labor law case reviews

7/21/2019 Labor Law Case Reviews

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/labor-law-case-reviews 1/24

Q. The factory workers of Sime Darby used to work from 7:45 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. with a 30-

miute paid !o ca""# "uch break. $ %&&'( Sime Darby issued a memoradum to a"" factory

workers ad)isi* them of a cha*e i work schedu"e. The ew work schedu"e e"imiated the

30-miute paid !o ca""# "uch break ad *a)e the workers a oe-hour upaid "uch break.

+der the ew schedu"e( the workers wi"" sti"" work for ei*ht hours per day. The workers fi"ed a

comp"ait for ufair "abor practice. Did the compay commit ay ufair "abor practice whe it

re)ised the work schedu"e,

. o( the compay did ot commit ay ufair "abor practice. The ri*ht to fi/ the work

schedu"es of the emp"oyees rests pricipa""y o their emp"oyer. +der the o"d schedu"e( the

workers cou"d be ca""ed upo to do obs duri* their 30-miute paid "uch break. +der the

ew schedu"e( the workers were *i)e a oe-hour "uch break without ay iterruptio from

their emp"oyer. Thus( there is o eed to compesate the workers for this period. Sice the

ew schedu"e app"ies to a"" emp"oyees i the factory whether uio members or ot( it is ot

discrimiatory. $t caot be said that this ew scheme preudices the workers1 ri*ht to se"f-or*ai2atio. ece( there is o ufair "abor practice i this case.

Q. Shou"d the appea" bod be posted withi the te %0 day re*"emetary period for fi"i* a

appea" from the 6abor rbiter1s decisio,

. s a *eera" ru"e( yes. he the ud*met i)o")es a moetary award( a appea" by the

emp"oyer may be perfected o"y upo posti* of a cash or surety bod i a amout e8ui)a"et

to the moetary award i the ud*met appea"ed from. 9omp"iace with the re8uiremet of

posti* a bod is both madatory ad imperati)e as the perfectio of a appea" withi the

re*"emetary period is urisdictioa". $ a *rowi* umber of cases( howe)er( the Supreme9ourt has re"a/ed the stri*et app"icatio of the ru"e coceri* the posti* of the appea" bod

withi the te %0 day re*"emetary period as a re8uiremet for the perfectio of a appea".

The Supreme 9ourt has a""owed the fi"i* of a motio for reductio of bod i "ieu of the appea"

bod withi the re*"emetary period for fi"i* a appea". $ such case( the appea" bod may be

fi"ed after the "apse of the re*"emetary period ad after the reso"utio of the motio to reduce

the amout of the bod . (Alcosero v. NLRC, 288 SCRA 129, March 26, 1998)

Q. oberto was a dri)er of ;hi"traco who was assi*ed to the 6e*aspi 9ity-;asay 9ity route.

e was dismissed from the ser)ice. e fi"ed a comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa" before the 691s

atioa" 9apita" re*io rbitratio <rach i =ai"a. ;hi"traco fi"ed a =otio to Dismiss stati*that the comp"ait shou"d ha)e bee "od*ed with the 691s e*ioa" rbitratio <rach i

6e*aspi 9ity ot o"y because oberto was a residet thereof but a"so because the "atter was

hired( assi*ed( ad based i 6e*aspi 9ity. Decide.

. The =otio to Dismiss must be deied. The 8uestio of )eue pertais to the tria" ad

re"ates more to the co)eiece of the parties rather tha upo the substace ad merits of the



case. ;ro)isios o )eue are iteded to assure co)eiece for the p"aitiff ad his

witesses ad to promote the eds of ustice. The ew u"es of ;rocedure of the 69 cited

by ;hi"traco speaks of the comp"aiat1s workp"ace( e)idet"y showi* that the ru"e is iteded

for the e/c"usi)e beefit of the worker. This bei* the case( the worker may wai)e said

beefit. =oreo)er( sice oberto was assi*ed to 6e*aspi 9ity-;asay 9ity route( the fi"i* of

the comp"ait with the atioa" 9apita" e*io rbitratio <rach was proper( =ai"a bei*

cosidered as part of oberto1s workp"ace. (Philtranco Service Enterrises, !nc. v. NLRC,

288 SCRA "8", Aril 1, 1998)

Q. =ario was hired to work o board the passe*er cruise )esse" >dyssey for %' moths as

uti"ity ma. he he boarded the )esse"( he was uaware that there was a e/isti* aimosity

betwee the ?i"ipio crew ad the @reek crew. >e day( a heated ar*umet occurred betwee

=ario ad a @reek deck steward( Aakkas( which resu"ted i a scuff"e betwee the two. Aakkas

pushed =ario who fe"" hitti* his head a*aist the stee" mo"di* of the door. =ario suffered a

cut i the head. ;rior to this icidet( Aakkas ad the other @reek workers cotiuous"yridicu"ed =ario. The i*ht before the icidet( Aakkas threateed to pour hot coffee o =ario1s

head. =ario reported the abuses to the ship captai but the "atter ust b"amed =ario for oii*

the ship. <ecause of his fear that further troub"e may erupt betwee him ad the @reek crew(

=ario "eft the ship. he he was repatriated to the ;hi"ippies( he fi"ed a comp"ait for i""e*a"

dismissa". The "abor arbiter dismissed the comp"ait o the *roud that =ario )o"utari"y

si*ed off from the )esse". $s the ru"i* correct,

. o( the ru"i* is erroeous. 9ostructi)e dismissa" e/ists whe there is a 8uitti* because

cotiued emp"oymet is redered impossib"e( ureasoab"e or u"ike"y. $ this case( =ario 8uit

because he feared for his "ife ad his fear was we"" fouded. is decisio to "ea)e the ship wasot )o"utary but was impe""ed by a "e*itimate desire for se"f-preser)atio. The ship captai( as

the *eera" a*et of the ship ower( cou"d be he"d resposib"e for fai"i* to make the workp"ace

safe for =ario. This is a c"ear case of costructi)e dismissa". (Sin#a Shi Mana#a$ent

Phils., !nc. v. NLRC, 288 SCRA 692, Aril 1%, 1998)

Q. ;$S$ is a du"y "icesed security a*ecy. $t hired Bscobi ad se)era" other security *uards to

work as *uards i the premises of <asi"a ;"atatios( $c. i <asi"a( =idaao. Bscobi ad

his compaios were residets of <asi"a ad heads of fami"ies. fter worki* for fi)e years as

*uards i the p"atatio( Bscobi ad his *roup were p"aced uder reser)ed or f"oati* status.

This was due to the reductio of the security force ordered by <asi"a ;"atatios( $c.. 6ater(the *uards p"aced o reser)ed or f"oati* status were istructed by re*istered "etter to report to

;$S$ ead >ffice i =etro =ai"a for posti* to ;$S$ c"iets withi =etro =ai"a. The *uards did

ot rep"y. secod "etter was set but the *uards "ikewise fai"ed to rep"y. ;$S$ set idi)idua"

"etters to the *uards orderi* them to e/p"ai why o discip"iary actio shou"d be take a*aist

them for fai"i* to comp"y with ;$S$1s order. The *uards did ot sed their aswers to ;$S$.

;$S$ dismissed the *uards o the *roud of isubordiatio or wi""fu" disobediece to "awfu"



orders of their emp"oyer. Duri* the proceedi*s before the 6abor rbiter( the *uards ustified

their iabi"ity to comp"y with ;$S$1s order to report to the head office i =etro =ai"a( sayi*:

they were residets of <asi"a( ha)e fami"ies of their ow i <asi"a( ha)e e)er tra)e"ed

beyod Cisayas ad =idaao( ot pro)ided by ;$S$ with fare moey as they caot( o their

ow( fiace their tra)e" from <asi"a to =ai"a. ssumi* the a""e*atios of the *uards were

true( was the dismissa" )a"id,

. o( the dismissa" was ot )a"id. Disobediece( to be a ust cause for termiatio( must be

wi""fu" ad per)erse meta" attitude rederi* the emp"oyee1s act icosistet with proper

subordiatio. wi""fu" or itetioa" disobediece ustifies dismissa" o"y whe the ru"e( order

or istructio is % reasoab"e ad "awfu"( ' sufficiet"y kow to the emp"oyee( ad 3

coected with the duties which the emp"oyee has bee e*a*ed to dischar*e. The

reasoab"eess ad "awfu"ess of a ru"e deped o the circumstaces of each case.

easoab"eess pertais to the kid or character of directi)es ad commads ad to the

maer i which they are ade. $ this case( the order to report to the =ai"a office fai"s to meetthis stadard. $t was *ross"y ico)eiet for the *uards who were residets ad heads of

fami"ies i <asi"a. The *uards were ot pro)ided with fuds to defray their trasportatio ad

"i)i* e/peses. The dismissa" i this case was too harsh a pea"ty for the isubordiatio

which was either wi""fu" or itetioa". The *uards1 fai"ure to aswer ;$S$1s show-cause

"etters does ot e*ate this coc"usio as ;$S$ *rated other *uards a secod chace to

e/p"ai( a opportuity it deied Bscobi ad his *roup. (Esco&in v. NLRC, 289 SCRA %8,

Aril 1", 1998)

Q. Dri)erssa"esme ad truck he"pers of a softdriks merchadiser fi"ed a case for i""e*a"

dismissa"( uderpaymet of wa*es( ad other c"aims. The 6abor rbiter decided( amo*others( that the emp"oyer had ot comp"ied with the miimum wa*e re8uiremets. $ arri)i* at

this coc"usio( the 6abor rbiter refused to ic"ude the commissios paid to the workers i

determii* comp"iace with the miimum wa*e re8uiremet. s part of their compesatio(

the workers recei)ed commissios per case of softdriks so"d. $s the 6abor rbiter1s ru"i*

correct,

. o( the ru"i* is erroeous. The defiitio of the term !wa*e# i the 6abor 9ode e/p"icit"y

ic"udes commissios. hi"e commissios are iceti)es or forms of ecoura*emet to ispire

workers to put a "itt"e more idustry o their obs( sti"" these commissios are direct

remueratios for ser)ices redered. There is o "aw madati* that commissios be paido"y after the miimum wa*e has bee paid to the worker. The estab"ishmet of a miimum

wa*e o"y sets a f"oor be"ow which a emp"oyee1s remueratio caot fa""( ot that

commissios are e/c"uded from wa*es i determii* comp"iace with the miimum wa*e

"aw. (!ran v. NLRC, 289 SCRA %'', Aril 22, 1998)



Q. $ a comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa" ad ufair "abor practices( ud*met was redered i fa)or

of <uda 6abor +io. The 6abor rbiter ordered the compay( <uda Bterprises to reistate

the idi)idua" comp"aiats ad to pay them fu"" backwa*es. The decisio became fia" ad

e/ecutory ad a writ of e/ecutio was issued. ;arce"s of "ad a""e*ed"y be"o*i* to <uda

Bterprises( but "ater foud to be re*istered uder the ames of 9o Tua( S. *( E. 6im( ad B

@otamco( were "e)ied upo. +po "eari* of such "e)y( 9o Tua ad his three other re"ati)es

fi"ed a +r*et =otio to Quash the rit of B/ecutio c"aimi* that they ho"d )a"id ad "awfu"

tit"e to the said properties by )irtue of the !B/tra-udicia" Sett"emet ad Sa"e of the Bstate of the

Deceased Bdi"berto Soriao# e/ecuted by the heirs. oe of the heirs( e/cept 6ourdes

Soriao( the proprietress ad maa*er of <uda Bterprises( were parties i the "abor case.

The motio was *rated. The workers appea"ed ad asked the 9ommissio to order the 6abor

rbiter to imp"ead the mo)ats( prayi* that the sa"e betwee the mo)ats ad <uda

Bterprises be dec"ared )oid. $s the 69 competet to determie the "e*a"ity of the sa"e,

. o. The power of the 69 to e/ecute its ud*met e/teds o"y topropertiesnestiona&l* &elon#in# to the ud*met debtor. $f the property uder "e)y does

ot be"o* to the ud*met debtor i the 69 case( it cou"d ot be "e)ied upo by the sheriff

for the satisfactio of the ud*met therei. B)e upo a mere prima facie showi* of

owership by the third-party c"aimat( if the third party c"aim does ot i)o")e or *rows out of a

"abor dispute( a separate actio for iucti)e re"ief a*aist such "e)y may be maitaied i

court. $f there is suspicio that the sa"e of properties was ot i *ood faith( i.e. was made i

fraud of creditors( the 69 is icompetet to make a determiatio . The task is udicia" ad

the proceedi*s must be ad)ersary. (Co +an v. NLRC, 289 SCRA %1", Aril 22, 1998)

Q. The e*ioa" a*e <oard for e*io F issued a*e >rder o. F-0%. Three corporatiosfi"ed app"icatios for e/emptio as !distressed estab"ishmets# uder @uide"ies o. 3 issued by

the e*ioa" a*e <oard. +der the e*ioa" a*e <oard1s *uide"ie( a corporatio is a

!distressed estab"ishmet# if it is e*a*ed i a idustry that is !distressed due to coditios

beyod its cotro".# This criterio is differet from the criterio "aid dow i the *uide"ies

promu"*ated by the atioa" a*es ad ;roducti)ity 9ommissio. Shou"d the app"icatios be

*rated pursuat to the e*ioa" a*e <oard1s *uide"ies,

. o( the app"icatios shou"d be deied. The "aw *rats the ;9( ot the e*ioa" a*e

<oard( the power to !prescribe the ru"es ad *uide"ies# for the determiatio of miimum wa*e

ad producti)ity measures. hi"e the e*ioa" a*e <oard has the power to issue wa*eorders( such wa*e orders are subect to the *uide"ies prescribed by the ;9. Sice the

e*ioa" a*e <oard1s @uide"ie o. 3 was ot appro)ed by the ;9 ad is cotrary to

;91s *uide"ies( the said *uide"ie issued by the e*ioa" a*e <oard is ioperati)e ad

caot be used by the "atter i decidi* o the app"icatios for e/emptio. (Nasiit L$&er

Co$an*, !nc. v. NPC, 289 SCRA 66-, Aril 2-, 1998)



Q. Cir*iia was a emp"oyee of Eudy ;hi"ippies( $c.. <ecause of her erroeous assortmet

ad packa*i* of '(GH0 do2es of ifat wear( the compay dismissed her from emp"oymet o

the *roud of *ross e*"i*ece. Cir*iia committed the ifractio for the first time. $s the

dismissa" )a"id,

. o( the dismissa" is i)a"id. @ross e*"i*ece imp"ies a wat or absece of or fai"ure to

e/ercise s"i*ht care or di"i*ece( or the etire absece of care. $t e)ices a thou*ht"ess

disre*ard of cose8ueces without e/erti* ay effort to a)oid them. rtic"e 'H' b of the

6abor 9ode re8uires that such e*"ect must ot o"y be *ross( it shou"d be !*ross and habitua"

e*"ect#. The pea"ty of dismissa" is 8uite se)ere here sice the worker committed the

ifractio for the first time. (/* Philiines, !nc. v. NLRC, 289 SCRA -"", Aril 29,

1998)

Q. $ a i""e*a" dismissa" case fi"ed by security *uards of Scout Security *ecy( the "abor

arbiter he"d osewood( $c.( the pricipa"( oit"y ad se)era""y "iab"e with the security a*ecy for wa*e differetia"( backwa*es( ad separatio pay. The "abor arbiter stated that osewood was

"iab"e as the *uards1 idirect emp"oyer uder rts. %0G( %07( ad %0& of the 6abor 9ode.

osewood appea"ed c"aimi* that it had o participatio i the i""e*a" dismissa" of the *uards.

ssumi* osewood1s c"aim is true( shou"d the "abor arbiter1s ru"i* be re)ersed,

. Ies( the "abor arbiter1s ru"i* shou"d be re)ersed. +der the 6abor 9ode( a emp"oyer is

so"idari"y "iab"e for "e*a" wa*es due security *uards 0or the erio/ o0 ti$e the* ere assi#ne/

to it by its cotracted security a*ecy. owe)er( i the absece of proof that the emp"oyer

itse"f committed the acts costituti)e of i""e*a" dismissa" or cospired with the security a*ecy i

the performace of such acts( the emp"oyer shall not &e lia&le for backwa*es ador separatio pay arisi* as a cose8uece of such u"awfu" termiatio. (Roseoo/

Processin#, !nc. v. NLRC, 29 SCRA %8, Ma* 21, 1998)

Q. $ a i""e*a" dismissa" case( the 6abor rbiter uphe"d the )a"idity of a retrechmet pro*ram

imp"emeted by a mii* compay. s basis for the ru"i*( the 6abor rbiter took !udicia"

otice# of the ecoomic difficu"ties suffered by the mii* sector. $s the ru"i* correct,

. o( the ru"i* is erroeous. Eurisprudece prescribes the miimum stadards ecessary to

pro)e the )a"idity of a retrechmet: a the "osses e/pected must be substatia" ad ot

mere"y de minimis i e/tetJ b the substatia" "osses appreheded must be reasoab"yimmietJ c the retrechmet must be reasoab"y ecessary ad "ike"y to effecti)e"y pre)et

the e/pected "ossesJ ad d the a""e*ed "osses( if a"ready icurred( ad the e/pected immiet

"osses sou*ht to be foresta""ed must be pro)ed by sufficiet ad co)ici* e)idece. $ this

case( the retrechmet caot be cosidered )a"id o the basis of the !udicia" otice# take by

the 6abor rbiter. (Anino v. NLRC, 29 SCRA %89, Ma* 21, 1998)



Q. $c"uded i a comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa" is a c"aim for i*ht shift differetia"s. The

emp"oyer did ot dey that the comp"aiat redered i*ht shift work. The "abor arbiter

dismissed the c"aim for i*ht shift differetia"s because the comp"aiat a""e*ed"y fai"ed to

substatiate his c"aim for i*ht shift differetia"s. $s the ru"i* correct,

. o( the ru"i* is erroeous. The fact that the comp"aiat e*"ected to substatiate his c"aim

for i*ht shift differetia"s is ot preudicia" to his cause. The burde of pro)i* paymet rests

o the emp"oyer. The worker1s c"aim of o-paymet of this beefit is a e*ati)e a""e*atio

which eed ot be supported by e)idece. The worker caot ade8uate"y pro)e the fact of

o-paymet of the i*ht shift differetia"s sice the pertiet emp"oyee fi"es( payro""s( records(

ad other simi"ar documets are ot i his possessio but i the custody ad abso"ute cotro" of

petitioer. <y choosi* ot to fu""y ad comp"ete"y disc"ose iformatio to pro)e that it had paid

a"" the i*hts shift differetia"s due the worker( the emp"oyer fai"ed to dischar*e the burde of

proof. (National Se$icon/ctor 3istri&tion, Lt/. 4. NLRC, 291 SCRA '%8, ne 26, 1998)

Q. fter the 6abor rbiter dismissed a comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa"( the worker appea"ed. The

emp"oyer was ot furished a copy of the memoradum of appea". Thus( the emp"oyer was ot

aware of the appea" ad did ot participate i the appea" iterposed by the worker. ithout the

emp"oyer1s participatio( the 69 re)ersed the 6abor rbiter1s decisio ad ru"ed i fa)or of

the appe""at worker. $s the decisio )a"id,

. o( the 691s decisio is u"" ad )oid. $t is a cardia" ru"e i "aw that a decisio or

ud*met is fata""y defecti)e if redered i )io"atio of a party-"iti*at1s ri*ht to due process.

The fau"t "ies with the 69 ad ot with the appe""at worker. hi"e the ew u"es of

;rocedure of the 69 re8uire proof of ser)ice of the appea" o the other party( o-comp"iace therewith wi"" preset o obstac"e to the perfectio of the appea" or does it amout

to a urisdictioa" defect to the 691s taki* co*i2ace thereof. hi"e the "aw e/cuses the

appe""at from otifyi* the other party of the appea"( o reaso ca be *i)e by the 69 that

wou"d e/empt it from iformi* the "atter of the appea" ad *i)i* it a opportuity to be heard.

The case shou"d be set for further proceedi*s to afford the emp"oyer the opportuity to be

heard. (Philiine National Constrction Cororation v. NLRC, 292 SCRA 266, l* 1,

1998)

Q. $ their aswer to a case for i""e*a" dismissa"( the emp"oyer fi"ed positio papers supported by

affida)its. Subse8uet"y( the 6abor rbiter ordered the compay to pay wa*e differetia"s adother beefits. They appea"ed to the 69 by fi"i* a supp"emeta" memoradum to correct

ad amp"ify iade8uate a""e*atios ad certai omissios. $ this appea"( the seek to itroduce

ew e)idece to pro)e that there was o emp"oyee-emp"oyer re"atioship. Shou"d the 69

admit ew e)idece,



. o. eari*s had a"ready bee schedu"ed( yet the emp"oyer chose mere"y to submit positio

papers. s such( the compay had e)ery opportuity to submit before the "abor arbiter the

e)idece which they sou*ht to adduce before the 69. (Santos v. NLRC5 l* 2', 1998)

Q. ;etitioer was emp"oyed as ccouti* =aa*er etrusted with the e)a"uatio ad

assessmet of cotacts. cotractor comp"aied that petitioer was aski* two thousad

pesos for e)ery cotract the cotractor *ets from the compay. ;etitioer admitted ha)i*

accepted moey o four differet occasios. The compay termiated petitioer o this *roud.

as she )a"id"y dismissed,

. Ies( the compay1s re"iace o petitioer1s assessmet of cotracts was based primari"y o

trust ad cofidece. er acceptace of moey( e)e if )o"utary o the cotractor1s part( casts

doubt o her ite*rity. a)i* occupied a maa*eria" positio( petitioer maybe dismissed o

the *roud of "oss of trust ad cofidece. B)e if she was a first-time offeder( a compaymay resort to acts of se"f-defese a*aist a maa*eria" emp"oyee who has breached their trust

ad cofidece. ?urthermore( each of the four occasios is treated as a separate offeseJ

hece( mi"itati* her p"ea of first ifractio.(4illaneva v. NLRC5 l* 2-, 1998)

Q. ;etitioers were dismissed from ser)ice after they were asked by the compay to *o throu*h

dru*-tests( as the compay recei)ed iformatio that they were smoki* somethi* Kshabu1

iside the work premises. ;etitioers ad the compay submitted their respecti)e positio

papers o the icidet. The 6abor rbiter foud the dismissa" based o the positio papers as

)a"id which the 69 affirmed. 9a a fu""-b"ow tria" be dispesed with by the "abor arbiter,

. Ies. u"es of e)idece i courts sha"" ot be cotro""i* i ay case brou*ht before the

commissio rt. ''%( 69. The 6abor 9ode a""ows the "abor arbiter ad 69 to decide the

case based o positio papers ad other documets. The ho"di* of a tria" is discretioary o

the "abor arbiter ad caot be demaded as a matter of ri*ht by the parties. (Sare v. NLRC5

l* '1, 1998)

Q. super)isory emp"oyee "abor or*ai2atio was issued a charter certificate by a atioa"

federatio to which the compay1s rak ad fi"e uio was a"so affi"iatedL with. $t fi"ed a petitio

for certificatio e"ectio( opposed by the compay because the uio was a""e*ed"y composed

of both super)isory ad rak ad fi"e emp"oyees sice both uios are affi"iated with the samefederatio. Shou"d the petitio for certificatio e"ectios be *rated,

. Ies. The affi"iatio of two "oca" uios i a compay with the same atioa" federatio is ot

a e*atio of their idepedece as uios sice i re"atio to the emp"oyer( the "oca" uios

are cosidered as pricipa"s whi"e the federatio is deemed as their a*et. The "oca"s are

separate from each other ad their affi"iatio with the same federatio wou"d ot make them



members of the same "abor uio. super)isory or*ai2atio is prohibited from oii* the

same federatio as that of the rak ad fi"e or*ai2atio o"y if two coditios are preset: %.

The M ? emp"oyees are direct"y uder the authority of super)isory emp"oyees ad '. The

atioa" federatio is acti)e"y i)o")ed i uio acti)ities i the compay. (3LS7 Me/ical

Center v. La#es$a5 A#st 12, 1998)

Q. ;ri)ate respodets were emp"oyed by ;6 with a sa"ary of ;%(HG0. They *ot a sa"ary

icrease of ;400mo. for a tota" moth"y compesatio of ;'('G0 under the CBA.

Subse8uet"y( GG40 was passed raisi* the miimum wa*e of worker. Their sa"aries were

adusted a*ai by addi* ;304 pursuat to the thus their tota" *ross pay amouted to

;'(5G5. fter four moths( they were promoted ad their basic pay of ;%(HG0 was raised to

;'(300mo. p"us the 9< wa*e icrease of ;400mo. thereby maki* their *ross pay to

;'(700mo.. The emp"oyees were ot satisfied with their *ross pay( i)oki* the ;304 wa*e

icrease uder GG40. ;6 howe)er refused c"aimi* that the icrease of ;440 which is the

differece betwee their ew basic sa"ary ad their o"d basic sa"ary ;'(300-%(HG0 wassufficiet comp"iace with the . Thus respodets istituted a actio a*aist ;6 for

)io"atios of GG40. $s the sa"ary icrease of the emp"oyees sufficiet comp"iace with

GG40, Shou"d the 9< icrease be credited to the wa*e icrease uder the ,

. o. Sec. 7 of the prohibits the dimiutio of e/isti* beefits ad a""owaces by workers.

9ose8uet"y( it was improper ad ot a""owed by "aw for petitioer to app"y or cosider as

comp"iace( with the madated wa*e hike of its workers( the sa"ary icreases correspodi* to

their promotio i rak. +"ike the a*e >rder os. 5 ad G i the Apex ruling, there is o

creditabi"ity pro)isio i GG40. $t was ot the itetio of 9o*ress to credit sa"ary icreases

by reaso of 9< wa*e adustmets or promotios i rak for the madated wa*eicrease. (PAL v. NLRC5 Set. ',1998)

Q. 9omp"aits for i""e*a" dismissa" were fi"ed a*aist respodet. Summos ad otices of

heari*s were set to the respodet which were recei)ed by its bookkeeper. Thereafter( the

"abor arbiter redered a ud*met by defau"t after fidi* that the respodet tried mere"y

e)aded a"" the summos ad otices by refusi* to c"aim its mai"s. espodet coteds that

the he was ot )a"id"y ser)ed with summos sice the bookkeeper caot be cosidered a

a*et uder the u"es of 9ourt ad thus the "abor arbiter e)er ac8uired urisdictio o)er

respodet. Did the "abor arbiter ac8uire urisdictio o)er respodet,

. Ies. ;rocedura" ru"es are "ibera""y costrued ad app"ied i 8uasi-udicia" proceedi*s.

Substatia" comp"iace i this case is cosidered ade8uate. The bookkeeper ca be

cosidered a a*et because his ob is ite*rated with the corporatio. Pa&on v. NLRC, Set.

2%,1998)



Q. 9a a compay( dissatisfied with the decisio of the 6abor rbiter( fi"e a =otio to med

the >rder of the 6abor rbiter more tha a moth after the date of issuace of the >rder,

. o. To a""ow the amedmet of the order wi"" resu"t i the circum)etio of Sec. %7 of the

u"es of ;rocedure of the 69 which pro)ide that !o =otio for ecosideratio of ay order

or decisio of the 6abor rbiter sha"" be a""owed.# To permit this wou"d o"y a""ow the petitioer

to )io"ate the statutory %0-day period re8uiremet for appea". Scherin# E$lo*ees La&or

7nion v. NLRC, Set. 2",1998)

Q. espodet was first hired by S=9 e*a*ed i the maufacture of *"ass for a period of 4

moths to repair ad up*rade its furace. %0 days after his first cotract eded( he was a*ai

hired to drai aother furace for 3 moths. $s he a proect emp"oyee,

. Ies. There are two kids of proect emp"oyees: %.Those emp"oyed i a proect usua""y

ecessary or desirab"e i the usua" trade or busiess +>D i +T>< of the emp"oyer but isseparate ad distict from the other udertaki* of the compayJ or '.Those ot +>D i

+T>< but is a"so distict ad separate from the other udertaki* of the compay. <ut both

obs be*i ad ed at determied or determiab"e time. $ the case at bar( the emp"oyee fa""s

uder the secod cate*ory. The process of maufacturi* *"ass re8uires a furace which is to

be repaired o"y after bei* used cotiuous"y for )aryi* period of 5-%0 years. Therefore( the

ob of the respodet is a proect ot +>D i +T><. SMC v. NLRC, cto&er -,1998)

Q. ;etitioer was emp"oyed as a assistat credit ad co""ectio maa*er. ?rom the start( he

was iformed that those ot e"i*ib"e for membership i the bar*aii* uit are ot etit"ed to

9< beefits( but to beefits at "east e8ui)a"et or hi*her tha that pro)ided i the 9<.Subse8uet"y( petitioer was dia*osed with pu"moary disease( prompti* him to app"y for

optioa" retiremet as pro)ided by the 9<. e wished to retire o Eu"y %G(%&&' but was asked

by the compay to cha*e it to pri" 30(%&&'. The emp"oyee( due to ur*et eed( a*reed( for

which he recei)ed ;%00(000 as ad)aces o his retiremet pay. 9ou"d the emp"oyee a)ai" of

the optioa" retiremet beefit i the 9<, 9ou"d the emp"oyer )ary the effecti)e date of

retiremet,

. Ies( a"thou*h maa*eria" emp"oyees are ot co)ered by the 9<( the emp"oyer )o"utari"y

a*reed to *rat them beefits at "east e8ui)a"et or hi*her tha that pro)ided i the 9<. Thus(

this a*reemet is the app"icab"e retiremet cotract uder the 6abor 9ode. =oreo)er( theemp"oyer may )ary the effecti)e date of retiremet as petitioer asseted to the cha*e( i

cosideratio for a ad)ace of his retiremet pay. So "o* as the a*reemet is )o"utary ad

reasoab"e( it is )a"id. (Martine v. NLRC, cto&er 12, 1998)

Q. espodet emp"oyee was a truck dri)er who was dismissed because he a""e*ed"y dro)e

whi"e druk after he chase a office persoe" with a kife. The icidet resu"ted to the dama*e



of the te-whee"er truck he dro)e. The emp"oyee o"y reported the icidet o =arch %&&3(

thou*h it happeed o December %&&'. ;rior to the accidet( he was a"ready cau*ht stea"i*

diese" fue" from the compay. s a resu"t of these actios( he was dismissed for serious

miscoduct. as the dismissa" )a"id, 9a the compay re"y o past offeses to ustify the

dismissa",

. o( the re"iace by petitioer corporatio o his past offeses to ustify his dismissa" is

ua)ai"i*. The correct ru"e has a"ways bee that such pre)ious offeses may be used as )a"id

ustificatio for dismissa" from work o"y if the ifractios are re"ated to the subse8uet offese

upo which basis the termiatio is decreed. The )ehicu"ar accidet causi* dama*e to the

truck is ot a ust cause for dismissa". The pea"ty of dismissa" is *ross"y disproportioate to the

offese of dri)i* throu*h reck"ess imprudece resu"ti* i dama*e to property. e was

"ikewise depri)ed of due process as he was ot afforded amp"e opportuity to be heard. $f after

the thirty-day period the emp"oyee does ot *i)e his e/p"aatio of what happeed( he must

a*ai be set a otice of dismissa" stati* the particu"ar acts costituti* the *roud for dismissa" ad a i8uiry why he did ot *i)e his e/p"aatio. (La Carlota Planters Association

v. NLRC, cto&er 2-, 1998)

Q. ;6 etered ito a ser)ice a*reemet with STB66 9orp.( a corporatio i the busiess of

ob cotracti* aitoria" ser)ices. fter the a*reemet e/pired( ;6 ca""ed for a biddi* but i

the meatime a""owed STB66 to maitai the aitoria" cotract. Subse8uet"y( ;6 set a

"etter to STB66 iformi* them that the cotract wou"d o "o*er be reewed. STB66(

termiated their ser)ices( so respodet emp"oyees fi"ed a case for i""e*a" dismissa" a*aist ;6

ad STB66. The 69 affirmed the decisio of the "abor arbiter fidi* the dismissa" i""e*a".

as there a emp"oyee-emp"oyer re"atioship e/isti* betwee ;6 ad respodets, dwere they i""e*a""y dismissed,

. o( there is o emp"oyee-emp"oyer re"atioship betwee ;6 ad the respodets. ;6 is

ot e*a*ed i "abor-o"y cotracti* e)ideced by the ser)ice a*reemet that it wou"d be

STB66 who wi"" emp"oy the aitors. ;6 was e*a*ed i permissib"e ob cotracti* ad the

emp"oyees were emp"oyees of STB66 ot ;6. owe)er( the emp"oyees were i""e*a""y

dismissed by STB66. They were re*u"ar emp"oyees ot proect emp"oyees. proect

emp"oyee must be emp"oyed i a proect distict( separate ad idetifiab"e from the mai

busiess of the emp"oyer ad its duratio must be determied or determiab"e. hi"e the

ser)ice a*reemet may ha)e had a specific term( STB66 disre*arded it ad repeated"yreewed the a*reemet ad cotiued hiri* the respodets for thirtee years. PAL. 4.

NLRC, Nov. 9, 1998)

Q. Se)era" security *uards of Setie" Security( assi*ed to ;$6= were foud to ha)e bee

i""e*a""y dismissed. 9a ;$6= be made "iab"e for the paymet of backwa*es ad separatio

pay of the i""e*a""y dismissed emp"oyees,



. Ies. "thou*h a idirect emp"oyer shou"d ot be made "iab"e without a fidi* that it had

committed or cospired i the i""e*a" dismissa" Rosewood ruling ( i the case at bar the

e/oeratio of ;$6= was ot ic"uded i the D$S;>S$T$CB ;>T$> of the 9ourt1s decisio

despite the fact that it was c"ear"y stated i the body of the decisio that they were e/oerated.

The decisio did ot comp"ete"y e/oerate ;$6= which( as a idirect emp"oyer is so"idari"y

"iab"e with Setie" for the comp"aiats1 upaid ser)ice iceti)e "ea)e pursuat to rt. %0G(

%07 ad %0& of the 6abor 9ode. Shou"d the cotractor fai" to pay the wa*es of its emp"oyees i

accordace with "aw( the idirect emp"oyer is oit"y ad se)era""y "iab"e with the cotractor( but

such resposibi"ity shou"d be uderstood to be "imited to the e/tet of work performed uder the

cotract( i the same maer ad e/tet that he is "iab"e to the emp"oyees direct"y emp"oyed by

him. Sentinel Secrit* v. NLRC, Nov. 16,1998)

Q. ;roducer1s <ak was p"aced by the 9etra" <ak uder a coser)ator to protect its assets.

he the retired emp"oyees sou*ht the imp"emetatio of the 9< re*ardi* their retiremet

p"a ad uiform a""owace( the coser)ator obected( resu"ti* i a impasse betwee thebak ad the uio. Shou"d the 9< pro)isios be imp"emeted( despite the bak1s status,

. Ies. The coser)ator caot rescid a )a"id ad e/isti* cotract ad the 9< is the "aw

betwee the cotracti* parties. "thou*h the emp"oyees are a"ready retired( retiremet does

ot affect their emp"oymet status whe it i)o")es a"" ri*hts ad beefits due them. The

retiremet scheme was part of their emp"oymet packa*e ad the beefits uder the scheme

costituted a cotiui* cosideratio for ser)ices redered ad effecti)e iducemet to remai

i the compay. The emp"oyees were ot p"eadi* for the compay1s *eerosity but were

demadi* their ri*hts uder the 9<. Pro/cers :an; v. NLRC, Nov. 16,1998)

Q. fter e*otiatios fai"ed to produce ay a*reemet( the e/c"usi)e bar*aii* a*et of 9oca-

9o"a decided to fi"e a otice of strike. 9oci"iatio heari*s were coducted but were

ua)ai"i*. The uio coducted a strike )ote o pri" %4( which shoed that the members were

i fa)or of coducti* a strike. > pri" '0( the uio sta*ed the strike. The compay fi"ed a

petitio to dec"are the strike i""e*a" as it was sta*ed without obser)i* the madatory se)e-day

strike ba ad that it was sta*ed i bad faith. The compay the fired a""e*ed uio officers by

)irtue of the i""e*a" strike. as the strike "e*a", as the termiatio of the emp"oyees a""e*ed"y(

uio officers )a"id,

. The strike was i""e*a" for fai"ure to obser)e the madatory re8uiremets of rtic"es 'G4 ad'G5 of the 6abor 9ode. The fai"ure of the uio to obser)e the 7-day strike ba made the strike

i""e*a". hi"e the strike )ote was coducted aroud 7:30 am to H:45 am ad the strike he"d o

pri" '0 was aroud H:30 am( the 9i)i" 9ode states that i computi* a period( the first day sha""

be e/c"uded ad the "ast day ic"udedJ hece the fai"ure to obser)e 7 days. owe)er( the

dismissa" of the strikers was ot )a"id. The emp"oyees were mere uio members ad ot

officers who shou"d ot be dismissed u"ess they kowi*"y participate i i""e*a" acts duri* a



strike. "thou*h these emp"oyees si*ed the 9<( owhere i these documets ca it be foud

that the cited emp"oyees si*ed it as uio officers. Their acti)e participatio i the e*otiatios

did ot reder them uio officers. CC:P! Post$i< or;ers 7nion v. NLRC, Nov. 2-,1998)

Q. case for i""e*a" dismissa" was fi"ed a*aist >r"ado ?arms @rowers ssociatio( a iforma"

associatio of "adowers e*a*ed i the productio of e/port 8ua"ity baaas. 9a a

ure*istered associatio be cosidered a emp"oyer idepedet"y of the respecti)e members it

represets,

. Ies( bei* a ure*istered associatio ad ha)i* bee formed so"e"y to ser)e as a

affecti)e medium for dea"i* co""ecti)e"y with aother compay is ot a e"emet of a

emp"oyee-emp"oyer re"atioship. The 6abor 9ode does ot re8uire a emp"oyer to re*ister

before he may come withi the pur)iew of the said "aw. (rlan/o =ar$s >roers Association

v. NLRC, Nov. 2",1998)

Q. espodet emp"oyee was recruited for emp"oymet with @u"f 9ateri* 9ompay i Saudi

as a waitress. he she was dep"oyed to Saudi( she was made to wash dishes( cooki* pots

ad utesi"s( aitoria" work ad other ure"ated obs i %'-hour shifts without o)ertime pay. Due

to the streuous work( she was cofied i a housi* faci"ity duri* which( she was ot paid her

sa"aries. She worked a*ai after *etti* we"" but was ot paid her compesatio.

Subse8uet"y( she was hospita"i2ed ad wet throu*h sur*ica" operatios( a*ai without

compesatio. She was the dismissed o the *roud of i""ess without ay separatio pay or

sa"ary paymet for the periods she was ot a""owed to work. She fi"ed a comp"ait before ;>B

a*aist petitioer for uderpaid sa"aries ad dama*es. as she i""e*a""y dismissed, $s the

emp"oyee etit"ed to the paymet of uderpaid sa"aries,

. She was i""e*a""y dismissed because the maer by which she was termiated was i

)io"atio of the 6abor 9ode sice her i""ess was ot prohibited by "aw or was it preudicia" to

her hea"th as we"" as that of her co-emp"oyees rt. 'H4. er i""ess was ot e)e cota*ious

9arpa" Tue" Sydrome. s for the time she was hospita"i2ed ad she was ot *i)e ay

compesatio( the Ko work-o pay1 ru"e does ot app"y sice that period was due to her i""ess

which was c"ear"y work-re"ated. (+rile Ei#ht !nte#rate/ Services v. NLRC, 3ec. ', 1998)

Q. Does Sectio 4( u"e C of the 69 ew u"es of ;rocedure re8uire the 6abor rbiter to

propoud c"arificatory 8uestios to the parties i order to determie whether a forma" heari* isecessary,

A. +here is no le#al ?sti0ication 0or a $an/ator* interretation. Area/in# o0 Sec % Rle 4 o0 the Ne Rles o0 Proce/re o0 the NLRCrea/il* shos that clari0icator* estions $a* &e roon/e/ to thearties at the /iscretion o0 the LA. Asi/e 0ro$ e$lo*in# the or/



@$a* hich /enotes /iscretion ne#atin# a $an/ator* or o&li#ator*e00ect, the rovision e<ressl* states that it is /iscretionar* on the arto0 the LA. (R3S +rc;in# vs NLRC, 29% SCRA NLRC)

Q. =e"chor( a ta/i dri)er uder the boudary system( met a )ehicu"ar accidet. fter fi"i* a

report to the office of respodets( he was a""e*ed"y ad)ised to stop worki* ad ha)e a rest.

e thus fi"ed a comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa". The compay maitais that =e"chor was ot

i""e*a""y dismissed( there bei* i the first p"ace o emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship betwee

them. $s there a emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship uder the boudary system,

. The emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship was deemed to e/ist. Martinez v. NLRC)The re"atioship of ta/i owers ad ta/i dri)ers is the same as that betwee eepey owersad eepey dri)ers uder the !boudary system#. The ta/i operator e/ercises cotro" o)er thedri)er. $ =artie2 ) 69 this court a"ready ru"ed that the re"atioship of ta/i owers ad ta/idri)ers is the same as that betwee eepey owers ad eepey dri)ers uder the !boudarysystem.# $ both cases the emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship was deemed to e/ist( )i2: !There"atioship betwee eepey owersoperators o oe had ad eepey dri)ers o the other uder the boudary system is that of emp"oyer-emp"oyee ad ot of "essor-"essee./// Thus(pri)ate respodet were emp"oyees /// because they had bee e*a*ed to perform acti)itieswhich were usua""y ecessary or desirab"e i the usua" trade or busiess of the emp"oyer. (Pa#io +ransort Cororation v NLRC, 29% SCRA 6")

Q. =oera" da" app"ied with @ M = ;hi"s. $c. for a o)erseas emp"oymet as a domestic

he"per i iyadh NS. She was hired for a term of ' years %&&%-%&&3 at a moth"y basic

sa"ary of O'00.00. owe)er( she was repatriated o %% Ea %&&'. +po her repatriatio she

fi"ed a comp"ait before the ;>B for i""e*a" dismissa"( o-paymet ad uderpaymet of

sa"aries. $mp"eaded as co-respodet i the comp"ait was Bmpire $surace petitioer( i itscapacity as the surety of @ M =. $s Bmpire so"idari"y "iab"e for the paymet of the emp"oyee1s

moetary c"aims,

A. Bes. Petitioner is soli/aril* lia&le ith its rincial. hen E$ireentere/ into sret*shi a#ree$ent ith > M Phils !nc it &on/ itsel0 toanser 0or the /e&t or /e0alt o0 the latter. here the sret* &on/ itsel0 soli/aril* ith the rincial o&li#or, the 0or$er is so /een/ent on therincial /e&tor sch that the sret* is consi/ere/ in la as &ein# thesa$e art* as the /e&tor in relation to hatever is a/?/#e/ tochin#

the o&li#ation o0 the latter, an/ the lia&ilities are interoven as to &einseara&le. +he rose o0 the reire/ &on/ is to insre that theri#hts o0 the overseas are violate/ &* their e$lo*er recorse ol/ still&e availa&le to the$ a#ainst the local co$anies that recrite/ the$ 0orthe 0orei#n rincial. (E$ire !nsrance Co$an* v NLRC, 29% SCRA26')



Q. ;ri)ate respodet is Samue" 6. <a*"oy was a productio super)isor ad radio

commetator of the DAE9-= radio statio i 6aoa* 9ity( owed by =<9. <a*"oy

subse8uet"y app"ied for a "ea)e of absece i order to ru for <oard =ember i $"ocos orte.

The compay "ater o iformed him that( as a matter of compay po"icy( ay emp"oyee who fi"es

a certificate of cadidacy for ay e"ecti)e atioa" or "oca" office wou"d be cosidered resi*ed

from the compay. <a*"oy oethe"ess ra( but "ost. either was he permitted to retur to

work. $s =<91s po"icy that ay emp"oyee who is rui* for e"ecti)e pub"ic positio sha"" be

cosidered to ha)e )o"utari"y termiated his emp"oymet re"atios )a"id,

. TB ;>6$9I $S E+ST$?$BD. >N$@ ?> TB @>CB=BT D TB 9>=;I T TBS=B T$=B $S 96B6I D$SDCT@B>+S D ;BE+D$9$6 T> TB $@TS D $TBBST>T >6I >? TB 9>=;I <+T TB ;+<6$9 S B66. $ TB BCBT TT TB B=;6>IBB6>SBS $ TB B6B9T$>( TB $=;T$6$TI D 9>6D B+T6$TI >? B=;6>IBB S<>D9ST ;BS>6$TI $S S+S;B9T( T+S BD$6I B>D$@ D DCBSB6I ??B9T$@TB 9>?$DB9B D T+ST >? TB 6$STB$@ ;+<6$9 T> B=;6>IB1S STT$>. S S+9(TB D$S=$SS6 $S E+ST$?$BD. B=;6>IBB =I <B D$S=$SSBD ?> $66?+6 D$S><BD$B9B

>? TB 6?+6 >DBS >? $S B=;6>IB $ 9>B9T$> $T $S >N. (MAN!LA:RA3CAS+!N> CMPANB 4 NLRC, 29% SCRA %86)

Q. hat are the re8uiremets for a )a"id c"osure due to retrechmet,

. The fo""owi* re8uiremets must be met to ustify retrechmet. ?irst( the "oss shou"d be

substatia" ad ot mere"y de miimis. Secod( the "oss must be reasoab"y immiet(

percei)ed obecti)e"y ad i *ood faith by the emp"oyer. $ other words( there shou"d be a

certai de*ree of ur*ecy for the retrechmet. Third( the retrechmet must be reasoab"y

ecessary ad "ike"y to effecti)e"y pre)et the e/pected "osses. ?ourth( the emp"oyer shou"d

ha)e take other measures prior or para""e" to retrechmet to foresta"" "osses( so retrechmet

may o"y be udertake as a "ast resort. ?ia""y( the a""e*ed "osses if a"ready rea"i2ed( ad the

e/pected immiet "osses to be foresta""ed must be pro)e by sufficiet e)idece. (Stainless

Steel Cororation v. NLRC, 11 March 1998)

Q. Cictoria bri" was emp"oyed by ;?99$ i differet capacities from %&H'-%&HH( uti" she wet

o materity "ea)e. +po her retur i %&H&( she disco)ered that aother perso had bee

appoited to her former positio. e)erthe"ess( she accepted aother positio as e)ideced by

a cotract which stipu"ated that her emp"oymet wou"d be probatioary for a period of G moths.

fter the period e"apsed( she cotiued to work uti" she ad her emp"oyer etered ito aother

emp"oymet cotract for a period of % year( after which her emp"oymet was termiated. bri"

fi"ed a case for i""e*a" dismissa". ;?99$ c"aims that her appoitmet had bee fi/ed for a

specific proect( ad shou"d therefore be cosidered as causa" or cotractua" emp"oymet uder

rtic"e 'H0 of the 6abor 9ode. as bri"Ps termiatio )a"id, $s she a re*u"ar emp"oyee,

. rtic"e 'H% of the 6abor 9ode a""ows the emp"oyer to secure the ser)ices of a emp"oyee o

a probatioary basis a""owi* the emp"oyer to termiate the "atter for ust cause or upo fai"ure



to 8ua"ify i accordace with reasoab"e stadards set forth by the emp"oyer at the time of his

emp"oymet. probatioary emp"oyee is oe who is o tria" by a emp"oyer duri* which the

emp"oyer determies whether or ot he is 8ua"ified for permaet emp"oymet. ;robatioary

emp"oyees( otwithstadi* their "imited teure( are a"so etit"ed to security of teure. Thus(

e/cept for ust cause as pro)ided by "aw( or uder the emp"oymet cotract a probatioary

emp"oyee caot be termiated.

+der rtic"e 'H0 of the 6abor 9ode( there are 3 kids of emp"oyees: re*u"ar( proect

ad casua" emp"oyees. ith respect to cotractua" emp"oyees( stipu"atios i emp"oymet

cotracts pro)idi* for term emp"oymet are )a"id whe the period was a*reed upo kowi*"y

ad )o"utari"y by the parties without force( duress or improper pressure bei* brou*ht to bear

upo the emp"oyee( ad abset ay other circumstaces )itiati* his coset( or where is

satisfactori"y appears that the emp"oyer ad emp"oyee dea"t with each other i more or "ess

e8ua" terms.

The preset emp"oymet cotract etered ito iitia""y pro)ides that the period of

emp"oymet is for a fi/ed period. owe)er( the succeedi* pro)isios cotradicted the samewhe it pro)ided that respodet wou"d be uder probatioary status. @i)e the ambi*uity i the

cotract( ad fo""owi* the prooucemet i Ci""aue)a ). 69 %0 Sept. %&&H( where a

cotract of emp"oymet( bei* a cotract of adhesio( is ambi*uous( ay ambi*uity therei

shou"d be costrued strict"y a*aist the party who prepared it. ?urthermore( a"" "abor cotracts

shou"d be costrued i fa)or of the "aborer( pursuat to rtic"e %70' of the 9i)i" 9ode. Thus(

otwithstadi* the desi*atio made by ;?99$( ha)i* comp"eted the probatioary period ad

a""owed to work thereafter( bri" became a re*u"ar emp"oyee who may be dismissed o"y for ust

or authori2ed causes uder the 6abor 9ode. ece( the dismissa"( premised o the e/piratio of

the cotract( is i""e*a". Phil. =e/eration o0 Cre/it Cooeratives v. NLRC, ' SCRA -2, 11

3ece$&er 1998)

Q. F was dismissed by her emp"oyer( ?T. +po her dismissa"( ?T withhe"d %5 days worth of

her sa"ary( ad app"ied it to a F1s persoa" "oa to the compay1s *eera" maa*er. <oth the

"abor arbiter ad the 69 appro)ed the deductio of the amout of the persoa" "oa from F1s

sa"ary. $s this actio of the "abor arbiter correct,

. rtic"e '%7 of the 6abor 9ode "imits the urisdictio of "abor arbiters to:

a ufair "abor practice casesJ

b termiatio disputes

c if accompaied by a c"aim for reistatemet( cases i)o")i* wa*es( rates of pay( hours of work( ad other terms ad coditios of emp"oymet

d c"aims for actua"( mora"( e/emp"ary ad other forms of dama*es arisi* from the emp"oyer-

emp"oyee re"atios

e cases arisi* from )io"atios of rtic"e 'G4 of the 6abor 9ode( ic"udi* 8uestios o the

"e*a"ity of strikes ad "ockouts



f a"" other c"aims from emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atios( ic"udi* those of persos i

domestichouseho"d ser)ice i)o")i* a amout ot e/ceedi* ;5(000 re*ard"ess of whether

accompaied by a c"aim for reistatemet e/cept for c"aims of Bmp"oyees 9ompesatio( SSS(

=edicare ad materity beefits

s the persoa" "oa did ot arise from the emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship( said "oa

is ot withi the ambit of the 6abor rbiterPs urisdictio. =oreo)er( fo""owi* rtic"e '%7 of the

6abor 9ode( if a c"aim does ot fa"" withi the e/c"usi)e ori*ia" urisdictio of the "abor arbiter(

the 69 caot ha)e appe""ate urisdictio therei. Thus( the *arishmet of BspioPs sa"ary

was disre*arded. =oo/ +ra/ers Dose v. NLRC, ' SCRA '6, 21 3ece$&er 1998)

Q. $ a case for i""e*a" dismissa"( the 6abor rbiter foud the dismissa" of F uustified( ad

ordered the emp"oyer to reistate F with fu"" backwa*es. > appea" by the compay( the 69

re)ersed the "abor arbiter1s decisio( i effect fidi* the termiatio "e*a". owe)er( the 69

ordered the emp"oyer to pay F1s wa*es from '5 Eauary %&&% date of fi"i* the appea" with the

69 up to '3 September %&&3 promu"*atio of the 69 decisio( pursuat to rtic"e ''3of the 6abor 9ode. +der rtic"e ''3 of the 6abor 9ode( the emp"oyer foud to ha)e i""e*a""y

dismissed a emp"oyee is re8uired to reistate the emp"oyee either actua""y or throu*h payro"" at

the emp"oyerPs optio. Does this re8uiremet eed e/ecutio of eforcemet, >r was the 6Ps

decisio immediate"y se"f-e/ecutory,

. hi"e the iterpretatio of rtic"e ''3 has bee di)er*et( the 9ourt i the %&&7 ;ioeer

9ase "aid dow the doctrie that heceforth a award or order for reistatemet is se"f-

e/ecutory( ad does ot re8uire a writ of e/ecutio( much "ess a motio for its issuace. rtic"e

''4 o"y app"ies to fia" ad e/ecutory decisios which are ot withi the co)era*e of rtic"e

''3. Thus( the emp"oyer was boud to either re-admit F or ic"ude him i the payro""( ad iformF of its choice i order to eab"e him to act accordi*"y. ?ai"i* to e/ercise these optios( the

compay must pay his sa"ary( which automatica""y accrued from otice of the 6Ps order uti" its

re)ersa" by the 69. !nternational Container +er$inal Services, !nc. v. NLRC ' SCRA

''" (21 3ece$&er 1998)

Q. Bduardo ?e"ipe( emp"oyee of yudai B*ieeri* ad 9ostructio 9o.( throu*h its "oca"

a*et >mafi"( perished i a accidet. yudai deposited %4(400 =a"aysia i**it as ?e"ipePs

death beefits i the =e"acca "abor office. This was doe pursuat to Sectio H of =a"aysiaPs

"abor "aw( which pro)ides that death beefits i a "ump sum e8ua" to 45 moths eari*s

O'7(&0'.0' or = %4(400 sha"" be awarded( whiche)er is "ess. ?e"ipePs widow a""e*ed that theamout shou"d be +SO'7(&0'.0'( ad that the deposit made by yudai to the =e"acca "abor

office did ot costitute paymet. hat amout is the ?e"ipe fami"y etit"ed to,

. The ?e"ipePs are etit"ed to = %4(400( i comp"iace with the pro)isios of =a"aysiaPs "abor

"aw. mai* a*ecy caot be fau"ted for fo""owi* app"icab"e forei* "aw. s a resu"t(



>mafi" has dischar*ed its moetary ob"i*atio to =rs. ?e"ipe. $an0il !nternational

Manoer 3evt. Cor v. NLRC, ' SCRA %"% ,22 3ece$&er 1998)

Q. F was oe of the ' emp"oyees of @adara =i"" Supp"y. $ ?ebruary %&&5( F did ot report to

work for ' weeks( ad whe he retured( he was iformed that someoe had bee hired to

rep"ace him. owe)er he was ad)ised that he was to be readmitted i Eue of %&&G. as there

a i""e*a" dismissa",

. dmitted"y( it is uc"ear whether respodet was actua""y dismissed. owe)er( there is o

idicatio that he was to be reistated. $ effect( the offer to re-admit @ermao was mere"y a

*esture used to miti*ate the impact of his e/teded suspesio. This is cotrary to the e/p"icit

pro)isios of the 6abor 9ode( which pro)ide that o pre)eti)e suspesio shou"d "ast more

tha 30 days. s the supposed suspesio was e/pected to "ast for more tha the period

a""owed by "aw( the suspesio costitutes a i""e*a" dismissa".

B)e assumi* that FPs absece caused difficu"ty to the compay( his dismissa" wasuwarrated. @i)e the costitutioa" madate of protectio to "abor( the ri*id ru"es of procedure

may sometimes be dispesed with to *i)e room for compassio. $ ca""i* for the protectio of

"abor( the 9ostitutio does ot codoe wro*doi* by the emp"oyee( it e)erthe"ess ur*es a

moderatio of the sactios to be app"ied( i the "i*ht of the may disad)ata*es of "aborers.

>an/ara Mill Sl* v. NLRC, ' SCRA -2, 29 3ece$&er 1998)

Q. The offices ad factory of =aster Shirt 9o. were bured( so the compay had to cease

operatios. =aa*emet ad the uio he"d a coferece with the 9=<( where they a*reed

that the compay wou"d try to resume operatios S;( but if this did ot occur withi G moths(

the workers wou"d be paid their correspodi* separatio beefits. fter G moths( the compayfai"ed to resume operatios( but the compay refused to *rat separatio pay( for it had ot

reco)ered o their c"aim for dama*es a*aist their isurace compay. The uio ad its

members fi"ed a comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa"( separatio pay ad dama*es a*aist =ai"a

Shirt 9o. re the emp"oyees etit"ed to separatio pay,

. Separatio pay is paid to a emp"oyee whose ser)ices are )a"id"y termiated as a resu"t of

retrechmet( suspesio( c"osure of busiess or disease. $T does ot ecessari"y fo""ow that if

there is o i""e*a" dismissa"( o award of separatio pay may be made. The basis for the award

i this case is the a*reemet etered ito betwee the compay ad the emp"oyees. The

a*reemet is the "aw betwee the parties ad must be eforced. The c"aim for dama*es isua)ai"i*( i the absece of ma"ice or bad faith. (Master Shirt Co. v. NLRC, ' SCRA 6%9,

29 3ece$&er 1998)

Than !ou to Cris, "umi, Andrew and #ten.



199- CASES

Q. $ a i""e*a" dismissa" case( the 6abor rbiter ru"ed i fa)or of the comp"aiat ad ordered

his reistatemet. The emp"oyer appea"ed. efusi* to reistate the worker pedi* appea"(

the emp"oyer c"aims that the order of reistatemet eeds a writ of e/ecutio. The emp"oyer

further maitais that e)e if a writ of e/ecutio was issued( a time"y appea" coup"ed by the

posti* of appropriate supersedeas bod effecti)e"y foresta""ed ad stayed the e/ecutio of the

6abor rbiter1s reistatemet order. $s the emp"oyer1s cotetio correct,

. o( the emp"oyer1s cotetio is erroeous. The "aw as ow worded emp"oys the phrase

!sha"" immediate"y be e/ecutory# without 8ua"ificatio emphasi2i* the eed for prompt

comp"iace. The term !sha""# deotes a imperati)e ob"i*atio ad is icosistet with the idea

of discretio. The 6abor rbiter1s order of reistatemet does ot eed a writ of e/ecutio. $tis se"f-e/ecutory. The posti* of a bod by the emp"oyer sha"" ot stay the e/ecutio for

reistatemet. fter receipt of the decisio orderi* reistatemet( the emp"oyer has the ri*ht

to chose whether to re-admit the emp"oyee to work uder the same terms ad coditios

pre)ai"i* prior to his dismissa" or to reistate the emp"oyee i the payro"". $ either istace(

the emp"oyer has to iform the emp"oyee of his choice. (Pioneer +e<triin# Cor. v. NLRC,

28 SCRA 86, cto&er 16, 199-)

Q. he ca .. o. 7G4% etiremet ;ay 6aw( which took effect o Eauary 7( %&&3( be

*i)e retroacti)e effect,

. .. 7G4% may be *i)e retroacti)e effect where % the c"aimat for retiremet beefits was

sti"" the emp"oyee of the emp"oyer at the time the statute took effectJ ad ' the c"aimat was i

comp"iace with the re8uiremets for e"i*ibi"ity uder the statute for such retiremet beefits.

Thus( the "aw ca app"y to "abor cotracts sti"" e/isti* at the time the statute took effect ad its

beefits ca be reckoed ot o"y from the date of the "aw1s eactmet but retroacti)e"y to the

time said emp"oymet cotracts ha)e started. (Ca&ca&an v. NLRC, 2-- SCRA 6-1, A#st

18, 199-)

Q. isurace a*et was re8uired to so"icit busiess e/c"usi)e"y for ?; =utua" <eefit

ssociatio( $c. pursuat to a $surace 9ommissio re*u"atio. e was a"so boud bycompay po"icies( memocircu"ars( ru"es ad re*u"atios issued by the compay re"ati* to

paymet of the a*et1s accoutabi"ities( a)ai"met by the a*et of cash ad)aces( iceti)es

ad awards( ad other matters coceri* the se""i* of isurace( i accordace with the ru"es

promu"*ated by the $surace 9ommissio. @i)e this set of facts( ca the isurace a*et

be cosidered a emp"oyee of the compay,



. o( the facts are ot sufficiet to support the coc"usio that there e/ists a emp"oyer-

emp"oyee re"atioship betwee the a*et ad the compay. The si*ificat factor i

determii* the re"atioship of the parties is the presece or absece of super)isory authority to

cotro" the method ad the detai"s of performace of the ser)ice bei* redered( ad the

de*ree to which the pricipa" may iter)ee to e/ercise such cotro". ot e)ery form of cotro"(

howe)er( may be accorded the effect of estab"ishi* a emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship. There

is a differece betwee ru"es that mere"y ser)e as *uide"ies towards the achie)emet of the

mutua""y desired resu"t without dictati* the meas or methods to be emp"oyed i attaii* it(

ad those that cotro" or fi/ the methodo"o*y ad bid or restrict the party hired to the use of

such meas. The first( which aim o"y to promote the resu"t( create o emp"oyer-emp"oyee

re"atioship u"ike the secod( which address both the resu"t ad the meas used to achie)e it.

$ this case( the ru"es that the a*et shou"d fo""ow mere"y aim to promote the resu"t desired(

primari"y to coform to the re8uiremets of the $surace 9ommissio. (A=P Mtal :ene0it

Association v. NLRC, 26- SCRA %-, anar* 28, 199-)

Q. emp"oyer appea"ed from the 6abor rbiter1s decisio. $stead of posti* cash or surety

bod( the emp"oyer posted a ea" Bstate <od cosisti* of "ad ad )arious impro)emets.

$s such property bod a""owed,

. hi"e rtic"e ''3 of the 6abor 9ode pro)ides that a appea" by the emp"oyer may be

perfected o"y upo the posti* of cash or surety bod( this pro)isio shou"d be *i)e a "ibera"

iterpretatio. This po"icy stresses the importace of decidi* cases o the basis of their

substati)e merit ad ot o strict techica" ru"es. he the rea" property bod sufficiet"y

protects the iterests of the workers shou"d they fia""y pre)ai"( the appea" shou"d be

a""owed. (7ERMMe$orial Me/ical Center v. NLRC, 269 SCRA -, March ', 199-)

Q. 9?T$( a c"ose fami"y corporatio owed by the a*uiat fami"y( stopped its ta/i busiess withi

9"ark ir <ase because of the phase-out of +.S. mi"itary presece at the said ista""atio. $

a i""e*a" dismissa" comp"ait fi"ed by 9?T$1s dismissed emp"oyees( the 6abor rbiter ru"ed that

Ser*io a*uiat( 9?T$1s presidet who had acti)e"y e*a*ed i the maa*emet ad operatio

of the corporatio( was so"idari"y "iab"e with 9?T$ for the separatio pay due the emp"oyees. $s

the 6abor rbiter1s ru"i* correct,

. Ies( the ru"i* is correct. Ser*io a*uiat ca be he"d so"idari"y "iab"e with the corporatio.

?irst( as the presidet of 9?T$ who acti)e"y maa*ed the busiess( a*uiat fa""s withi themeai* of a !emp"oyer# as cotemp"ated by the 6abor 9ode( who may be he"d oit"y ad

se)era""y "iab"e for the ob"i*atios of the corporatio to its dismissed emp"oyees. Secod(

Sectio %00 of the 9orporatio 9ode states that stockho"ders acti)e"y e*a*ed i the

maa*emet or operatio of the busiess of a c"ose corporatio sha"" be persoa""y "iab"e for

corporate torts u"ess the corporatio has obtaied reasoab"y ade8uate "iabi"ity isurace.

Tort is a breach of a "e*a" duty. Sice the 6abor 9ode madates the paymet of separatio pay



to emp"oyees i case of c"osure or cessatio of operatios ot due to busiess "osses( fai"ure to

comp"y with this "aw-imposed duty ca be cosidered a !corporate tort#. ece( pursuat to the

9orporatio 9ode( a*uiat shou"d be he"d so"idari"y "iab"e for this corporate tort. $ this case(

the ru"e that a corporate officer caot be he"d so"idari"y "iab"e with a corporatio i the absece

of e)idece that he acted i bad faith is ot app"icab"e. (Na#iat v. NLRC, 269 SCRA "6%,

March 1', 199-)

RRR$n another %ase, the Court held :

The fictioa" )ei" of a corporatio ca be pierced by the )ery same "aw which created it

whe !the otio of the "e*a" etity is used as a meas to perpetrate fraud( a i""e*a" act( as a

)ehic"e for the e)asio of a e/isti* ob"i*atio( ad to cofuse "e*itimate issues.# +der the

6abor 9ode( for istace( whe a corporatio )io"ates a pro)isio dec"ared to be pea" i

ature( the pea"ty sha"" be imposed upo the *ui"ty officer or officers of the corporatio.

To ustify so"idary "iabi"ity( there must be a a""e*atio or showi* that the officers of the

corporatio de"iberate"y or ma"icious"y desi*ed to e)ade the fiacia" ob"i*atio of the

corporatio to its emp"oyees( or a showi* that the officers idiscrimiate"y stopped its busiess

to perpetrate a i""e*a" act( as a )ehic"e for the e)asio of e/isti* ob"i*atios( i circum)etio

of statutes( ad to cofuse "e*itimate issues. (Reahs Cororation v. NLRC, 2-1 SCRA 2%-,

Aril 1", 199-)

Q. ;urificacio was a foudi* member( a member of the <oard of Trustees( ad the corporate

secretary of pamaa @o"de 9are =edica" 9eter ?oudatio( a o-stock corporatio e*a*ed

i e/tedi* medica" ad sur*ica" ser)ices. $ %&&0( the <oard of Trustees issued amemoradum appoiti* ;urificacio as =edica" Director ad ospita" dmiistrator of the

foudatio1s medica" ceter. medica" director ad aa hospita" admiistrator are cosidered as

corporate officers uder the foudatio1s by-"aws. he the <oard of Trustees re"ie)ed

;urificacio of her positio as =edica" Director ad ospita" dmiistrator( she fi"ed a comp"ait

for i""e*a" dismissa" ad o-paymet of wa*es before the 6abor rbiter. Does the 6abor rbiter

ha)e urisdictio o)er the case,

. o( the 6abor rbiter has o urisdictio o)er the case. The Securities ad B/cha*e

9ommissio has urisdictio. The char*es fi"ed by ;urificacio partake of the ature of a itra-

corporate cotro)ersy. !office# is created by the charter of the corporatio ad the officer ise"ected by the directors or stockho"ders. > the other had( a !emp"oyee# usua""y occupies o

office ad *eera""y is emp"oyed ot by actio of the directors or stockho"ders but by the

maa*i* officer of the corporatio who a"so determies the compesatio to be paid such

emp"oyee. $ this case( ;urificacio was appoited by the <oard of Trustees to offices stated i

the by-"aws. She is deemed a officer of the corpporatio. officer1s dismissa" is a"ways a

corporate act( or a itra-corporate cotro)ersy( ad the ature is ot a"tered by the reaso or



wisdom which the <oard of Directors may ha)e i taki* such actio. The 8uestio of

remueratio of a officer is "ikewise ot a simp"e "abor prob"em but a matter that comes withi

the area of corporate affairs ad maa*emet ad is a corporate cotro)ersy. (+a&an# v.

NLRC, 266 SCRA %62, anar* 21, 199-)

Q. eformist +io( a "abor uio sta*ed a strike a*aist .<. 6ier i %&H&. .<. 6ier

petitioed the Secretary of 6abor to assume urisdictio o)er the dispute or certify it to the

69. The Secretary certified the case to the 69 for compu"sory arbitratio. The certified

case was dismissed after the uio ad the compay reached a a*reemet pro)idi*( amo*

others( for the ho"di* of a certificatio e"ectio. 6ater( whe the uio fi"ed a comp"ait for

ufair "abor practice a*aist the compay( i.e. i""e*a" "ockout that a""e*ed"y took p"ace after the

strike ad the e"ectio( .<. 6ier coutered with aother case that sou*ht to dec"are the %&H&

strike i""e*a". 9a the compay sti"" cotest the "e*a"ity of the %&H& strike,

. o( the compay ca o "o*er cotest the "e*a"ity of the strike. The compay itse"f sou*htcompu"sory arbitratio i order to reso")e that )ery issue. The dispute or strike was sett"ed

whe the compay ad the uio etered ito a a*reemet. <y accedi* to the peacefu"

sett"emet brokered by the 69( the compay wai)ed the issue of the i""e*a"ity of the strike.

The )ery ature of compu"sory arbitratio makes the sett"emet bidi* upo the compay.

9ompu"sory arbitratio has bee defied both as !the process of sett"emet of "abor disputes by

a *o)ermet a*ecy which has the authority to i)esti*ate ad to make a award which is

bidi* o a"" the parties(# ad as a mode of arbitratio where the parties are !compe""ed to

accept the reso"utio of their dispute throu*h arbitratio by a third party.# 9"ear"y( the "e*a"ity of

the strike ca o "o*er be re)iewed. (Re0or$ist 7nion o0 R.:. Liner, !nc. v. NLRC, 266

SCRA -1', anar* 2-, 199-)

Q. ?rom %&53 uti" %&&%( oorio worked as maiteace ma( carpeter( p"umber( e"ectricia

ad maso at the Taa*co apartmets ad residetia" bui"di*s. $ short( he took char*e of

the maiteace ad repair of the bui"di*s. e reported for work from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..

e eared ;%H0 a day "atest sa"ary. he oorio fi"ed a comp"ait for i""e*a" dismissa"(

Taa*co c"aimed that oorio was a idepedet cotractor. Taa*co further c"aimed

that e)e assumi* that oorio ca be cosidered a emp"oyee( he was mere"y a proect

emp"oyee whose ser)ices were hired o"y with respect to a specific ob ad o"y whi"e the same

e/ists.

a > the basis of this set of facts( ca oorio be cosidered a idepedet cotractor,

. o( oorio was ot a idepedet cotractor but a emp"oyee of Taa*co. e was ot

compesated i terms of profits for his "abor orser)ices "ike a idepedet cotractor. ather(

he was paid o a dai"y wa*e basis. $t is absurd to e/pect that with such humb"e resources(

oorio wou""d ha)e substatia" capita" or i)estmet i the form of too"s( e8uipmet( ad



machieries with which to coduct the busiess of supp"yi* Taa*co with mapower ad

ser)ices for maitaii* the apartmets ad bui"di*s. The most importat re8uisite of cotro"

that determies the e/istece of a emp"oyer-emp"oyee re"atioship is preset. The power of

cotro" refers mere"y to the e/istece of the power ad ot to the actua" e/ercise thereof.

atura""y( oorio1s work as maiteace ma had to be performed withi the premises of

Taa*co. $t is ot far-fetched to e/pect that oorio had to obser)e the istructios ad

specificatios *i)e by Taa*co as to how his work had to be performed. Taa*co cou"d

easi"y e/ercise cotro" o oorio.

b hat kid of a emp"oyee is oorio,

. oorio is a re*u"ar emp"oyee. There are two kids of re*u"ar emp"oyees: % those who are

e*a*ed to perform acti)ities which are usua""y ecessary or desirab"e i the usua" trade or

busiess of the emp"oyerJ ad ' those who ha)e redered at "east oe year of ser)ice(

whether cotiuous or broke( with respect to the acti)ity i which they are emp"oyed.hiche)er stadard is app"ied( oorio 8ua"ifies as a re*u"ar emp"oyee. oorio caot be

cosidered a proect emp"oyee. $f he was emp"oyed as a proect emp"oyee( Taa*co shou"d

ha)e submitted a report of termiatio to the earest pub"ic emp"oymet office e)erytime his

emp"oymet is termiated due to comp"etio of each proect( as re8uired by ;o"icy $structio

o. '0. There shou"d ha)e bee fi"ed as may reports of termiatio as there were proects

actua""y fiished. (Arora Lan/ Pro?ects Cor. v. NLRC, 266 SCRA %8, anar* 2, 199-)

Q. toio was hired by >riet B/press as crae operator subect to a 3-moth probatioary

period. fter o"y oe moth ad fi)e days( he was dismissed. he he fi"ed a comp"ait for

i""e*a" dismissa"( >riet B/press c"aimed that he was termiated for poor ob performace.>riet B/press did ot iform toio about the stadards of work re8uired of him by which his

competecy wou"d be adud*ed. he he was dismissed( >riet B/press did ot poit out the

reasoab"e stadards of work by which he was e)a"uated ad how he fai"ed to "i)e up to such

stadards. $s the dismissa" )a"id,

. o( the dismissa" is ot )a"id. The ser)ices of a emp"oyee hired o a probatioary basis

may be termiated whe he fai"s to 8ua"ify as a re*u"ar emp"oyee i accordace with

reasoab"e stadards made kow by the emp"oyer to the emp"oyee at the time of his

e*a*emet. toio1s dismissa" caot be sustaied o this *roud because >riet B/press

fai"ed to specify the reasoab"e stadards by which toio1s a""e*ed poor performace wase)a"uated( much "ess to pro)e that such stadards were made kow to him at the time of his

recruitmet. (rient E<ress Place$ent Philiines v. NLRC, 2-' SCRA 2"6, ne 11,

199-)

Q. 9api"i was a istructor of a pri)ate educatioa" istitutio. $ %&&3( the schoo" iformed

9api"i that he wou"d be e"i*ib"e for retiremet whe he wou"d reach the a*e of G0 years. 9api"i



aswered that he was ot opti* to retire but wou"d cotiue to ser)e uti" he reaches the a*e

of G5. he the schoo" reiterated its positio that it cou"d retire him( 9api"i fi"ed a comp"ait

8uestioi* his forced retiremet. 6ater( after recei)i* the 6abor rbiter1s decisio but before

fi"i* his appea"( 9api"i recei)ed partia" paymet of his retiremet pay. Duri* the pedecy of

his apppea" with the 69( he recei)ed fu"" paymet of his retiremet beefiits.

a 9a a emp"oyee be compe""ed to retire at the a*e of si/ty years,

. o( a emp"oyee caot be compe""ed to retire at the a*e of si/ty years i the absece of a

pro)isio o retiremet i the 9< or if the emp"oyer has o retiremet p"a. +der the 6abor

9ode( as ameded by ... >. 7G4%( the optio of the emp"oyer to retire a emp"oyee at a*e

G0 o "o*er e/ists. +der the preset ru"e( the optio to retire upo reachi* the a*e of G0

years or more but ot beyod G5 is the e/c"usi)e prero*ati)e of the emp"oyee if there is o

pro)isio o retiremet i the 9< or ay a*reemet or if the emp"oyer has o retiremet p"a.

b i"" the subse8uet acceptace of retiremet beefits estop a emp"oyee

from pursui* his comp"ait 8uestioi* the )a"idity of his forced retiremet,

. Ies( the acceptace of retiremet beefits wi"" estop the emp"oyee from pursui* his case.

<y accepti* the retiremet beefits( the emp"oyee is deemed to ha)e opted to retire uder the

preset ru"e stated abo)e. (Caili v. NLRC, 2-' SCRA "-6, ne 1-, 199-)

Q. 9a a emp"oyee ui"atera""y withdraw hisher resi*atio,

. o( a emp"oyee caot ui"atera""y withdraw hisher resi*atio. esi*atio( oceaccepted( may ot be withdraw without the coset of the emp"oyer. $f the emp"oyer cosets

to the withdrawa"( the emp"oyee retais the ob. $f the emp"oyer does ot( the emp"oyee caot

c"aim i""e*a" dismissa". To say that a emp"oyee who has resi*ed is i""e*a""y dismissed is to

ecroach upo the ri*ht of the emp"oyers to hire persos who wi"" be of ser)ice to them.

emp"oymet cotract is cosesua" ad )o"utary. $f the resi*atio is accepted by the

emp"oyer( its cose8uet effect is se)erace of the cotract of emp"oymet. resi*ed

emp"oyee who desires to take his ob back has to reapp"y therefor ad caot demad a

appoitmet. (Philiines +o/a*, !nc. v. NLRC, 26- SCRA 22, anar* ', 199-)

Q. 9a the emp"oyer dismiss a emp"oyee who is aff"icted with pu"moary tubercu"osis,

. Ies( but o"y if there is a prior certificatio from a competet pub"ic authority that the disease

aff"icti* the emp"oyee sou*ht to be dismissed is of such ature or at such sta*e that it caot

be cured withi si/ G moths e)e with proper medica" treatmet. The fact that a emp"oyee

is sufferi* from a disease ad whose cotiued emp"oymet is prohibited by "aw or is



preudicia" to his hea"th as we"" as to that of his co-emp"oyees does ot ipso &a%to make the

emp"oyee a cadidate for dismissa". (+an v. NLRC, 2-1 SCRA 216, Aril 1%, 199-)

Q. $ the proceedi*s before the 6abor rbiter( o"y the ure*istered trade ame of the

emp"oyercorporatio( !acieda 6auta(# ad its admiistrator-maa*er were imp"eaded ad

subse8uet"y he"d "iab"e for i""e*a" dismissa". > appea"( the 69 motu proprio ic"uded the

corporate ame of the emp"oyer as oit"y ad se)era""y "iab"e for the workers1 c"aims. There is

o dispute that acieda 6auta which was owed so"e"y by the emp"oyer-corporatio was

imp"eaded ad heard. $t was represeted by its corporate officer i the proceedi*s before the

6abor rbiter. $s the 691s actio ustified,

. Ies( the actio is ustified. $ 8uasi-udicia" proceedi*s( procedura" ru"es *o)eri* ser)ice

of summos are ot strict"y costrued. Substatia" comp"iace thereof is sufficiet. $ "abor

cases( pucti""ious adherece to stri*et techica" ru"es may be re"a/ed i the iterest of the

workerJ it shou"d ot defeat the comp"ete ad e8uitab"e reso"utio of the ri*hts ad ob"i*atiosof the parties. ?urthermore( the 69 is *i)e the power to correct( amed( or wai)e ay error(

defect or irre*u"arity whether i the substace or i the form of the proceedi*s before it. The

o-ic"usio of the corporate ame of the emp"oyer was a mere procedura" error which did ot

at a"" affect the urisdictio of the "abor tribua"s. (PisonArceo A#ricltral an/

3evelo$ent Cor. v. NLRC, 2-9 SCRA '12, Sete$&er 18, 199-)

labor law case reviews

Documents