The conclusion is
inevitable because the instant petition
was not timely filed. Under section 1 of
Rule 45 of the former Revised Rules of
Court, which was then still in effect, an
appeal from a decision rendered by the
Court of Appeals to this Court must be
made within fifteen (15) days from notice

of the judgment or the denial of a motion
for reconsideration filed in due time.
Abalos v. Philex Mining Corp
FACTS: A manpower audit conducted by
Philex revealed that 241 of its employees
were redundant. Thus, Philex undertook a
retrenchment program that resulted in
the termination of petitioners’
employment. Consequently, petitioners
filed a case for illegal dismissal against
respondent. The case was submitted for
arbitration through the NCMB.
Voluntary Arbitrator ordered
reinstatement the Complainants
Intervenors to their former positions with
back wages without loss of seniority and
privileges.
ISSUE: Does the SC have jurisdiction over
this certiorari case (Rule 45)?
HELD: A basic tenet in our rules of
procedure is that an award that is final
and executory cannot be amended or
modified anymore. Nothing is more
settled in law than that once a judgment
attains finality it thereby becomes
immutable and unalterable.
Labor Relations 171
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
It may no longer be modified in any
respect, even if the modification is meant
to correct what is perceived to be an
erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and
regardless of whether the modification is
attempted to be made by the court
rendering it or by the highest court of the
land. This cannot be done in a petition for
review on certiorari. It is outside its
purview under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules
of Court.
Factual findings of labor officials who are
The deemed to have acquired expertise in
the matters within their respective jurisdiction
and are generally accorded not only respect
but even finality, and bind us when
supported by substantial evidence.
Sundowner Dev Corp v. Drilon
Facts: However, due to non-payment of
rentals, a case for ejectment was filed by
Syjuco against Mabuhay. Mabuhay
offered to amicably settle the case by
surrendering the premises to Syjuco and
to sell its assets and personal property to
any interested party. Syjuco offered the
said premises for lease to petitioner. The
negotiation culminated with the execution
of the lease agreement. Mabuhay offered
 Labor Relations 172
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

to sell its assets and personal properties in Bibiano Elegir v. PAL

the premises to petitioner to which
petitioner agreed. FACTS: Eligir, who was then holding the
position of A-300 Captain, submitted his
Issue: W/N the purchase of the assets of bid and was fortunately awarded the
the transfers the er-ee relationship to the same and was sent for training at Boeing
purchaser? in the USA, to acquire the necessary skills
and knowledge in handling the new
Held: The rule is that unless expressly aircraft.
assumed, labor contracts such as
employment contracts and collective In response, PAL asked him to reconsider
bargaining agreements are not his decision, asserverating that the
enforceable against a transferee of an company has yet to recover the full value
enterprise, labor contracts being in of the costs of his training. It warned him
personam, thus binding only between the that if he leaves PAL before he has
parties. rendered service for at least three (3)
years, it shall be constrained to deduct the
A labor contract merely creates an action costs of his training from his retirement
in personally and does not create any real pay.
right which should be respected by third
parties. This conclusion draws its force ISSUE: Whether Eligir’s retirement
from the right of an employer to select his benefits should be computed based on
employees and to decide when to engage Article 287 of the Labor Code or on PAL’s
them as protected under our Constitution, retirement plans; (PAL’s Retirement Plans)
and the same can only be restricted by
law through the exercise of the police HELD: It bears reiterating that there are
power. only two retirement schemes at point in
this case: (1) Article 287 of the Labor
Code, and; (2) the PAL-ALPAP Retirement
Plan and the PAL Pilots’ Retirement
Benefit Plan. The two retirement schemes
 Labor Relations 173
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

are alternative in nature such that the
retired pilot can only be entitled to that
which provides for superior benefits.
Article 287 of the Labor Code states:
Art. 287. Retirement. - Any employee may
be retired upon reaching the retirement
age established in the collective
bargaining agreement or other applicable
employment contract.
In case of retirement, the employee shall
be entitled to receive such retirement
benefits as he may have earned under
existing laws and any collective bargaining
agreement and other agreements:
provided, however, that an employee’s
retirement benefits under any collective
bargaining and other agreements shall not
be less than those provided herein.
already been terminated from
employment.
Issues: Whether the private respondents
are entitled to separation pay?
Held: Yes. Despite the enormous losses
incurred by RHI due to the fire that gutted
the sawmill in 1981 and despite the
logging ban in 1953, the uncontroverted
claims for separation pay show that most
of the private respondents still worked up
to the end of 1985. RHI would still have
continued its business had not the
petitioner foreclosed all of its assets and
properties on September 24, 1985. Thus,
the closure of RHI’s business was not
primarily brought about by serious
business losses.

DBP v. NLRC Manuel Yngson Jr. v. PNB

Facts: November 14, 1986, private Facts: To secure the loan, ARCAM
respondents filed with DOLE- Daet, executed a Real Estate Mortgage and a
Camarines Norte, 17 individual complaints Chattel Mortgage over various personal
against Republic Hardwood Inc. (RHI) for properties consisting of machinery,
unpaid wages and separation pay. generators, field transportation and heavy
These complaints were thereafter equipment. ARCAM, however, defaulted
endorsed to Regional Arbitration Branch on its obligations to PNB. Thus, the Real
of the NLRC since the petitioners had Estate Mortgage and Chattel Mortgage
 Labor Relations 174
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

were foreclosed and the public auction Laureano v. CA

was scheduled.
Facts: Plaintiff [Menandro B. Laureano,
Issue: WON SEC erred in ruling that PNB herein petitioner], then Director of Flight
was not barred from foreclosing on the Operations and Chief Pilot of Air Manila,
mortgages applied for employment with defendant
company [herein private respondent]
Held: NO. PNB, as a secured creditor, through its Area Manager in Manila.
enjoys preference over a specific Sometime in 1982, defendant, hit by a
mortgaged property and has a right to recession, initiated cost-cutting measures.
foreclose the mortgage under Section Seventeen (17) expatriate captains in the
2248 of the Civil Code. The creditor- Airbus fleet were found in excess of the
mortgagee has the right to foreclose the defendant's requirement. Consequently,
mortgage over a specific real property defendant informed its expatriate pilots
whether or not the debtor-mortgagor is including plaintiff of the situation and
under insolvency or liquidation advised them to take advance leaves.
proceedings. The right to foreclose such
mortgage is merely suspended upon the Issue: Is his action based on Article 1144
appointment of a management or on Article 1146 of the Civil Code?
committee or rehabilitation receiver or
upon the issuance of a stay order by the Held: In our view, neither Article 1144 nor
trial court. However, the creditor- Article 1146 of the Civil Code is here
mortgagee may exercise his right to pertinent. What is applicable is Article 291
foreclose the mortgage upon the of the Labor Code, viz: Article 291. Money
termination of the rehabilitation claims. - All money claims arising from
proceedings or upon the lifting of the stay employee-employer relations accruing
order. during the effectivity of this Code shall be
filed within three (3) years from the time
the cause of action accrued; otherwise
they shall be forever barred.

What rules on prescription should apply in
cases like this one has long been decided
by this Court. In illegal dismissal, it is
settled, that the ten-year prescriptive
period fixed in Article 1144 of the Civil
Code may not be invoked by petitioners,
for the Civil Code is a law of general
application, while the prescriptive period
fixed in Article 292 of the Labor Code
[now Article 291] is a SPECIAL LAW
applicable to claims arising from
employee-employer relations.
Victory Liner v. Race
Facts: In June 1993, respondent was
employed by the petitioner as a bus
driver. As a requisite for his hiring, the
respondent deposited a cash bond in the
amount of ₱10,000.00 to the petitioner.
Respondent was assigned to the
Alaminos, Pangasinan - Cubao, Quezon
City, route on the evening schedule.
Petitioner shouldered the doctor’s
professional fee and the operation,
medication and hospital expenses of the
respondent in the aforestated hospitals.
Issue:
Whether or not the action for illegal
dismissal has not yet prescribed despite
Labor Relations 175
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
having been filed after 4years and
9months from the accrual of the alleged
actionable wrong
Held: In illegal dismissal cases, the
employee concerned is given a period of
four years from the time of his dismissal
within which to institute a complaint. This
is based on Article 1146 of the New Civil
Code which states that actions based
upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff
must be brought within four years.
The four-year prescriptive period shall
commence to run only upon the accrual of
a cause of action of the worker. It is
settled that in illegal dismissal cases, the
cause of action accrues from the time the
employment of the worker was unjustly
terminated. Thus, the four-year
prescriptive period shall be counted and
computed from the date of the
employee’s dismissal up to the date of the
filing of complaint for unlawful
termination of employment.
Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp v.
Panginiban
FACTS: Ireneo Panganiban (respondent)
was employed as Assistant General

Manager of the Intercontinental
Broadcasting Corporation (petitioner)
from May 1986 until his preventive
suspension. Respondent resigned from his
employment and filed with the Regional
Trial Court against the members of the
Board of Administrators (BOA) of
petitioner alleging, among others, non-
payment of his unpaid commissions.
A motion to dismiss was filed by Joselito
Santiago, one of the defendants, on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction, as
respondent's claim was a labor money
claim, but this was denied by the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent's claim
has already prescribed?
HELD: YES. While the filing of Civil Case
No. Q-89-2244 could have interrupted the
running of the three-year prescriptive
period, its consequent dismissal by the CA
due to lack of jurisdiction effectively
canceled the tolling of the prescriptive
period within which to file his money
claim, leaving respondent in exactly the
same position as though no civil case had
been filed at all. The running of the three-
year prescriptive period not having been
interrupted by the filing of Civil Case,
Labor Relations 176
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
respondent's cause of action had already
prescribed on September 2, 1991, three
years after his cessation of employment
on September 2, 1988. Consequently,
when respondent filed his complaint for
illegal dismissal, separation pay,
retirement benefits, and damages in July
24, 1996, his claim, clearly, had already
been barred by prescription.
Industrial Timber Corp v. Agabon
Facts: On the other hand, petitioners in
G.R. No. 164518 who are also respondents
in G.R. No. 164965 also filed a Motion for
Partial Reconsideration seeking to delete
or reduce the nominal damages awarded
to each employee, considering that since
August 17, 1990 it had ceased operation
of its business and that the award involves
a huge amount considering that there are
97 workers.
Issue: Whether or not the nominal
damages should be reduced.
Held: YES. Nominal is proper but the
amount should be reduced.
While we ruled in this case that the
sanction should be stiffer in a dismissal
based on authorized cause where the
 Labor Relations 177
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

employer failed to comply with the notice Issue: Should Kunting be awarded
requirement than a dismissal based on separation pay instead of reinstatement
just cause with the same procedural due to strained relations after an illegal
infirmity, however, in instances where the dismissal?
execution of a decision becomes
impossible, unjust, or too burdensome, Held: In the case at bar, however, the
modification of the decision becomes peculiar circumstances surrounding the
necessary in order to harmonize the dismissal of petitioner simply do not show
disposition with the prevailing such kind of strained relationship as to
circumstances. warrant the severance of the working
relationship between the parties.
Kunting v. NLRC
There is no proof of actual animosity
Facts: She was paid a basic pay and between her and private respondents.
emergency cost of living allowance Besides, there is no clear showing that the
(ECOLA) except during summer period perceived "strained relations" between
when she was paid only the basic pay. Her the parties is of so serious a nature or of
monthly salary was One Thousand Eight such a degree as to justify petitioner's
Hundred and Twenty Pesos (P1,820.00) dismissal.
including ECOLA integrated into the basic
wage. She was also paid the 13th month "Strained relations," must be of such a
pay up to 1987 but not her service nature or degree as to preclude
incentive leave pay. Consuelo and St. reinstatement. But, where the differences
Joseph executed a Teacher's Contract. St. between the parties are neither personal
Joseph School did not renew her nor physical, nor serious, then there is no
employment contract, thereby reason why the illegally dismissed
terminating her employment with the employee should not be reinstated rather
school. than simply given separation pay and
backwages.
 Labor Relations 178
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

Congson v. NLRC proper remedy in the case at bench on his

premise that the existence of strained
Facts:Respondent was hired as a piece- relationship was not adequately
rate worker by petitioner. During the first established, yet petitioner never sincerely
week of June 1990, petitioner notified his intended to effect the actual
workers of his proposal to reduce the reinstatement of private respondents.
rate-per-tuna movement due to the For if petitioner were to pursue further
scarcity of tuna. Private respondents the entire logic of his argument, the
resisted petitioner's proposed rate prayer in his supplemental motion for
reduction. When they reported for work reconsideration should have contained
the next day, they were informed that not just the mere deletion of the award of
they had been replaced by a new set of separation pay, but precisely, the
workers, When they requested for a reinstatement of private respondents.
dialogue with the management, they were Quite obviously then, notwithstanding
instructed to wait for further notice. They petitioner's argument for reinstatement
waited for the notice of dialogue for a full he was only interested in the deletion of
week but in vain. the award of separation pay to private
respondents.
Issue: W/N there exists a strained
relationship which would make separation Aguilar v. Burger Machine Holdings
pay warranted. Yes.
FACTS: Burger Machine Holdings
Held: Firstly, petitioner consistently Corporation (Burger Machine) is a
refused to re-admit private respondents in domestic corporation engaged in the
his establishment. Petitioner even business of food service. Respondents
replaced private respondents with a new Caesar B. Rodriguez, Fe Esperanza S.
set of workers to perform the tasks of Rodriguez, and Melchor V. De Jesus, Jr.,
private respondents; Moreover, although (De Jesus) are Burger Machines
petitioner ostensibly argued in his Chairperson, President, and Vice-
supplemental motion for reconsideration President, respectively.
that reinstatement should have been the

At the end of the year 2001, petitioner
did not receive his 14th month pay bonus
of P35,000.00 while the amount of
P15,291.00 representing the
unauthorized expenses was deducted
from his salary.
ISSUE: Whether petitioner
constructively dismissed?
HELD: The Court rules in the affirmative.
Constructive dismissal exists
involuntary resignation on the part of the
employee due to the harsh, hostile and
unfavorable conditions set
employer. In other words, it is an act
amounting to dismissal but made to
appear as if it were not. In fact, the
employee who is constructively dismissed
may be allowed to keep on coming to
work. Constructive dismissal is therefore
a dismissal in disguise.
Genuino v. NLRC
FACTS: Genuino was employed by Citibank
sometime in January 1992 as Treasury
Sales Division Head with the rank of AVP.
She received a monthly compensation of
PhP 60,487.96, exclusive of benefits and
privileges.
Labor Relations 179
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Citibank sent Genuino a letter charging
her with "knowledge and/or involvement"
in transactions "which were irregular or
alleged even fraudulent." In the same letter,
Genuino was informed she was under
preventive suspension.
was ISSUE: WON THE DISMISSAL OF GENUINO
IS FOR A JUST CAUSE AND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS
as an HELD: THE DISMISSAL WAS FOR JUST
CAUSE BUT LACKED DUE PROCESS. We
affirm that Genuino was dismissed for just
by the cause but without the observance of due
process. The Labor Arbiter found that
Citibank failed to adequately notify
Genuino of the charges against her. We
agree with the CA that the dismissal was
valid and legal, and with its modification
of the NLRC ruling that PhP 5,000 is due
Genuino for failure of Citibank to observe
due process.
Garcia v. PAL
Facts: Petitioners-employees filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal against
respondent PAL who dismissed them after
they were allegedly caught in the act of
sniffing shabu within its premises.

The Labor Arbiter ruled for the petitioners
and ordered immediately for their
reinstatement.
Prior to this decision, SEC had placed PAL
under an Interim Rehabilitation Receiver,
and subsequently under a Permanent
Rehabilitation Receiver. PAL appealed and
the Labor Tribunal ruled in their favor.
Subsequently, the Labor Arbiter issued a
writ of execution for the reinstatement
and issued a notice of garnishment. The
Labor Tribunal affirmed the writ and
notice but suspended and referred the
action to the Rehabilitation Receiver of
PAL. On appeal, CA found for respondent
PAL.
Issue: Whether PAL being under corporate
rehabilitation suspends any monetary
claims to it.
Held: Yes. It is settled that upon
appointment by the SEC of a rehabilitation
receiver, all actions for claims before any
court, tribunal or board against the
corporation shall ipso jure be suspended.
As stated early on, during the pendency of
petitioners’ complaint before the Labor
Arbiter, the SEC placed respondent under
an Interim Rehabilitation Receiver.
Labor Relations 180
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
After the Labor Arbiter rendered his
decision, the SEC replaced the Interim
Rehabilitation Receiver with a Permanent
Rehabilitation Receiver.
Ferrer v. NLRC
FACTS: Petitioners were regular and
permanent employees of the Occidental
Foundry Corporation (OFC). They had
been in the employ of OFC for about ten
(10) years at the time of their dismissal in
1989 as piece workers. The Samahang
Manggagawa ng Occidental Foundry
Corporation-Federation of Free Workers
(SAMAHAN) and the OFC entered into a
collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
Issue: Whether or not petitioners failed to
maintain membership in good standing by
committing acts of disloyalty against
SAMAHAN
Held: No. Petitioners sought the help of
the FEDLU only after they had learned of
the termination of their employment.
Their alleged application with federations
other than the FFW can hardly be
considered as disloyalty to the SAMAHAN,
nor may the filing of such applications
denote that petitioners failed to maintain

in good standing their membership in the
SAMAHAN. The SAMAHAN is a different
entity from FFW, the federation to which
it belonged. Neither may it be inferred
that petitioners sought disaffiliation from
the FFW for petitioners had not formed a
union distinct from that of the SAMAHAN.
Parenthetically, the right of a local union
to disaffiliate from a federation in the
absence of any provision in the
federation's constitution preventing
disaffiliation of a local union is legal. Such
right is consistent with the constitutional
guarantee of freedom of association.
Pines City Educational Center v. NLRC
Facts: Private respondents represented by
its President, Eugenio Baltao. With the
exception of Jane Bentrez who was hired
as a grade school teacher, the remaining
private respondents were hired as college
instructors. All the private respondents,
except Roland Picart and Lucia Chan,
signed contracts of employment with
petitioner for a fixed duration. On March
31, 1989, due to the expiration of private
respondents' contracts and their poor
performance as teachers, they were
notified of petitioners' decision not to
renew their contracts anymore.
Labor Relations 181
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Issue: WON LA acted with grave abuse of
discretion.
Held: Insofar as the private respondents
who knowingly and voluntarily agreed
upon fixed periods of employment are
concerned, their services were lawfully
terminated by reason of the expiration of
the periods of their respective contracts.
These are Dangwa Bentrez, Apollo Ribaya,
Sr., Ruperta Ribaya, Virginia Boado, Cecilia
Emocling, Jose Bentrez, Leila Dominguez
and Rose Ann Bermudez. Thus, public
respondent committed grave abuse of
discretion in affirming the decision of the
Labor Arbiter ordering the reinstatement
and payment of full backwages and other
benefits and privileges.
Golden Donuts v. NLRC
Facts: Private respondents Macandog,
Hontiveros, Tamargo, Tegio and
Magtarayo, were employees of petitioner
Golden Donuts, Inc., and were the
complainants in three consolidated cases
filed in September 1990 with the Labor
Arbiter. The facts are aptly summarized in
the Labor Arbiters decision dated January
29, 1993, as follows:

Issue: As a consequence of a negative
ruling on the foregoing issues, there arises
the issue of whether private respondents
are entitled to monetary benefits subject
of their individual complaints?
Held: First, even if a clear majority of the
union members agreed to a settlement
with the employer, the union has no
authority to compromise the individual
claims of members who did not consent
to such settlement. Rule 138 Section 23 of
the 1964 Revised Rules of Court requires a
special authority before an attorney may
compromise his clients litigation. "The
authority to compromise cannot lightly be
presumed and should be duly established
by evidence."
Viewed in light of the foregoing legal
principles, the conclusion is inescapable
that private respondents are not bound by
the compromise agreement entered into
by the union without their consent. They
have not waived their right to security of
tenure nor can they be barred from
entitlement of their individual claims.
Labor Relations 182
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
PORFIRIO BALLADARES v. NLRC
Facts: The Union then entered into
collective bargaining negotiations with the
Bank. Because of a deadlock in the
negotiation, the Union filed a notice of
strike with the Department of Labor and
Employment on April 8, 1987. The Bank's
countermove was to terminate the
employment of petitioners on the ground
of retrenchment.
Petitioners filed separate complaints for
illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice
and for wage differential, overtime pay,
13th month pay, holiday pay, and
separation pay against the Bank. The
Bank, on the other hand, filed a complaint
for illegal strike against petitioners and
several other employees.
Issue: Are petitioners entitled to full
backwages?
Held: We agree that no full backwages
from the time their pay was withheld up
to the time of actual reinstatement can be
ordered paid to petitioners.
R.A. No. 6715, which amended Art. 279 of
the Labor Code by requiring that an

employee who is illegally dismissed shall
be paid "his full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and to his other benefits or
their monetary equivalent computed from
the time his compensation was withheld
from him up to the time of his actual
reinstatement," has no retroactive effect
and does not apply to cases of illegal
dismissal taking place before its effectivity
on March 21, 1989.[6] Since petitioners
were dismissed in 1987, they cannot
demand payment of full backwages until
they were actually reinstated.
Bliss Devt v. NLRC
Facts: Petitioner terminated private
respondents on grounds of loss of trust
and confidence. Private respondents filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal with the
NLRC.
Petitioner argues that: (1) the backwages
awarded to private respondents should
not have exceeded the 3 year-period as
mandated by the Mercury Drug Rule; and
(2) the 3-year rule on backwages applies
to final and executory judgments, hence,
the NLRC should order private
respondents to return the excess amount
they received.
Labor Relations 183
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Issue: Whether the 3-year rule on
backwages applies?
Held: We have constantly adopted the
policy of awarding backwages to illegally
dismissed employees to three years
without qualification or deduction. This
policy applies even to final decisions
awarding backwages in excess of three
years.
Hence, in the case at bar, the open-ended
duration prescribed in the decision sought
to be enforced by the questioned
resolution should be subject to said
limitation and the award of backwages
should, therefore be limited to three (3)
years without qualification or deduction.
The computation of the award made by
the labor arbiter in excess of this limit is
null and void and the writ of execution
issued pursuant thereto should be set
aside.
San Miguel Corp v. NLRC
Facts: The respondent Ernesto Ibias was
employed by the petitioner SMC on
December 24, 1978 as an operator.
According to SMCs Policy on Employee
Conduct, absences without permission or

AWOP are absences not covered either by
a certification of the plant doctor that the
employee was absent due to sickness or
by duly approved application for leave of
absence filed at least 6 days prior to the
intended leave, are subject to disciplinary
action.
The same policy also punishes falsification
of company documents or records.
For his absences on January 2, 4, 11 and
April 28 and 29, he was given a written
warning that he incurred 5 AWOPs and for
his absences on April 28 and 29 and May 7
and 8, the respondent was alleged to have
falsified his medical consultation card.
SMC conducted an administrative
investigation and concluded that the
respondent committed offenses of
excessive AWOPs and falsification of
company documents and accordingly
dismissed him.
Issue: Whether or not the Court of
Appeals erred in sustaining the findings of
the labor arbiter and the NLRC and in
dismissing SMC’s claims that respondent
was terminated from service with just
cause.
Labor Relations 184
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
Held: The settled rule in administrative
and quasi-judicial proceedings is that
proof beyond reasonable doubt is not
required in determining the legality of an
employer’s dismissal of an employee, and
not even preponderance of evidence is
necessary as substantial evidence is
considered sufficient.
In the case at bar, SMC was unable to
prove, by substantial evidence, that it was
respondent who made the unauthorized
entries. SMCs Guide on Employee Conduct
punishes the act of falsification of
company documents or records but it
does not punish mere possession of a
falsified document.
Sanyo Philippines Workers Union v.
Canimeres
Facts: In accordance with the security
clause of the CBA, Sanyo dismissed the
employees. The dismissed employees filed
a complaint with the NLRC for illegal
dismissal.
The Union filed a motion to dismiss
alleging that the Labor Arbiter (LA) has no
jurisdiction over the case, citing Art. 217
(c) of the Labor Code which provides that

cases arising from the interpretation or
implementation of the CBA shall be
disposed of by the LA by referring the
same to the grievance machinery and
voluntary arbitration. Nevertheless, the LA
assumed jurisdiction.
Issue: Does the LA has jurisdiction over
the case?
Held: While it appears that the dismissal
of the employees was made upon the
recommendation of the Union pursuant to
the union security clause provided in the
CBA. The SC is of the opinion that these
facts do not come within the phrase
"grievances arising from
interpretation or implementation of the
CBA and those arising from
interpretation or enforcement
company personnel policies.
jurisdiction of which pertains to the
grievance machinery or thereafter, to a
voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary
arbitrators.
San Miguel Corporation Employees Union
v. Bersamira
Facts: The Union advised SanMig that
some Lipercon and D'Rite workers had
Labor Relations 185
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage
signed up for union membership and
sought the regularization of their
employment with SMC. The Union alleged
that this group of employees, while
appearing to be contractual workers
supposedly independent contractors,
have been continuously working for
SanMig for a period ranging from six (6)
months to fifteen (15) years and that their
work is neither casual nor seasonal as
they are performing work or activities
necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of SanMig. Thus, it was
contended that there exists a "labor-only"
contracting situation. It was then
demanded that the employment status of
the these workers be regularized.
the On 12 January 1989 on the ground that it
of had failed to receive any favorable
The response from SanMig, the Union filed a
notice of strike for unfair labor practice,
CBA violations, and union.
Issue: Whether the labor courts correctly
assumed jurisdiction.
Held: As the case is indisputably linked
with a labor dispute, jurisdiction belongs
to the labor tribunals. As explicitly
provided for in Article 217 of the Labor
 Labor Relations 186
Case Digests: Midterms and Finals Coverage

Code, prior to its amendment by R.A. No.
6715 on 21 March 1989, since the suit
below was instituted on 6 March 1989,
Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide the
following cases involving all workers
including "1. unfair labor practice cases; 2.
those that workers may file involving
wages, hours of work and other terms and
conditions of employment; ... and 5. cases
arising from any violation of Article 265 of
this Code, including questions involving
the legality of striker and lockouts. ..."
Article 217 lays down the plain command
of the law.
Issue: Whether or not the Labor Arbiter
has jurisdiction.
Held: It is obvious from the complaint that
the plaintiffs have not alleged any unfair
labor practice. Theirs is a simple action for
damages for tortious acts allegedly
committed by the defendants. Such being
the case, the governing statute is the Civil
Code and not the Labor Code. It results
that the orders under review are based on
a wrong premise.

Molave Sales Inc. v. Laron

Facts: At the pre-trial conference, the

DEFENDANT raised the question of
jurisdiction of the Court stating that
PLAINTIFF's complaint arose out of
employer-employee relationship, and he
subsequently moved for dismissal. It was
then when respondent Judge dismissed
the case finding that the sum of money
and damages sued upon arose from
employer-employee relationship and that
jurisdiction belonged to the Labor Arbiter
and the NLRC.