I. RIGHT TO SECURITY OF TENURE (Articles 293-295 [279-281] of the Labor Code)

A. CONCEPT; CONSTITUTIONAL & STATUTORY BASIS (Art.293)“Art. 279. Security of tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. (As amended by Section 34, Republic Act No. 6715,March 21, 1989)”

Security of Tenure o The right not to be removed from one’s job without valid cause and valid

procedure.

Constitutional Guaranty of Tenure o The policy of the State is to assure the right of workers to “security of tenure”

(Art. 8, Sec. 3 and Art. 2, Sec. 9 of the Constitution)o The guaranty is an act of SOCIAL JUSTICE.

Non-regular Employees (probationary and contractual) o They enjoy security of tenure but only to a limited extent, during the period of

time their respective contracts of employment remained in effect.

Managerial Personnel o They are entitled to Security of Tenure.o But may be dismissed merely on the ground of loss of confidence as

distinguished from the case of ordinary rank-and-file employees, whose termination on the basis of same grounds require an higher proof of involvement in the events in question.

o However, the employer may terminate a managerial employee for a just cause but must be exercised w/o abuse of discretion.

Why the State Regulates the Dismissal of Employees o Because the preservation of the lives of the citizens is a basic duty of the State,

more vial than the preservation of the corporate profito Security of tenure is a result of paramount value guaranteed by the Constitution

and should not be denied by mere speculationo Security of tenure is a Constitutional Right

B. CLASSIFICATION & KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT (Articles 294 & 295)“Art. 280. Regular and casual employment. The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists”.

Presupposes Employer-Employee Relationship

“Art. 281. Probationary employment. Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee”.

C. CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE LABOR CODE

I. AS TO NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT

a. Regular The primary standard to determine a regular employment is the reasonable connection

between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.

What determines regularity or casualness is not the employment contract but the nature of the job.

2 kind of regular employees: o engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the

usual business or trade of the employero any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such

service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists

i. Permanent

ii. Probationary One who is on tentative employment during which the employer determines

whether he is qualified for permanent employment

He still enjoys security of tenure

If no documentary evidence shows that the employee is probationary, he is regular

3 limitations to terminating a probationary employment: o Must accord with the requirement of the contracto Dissatisfaction of the employer is real and in good faith, not feigned

to circumvent the law or contracto No unlawful discrimination against the employee

CASES (6 month period): Cals Poultry Supply Corp. vs. Yap, G.R. No. 150660, July 30, 2002 (6 months ends on the 6th month of the same calendar date the probation started)

Alcira vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 149859, June 9, 2004 (same with the Cals Poultry Case)

Mitsubishi Motors Phils. Corp. vs. Chrysler Phils. Labor Union, G.R. No. 148738, June 29, 2004(LATEST AND CONTROLLING, 6 months = 180 days)

b. Casual Only for 1 year

Becomes regular if he works for more than 1 year

It is not his nature of work but the passage of time that gives him a regular status

Employment is casual when it is irregular, unpredictable, sporadic and brief in nature and outside the usual business of the employer. The work is not permanent nor periodically regular, but occasional or by chance, and not in the usual course of the employer’s trade or business.

Book 6, Rule 1, Sec. 5(b) of the IRR of the LCP o Despite the distinction between regular and casual employment, every

employee shall be entitled to the rights and privileges, and shall subject to the duties and obligations, as may be granted by law during the period of their actual employment.

c. Project Art. 280 (294) par. 1 as exception no. 1 to regular employment

“…where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee”

o But not really an exception because they are also necessary and desirable to the business

o If they are exception it is not because they are unnecessary or undesirable but because they are temporary in existence

o The difference, therefore, is not in the nature of the work but in the duration of existence

“Project”- the carrying out of which project employees are hired would ordinarily have some relationship to the usual business of the employer

Project employment is coterminous with the project for which the employee was hired. It may be terminated when the project ends or is completed. Thus, the employer has no obligation to pay separation pay.

In contrast, regular employment continues until it is terminated by recognized causes under the LCP

Project employees vs. Regular employees o Principal Test

Whether or not the project employees were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project

The absence of definite duration of the project would led the court to conclude that the employee was regular

o Indicators of Project Employment1. Duration of the specific undertaking for which the worker is engaged

is reasonably determinable2. Such duration, as well as the specific work to be performed, is

defined in an employment agreement and is made clear to the employee at the time of hiring

3. The work performed by the employee is in connection with the particular project for which he is engaged

4. The employee, while not employed and awaiting engagement, is free to offer his services to any other employer

5. The termination of his employment in the particular project is reported to the DOLE Reg. Off. having jurisdiction over the workplace within 30 days following the date of his separation from work, using the prescribed form in employee’s terminations/dismissals/suspensions.

6. An undertaking in the employment contract by the employer to pay completion bonus to the project employee as practiced by most construction companies

Project employee or a member of the work pool acquires the status of a regular employee:

1. Continuous rehiring of project employees even after the cessation of a project

2. Task performed by the alleged project employee are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business of the employer

o However, the length of time during which the employee was continuously re-hired is not controlling, but merely serves as a badge of regular employment.

d. Seasonal Art. 280 (294) par. 1 as exception no. 2 to regular employment

“…where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.”

o But not really an exception because they are also necessary and desirable to the business

o If they are exception it is not because they are unnecessary or undesirable but because they are temporary in existence

o The difference, therefore, is not in the nature of the work but in the duration of existence

Seasonal employees are considered regular employees o They are those called to work from time to time. The nature of their

relationship with the employer is such that during off season they are temporarily laid off but during summer season they are reemployed, or when their services may be needed.

o They are not strictly speaking, separated from the service but are merely considered as on leave of absence without pay until they are reemployed. Their employment relationship is never severed but only suspended. As such those employees can be considered as in regular employment of the employer.

e. Fixed Term Employment that will last only for a definite period as agreed by the parties.

For this to be valid, it should be shown that the fixed period was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties.

o No force, duress or improper pressure to the employeeo Nor any circumstances which vitiates the employee’s consent

2 criteria so that term employment may not violate the law on security of tenure:

1. Fixed period employment was knowingly and freely agreed upon by the parties, no force, duress or improper pressure to the employee nor any circumstances which vitiates the employee’s consent

2. The employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by the former over the latter

II. AS TO RANK

a. Managerial “Art. 212. Definitions

m."Managerial employee" is one who is vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees…”

b. Supervisory“Art. 212. Definitions

m. …Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment…”

.c. Rank and File

“Art. 212. Definitions

m. …All employees not falling within any of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this Book.”

D. OTHER CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT

a. Construction Industries (Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993)1. Project

o Are those employed in connection with a particular construction project or phase thereof and whose employment is co-terminus with each project or phase of the project to which they are assigned

2. Non-projecto Are those employed without reference to any particular construction project

or phase of a project

b. TV and Radio Broadcasting Industries

CASES:Sonza v. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 138051, 431 SCRA 583, 06.10.04

Farley Fulache et.al., v. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 183810, 610 SCRA 567, 01.27.2010

c. Hospitals

CASES: UERMMMC-RDU v. The Hon.Undersecretary of Labor, Bienvenido Laguesma, et.al. G.R. Nos. 125425-26, 11.24.93

Calamba Medical Center, Inc. v. NLRC, et.al., G.R. No. 176484, 11.25.08

Ramos vs. CA, G.R. No. 124354. April 11, 2002Professional Services, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 126297, February 02, 2010

d. Private Education Institutions (SEE: Manual of Regulations for Private Schools)

E. EXCEPTIONS TO REGULAR EMPLOYMENT; SCOPE OF SECURITY OF TENURE

II. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE Right of the employer to regulate all aspect of employment Employer’s rights:

1. Right to select and hire employees2. Right to conduct business3. Right to close the business4. Right to prescribe rules and regulations5. Right to transfer and dismiss employees

Not absolute and is regulated by law

A. CONCEPT CASES:

Bisig Manggagawa sa Tryco, et. al., vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 151309, 15 October 2008

Manila Jockey Club Employees Labor Union-PTGWO v. Manila Jockey Club, Inc., G.R. No. 167760, 07 March 2007The courts are not unmindful that every business enterprise endeavors to increase profits. As it is, the Court will not interfere with the business judgment of an employer in the exercise of its prerogative to devise means to improve its operation, provided that it does not violate the law, CBAs, and the general principles of justice and fair play. We have thus held that management is free to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, layoff of workers and discipline, dismissal, and recall of workers.

Capitol Medical Center v. Meris, G.R. No. 155098, 470 SCRA 125, 15 September 2005

B. ELEMENTS FOR A VALID EXERCISECASE: San Miguel Corporation et.al., v. Layoc, et.al., G.R. No. 149640, 19 October 2007

C. LIMITATIONS CASE: Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC, 225 SCRA 301

D. SCOPEa. HiringCASE: Wiltshire File Co. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 82249, 193 SCRA 665

b. PromotionCASE: Almodiel v. NLRC, 223 SCRA 341

c. Demotion

d. TransferCASES:

PT&T V. Laplana, 199 SCRA 485

Blue Diary Corp. v. NLRC, 314 SCRA 401

Pharmacia & UPJOHN, Inc. v. Albayda, Jr., G.R. No. 172724, August 23, 2010

Zafra et al. v. CA et al., 389 SCRA 200

PT&T v. CA et al., G.R. No. 152057, 09.29.2003

Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corp. v. Dapitan, 320 SCRA 124This is not to denigrate the inherent prerogative of an employer to transfer and reassign its employees to meet the requirements of its business. TRANSFERS can be effected pursuant to a company policy to transfer employees from one place of work to another place of work owned by the employer to prevent connivance among them. Likewise, the court have affirmed the right of an employer to transfer an employee to another office in the exercise of what it took to be sound business judgment and in accordance with pre-determined and established office policy and practice. Particularly so when no illicit, improper or underhanded purpose can be ascribed to the employer and the objection to the transfer was grounded solely on the personal inconvenience or hardship that will be caused to the employee by virtue of the transfer.

In security services, the transfer connotes a changing of guards or exchange of their posts, or their reassignment to other posts. However, all are considered given their respective posts.

Be that as it may, the prerogative of the management to transfer its employees must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion. The exercise of the prerogative should not defeat an employee's right to security of tenure. The employer’s privilege to transfer its employees to different workstations cannot be used as a subterfuge to rid itself of an undesirable worker.

Consolidated Food Corp. v. NLRC, 315 SCRA 129

e. DismissalCASE: Farrol v. CA, 325 SCRA 311

f. Reorganization &Abolition of positionsCASE: Aurelio v. NLRC, 221 SCRA 432

Golden Thread Knitting v. NLRC, 304 SCRA 568

Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. NLRC 314 SCRA 740

Pantoja v. SCA Hygiene Products Corp., G.R. No. 163554, 04.23.10

g. Employment policies & Stipulations e.g. restrictive covenant clauses, non-competing clause & competitive employment ban, no spouse employment policy

CASES: Star Paper v. Simbol, G.R. No. 164774, 487 SCRA 228, 04.12.2006

Duncan Assn. of Detailamn –PGTWO v. Glaxo Wellcome Phils., G.R. No. 162994, 438 SCRA 343, 09.17.2004

Armando Yrasuegui v. PAL, Inc., G.R. No. 168081, 10.17.2008

Avon Cosmetics v. Leticia Luna, G.R. No. 153647, 12.20.2006

St. Luke’s Medical Center Employees Union – AFW v. NLRC, G.R. No. 162053, 517 SCRA 677, 03.07.2007While the right of workers to security of tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution, its exercise may be reasonably regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and the general welfare of the people. Consequently, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers.

The most concrete example of this would be in the field of medicine, the practice of which in all its branches has been closely regulated by the State. It has long been recognized that the regulation of this field is a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public to protect the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance among those who would practice medicine. The same rationale applies in the regulation of the practice of radiologic and x-ray technology. (as provided in Republic Act No. 7431)

It would be unreasonable to compel private respondent to wait until its license is cancelled and it is materially injured before removing the cause of the impending evil. Neither can the courts step in to force private respondent to reassign or transfer petitioner Santos under these circumstances. Petitioner Santos is not in the position to demand that she be given a different work assignment when what necessitated her transfer in the first place was her own fault or failing. The prerogative to determine the place or station where an employee is best qualified to serve the interests of the company on the basis of the his or her qualifications, training and performance belongs solely to the employer. The Labor Code and its implementing Rules do not vest in the Labor Arbiters nor in the different Divisions of the NLRC (nor in the courts) managerial authority.

h. Early retirement program, Voluntary resignation program, Job evaluation programCASE: Leonardo v. NLRC, 333 SCRA 589

i. Bonuses, Change of working hours, “prior approval” leave policyCASES: Producers Bank of the Philippines v. NLRC, 355 SCRA 489

Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. Lepanto Ceramics Employees Association, G.R. No. 180866, 02 March 2010

Interphil laboratories Employees Union-FFW v. Interphil Laboratories, Inc., 373 SCRA 658

Malayan Employees Association – FFW v. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 181357, 02 February 2010

III. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

A. EMPLOYERS RIGHT TO DISCIPLINE; CONCEPT

B. DEFINITIONS

a. Actual Dismissalb. Constructive Dismissal

C. GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

i. Substantive

a. Just Causes (Art. 296 [Art. 282])b. Authorized Causes (Art. 297 [Art. 283])

SEE ALSO: Similarities and Distinctions between Just Causes and Authorized Causes

ii. Procedural

a. Prior notice and hearingb. 30-day prior notice

D. TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER; Just causes for termination; (Art. 296 [Art. 282])

a. SERIOUS MISCONDUCT; Concept; Elements

CASES:

Austria vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 124382, August 16, 1999 PLDT vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 80609  August 23, 1988NLRC vs. Salgarino, G.R. No. 164376, July 31, 2006Llamas vs. Ocean Gateway, G.R. No. 179293, August 14, 2009

b. WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE ; Concept; Elements

CASES:

Gold City Integrated Port Services, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 86000, September 21, 1990Permex, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 125031, January 24, 2000Aparente vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 117652, April 27, 2000Nuez vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 107574 December 28, 1994

c. GROSS AND HABITUAL NEGLECT OF DUTIES; Concept; Elements

CASES:

Garcia v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119527, July 3, 1996Challenge Socks v. CA, G.R. No. 165268, November 8, 2005

d. FRAUD; Concept; Elements

CASE: San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 82467 June 29, 1989

e. WILLFUL BREACH OF TRUST & LOSS OF CONFIDENCE; CONCEPT; ELEMENTS

CASES:

National Sugar Refineries Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 122277 February 24, 1998Falguera vs. Linsangan, G.R. No. 114848 December 14, 1995

f. COMMISSION OF A CRIME OR OFFENSE AGAINST THE PERSON OF HIS EMPLOYER, IMMEDIATE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

g. ANALOGOUS CASES

i. Sexual Harrasment

CASES:

Libres v. NLRC, G.R. No. 123737. May 28, 1999Villarama v. NLRC, G.R. No. 106341 September 2, 1994Veloso v. Caminade, July 8, 2004Aquino v. Acosta, April 2, 2002Paisto v. Mamento, October 1, 2003

ii. Abandonment; Requisites

CASE: Agabon v. NLRC, November 17, 2004

iii. Conflict of Interest

CASES:

GT Printers v. NLRC, G.R. No. 100749 April 24, 1992Duncan Assn. of Detailamn –PGTWO v. Glaxo Wellcome Phils., G.R. No. 162994, 438 SCRA 343, 09.17.2004

iv. Attitude Problem

v. Poor performance or gross inefficiency

CASE: Eastern Overseas Employment Center v. Cecilia, G.R. NO. 143023, Novermber 29, 2005

vi. Drug Use

CASE: Roquero v. PAL, G.R. No. 152329, April 22, 2003

SEE: RA 9165, Art. III (d); Random drug testing requirements

E. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS (Just Causes)

a. TWIN NOTICE AND HEARING RULE; Three (3) Requisites

SEE: Art. 277 LC read in conjunction with its IRR

b. Principle of Discretionary Justice

F. CLOSURE OF ESTABLISHMENT AND REDUCTION OF PERSONNEL; Authorized causes for termination (Art. 297 [Art.283]); 30-day Prior Notice Rule; Procedure

a. INSTALLATION OF LABOR SAVING DEVICES; Concept; Purpose

CASES: Philippine Sheet Metal Worker’s Union v. CIR, 83 Phil. 453Agustillo v. CA, G.R. No. 142875, September 7, 2001Magnolia Dairy Products Corporation vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 114952, January 29, 1996

b. REDUNDANCY; Concept

CASES:

Wiltshire File Co., v. NLRC, G.R. No. 82249 February 7, 1991Coats Manila Bay vs. Ortega, G.R. No. 172628, February 13, 2009Asufrin vs. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 156658. March 10, 2004Caltex vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 159641, October 15, 2007De Ocampo vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 101539 September 4, 1992Serrano vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 117040. January 27, 2000

c. RETRENCHMENT; Criteria in selecting employees to be dismissed; Basic requirements of a valid retrenchment; Standards which justify retrenchment

CASES: Alabang Country Club vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 157611, August 9, 2005Lopez Sugar Corporation vs. Federation of Free Workers, G.R. Nos. 75700-01, August 30, 1990Edge Apparel Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 121314, February 12, 1998 Sebuguero vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 115394 September 27, 1995

SEE: DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN REDUNDANCY AND RETRENCHMENT

d. CLOSURE OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS

CASES:JAT General Services vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 148340, January 26, 2004La Union Cement Workers’ Union vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 174621, January 30, 2009Maya Farms Employees Organization vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 10625, December 28, 1994 Mac Adams Union vs. Mac Adams, G.R. No. 141615, October 24, 2003

G. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS (Authorized Causes)

a. 30-day prior notice rule

b. Criteria in Selection of Employee to be Dismissed

c. Separation Pay

H. EFFECTS OF DISMISSAL

i. With just or authorized cause; Compliance with due process

ii. No just or authorized cause; No due process

a. Reinstatement

b. Entitlement to full back wages; definition of back wages;

CASE: Equitable PCI Bank v. Sadac, G.R. No. 164772, June 8, 2006

c. When reinstatement not possible; reasons

iii. No just or authorized cause; With due process

iv. With just or authorized cause; No due process

CASES: Wenphil Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 80587, 8 February 1989, 170 SCRA 69.Serrano v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117040, 27 January 2000, 323 SCRA 445Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004Jaka Food Processing vs. Pacot, 2005, G.R. No. 151378.  March 28, 2005

I. CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL; DEFINITION; EFFECT

CASES: Leonardo v. NLRC, June 16, 2000, G.R. 125303

J. DISMISSAL BASED ON FALSE OR NON-EXISTENT CAUSE; EFFECT

CASES: Standard Electric Manufacturing Co. v. Standard Electric Employees Union G.R. No. 166111, August 25, 2005

K. PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION

SEE: DOLE Department Order No. 9, Series of 1997

CASE: Soriano v. NLRC, 155 SCRA 124

L. DAMAGES; FACTORS IN TEMPERING DAMAGES

IV. SUSPENSION OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS

A. BASIS AND MAXIMUM PERIOD ALLOWED (Art. 300 [Art. 286])

B. EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT STATUS

C. FULFILLMENT OF MILITARY OR CIVIC DUTY; EFFECT

D. ANALOGOUS SITUATION: “TEMPORARY LAY-OFF” as a valid exercise of management prerogative

E. DISTINGUISHED FROM STOPPAGE OR SUSPENSION OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS (Art. 128[c], LC)

F. TEMPORARY OR PERIODIC SHUTDOWN & TEMPORARY CESSATION OF WORK (Section 7, Rule IV, Implementing Rules and Regulations)

V. DISEASE AS A GROUND FOR TERMINATION

A. REQUIREMENTS (Art. 298 [Art. 284]); SEE ALSO: Implementing Rules and Regulations

CASE: Sy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142293 February 27, 2003

B. UNDER SPECIAL LAWS

a. Philippine Aids Prevention and Control Act of 1998 or RA 8504 b. DRUG-FREE Workplace Guidelines; DO No. 53-03, Series of 2003c. SARS; SEE: DO No. 47-03d. “Disability” under the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (RA 7277)

VI. OTHER CAUSES OF SEVERANCE OF EMPLOYMENT RELATION

A. RESIGNATION (Termination by employee) (Art. 299 [Art.285]); Payment of separation pay; Exceptions

B. RETIREMENT (Art. 301 [Art. 287], as amended by RA 7641)

VII. PRESCRIPTION OF CLAIMS

A. CLAIM FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL (Art. 1146, New Civil Code)

B. MONEY CLAIMS (Art. 291, LC)

C. CLAIM FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL WITH MONEY CLAIMS

D. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE