january 2013 philippine supreme court decisions on labor law new version

8/11/2019 January 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law NEW VERSION

1/146

March 2010 Philippine Supreme CourtDecisions on Labor Law and ProcedurePosted on April 26, 2010 by Leslie C Dy ! Posted in Labor Law ! "a##ed compensableillness , constructi$e dismissal ,estoppel , ille#al dismissal , %urisdiction , labor&onlycontractin# , parties , P'(A , pro%ect employee !)ere are selected March 2010 rulin#s o* the Supreme Court o* the Philippines on laborlaw and procedure+

Labor lawCancellation o* union re#istration Art 2 -.c/ o* the Labor Code re uires the mandatoryminimum 20 membership o* ran &and&3le employees in the employees4 union "wentypercent .20 / o* 112 ran &and&3le employees in (a#le 5id#e would re uire a unionmembership o* at least 22 employees .112 207 8 22 -/ 9hen the (5(: 3led itsapplication *or re#istration on December 1;, 2007, there were clearly 0 unionmembers "hus, when the certi3cate o* re#istration was #ranted, there is no disputethat the :nion complied with the mandatory 20 membership re uirementAccordin#ly, the retraction o* si union members who later se$ered and withdrew theirunion membership cannot cause the cancellation o* the union4s re#istrationational meetin#epetitioner who had complied with the re uirements o* the law "he Court also point outthat petitioner may, as it has done, #rant on a $oluntary and e% gratia basis, anyamount more than what is re uired by the law, but to insist that more 3nancialassistance be #i$en is certainly somethin# that the Court cannot countenanceMoreo$er, any award o* additional 3nancial assistance to respondents would put themat an ad$anta#e and in a better position than the rest o* their co&employees whosimilarly lost their employment because o* petitioner4s decision to cease its
http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/march-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/lcdy/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/labor-law/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/labor-law/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/compensable-illness/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/compensable-illness/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/constructive-dismissal/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/estoppel/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/jurisdiction/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/labor-only-contracting/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/labor-only-contracting/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/labor-only-contracting/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/labor-only-contracting/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/parties/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/parties/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/poea/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/poea/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/project-employee/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/178989.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/178989.htmhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/lcdy/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/labor-law/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/compensable-illness/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/compensable-illness/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/constructive-dismissal/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/estoppel/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/jurisdiction/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/labor-only-contracting/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/labor-only-contracting/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/parties/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/poea/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/project-employee/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/178989.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/178989.htmhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/march-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/


2/146

operations olid'an( Corporation vs. National )abor Relations Co**ission, et al., G.R.No. 1+ 9 1, ar!" -$, #$1$ .Cost o* li$in# allowance C'LA is not in the nature o* an allowance intended toreimburse e penses incurred by o=cials and employees o* the #o$ernment in theper*ormance o* their o=cial *unctions ?t is not payment in consideration o* the*ul3llment o* o=cial duty As de3ned, cost o* li$in# re*ers to Bthe le$el o* prices relatin#

to a ran#e o* e$eryday items or Bthe cost o* purchasin# those #oods and ser$iceswhich are included in an accepted standard le$el o* consumption


3/146

wor &related@ and .2/ the wor &related in%ury or illness must ha$e e isted durin# theterm o* the sea*arer4s employment contract ?n other words, to be entitled tocompensation and bene3ts under this pro$ision, it is not su=cient to establish that thesea*arer4s illness or in%ury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled@ it mustalso be shown that there is a causal connection between the sea*arer4s illness or in%uryand the wor *or which he had been contracted

"he 2000 P'(A&S(C de3nes Bwor &related in%ury as Bin%ury.ies/ resultin# in disability ordeath arisin# out o* and in the course o* employment and Bwor &related illness asBany sic ness resultin# to disability or death as a result o* an occupational disease listedunder Section 2&A o* this contract with the conditions set therein satis3ed

:nder Section 20 .


4/146

?n the present case, the employer *ailed to dischar#e this burden "he combination o*harsh actions ta en by the ban rendered the employment condition o* the employeehostile and unbearable *or the *ollowin# reasons+ Hirst, there is no showin# o* anyur#ency or #enuine business necessity to trans*er the employee to the Ma ati )ead'=ce "he ban 4s stated reason that the employee had to under#o branch headtrainin# because o* his #ross ine=ciency was not supported by any proo* that the

employee had a record o* #ross ine=ciency Second, the employee4s trans*er *romDuma#uete to Ma ati City is clearly unreasonable, incon$enient and oppressi$e, sincethe respondent and his *amily are residents o* Duma#uete City "hird, the employer*ailed to present any $alid reason why it had to re uire the employee to #o to the Ma ati)ead '=ce to under#o branch head trainin# when it could ha$e %ust easily re uired thelatter to underta e the same trainin# in the G?SM?F area Hinally, there was nothin# inthe order o* trans*er indicatin# the position which the employee would occupy a*ter histrainin#@ thus, the employee was e ecti$ely placed in a BJoatin# status "he ban 4scontention that the employee was assi#ned to a sensiti$e position in the D:)' "asHorce is suspect when considered with the *act that he was made to under#o branchhead trainin# which is totally di erent *rom a position that entails reconcilin# booentries o* all branches o* the *ormer 5econcilin# boo entries is essentially anaccountin# tas

"he test o* constructi$e dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee4sposition would ha$e *elt compelled to #i$e up his position under the circumstances


5/146

Dismissal@ *raud and serious misconduct . ?n this case, the Court *ound that Pastoril wasas acti$ely in$ol$ed as (scoto and 'mela in the sale o* the "oyota "own Ace thatresulted in a loss to the company All three participated in ma in# the company belie$ethat A uino bou#ht the "oyota "own Ace *or P1;0,000 00 when in *act, A uino paidP200,000 00 *or the $ehicle "hus, Pastoril acted in concert with (scoto and 'mela inthe transaction that de*rauded their employer in the amount o* P10,000 00 Pastoril

prepared and issued the deed o* sale indicatin# that the $ehicle was sold *orP1;0,000 00, althou#h she new that the buyer was bein# char#ed P200,000 00 *or the$ehicle (scoto, 'mela and Pastoril helped themsel$es to the price di erence and triedto silence 5odri#ue> .who #ot wind o* the anomaly/ by #i$in# him P1,000 00 andpassin# the P10,000 00 price di erence o as the appro$ed discount A uino as ed *or

"he Court held that there was a conspiracy between and amon# the three employees,where e$ery participant had made si#ni3cant contributory acts B"ite 0ia*ond DradingCorporation and or ?erry y vs. National )abor Relations Co**ission, et al., G.R. No.18+$19. ar!" #9, #$1$ .Dismissal@ %ust cause@ loss o* trust and con3dence Loss o* trust and con3dence, as acause *or termination o* employment, is premised on the *act that the employeeconcerned holds a position o* responsibility or o* trust and con3dence As such, he mustbe in$ested with con3dence on delicate matters, such as custody, handlin# or care andprotection o* the property and assets o* the employer And, in order to constitute a %ustcause *or dismissal, the act complained o* must be wor &related and must show that theemployee is un3t to continue to wor *or the employer ?n the instant case, thepetitioners&employees o* Promm&Kem ha$e not been shown to be occupyin# positionso* responsibility or o* trust and con3dence Feither is there any e$idence to show thatthey are un3t to continue to wor as merchandisers *or Promm&Kem ?oeb Aliviado, etal. vs. ro!ter & Ga*ble "ilippines, n!., et al., G.R. No. 1+$ $+, ar!" 9, #$1$ .Dismissal@ %ust cause@ misconduct Misconduct has been de3ned as improper or wron#conduct@ the trans#ression o* some established and de3nite rule o* action, a *orbiddenact, a dereliction o* duty, unlaw*ul in character implyin# wron#*ul intent and not mereerror o* %ud#ment "he misconduct to be serious must be o* such #ra$e and a##ra$atedcharacter and not merely tri$ial and unimportant "o be a %ust cause *or dismissal, such

misconduct .a/ must be serious@ .b/ must relate to the per*ormance o* the employee4sduties@ and .c/ must show that the employee has become un3t to continue wor in# *orthe employer ?n other words, in order to constitute serious misconduct which willwarrant the dismissal o* an employee under para#raph .a/ o* Article 2 2 o* the LaborCode, it is not su=cient that the act or conduct complained o* has $iolated someestablished rules or policies ?t is e ually important and re uired that the act or conductmust ha$e been per*ormed with wron#*ul intent ?n the instant case, petitioners&employees o* Promm&Kem may ha$e committed an error o* %ud#ment in claimin# to beemployees o* PNK, but it cannot be said that they were moti$ated by any wron#*ulintent in doin# so As such, the Court *ound them #uilty o* simple misconduct only, *orassailin# the inte#rity o* Promm&Kem as a le#itimate and independent promotion 3rmA misconduct which is not serious or #ra$e, as that e istin# in the instant case, cannotbe a $alid basis *or dismissin# an employee ?oeb Aliviado, et al. vs. ro!ter & Ga*ble

"ilippines, n!., et al., G.R. No. 1+$ $+, ar!" 9, #$1$ .Dismissal@ %ust cause@ union security clause ?n terminatin# the employment o* anemployee by en*orcin# the union security clause, the employer is re uired only todetermine and pro$e that+ .1/ the union security clause is applicable@ .2/ the union isre uestin# *or the en*orcement o* the union security pro$ision in the C


6/146

?t is the third re uisite that appears to be lac in# in this case ?t is apparent *rom theidentical termination letters that KMC terminated Casio, et al , by relyin# upon theresolutions o* the union, which made no mention at all o* the e$idence supportin# thedecision o* the union to e pel Casio, et al *rom the union KMC ne$er alle#ed norattempted to pro$e that the company actually loo ed into the e$idence o* the union *ore pellin# Casio, et al and made a determination on the su=ciency thereo* 9ithout

such a determination, KMC cannot claim that it had terminated the employment o*Casio, et al *or %ust cause "he *ailure o* KMC to ma e a determination o* the su=ciencyo* e$idence supportin# the decision o* the union constitutes non&obser$ance by KMC o*procedural due process in the dismissal o* employees General illing Corporation vs.Ernesto Casio, et al. and irgilio ino, et al., G.R. No. 1@9 #, ar!" 1$, #$1$ .Dismissal pursuant to union security clause@ separate notice and harin# re uired KMCille#ally dismissed Casio, et al because not only did KMC *ail to ma e a determinationo* the su=ciency o* e$idence to support the union4s decision to e pel Casio, et al , italso *ailed to accord the e pelled union members procedural due process, i e , noticeand hearin#, prior to the termination o* their employmentKMC, by its own admission, did not conduct a separate and independent in$esti#ation todetermine the su=ciency o* the e$idence supportin# the union4s e pulsion o* Casio, etal ?t simply acceded to the union4s demand Conse uently, KMC cannot insist that ithas no liability *or the payment o* bac wa#es and dama#es to Casio, et al , and that theliability *or such payment should *all only upon the union o=cers and board memberswho e pelled Casio, et al KMC completely missed the point that the e pulsion o* Casio,et al by the union and the termination o* employment o* the same employees by KMC,althou#h related, are two separate and distinct acts Despite a closed shop pro$ision inthe Cation o* bi##erpro3tsKenerally, a bonus is not a demandable and en*orceable obli#ation Hor a bonus to been*orceable, it must ha$e been promised by the employer and e pressly a#reed uponby the parties Ki$en that the bonus in this case is inte#rated in the C


7/146

contract )epanto Cera*i!s, n!. vs. )epanto Cera*i!s E*ployees Asso!iation, G.R. No.18$8++, ar!" #, #$1$ .(mployee@ monetary award "he law and the rules are consistent in statin# that theemployment permit must be ac uired prior to employment "he Labor Code states+BAny alien see in# admission to the Philippines *or employment purposes and anydomestic or *orei#n employer who desires to en#a#e an alien *or employment in the

Philippines shall obtain an employment permit *rom the Department o* Labor Section-, 5ule O?G,


8/146

control o* 9PP4s


9/146

computation o* his separation pay would end on the day he was dismissed on Au#ust20, 1;;; when he supposedly ceased to render ser$ice and his wa#es ended ation used in the per*ormance or
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/181913.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/181913.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/181913.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/181913.htm


10/146

completion o* the %ob, wor or ser$ice contracted out ?n the present case, SAPS has*ailed to show substantial capital

Hurthermore, the employees in this case per*ormed merchandisin# and promotion o* theproducts o* PNK, which are acti$ities that the Court has considered directly related tothe manu*acturin# business o* PNK Considerin# that SAPS has no substantial capital orin$estment and the wor ers it recruited are per*ormin# acti$ities which are directlyrelated to the principal business o* PNK, we 3nd that SAPS is en#a#ed in Blabor&onlycontractin# ?oeb Aliviado, et al. vs. ro!ter & Ga*ble "ilippines, n!., et al., G.R. No.1+$ $+, ar!" 9, #$1$ .Pro%ect employee "he test *or distin#uishin# a Bpro%ect employee *rom a Bre#ularemployee is whether or not he has been assi#ned to carry out a Bspeci3c pro%ect orunderta in#, with the duration and scope o* his en#a#ement speci3ed at the time hisser$ice is contracted )ere, it is not disputed that petitioner company contractedrespondent "rinidad4s ser$ice by speci3c pro%ects with the duration o* his wor clearlyset out in his employment contracts )e remained a pro%ect employee re#ardless o* thenumber o* years and the $arious pro%ects he wor ed *or the companyKenerally, len#th o* ser$ice pro$ides a *air yardstic *or determinin# when an employee

initially hired on a temporary basis becomes a permanent one, entitled to the securityand bene3ts o* re#ulari>ation


11/146

her o=ce as e with Capor4s pli#ht, bein#o* retirement a#e and ha$in# ser$ed petitioners *or ; years, we cannot award any3nancial assistance in her *a$or because it is not only a#ainst the law but also aretro#ressi$e public policy Reno ;oods, n!., and or i!ente 2"u vs. Nag(a(aisang)a(as ng anggaga3a 4N) 5 2atipunan on be"alf of its *e*ber, Nenita Capor, G.R.No. 1+@$1+, ar!" 1 , #$1$ .

"ermination o* employment@ con$iction in criminal case Con$iction in a criminal case isnot necessary to 3nd %ust cause *or termination o* employment Criminal cases re uireproo* beyond reasonable doubt while labor disputes re uire only substantial e$idence,which means such rele$ant e$idence as a reasonable mind mi#ht accept as ade uate to

%usti*y a conclusion "he e$idence in this case was re$iewed by the appellate court andtwo labor tribunals endowed with e pertise on the matter U the Labor Arbiter and theFL5C "hey all *ound substantial e$idence to conclude that Capor had been $alidlydismissed *or dishonesty or serious misconduct Reno ;oods, n!., and or i!ente 2"uvs. Nag(a(aisang )a(as ng anggaga3a 4N) 5 2atipunan on be"alf of its *e*ber,Nenita Capor, G.R. No. 1+@$1+, ar!" 1 , #$1$ .

Labor ProcedureCourt@ 3ndin#s o* *act .labor/ A petition *or re$iew on certiorari under 5ule -7 o* the5ules o* Court should include only uestions o* law uestions o* *act are notre$iewable A uestion o* law e ists when the doubt centers on what the law is on acertain set o* *acts, while a uestion o* *act e ists when the doubt centers on the truthor *alsity o* the alle#ed *acts "here is a uestion o* law i* the issue raised is capable o*bein# resol$ed without need o* re$iewin# the probati$e $alue o* the e$idence 'nce theissue in$ites a re$iew o* the e$idence, the uestion is one o* *act
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169726.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/164016.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/164016.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/164016.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/164016.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169726.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/164016.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/164016.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/164016.htm


12/146

9hether (: committed *raud and misrepresentation in *ailin# to remo$e Pineda4ssi#nature *rom the list o* employees who supported (:4s application *or re#istrationand whether (: conducted an election o* its o=cers are uestions o* *act "hey arenot re$iewable

Hactual 3ndin#s o* the Court o* Appeals are bindin# on the Court Absent #ra$e abuse o* discretion, the Court will not disturb the Court o* Appeals4 *actual 3ndin#s?n En!arna!ion v. Court of Appeals .K 5 Fo 1012;2, Eune 1;; /, the Court held that,Bunless there is a clearly #ra$e or whimsical abuse on its part, 3ndin#s o* *act o* theappellate court will not be disturbed "he Supreme Court will only e ercise its power o*re$iew in nown e ceptions such as #ross misappreciation o* e$idence or a total $oid o*e$idence "P? *ailed to show that the Court o* Appeals #ra$ely abused itsdiscretion Fo(o"a*a Dire "ilippines, n!. vs. Fo(o"a*a E*ployees nion, G.R. No.1+- -#, ar!" 1#, #$1$ .Court@ uestions o* *act .labor/ "he petition essentially raises uestions o* *act 9hileas a rule, *actual 3ndin#s o* the CA are bindin# on the Court, the Court e ercised itsdiscretionary re$iew authority to re$iew the *acts o* this case in $iew o* the conJict inthe 3ndin#s o* *acts o* the labor arbiter, on the one hand, and the FL5C and the CA, on

the other B"ite 0ia*ond Drading Corporation and or ?erry y vs. National)aborRelations Co**ission, et al., G.R. No. 18+$19. ar!" #9, #$1$ .?ndispensable party 5ule , Section Q o* the 5ules o* Court de3nes indispensableparties as those who are parties in interest without whom there can be no 3naldetermination o* an action "hey are those parties who possess such an interest in thecontro$ersy that a 3nal decree would necessarily a ect their ri#hts, so that the courtscannot proceed without their presence A party is indispensable i* his interest in thesub%ect matter o* the suit and in the relie* sou#ht is ine tricably intertwined with theother parties4 interest:n uestionably, Gillamater4s widow stands as an indispensable party to this complaint*or payment o* permanent and total disability bene3ts, reimbursement o* medical andhospitali>ation e penses, moral and e emplary dama#es, and attorney4s *ees )eonisNavigation Co., n!. and Borld arine ana*a, .A. vs. Catalino . illa*ater, etal., G.R. No. 1791+9, ar!" -, #$1$ .

Eurisdiction@ estoppel Petitioner is already estopped *rom belatedly raisin# the issue o*lac o* %urisdiction since it has acti$ely participated in the proceedin#s be*ore the LAand FL5C 9e ha$e consistently held that while %urisdiction may be assailed at anysta#e, a party4s acti$e participation in the proceedin#s be*ore a court without

%urisdiction will estop such party *rom assailin# such lac o* it ?t is an undesirablepractice o* a party participatin# in the proceedin#s and submittin# his case *or decisionand then acceptin# the %ud#ment, only i* *a$orable, and attac in# it *or lac o*

%urisdiction, when ad$erse "ilippine eterans 'an( vs. National )abor RelationsCo**ission, et al., G.R. No. 18888#, ar!" -$, #$1$ .

Eurisdiction@ labor arbiter Petitioners clearly and consistently uestioned the le#ality o*5KM?4s adoption o* the new salary scheme .i e , piece&rate basis/, assertin# that such

action, amon# others, $iolated the e istin# C


13/146

and e clusi$e %urisdiction o$er matters which ha$e not been resol$ed by the #rie$ancemachinery

Pursuant to Articles 21Q in relation to Articles 260 and 261 o* the Labor Code, the laborarbiter should ha$e re*erred the matter to the #rie$ance machinery pro$ided in theCed and e istin# pursuant to an ori#inal charter .( ecuti$e 'rder Fo 60 /, andthat they are employees o* M("5'

)ig"t Rail Dransit Aut"ority v. enus, ?r. .K 5 Fos 16 Q 2 N 16 1, March 2-, 2006/,which has a similar *actual bac drop, holds that L5"A, bein# a #o$ernment&owned orcontrolled corporation created by an ori#inal charter, is beyond the reach o* theDepartment o* Labor and (mployment which has %urisdiction o$er wor ers in the pri$atesector, B(mployees o* petitioner M("5' cannot be considered as employees o*petitioner L5"A "he employees hired by M("5' are co$ered by the Labor Code and areunder the %urisdiction o* the Department o* Labor and (mployment, whereas theemployees o* petitioner L5"A, a #o$ernment&owned and controlled corporation withori#inal charter, are co$ered by ci$il ser$ice rules )erein pri$ate respondent wor erscannot ha$e the best o* two worlds, e # , be considered #o$ernment employees o*petitioner L5"A, yet allowed to stri e as pri$ate employees under our labor laws?n 3ne, the Labor Arbiter4s decision a#ainst L5"A was rendered without %urisdiction,hence, it is $oid "hus, it was improper *or the appellate court to order the remand o*the case to the FL5C, and *or it .FL5C/ to #i$e due course to L5"A4s appeal E**anuel

. 6ugo, et al. vs. )ig"t Rail Dransit Aut"ority, G.R. No. 1818++, ar!" 18, #$1$ .FL5C@ 3nal decision Petitioners recei$ed the Eune 17, 200- resolution o* the FL5C,denyin# their motion *or reconsideration, on Eune 16, 200- "hey 3led their petition *orcertiorari be*ore the CA on Au#ust ;, 200-, or 7- calendar days *rom the date o* noticeo* the Eune 17, 200- resolution


14/146

the proper court )eonis Navigation Co., n!. and Borld arine ana*a, .A. vs.Catalino . illa*ater, et al., G.R. No. 1791+9, ar!" -, #$1$ .P'(A@ *actual 3ndin#s As a #eneral rule, *actual 3ndin#s o* administrati$e and uasi&

%udicial a#encies speciali>in# in their respecti$e 3elds, especially when a=rmed by theCA, must be accorded hi#h respect, i* not 3nality )owe$er, we are not bound to adhereto the #eneral rule i* we 3nd that the *actual 3ndin#s do not con*orm to the e$idence on

record or are not supported by substantial e$idence, as in the instant case "he sel*&ser$in# and unsubstantiated alle#ations o* respondent cannot de*eat theconcrete e$idence submitted by petitioner 9e note that respondent did not deny thedue e ecution o* the withdrawal *orm as well as the #enuineness o* his si#nature andthumb mar a= ed therein 'n the contrary, he admitted si#nin# the same 9hen he$oluntarily si#ned the document, respondent is bound by the terms stipulatedtherein )N nternational anpo3er ervi!es vs. Ar*ando adua, ?r., G.R. No. 17979#,

ar!" , #$1$ .

Au#ust 2010 Philippine Supreme CourtDecisions on Labor Law and ProcedurePosted on September 16, 2010 by Leslie C Dy ! Posted in Labor Law ! "a##ed abandonment , bac wa#es , breach o* trust ,burden o* proo* , dama#es , employeebene3ts , ille#al dismissal , ille#al stri e , labor&only contractin# , loss o* trust andcon3dence , mer#er , ne#li#ence , FL5C , probationary employment , pro%ectemployee , rehabilitation , reinstatement ,retirement , security o* tenure , serious misconduct , union !)ere are selected Au#ust 2010 rulin#s o* the Supreme Court o* the Philippines on laborlaw and procedure+

Labor LawDismissal@ abandonment "ime and a#ain, the Supreme Court has held thatabandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate 3lin# o* a complaint *or ille#aldismissal, more so i* the same is accompanied by a prayer *or reinstatement ?n thepresent case, howe$er, petitioner 3led his complaint more than one year a*ter hisalle#ed termination *rom employment Moreo$er, petitioner did not as *orreinstatement in the complaint *orm, which he personally 3lled up and 3led with theFL5C "he prayer *or reinstatement is made only in the Position Paper that was laterprepared by his counsel "his is an indication that petitioner ne$er had the intention ordesire to return to his %ob Elpidio Calipay vs. National )abor Relations Co**ission, etal., G.R. No. 1++@11, August -, #$1$ .Dismissal@ burden o* proo* ?n termination cases, the employer has the burden o*pro$in#, by substantial e$idence that the dismissal is *or %ust cause ?* the employer *ailsto dischar#e the burden o* proo*, the dismissal is deemed ille#al ?n the present case,


15/146

Dismissal@ burden o* proo* "he law mandates that the burden o* pro$in# the $alidity o*the termination o* employment rests with the employer Hailure to dischar#e thise$identiary burden would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not %usti3ed and,there*ore, ille#al :nsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions o*employers do not pro$ide *or le#al %usti3cation *or dismissin# employees ?n case o*doubt, such cases should be resol$ed in *a$or o* labor, pursuant to the social %ustice

policy o* labor laws and the Constitution Century Canning Corporation, Ri!ardo D. o, ?r.,et al. vs. i!ente Randy R. Ra*il, G.R. No. 171+-$, August 8, #$1$ .Dismissal@ due process ?n termination proceedin#s o* employees, procedural dueprocess consists o* the twin re uirements o* notice and hearin# "he employer must*urnish the employee with two written notices be*ore the termination o* employmentcan be e ected+ .1/ the 3rst apprises the employee o* the particular acts or omissions*or which his dismissal is sou#ht@ and .2/ the second in*orms the employee o* theemployer4s decision to dismiss him "he re uirement o* a hearin# is complied with aslon# as there was an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearin#was conducted "ar*a!ia and p o"n, n!., et al. vs. Ri!ardo . Albayda, ?r., G.R. No.17#7#@, August #-, #$1$ .Dismissal@ due process "he Labor Code reco#ni>es the ri#ht to due process o* allwor ers, without distinction as to the cause o* their termination, e$en i* the cause wastheir supposed in$ol$ement in stri e&related $iolence ?n the present case, P)?MC' senta letter to the a ected union membersRo=cers, directin# them to e plain within 2-hours why they should not be dismissed *or the ille#al acts they committed durin# thestri e@ three days later, the union membersRo=cers were in*ormed o* their dismissal*rom employment 9e do not 3nd this company procedure to be su=cient compliancewith due process ?t does not appear *rom the e$idence that the union o=cers werespeci3cally in*ormed o* the char#es a#ainst them Also, the short inter$al o* timebetween the 3rst and second notice shows that a mere to en reco#nition o* the dueprocess re uirements was made, indicatin# the company4s intent to dismiss the unionmembers in$ol$ed, without any meanin#*ul resort to the #uarantees accorded them bylaw 6 C ndustries, n!. vs. 6 C ndustries )abor Asso!iation 4 )A5, et al., G.R.No. 17$8-$, August 11, #$1$ .

Dismissal@ employee4s past in*ractions A pre$ious o ense may be used as $alid %usti3cation *or dismissal *rom wor only i* the past in*ractions are related to thesubse uent o ense upon which the basis o* termination is decreed "he respondent4spre$ious incidents o* tardiness in reportin# *or wor were entirely separate and distinct*rom his latest alle#ed in*raction o* *or#ery )ence, the same could no lon#er be utili>edas an added %usti3cation *or his dismissal


16/146

clearly established *acts Bens"a pa Center, in!. and or Hu I"i ?ie ,vs. )oreta D.Fung, G.R. No. 18 1##, August 1+, #$1$ .Dismissal@ #ross ne#li#ence and loss o* con3dence Kross ne#li#ence connotes Bwant o*care in the per*ormance o* one4s duties Petitioner4s *ailure on separate occasions tore uire clients to si#n the re uisite documents constituted #ross ne#li#enceHurthermore, it has been held that i* the employees are cashiers, *anagers ,

super$isors, salesmen or other personnel occupyin# positions o* responsibility, theemployer4s loss o* trust and con3dence in said employees may %usti*y the termination o* their employment As the


17/146


18/146

stand that it did not terminate him and that he uit on his own ar and that such dismissal hasremained une plained, there can be no other conclusion but that the dismissal wasille#al Agri!ultural and ndustrial upplies Corporation, et al. vs. ?ueber . ia/ar, etal., G.R. No. 17797$, August # , #$1$ .Due process@ decision rendered without due process "he $iolation o* a party4s ri#ht to

due process raises a serious %urisdictional issue that cannot be #lossed o$er ordisre#arded at will 9here the denial o* the *undamental ri#ht to due process isapparent, a decision rendered in disre#ard o* that ri#ht is $oid *or lac o* %urisdiction

"his rule is e ually true in uasi&%udicial and administrati$e proceedin#s, *or theconstitutional #uarantee that no man shall be depri$ed o* li*e, liberty, or propertywithout due process is un uali3ed by the type o* proceedin#s .whether %udicial oradministrati$e/ where he stands to lose the same Binston ;. Gar!ia vs. ario . olina,et al. Binston ;. Gar!ia s. ario . olina, et al., G.R. No. 1 7-8- G.R. No. 17@1-7,

August 1$, #$1$ .(mployee@ e$aluation and promotion "he *act that employees were re&classi3ed *rom

Eob Krade Le$el 1 to Eob Krade Le$el 2 as a result o* a %ob e$aluation pro#ram does notautomatically entail a promotion or #rant them an increase in salary '* primordialconsideration is not the nomenclature or title #i$en to the employee, but the nature o*his *unctions 9hat transpired in this case was only a promotion in nomenclature "heemployees continued to occupy the same positions they were occupyin# prior to the %obe$aluation Moreo$er, their %ob titles remained the same and they were not #i$enadditional duties and responsibilities CA 6ygiene rodu!ts Corporation E*ployees

Asso!iation ;;B vs. CA 6ygiene rodu!ts Corporation, G.R. No. 18#877, August 9,#$1$ .(mployee@ security o* tenure A wor er4s security o* tenure is #uaranteed by theConstitution and the Labor Code :nder the security o* tenure #uarantee, a wor er canonly be terminated *rom his employment *or cause and a*ter due process Hor a $alidtermination by the employer+ .1/ the dismissal must be *or a $alid cause as pro$ided inArticle 2 2, or *or any o* the authori>ed causes under Articles 2 and 2 - o* the LaborCode@ and .2/ the employee must be a orded an opportunity to be heard and to de*end

himsel* A %ust and $alid cause *or an employee4s dismissal must be supported bysubstantial e$idence, and be*ore the employee can be dismissed, he must be #i$enproper notice o* such causeRs and an ade uate opportunity to be heard ?n the process,the employer bears the burden o* pro$in# that the dismissal o* an employee was *or a$alid cause ?ts *ailure to dischar#e this burden renders the dismissal un%usti3ed and,there*ore, ille#al Bens"a pa Center, n!. and or Hu I"i ?ie vs. )oreta D. Fung, G.R. No.18 1##, August 1+, #$1$ .(mployee bene3t@ time o* death "he death should be deemed compensable under the(CC since )enry was on his way bac to Manila in order to be on time and be ready *orwor the ne t day when his accidental death occurred )e should already be deemed enroute to the per*ormance o* his duty at the time o* the accident ?t should be noted that)enry4s superior allowed him to tra$el to La :nion to $isit his ailin# mother on thecondition that that he return the ne t day :nder these *acts, )enry was in the course o* complyin# with his superior4s order when he met his *atal accident "o be sure, he wasnot in an actual 3re3#htin# or accident situation when he died, but returnin# to wor asinstructed by his superior is no less e ui$alent to compensable per*ormance o* dutyunder Section 1, 5ule ??? o* the (CC 5ules Govern*ent ervi!e nsuran!e yste* vs.;eli!itas Iarate, as substituted by "er "eirs, na*ely elanie Iarate, et al., G.R. No.17$8@7, August -, #$1$ .?lle#al dismissal@ e ect o* rehabilitation proceedin#s "he e istence o* the Stay 'rder Uwhich would #enerally authori>e the suspension o* %udicial proceedin#s U could not ha$e
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/177970.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/157383.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/157383.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/182877.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/182877.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/185122.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/185122.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/185122.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170847.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170847.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/177970.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/157383.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/157383.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/182877.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/182877.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/185122.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/185122.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170847.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170847.htm


19/146

a ected the Court4s action on the present case due to the petitioner4s *ailure to raisethe pendency o* the rehabilitation proceedin#s in its memorandum to the Court At anyrate, a stay order simply suspends all actions *or claims a#ainst a corporationunder#oin# rehabilitation@ it does not wor to oust a court o* its %urisdiction o$er a caseproperly 3led be*ore it "hus, the Court4s rulin# on the principal issue o* the case standsFe$ertheless, with Ledcompany that had an e istin# C


20/146

oppressi$e wor en$ironment 'n the other, the payment releases the employer *romthe #rossly unpalatable obli#ation o* maintainin# in its employ a wor er it could nolon#er trust Bens"a pa Center, n!. and or Hu I"i ?ie vs. )oreta D. Fung, G.R. No.18 1##, August 1+, #$1$ .5etirement pay@ applicability to employees on commission basis ($en i* the petitioneras bus conductor was paid on commission basis, he *alls within the co$era#e o* 5 A

Q6-1 and its implementin# rules "hus, his retirement pay should include the cashe ui$alent o* 7&days S?L and 1R12 o* 1 th month pay "he FL5C4s reliance on the caseo* R & E Dransport, n!. as a basis *or rulin# that bus conductors are not co$ered by thelaw on S?L and 1 th month pay is erroneous since that in$ol$ed a ta i dri$er who waspaid accordin# to the Bboundary system "here is a di erence between dri$ers paidunder the Bboundary system and conductors who are paid on commission basis ?npractice, ta i dri$ers do not recei$e 3 ed wa#es and retain only those sums in e cess o*the Bboundary or *ee they pay to the owners or operators o* the $ehicles Conductors,on the other hand, are paid a certain percenta#e o* the bus4 earnin#s *or theday Rodolfo ?. errano vs. everino antos Dransit and or everino antos, G.R. No.187+98, August 9, #$1$.Separation pay ?n those instances where an employee has been $alidly dismissed *orcauses other than serious misconduct or those reJectin# on his moral character,separation pay may still be #ranted a*ter #i$in# considerable wei#ht to his lon# years o*employment ?n this case, e uity considerations dictate that respondent4s tenure becomputed *rom 1;Q , the year when respondent started wor in# *or :p%ohn, and notonly *rom 1;;6, when the mer#er o* Pharmacia and :p%ohn too place "ar*a!ia and

p o"n, n!., et al. vs. Ri!ardo p. Albayda, ?r., G.R. No. 17#7#@, August #-, #$1$ .Stri e@ $alidity o* stri e Despite the $alidity o* the purpose o* a stri e and the union4scompliance with the procedural re uirements, a stri e may still be held ille#al where themeans employed are ille#al 9hile the stri e had not been marred by actual $iolenceand patent intimidation, the pic etin# that respondent P?LA o=cers and membersundertoo as part o* their stri e acti$ities e ecti$ely bloc ed the *ree in#ress to ande#ress *rom P)?MC'4s premises, thus pre$entin# non&stri in# employees and company$ehicles *rom enterin# the P)?MC' compound ?n this manner, the pic eters $iolated

Article 26-.e/ o* the Labor Code and tainted the stri e with ille#ality 6 C ndustries,n!. vs. 6 C ndustries )abor Asso!iation 4 )A5, et al., G.R. No. 17$8-$, August 11,

#$1$ .:nion@ eli#ibility o* con3dential employees to %oin Con3dential employees are de3nedas those who .1/ assist or act in a con3dential capacity, .2/ to persons who *ormulate,determine, and e ectuate mana#ement policies in the 3eld o* labor relations "he twocriteria are cumulati$e, and both must be met i* an employee is to be considered acon3dential employee U that is, the con3dential relationship must e ist between theemployee and his super$isor, and the super$isor must handle the prescribedresponsibilities relatin# to labor relations. ?n the present case, there is no showin# thatthe secretariesRcler s and chec ers assisted or acted in a con3dential capacity tomana#erial employees and obtained con3dential in*ormation relatin# to labor relationspolicies And e$en assumin# that they had e posure to internal business operations o*the company, as respondent claims, this is not per se #round *or their e clusion in thebar#ainin# unit o* the ran &and&3le employees Dunay na ag(a(aisa ng anggaga3asa Asia 're3ery vs. Asia 're3ery, n!., G.R. No. 1+#$# , August -, #$1$ .:nion@ liability *or in$alid stri e "he e ects o* ille#al stri es, outlined in Article 26- o*the Labor Code, ma e a distinction between participatin# wor ers and union o=cers

"he ser$ices o* an ordinary stri in# wor er cannot be terminated *or mere participationin an ille#al stri e@ proo* must be adduced showin# that he or she committed ille#al actsdurin# the stri e "he ser$ices o* a participatin# union o=cer, on the other hand, may
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/185122.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/185122.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/187698.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/187698.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/172724.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170830.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170830.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/162025.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/185122.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/185122.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/187698.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/187698.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/172724.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170830.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170830.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/162025.htm


21/146

be terminated, not only when he actually commits an ille#al act durin# a stri e, but alsoi* he nowin#ly participates in an ille#al stri e 6 C ndustries, n!. vs. 6 C

ndustries )abor Asso!iation 4 )A5, et al., G.R. No. 17$8-$, August 11, #$1$ .:nion shop@ e ect o* mer#er All employees in the bar#ainin# unit co$ered by a :nionShop Clause in their Cation which prohibits its members *rom %oinin# laborunions on reli#ious #rounds@ .2/ employees already in the ser$ice and already memberso* a union other than the ma%ority at the time the union shop a#reement too e ect@ . /con3dential employees who are e cluded *rom the ran and 3le bar#ainin# unit@ and .-/employees e cluded *rom the union shop by e press terms o* the a#reement ?n theabsence o* any o* these reco#ni>ed e ceptions, there is no basis to conclude that theterms and conditions o* employment under a $alid Ced practice o* law pi!nM pan ervi!es Corp. vs. Gloria a e, et al., G.R. No. 17@$8@, August # , #$1$FL5C@ *actual 3ndin#s Hindin#s o* *act o* the FL5C, a=rmin# those o* the LA, areentitled to #reat wei#ht and will not be disturbed i* they are supported by substantiale$idence "he CA had o$erstepped its le#al mandate by re$ersin# the 3ndin#s o* *act o*the LA and the FL5C as it appears that both decisions were based on substantiale$idence "here is no proo* o* arbitrariness or abuse o* discretion in the process by
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170830.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164301.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/157383.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/157383.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/165442.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/174084.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170830.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164301.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/157383.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/157383.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/165442.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/174084.htm


22/146

which each body arri$ed at its own conclusions "hus, the CA should ha$e de*erred tosuch speciali>ed a#encies that are considered e perts in matters within their

%urisdictions "ar*a!ia and p o"n, n!., et al. vs. Ri!ardo . Albayda, ?r., G.R. No.17#7#@, August #-, #$1$ .FL5C@ re$iew o* decisions "he power o* the Court o* Appeals to re$iew FL5C decisions$ia 5ule 67 or Petition *or Certiorari has been settled as early as in our decision in t.

artin ;uneral 6o*e v. National )abor Relations Co**ission "his Court held that theproper $ehicle *or such re$iew was a Special Ci$il Action *or Certiorari under 5ule 67 o*the 5ules o* Court, and that this action should be 3led in the Court o* Appeals in strictobser$ance o* the doctrine o* the hierarchy o* courts Moreo$er, it is already settled thatunder Sec ; o* < P 12;, as amended, the Court o* Appeals U pursuant to the e ercise o* its ori#inal %urisdiction o$er Petitions *or Certiorari U is speci3cally #i$en the power topass upon the e$idence, i* and when necessary, to resol$e *actual issues i!opResour!es n!orporated 4 R 5 vs. Ana!leto ). DaKe!a, et al., G.R. No. 1+$8#8, August 9,#$1$ .Pleadin# $eri3cation "he lac o* a $eri3cation in a pleadin# is only a *ormal de*ect, nota %urisdictional de*ect, and is not necessarily *atal to a case "he primary reason *orre uirin# a $eri3cation is simply to ensure that the alle#ations in the pleadin# are donein #ood *aith, are true and correct, and are not mere speculations As pre$iouslye plained in Dorres v. pe!iali/ed a!(aging 0evelop*ent Corporation , where only twoo* the 27 real parties&in&interest si#ned the $eri3cation, the $eri3cation by the two couldbe su=cient assurance that the alle#ations in the petition were made in #ood *aith, aretrue and correct, and are not speculati$e pi! nM pan ervi!es Corp. vs. Gloria a e, etal., G.R. No. 17@$8@, August # , #$1$Procedural rules@ strict application Procedural rules settin# the period *or per*ectin# anappeal or 3lin# a petition *or re$iew are #enerally in$iolable ?t is doctrinally entrenchedthat an appeal is not a constitutional ri#ht, but a mere statutory pri$ile#e )ence,parties who see to a$ail themsel$es o* such pri$ile#e must comply with the statutes orrules allowin# it Hurthermore, the per*ection o* an appeal in the manner and within theperiod permitted by law is not only mandatory, but also %urisdictional Hailure to per*ectthe appeal renders the %ud#ment o* the court 3nal and e ecutory Eust as a losin# party

has the pri$ile#e to 3le an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner alsoha$e the correlati$e ri#ht to en%oy the 3nality o* the decision Elpidio Calipay vs.National )abor Relations Co**ission, et al., G.R. No. 1++@11, August -, #$1$ .5eal party in interest@ dismissed employee ?t is clear that the petitioners *ailed toinclude the name o* the dismissed employee in the caption and body o* its petition *orcertiorari and, instead, only indicated the name o* the labor union as the party actin# onbehal* o* such dismissed employee )ence, the Court o* Appeals ri#htly dismissed thepetition *or not ha$in# been 3led by an indispensable party in interest ."he Court stillproceeded to discuss the substanti$e issues and merits o* the case despite a=rmin# thedismissal o* the case based on procedural #rounds / Nag(a(aisang )a(as ng

anggaga3a sa 2ei"in 4N) 2 )A) A 2 5 and 6elen alen/uela vs. 2ei"in "ilippinesCorporation, G.R. No. 17111 , August 9, #$1$5ule -7@ re$iew o* *actual 3ndin#s As a #eneral rule, only uestions o* law may beraised in petitions *or certiorari under 5ule -7 o* the 5ules o* Court )owe$er, there arereco#ni>ed e ceptions to the rule Amon# the e ceptions are when the 3ndin#s o* *actare conJictin# and when the 3ndin#s are conclusions without citation o* speci3ce$idence on which they are based ?n the present case, the 3ndin#s o* *act o* the Courto* Appeals conJict with the 3ndin#s o* *act o* the FL5C and the Labor Arbiter Also, the3ndin# o* the Court o* Appeals that Kuran#o en#a#ed in a 3st3#ht is a conclusionwithout citation o* speci3c e$idence on which it is based Ale% Gurango vs. 'estC"e*i!als and lasti!, n!., et al., G.R. No. 17@ 9-, August # , #$1$ .
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/172724.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/172724.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/160828.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/160828.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/174084.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/166411.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/171115.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/171115.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/174593.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/172724.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/172724.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/160828.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/160828.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/174084.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/166411.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/171115.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/174593.html


23/146

'ctober 2010 Philippine SupremeCourt Decisions on Labor Lawand ProcedurePosted on Fo$ember 22, 2010 by Leslie C Dy ! Posted in Labor Law ! "a##ed appeal , bac wa#es , dama#es , employer&employee relationship , e$idence , ille#aldismissal , %urisdiction , labor&only contractin# , loss o* con3dence , ne#li#ence ,probationaryemployment , redundancy , reinstatement , retirement , separa , serious misconduct !)ere are selected 'ctober 2010 rulin#s o* the Supreme Court o* the Philippine on laborlaw and procedure+

Compensable illness 5espondent is entitled to sic ness wa#es because the shootin#pain in his ri#ht *oot is an in%ury which he su ered durin# the course o* his employment

"his is in consonance with the Standard "erms and Conditions Ko$ernin# the(mployment o* Hilipino Sea*arers 'n


24/146

trans*er shall be tantamount to constructi$e dismissal ?n the instant case, Del Gillar4sdemotion is readily apparent in his new desi#nation as a mere Sta Assistant to theCorporate Purchasin# and Materials Control Mana#er *rom bein# "ransportation Ser$icesMana#er "he two posts are not o* the same wei#ht in terms o* duties andresponsibilities Moreo$er, while Del Gillar4s trans*er did not result in the reduction o* hissalary, there was a diminution in his bene3ts because as a mere Sta Assistant, he

could no lon#er en%oy the use o* a company car, #asoline allowance, and annual *orei#ntra$el, which he pre$iously en%oyed as "ransportation Ser$ices Mana#er "hus, Del Gillarwas clearly constructi$ely dismissed Co!a Cola 'ottlers "ilippines, n!. vs. Angel . 0el

illar, G.R. No. 1+-$91, !tober +, #$1$.Dismissal@ closure o* business Petitioner terminated the employment o* respondents onthe #round o* closure or cessation o* operation o* the establishment which is anauthori>ed cause *or termination under Article 2 o* the Labor Code 9hile it is truethat a chan#e o* ownership in a business concern is not proscribed by law, the sale ordisposition must be moti$ated by #ood *aith as a condition *or e emption *rom liability?n the instant case, howe$er, there was, in *act, no chan#e o* ownership Petitioner didnot present any documentary e$idence to support its claim that it sold the same to ALPS

"ransportation 'n the contrary, it continuously operates under the same name,*ranchises and routes and under the same circumstances as be*ore the alle#ed sale

"hus, no actual sale transpired and, as such, there is no closure or cessation o* businessthat can ser$e as an authori>ed cause *or the dismissal o* respondents eKafran!iaDours and Dravel Dransport, n!. vs. ?oselito . ar*iento and Ri!ardo . Cati*bang, G.R.No. 178-97, !tober #$, #$1$ .Dismissal@ constructi$e dismissal "here is constructi$e dismissal i* an act o* cleardiscrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on thepart o* the employee that it would *oreclose any choice by him e cept to *ore#o hisemployment ?t also e ists where there is cessation o* wor because continuedemployment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unli ely, such as when an o erin$ol$es a demotion in ran and a diminution in pay ?n the present case, what made itimpossible, unreasonable or unli ely *or respondent to continue wor in# *or S)S was theunlaw*ul withholdin# o* his salary )e then lost no time in submittin# his resi#nation

letter and e$entually 3lin# a complaint *or ille#al dismissal %ust a *ew days a*ter hissalary was withheld "hese circumstances are inconsistent with $oluntary resi#nationand bolster the 3ndin# o* constructi$e dismissal 6 erforated aterials, n!., et al.vs. anuel ;. 0ia/, G.R. No. 18 81@, !tober 1-, #$1$ .Dismissal@ corporate o=cer ?t is not the nature o* the ser$ices per*ormed, but on themanner o* creation o* the o=ce that distin#uishes corporate o=cers who may be ousted*rom o=ce at will and ordinary corporate employees who may only be terminated *or

%ust cause :nder Section 27 o* the Corporation Code, a position must be e presslymentioned in the


25/146

cause *or the dismissal o* the employee Assumin# ar#uendo that respondent wasne#li#ent, althou#h the Court *ound otherwise, the lapse or inaction could only bere#arded as a sin#le or isolated act o* ne#li#ence that cannot be cate#ori>ed as habitualand, hence, not a %ust cause *or his dismissal t. )u(eMs edi!al Center, n!. and Robert2uan vs. Estrelito Na/ario, G.R. No. 1 #1++, !tober #$, #$1$ .Dismissal@ loss o* con3dence Loss o* con3dence as a %ust cause *or termination o*

employment is premised on the *act that the employee concerned holds a position o*trust and con3dence "his situation holds where a person is entrusted with con3denceon delicate matters, such as the custody, handlin#, or care and protection o* theemployer4s property )owe$er, in order to constitute a %ust cause *or dismissal, the actcomplained o* must be Bwor &related such as would show the employee concerned tobe un3t to continue wor in# *or the employer ?n the instant case, the 5esolution o* thePAL


26/146

National )abor Relations Co**ission and Aida . Jui ano, G.R. No. 1#-#9@, !tober#$, #$1$ .(mployer&employee relationship "hat complainants were employees o* S?P is clear *romthe *act that S?P paid their salary 9hen complainants char#ed S?P o* underpayment,S?P e$en interposed the de*ense o* *ree board and lod#in# #i$en to complainantsHurthermore, the ?Ds issued to complainants bear the si#nature o* Ale%andro C Pablo,

proprietor o* S?P Li ewise, the memoranda issued to complainants re#ardin# theirabsences without lea$e were si#ned by Pablo All these clearly show that S?P is theemployer o* complainants Althou#h KMPC en#a#ed the ser$ices o* S?P to operate acanteen, S?P and its proprietors could not be considered as labor&only contractors ormere a#ents o* KMPC because they e ercised the essential elements o* an employmentrelationship with the complainants such as hirin#, payment o* wa#es and the power o*control . . . ;ood 6ouse and r. and rs. Ale andro ablo s. Restituto 'atolina, etal., G.R. No. 19#@7-, !tober 11, #$1$.(mployer&employee relationship@ test "he elements to determine the e istence o* anemployment relationship are+ .a/ the selection and en#a#ement o* the employee@ .b/the payment o* wa#es@ .c/ the power o* dismissal@ and .d/ the employer4s power tocontrol the employee4s conduct "he most important o* these elements is theemployer4s control o* the employee4s conduct, not only as to the result o* the wor to bedone, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it ?t should be rememberedthat the control test merely calls *or the e istence o* the ri#ht to control, and notnecessarily the e ercise thereo*


27/146

dismissal o* the employee "he award o* such dama#es is based not on the Labor Codebut on the Ci$il Code "hese dama#es, howe$er, are not intended to enrich the ille#allydismissed employee "hus, the Court *ound it proper to reduce the award o* moraldama#es *rom P700,000 to P100,000 00 and e emplary dama#es *rom P700,000 toP70,000 00 "he reduced amounts are deemed su=cient to assua#e the su erin#se perienced by Del Gillar and to set an e ample *or the public #ood Co!a Cola 'ottlers

"ilippines, n!. vs. Angel . 0el illar, G.R. No. 1+-$91, !tober +, #$1$.?lle#al dismissal@ reinstatement and *ull bac wa#es Probationary employees who areun%ustly dismissed durin# the probationary period are entitled to reinstatement andpayment o* *ull bac wa#es and other bene3ts and pri$ile#es *rom the time they weredismissed up to their actual reinstatement 5espondent is, thus, entitled toreinstatement without loss o* seniority ri#hts and other pri$ile#es as well as to *ullbac wa#es, inclusi$e o* allowances and other bene3ts or their monetary e ui$alentcomputed *rom the time his compensation was withheld up to the time o* actualreinstatement 6 erforated aterials, n!., et al. vs. anuel ;. 0ia/, G.R. No. 18 81@,

!tober 1-, #$1$ .?lle#al dismissal@ reinstatement and payment o* bac wa#es Petitioners4 lac o* %ustcause and non&compliance with the procedural re uisites in terminatin# respondent4semployment renders them #uilty o* ille#al dismissal Conse uently, under Article 2Q; o* the Labor Code, as amended, respondent is entitled to reinstatement to his *ormerposition without loss o* seniority ri#hts and payment o* bac wa#es inclusi$e o*allowances and other bene3ts, or their monetary e ui$alent computed *rom the timethe compensation was not paid up to the time o* actual reinstatement t. )u(eMs

edi!al Center, n!. and Robert 2uan vs. Estrelito Na/ario, G.R. No. 1 #1++, !tober #$,#$1$ .?lle#al dismissal@ separation pay in lieu o* reinstatement ?* reinstatement pro$esimpracticable, and hardly in the best interest o* the parties, perhaps due to the lapse o*time since the employee4s dismissal, or i* the employee decides not to be reinstated,respondent should be awarded separation pay in lieu o* reinstatement ?n the presentcase, since reinstatement is no lon#er *easible due to the lon# passa#e o* time,petitioners are re uired to pay respondent his separation pay e ui$alent to one .1/

month4s pay *or e$ery year o* ser$ice Petitioners are thus ordered to pay respondenthis bac wa#es and separation pay "he awards o* separation pay and bac wa#es arenot mutually e clusi$e and both may be #i$en to respondent t. )u(eMs edi!al Center,

n!. and Robert 2uan vs. Estrelito Na/ario, G.R. No. 1 #1++, !tober #$, #$1$ . Eob contractin#@ conditions Eob contractin# is permissible only i* the *ollowin# conditionsare met+ 1/ the contractor carries on an independent business and underta es thecontract wor on his own account under his own responsibility accordin# to his ownmanner and method, *ree *rom the control and direction o* his employer or principal inall matters connected with the per*ormance o* the wor e cept as to the results thereo*@and 2/ the contractor has substantial capital or in$estment in the *orm o* tools,e uipment, machineries, wor premises, and other materials which are necessary in theconduct o* the business BSubstantial capital or in$estment re*ers to capital stoc s andsubscribed capitali>ation in the case o* corporations, tools, e uipment, implements,machineries, and wor premises, actually and directly used by the contractor orsubcontractor in the per*ormance or completion o* the %ob, wor , or ser$ice contractedout "he Bri#ht to control re*ers to the ri#ht reser$ed to the person *or whom theser$ices o* the contractual wor ers are per*ormed, to determine not only the end to beachie$ed, but also the manner and means to be used in reachin# that end anila Bater Co*pany, n!. vs. ?ose ?. 0alu*pines, et al., G.R. No. 17 $1, !tober @, #$1$ .

Eurisdiction@ dismissal Pursuant to Article 21Q .a/ 2 o* the Labor Code, as amended, theille#al dismissal o* an o=cer or other employee o* a pri$ate employer is properly
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/163091.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185814.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185814.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/152166.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/152166.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/152166.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/175501.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/163091.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185814.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185814.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/152166.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/152166.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/152166.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/175501.htm


28/146

co#ni>able by the labor arbiter )owe$er, where the complaint *or ille#al dismissalconcerns a corporate o=cer, the contro$ersy is considered an intra&corporate disputeand *alls under the %urisdiction o* the Securities and ( chan#e Commission .S(C/ "his

%urisdiction o* the S(C, howe$er, was trans*erred to the 5"C, pursuant to 5A Fo Q;;which became e ecti$e on Au#ust , 2000 Considerin# that the respondent4s complaint*or ille#al dismissal was commenced on Au#ust 10, 2000, the appropriate %urisdiction lie

with the 5"C should it turn out that the respondent was a corporate, not a re#ular,o=cer o* Matlin# atling ndustrial and Co**er!ial Corp., et al. vs. Ri!ardo R.Coros, G.R. No. 1 78$#, !tober 1-, #$1$ .

Eurisdiction@ labor dispute $s intra&corporate dispute Ki$en Locsin4s status as acorporate o=cer, the 5"C, not the Labor Arbiter or the FL5C, has %urisdiction to hear thele#ality o* the termination o* his relationship with Fissan ?n a number o* cases it hasbeen held that a corporate o=cer4s dismissal is always a corporate act, or an intra&corporate contro$ersy so that the 5"C should e ercise %urisdiction Locsin wasundeniably Chairman and President, and was elected to these positions by the Fissanboard pursuant to its edcapital stoc o* P-00,000 00, only P100,000 00 o* which is actually paid&up Also, it wasManila 9ater that pro$ided the e uipment and ser$ice $ehicles needed in theper*ormance o* the contracted ser$ice anila Bater Co*pany, n!. vs. ?ose ?.0alu*pines, et al., G.R. No. 17 $1, !tober @, #$1$ .Loss o* con3dence@ distinction between mana#erial personnel and ran and employees As a #eneral rule, employers are allowed wider latitude o* discretion in terminatin# theemployment o* mana#erial personnel or those who, while not o* similar ran , per*orm*unctions which by their nature re uire the employer4s *ull trust and con3dence "hismust be distin#uished *rom the case o* ordinary ran and 3le employees, whosetermination on the basis o* these same #rounds re uires a hi#her proo* o* in$ol$ementin the e$ents in uestion@ mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by theemployer will not su=ce )eandro . Al!antara vs. D"e "ilippine Co**er!ial and

nternational 'an(, G.R. No. 1 1-@9, !tober #$, #$1$ .Motion to dismiss@ appeal Petitioner Locsin4s submission that the FCLP? improperlyele$ated the Labor Arbiter4s denial o* the Motion to Dismiss to the CA is correct Adenial o* a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order and hence, cannot be appealeduntil a 3nal %ud#ment on the merits o* the case is rendered As a #eneral rule, ana##rie$ed party4s proper recourse to the denial is to 3le his position paper, interposethe #rounds relied upon in the motion to dismiss U such as lac o* %urisdiction in thepresent case U be*ore the labor arbiter, and acti$ely participate in the proceedin#s
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/157802.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185567.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185567.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/175501.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/151349.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/151349.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/157802.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185567.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185567.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/175501.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/151349.htm


29/146

"herea*ter, the labor arbiter4s decision can be appealed to the FL5C, not to the CA "his FL5C rule is similar to the #eneral rule obser$ed in ci$il procedure :nder the 5uleso* Court, the only other recourse o* the a##rie$ed party is to 3le an appropriate specialci$il action under 5ule 67 but only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, andade uate remedy in the ordinary course o* law ?n the labor law settin#, a plain, speedyand ade uate remedy in the *orm o* the correcti$e power o* the FL5C is still open to the

a##rie$ed party when a labor arbiter denies a motion to dismiss Arsenio I. )o!sin vs.Nissan )ease "ils. n!. and )uis 'anson, G.R. No. 18 +7, !tober #$, #$1$.Petition@ *ailure to attach documents Hailure to attach all pleadin#s and documents, byitsel*, is not a su=cient #round to dismiss a petition "he courts may liberally construeprocedural rules in order to meet and ad$ance the cause o* substantial %ustice Procedural lapses will be o$erloo ed when they do not in$ol$e public policy, when theyarose *rom an honest mista e or un*oreseen accident, and when they ha$e notpre%udiced the ad$erse party or depri$ed the court o* its authority "hese conditions arepresent in the instant case Hurthermore, a*ter petitioner4s receipt o* the Court o*Appeals 5esolution dismissin# his petition *or *ailure to attach documents, he 3led aMotion *or 5econsideration alon# with the documents deemed by the Court o* Appealsas lac in# in his ori#inal petition Such subse uent submission should be deemedsubstantial compliance as supported by %urisprudence ?n these cases, the reasonsbehind the *ailure o* the petitioners to comply with the re uired attachments were nolon#er scrutini>ed Clearly, the Court o* Appeals erred in dismissin# petitioner4s specialci$il action *or certiorari despite subse uent substantial compliance with the rules onprocedure )eandro . Al!antara vs. D"e "ilippine Co**er!ial and nternational'an(, G.R. No. 1 1-@9, !tober #$, #$1$ .Pri$ate recruitment a#encies@ solidary liability 5epublic Act Fo 0-2 pro$ides *or the

%oint and solidary liability o* pri$ate recruitment a#encies with their *orei#n principals inany and all money claims a#ainst them Such pro$ision is automatically incorporated bylaw in the contract *or o$erseas employment and is a condition precedent *or itsappro$al "his is to a ord the 'H9s immediate and su=cient payment o* what is duethem Moreo$er, such obli#ation is not coterminous with the a#reement between thelocal a#ent and its *orei#n principal so that i* either or both o* the parties decide to end

the a#reement, the responsibilities o* such parties towards the contracted employeesunder the a#reement do not at all end, but the same e tends up to and until thee piration o* the employment contracts o* the employees recruited and employedpursuant to the said recruitment a#reement "hus, to allow petitioners to simply in$o ethe immunity *rom suit o* its *orei#n principal or to wait *or the %udicial determination o*the *orei#n principal4s liability be*ore petitioner can be held liable renders the law on

%oint and solidary liability inutile ADC verseas Corporation, et al. vs. a. ?osefaE!"in, G.R. No. 178 1. !tober 11, #$1$5edundancy 5edundancy is one o* the authori>ed causes *or the dismissal o* anemployee under Article 2 o* the Labor Code 5edundancy, e ists where the ser$iceso* an employee are in e cess o* what is reasonably demanded by the actualre uirements o* the enterprise Such superJuity may be due to o$erhirin# o* wor ers,decreased $olume o* business, or droppin# o* a particular product line or ser$ice acti$itypre$iously manu*actured or underta en by the enterprise "he determination o*redundancy is an e ercise o* business %ud#ment o* the employer the soundness o* whichis not sub%ect to discretionary re$iew o* the Labor Arbiter and the FL5C, pro$ided thereis no $iolation o* law and no showin# that it was prompted by an arbitrary or maliciousact "hus, a company must not merely declare that it has become o$ermanned, it mustalso produce ade uate proo* o* such redundancy Coca&Cola *ailed to o$ercome thisburden in the instant case ?nstead, it o ered proo* o* Del Gillar4s poor per*ormance
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185567.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/151349.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/178551.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185567.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/151349.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/178551.htm


30/146

which is irrele$ant in relation to the issue on redundancy Co!a Cola 'ottlers"ilippines, n!. vs. Angel . 0el illar, G.R. No. 1+-$91, !tober +, #$1$.

5einstatement@ doctrine o* strained relations :nder the doctrine o* strained relations,the payment o* separation pay is considered an acceptable alternati$e to reinstatementwhen the latter option is no lon#er desirable or $iable Payment liberates the employee*rom what could be a hi#hly oppressi$e wor en$ironment, and at the same time

releases the employer *rom the obli#ation o* eepin# in its employ a wor er it no lon#ertrusts ?n the instant case, respondent4s reinstatement is no lon#er *easible asanta#onism has caused a se$ere strain in his wor in# relationship with petitioners

"here*ore, a more e uitable disposition would be an award o* separation pay e ui$alentto at least one month pay, in addition to his *ull bac wa#es, allowances and otherbene3ts 6 erforated aterials, n!., et al. vs. anuel ;. 0ia/, G.R. No. 18 81@,

!tober 1-, #$1$ .5elease and uitclaim@ $alidity Wuitclaims e ecuted by the employees are commonly*rowned upon as contrary to public policy "hus, *or uitclaims to be $alid the *ollowin#re uisites must be complied with+ .a/ that there was no *raud or deceit on the part o*any o* the parties@ .b/ that the consideration o* the uitclaim is credible and reasonable@and .c/ that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or#ood customs, or pre%udicial to a third person with a ri#ht reco#ni>ed by law arorient

"ipping Co., n!., et al. vs. Gil ;lores, G.R. No. 1+19-@, !tober +, #$1$5etirement@ compulsory Article 2 Q o* the Labor Code, as amended by 5 A Fo Q6-1,pe#s the a#e *or compulsory retirement at 67 years, while the minimum a#e *or optionalretirement is set at 60 years An employer is, howe$er, *ree to impose a retirement a#eearlier than the *ore#oin# mandates pro$ided that the prero#ati$e is e ercised pursuantto a mutually instituted early retirement plan ?n the present case, not e$en an iota o*$oluntary ac uiescence to :F?P5'M4s early retirement a#e option is attributable topetitioner :F?P5'M4s (mployees4 Fon&Contributory 5etirement Plan was unilaterallyand compulsorily imposed on them Petitioner was *orced to participate in the plan, andthe only way she could ha$e re%ected the same was to resi#n or lose her %ob Suchpassi$e ac uiescence on the part o* employees cannot e uate to $oluntary acceptancewhich must be e plicit, $oluntary, *ree, and uncompelled )a$in# terminated petitioner

merely on the basis o* a pro$ision in the retirement plan which was not *reely assentedto by her, :F?P5'M is #uilty o* ille#al dismissal )ourdes A. Cer!ado vs. nipro*,

n!., G.R. No. 1881 @. !tober 1-, #$1$ .5ule on appeal *rom denial o* motion to dismiss@ e ception As a #eneral rule, a LaborArbiter4s denial o* the Motion to Dismiss on the #round o* lac o* %urisdiction isappealable to the FL5C and not to the CA by way o* 5ule 67 )owe$er, we ta ee ception to this #eneral rule in the present case because a strict implementation o*these rules would cause substantial in%ustice to FCLP? A*ter all, the parties ha$esu=ciently $entilated their positions on the disputed employer&employee relationshipand ha$e, in *act, submitted the matter *or the CA4s consideration Moreo$er, the CAcorrectly ruled that Locsin was a corporate o=cer, not an employee and there*ore

%urisdiction lies with the 5"C and not the Labor Arbiter Arsenio I. )o!sin vs. Nissan)ease "ils. n!. and )uis 'anson, G.R. No. 18 +7, !tober #$, #$1$.Seaman as a contractual employee@ disability claims A seaman is a contractual and nota re#ular employee "hus, in claims o* seamen *or compensation and disability bene3ts,the Court cannot %ust disre#ard the pro$isions o* the P'(A Standard (mploymentContract .P'(A S(C/ ?n order to claim disability bene3ts under the P'(A S(C, it is theXcompany&desi#nated4 physician who must proclaim that the seaman su ered apermanent disability, due to either in%ury or illness, durin# the term o* the latter4semployment ?n this case, the 3ndin#s o* respondents4 desi#nated physician thatpetitioner has been su erin# *rom brie* psychotic disorder and that it is not wor &related
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/163091.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185814.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185814.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161934.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/188154.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185567.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/163091.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185814.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185814.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161934.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/188154.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185567.htm


31/146


32/146

was made in bad *aith Accordin#ly, corporate o=cers, )artmannshenn andSchumacher, cannot be held personally liable *or the corporate obli#ations o* S)S 6

erforated aterials, n!., et al. vs. anuel ;. 0ia/, G.R. No. 18 81@, !tober 1-, #$1$ .9a#es@ deduction by employer "he *ree board and lod#in# S?P *urnished the employeescannot operate as a set&o *or the underpayment o* their wa#es ?t was held in Mabe>a$ Fational Labor 5elations Commission that the employer cannot simply deduct *rom

the employee4s wa#es the $alue o* the board and lod#in# without satis*yin# the*ollowin# re uirements+ .1/ proo* that such *acilities are customarily *urnished by thetrade@ .2/ $oluntary acceptance in writin# by the employees o* the deductible *acilities@and . / proo* o* the *air and reasonable $alue o* the *acilities char#ed ?t is clear *romthe records that S?P *ailed to comply with these re uirements . . . ;ood 6ouse and r.and rs. Ale andro ablo s. Restituto 'atolina, et al., G.R. No. 19#@7-, !tober 11,#$1$.9a#es, withholdin# Mana#ement prero#ati$e does not include the ri#ht to temporarilywithhold wa#es without the consent o* the employee Such an interpretation would becontrary to Article 116 o* the Labor Code, which pro$ides that it shall be unlaw*ul *orany person, directly or indirectly, to withhold any amount *rom the wa#es o* a wor er orinduce him to #i$e up any part o* his wa#es by *orce, stealth, intimidation, threat or byany other means without the wor er4s consent 9ithholdin# o* wa#es is allowed only inthe *orm o* wa#e deductions under the circumstances pro$ided in Article 11 o* theLabor Code such as+ .a/ ?n cases where the wor er is insured with his consent by theemployer, and the deduction is to recompense the employer *or the amount paid by himas premium on the insurance@ .b/ Hor union dues, in cases where the ri#ht o* the wor eror his union to chec &o has been reco#ni>ed by the employer or authori>ed in writin#by the indi$idual wor er concerned@ and .c/ ?n cases where the employer is authori>edby law or re#ulations issued by the Secretary o* Labor ?n the present case, thewithholdin# o* complainant4s wa#es does not *all under the e ceptions pro$ided inArticle 11 and is thus unlaw*ul 6 erforated aterials, n!., et al. vs. anuel ;.0ia/, G.R. No. 18 81@, !tober 1-, #$1$ .9or &related illness@ substantial e$idence 9or in# conditions cannot be accepted toha$e caused or at least increased the ris o* contractin# the disease U in this case, brie*

psychotic disorder& in the absence o* substantial e$idence "he e$idence must be realand substantial, and not merely apparent ?n sum, petitioner *ailed to establish bysubstantial e$idence that his brie* psychotic disorder was caused by the nature o* hiswor as oiler o* the company&owned $essel ?n *act, he *ailed to elaborate on the natureo* his %ob as oiler o* respondent company "he Court, there*ore, has di=culty in 3ndin#any lin between his position as oiler and his illness Petitioner points out that his Bbrie*psychotic disorder which was caused by a *amily problem is wor &related simplybecause had it been a land&based employment, petitioner would ha$e easily #one homeand attended to the needs o* his *amily "his is not the Bwor &related instancecontemplated by the pro$isions o* the employment contract in order to be entitled tothe bene3ts 'therwise, e$ery seaman would automatically be entitled to compensationbecause the nature o* his wor is not land&based Edgardo . anganiban vs. DaraDrading "ip anage*ent n!. and "inline 0N '60, G.R. No. 187$-#, !tober 18,#$1$ .9rit o* habeas data@ labor disputes 5espondent uestions her trans*er and, throu#h thee traordinary remedy o* habeas data, see s the disclosure o* the reasons behind it)owe$er, since her real ob%ecti$e is to be spared *rom complyin# with M(5ALC'4sMemorandum directin# her reassi#nment, respondent should instead lod#e hercomplaint with the FL5C and the Labor Arbiters which ha$e %urisdiction o$er suchconcerns "he writ o* habeas data is a remedy a$ailable only to a person whose ri#ht topri$acy in li*e, liberty or security is $iolated or threatened by an unlaw*ul act or omission
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185814.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192473.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192473.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185814.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/187032.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/187032.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185814.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192473.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192473.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/185814.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/187032.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/187032.htm


33/146


34/146

was #i$en the show cause memorandum Contrary to respondent4s alle#ations, he was#i$en more than enou#h opportunity to de*end himsel* "he audit committee4sconclusion to dismiss respondent *rom the ser$ice was merely recommendatory ?t wasnot conclusi$e upon the petitioner company "his is precisely the reason why thepetitioner still conducted *urther in$esti#ations "o reiterate, respondent was properlyin*ormed o* the char#es and had e$ery opportunity to rebut the accusations and present

his $ersion 5espondent was not denied due process o* law *or he was ade uatelyheard as the $ery essence o* due process is the opportunity to be heard E=uitable C'an( 4No3 'an!o 0e ro niban(, n!.5, vs. Castor A. 0o*por, G.R. Nos. 1+-#9- &1+-#97, 0e!e*ber 8, #$1$.Dismissal@ loss o* con3dence@ #uidelines *or application . "he Court has set the#uidelines *or the application o* the doctrine o* loss o* con3dence as *ollows+ .a/ Loss o*con3dence should not be simulated@ .b/ ?t should not be used as a subter*u#e *or causeswhich are improper, ille#al or un%usti3ed@ .c/ ?t may not be arbitrarily asserted in the*ace o* o$erwhelmin# e$idence to the contrary@ and .d/ ?t must be #enuine, not a merea*terthou#ht to %usti*y earlier action ta en in bad *aith ?n the case at bar, no mentionwas made re#ardin# petitioner4s alle#ed loss o* trust and con3dence in respondentFeither was there any e planation nor discussion o* the alle#ed sensiti$e and delicateposition o* respondent re uirin# the utmost trust o* petitioner in# in cases o* dismissal based on loss o* trustand con3dence "hus, when the breach o* trust or loss o* con3dence is not clearlyestablished by *acts, as in the instant case, such dismissal on the #round o* loss andcon3dence cannot be countenanced D"e Co!a Cola E%port Corporation, vs. Clarita .Ga!ayan, G.R. No. 1@9@--, 0e!e*ber 1 , #$1$ .Dismissal@ serious misconduct@ wron#*ul intent re uired . Hor misconduct or improperbeha$ior to be a %ust cause *or dismissal, .a/ it must be serious@ .b/ must relate to theper*ormance o* the employee4s duties@ and .c/ must show that the employee hasbecome un3t to continue wor in# *or the employer ?n the present case, the alle#edin*ractions o* respondent could hardly be considered serious misconduct ?n order toconstitute serious misconduct which will warrant the dismissal o* an employee, it is notsu=cient that the act or conduct complained o* has $iolated some established rules or

policies ?t is e ually important and re uired that the act or conduct must ha$e beendone with wron#*ul intent Such is, howe$er, lac in# in the instant case D"e Co!a ColaE%port Corporation, vs. Clarita . Ga!ayan, G.R. No. 1@9@--, 0e!e*ber 1 , #$1$ .Dismissal@ substantial e$idence . "he uantum o* proo* re uired in determinin# thele#ality o* an employee4s dismissal is only substantial e$idence ?n a similar case, theCourt held that the standard o* substantial e$idence is met where the employer, as inthis case, has reasonable #round to belie$e that the employee is responsible *or themisconduct and his participation in such misconduct ma es him unworthy o* the trustand con3dence demanded by his position ?n the present case, petitioner has su=cientlyestablished that respondent solicited, collected and recei$ed the P1,700 00 downpayment ille#ally *rom the spouses Mueda "a en to#ether, the petitioner hasdischar#ed its burden o* establishin# the serious misconduct committed by respondentSuch misconduct ma es him unworthy o* the trust and con3dence demanded by hisposition "ilippine )ong 0istan!e Delep"one Co*pany, vs. Eusebio . 6onrado, G.R.No. 189-++, 0e!e*ber 8, #$1$.Dismissal@ substantial e$idence . "he burden o* proo* rests on the employer to show thatthe dismissal was *or a %ust cause or authori>ed cause Dismissal due to seriousmisconduct and loss o* trust and con3dence must be supported by substantial e$idencewhich is that amount o* rele$ant e$idence as a reasonable mind mi#ht accept asade uate to support a conclusion, e$en i* other minds, e ually reasonable, mi#htconcei$ably opine otherwise ?n the present case, e$idence clearly shows that the acts
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/163293.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/163293.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/149433.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/149433.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/149433.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/149433.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/189366.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/189366.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/163293.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/163293.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/149433.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/149433.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/189366.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/189366.htm


35/146

o* Aboc in helpin# or#ani>e the credit unions and in the operations thereo* constitutedserious misconduct or breach o* trust and con3dence )is participation in the creditunions is hi#hly irre#ular and clearly in conJict with Metroban 4s business Aboc claimedthat he was only an Bunwillin# participant doin# a ministerial %ob "he in$esti#ation,howe$er, showed otherwise Antonio A. Abo! vs. etropolitan 'an( And DrustCo*pany etropolitan 'an( And Drust Co*pany vs. Antonio A. Abo!, G.R. Nos.

17$ @# @- and G.R. No. 17+@+$, 0e!e*ber 1-, #$1$ .Dismissal@ two&notice rule . "he re uirements o* procedural due process were compliedwith when petitioner sent a memo to respondent in*ormin# him o* the speci3c char#esand #i$in# him opportunity to air his side Subse uently, in a letter, respondent wasin*ormed that on the basis o* the results o* the in$esti#ation conducted, his writtene planation, the written e planation o* other employees as well as the audit report, themana#ement has decided to terminate him "he two&notice re uirement, whichincludes a written notice o* the cause o* dismissal to a ord the employee ampleopportunity to be heard and de*end himsel*, and written notice o* the decision toterminate him which states the reasons there*or, was thus complied with E=uitable C'an( 4No3 'an!o 0e ro niban(, n!.5, vs. Castor A. 0o*por, G.R. Nos. 1+-#9- &1+-#97, 0e!e*ber 8, #$1$.Dismissal@ will*ul disobedience . "o %usti*y will*ul disobedience or insubordination as a$alid #round *or termination, the employee4s assailed conduct must ha$e been will*ul orcharacteri>ed by a wron#*ul or per$erse attitude and the order $iolated must ha$e beenreasonable, law*ul, made nown to the employee, and must pertain to the duties whichhe had been en#a#ed to dischar#e ?n the case at bar, while petitioner4s manual o*procedures does not absolutely prohibit the ne#otiation or acceptance o* second&endorsed chec s *or deposits, it e pressly disallows the acceptance o* chec s endorsedby corporations

january 2013 philippine supreme court decisions on labor law new version

Documents