labor review digest

7/17/2019 Labor Review Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/labor-review-digest 1/24

Marinelle C. Bulos 7:30 -9:30 pm

Labor Law Review Judge Villarosa

VALIDITY OF QUITCLAIM

FRANCISCO SORIANO, JR., petitioner,vs.NLRC and LDT COMANY,INCORORAT!D, respondents.

".R. No. #$%%&', Apri( )*, )++

C-ICONA/ARIO,J.0

FACTS0 In 1981, petitioner Francisco Soriano, Jr. and certain individualsnamely Sergio Benjamin, Maximino on!ales, and "oel #postol $ereemployed %y t&e respondent '()* as s$itc&man &elpers in its *ondo+xc&ange -ce *+/. Benjamin and on!ales $ere later on promoted ass$itc&men. #postol on t&e ot&er &and $as elevated to t&e position o00rameman.

n separate letters dated July 1, 1992, '()* in0ormed t&e petitioner,Benjamin, on!ales, and #postol t&at t&eir respective position $ere deemedredundant and t&at t&eir services $ill %e terminated on #ugust 12, 1992. *&ey re3uested t&at t&ey %e trans0erred to anot&er position %ut t&eirre3uests $ere denied since all t&e positions $ere already 4lled up.

*&e petitioner as $ell as t&e ot&ers executed a document entitled56eceipt, 6elease and 7uitclaim in 0avor o0 t&e respondent '()*. *&ey&o$ever placed a note o0 5nder 'rotest %eside t&eir signature in t&e saiddocument. *&erea0ter t&ey 4led a joint complaint 0or illegal dismissal against

t&e respondent '()*.

(a%or #r%iter (ustria rendered a decision dismissing t&e complaint 0orlac: o0 merit. ;e stated t&at '()* legitimately exercised t&e managementprerogative in terminating t&e said employees< t&at it complied $it& t&ere3uirements o0 a valid redundancy program under #rticle =8> o0 t&e (a%or?ode< and t&at t&e redundancy program $as e@ected in good 0ait&.'etitioner, Benjamin, on!ales, and #postol 4led an appeal to t&e "(6?. *&e"(6? a-rmed t&e decision o0 t&e (a%or #r%iter. #0ter denial o0 t&eir motion0or reconsideration, t&ey 4led a petition 0or certiorari %e0ore t&e ?ourt o0#ppeals. Said court also dismissed t&e case 0or it 0ound no grave a%use o0

discretion.

n "ovem%er =A, =A, petitioner, Benjamin, on!ales and #postol4led a petition 0or revie$ on certiorari o0 t&e ?ourt o0 #ppeals decision andresolution %ut t&e petition $as denied due to 0ailure to attac& veri4cationand certi4cation o0 nonC0orum s&opping. ;o$ever, on a motion 0orreconsideration alleging t&at since t&e cause o0 action o0 eac& petitioner isindependent o0 t&e ot&er, petitioner Francisco Soriano, Jr. could validly

1





proceed $it& &is o$n petition 0or revie$. ;ence, t&e ?ourt reinstated t&epetition %ut excluded Benjamin, on!ales and #postol as petitioners.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&ere is a valid 3uitclaim

-!LD0 Ees. *&e re3uisites 0or a valid 3uitclaim are 1/ t&at t&ere $as no0raud or deceit on t&e part o0 any o0 t&e parties< =/ t&at t&e consideration 0ort&e 3uitclaim is credi%le and reasona%le< and >/ t&at t&e contract is notcontrary to la$, pu%lic order, pu%lic policy, morals or good customs orprejudicial to a t&ird person $it& a rig&t recogni!ed %y la$.

It cannot %e gain0ully said t&at petitioner did not 0ully understand t&econse3uences o0 signing t&e 56eceipt, 6elease, and 7uitclaim. *&ere is nos&o$ing t&at t&e execution t&ereo0 $as tainted $it& deceit or coercion. Byo$n admission o0 t&e petitioner, &e signed t&e 3uitclaim voluntarily,compelled %y personal circumstances, rat&er t&an %y t&e respondent '()*.

;e &as received &is separation pay and %ene4ted t&ere0rom. ?ertainly, it$ould result in unjust enric&ment on t&e part o0 t&e petitioner i0 &e is allo$edto 3uestion t&e legality o0 &is dismissal 0rom $or:. Furt&er, t&e petitionerreceived separation pay 0rom t&e respondent '()*, t&e amount o0 $&ic& $asmore t&an t&e amount re3uired under #rticle =8> o0 t&e (a%or ?ode. Indeed,t&ere $as a credi%le and reasona%le consideration 0or &is separation 0rom$or:.

It is settled t&at a legitimate $aiver $&ic& represents a voluntary andreasona%le settlement o0 a $or:erGs claim s&ould %e respected as t&e la$%et$een t&e parties. *&us, t&e petitioner is %ound %y t&e 56eceipt, 6elease

and 7uitclaim and as suc& is precluded 0rom assailing t&e validity o0dismissal.

QUITCLAIM1INVALID QUITCLAIMS

-OT!L !NT!RRIS!S OF T-! -ILIIN!S, INC. 2-!I3, o4ner o5-6att Re7en86 Mani(a, petitioner,vs.SAMA-AN N" M"A MAN""A"A9A SA -YATTNATIONAL UNION OF9OR:!RS IN T-! -OT!L AND R!STAURANT AND ALLI!D INDUSTRI!S2SAMASA-NU9-RAIN3,respondent.

".R. No. #$%%$, J;ne %, )++&

NAC-URA,J.0

FACTS0 *&e respondent S#M#S#;C"D;6#I" union is t&e certi4edcollective %argaining agent o0 t&e ran:CandC4le employees o0 ;yatt 6egencyManila, a &otel o$ned %y petitioner ;+'I.

2





n January =A, ==, petitioner met $it& respondent nion to 0ormallydiscuss t&e do$nsi!ing program. *&e nion opposed t&e do$nsi!ing plan%ecause no su%stantial evidence $as s&o$n to prove t&at t&e &otel $asincurring &eavy 4nancial losses, and 0or %eing violative o0 t&e ?B#, more

speci4cally t&e manningH sta-ng standards agreed upon %y %ot& parties in"ovem%er =1. )espite suc& opposition, t&e petitioner pus&ed t&roug& $it&t&e retrenc&ment and declaration o0 redundant position.

*&e respondent union 4led a notice o0 stri:e %ased on un0air la%orpractice against ;+'I. ?onciliation proceedings $ere &eld %et$een petitionerand respondent, %ut to no avail. n June 1A, ==, #cting (a%or SecretaryManuel Imson issued an order certi0ying t&e la%or dispute to t&e "(6? 0orcompulsory ar%itration and directing t&e stri:ing voters to return to $or:$it&in =A &ours. *&e (a%or #r%iter declared t&e stri:e legal %ut on appeal,t&e "(6? reversed t&e la%or ar%iterGs decision. *&us, t&e "(6? declared t&e

stri:e illegal, suspended all union o-cers 0or a period o0 2 mont&s anddismissed t&e (' c&arge against t&e ;+'I. *&e union 4led a petition 0orcertiorari $it& t&e ?# 3uestioning in t&e main t&e validity o0 "(6?Gs reversalo0 t&e la%or ar%iterGs decision. D&ile t&e petition $as pending, t&e ;+'Iissued separate notices o0 suspension against eac& o0 t&e 1= union o-cersinvolved in t&e stri:e. *&e ?# reversed t&e resolution o0 t&e "(6? andreinstating t&e decision o0 t&e (a%or #r%iter $&ic& declared t&e stri:e valid. Italso ordered t&e reinstatement o0 t&e A8 terminated employees. ;ence, t&ispetition.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&e 3uitclaims signed %y t&e terminated employees

are valid

-!LD0 *&e 4rst %atc& o0 3uitclaims is declared invalid and illegal 0or 0ailureto state t&e proper consideration. ;o$ever, t&e second %atc& o0 3uitclaimssigned %y t&e 8 o0 t&e 12 terminated employees, 0ollo$ing ;yatt 6egencyManilaGs permanent closure, is declared valid and %inding.

*&e mani0estations 4led %y petitioner $it& respect to 3uitclaimsexecuted %y mem%ers o0 respondent nion state t&at >A o0 t&e A8employees terminated on account o0 t&e do$nsi!ing program &ave alreadyexecuted 3uitclaims on various dates. ;o$ever t&e court too: judicial notice

t&at >> o0 t&ese 3uitclaims 0ailed to indicate t&e amounts received %y t&eterminated employees. *&e court invalidated and set aside t&ese 3uitclaims.;o$ever, t&e actual amount received %y t&e terminated employees uponsigning t&e said documents s&all %e deducted 0rom $&atever remainingamount is due to t&em to avoid dou%le recovery o0 separation pay and ot&ermonetary %ene4ts. *&e court ordered t&e (a%or #r%iter to e@ect t&enecessary computation.

3





;o$ever, $it& respect to t&e second %atc& o0 3uitclaims signed %y 8o0 t&e remaining 12 employees $&o $ere terminated 0ollo$ing ;yattGspermanent closure, t&e court &eld t&at t&ese are valid and %indingunderta:ings. *&e said documents indicate t&at t&e amount received %yeac& o0 t&e employees represents a reasona%le settlement o0 t&eir monetary

claims against petitioner and $ere even signed in t&e presence o0 t&e )(+representative. # 3uitclaim, $it& clear and unam%iguous contents andexecuted 0or a valid consideration received in 0ull %y t&e employees $&osigned t&e same, cannot %e later invalidated %ecause its signatory claimst&at $as pressured into signing it on account o0 &is dire 4nancial need. D&enit is s&o$n t&at t&e person executing t&e $aiver did so voluntarily, $it& 0ullunderstanding o0 $&at &e $as doing, and t&e consideration 0or t&e 3uitclaimsis credi%le and reasona%le, t&e transaction must %e recogni!ed as a valid and%inding underta:ing.

QUITCLAIM

ARS!NIO QU!V!DO,!T.AL.,petitioners,vs.<!N"U!T !L!CTRIC COO!RATIV!, INCORORAT!D 2<!N!CO3 and"!RARDO V!RSO/A,respondents.

".R. No. #$=&), Septe>?er ##, )++&

CARIO, J.0

FACTS0 'etitioners are 0ormer employees o0 respondent B+"+?. Instead o0

terminating petitionersG employment outrig&t 0or redundancy and payingt&em t&e statutory %ene4ts, B+"+? o@ered petitioners t&e option to retireunder a ne$ly created optional retirement program, +arly oluntary6etirement +6/ guaranteeing petitioners %igger %ene4ts. #0terunsuccess0ully re3uesting B+"+? to retain t&eir services, petitionersaccepted B+"+?Gs o@er, received payments, and released B+"+? 0rom0urt&er lia%ility in individually executed contracts. "early 0our mont&st&erea0ter petitioners sued B+"+? %e0ore t&e "(6?, ?ordillera#dministrative 6egion, Baguio ?ity 0or illegal dismissal. *&ey claimed t&att&ey &ad no intention o0 retiring 0rom service %ut t&eir &ands $ere 0orced%ecause B+"+? $ould &ave terminated t&eir services. *&ey 3uestioned t&e

validity o0 B+"+?Gs do$nsi!ing in lig&t o0 B+"+?Gs &iring o0 ne$employees s&ortly a0ter petitioners le0t t&e corporation.

*&e (a%or #r%iter dismissed t&e petitionersG complaint stating t&atpetitioners retired 0rom services voluntarily. It gave no credence to t&e claimo0 t&e petitioners o0 vitiated consent a0ter noting petitionersG educational%ac:grounds and t&e extent o0 t&e %ene4ts received. It also 0ound t&at t&e

4





ne$ly &ired employees o0 B+"+? $ere project employees $&o per0ormedtas:s unrelated to petitionersG $or:.

'etitioners t&en appealed to t&e "(6? $&ic& rendered a judgmentgranting t&e petitionersG appeal and setting aside t&e ruling o0 t&e (a%or

#r%iter and ordered B+"+? to reinstate petitioners $it& 0ull %ac:$ages less%ene4ts received. It gave credence to t&e petitionersG claim o0 involuntaryretirement and &eld B+"+? lia%le 0or dismissing petitioners $it&out justcause, as it 0ailed to prove redundancy, and $it&out due process, as B+"+?0ailed to noti0y t&e )(+ o0 petitionersG termination.

#0ter denial o0 B+"+?Gs motion 0or reconsideration, it t&en 4led anappeal %e0ore t&e ?# $&ic& rendered a decision reinstating t&e decision o0t&e (a%or #r%iter. ;ence, t&is petition.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&e petitioners are %arred 0rom 4ling t&is suit

-!LD0 Ees. *&e petitioners, %y t&e terms o0 t&eir $aivers, are %arred 0rom4ling t&is suit.

*o excuse t&e petitioners 0rom complying $it& t&e terms o0 t&eir$aivers, t&ey must locate t&eir case $it&in any o0 t&e t&ree narro$ grounds1/ t&e employer used 0raud or deceit in o%taining t&e $aivers< =/ t&econsideration t&e employer paid is incredi%le and unreasona%le< >/ t&eterms o0 t&e $aiver are contrary to la$, pu%lic order, pu%lic policy, morals orgood customs or prejudicial to a t&ird person $it& a rig&t recogni!ed %y la$.

INVALID QUITCLAIMS

SAN MI"U!L CORORATION, petitioner,vs.!DUARDO L. T!ODOSIO, respondent.

".R. No. #$*+**, O8to?er ), )++&!RALTA, J.0

FACTS0 n Septem%er , 1991, respondent +duardo *eodosio $as &ired %y

San Miguel ?orporation SM?/ as a casual 0or:li0t operator in its Bacolod ?ityBre$ery. 6espondent continuously $or:ed 0rom Septem%er , 1991 untilMarc& 199=, a0ter $&ic& &e $as 5as:ed to rest 0or a $&ile. # mont& a0ter, orsometime in #pril 199=, respondent $as re&ired 0or t&e same position, anda0ter serving 0or a%out 4ve to six mont&s, &e $as again 5as:ed to rest. #0tert&ree $ee:s, &e $as again &ired as 0or:li0t operator. ;e continued to $or: assuc& until #ugust 199>.

5





In an undated letter, respondent in0ormed SM? t&at &e $as applying0or t&e vacant position o0 %ottling cre$ as &e $as interested in %ecoming aregular employee o0 SM?. Sometime in June 199, SM? noti4ed t&erespondent t&at &is employment s&all %e terminated a mont& a0ter t&e dateo0 t&e letter in compliance $it& +mployment $it& a Fixed 'eriod ?ontract

$&ic& respondent $as made to sign %y SM?. In a letter respondentexpressed &is dismay 0or &is dismissal. ;e in0ormed SM? t&at despite t&e0act t&at &e $ould %e compelled to receive &is separation pay and $ould %e0orced to sign a $aiver to t&at e@ect, t&is does not mean t&at &e $ould %e$aiving is rig&t to 3uestion &is dismissal, and to claim employment %ene4tsas provided in t&e ?B# and company policies. *&erea0ter, respondent signeda 6eceipt and 6elease document in 0avor o0 SM? and accepted &is separationpay, t&ere%y releasing all &is claims against t&e SM?.

6espondent 4led a complaint against SM? %e0ore t&e "(6?, 6egional#r%itration Branc& "o. I, Bacolod ?ity 0or illegal dismissal $&ic& rendered a

decision dismissing t&e complaint concluding t&at t&e contract o0employment $it& a 4xed period signed %y respondent $as a legitimateexercise o0 management prerogative. 6espondent t&en soug&t recourse%e0ore t&e "(6? Fourt& )ivision, ?e%u ?ity $&ic& dismissed t&e appeal anda-rmed t&e decision o0 t&e "(6?. )ue to t&at, respondent 4led to t&e ?# apetition 0or certiorari. *&e ?# granted t&e petition 4led %y respondentsee:ing to annul and set aside t&e decision and resolution o0 t&e "(6?.;ence, t&is petition.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&ere is a valid 3uitclaim

-!LD0 "o. *&ere is no valid 3uitclaim.

enerally, deeds o0 release, $aivers, or 3uitclaims cannot %aremployees demanding %ene4ts to $&ic& t&ey are legally entitled or 0romcontesting t&e legality o0 t&eir dismissal, since 3uitclaims are loo:ed upon$it& dis0avor and are 0ro$ned upon as a contrary to pu%lic policy. D&ere,&o$ever, t&e person ma:ing t&e $aiver &as done so voluntarily, $it& a 0ullunderstanding t&ereo0, and t&e consideration 0or t&e 3uitclaim is credi%leand reasona%le, t&e transaction must %e recogni!ed as a valid and %indingunderta:ing. *&e %urden o0 proving t&at t&e 3uitclaim or $aiver $asvoluntarily entered into rests on t&e employer.

SM? 0ailed to disc&arge t&is %urden. *&is is %uttressed %y t&e 0act t&at%e0ore t&e respondent signed t&e document, &e already in0ormed SM? t&ateven i0 &e $ould %e compelled to receive &is separation pay and %e 0orced tosign a $aiver to t&at e@ect, &e $as not $aiving &is rig&t to 3uestion &isdismissal and to claim employment %ene4ts. *&is clearly proves t&atrespondent did not 0reely and voluntarily consent to t&e execution o0 t&edocument.

6





QUITCLAIM AND 9AIV!R

FLAVIO S. SUAR!/, !T. AL., petitioners,Vs.NATIONAL ST!!L CORORATION, respondents.

".R. No. #%+#=+, O8to?er #, )++=

L!ONARDOD! CASTRO, J.0

FACTS0 Sometime in 199A, respondent su@ered su%stantial 4nancial lossesdue to an increase in t&e volume o0 steel products manu0actured %y 0oreigncountries. Dit& t&is development, respondent adopted an organi!ationalstreamlining program t&at resulted in t&e retrenc&ment o0 employees inits main plant in Iligan ?ity, among $&om $ere &erein petitioners. n July 18,199A, respondent sent out individual notices to t&e employees a@ected

%y t&e retrenc&ment, including petitioners. #0ter &aving %een paid t&eirseparation %ene4ts, t&e employees, including &erein petitioners, eac&excluded and signed a release and 3uitclaim, $ritten in +nglis& andcontaining a translation in t&e isayan dialect in t&e same document.'ursuant to t&e ne$ ?B#, t&e retrenc&ed employees $ere given t&e salarydi@erentials, 0or $&ic& t&ey executed and signed anot&er release and3uitclaim.

(a%or #r%iter "icodemus 'alangan dismissed t&e complaint 4led %ypetitioners. *&ey t&en 4led an appeal %e0ore t&e "(6?. In a consolidatedresolution, "(6? granted t&e appeal and reversed t&e ruling o0 t&e (a%or

#r%iter. #ggrieved, respondent elevated t&e matter to t&e ?# $&ic&rendered a decision granting respondentGs petition, and t&at petitioners areno longer entitled to retirement %ene4ts a0ter &aving received t&e separationpay, and $ere precluded 0rom claiming suc& %ene4ts %ecause o0 t&eir3uitclaims. ;ence, t&is petition.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&ere is a valid release and 3uitclaim

-!LD0 Ees. *&ere is a valid release and 3uitclaim.

In 'eri3uet vs "(6?, t&e ?ourt ruled t&at not all $aivers and 3uitclaims

are invalid as against pu%lic policy. I0 t&e agreement $as voluntarily enteredinto and represents a reasona%le settlement o0 t&e claims o0 t&e employee, itis %inding on t&e parties and may not later %e diso$ned simply %ecause o0 ac&ange o0 mind. Suc& legitimate $aivers resulting 0rom voluntarysettlements o0 la%orerGs claims s&ould %e treated and up&eld as t&e la$%et$een t&e parties.

7





In t&e instant case, t&ere is no s&o$ing t&at petitioners $ere 0orced orduped %y respondent into signing t&e release and 3uitclaim. In t&eir s$orn3uitclaim, t&ey 0reely declared t&at t&ey received 0ull separation pay as $ellas all ot&er amounts due t&em %y reason o0 t&eir employment. 'etitioners0urt&er stated t&at t&ey $ere voluntarily releasing respondent "ational Steel

?orporation 0rom all claims in respect to t&eir employment. *&ey evenexecuted not just one %ut t$o sets o0 3uitclaims. +ac& 3uitclaims $as $rittenin +nglis& and in t&e isayan dialect $&ic& petitioners very $ell understand. *&e 3uitclaim represents a reasona%le and 0air settlement o0petitionersGclaims as t&e separation pac:age consisted o0 t$o mont&s salary0or every year o0 service, leave %alance credits, 1>t& mont& pay, uni0orm plusrice su%sidy di@erential, salary di@erential and signing %onus. Indeed,not&ing on t&e 0ace o0 t&eir 3uitclaim &as %een s&o$n as unconsciona%le. Int&e a%sence o0 evidence s&o$ing coercion or intimidation in its execution,t&e court constrained to up&old t&e appellate courtGs conclusion t&at t&eexecution o0 t&e release and 3uitclaim $as valid.

-ANJIN -!AVY INDUSTRI!S AND CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.,!T. AL.,petitioners,vs.F!LICITO I<A@!/, !T. AL., respondents.

".R. No. #+#=#, J;ne )$, )++=

C-ICONA/ARIO,J.0

FACTS0 'etitioner ;anjin is a 0oreign company duly registered $it& t&e S+?

to engage in t&e construction %usiness in t&e '&ilippines. 'etitioners ;a: KonKim $ere employed as 'roject )irector and Supervisor, respectively, %y;anjin.

n #pril 11, ==, respondents 4led a complaint %e0ore t&e "(6? 0orillegal dismissal $it& prayer 0or reinstatement and 0ull %ac:$ages. n #pril1, ==, ;anjin dismissed respondents 0rom employment.

#ccording to petitioners, respondents $ere &ired as project employees0or t&e construction o0 t&e (6*HM6* (ine = 'ac:age = and > 'roject. ;#"JI"and respondents purportedly executed contracts o0 employment, in $&ic& it

$as clearly stipulated t&at t&e respondents $ere to %e &ired as projectemployees 0or a period o0 only t&ree mont&s %ut t&e contracts may %erene$ed. 'etitioners &o$ever 0ailed to 0urnis& said contract to t&e (a%or#r%iter. 'etitioners 0urt&er emp&asi!ed t&at prior to #pril 1, ==, ;a: KonKim noti4ed respondents o0 t&e companyGs intention to reduce its manpo$er.'etitioners attac&ed copies o0 t&e 3uitclaims $&ic& uni0ormly stated t&at t&eemployees received all $ages and %ene4ts t&at $ere due t&em and released

8





;anjin and its representatives 0rom any claims in connection $it& t&eiremployment.

*&e (a%or #r%iter declared t&at respondents $ere regular employees$&o &ad %een dismissed $it&out just and valid causes and $it&out due

process. 'etitioners appealed to t&e "(6? $&ic& reversed t&e (a%or #r%iterGsdecision. "(6? gave pro%ative value to t&e *ermination 6eport su%mitted %y;anjin to t&e )(+, receipts signed %y respondents 0or t&eir completion%onus upon p&ase completion, and t&e 3uitclaims executed %y t&erespondents in 0avor o0 ;anjin. n appeal, ?# reversed t&e "(6? decision.;ence, t&is petition.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&e 3uitclaims can %ar respondents 0rom demanding

-!LD0 *&e 3uitclaims $&ic& t&e respondents signed cannot %ar t&em 0rom

demanding $&at is legally due t&em as regular employees. #s a rule,3uitclaims and $aivers are loo:ed upon $it& dis0avor and 0ro$ned upon ascontrary to pu%lic policy. *&ey are t&us ine@ective to %ar claims 0or t&e 0ullmeasure o0 a $or:erGs legal rig&ts, particularly $&en t&e 0ollo$ing conditionsare applica%le 1/ $&ere t&ere is clear proo0 t&at t&e $aiver $as $angled0rom an unsuspecting or gulli%le person,or =/ $&ere t&e terms o0 settlementunconsciona%le on its 0ace. *o determine $&et&er t&e 3uitclaims signed %yrespondents are valid, one important 0actor t&at must %e ta:en into accountis t&e consideration accepted %y respondents< t&e amount must constitute areasona%le settlement e3uivalent to t&e 0ull measure o0 t&eir legal rig&ts. Int&is case, t&e 3uitclaims signed %y respondents do not appear to &ave %een

made 0or valua%le consideration. 6espondents, $&o are regular employees,are entitled to %ac:$ages and separation pay and, t&ere0ore, t&e 3uitclaims$&ic& t&ey signed cannot prevent t&em 0rom see:ing claims to $&ic& t&eyare entitled.

CAT-OLIC VICARIAT!, <A"UIO CITY, petitioner,vs.-ON. ATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, !T.AL., respondents.

".R. No. #$**', Mar8 , )++=

TIN"A, J.0

FACTS0 'etitioner contracted Kun$&a (u!on ?onstruction K"D;#/ toconstruct t&e retaining $all o0 t&e Baguio ?at&edral. K"D;#, in turn,su%contracted ?+6+B# Builders ?+6+B#/ to do t&e 0orm$or:s o0 t&e c&urc&. *&e contract %et$een K"D;# and ?+6+B# lasted up to t&e completion o0t&e project. K"D;# 0ailed to pay ?+6+B#. ?onse3uently, t&e latter 0ailed topay its employees.

9





6espondent eorge #g%ucay, along $it& 81 ot&er employees, lodged acomplaint against ?+6+B#, K"D;# and petitioner %e0ore t&e )(+C?#66egional -ce 0or nonpayment o0 $ages, special and legal &oliday premiumpay. *&e )(+C?#6 6egional )irector issued an order &olding ?+6+B#,

K"D;# and petitioner jointly and severally lia%le to t&e 8= a@ected$or:ers. 'etitioners 4led a motion 0or reconsideration, t&is time 6egional)irector dismissed t&e complaint %y reason o0 t&e said settlement %yK"D;#. n appeal, t&e Secretary o0 (a%or reversed t&e ruling o0 t&e6egional )irector and &eld t&at pursuant to #rticles 12 and 1 o0 t&e (a%or?ode, t&e lia%ility o0 K"D;#, ?+6+B# and t&e ?at&olic icariate is solidarynot&$it&standing t&e a%sence o0 an employerCemployee relations&ip.

n Septem%er =8, =A, t&e ?# a-rmed t&e order o0 t&e Secretary o0(a%or $it& modi4cations as to t&e amount a$arded. n appeal, petitioner3uestioned t&e validity o0 t&e 3uitclaims signed %y t&e a@ected employees.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&e 3uitclaim is valid

-!LD0 "o. *&e 3uitclaim is not valid.

"ot all 3uitclaims are per se invalid or against pu%lic policy. # 3uitclaimis said to %e invalid and against pu%lic policy 1/ $&ere t&ere is clear proo0t&at t&e $aiver $as $angled 0rom unsuspecting or gulli%le person, or =/$&ere t&e terms o0 settlement are unconsciona%le on t&eir 0ace. In suc&cases, t&e court $ill step in to annul t&e 3uestiona%le transaction. *&esecond exception o%tains in t&e case at %ar. #s succinctly put %y t&e

Secretary o0 (a%or #s to t&e claim t&at t&is -ce 0ailed to s&o$ $&y t&e3uitclaims and releases $ere unconsciona%le, despite t&e 0act t&at it $asexecuted %e0ore t&e )(+C?#6 6egional -ce, t&e same is totallymisplaced. ?lear 0rom t&e record is t&at, except 0or t&e 3uitclaim signed %ycomplainant Felix 'adilla, t&e monetary considerations indicated in t&e ==7uitclaims and 6eleases $ere $ay %elo$ t&e total claims o0 eac&complainants.

JOS! MAB S. ORTI/, petitioner,vs.SAN MI"U!L CORORATION, respondent.

".R. No. #%#&=*=', J;(6 *#, )++=

C-ICONA/ARIO,J.0

FACTS0 'etitioner is a mem%er o0 t&e '&ilippine Bar $&o represented t&ecomplainants in #guirre ?ases and *o3uero ?ase instituted against &ereinprivate respondent San Miguel ?orporation sometime in 199= and 199>.

10





'rivate respondent on t&e ot&er &and, is a corporation duly organi!ed andexisting under and %y virtue o0 t&e la$s o0 t&e 6epu%lic o0 t&e '&ilippines. Itis primarily engaged in t&e manu0acture and sale o0 0ood and %everageparticularly %eer products. In line $it& its %usiness, it operates %re$eries andsales o-ces t&roug&out t&e '&ilippines. *&e complainants in #guirre ?ases

and *o3uero ?ase $ere employees at private respondentGs Sales -ces int&e provinces.

#guirre ?ases

Several employees 0rom Bacolod, ?adi!, and ;imamaylan Beer Sales-ces 4led $it& t&e (a%or #r%iter separate complaints against privaterespondent 0or illegal dismissal. n June >, 199A, (a%or #r%iter 6eynaldoulmatico rendered a decision 4nding all t&e complainants to &ave %eenillegally dismissed. nsatis4ed $it& t&e decision, complainants appealed tot&e "(6? $&ic& later on a-rm t&e decision o0 t&e (a%or #r%iter.

*o3uero ?ase

*&ree ot&er employees at t&e San ?arlos Sales -ce 4led $it& t&e(a%or #r%iter a similar complaint 0or illegal dismissal against privaterespondent in 199>. n )ecem%er =2, 199A, (a%or #r%iter 6ay #llan )rilonruled t&at t&e t&ree complainants $ere illegally dismissed. (i:e$ise,complainants in t&is case $ere not contented $it& (a%or #r%iter )rilonGs)ecision and so t&ey 4led an appeal to t&e "(6? $&ic& rendered a decisionmodi0ying t&e (a%or #r%iterGs decision.

*&ese t$o cases $ere consolidated %y t&e ?ourt. D&ile t&e privaterespondentGs petition $ere pending %e0ore t&e ?#, all %ut one o0 t&eremaining complainants in t&e #guirre and *o3uero ?ases appeared %e0ore(a%or #r%iters ulmatico and )rilon, and in t&e presence o0 t$o $itnesses,signed separate )eeds o0 6elease, Daiver and 7uitclaim in 0avor o0 privaterespondent. Based on t&e )eeds t&ey executed, t&e complainants agreed tosettle t&eir claims against private respondent 0or amounts less t&an $&at t&e"(6? actually a$arded. *&e ?# t&en rendered a decision a-rming t&e "(6?in t&e #guirre ?ases, only inso0ar as it concerned complainant #l0redoadian, Jr., t&e only complainant $&o did not execute a )eed o0 6elease,

Daiver and 7uitclaim. Dit& respect to t&e ot&er complainants, t&eircomplaints $ere dismissed on account o0 t&eir duly executed )eeds o06elease and 7uitclaim.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&e )eeds o0 6elease, Daiver and 7uitclaim 0or %eingexecuted $it&out t&e con0ormity o0 t&e petitioner, as complainantsG counsel,are in violation o0 t&e re3uirements o0 t&e (a%or ?ode

11





-!LD0 "o. *&e )eeds o0 6elease, Daiver and 7uitclaim do not violate t&ere3uirements o0 t&e (a%or ?ode.

*&ere is no speci4c provision in t&e (a%or ?ode, as amended, $&ic&re3uires t&e con0ormity o0 petitioner, as t&e complainantsG, counsel to ma:e

t&eir )eeds o0 6elease, Daiver and 7uitclaim valid. *&e only re3uisites 0ort&e validity are t&e 0ollo$ing 1/ t&at t&ere $as no 0raud or deceit on t&epart o0 any o0 t&e parties< =/ t&at t&e consideration 0or t&e 3uitclaim iscredi%le and reasona%le< and >/ t&at t&e contract is not contrary to la$,pu%lic order, pu%lic policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a t&irdperson $it& a rig&t recogni!ed %y la$. In t&is case, it cannot %e 3uestionedt&at t&ose re3uisites $ere completely satis4ed, ma:ing t&e )eeds o06elease, Daiver and 7uitclaim individually executed %y t&e complainants.

VARORI!NT S-IIN" CO., INC.and ARIA MARITIM! CO., LTD,petitioners,

vs."IL A. FLOR!S, respondent.

".R. No. #$#&*', O8to?er $, )+#+

!RALTA,J.0

FACTS0 n #pril , 199, petitioners employed respondent, in %e&al0 o0 its0oreign principal, #ria Maritime ?o., (td. 0 'iraeus, reece, 0or position o0?&ie0 -cer on %oard MH #ria, per ?ontract o0 +mployment. )uring &isemployment, t&e master o0 t&e vessel sent respondent to t&e ?entre Medical

de "godi at )oula, ?ameroon, $&ere &e $as treated 0or t&ree days due tot&e s&ooting pain in t&e lo$er extremities, particularly on &is rig&t 0oot. Int&e Medical ?erti4cate, t&e attending p&ysician stated t&at &e diagnosedrespondentGs pain on t&e rig&t 0oot as 5sciatic neuralgia and administeredinjection and acupuncture. 6espondent $as declared not 4t to $or:.

n Septem%er 19, 199, respondent 4led a complaint against t&epetitioner. 6espondent soug&t t&e reim%ursement o0 &is medical expenses.;o$ever, respondent $it&dre$ &is claim 0or disa%ility %ene4ts $it&reservation to reC4le a complaint s&ould t&ere %e a recurrent o0 &is injury.#cting +xecutive (a%or #r%iter 'edro ?. 6amos dismissed respondentGs

complaint 0or lac: o0 merit *&e "(6? reversed and set aside t&e decision o0 t&e (a%or #r%iter. npetition 0or revie$ %y t&e petitioners, t&e ?# a-rmed t&e decision o0 t&e"(6?.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&e 6eceipt and 7uitclaim can %e consideredsu%stantial compliance to t&e contractual o%ligation %y petitioners under t&estandard employment contract

12





-!LD0 "o. # perusal o0 t&e provisions o0 t&e 6eceipt and 7uitclaim s&o$st&at respondent $ould %e releasing and disc&arging petitioners 0rom allclaims, demands, causes o0 action, and t&e li:e in an allCencompassing

manner, including t&e 0act t&at &e &ad not contracted or su@ered any illnessor injury in t&e course o0 &is employment and t&at &e $as disc&arged in goodand per0ect &ealt&. *&ese stipulations clearly placed respondent in adisadvantageous position visCLCvis t&e petitioners.

"OODRIC- MANUFACTURIN" CORORATION MR. NILO C-UA "OY,petitioners,vs.!M!RLINA ATIVO, !T.AL., respondents.

".R. No. #==++), Fe?r;ar6 #, )+#+

VILLARAMA, JR.,J0

FACTS0 6espondents are 0ormer employees o0 petitioner oodric&Manu0acturing ?orporation oodric&/ assigned as mac&ine or maintenanceoperators 0or t&e di@erent sections o0 t&e company. Sometime in t&e latterpart o0 =A, on account o0 lingering 4nancial constraints, oodric& gave allits employees t&e option to voluntary resign 0rom t&e company. n)ecem%er =9, =A, respondents $ere paid t&eir separation pay. n January>, =, respondents executed t&eir respective $aivers and 3uitclaims. *&e0ollo$ing day, some o0 t&e employees including &erein respondents 4led

complaints against oodric& 0or illegal dismissal.

(a%or #r%iter Florentino 6. )arlucio rendered a decision declaringt&at t&ere $as no illegal dismissal. )issatis4ed, %ot& parties appealed to t&e"(6? $&ic& rendered a decision reversing and setting aside t&e (a%or#r%iterGs decision. It ruled t&at t&e considerations t&at t&e respondentsreceived are not unreasona%le visCLCvis t&e a$ard granted to t&em in t&eassailed decision< and t&at it $as not s&o$n t&at respondents signed t&edeeds o0 $aiver and 3uitclaim involuntarily, $it&out understanding t&eimplication and conse3uences t&ereo0. 6espondents elevated t&e matter tot&e ?#. *&e ?# rendered its decision in 0avor o0 t&e respondents. ;ence, t&is

petition.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&e release, $aiver and 3uitclaim signed %yrespondents are valid and %inding

-!LD0 Ees. *&e release, $aiver and 3uitclaim signed %y t&e respondents arevalid and %inding.

13





First, t&e contents o0 t&e 3uitclaim documents t&at &ave %eensigned %y t&e respondents are simple, clear and une3uivocal. Second,respondents claim t&at t&ey $ere deceived %ecause petitioners did not reallyterminate t&eir %usiness since Mr. ?&ua oy &ad set up anot&er company$it& t&e same line o0 %usiness as oodric&. Suc& contention, &o$ever, $as

not proven during t&e &earing %e0ore t&e (a%or #r%iter and t&e "(6?. ;ence,suc& claim is %ased only on respondentsG surmises and speculations $&ic&,un0ortunately, can never %e used as a valid and legal ground to repudiaterespondentsG 3uitclaims. #nd t&ird, t&e consideration received %y t&erespondents 0rom oodric& do not appear to %e grossly inade3uate visCLCvis$&at t&ey s&ould received in 0ull.

FRANCIS RAY TALAM, petitioner,vs.NLRC, !T. AL., respondents.

<RION, J.0

FACTS0 *&e respondent, *&e So0t$are Factory Inc. is a domestic corporationengaged in providing in0ormation tec&nology and computer consultancy tot&e pu%lic. It employed *alam as a 0ullCtime programmer. 6espondents *eresarapilon, *SFIGs -ce Manager and Dol0gang ;ermie, ?&ie0 +xecutive-cer, ver%ally in0ormed *alam t&at &is services $it& t&e company $ould %eterminated. #0ter a mont&, *alam signed a 6elease and 7uitclaim inconsideration and receipt o0 '89,9A in compensation and ot&er %ene4ts.(ater on, *alam 3uestioned t&e legality o0 &is separation 0rom t&e servicet&roug& a complaint 0or illegal dismissal and illegal deduction %e0ore t&e

"(6?.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&e 6elease and 7uitclaim s&ould %e nulli4ed

-!LD0 "o. *&e 6elease and 7uitclaim s&ould not %e nulli4ed.

*&e ?# erred in glossing over t&e legal e@ect o0 *alamGs release and3uitclaim. It s&ould not &ave %een nulli4ed. *alam $as not an unletteredemployee. ;e $as an in0ormation tec&nology consultant and must &ave %een0ully a$are o0 t&e conse3uences o0 $&at &e $as entering into. *&e 3uitclaim$as a voluntary act as t&ere is no s&o$ing t&at &e $as coerced into

executing t&e instrument. ;e received a valua%le consideration 0or &is lesst&an t$o years o0 service $it& t&e company. *&us, 0rom all t&e indications,t&e release and 3uitclaim $as a valid and %inding underta:ing t&at s&ould&ave %een recogni!ed %y t&e la%or aut&orities and t&e ?#.

14





R!AL ARTYININT!R!ST

UNIT!D ARA"ON MININ" CORORATION, petitioner,vs.CA, !T. AL., respondents.

".R. No. #%+&%&, A;7;st ', )++$

"ARCIA,J.0

FACTS0 'rivate respondent ?esario F. +rmita $as a regular employee$or:ing as a 0oreman o0 petitioner nited 'aragon Mining ?orporation'M?/. ;e received a letter terminating &is employment due to &is inictiono0 %odily injuries on a coCemployee and unla$0ully possessing a deadly$eapon, a %olo. ;aving 0ailed to reac& settlement, t&e matter $as re0erred toa voluntary ar%itrator $&ic& rendered a decision in 0avor o0 ?esario.

nsatis4ed $it& t&e decision o0 t&e voluntary ar%itrator and a0ter denial o0t&eir motion 0or reconsideration, 'M?, t&ru its 'ersonnel SuperintendentFeliciano M. )aniel, elevated t&e case to t&e ?# $&ic& t&en dismissed t&epetition 0or certiorari.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&e 'ersonnel Superintendent $&o signed t&etermination letter may 4le a petition in %e&al0 o0 t&e 'M?

-!LD0 "o. *&e 'ersonnel Superintendent $&o signed t&e termination lettermay not 4le a petition in %e&al0 o0 t&e 'M?.

*rue it is t&at ?esarioGs complaint 0or illegal dismissal $as 4led against

t&e corporation and )aniel. ;o$ever, )aniel $as merely a nominal party int&at proceedings, as in 0act &e $as impleaded t&ereat in &is capacity as'M?Gs 'ersonnel Superintendent $&o signed t&e termination letter.?esarioGs complaint contains no allegation $&atsoever 0or speci4c claim orc&arge against )aniel in $&atever capacity. #s it is, )aniel $as not in any$aya@ected %y t&e outcome o0 t&e illegal dismissal case %ecause only t&ecorporation $as made lia%le t&erein to ?esario. Being not a real partyCinCinterest, )aniel &as no rig&t to 4le t&e petition in %e&al0 o0 t&e corporation$it&out any aut&ority 0rom its %oard o0 directors. It is %asic in la$ t&at acorporation &as a legal personality entirely separate and distinct 0rom t&at o0 its o-cers and t&e latter cannot act 0or and on its %e&al0 $it&out %eing so

aut&ori!ed %y its governing %oard.

15





R!DUCTION OF 9OR:IN" -OURS

LINTON COMM!RCIAL CO., INC. and D!SIR!! ON", petitioners,vs.AL!B A. -!LL!RA, !T. AL., respondents.

".R. No. #$*#', O8to?er #+, )++

TIN"A,J.0

FACTS0 (inton is a domestic corporation engaged in t&e %usiness o0importation, $&olesale, retail and 0a%rication o0 steel and its %yCproducts.'etitioner )esiree ng is (intonGs vice president. (inton issued amemorandum in0orming t&e employees t&at e@ective January 1=, 1998, t&ecompany $ould implement a ne$ compressed $or:$ee: o0 t&ree days on arotation %asis. (inton proceeded $it& t&e implementation o0 t&e ne$ policy

$it&out $aiting 0or approval %y )(+. SixtyCeig&t $or:ers 4led a complaint0or illegal reduction o0 $or:days $it& t&e #r%itration Branc& o0 t&e "(6?.Dor:ers pointed out t&at (inton implemented t&e reduction o0 $or: &ours$it&out o%serving #rticle =8> o0 t&e (a%or ?ode, $&ic& re3uired su%missiono0 notice to )(+ one mont& prior to t&e implementation, since (inton 4ledonly t&e esta%lis&ment termination report enacting t&e compressed$or:$ee: on t&e very date o0 its implementation.

(a%or #r%iter rendered a decision 4nding petitioners guilty o0 illegalreduction o0 $or: &ours. 'etitioners appealed to t&e "(6? $&ic& t&enreversed t&e decision o0 t&e (a%or #r%iter. Dor:ers elevated t&e case to t&e?# $&ic& rendered a decision t&at t&e employees $ere constructively

dismissed %ecause t&e s&ort period o0 time %et$een t&e su%mission o0 t&eesta%lis&ment termination report in0orming )(+ o0 its intention to o%serve acompressed $or:$ee: and t&e actual implementation t&ereat $as amani0estation o0 (intonGs intention to eventually retrenc& t&e employees.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&ere $as an illegal reduction o0 $or:

-!LD0 Ees. *&ere $as an illegal reduction o0 $or:. *&e ?ourt cited t&e case '&ilippine rap&ic #rts, Inc. v. "(6? $&ere

t&e ?ourt up&eld 0or t&e validity o0 t&e reduction o0 $or:ing &ours, ta:inginto consideration t&e 0ollo$ing t&e arrangement $as temporary, it $as a

more &umane solution instead o0 a retrenc&ment o0 personnel, t&ere $asnotice and consultations $it& t&e $or:ers and supervisors, a consensus $erereac&ed on &o$ to deal $it& deteriorating economic conditions and it $assu-ciently proven t&at t&e company $as su@ering 0rom losses.

R!-A<ILITATION

16





-ILIIN! AIRLIN!S, INC., petitioner,vs.-!IRS OF <!RNARDIN J. /AMORA, respondents.

".R. No. #$')$, Nove>?er )*, )++QUISUM<IN", J.0

FACTS0 Namora $as a cargo representative assigned at t&e International?argo perations C Import perations )ivision I?CI)/o0 petitioner'&ilippine #irlines, Inc. ;e alleged t&at sometime in )ecem%er 199>, &isimmediate supervisor instructed &im to alter some entries in t&e ?ustomsBoatnote and In%ound ;andling 6eport to conceal #%uyuanGs smuggling andpil0erage activities. n "ovem%er 2, 199, Namora received a memorandumin0orming &im o0 &is trans0er to )omestic ?argo perations )?/ %ut

Namora re0used. Meantime Namora $rote to t&e management re3uestingt&at an investigation %e conducted on t&e smuggling and pil0erage activities.

n t&e ot&er &and, petitioner '&ilippine #irlines, Inc. claimed t&atsometime in cto%er 199, Namora &ad an altercation $it& #%uyuan to t&epoint o0 4st4g&t. *o di@use t&e tension %et$een t&e parties, petitionerdecided to temporarily trans0er Namora to t&e )?. Namora re0used andcontinued reporting to t&e I?CI). #s a result, &e $as reported a%sent att&e )?. #0ter %eing served $it& notices, Namora $as terminated.

-!LD0 *&e petitioner &ad %een placed %y t&e S+? under a 'ermanent

6e&a%ilitation 6eceiver.

"o ot&er action may %e ta:en, including t&e rendition o0 judgmentduring t&e state o0 suspension. It must %e stressed t&at $&at areautomatically stayed or suspended are t&e proceedings o0 a suit and not justt&e payment o0 claims during t&e execution stage a0ter t&e case &ad %ecome4nal and executory. nce t&e process o0 re&a%ilitation, &o$ever, iscompleted, t&is ?ourt $ill proceed to complete t&e proceedings on t&esuspended actions.Furt&ermore, t&e actions t&at are suspended cover all claims against t&ecorporation $&et&er 0or damages 0ounded on a %reac& o0 contract o0

carriage, la%or cases, collection suits or any ot&er claims o0 a pecuniarynature."o exception in 0avor o0 la%or claims is mentioned in t&e la$.

JUANITO A. "ARCIA and AL<!RTO J. DUMA"O, petitioners,vs.

17





-ILIIN! AIRLIN!S, INC., respondent.

".R. No. #$'=%$, A;7;st )&,)++

QUISUM<IN", J.0

FACTS0 'etitioners #l%erto J. )umago and Juanito #. arcia $ere employed%y respondent '&ilippine #irlines, Inc. '#(/ as #ircra0t Furnis&ers Master 5?and #ircra0t Inspector, respectively. S&a%u parap&ernalia $as 0ound insidet&e companyCissued loc:er o0 6onaldo Broas. 'etitioners $ere 0ound near t&esection $&ere t&e s&a%u parap&ernalia $as 0ound. # "otice o0 #dministrative?&arge $as served on petitioners. *&ey $ere allegedly caug&t in t&e act o0sni-ng s&a%u.

n cto%er 9, 199, petitioners $ere dismissed 0or violation o0 some o0 t&e provisions under t&e '#( ?ode o0 )iscipline. Bot& simultaneously 4led a

case 0or illegal dismissal and damages.

In t&e meantime, t&e S+? placed '#( under an interim 6e&a%ilitation6eceiver due to severe 4nancial losses.

*&e (a%or #r%iter rendered a decision 4nding t&e respondents guilty o0illegal suspension and illegal dismissal. Mean$&ile, t&e S+? replaced t&eInterim 6e&a%ilitation 6eceiver $it& a 'ermanent 6e&a%ilitation 6eceiver.)espite suc&, t&e (a%or #r%iter issued a Drit o0 +xecution commanding t&es&eri@ to proceed. '#( t&en elevated t&e case to t&e ?# $&ic& ruled t&at t&e(a%or #r%iter issued t&e $rit o0 execution and t&e notice o0 garnis&ment

$it&out jurisdiction. ;ence, t&is petition.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not in lig&t o0 ne$ developments concerning '#(Gsre&a%ilitation, petitioners are entitled to execution o0 t&e (a%or #r%iterGsorder o0 reinstatement even i0 '#( is under receivers&ip

-!LD0 "o. *&e ?ourt ruled t&at t&e instant proceedings are suspended.

Since petitionersG claim against '#( is a money claim 0or t&eir $agesduring t&e pendency o0 '#(Gs appeal to t&e "(6?, t&e same s&ould &ave%een suspended pending t&e re&a%ilitation proceedings. *&e (a%or #r%iter,

t&e "(6?, as $ell as t&e ?ourt o0 #ppeals s&ould &ave a%stained 0romresolving petitionersG case 0or illegal dismissal and s&ould instead &avedirected t&em to lodge t&eir claim %e0ore '#(Gs receiver.

-ILIIN! AIRLIN!S, INCORORAT!D, petitioner,vs.-ILIIN! AIRLIN!S !MLOY!!S ASSOCIATION 2AL!A3,respondent.

18





".R. No. #')*&&, J;ne #&, )++C-ICONA/ARIO, J.0

FACTS0 *&e respondent '#(+#, t&e collective %argaining agent o0 t&e ran:and 4le employees o0 '#(, entered into a ?B# $it& '#(. '#(+# &o$ever

assailed matter regarding t&e payment o0 1>t&

mont& pay. It is o0 t&e vie$t&at all employees, $&et&er regular or nonCregular, s&ould %e paid $it& t&esaid %ene4t. In response, '#( in0ormed '#(+# t&at ran: and 4le employees$&o $ere regulari!ed a0ter > #pril 1988 $ere not entitled to t&e 1>t& mont&pay as t&ey $ere already given t&e ?&ristmas %onus in )ecem%er o0 1988,per t&e Implementing 6ules o0 'residential )ecree "o. 81. '#(+# t&en 4leda complaint 0or un0air la%or practice %e0ore t&e "(6?. *&e union argued t&atOt&e cutCo@ period 0or regulari!ation s&ould not %e used as t&e parameter 0orgranting Pt&eQ 1>t&mont& pay considering t&at t&e la$ does not distinguis&t&e status o0 employment %ut sic/ t&e la$ covers all employees.O

*&e S+? &ad mandated t&e re&a%ilitation o0 '#(. n 1 May 1999, t&eS+? approved t&e O#mended and 6estated 6e&a%ilitation 'lanO o0 '#( andappointed a Opermanent re&a%ilitation receiver 0or t&e latter.O

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&e case may proceed despite '#( is still undergoingre&a%ilitation

-!LD0 "o. *&e suspension o0 action 0or claims against a corporation underre&a%ilitation receiver or management committee em%races all p&ases o0 t&esuit, %e it %e0ore t&e trial court or any tri%unal or %e0ore t&is ?ourt.Furt&ermore, t&e actions t&at are suspended cover all claims against a

distressed corporation $&et&er 0or damages 0ounded on a %reac& o0 contracto0 carriage, la%or cases, collection suits or any ot&er claims o0 a pecuniarynature.

In actual 0act, allo$ing suc& actions to proceed $ould only increase t&e$or:Cload o0 t&e management committee or t&e re&a%ilitation receiver,$&ose precious time and e@ort $ould %e dissipated and $asted in de0endingsuits against t&e corporation, instead o0 %eing c&anneled to$ardrestructuring and re&a%ilitation.#ll told, t&e ?ourt is constrained to suspend t&e progress, development andot&er proceedings in t&e present petition.

-ILIIN! AIRLIN!S, INCORORAT!D, !T. AL., petitioners,vs.<!RNARDIN /AMORA, respondent.

19





".R. No. #$$&&$, Fe?r;ar6 $, )++

C-ICONA/ARIO,J.0

FACTS0 6espondent Namora &ad %een dismissed 0rom service 0or &aving

%een 0ound %y '#(Gs management to %e lia%le 0or insu%ordination, neglect o0customer, disrespect o0 aut&ority and a%sence $it&out o-cial leave.6espondent 4led a complaint against petitioners %e0ore t&e "(6?. *&e (a%or#r%iter dismissed t&e complaint 0or lac: o0 merit. n appeal, t&e "(6? setaside t&e decision o0 t&e (a%or #r%iter and ordered t&e immediatereinstatement o0 t&e respondent.

'#( is under receivers&ip during t&e &earing o0 t&is case.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&e claim o0 Namora %e en0orced despite t&e 0act t&at'#( is under receivers&ip

-!LD0 "o. In t&e case at %ar, t&e appellate courtGs pronouncement t&at inOdisallo$ing t&e en0orcement to t&e claim C it $ould unnecessarily add to t&e%urden o0 management, does not justi0y t&e aggravation caused in t&e delayin execution o0 t&e judgment in 0avor o0 Namora,O is 3uite myopic. In actual0act, allo$ing suc& actions to proceed $ould only increase t&e $or:Cload o0t&e management committee or t&e re&a%ilitation receiver, $&ose precioustime and e@ort $ould %e dissipated and $asted in de0ending suits againstt&e corporation, instead o0 %eing c&anneled to$ard restructuring andre&a%ilitation.

R!INSTAT!M!NT

R!MI!R! D!V!LOM!NT <AN:, petitioner,vs.!LSI! !SCUD!RO MANTAL, respondent.

".R. No. #$#$, Mar8 )*, )++$

YNAR!SSANTIA"O,J.0

FACTS0 n "ovem%er =A, =, t&e %ranc& manager, 6osario )etalla,

instructed respondent $it& t&e 0ollo$ing $ords in t&e vernacular, O+lsie, %a:amay magCcon4rm sa Ban: uarantee ng I# Fuel, sa%i&in mo K#E "#, may:ulang pa lang do:umento.O (ater t&at day, respondent $as summoned tot&e &ead o-ce to explain $&at s&e :ne$ a%out t&e t&e 0alsi4ed guarantee$&ic& s&e con4rmed $it& +mmie ?risostome o0 Filpride +nergy ?orporation.6espondent $as as:ed to execute a resignation letter, %ut s&e declined. *&e0ollo$ing day, respondent received a notice o0 termination.

20





ISSU!0 D&et&er or not respondent is entitled to a reinstatement

-!LD0 Ees. nder #rticle =9 o0 t&e (a%or ?ode, an employee $&o is unjustlydismissed 0rom $or: s&all %e entitled to reinstatement $it&out loss o0seniority rig&ts and ot&er privileges, inclusive o0 allo$ances, and ot&er

%ene4ts or t&eir monetary e3uivalent 0rom t&e time t&e compensation $as$it&&eld up to t&e time o0 actual reinstatement.

CITY TRUC:IN", INC. 1 JO-N !DL!S, petitioners,vs.ANTONIO <ALAJADIA, respondent.

".R. No. #$+$&, A;7;st &, )++$

UNO,J.0

FACTS0 6espondent #ntonio Balajadia is employed as a &elper mec&anic andpart o0 t&e maintenance sta@ o0 t&e petitioner ?ity *ruc:ing, Inc. n)ecem%er >1, =, t&e San Mateo land4ll $as closed do$n. In January=1, $&ile respondent Balajadia $as per0orming &is $or:, ;onorato +dles,t&e c&ie0 mec&anic and cousin o0 petitioner Jo&n +dles, in0ormed &im t&at &emay continue to $or: 0or petitioners, %ut &e s&ould not expect to %e paid &issalary, unless petitioners get to collect 0rom t&eir clients. # 0e$ days later,6o$ena +dles, t&e company secretary and sister o0 petitioner Jo&n +dles,as:ed respondent $&y &e $as still $or:ing $&en &e &ad already %eenterminated 0rom employment. *&us, %eginning January , =1, respondentstopped reporting 0or $or:.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&e ?# erred $&en it ordered t&e reinstatement o0respondent

-!LD Ees. 6einstatement is no longer via%le $&ere t&e %usiness o0 t&eemployer &as closed, or $&ere t&e relations %et$een t&e employer and t&eemployee &ave %een so severely strained t&at it is not advisa%le to orderreinstatement, or $&ere t&e employee decides not to %ereinstated. 6espondent expressly prayed 0or an a$ard o0 separation pay inlieu o0 reinstatement 0rom t&e very start o0 t&e proceedings at t&e '#? andt&e "(6?. By so doing, &e 0orecloses reinstatement as a relie0 %y implication.

ASIAN T!RMINALS, INC. 5or>er(6 MARINA ORT S!RVIC!S, INC.petitioner,vs.R!NATO VILLANU!VA, !T. AL., respondents.

".R. No. #'*)#&, Nove>?er )=, )++$

21





CARIO, J.0

FACTS0 6espondents $ere employees o0 Marina 'ort Services, Inc. M'SI/and mem%ers o0 t&e #ssociated Dor:ers nion o0 t&e '&ilippines #D/. In aletter dated 9 June 199> to M'SI, t&e #D president soug&t t&e dismissal

0rom service o0 respondents $&o $ere expelled 0rom #D. n 11 June 199>,t&e M'SI issued a memorandum to respondents terminating t&em e@ectiveimmediately pursuant to t&e closedCs&op provision o0 t&e M'SIC#D?ollective Bargaining #greement.

(a%or #r%iter +rnesto )inopol rendered a decision ordering M'SI toreinstate respondents to t&eir 0ormer or e3uivalent position. ;o$ever,respondents alleged t&at M'SI did not reinstate t&em to t&eir 0ormerpositions or e3uivalent positions. 6espondents alleged t&at t&ey $eredeliverymen at t&e time o0 t&eir dismissal and not ?6+ or casual rotationemployee.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&ere is reinstatement %y t&e petitioner M'SI

-!LD0 "one. 6einstatement means restoration to a state or condition 0rom$&ic& one &ad %een removed or separated. *&e person reinstated assumest&e position &e &ad occupied prior to &is dismissal. 6einstatementpresupposes t&at t&e previous position 0rom $&ic& one &ad %een removedstill exists, or t&at t&ere is an un4lled position $&ic& is su%stantiallye3uivalent or o0 similar nature as t&e one previously occupied %y t&eemployee.

6einstatement means restoration to t&e 0ormer position occupied priorto dismissal or to su%stantially e3uivalent position. 6einstatement does notmean promotion. 'romotion is %ased primarily on an employeeGsper0ormance during a certain period. Just %ecause t&eir contemporaries arealready occupying &ig&er positions does not automatically entitlerespondents to similar positions.

MT. CARM!L COLL!"!, petitioner,vs.

JOC!LYN R!SU!NA,!T. AL., respondents.

".R. No. #*+$, O8to?er #+, )++

22





C-ICONA/ARIO,J.0

FACTS0 6espondents $ere employees o0 t&e petitioner Mt ?armel ?ollege.n =1 "ovem%er 199, respondents, toget&er $it& several 0aculty mem%ers,

nonCacademic personnel, and ot&er students, participated in a protest actionagainst petitioner. 'etitioner, t&ru 6ev. Fr. Modesto Malandac, issued amemorandum directing respondents to explain in $riting $&y t&ey s&ouldnot %e dismissed 0or loss o0 trust and con4dence 0or joining t&e protest actionagainst t&e sc&ool administration. 'etitioner maintained t&at respondents$ere occupying positions o0 &ig&ly con4dential nature. #0ter a &earing,petitioner issued $ritten notices o0 termination to respondents on May1998. 6espondents $ere terminated %y petitioner on 1 May 1998.

ISSU!0 D&et&er or not reinstatement in t&e instant case is sel0Cexecutory

-!LD0 "o. #s contemplated %y #rticle ==A o0 t&e (a%or ?ode, t&e Secretaryo0 (a%or and +mployment or any 6egional )irector, t&e ?ommission or any(a%or #r%iter, or medCar%iter or voluntary ar%itrator may, motu proprio or onmotion o0 any interested party, issue a $rit o0 execution on a judgment$it&in 4ve / years 0rom t&e date it %ecomes 4nal and executory.?onse3uently, under 6ule III o0 t&e "(6? Manual on t&e +xecution o0 Judgment, it is provided t&at i0 t&e execution %e 0or t&e reinstatement o0 anyperson to a position, an o-ce or an employment, suc& $rit s&all %e served%y t&e s&eri@ upon t&e losing party or upon any ot&er person re3uired %y la$to o%ey t&e same, and suc& party or person may %e punis&ed 0or contempt i0 &e diso%eys suc& decision or order 0or reinstatement.

JO-NSON JO-NSON 2-ILS.3, !T. AL., petitioners,vs.

JO-NSON OFFIC! SAL!S UNIONF!D!RATION OF FR!! 9OR:!RS2FF93, !T. AL., respondents.

".R. No. #)&&, J;(6 $, )++

TIN"A,J.0

FACTS0 6espondents Ma. Jesusa Bonsol and 6i!alinda ;irondo 4led a

complaint 0or illegal dismissal against t&e petitioners Jo&nson R Jo&nson'&ils./, Inc. and Janssen '&armaceutica, one o0 t&e 0ormerGs divisions. (a%or#r%iter dismissed t&e complaint, prompting respondents to elevate t&ematter to t&e "(6?. *&e "(6? ruled t&at t&e violations o0 companyprocedure committed %y respondents did not constitute serious misconductor $ill0ul diso%edience $arranting t&eir dismissal< &ence, respondents $ereentitled to reinstatement.

23





ISSU!0 D&et&er or not t&e petitioners &ave t&e prerogative to c&oose$&et&er to reinstate respondents to t&eir 0ormer position or just pay t&eirmonetary a$ard

-!LD0 "o. 'etitioners &ave no prerogative to c&oose $&et&er to reinstate or

just pay monetary a$ard

DellCentrenc&ed is t&e rule t&at an illegally dismissed employee isentitled to reinstatement as a matter o0 rig&t. ver t&e years, &o$ever, casela$ developed t&at $&ere reinstatement is not 0easi%le, expedient orpractical, as $&ere reinstatement $ould only exacer%ate t&e tension andstrained relations %et$een t&e parties, or $&ere t&e relations&ip %et$een t&eemployer and employee &as %een unduly strained %y reason o0 t&eirirreconcila%le di@erences, particularly $&ere t&e illegally dismissed employee&eld a managerial or :ey position in t&e company, it $ould %e more prudentto order payment o0 separation pay instead o0 reinstatement. In ot&er $ords,

t&e payment o0 separation compensation in lieu o0 t&e reinstatement o0 anemployee $&o $as illegally dismissed 0rom $or: s&all %e allo$ed i0 and onlyi0 t&e employer can prove t&e existence o0 circumstances s&o$ing t&atreinstatement $ill no longer %e 0or t&e mutual %ene4t o0 t&e employer andemployee.

labor review digest

Documents