labor review day 2

7/24/2019 Labor Review Day 2

1/85

SAN MIGUEL BREWERY V. OPLE

Facts: In 1979, A CBA was entered into by petitioner and private respondent San Miguel Corporation. Theo!pany introdued a new !ar"eting she!e "nown as #Co!ple!entary $istribution Syste!% &C$S' whereby

its beer produts were o((ered (or sale diretly to wholesalers through San Miguel)s sales o((ies. The labor

union (iled a o!plaint (or *+ on the ground that the C$S is ontrary to the e-isting !ar"eting she!e

whereby the wholesalers had to buy beer produts (ro! the route sales!en, not (ro! the o!pany and thusviolates the CBA thereby reduing the ta"e ho!e pay o( the sales!en.

The Minister o( +abor dis!issed the union)s notie o( stri"e.

Issue: hether or not the C$S is a valid e-erise o( !anage!ent prerogative

Held:/es. 0-ept as li!ited by speial laws, an 0 is (ree to regulate, aording to his own disretion and2udg!ent, all aspets o( e!ploy!ent. 0very business enterprise endeavors to inrease its pro(its. In the proess,

it !ay adopt or devise !eans designed towards that goal. So long as the o!pany)s !anage!ent prerogatives

are e-erised in good (aith (or the advane!ent o( the e!ployer)s interest and not (or the purpose o( de(eatingor iru!venting the rights o( the e!ployees under speial laws and under valid agree!ents, the Court will

uphold the!.

Gaa vs. CA

3ACTS4 espondent 0urophil Industries Corporation was (or!erly one o( the tenants in Trinity Building at

T.M. 5alaw Street, Manila, while petitioner osario A. 6aa was then the building ad!inistrator. n $ee!ber

18, 197, 0urophil Industries o!!ened an ation &Civil Case :o. 987;;' in the Court o( 3irst Instane o(

Manila (or da!ages against petitioner , 197;, said ourt rendered 2udg!ent in (avor o(

respondent 0urophil Industries, ordering petitioner to pay the (or!er the su! o( 1?,???.?? as atual da!ages,

@,???.?? as !oral da!ages, @,???.?? as e-e!plary da!ages and to pay the osts. A :otie o( 6arnish!ent

was issued upon 0l 6rande otel, where petitioner was then e!ployed, garnishing her .

0+$4 /0S. It is beyond dispute that petitioner is not an ordinary or ran" and (ile laborer but


2/85

!tle "# t$e Case: WILSHIRE FILE CO.% INC.% v. NLRC a&d VICENE . ONG

G.R. N": '(()* +Fe,-ua- /% 0**0

3ats4

rivate respondent Eiente T. ng was the Sales Manager o( petitioner iltshire 3ile Co., In.

&


3/85

servies o( private respondent. 3or one thing, the audited (inanial state!ents o( the petitioner (or its (isal year

ending on 1 =uly 19>@ prepared by a (ir! o( independent auditors, showed a net loss in the a!ount o(

;,;1,81.?? and a total de(iit or apital i!pair!ent at the end o( year o( F,77F,;9.??.

In the preeding (isal year &19>H19>;', while the o!pany showed a net a(ter ta- ino!e o( >;,@?F.??,

it atually su((ered a de(iit or apital i!pair!ent o( 8,;@,178.??. Most i!portantly, petitioner iltshire

(inally losed its doors and ter!inated all operations in the hilippines on =anuary 19>7, barely two &8' years

a(ter the ter!ination o( private respondents e!ploy!ent. e onsider that (inally shutting down businessoperations onstitutes strong on(ir!atory evidene o( petitioners previous (inanial distress. The Court (inds it

very di((iult to suppose that petitioner iltshire would ta"e the (inal and irrevoable step o( losing down its

operations in the hilippines si!ply (or the sole purpose o( easing out a partiular o((ier or e!ployee, suh as

the private respondent.

8. /es, the dis!issal o( the private respondent ng is valid on the ground o( retrenh!ent. e note that while the

letter in(or!ing private respondent o( the ter!ination o( his servies used the word


4/85

The bottling operators too" issue with the re!oval o( the hairs. Through the representation o( herein

respondent, they initiated the grievane !ahinery o( the Colletive Bargaining Agree!ent &CBA'. 0ven a(ter

e-hausting the re!edies ontained in the grievane !ahinery, the parties were still at a deadlo" with

petitioner still insisting on the re!oval o( the hairs and respondent still against suh !easure. As suh,

respondent sent a :otie to Arbitrate to petitioner stating its position to sub!it the issue on the re!oval o( the

hairs (or arbitration. :evertheless, be(ore sub!itting to arbitration the issue, both parties availed o( the

oniliation!ediation proeedings be(ore the :CMB. They (ailed to arrive at an a!iable settle!ent.

Thus, the proess o( arbitration ontinued and the parties appointed the hairperson and !e!bers o( the

Arbitration Co!!ittee as outlined in the CBA. The Arbitration Co!!ittee rendered a deision in (avor o( the

oyal lant or"ers *nion &the *nion' and against CCBI. :ot ontented with the Arbitration Co!!ittee)s

deision, CCBI (iled a petition (or review under ule ; be(ore the CA. The CA rendered a ontrasting

deision whih nulli(ied and set aside the deision o( the Arbitration Co!!ittee.

Issue: as the re!oval o( the bottling operators) hairs (ro! CCBI)s prodution!anu(aturing lines a valide-erise o( a !anage!ent prerogativeJ

Rul!&2: The Court has held that !anage!ent is (ree to regulate, aording to its own disretion and 2udg!ent,all aspets o( e!ploy!ent, inluding hiring, wor" assign!ents, wor"ing !ethods, ti!e, plae, and !anner o(

wor", proesses to be (ollowed, supervision o( wor"ers, wor"ing regulations, trans(er o( e!ployees, wor"

supervision, layHo(( o( wor"ers, and disipline, dis!issal and reall o( wor"ers. The e-erise o( !anage!ent

prerogative, however, is not absolute as it !ust be e-erised in good (aith and with due regard to the rights o(

labor.

In the present ontroversy, it annot be denied that CCBI re!oved the operators) hairs pursuant to a national

diretive and in line with its


5/85

ERNESO G. YMBONG vs. ABS5CBN BROA3CASING CORPORAION% VENERAN3A SYAN3 3ANE LU6ON

FACS4 etitioner 0rnesto 6. /!bong started wor"ing (or ABSHCB: in 199 at its regional station inCebu as a television talent, oHanhoring oy 6ising and TE atrol Cebu. is stint in ABSHCB: later

e-tended to radio when ABSHCB: Cebu launhed its AM station in 199@.

+i"e /!bong, +eandro atalinghug also wor"ed (or ABSHCB: Cebu. Starting 199@, he wor"ed as

talent, diretor and sriptwriter (or various radio progra!s aired.

n =anuary 1, 199F, the ABSHCB: ead ((ie in Manila issued #oliy on 0!ployees See"ing ubli

((ie.% The pertinent portions read4

0. A& e71l"ee 8$" !&te&ds t" -u& #"- a& 1u,l!c "##!ce 1"s!t!"&% 7ust #!le $!s9$e- lette- "#-es!2&at!"&, at least thirty &?' days prior to the o((iial (iling o( the erti(iate o( andiday either (or nationalor loal eletion.

- - - -

. 3urther, a& e71l"ee 8$" !&te&ds t" "!& a 1"l!t!cal 2-"u191a-t "- eve& 8!t$ &" 1"l!t!cal a##!l!at!"&,ut 8$" !&te&ds t" "1e&l a&d a22-ess!vel ca71a!2& #"- a ca&d!date "- 2-"u1 "# ca&d!dates &e.g. publilyspea"ingendorsing andidate, reruiting a!paign wor"ers, et.' 7ust #!le a -e;uest #"- leave "# a,se&cesu,ect t" 7a&a2e7e&ts a11-"val. 3or this partiular reason, the e!ployee should (ile the leave reDuest atleast thirty &?' days prior to the start o( the planned leave period.

+uGon, however, ad!itted that upon doubleHhe"ing o( the e-at te-t o( the poliy he saw that the poliy

atually reDuired suspension (or those who intend to a!paign (or a politial party or andidate and resignation

(or those who will atually run in the eletions.

A(ter the issuane o( the Me!orandu!, /!bong got in touh with +uGon. +uGon lai!s that

/!bong approahed hi! and told hi! that he would leave radio (or a ouple o( !onths beause he will

a!paign (or the ad!inistration ti"et. It was only a(ter the eletions that they (ound out that /!bong atually

ran (or publi o((ie hi!sel( at the eleventh hour. /!bong, on the other hand, lai!s that in aordane with

the Me!orandu!, he in(or!ed +uGon through a letter that he would ta"e a (ew !onths leave o( absene

beause he was running (or ounilor o( +apuH+apu City.

As regards atalinghug, atalinghug approahed +uGon and advised hi! that he will run as ounilor (or

:aga. Aording to +uGon, he lari(ied to atalinghug that he will be onsidered resigned and not 2ust on leave

one he (iles a erti(iate o( andiday. Thus, atalinghug wrote +uGon his resignation letter.

*n(ortunately, both /!bong and atalinghug lost in the May 199> eletions. +ater, /!bong and

atalinghug both tried to o!e ba" to ABSHCB: Cebu. Aording to +uGon, he in(or!ed the! that they

annot wor" there any!ore beause o( o!pany poliy.

ABSHCB:, however, agreed out o( pure liberality to give the! a hane to wind up their partiipation in the

radio dra!a sine it was rating well and to avoid an abrupt ending. The agreed windingHup, however,

dragged on (or so long pro!pting +uGon to issue to /!bong a !e!orandu! stating that his

involve!ent as narrator o( the dra!a ontinues until its diretor wraps it up one wee" upon reeipt o( a separate

!e!o.

/!bong in ontrast ontended that a(ter the e-piration o( his leave o( absene, he reported ba" to

wor" as a regular talent and in (at ontinued to reeive his salary. n he reeived a !e!orandu!

stating that his servies are being ter!inated i!!ediately, !uh to his surprise. Thus, he (iled an illegal

dis!issal. e argued that the ground ited by ABSHCB: (or his dis!issal was not a!ong those

enu!erated in the +abor Code. And even granting without ad!itting the e-istene o( the o!pany poliy

supposed to have been violated, /!bong averred that it was neessary that the o!pany poliy !eet ertain

reDuire!ents be(ore will(ul disobediene o( the poliy !ay onstitute a 2ust ause (or ter!ination. /!bong


6/85

(urther argued that the o!pany poliy violates his onstitutional right to su((rage. atalinghug li"ewise (iled

an illegal dis!issal o!plaint against ABSHCB:.

ABSHCB: prayed (or the dis!issal o( the o!plaints arguing that there is no e!ployerHe!ployee

relationship between the o!pany and /!bong and atalinghug.

ISSUES:1' hether /!bong, by see"ing an eletive post, is dee!ed to have resigned and not dis!issedby ABSHCB: 8' hether suh poliy is valid

RULING4 e have onsistently held that so long as a o!panys !anage!ent prerogatives are e-erised ingood (aith (or the advane!ent o( the e!ployers interest and not (or the purpose o( de(eating or iru!

iru!venting the rights o( the e!ployees under speial laws or under valid agree!ents, this Court will uphold

the!. It is well within its rights to ensure that it !aintains its ob2etivity and redibility and (reeing itsel( (ro!

any appearane o( i!partiality so that the on(idene o( the viewing and listening publi in it will not be in any

way eroded. 0ven as the law is soliitous o( the wel(are o( the e!ployees, it !ust also protet the right o( an

e!ployer to e-erise what are learly !anage!ent prerogatives. The (ree will o( !anage!ent to ondut its

own business a((airs to ahieve its purpose annot be denied.

It is worth noting that suh e-erise o( !anage!ent prerogative has earned a sta!p o( approval (ro! no lessthan our Congress itsel( when on 3ebruary 18, 8??1, it enated epubli At :o. 9??F, otherwise "nown as the

3air 0letion At. Setion F.F thereo( reads4

F.F. A& 7ass 7ed!a c"lu7&!st% c"77e&tat"-% a&&"u&ce-% -e1"-te-% "&5a!- c"--es1"&de&t "-1e-s"&al!t 8$" !s a ca&d!date #"- a& elect!ve 1u,l!c "##!ce "- !s a ca71a!2& v"lu&tee- #"- "- e71l"ed "--eta!&ed !& a& ca1ac!t , a& ca&d!date "- 1"l!t!cal 1a-t s$all ,e dee7ed -es!2&ed% !# s" -e;u!-ed ,t$e!- e71l"e-, or shall ta"e a leave o( absene (ro! hisher wor" as suh during the a!paignperiod4Provided, That any !edia pratitioner who is an o((iial o( a politial party or a !e!ber o( the

a!paign sta(( o( a andidate or politial party shall not use hisher ti!e or spae to (avor any andidate or

politial party.

e (ind no !erit in /!bong)s argu!ent that his auto!ati ter!ination - - - was a blatant Ldisregard o(

Lhis right to due proess as he was never as"ed to e-plain why he did not tender his resignation be(ore he ran

(or publi o((ie as !andated by Lthe sub2et o!pany poliy. /!bong)s overt at o( running (or ounilor

o( +apuH+apu City is tanta!ount to resignation on his part. e was separated (ro! ABSHCB: not beause he

was dis!issed but beause he resigned. Sine there was no ter!ination to spea" o(, the reDuire!ent o( due

proess in dis!issal ases annot be applied to /!bong. Thus, ABSHCB: is not dutyHbound to as" hi! to

e-plain why he did not tender his resignation be(ore he ran (or publi o((ie as !andated by the sub2et

o!pany poliy.

G.R. N". 0'0''0 Oct",e- 0'% (= A. POLLO%etitioner,vs.

CHAIRPERSON 4ARINA CONSANINO53AVI3% 3IRECOR IV RAC?UEL 3E GU6MANBUENSALI3A% 3IRECOR IV LY3IA A. CASILLO% 3IRECOR III ENGELBER ANHONY 3.UNIE AN3 HE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION%espondents.

ollo is a (or!er Supervising ersonnel Speialist o( the CSC egional ((ie :o. IE and also the IC

o( the ubli Assistane and +iaison $ivision &A+$' under the


7/85

Ma!a!ayan Muna &A+$' and +egal divisions.< The tea! proeeded at one to the CSCHIE o((ie at

anay Avenue, NueGon City. *pon their arrival thereat, the tea! in(or!ed the o((iials o( the CSCHIE,

respondents $iretor IE +ydia Castillo and $iretor III 0ngelbert *nite o( Chairperson $avid)s diretive.

The ba"ingHup o( all (iles in the hard dis" o( o!puters at the A+$ and +egal Servies $ivision &+S$' was

witnessed by several e!ployees, together with $iretors Castillo and *nite who losely !onitored said ativity.

The ne-t day, all the o!puters in the A+$ were sealed and seured (or the purpose o( preserving all the (iles

stored therein. Several dis"ettes ontaining the ba"Hup (iles soured (ro! the hard dis" o( A+$ and +S$o!puters were turned over to Chairperson $avid. The ontents o( the dis"ettes were e-a!ined by the CSC)s

((ie (or +egal A((airs &+A'. It was (ound that !ost o( the (iles in the 17 dis"ettes ontaining (iles opied

(ro! the o!puter assigned to and being used by the petitioner, nu!bering about ;? to ;8 dou!ents, were

dra(t pleadings or letters in onnetion with ad!inistrative ases in the CSC and other tribunals. n the basis o(

this (inding, Chairperson $avid issued the ShowHCause rder reDuiring the petitioner, who had gone on

e-tended leave, to sub!it his e-planation or ounterHa((idavit within (ive days (ro! notie.

etitioner denied that he is the person re(erred to in the anony!ous letterHo!plaint whih had no

attah!ents to it, beause he is not a lawyer and neither is he


8/85

!&t" ta&2!,le a&d "#te& !--e1a-a,le da7a2e t" t$e a2e&c@s 8"->% a&d ult!7atel t" t$e 1u,l!c !&te-est. - --

In su!, we onlude t$at t$e =s1ec!al &eeds% ,e"&d t$e &"-7al &eed #"- la8 e"-ce7e&t 7a>e t$e1-",a,le5cause -e;u!-e7e&t !71-act!ca,le%= #"- le2!t!7ate% 8"->5-elated &"&!&vest!2at"-!&t-us!"&s as 8ell as !&vest!2at!"&s "# 8"->5-elated 7!sc"&duct . A standard o( reasonableness will neitherunduly burden the e((orts o( govern!ent e!ployers to ensure the e((iient and proper operation o( the

wor"plae, nor authoriGe arbitrary intrusions upon the privay o( publi e!ployees. e hold, there(ore,that 1u,l!c e71l"e- !&t-us!"&s "& t$e c"&st!tut!"&all 1-"tected 1-!vac !&te-ests "# 2"ve-&7e&te71l"ees #"- &"&!&vest!2at"-% 8"->5-elated 1u-1"ses% as 8ell as #"- !&vest!2at!"&s "# 8"->5-elated7!sc"&duct,s$"uld ,e ud2ed , t$e sta&da-d "# -eas"&a,le&ess u&de- all t$e c!-cu7sta&ces. *nder thisreasonableness standard, ,"t$ t$e !&ce1t!"& a&d t$e sc"1e "# t$e !&t-us!"& 7ust ,e -eas"&a,le:

5-elated 7!sc"&duct , one o( theiru!stanes e-e!pted (ro! the warrant reDuire!ent. At the ineption o( the searh, a o!plaint was reeived

reounting that a ertain division hie( in the CSC :o. IE was


9/85

C"&s!de-!&2 t$e da7a2!&2 &atu-e "# t$e accusat!"&% t$e C"77!ss!"& $ad t" act #ast , i( only to arrest orli!it any possible adverse onseDuene or (allHout. Thus, on the sa!e date that the o!plaint was reeived, a

searh was (orthwith onduted involving the o!puter resoures in the onerned regional o((ie. $at !t 8ast$e c"71ute-s t$at 8e-e su,ected t" t$e sea-c$ 8as ust!#!ed s!&ce t$ese #u-&!s$ed t$e eas!est 7ea&s #"-a& e71l"ee t" e&c"de a&d st"-e d"cu7e&ts. I&deed% t$e c"71ute-s 8"uld ,e a l!>el sta-t!&2 1"!&t !e--et!&2 "ut !&c-!7!&at!&2 ev!de&ce. C"&c"7!ta&tl% t$e e1$e7e-al &atu-e "# c"71ute- #!les% t$at !s% t$ec"uld eas!l ,e dest-"ed at a cl!c> "# a ,utt"&% &ecess!tated d-ast!c a&d !77ed!ate act!"&. ointedly, to

i!pose the need to o!ply with the probable ause reDuire!ent would invariably de(eat the purpose o( thewo"Hrelated investigation.


10/85

Manila Pavilion vs Henry Delada

3ats4

$elada was the *nion resident o( the Manila avilion Supervisors Assoiation at M originally assigned asead aiter o( otisserie then reassigned hi! as ead aiter o( Seasons Co((ee Shop but respondent delined

the interHoutlet trans(er and instead as"ed (or a grievane !eeting on the !atter, pursuant to their Colletive

Bargaining Agree!ent &CBA'. e also reDuested his retention as ead aiter o( otisserie while the grievane

proedure was ongoing. The Mgt. denied the reDuest and he "ept on reporting to otisserie.M sent hi! several !e!oranda reDuiring hi! to e-plain in writing why he should not be penaliGed (or the

(ollowing o((enses gross insubordination et. $elada persistently rebu((ed orders (or hi! to report to his newassign!ent.

hile respondent)s Co!plaint is pending M iting seurity and sa(ety reasons, plaed respondent on a ?H

day preventive suspension. Therea(ter (ound $elada guilty i!posing the penalty o( 9?Hday suspension.

Issue4

: M retained the authority to ontinue with the ad!inistrative ase against $elada (or insubordination and

will(ul disobediene o( the trans(er order.

eld4e rule that petitioner Manila avilion otel had the authority to ontinue with the ad!inistrative proeedings(or insubordination and will(ul disobediene against $elada and to i!pose on hi! the penalty o( suspension.

ConseDuently, petitioner is not liable to pay ba" wages and other bene(its (or the period orresponding to the

penalty o( 9?Hday suspension.

3irst, it !ust be pointed out that the basis o( the ?Hday preventive suspension i!posed on $elada was di((erent(ro! that o( the 9?Hday penalty o( suspension. The ?Hday preventive suspension was i!posed by M on the

assertion that $elada !ight sabotage hotel operations i( preventive suspension would not be i!posed on hi!.

n the other hand,the penalty o( 9?Hday suspension was i!posed on respondent as a (or! o( disiplinary ation. It was the

outo!e o( the ad!inistrative proeedings onduted against hi!.

reventive suspension is a disiplinary !easure resorted to by the e!ployer pending investigation o( an alleged!al(easane or !is(easane o!!itted by an e!ployee.L7 The e!ployer te!porarily bars the e!ployee (ro!

wor"ing i( his ontinued e!ploy!ent poses a serious and i!!inent threat to the li(e or property o( the e!ployer

or o( his oHwor"ers.the penalty o( suspension re(ers to the disiplinary ation i!posed on the e!ployee a(ter an o((iial

investigation or ad!inistrative hearing is onduted.L9 The e!ployer e-erises its right to disipline erring

e!ployees pursuant to o!pany rules and regulations.L1? Thus, a (inding o( validity o( the penalty o( 9?Hday

suspension will not e!brae the issue o( the validity o( the ?Hday preventive suspension. In any event,petitioner no longer assails the ruling o( the CA on the illegality o( the ?Hday preventive suspension.

St. Lu>eDs Med!cal Ce&te- v. NLRC

3ats41. The private respondent Maribel Santos wor"ed as an QHay tehniian at the petitioner hospital &S+MC' but

she does not possess a erti(iate o( registration as reDuired under the newly passed adiologi At or A 7;1.

$ue to her nonHo!pliane and her (ailure to pass the e-a!s, she was separated.

8. The private respondent (iled a o!plaint (or illegal dis!issal and nonHpay!ent o( salaries and other !onetary

bene(its. The +abor Arbiter ordered the petitioner to pay respondent separation pay and this was a((ir!ed by

both :+C and the Court o( Appeals, hene this petition. The petitioner ontended that respondent dis!issalwas valid.

Issue: W$et$e- "- &"t a& e71l"e- ca& val!dl d!s7!ss a& e71l"ee ,ased "& $e- !&a,!l!t t" secu-e ace-t!#!cat!"& as -e;u!-ed , t$e B"a-d

*+I:64 /es, The petitioner is !erely e-erising its !anage!ent prerogative and these rights are entitledrespet and en(ore!ent in the interest o( (air play. There was no !alie i!puted upon an e!ployer where the

separation o( an e!ployee is underta"en in on(or!ane with an e-isting law as in this ase.

Manage!ent prerogatives inlude the right o( the e!ployer to deter!ine the plae or station where an e!ployee


11/85

is best Duali(ied to serve the interests o( the o!pany on the basis o( the Duali(iations, training and

per(or!ane.

SAR PAPER CORPORAION vs. SIMBOL

G.R. N". 0)//) A1-!l 0(% (


12/85

+abor Code but it reates a disproportionate e((et and under the disparate i!pat theory, the only way it ould

pass 2udiial srutiny is a showing that it is reasonable despite the disri!inatory, albeit disproportionate, e((et.

The (ailure o( petitioners to prove a legiti!ate business onern in i!posing the Duestioned poliy annot

pre2udie the e!ployee)s right to be (ree (ro! arbitrary disri!ination based upon stereotypes o( !arried

persons wor"ing together in one o!pany.

+astly, the absene o( a statute e-pressly prohibiting !arital disri!ination in our 2urisdition annot bene(it

the petitioners. The protetion given to labor in our 2urisdition is vast and e-tensive that we annot prudently

draw in(erenes (ro! the legislature)s silene;1 that !arried persons are not proteted under our Constitution

and delare valid a poliy based on a pre2udie or stereotype. Thus, (or (ailure o( petitioners to present

undisputed proo( o( a reasonable business neessity, we rule that the Duestioned poliy is an invalid e-erise o(

!anage!ent prerogative.

3UNCAN ASSOCIAION OF 3EAILMAN5PGWO a&d PE3RO A. ECSON%petitioners,vs.

GLAO WELLCOME PHILIPPINES% INC.%espondent.

3ACTS4

etitioner edro A. Teson &Teson' was hired by respondent 6la-o ello!e hilippines, In. &6la-o' as

!edial representative.

Therea(ter, Teson signed a ontrat o( e!ploy!ent whih stipulates, a!ong others, that he agrees to study and

abide by e-isting o!pany rules to dislose to !anage!ent any e-isting or (uture relationship by

onsanguinity or a((inity with oHe!ployees or e!ployees o( o!peting drug o!panies and should!anage!ent (ind that suh relationship poses a possible on(lit o( interest, to resign (ro! the o!pany.

Co!panys Code o( 0!ployee Condut provides the sa!e with stipulation that !anage!ent !ay trans(er the

e!ployee to another depart!ent in a nonHounterhe"ing position or preparation (or e!ploy!ent outside o(the o!pany a(ter F !onths.

Teson was initially assigned to !ar"et 6la-o)s produts in the Ca!arines SurHCa!arines :orte salesarea.SubseDuently, Teson entered into a ro!anti relationship with Bettsy, an e!ployee o( Astra

har!aeutials &Astra', a o!petitor o( 6la-o. Bettsy was Astra)s Branh Coordinator in Albay. She

supervised the distrit !anagers and !edial representatives o( her o!pany and prepared !ar"eting strategies

(or Astra in that area. Be(ore getting !arried, Tesons $istrit Manager re!inded hi! several ti!es o( the

on(lit o( interest but !arriage too" plae in Sept. 199>. In =an. 1999, Tesons superiors in(or!ed hi! o(

on(lit o( intrest. Teson as"ed (or ti!e to o!ply with the ondition &that either he or Betsy resign (ro! their

respetive positions'. *nable to o!ply with ondition, 6la-o trans(erred Teson to the ButuanHSurigao CityH

Agusan del Sur sales area. A(ter his reDuest against trans(er was denied, Teson brought the !atter to 6la-os

6rievane Co!!ittee and while pending, he ontinued to at as !edial representative in the Ca!arines SurH

Ca!arines :orte sales area. n :ov. 1@, 8???, the :ational Coniliation and Mediation Board ruled that

6la-os poliy was valid.

Aggrieved, Teson (iled aPetition for Review with the Court o( Appeals assailing the :CMBDecision. The

Court o( Appeals denied thePetition for Review.Motion (or reonsideration was also denied.

ISS*04 hether or not the poliy o( a phar!aeutial o!pany prohibiting its e!ployees (ro! !arrying

e!ployees o( any o!petitor o!pany is valid.


13/85

*+I:64 /0S.

6la-o has a right to guard its trade serets, !anu(aturing (or!ulas, !ar"eting strategies and other on(idential

progra!s and in(or!ation (ro! o!petitors, espeially so that it and Astra are rival o!panies in the highly

o!petitive phar!aeutial industry.

The prohibition against personal or !arital relationships with e!ployees o( o!petitor o!panies upon 6la-o)s

e!ployees is reasonable under the iru!stanes beause relationships o( that nature !ight o!pro!ise the

interests o( the o!pany. In laying down the assailed o!pany poliy, 6la-o only ai!s to protet its interests

against the possibility that a o!petitor o!pany will gain aess to its serets and proedures.

That 6la-o possesses the right to protet its eono!i interests annot be denied. :o less than the Constitution

reogniGes the right o( enterprises to adopt and en(ore suh a poliy to protet its right to reasonable returns on

invest!ents and to e-pansion and growth. Indeed, while our laws endeavor to give li(e to the onstitutional

poliy on soial 2ustie and the protetion o( labor, it does not !ean that every labor dispute will be deided in

(avor o( the wor"ers. The law also reogniGes that !anage!ent has rights whih are also entitled to respet anden(ore!ent in the interest o( (air play.

The hallenged o!pany poliy does not violate the eDual protetion lause o( the Constitution as petitioners

erroneously suggest. It is a settled priniple that the o!!ands o( the eDual protetion lause are addressed only

to the state or those ating under olor o( its authority. Corollarily, it has been held in a long array o( *.S.

Supre!e Court deisions that the eDual protetion lause erets no shield against !erely private ondut,

however, disri!inatory or wrong(ul. The only e-eption ours when the state in any o( its !ani(estations or

ations has been (ound to have beo!e entwined or involved in the wrong(ul private ondut. bviously,

however, the e-eption is not present in this ase. Signi(iantly, the o!pany atually en(ored the poliy a(ter

repeated reDuests to the e!ployee to o!ply with the poliy. Indeed, the appliation o( the poliy was !ade in

an i!partial and evenHhanded !anner, with due regard (or the lot o( the e!ployee.

In any event, (ro! the wordings o( the ontratual provision and the poliy in its e!ployee handboo", it is lear

that 6la-o does not i!pose an absolute prohibition against relationships between its e!ployees and those o(

o!petitor o!panies. Its e!ployees are (ree to ultivate relationships with and !arry persons o( their own

hoosing. hat the o!pany !erely see"s to avoid is a on(lit o( interest between the e!ployee and the

o!pany that !ay arise out o( suh relationships.

The Court o( Appeals also orretly noted that the assailed o!pany poliy whih (or!s part o( respondent)s

0!ployee Code o( Condut and o( its ontrats with its e!ployees, suh as that signed by Teson, was !ade

"nown to hi! prior to his e!ploy!ent. Teson, there(ore, was aware o( that restrition when he signed his

e!ploy!ent ontrat and when he entered into a relationship with Bettsy. Sine Teson "nowingly and

voluntarily entered into a ontrat o( e!ploy!ent with 6la-o, the stipulations therein have the (ore o( law

between the! and, thus, should be o!plied with in good (aith.< e is there(ore estopped (ro! Duestioning said

poliy.

3AOR VS. UNIVERSIY OF SANO OMAS


14/85

3ats4

etitioner oDue $.A. $ator was hired by respondent *niversity o( Santo To!as &*ST' in =une 19> as

Instrutor I o( the Institute o( eligion with a !a-i!u! teahing load o( 8; units. n $ee!ber 1@, 199@,petitioner was also hired as 6ra(t Investigation ((ier II with the ((ie o( the !buds!an but he (ailed to

dislose suh other e!ploy!ent to respondents, who disovered the sa!e only during the (irst se!ester o(

Shool /ear 8???H8??1.

Thus, on 8???, petitioner was in(or!ed that his teahing load would be redued to 18 hours per wee",

pursuant to Setion @, Artile III o( the *ST 3aulty Code whih states that (aulty !e!bers who have a (ull

ti!e outside e!ploy!ent other than teahing !ay not be given a teahing load in e-ess o( 18 hours per wee".

etitioner as"ed (or reonsideration o( the redution in his teahing load whih was granted. e was given an

additional load o( three teahing hours.etitioner again reDuested (or an additional load o( three units but hisreDuest was denied by respondent ev. 3r. Aligan.

etitioner (iled a Co!plaintHA((idavit to the Chairperson o( the 6rievane Co!!ittee, $r. 6il 6a!ila,resident o( the *niversity o( Sto. To!as 3aulty *nion, but the o!plaint was dis!issed. etitioner appealed

to respondent ev. 3r. Ta!erlane +ana, etor o( respondent *ST but the appeal was denied.

etitioner thus (iled a o!plaint (or Illegal edution o( Teahing +oad and Illegal Change o(0!ploy!ent Status, $a!ages, *npaid Bene(its and Attorneys 3ees and illegal onstrutive dis!issal be(ore the

+abor Arbiter.

etitioner lai!ed that his arbitrary de!otion (ro! (ullHti!e to partHti!e (aulty !e!ber violated the provisions

o( the CBA, as well as his right to seurity o( tenure. +i"ewise, he argued that the *ST 3aulty Code whih

respondents relied upon to redue his teahing load has been superseded by the CBA.

The +abor Arbiter ruled in (avor o( respondents holding that the situation onte!plated in Setion @,

Artile III o( the 3aulty Code, when evaluated together with the provisions o( the CBA, onstitutes a ground(or teahing load redution. n appeal, the :+C ordered the restoration o( petitioners (aulty !e!ber status

to (ullHti!e. espondents !otion (or reonsideration was denied. etitioners partial !otion (or reonsideration

with regard to the award (or ba"wages and da!ages was li"ewise denied. espondents (iled a petition (or

ertiorari be(ore the Court o( Appeals whih reversed the :+C deision and sustained the (indings o( the+abor Arbiter.

Issue4

1. hether or not the redution o( petitioner)s teahing load is 2usti(ied

8. whether petitioner was denied due proess

uling4

1. e agree with the Court o( Appeals ruling that while the CBA provides grounds (or redution o( teahing load,the Duestion o( whether a (aulty !e!ber is onsidered (ullHti!e or partHti!e is addressed by the 3aulty Code

whih provides that where the (ullHti!e (aulty !e!ber is at the sa!e ti!e wor"ing as a (ullHti!e e!ployee

elsewhere, the (aulty !e!ber is onsidered partHti!e and a 18Hhour teahing load li!itation is i!posed.

There is no dispute that petitioner was holding a (ullHti!e position with the ((ie o( the !buds!an while

wor"ing as a (aulty !e!ber in *ST. Aordingly, Setion @, Artile III o( the 3aulty Code applies.

hile the :+C orretly viewed the CBA as the pri!ary instru!ent that governs therelationship between *ST and its unioniGed (aulty !e!bers, it disregarded Artile QQ o( this CBAwhih reoniles the CBA with the 3aulty Code. Artile QQ states4

ARICLE

FACULY CO3E

The provisions of the Faculty Code of 1981, as amended, which are not otherwise

incorporated in the CBA and which are not in conflict with any provisions of the latter shall

remain in full force and effect.


15/85

In the event of conflict etween a faculty code provision and the CBA, the provision of

the latter shall prevail. &0!phasis supplied'

Thus, ontrary to the :+Cs onlusion, the *ST 3aulty Code ontinues to e-ist and to applyto *ST (aulty !e!bers, but !ust give way i( its ter!s are in on(lit with what the CBA provides. The

standard in deter!ining the appliable rule and the one that the :+C o!pletely !issed is whether a

on(lit e-ists between the provisions the parties ited.

8. Moreover, we (ind that petitioner was not denied due proess. It is settled that due proess is si!ply an

opportunity to be heard. In this ase, respondents in(or!ed petitioner that his teahing load would be redued as

he was wor"ing (ullHti!e with the ((ie o( the !buds!an. etitioner as"ed (or reonsideration twie. is(irst reDuest was granted and he was given an additional load o( three units (or Shool /ear 8???H8??1. 3or

Shool /ear 8??1H8??8, petitioner again reDuested an additional load o( three units but was denied.

*pon denial o( his seond reDuest, petitioner availed o( the grievane proedure provided in the CBA. /et

again, a(ter his o!plaint was dis!issed, petitioner appealed diretly to respondent 3r. +ana. As observed by

the Court o( Appeals, petitioner e-hausted the internal !ehanis! o( see"ing redress within *STsad!inistrative !ahinery. Contrary to petitioners lai!s, he was aorded due proess.


16/85

M"-e&" vs Sa& Se,ast!a& C"lle2e

Facts:

SSCH e!ployed Moreno as a teahing (ellow. In 8???, Moreno was appointed as a (ullHti!e ollege (aulty

!e!ber. +ater on, she bea!e a per!anent (aulty !e!ber. She was also o((ered the hair!anship o( the

Business 3inane and Aountany $epart!ent o( her ollege. owever, it was later on disovered that Moreno

had unauthoriGed teahing assign!ents at the C0* during the 1st se! o( S/ 8??8H8?? and at the College o(

the oly Spirit, Manila during S/ 8???H8??1 and S/ 8??1H8??8 as well as during the 1st se! o( S/ 8??8H

8??. Said ativities were violative o( SSCH)s 3aulty Manual and were punishable by suspension or

dis!issal.

Moreno reeived a !e!orandu! (ro! the $ean. In reply, she ad!itted her (ailure to seure any written

per!ission be(ore she taught in other shools. Moreno (urther stated that it was never her intention to 2eopardiGe

her wor" in SSCH and that she !erely wanted to i!prove her (a!ily)s poor (inanial onditions. A Speial

6rievane Co!!ittee was then (or!ed whih unani!ously (ound that Moreno violated the prohibition against a

(ullHti!e (aulty having an unauthoriGed e-ternal teahing load. The !a2ority o( the grievane o!!ittee

!e!bers reo!!ended Morenos dis!issal (ro! e!ploy!ent in aordane with the shool !anual, but $ean

0spe2o dissented and alled only (or a suspension (or one se!ester. SSCH adopted the (indings and

reo!!endations o( the grievane o!!ittee and so, her e!ploy!ent was ter!inated.

Moreno thus instituted with the :+C a o!plaint (or illegal ter!ination. +A dis!issed Morenos o!plaint.

:+C reversed the rulings o( the +A. owever, the CA annulled the deision o( the :+C and reinstated the

deision o( the +A.

Issue4 : Moreno)s ter!ination is proper by stritly applying the provision o( the 3aulty Manual.

Rul!&24

0ven i( dis!issal (or ause is the presribed penalty (or the !isondut herein o!!itted, in aordane with

the SSCH 3aulty Manual and Moreno)s e!ploy!ent ontrat, the Court (inds the sa!e to be disproportionate

to the o((ense. Ti!e and again, we have ruled that while an e!ployer en2oys a wide latitude o( disretion in the

pro!ulgation o( poliies, rules and regulations on wor"Hrelated ativities o( the e!ployees, those diretives,

however, !ust always be (air and reasonable, and the orresponding penalties, when presribed, !ust be

o!!ensurate to the o((ense involved and to the degree o( the in(ration.

Speial iru!stanes were present in the ase at bar whih should have been properly ta"en into aount in the

i!position o( the appropriate penalty. Moreno, in this ase, had readily ad!itted her !isondut, whih was

undisputedly the (irst she has ever o!!itted against the shool. er teahing abilities and ad!inistrative s"ills

re!ained apparently una((eted by her e-ternal teahing engage!ents, as she was (ound by the grievane

o!!ittee to be one o( the better pro(essors in the Aounting $epart!ent and she was even o((ered the

Chair!anship o( her ollege. Also, the (at that Moreno !erely wanted to alleviate her (a!ily)s poor (inanial

onditions is a 2usti(iation that SSCH (ailed to re(ute. SSCH li"ewise (ailed to prove any resulting !aterial

da!age or pre2udie on its part as a onseDuene o( Moreno)s !isondut. The lai! by SSCH that the

i!position o( a lesser penalty would set a bad preedent (or the other (aulty !e!bers who o!ply with the

shool poliies is too speulative (or this Court to even onsider. 3inally, the Court notes that in Moreno)s

ontrat o( e!ploy!ent, one o( the provisions therein ategorially stated that should a violation o( any o( the

ter!s and onditions thereo( be o!!itted, the penalty that will be i!posed would either be suspension or

dis!issal (ro! e!ploy!ent. Thus, ontrary to its position (ro! the beginning, SSCH learly had the disretion

to i!pose a lighter penalty o( suspension and was not at all o!pelled to dis!iss Moreno under the

iru!stanes, 2ust beause the 3aulty Manual said so.

AVON v. LUNA

G.R. N". 0/)% 3ece7,e- (


17/85

A o!plaint dated 1 $ee!ber 19>> was (iled by herein respondent +una alleging, inter alia that she

began wor"ing (or Beauti(ont, In. in 1978, (irst as a (ranhise dealer and then a year later, as a Supervisor.

So!eti!e in 197>, Avon Cos!etis, In. &Avon', herein petitioner, aDuired and too" over the !anage!ent and

operations o( Beauti(ont, In. :onetheless, respondent +una ontinued wor"ing (or said suessor o!pany.

In 19>@, petitioner Avon and respondent +una entered into an agree!ent, entitled Supervisors Agreement,

whereby said parties ontrated in the !anner Duoted below4

The Co!pany and the Supervisor !utually agree4

- - - -

@' That the Supervisor shall sell or o((er to sell, display or pro!ote only and e-lusively produts soldby the Co!pany.

F' 0ither party !ay ter!inate this agree!ent at will, with or without ause, at any ti!e upon notie to

the other.

- - - -.

By virtue o( the e-eution o( the a(oreDuoted Supervisors Agreement, respondent +una bea!e part o( theindependent sales (ore o( petitioner Avon.

So!eti!e in the latter part o( 19>>, respondent +una was invited by a (or!er Avon e!ployee who was thenurrently a Sales Manager o( Sandr hilippines, In., a do!esti orporation engaged in diret selling o(

vita!ins and other (ood supple!ents, to sell said produts. espondent +una apparently aepted the invitationas she then bea!e a 6roup 3ranhise $iretor o( Sandr hilippines, In. onurrently with being a 6roup

Supervisor o( petitioner Avon

In a letter dated 11 tober 19>>, petitioner Avon, through its resident and 6eneral Manager, =ose Mari

3rano, noti(ied respondent +una o( the ter!ination or anellation o( her Supervisor)s Agree!ent withpetitioner Avon &Allegedly beause o( violation o( paragraph @ pursuant to paragraph F o( the sa!e Agree!ent'.

Aggrieved, respondent +una (iled a o!plaint (or da!ages be(ore the TC whih rendered 2udg!ent in (avor o(

respondent +una.

The Court o( Appeals pro!ulgated the assailed $eision whih A33IM0$ TC)s deision in toto

ISSUE:

a' hether or not paragraph @ o( the Supervisor)s Agree!ent is void (or being violative o( law and publipoliy and

b' hether or not paragraph F o( the Supervisor)s Agree!ent whih authoriGes petitioner Avon to ter!inate or

anel the agree!ent at will is void (or being ontrary to law and publi poliy.

HEL3:

a This exclusivitylause is !ore o(ten the sub2et o( ritial srutiny when it is pereived to ollide with theConstitutional prosription against


18/85

It was not by hane that Sandr hilippines, In. !ade respondent +una one o( its 6roup 3ranhise $iretors.

It doesn)t ta"e a genius to realiGe that by !a"ing her an i!portant part o( its distribution ar!, Sandrhilippines, In., a newly (or!ed diretHselling business, would be saving ti!e, e((ort and !oney as it will no

longer have to reruit, train and !otivate supervisors and dealers.

The exclusivity clause does not in any way li!it its selling opportunities, 2ust the undue use o( the resoures o(

petitioner Avon.

The (oregoing pre!ises noted, the Court o( Appeals, there(ore, o!!itted reversible error in interpreting the

sub2et exclusivity clauseto apply !erely to those produts in diret o!petition to those !anu(atured andsold by petitioner Avon.

b aving held that the 8&a', &', and &d'.%

B"&a #!de "ccu1at!"&al ;ual!#!cat!"& JBFO?K

0!ploy!ent in partiular 2obs !ay not be li!ited to persons o( a partiular se-, religion, or national originunless the e!ployer an show that se-, religion, or national origin is an atual Duali(iation (or per(or!ing the

2ob. Argu!ent that B3N is a statutory de(ense !ust (ailThe Constitution, the +abor Code, and A :o. 7877or the Magna Carta (or $isabled ersons ontain provisions

si!ilar to B3N.

&1' the e!ployer !ust show that it adopted the standard (or a purpose rationally onneted to the per(or!ane

o( the 2ob Test &*S 2urisprudene' in deter!ining whether an e!ploy!ent poliy is 2usti(ied.

&8' the e!ployer !ust establish that the standard is reasonably neessary to the ao!plish!ent o( that wor"H

related purpose and&' the e!ployer !ust establish that the standard is reasonably neessary in order to ao!plish the legiti!ate

wor"Hrelated purpose. In Star aper Corporation v. Si!bol, this Court held that in order to 2usti(y a B3N, thee!ployer !ust prove4&1'the e!ploy!ent Duali(iation is reasonably related to the essential operation o( the 2ob involved and

&8'that there is (atual basis (or believing that all or substantially all persons !eeting the Duali(iation

would be unable to properly per(or! the duties o( the 2ob.

In short, the test o( reasonableness o( the o!pany poliy is used beause it is parallel to B3N.

B3N is valid #provided it re(lets an inherent Duality reasonably neessary (or satis(atory 2ob per(or!ane.%

The weight standards o( A+ are reasonable. A o!!on arrier, (ro! the nature o( its business and (or reasonso( publi poliy, is bound to observe e-traordinary diligene (or the sa(ety o( the passengers it transports.
http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/yrasuegui-v-pal-569-scra-467-2008.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/yrasuegui-v-pal-569-scra-467-2008.html


19/85

The pri!ary ob2etive o( A+ in the i!position o( the weight standards (or abin rew is (light sa(ety. It

annot be gainsaid that abin attendants !ust !aintain agility at all ti!es in order to inspire passengeron(idene on their ability to are (or the passengers when so!ething goes wrong.

0ntitled to separation pay, even i( ter!inated (or 2ust ause 0-eptionally, separation pay is granted to a legally

dis!issed e!ployee as an at #soial 2ustie,% or based on #eDuity.% rovided the dis!issal4&1' was not (or serious !isondut and

&8' does not re(let on the !oral harater o( the e!ployee.

Thus, he was granted separation pay eDuivalent to oneHhal( &18' !onth)s pay (or every year o(

servie.

MORALES v HARBOUR CENRE POR ERMINALG.R. N". 0/)(


20/85

while ordinarily not inter(ered with, is not absolute and is sub2et to li!itations i!posed by law, olletive

bargaining agree!ent, and general priniples o( (air play and 2ustie. Thus, an e!ployer !ay trans(er or assigne!ployees (ro! one o((ie or area o( operation to another, provided there is no de!otion in ran" or di!inution

o( salary, bene(its, and other privileges, and the ation is not !otivated by disri!ination, !ade in bad (aith, or

e((eted as a (or! o( punish!ent or de!otion without su((iient ause. Indeed, having the right should not beon(used with the !anner in whih that right is e-erised.


21/85

:ote4 6.. :o. 1;1 U ;, Mar 1 199F&197F' is the one ited in our syllabus. But I thin" the (ollowing ase

should be the real ase based on the topi o( overti!e sine there)s no overti!e issue in the ase ited &based on6.. :o.' in the syllabus. =ust he" it i( you wish to on(ir!

G.R. N". 0/


22/85


23/85

PHILE GOL3 vs PHILE BULAWANespondent *nion R reogniGed *nion o( hile-6ld. There)s a CBA. A(ter signing the CBA, ile-6old

!ade e!ployees o( hile- Mining Corporation (ro! adaal Benguet as its regular supervisory e!ployees. So

so!e o( the so alled 0-Hpadaa supervisors began to wor" in Bulawan Mines.

It turned out that 0- padaal supervisors were !aintained under a on(idential payroll, reeiving di((erent salary

bene(its and higher salaries o!pared to the loally hired supervisors o( si!ilar ran".

*nion (iled a o!plait against hile- 6old with :CMB V ruled in (avor o( the *nion. $isri!inatory yung

wage poliy.

CA V in (avour o( *nion. It used the priniple #0Dual pay (or 0Dual or"%

ISSUE4 : the dotrine o( eDual pay (or eDual wor" should not re!ove !anage!ent prerogative to institutedi((erene in salary on the basis o( the seniority, s"ill, e-periene and the disloation (ator in the sa!e lass o(

supervisory wor"ers doing the sa!e "ind o( wor". &6uys, eto na rin yung ontention ng hile-6oldH !ay valid

(ators daw that e-ists to 2usti(y the lassi(iation'

RULING4 :o. etitioners even ad!itted that the sa!e lass o( wor"ers are doing the sa!e "ind o( o( wor".This !eans that an e-adal Supervisor and a loally hired supervisor o( eDual ran" do t the sa!e "ind o( wor".I( an e!ployer aords e!ployees the sa!e position and ran", the presu!ption i( that thee e!ployees per(or!

eDual wor".

ere, etitioners (ailed to addue evidene to show that an e-adal Supervisor and a loally hired supervisor

o( the sa!e ran" are initially paid the sa!e basi salary (or doing the sa!e "ind o( wor". They (ailed to

di((erentiate the basi salary (ro! any "ind o( salary inrease or additional bene(it whih !ay have been given

to e-adal supervisors due to their seniority, e-periene and other (ators.

hile the law reogniGes and sa(eguards the right o( an e!ployer to e-erise what are learly !anage!ent

prerogatives, suh right should not be abused and used as a tool o( oppression against labor. The o!pany)s

prerogative !ust be e-erised in good (aith and with due regard to the rights o( labor. They are not absolute

prerogatives but are sub2et to legal li!its, olletive bargaining agree!ents and the general priniples o( (air

play and 2ustie.


24/85

3ACTS4

*S*MC is a do!esti orporation engaged in the sugarane !illing business Cabati is *S*MCs

Business *nit 6eneral Manager.

The o!plainants were e!ployees o( *S*MC, and were hired on various dates between 19>> and 199F,

and on di((erent apaities, i.e., drivers, rane operators, bu"et hoo"ers, welders, !ehanis, laboratory

attendants and aides, steel wor"ers, arpenters, a!ong others. The o!plainants signed ontrats o(

e!ploy!ent (or a period o( 1 !onth or (or a given season, and were repeatedly hired to per(or! the sa!e dutiesand, (or every engage!ent, were reDuired to sign new e!ploy!ent ontrats (or the sa!e duration o( one

!onth or given season.

n August 8, 8??8, the o!plainants (iled be(ore the +abor Arbiter o!plaints (or regulariGation, entitle!ent

to the bene(its under the e-isting Colletive Bargaining Agree!ent &CBA', and attorneys (ees. The +abor

Arbiter dis!issed the o!plaint in the deision dated tober 9, 8??8, (or la" o( !erit. The +abor Arbiterpointed out that the o!plainants were reDuired to per(or! several pro2ets that were not at all diretly related

to *S*MCs !ain operations, and that they were pro2et e!ployees, they ould not be regulariGed sine their

respetive e!ploy!ents end upon the o!pletion o( eah pro2et. Also, o!plainants were not entitled to thebene(its granted under the CBA that, as provided, overed only the regular e!ployees o( *S*MC.

7, out o( the 88 original o!plainants, appealed the +abor Arbiters ruling be(ore the :+C. :+C reversed the

+abor Arbiters ruling it delared the o!plainants are regular *S*MC e!ployees beause they per(or!edativities whih were usually neessary and desirable in the usual trade or business o( *S*MC, and granted

their !onetary lai!s under the CBA. :+C denied petitioners !otion (or reonsideration.

etitioners elevated the ase to the Court o( Appeals &CA' via a petition (or ertiorari.

The CA granted in part the petition. It pointed out that the pri!ary standard (or deter!ining regular e!ploy!entis the reasonable onnetion between a partiular ativity per(or!ed by the e!ployee visHvis the usual trade or

business o( the e!ployer. As the o!plainants have been per(or!ing their respetive tas"s (or at least one year,

these sa!e tas"s, regardless o( whether the per(or!ane was ontinuous or inter!ittent, onstitutes su((iientevidene o( the neessity, i( not indispensability, o( the ativity to *S*MCs business. n the lai! (or CBA

bene(its, however, the CA ruled that the o!plainants were not entitled to reeive the!. CA pointed out that the

CBA overed regular e!ployees o( *S*MC per(or!ing tas"s needed by the latter (or the entire year with

no regard to the hanging sugar !illing season. 3or olletive bargaining purposes, they onstitute a bargainingunit separate and distint (ro! the regular e!ployees.

The petitioner (iled a petition (or review on ertiorari a(ter the CA denied their !otion (or partialreonsideration.

SS!"# $%et%er or not t%e respondents are regular employees of !RS!&'()

HEL3: $e -es1"&de&ts a-e -e2ula- seas"&al e71l"ees "# URSUMCO

LABOR LAW : -e2ula- seas"&al e71l"eesArtile 8>? o( the +abor Code provides (or three "inds o( e!ploy!ent arrange!ents, na!ely4 regular,

pro2etseasonal and asual.

egular e!ploy!ent re(ers to that arrange!ent whereby the e!ployee has been engaged to per(or! ativities

whih are usually neessary or desirable in the usual business or trade o( the e!ployer. By way o( an e-eption,

paragraph 8, Artile 8>? o( the +abor Code also onsiders regular a asual e!ploy!ent arrange!ent when the

asual e!ployees engage!ent has lasted (or at least one year, regardless o( the engage!ents ontinuity. The

ontrolling test in this arrange!ent is the length o( ti!e during whih the e!ployee is engaged.

ro2et e!ploy!ent, on the other hand, onte!plates on arrange!ent whereby the e!ploy!ent has been (i-ed

(or a spei(i pro2et or underta"ing whose o!pletion or ter!ination has been deter!ined at the ti!e o( the

engage!ent o( the e!ployee. The servies o( the pro2et e!ployees are legally and auto!atially ter!inated

upon the end or o!pletion o( the pro2et as the e!ployees servies are oter!inous with the pro2et.

Seasonal e!ploy!ent operates !uh in the sa!e way as pro2et e!ploy!ent, albeit it involves wor" or servie

that is seasonal in nature or lasting (or the duration o( the season. To e-lude the asserted seasonal e!ployee


25/85

(ro! those lassi(ied as regular e!ployees, the e!ployer !ust show that4 &1' the e!ployee !ust be per(or!ing

wor" or servies that are seasonal in nature and &8' he had been e!ployed (or the duration o( the season.

ene, when the seasonal wor"ers are ontinuously and repeatedly hired to per(or! the sa!e tas"s or ativities

(or several seasons or even a(ter the essation o( the season, this length o( ti!e !ay li"ewise serve as badge o(

regular e!ploy!ent.

Casual e!ploy!ent re(ers to any other e!ploy!ent arrange!ent that does not (all under any o( the (irst two

ategories.

In the ase at bar, the respondents were !ade to per(or! various tas"s that did not at all pertain to any spei(i

phase o( *S*MCs strit !illing operations that would ulti!ately ease upon o!pletion o( a partiular

phase in the !illing o( sugar rather, they were tas"ed to per(or! duties regularly and habitually needed in

*S*MCs operations during the !illing season. The respondents duties as loader operators, hoo"ers, rane

operators and drivers were neessary to haul and transport the sugarane (ro! the plantation to the !ill

laboratory attendants, wor"ers and laborers to !ill the sugar and welders, arpenters and utility wor"ers to

ensure the s!ooth and ontinuous operation o( the !ill (or the duration o( the !illing season, as distinguished

(ro! the prodution o( the sugarane whih involves the planting and raising o( the sugarane until it ripens (or

!illing. They per(or! ativities that are neessary and desirable in sugarane prodution. Also, the respondents

were regularly and repeatedly hired to per(or! the sa!e tas"s year a(ter year. This regular and repeated hiring

o( the sa!e wor"ers &two di((erent sets' (or two separate seasons has put in plae, prinipally through

2urisprudene, the syste! o( regular seasonal e!ploy!ent in the sugar industry and other industries with a

si!ilar nature o( operations.

There(ore, the nature o( the e!ploy!ent does not depend solely on the will or word o( the e!ployer or on the

proedure (or hiring and the !anner o( designating the e!ployee. ather, the nature o( the e!ploy!ent depends

on the nature o( the ativities to be per(or!ed by the e!ployee, onsidering the nature o( the e!ployers

business, the duration and sope to be done, and, in so!e ases, even the length o( ti!e o( the per(or!ane andits ontinued e-istene.

The :+C ated in grave abuse o( disretion when it delared the respondents regular e!ployees o(

*S*MC without Duali(iation and that they were entitled to the bene(its granted under the CBA, to

*S*MCs regular e!ployees. e also (ind that the CA grossly !isread the :+C ruling and !issed the

i!pliations o( the respondents regulariGation. To reiterate, the respondents are regular seasonal e!ployees, as

the CA itsel( opined when it delared that private respondents who are regular wor"ers with respet to their

seasonal tas"s or ativities and while suh ativities e-ist, annot auto!atially be governed by the CBA

between petitioner *S*MC and the authoriGed bargaining representative o( the regular and per!anent

e!ployees.

Pet!t!"& #"- -ev!e8 "& ce-t!"-a-! !s 1a-t!all 2-a&ted.

MACARHUR MALIC3EM a&d HERMENIGIL3O FLORES%vs.MARULAS IN3USRIAL CORPORAION a&d MI4E MANCILLA%

Facts:

Malide! and 3lores were hired by Marulas as e-truder operators. Their e!ploy!ent ontrats were (or

a period o( one &1' year. 0very year therea(ter, they would sign a esignationNuitlai! in (avor o( Marulas a

day a(ter their ontrats ended, and then sign another ontrat (or one &1' year. *ntil one day, 3lores was told

not to report (or wor" any!ore a(ter being as"ed to sign a paper by Marulas ead to the e((et that he

a"nowledged the o!pletion o( his ontratual status. Malide! was also ter!inated a(ter signing a si!ilar

dou!ent. Thus, both lai!ed to have been illegally dis!issed. Thus, they lodged a o!plaint against Marulas

and Manilla (or illegal dis!issal where the +abor Arbiter &+A' rendered a deision in (avor o( the respondents,


26/85

(inding no illegal dis!issal. The +A, however, ordered Marulas to pay Malide! and 3lores their respetive

wage di((erentials. :+C partially granted their appeal with the award o( pay!ent o( 1th !onth pay, servie

inentive leave and holiday pay (or three &' years. n appeal to the CA their petition was however denied.

Issue:

hether petitioner !ay be onsider as a regular e!ployee.

Held4

In the earlier ase o( Maraguinot, =r. v. :+C,it was ruled that a pro2et or wor" pool e!ployee, who

has been4 &1' ontinuously, as opposed to inter!ittently, rehired by the sa!e e!ployer (or the sa!e tas"s or

nature o( tas"s and &8' those tas"s are vital, neessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade o( the

e!ployer, !ust be dee!ed a regular e!ployee.

The test to deter!ine whether e!ploy!ent is regular or not is the reasonable onnetion between the

partiular ativity per(or!ed by the e!ployee in relation to the usual business or trade o( the e!ployer. I( the

e!ployee has been per(or!ing the 2ob (or at least one year, even i( the per(or!ane is not ontinuous or !erely

inter!ittent, the law dee!s the repeated and ontinuing need (or its per(or!ane as su((iient evidene o( theneessity, i( not indispensability o( that ativity to the business.

6uided by the (oregoing, the Court is o( the onsidered view that there was learly a deliberate intent to

prevent the regulariGation o( the petitioners. To begin with, there is no atual pro2et. The only stipulations in

the ontrats were the dates o( their e((etivity, the duties and responsibilities o( the petitioners as e-truder

operators, the rights and obligations o( the parties, and the petitioners) o!pensation and allowanes. As there

was no spei(i pro2et or underta"ing to spea" o(, the respondents annot invo"e the e-eption in Artile 8>?

o( the +abor Code. This is a lear atte!pt to (rustrate the regulariGation o( the petitioners and to iru!vent the

law.

:e-t, granting that they were pro2et e!ployees, the petitioners ould only be onsidered as regular e!ployees

as the two (ators enu!erated in Maraguinot, =r., are present in this ase. It is undisputed that the petitioners

were ontinuously rehired by the sa!e e!ployer (or the sa!e position as e-truder operators. As suh, they were

responsible (or the operation o( !ahines that produed the sa"s. ene, their wor" was vital, neessary and

indispensable to the usual business or trade o( the e!ployer.

G.R. N"s. 0/)5% Fe,-ua-


27/85

$ela a!a :ove!ber 1F, 199@ 3ebruary 1, 1997

$iGon tober 19>> $ee!ber 1@, 199F

Tu!abiao 3ebruary 8, 1998 3ebruary 1, 1997

Basan =uly 1, 199F =anuary 1, 1997

$onor Septe!ber 1F, 199@ 3ebruary 1, 1997

:iolas May 1?, 199F =anuary ?, 19973alguera =anuary 1@, 1991 April 199F

espondent orporation, however, ountered that it hired petitioners as te!porary route helpers to at as

substitutes (or its absent regular route helpers !erely (or a (i-ed period in antiipation o( the high volu!e o(wor" in its plants or sales o((ies.FAs suh, petitioners) lai!s have no basis (or they "new that their assign!ent

as route helpers was te!porary in duration.

n August 81, 199>, the +abor Arbiter ruled in (avor o( petitioners and (ound that sine they were per(or!ingativities neessary and desirable to the usual business o( petitioner (or !ore than the period (or regulariGation,

petitioners are onsidered as regular e!ployees, and thus, their dis!issal was done ontrary to law in the

absene o( 2ust ause and prior written notie.7Thus, it ordered respondent to reinstate petitioners with (ullba"wages (ro! the ti!e their salaries were withheld until their atual reinstate!ent and to pay their lu!p su!

inrease e-tended to the! in their olletive bargaining agree!ent, their arued vaation and si" leave

bene(its, as well as !onetary awards and attorney)s (ees.>ralawlawlibrary

n =anuary ?, 8??, the :+C a((ir!ed the +abor Arbiter)s deision and re2eted respondent)s ontention that

petitioners were !erely e!ployed (or a spei(i pro2et or underta"ing the o!pletion or ter!ination o( whih

has been deter!ined at the ti!e o( their engage!ent. It stressed that nowhere in the reords o( the ase was itshown that petitioners were hired as pro2et or seasonal e!ployees, respondent having (ailed to sub!it any

ontrat o( pro2et or other si!ilar proo( thereo(.9It also noted that neither an petitioners be onsidered as

probationary e!ployees (or the (at that they had per(or!ed their servies (or !ore than si- &F' !onths. In

addition, the :+C upheld the +abor Arbiter)s ruling that petitioners, as route helpers, per(or!ed wor" diretlyonneted or neessary and desirable in respondent)s ordinary business o( !anu(aturing and distributing its

so(tdrin" produts. Thus, respondent (ailed to overo!e petitioners) assertion that they were regular e!ployees.As suh, their e!ploy!ent ould only be ter!inated with 2ust ause and a(ter the observane o( the reDuired

due proess. Therea(ter, the subseDuent !otion (or reonsideration (iled by respondent was (urther denied by

the :+C on Septe!ber 8;, 8??.

n $ee!ber 9, 8??, respondent (iled a petition (or certiorari1?with the CA alleging grave abuse o( disretion

on the part o( the :+C in (inding that petitioners were regular e!ployees. In the !eanti!e, petitioners (iled

be(ore the +abor Arbiter a Motion (or Issuane o( a rit o( 0-eution11dated $ee!ber 1@, 8??, to whihrespondent (iled a Mani(estation and Motion with attahed pposition.18n Marh 8@, 8??;, the +abor Arbiter

ordered that the rit o( 0-eution be issued, whih was a((ir!ed by the :+C on =une 81, 8??;. ConseDuently,respondent (iled another petition (or certiorari1on tober 88, 8??;, lai!ing that the :+C o!!itted graveabuse o( disretion in direting the e-eution o( a 2udg!ent, the propriety and validity o( whih was still under

deter!ination o( the appellate ourt.

In its $eision dated August 1, 8??@, the CA onsolidated respondent)s two &8' petitions (or certiorariand

reversed the rulings o( the :+C and the +abor Arbiter in the (ollowing wise4hanoblesvirtual+awlibrary

That the respondents #per(or!ed duties whih are neessary or desirable in the usual trade or business o( CoaH

Cola,% is o( no !o!ent. This is not the only standard (or deter!ining the status o( one)s e!ploy!ent. Suh (at

does not prevent the! (ro! being onsidered as (i-ed ter! e!ployees o( CoaHCola whose engage!ent was

#(i-ed% (or a spei(i period. The respondent)s repeated hiring (or various periods &ranging (ro! !ore than si-!onths (or private respondent Basan to eight years in the ase o( private respondent $iGon' would not

auto!atially ategoriGe the! as 06*+A 0M+/00S.ralawred

- - - -

It being supported by (ats on reord and there being no showing that the e!ploy!ent ter!s were (oisted on thee!ployees through iru!stanes vitiating or di!inishing their onsent, (ollowingrent Sc%ool, nc. vs.

amora&6.. :o. ;>;9;, 3eb. @, 199?', the respondents !ust be onsidered as (i-ed ter! e!ployees whose

#seasonal e!ploy!ent% or e!ploy!ent (or a #period% have been #set down.% A(ter all, as oneded by Brent,


28/85

(i-ed ter! e!ploy!ent ontinues to be allowed and en(oreable in this 2urisdition. :ot being per!anent

regular e!ployees, it !ust be held that the respondents are not entitled to reinstate!ent and pay!ent o( (ullba"wages.1;

ChanoblesEirtualawlibrary

etitioners sought a reonsideration o( the CA)s $eision on proedural and substantive grounds. n theproedural, they alleged that respondent, in (iling its appeal o( the +abor Arbiter)s August 81, 199> deision

with the :+C only on $ee!ber 8?, 199>, rendered the $eision o( the +abor Arbiter (inal and e-eutory, and

thus, deprived the CA o( 2urisdition to alter the (inal 2udg!ent.1@They also lai!ed that the esolutions o( the:+C have beo!e (inal and e-eutory in view o( the 0ntries o( =udg!ent dated $ee!ber 1F, 8?? and

Septe!ber 1F, 8??; issued by the :+C. As to the substantial !atter, petitioners assert that they are regular

e!ployees entitled to seurity o( tenure.

n August 8;, 8??F, the CA denied petitioners) !otion (or reonsideration in saying that it is no longer

neessary to disuss whether respondent was able to ti!ely appeal the +abor Arbiter)s deision to the :+C, inview o( the (at that the latter had already given due ourse to said appeal by deiding the ase on the !erits

and, !ore i!portantly, petitioners) (ailure to raise the alleged in(ir!ity be(ore the :+C in opposition to

respondent)s appeal.

ene, the instant petition invo"ing the (ollowing grounds4hanoblesvirtual+awlibrary

I.

T0 :AB+0 C*T 3 A0A+S S0I*S+/ A:$ AT0:T+/ 00$ A:$ CMMITT0$6AE0 AB*S0 3 $ISC0TI: AM*:TI:6 T T0 +AC5 0QC0SS 3 =*IS$ICTI: I:

*+I:6 TAT T0 0TITI:0S 00 :T 06*+A 0M+/00S.

II.

T0 :AB+0 C*T 3 A0A+S CMMITT0$ 0E0SIB+0 0 I: T0 CA++0:60$$0CISI:S AS T AA:T T0 0Q0CIS0 3 T0 C*T)S $ISC0TI:A/ A0++AT0

=*IS$ICTI:.

etitioners essentially !aintain that ontrary to the (indings o( the CA, they were ontinuously hired by

respondent o!pany to per(or! duties neessary and desirable in the usual trade or business and are, there(ore,

regular e!ployees. They allege that i( their servies had really been engaged (or (i-ed spei(i periods,respondent should have at least provided the ontrats o( e!ploy!ent evidening the sa!e.

3or its part, respondent ontends that the petition should be denied due ourse (or its veri(iation and

erti(iation o( nonH(oru! shopping was signed by only one o( the petitioners. It alleges that even assu!ing thevalidity o( the sa!e, it should still be dis!issed (or the appellate ourt aptly (ound that petitioners were (i-edH

ter! e!ployees who were hired inter!ittently. espondent also asserts that petitioners (ailed to o!pletely

substantiate their lai!s, (or during the hearing onduted be(ore the +abor Arbiter on Marh 11, 199>, thepayslips presented by petitioners !erely established the (ollowing e!ploy!ent ter!s4

:a!e o( etitioner +ength o( Servie $ates

$ela a!a @ !onths, ; !onths Between :ove!ber ?, 199@

And Marh 1, 199F

$iGon ; !onths

8 !onths9 !onths

In 199

In 199;In 199F

Tu!abiao !onths 3ro! :ove!ber 1@, 199FTo =anuary 1, 1997

Basan

F.@ !onths

1 !onth

3ro! May 1@, 199F

To $ee!ber 1, 199F3ro! =anuary 1@, 1997

To =anuary 1, 1997

$onor

1 !onth

3ro! 3ebruary 1@, 199F

To Marh 1@, 199F


29/85

1 !onth

3ro! $ee!ber 1@, 199F

To =anuary 1@, 1997

:iolas >.@ !onths In 199F and 1997

3alguera F !onths 3ro! 1998

To 1997

Considering that the evidene presented showed that petitioners !erely rendered their servies (or periods o(less than a year, respondent lai!s that petitioners ould not have attained regular e!ploy!ent status. It added

that its (ailure to present petitioners) e!ploy!ent ontrats was due to a (ire that destroyed its Manila lant

where said ontrats were "ept. :evertheless, respondent persistently asserts that where a (i-ed period o(e!ploy!ent was agreed upon "nowingly and voluntarily by the petitioners, the duration o( whih was !ade

"nown to the! at the ti!e o( their engage!ent, petitioners annot now lai! otherwise. In addition, it disagrees

with the ontention that petitioners, as route helpers, were per(or!ing (untions neessary or desirable to its

business.

The petition is i!pressed with !erit.

n the proedural issue, e hold that while the general rule is that the veri(iation and erti(iation o( nonH

(oru! shopping !ust be signed by all the petitioners in a ase, the signature o( only one o( the!, petitioner

Basan in this ase, appearing thereon !ay be dee!ed substantial o!pliane with the proedural reDuire!ent.=urisprudene is replete with rulings that the rule on veri(iation is dee!ed substantially o!plied with when

one who has a!ple "nowledge to swear to the truth o( the allegations in the o!plaint or petition signs the

veri(iation, and when !atters alleged in the petition have been !ade in good (aith or are true and orret.1FSi!ilarly, this Court has onsistently held that when under reasonable or 2usti(iable iru!stanes, as when all

the petitioners share a o!!on interest and invo"e a o!!on ause o( ation or de(ense, as in this ase, the

signature o( only one o( the! in the erti(iation against (oru! shopping substantially o!plies with the

erti(iation reDuire!ent.17Thus, the (at that the petition was signed only by petitioner Basan does notneessarily result in its outright dis!issal (or it is !ore in aord with substantial 2ustie to overloo" petitioners)

proedural lapses.1> Indeed, the appliation o( tehnial rules o( proedure !ay be rela-ed in labor ases to

serve the de!and o( 2ustie.19ralawlawlibrary

As (or the pri!ordial issue in this ase, it !ust be noted that the sa!e has already been resolved in&agsalin v.

*ational (rganiation of $or/ing &en,8?wherein this Court has ategorially delared that the nature o( wor"o( route helpers hired by Coa Cola Bottlers hilippines, In. is neessary and desirable in its usual business or

trade thereby Duali(ying the! as regular e!ployees, to wit4hanoblesvirtual+awlibrary

CoaHCola Bottlers hils., In., is one o( the leading and largest !anu(aturers o( so(tdrin"s in the ountry.espondent wor"ers have long been in the servie o( petitioner o!pany. espondent wor"ers, when hired,

would go with route sales!en on board delivery tru"s and underta"e the laborious tas" o( loading andunloading so(tdrin" produts o( petitioner o!pany to its various delivery points.

0ven while the language o( law !ight have been !ore de(initive, the larity o( its spirit and intent, i.e., toensure a 7a&u#actu-!&2 a&d t$at t$e 8"->


30/85

ass!2&ed t" -es1"&de&t 8"->e-s as sales -"ute $el1e-s s" !&v"lves 7e-el =1"st1-"duct!"& act!v!t!es%= "&e8$!c$ !s &"t !&d!s1e&sa,le !& t$e 7a&u#actu-e "# !ts 1-"ducts% sca-cel ca& ,e 1e-suas!ve. I#% as s" a-2ued, 1et!t!"&e- c"71a&% "&l t$"se 8$"se 8"-> a-e d!-ectl !&v"lved !& t$e 1-"duct!"& "# s"#td-!&>s 7a,e $eld 1e-#"-7!&2 #u&ct!"&s &ecessa- a&d des!-a,le !& !ts usual ,us!&ess "- t-ade% t$e-e 8"uld $avet$e& ,ee& &" &eed #"- !t t" eve& 7a!&ta!& -e2ula- t-uc> sales -"ute $el1e-s. $e &atu-e "# t$e 8"->1e-#"-7ed 7ust ,e v!e8ed #-"7 a 1e-s1ect!ve "# t$e ,us!&ess "- t-ade !& !ts e&t!-et a&d &"t "& ac"!&ed sc"1e.

The repeated rehiring o( respondent wor"ers and the ontinuing need (or their servies learly attest to theneessity or desirability o( their servies in the regular ondut o( the business or trade o( petitioner o!pany.

The Court o( Appeals has (ound eah o( respondents to have wor"ed (or at least one year with petitioner

o!pany. W$!le t$!s C"u-t% !&Brent "chool, Inc. vs. #amora% $as u1$eld t$e le2al!t "# a #!ed5te-7e71l"7e&t% !t $as d"&e s"% $"8eve-% 8!t$ a ste-& ad7"&!t!"& t$at 8$e-e #-"7 t$e c!-cu7sta&ces !t !sa11a-e&t t$at t$e 1e-!"d $as ,ee& !71"sed t" 1-eclude t$e ac;u!s!t!"& "# te&u-!al secu-!t , t$ee71l"ee% t$e& !t s$"uld ,e st-uc> d"8& as ,e!&2 c"&t-a- t" la8% 7"-als% 2""d cust"7s% 1u,l!c "-de- a&d1u,l!c 1"l!c. $e 1e-&!c!"us 1-act!ce "# $av!&2 e71l"ees% 8"->e-s a&d la,"-e-s% e&2a2ed #"- a #!ed1e-!"d "# #e8 7"&t$s% s$"-t "# t$e &"-7al s!57"&t$ 1-",at!"&a- 1e-!"d "# e71l"7e&t% a&d% t$e-ea#te-%t" ,e $!-ed "& a da5t"5da ,as!s% 7"c>s t$e la8. A& ",v!"us c!-cu7ve&t!"& "# t$e la8 ca&&"t ,ec"u&te&a&ced.The (at that respondent wor"ers have agreed to be e!ployed on suh basis and to (orego the

protetion given to the! on their seurity o( tenure, de!onstrate nothing !ore than the serious proble! o(i!poverish!ent o( so !any o( our people and the resulting unevenness between labor and apital. A ontrat o(

e!ploy!ent is i!pressed with publi interest. The provisions o( appliable statutes are dee!ed written into theontrat, and


31/85

etitioners, in this ase, (all under the (irst "ind o( regular e!ployee above. As route helpers who are engaged inthe servie o( loading and unloading so(tdrin" produts o( respondent o!pany to its various delivery points,

whih is neessary or desirable in its usual business or trade, petitioners are onsidered as regular e!ployees.

That they !erely rendered servies (or periods o( less than a year is o( no !o!ent sine (or as long as they wereper(or!ing ativities neessary to the business o( respondent, they are dee!ed as regular e!ployees under the

+abor Code, irrespetive o( the length o( their servie.

:evertheless, respondent, as in&agsalin, also asserts that even assu!ing that petitioners were per(or!ingativities whih are usually neessary or desirable in its usual business or trade, they were e!ployed not as

regular e!ployees but only (or a (i-ed period, whih is well within the boundaries o( the law, as ruled inrent

Sc%ool, nc. v. amora,8FviG.4hanoblesvirtual+awlibrary

There is, on the other hand, the Civil Code, whih has always reogniGed, and ontinues to reogniGe, thevalidity and propriety o( ontrats and obligations with a (i-ed or de(inite period, and i!poses no restraints on

the (reedo! o( the parties to (i- the duration o( a ontrat, whatever its ob2et, be it speie, goods or servies,

e-ept the general ad!onition against stipulations ontrary to law, !orals, good usto!s, publi order or publipoliy. U&de- t$e C!v!l C"de% t$e-e#"-e% a&d as a 2e&e-al 1-"1"s!t!"&% #!ed5te-7 e71l"7e&t c"&t-actsa-e &"t l!7!ted% as t$e a-e u&de- t$e 1-ese&t La,"- C"de% t" t$"se , &atu-e seas"&al "- #"- s1ec!#!c

1-"ects 8!t$ 1-e5dete-7!&ed dates "# c"71let!"&+ t$e als" !&clude t$"se t" 8$!c$ t$e 1a-t!es , #-eec$"!ce $ave ass!2&ed a s1ec!#!c date "# te-7!&at!"&.

- - - -

Aordingly, and sine the entire purpose behind the develop!ent o( legislation ul!inating in the present

Artile 8>? o( the +abor Code learly appears to have been, as already observed, to prevent iru!vention o(

the e!ployees right to be seure in his tenure, the lause in said artile indisri!inately and o!pletely rulingout all written or oral agree!ents on(liting with the onept o( regular e!ploy!ent as de(ined therein should

be onstrued to re(er to the substantive evil that the Code itsel( has singled out4 agree!ents entered into

preisely to iru!vent seurity o( tenure. It s$"uld $ave &" a11l!cat!"& t" !&sta&ces 8$e-e a #!ed 1e-!"d "#

e71l"7e&t 8as a2-eed u1"& >&"8!&2l a&d v"lu&ta-!l , t$e 1a-t!es% 8!t$"ut a& #"-ce% du-ess "-!71-"1e- 1-essu-e ,e!&2 ,-"u2$t t" ,ea- u1"& t$e e71l"ee a&d a,se&t a& "t$e- c!-cu7sta&ces v!t!at!&2$!s c"&se&t% "- 8$e-e !t sat!s#act"-!l a11ea-s t$at t$e e71l"e- a&d e71l"ee dealt 8!t$ eac$ "t$e- "&7"-e "- less e;ual te-7s 8!t$ &" 7"-al d"7!&a&ce 8$ateve- ,e!&2 ee-c!sed , t$e #"-7e- "ve- t$elatte-. *nless thus li!ited in its purview, the law would be !ade to apply to purposes other than thosee-pliitly stated by its (ra!ers it thus beo!es pointless and arbitrary, un2ust in its e((ets and apt to lead to

absurd and unintended onseDuenes.87

ChanoblesEirtualawlibrary

Thus, under the aboverentdotrine, while it was not e-pressly !entioned in the +abor Code, this Court has

reogniGed a (i-edHter! type o( e!ploy!ent e!bodied in a ontrat spei(ying that the servies o( thee!ployee shall be engaged only (or a de(inite period, the ter!ination o( whih ours upon the e-piration o(

said period irrespetive o( the e-istene o( 2ust ause and regardless o( the ativity the e!ployee is alled uponto per(or!.8>Considering, however, the possibility o( abuse by e!ployers in the utiliGation o( (i-edHter!e!ploy!ent ontrats, this Court, in Brent, laid down the (ollowing riteria to prevent the iru!vention o( the

e!ployee)s seurity o( tenure4hanoblesvirtual+awlibrary

1' The (i-ed period o( e!ploy!ent was "nowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any

(ore, duress, or i!proper pressure being brought to bear upon the e!ployee and absent any other

iru!stanes vitiating his onsent or

8' It satis(atorily appears that the e!ployer and the e!ployee dealt with eah other on !ore or less eDual ter!s

with no !oral do!inane e-erised by the (or!er or the latter.89

ChanoblesEirtualawlibrary*n(ortunately, however, the reords o( this ase is bere(t o( any proo( whih will show that petitioners (reely

entered into agree!ents with respondent to per(or! servies (or a spei(ied length o( ti!e. In (at, there isnothing in the reords to show that there was any agree!ent at all, the ontrats o( e!ploy!ent not having been

presented. hile respondent o!pany persistently asserted that petitioners "nowingly agreed upon a (i-ed

period o( e!ploy!ent and repeatedly !ade re(erene to their ontrats o( e!ploy!ent, the e-piration thereo(being !ade "nown to petitioners at the ti!e o( their engage!ent, respondent (ailed to present the sa!e in spite

o( all the opportunities to do so. :otably, it was only at the stage o( its appeal to the CA that respondent

provided an e-planation as to why it (ailed to sub!it the ontrats they repeatedly spo"e o(.? 0ven granting

that the ontrats o( e!ploy!ent were destroyed by (ire, respondent ould have easily sub!itted other pertinent


32/85

(iles, reords, re!ittanes, and other si!ilar dou!ents whih would show the (i-ed period o( e!ploy!ent

voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. They did not, however, aid this Court with any "ind o( proo( whih!ight tend to show that petitioners were truly engaged (or spei(ied periods, see!ingly ontent with the

onvenient e-use that the ontrats were destroyed by (ire. Indeed, respondent)s (ailure to sub!it the

neessary dou!ents, whih as e!ployers are in their possession, gives rise to the presu!ption that theirpresentation is pre2udiial to its ause.1ralawlawlibrary

hile (i-ed ter! e!ploy!ent is not per se illegal or against publi poliy, the riteria above !ust (irst be

established to the satis(ation o( this Court. /et, the reords o( this ase reveal that (or years, petitioners wererepeatedly engaged to per(or! (untions neessary to respondent)s business (or (i-ed periods short o( the si-H

!onth probationary period o( e!ploy!ent. I( there was really no intent to iru!vent seurity o( tenure,

respondent should have !ade it lear to petitioners that they were being hired only (or (i-ed periods in anagree!ent (reely entered into by the parties. To this Court, respondent)s at o( hiring and reHhiring petitioners

(or periods short o( the legal probationary period evidenes its intent to thwart petitioner)s seurity o( tenure,

espeially in view o( an awareness that ordinary wor"ers, suh as petitioners herein, are never on eDual ter!swith their e!ployers.8 It is rather un2usti(iable to allow respondent to hire and rehire petitioners on (i-ed ter!s,

never attaining regular status. ene, in the absene o( proo( showing that petitioners "nowingly agreed upon

a (i-ed ter! o( e!ploy!ent, e uphold the (indings o( the +abor Arbiter and the :+C and so rule thatpetitioners are, indeed, regular e!ployees, entitled to seurity o( tenure. ConseDuently, (or la" o( any lear,

valid, and 2ust or authoriGed ause in ter!inating petitioners) e!ploy!ent, e (ind respondent guilty o( illegaldis!issal.

WHEREFORE, pre!ises onsidered, the instant petition is GRANE3. The assailed $eision dated August1, 8??@ and esolution dated August 8;, 8??F o( the Court o( Appeals in CAH6.. S :os. >?977 U >7?71 areSE ASI3E.The esolutions dated =anuary ?, 8?? and Septe!ber 8;, 8?? o( the :+C in :+C ??H?8H?1;19H97, a((ir!ing in totothe $eision dated August 81, 199> o( the +abor Arbiter are REINSAE3withMO3IFICAION. Ta"ing into aount petitioners) reinstate!ent in 1999;and petitioner 3alguera)s reeipt o(798,>[email protected]; separation pay,@respondent is hereby OR3ERE3to pay petitioners the (ollowing4 &1' ba"wageso!puted (ro! the date their salaries were withheld (ro! the! until their atual reinstate!ent &8' allowanes

and other bene(its, or their !onetary eDuivalent, at the ti!e o( their dis!issal &' attorneys (ees eDuivalent to

ten perent &1?W' o( the !onetary awards and &;' interest at si- perent &FW' per annu! o( the total !onetaryawards, o!puted (ro! the (inality o( this $eision until their (ull satis(ation. 3or this purpose, the reords o(

this ase are hereby REMAN3E3 to the +abor Arbiter (or proper o!putation o( said awards, dedutinga!ounts already reeived. Costs against petitioner.

SO OR3ERE3.hanroblesvirtuallawlibrary


33/85

I&te-&at!"&al Cat$"l!c M!2-at!"& C"77!ss!"& vs.

Nat!"&al La,"- Relat!"&s C"77!ss!"& a&d

Be-&adette Gala&2

1F9 SCA F?F

30:A:,'.1.

3ACTS

etitioner International Catholi Migration Co!!ission &ICMC', a nonHpro(it organiGation dediated to

re(ugee servie at the hilippine e(ugee roessing Center in Morong, Bataan engaged the servies o( private

respondent Bernadette 6alang as a probationary ultural orientation teaher with a !onthly salary o( 8,???.??.

Three &' !onths therea(ter, private respondent was in(or!ed, orally and in writing, that her servies were being

ter!inated (or her (ailure to !eet the presribed standards o( petitioner as re(leted in the per(or!aneevaluation o( her supervisors during the teaher evaluation progra! she underwent along with other newlyH

hired personnel.

rivate respondent returned to Morong, Bataan on board the servie bus o( petitioner to ao!plish the

learane reDuire!ents. In the evening o( that sa!e day, she was (ound at the 3reedo! ar" o( Morong wet and

shivering (ro! the rain and ating biGarrely. She was then ta"en to petitioners hospital where she was given the

neessary !edial attention.

er (ather reeived, on her behal(, the proportionate a!ount o( her 1th !onth pay and the eDuivalent o(

her two wee" pay. SubseDuently, respondent (iled a o!plaint (or illegal dis!issal, un(air labor pratie andunpaid wages against petitioner with the then Ministry o( +abor and 0!ploy!ent, praying (or reinstate!ent

with ba"wages, e-e!plary and !oral da!ages.

A(ter the parties sub!itted their respetive position papers and other pleadings, +abor Arbiter rendered

his deision dis!issing the o!plaint (or illegal dis!issal as well as the o!plaint (or !oral and e-e!plary

da!ages but ordering the petitioner to pay private respondent the su! o( F,???.?? as pay!ent (or the last three

&' !onths o( the agreed e!ploy!ent period pursuant to her verbal ontrat o( e!ploy!ent. Both parties

appealed the deision to the :ational +abor elations Co!!ission. The :+C, sustained the deision o( the

+abor Arbiter and thus dis!issed both appeals (or la" o( !erit.

$issatis(ied, petitioner (iled the instant petition.

ISS*0

hether or not an e!ployee who was ter!inated during the probationary period o( her e!ploy!ent is

entitled to her salary (or the une-pired portion o( her si-H!onth probationary e!ploy!ent

*+I:6

:o. 6alang was ter!inated during her probationary period o( e!ploy!ent (or (ailure to Duali(y as a

regular !e!ber o( petitioner)s teahing sta(( in aordane with its reasonable standards. 6alang was (ound bypetitioner to be de(iient in lassroo! !anage!ent, teaherHstudent relationship and teahing tehniDues.

3ailure to Duali(y as a regular e!ployee in aordane with the reasonable standards o( the e!ployer is a 2ust

ause (or ter!inating a probationary e!ployee spei(ially reogniGed under Artile 8>8 &now Artile 8>1' o(

the +abor Code.

The labor arbiter)s deision is erroneous. The award o( salary (or the une-pired portion o( the

probationary e!ploy!ent on the ground that a probationary e!ploy!ent (or F!onths is an e!ploy!ent (or a


34/85


35/85

beni(ient e((ets ould not be invo"ed by the! that is assailed be(ore this Court. hile they are pleading by

aptioned petition (or review, this Court onsidered it as a etiorari proeeding in view on his part, the issue o(an alleged un(air labor pratie indulged in by private respondent publi o((iial, who ated serious ausation

against respondent publi, who ated on behal( o( the ((ie o( the resident. The petition is not i!pressed with

the !erit.

The order o( respondent =aobo C. Clave, who asss residential 0-eutive Assistant ated on an appeal byprivate respondent (ro! a deision o( the Seretary o( +abor dis!issed the o!plaint o( petitioners (or

reinstate!ent. e noted at the outset o( suh hallenged order4


36/85

should ease. The ((ie o( the resident ould (ind nothing ob2etionable when it deter!ined that the will o(

the parties as to the li!ited duration thereo( should be respeted. That was all that was deided.

8. This is by no !eans to assert that the seurity o( tenure protetion o( the onstitution does not apply t

probationary e!ployees. The +abor ode has wisely provided (or suh a ase thus4


37/85

0030, the petition (or ertiorari is dis!issed.

arredo, Antonio and 'oncepcion 1r., 11., concur.

G.R. N". /)() a&ua- (% 0*'*

MARIWASAMA:*3ACT*I:6, I:C., and A:60+ T. $A[, petitioners,vs.

:. EIC0:T0 LEOGAR3O, =., in his apaity as $eputy Minister o( Ministry o( +abor and 0!ploy!ent2udg!ent, and =AN*I: A. $0N*I+A, respondents.

FACS:

=oaDuin A. $eDuila &or $eDuilla' was hired on probation by Mariwasa Manu(aturing, In. as a general utility

wor"er on =anuary 1?, 1979. A(ter F !onths, he was in(or!ed that his wor" was unsatis(atory and had (ailed to

!eet the reDuired standards. To give hi! another hane, and with $e

labor review day 2

Documents