Labor Law Updates

2019 Jurisprudence (January and February)

Special Laws
Outline of the Report
• Jurisprudence Updates
• January
• Disability Benefits
• Illegal Termination based on Just Cause
• Labor Arbiters’ Jurisdiction
• Special Laws
• Wage Order No. 22
• Expanded Maternity Leave Law
2019 Jurisprudence
Disability Benefits
Disability Benefits
Edgar Torillos v. Eastgate Maritime Corporation, FJ Lines, Inc., Panama
and Emmanuel Regio, G.R. No. 215904, January 10, 2019
• Parties:
• Petitioner is a employed for 15 years with Eastgate.
• Respondent Eastgate is the local agent of FJ Lines Panama
• Facts:
• Petitioner was a chief cook.
• Sometime October 2011, while onboard MV Corona Lines, he fell down after
losing balance while carrying a 25 kilo sack of rice.
• Since then, he had been experiencing pain in his right leg.
• He was repatriated to Manila on December 20, 2011.
Disability Benefits
Edgar Torillos v. Eastgate Maritime Corporation, FJ Lines, Inc., Panama
and Emmanuel Regio, G.R. No. 215904, January 10, 2019
• Facts cont’d:
• Upon arrival to the Philippines on December 20, 2011, petitioner was
examined by Eastgate’s company physician.
• An MRI was conducted and discovered he had Lumbar Spondylosis. An X-Ray
of his right knee also revealed there were degenerative effects on his knee.
• Surgery was conducted and petitioner was recommended for physical
rehabilitation.
• A medical report was issued by the company-designated physician, stating
that the condition was degenerative in nature and most likely pre-existing.
• Petitioner also consulted an independent orthopedic surgeon.
Disability Benefits
Edgar Torillos v. Eastgate Maritime Corporation, FJ Lines, Inc., Panama
and Emmanuel Regio, G.R. No. 215904, January 10, 2019
• Facts cont’d
• The independent surgeon however declared him unfit for sea duty.
• Petitioner claimed for permanent total disability benefits.
• Respondent argued that the company designated physician’s findings indicate that
the condition was pre-existing and hence may not be considered as work-related.
• Issue:
• Is the petitioner entitled to permanent total disability benefits?
• Ruling:
• No. The Supreme Court ruled that the findings of the company designated physician
are to be given greater weight than the mere allegation of petitioner that his
condition was caused by an accident while performing work.
Disability Benefits
Edgar Torillos v. Eastgate Maritime Corporation, FJ Lines, Inc., Panama
and Emmanuel Regio, G.R. No. 215904, January 10, 2019
• Ruling cont’d
• The Supreme Court reiterated that the petitioner failed to prove by
substantial evidence that the disability was caused by a work-related
accident.
Disability Benefits
Edgar Torillos v. Eastgate Maritime Corporation, FJ Lines, Inc., Panama
and Emmanuel Regio, G.R. No. 215904, January 10, 2019
• Ruling cont’d
• Further, the Supreme Court noted that petitioner prematurely filed his claim
for permanent total disability benefits.
• The Court stated that the company-designated physician must arrive at a
definite assessment of the seafarer’s fitness to work or degree of disability
within 120 days or up to 240 days provided there is justification to extend the
period to 240 days.
• In this case, the company designated physician recommended that
rehabilitation be done first to petitioner.
• However, petitioner filed his claim for permanent total disability benefit only
140 days from the start of receiving medical assistance.
Disability Benefits
Abosta Ship Management Corp., and Alex S. Estabillo v. Dante C. Segui,
G.R. No. 214906, January 16, 2019
• Parties
• Petitioner is the employer of respondent.
• Respondent is a seaman claiming for maximum benefit of permanent and total
disability benefits
• Facts
• Respondent was engaged for work on June 16, 2009.
• Respondent was required to be on duty for more than 12 hours a day.
• Sometime October 26, 2010, respondent experienced severe back pain.
• The following day, he was brought to a medical facility in South Africa.
• The condition subsisted and he was repatriated to the Philippines on December 2,
2010.
• It was then determined that respondent had a circumferential disc bulge in his spine.
Disability Benefits
Abosta Ship Management Corp., and Alex S. Estabillo v. Dante C. Segui,
G.R. No. 214906, January 16, 2019
• Facts cont’d
• Respondent underwent surgery on December 14, 2010. He was confined for
more than 3 weeks but his condition did not improve.
• Respondent sought for an opinion from another physician who declared him
permanently and totally unable to work.
• Respondent then claimed for permanent and total disability benefits.
• The Labor Arbiter, NLRC and Court of Appeals granted and affirmed his claim.
• Petitioner reiterated that the company designated physician had not yet
provided an assessment as to the degree of the disability of respondent,
hence his claim was prematurely filed.
Disability Benefits
Abosta Ship Management Corp., and Alex S. Estabillo v. Dante C. Segui,
G.R. No. 214906, January 16, 2019
• Issue
• Is the final assessment of the company designated physician necessary to establish a claim
for permanent and total disability benefits?
• Ruling
• No. The Supreme Court denied the petition.
• There is no rule requiring that the company-designated physician must first issue an
assessment of permanent total disability benefit before an employee can claim for the same.
• The Supreme Court summarized when an employee may claim for permanent and total
disability benefits under the Art. 192(c)(1) and Rule X, Section 2 of the Amended Rules on
Employees Compensation.
• What is required is that the condition preventing the employee to work subsists for more
than 120 days or 240 days, in both cases the company physician fails to issue an assessment.
• Or at anytime within 120 to 240 days upon the issuance of a final assessment of permanent
and total disability benefits. In any case, the extended period of 240 days must be duly
justified by the company designated physician.
Disability Benefits
Abosta Ship Management Corp., and Alex S. Estabillo v. Dante C. Segui,
G.R. No. 214906, January 16, 2019
• Ruling
• The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the
employee’s disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer
reported to him;
• If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of
120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes
permanent and total;
• If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of
120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g. employee required further medical
treatment or employee was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and
treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that
the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period;
and
• If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the
extended period of 240 days, then the employee’s disability becomes permanent
and total, regardless of any justification.
Disability Benefits
Abosta Ship Management Corp., and Alex S. Estabillo v. Dante C. Segui,
G.R. No. 214906, January 16, 2019
• Ruling
• In the case at bar, the company designated physician failed to provide an
assessment of the respondent’s condition after the lapse of 120 days, nor did
the company designated physician provide any justification to extend the
period of diagnosis to 240 days.
• Further, the Supreme Court ruled that it would be at the height of injustice if
only company designated physicians would be allowed to evaluate the fitness
of their employees, thus rendering them helpless in the event a company
designated physician fails to assess their condition within the period
prescribed by law.
Illegal Dismissal
Illegal Dismissal
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. Maximo Mamaril, G.R. No.
225725
• Parties
• Petitioner is the employer of respondent.
• Respondent is an employee-security guard of petitioner.
• Facts
• Maximo Mamaril was hired as a special task force security guard of petitioner.
• On October 8, 2006, the guards of petititioner apprehended Eliseo Sumbilang,
an employee of petitioner. They caught him stealing skinned copper wires and
was about to load them in a tricycle.
• After investigation, respondent was also apprehended since he allegedly
conspired with respondent by opening the door where the copper wires were
stored.
Illegal Dismissal
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. Maximo Mamaril, G.R. No.
225725
• Facts cont’d
• Respondent was then dismissed from duty due to loss of trust and confidence.
• Respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal.
• The LA and NLRC ruled in favor of respondent.
• The CA reversed the decision and ruled in favor of the respondent.
• The CA opined that the testimonies of the witnesses were improbable as there were
numerous inconsistencies and that they were far from human experience.
• Petitioner argues that the testimonies of the witnesses were credible and that since
respondent is occupying a highly confidential position, the mere implication of his
participation in the crime is enough to justify dismissal.
• Issue
• Is the dismissal of the respondent proper?
Illegal Dismissal
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. Maximo Mamaril, G.R. No.
225725
• Ruling
• The Court ruled that in the absence of compelling reasons, it shall not try the
facts already established by the lower courts.
• Further, it ruled that the contention that mere implication in a crime can be
basis to dismiss an employee due to loss of trust and confidence is misplaced.
• To be a valid ground of dismissal, the loss of trust and confidence a willful
breach and founded on clearly established facts.
• Loss of trust and confidence must rest on substantial grounds and not on the
employer’s arbitrariness, else the employee would remain at the mercy of the
employer.
Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter (“LA”)
Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter
Augustin international Center v. Elfrenito B. Bartolome and Rumby L.
Yamat, G.R. No. 226578, January 28, 2019
• Parties
• Petitioner is an employment agency.
• Respondents were employee-tile setters of Golden Arrow, Ltd.
• Facts
• Respondents were engaged for work on a 2 year contract with Golden Arrow, Ltd. In
Sudan
• Their contract states that the shall be employed for a period of not less than 24
months.
• Their contract also indicated that the all claims and complaints shall be resolved
amicably with the participation of the Labour Attache.
• Almost a year later from their employment on April 2011, they were terminated
from employment on May 2012.
• Respondents filed for illegal dismissal with the labor arbiter.
Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter
Augustin international Center v. Elfrenito B. Bartolome and Rumby L.
Yamat, G.R. No. 226578, January 28, 2019
• Facts cont’d
• Petitioner claimed that the LA had no jurisdiction over the matter since it
must be settled with the Labour Attache first.
• Issue
• Is the contention of the petitioner tenable?
• Ruling
• No. the Supreme Court ruled that under Sec. 10 of RA 8042 of the Migrant
Workers Act, LAs have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising
out of employer-employee relations or by virtue of any law or contract
involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment.
Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter
Augustin international Center v. Elfrenito B. Bartolome and Rumby L.
Yamat, G.R. No. 226578, January 28, 2019
• Ruling cont’d
• The Court also ruled that the prior settlement of the claim of respondent with
the Labor Attache is not a requisite before the LA can assume jurisdiction.
• The Court ruled that the provision of their contract is applicable only when
both parties are willing to amicably settle, such as in the case at bar.
• Further, the Court ruled that jurisdiction is established by law and cannot be
modified or waived by an agreement between the parties.
Special Laws
Wage Order No. 22
• Signed by the NCR Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board
on October 20, 2018
• Took effect fifteen days thereafter publication on November 4, 2018.
• Salient Provisions:
• New minimum wage rates in NCR is now P537.00 from a total of
P512.00(P502 MW + P10.00 COLA).
• Integration of P10.00 COLA to the minimum wage.
• Now included in computing workers’ benefits such as OT, Holiday, NSD, etc.
Republic Act 11210
Expanded Maternity Law
• Signed by the President on February 20, 2019
• Took effect fifteen days thereafter publication on March 7, 2019.
• Salient Provisions:
• All working mothers are guaranteed 105 days of paid leave. 7 days of which
are transferrable to the fathers.
• If the employee is a single mother, an additional 15 days of paid leave is
granted.
• Under the old law, 60 days are given for normal delivery and 78 for caesarian
delivery.
• Under the new law, there is another possibility to extend the materity leave
for another 30 days without pay, provided there is a 45 day prior notice to the
employer.
Republic Act 11210
Expanded Maternity Law
• In maximum, a single mother can be given 120 days paid leave and 30
days leave without pay.
• In maximum, a married mother can be given 105 days paid leave and
30 days leave without pay.