Sie sind auf Seite 1von 101

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

TEST TO DETERMINE EXISTENCE OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP


FRANCISCO VS. NLRC AUGUST 21, 2006 Fact : Sometime in 1995, petitioner was hired by Kasei Corporation during its incorporation stage. She was designated as Accountant and Corporate Secretary and was assigned to hand e a the accounting needs o! the company. She was a so designated as "iaison #!!icer to the City o! $a%ati to secure business permits, construction permits and other icenses !or the initia operation o! the company. &n 199', petitioner was designated Acting $anager. As Acting $anager, petitioner was assigned to hand e recruitment o! a emp oyees and per!orm management administration !unctions( represent the company in a dea ings with go)ernment agencies, especia y with the *ureau o! &nterna +e)enue ,*&+-, Socia Security System ,SSS- and in the city go)ernment o! $a%ati( and to administer a other matters pertaining to the operation o! Kasei +estaurant which is owned and operated by Kasei Corporation. .or !i)e years, petitioner per!ormed the duties o! Acting $anager. As o! /ecember 01, 2000 her sa ary was 122,500.00 p us 10,000.00 housing a owance and a 103 share in the pro!it o! Kasei Corporation. &n 4anuary 2001, petitioner was rep aced by "i5a +. .uentes as $anager. 1etitioner a eged that she was re6uired to sign a prepared reso ution !or her rep acement but she was assured that she wou d sti be connected with Kasei Corporation. 7imoteo Acedo, the designated 7reasurer, con)ened a meeting o! a emp oyees o! Kasei Corporation and announced that nothing had changed and that petitioner was sti connected with Kasei Corporation as 7echnica Assistant toSei8i Kamura and in charge o! a *&+ matters. 7herea!ter, Kasei Corporation reduced her sa ary by 12,500.00 a month beginning 4anuary up to September 2001 !or a tota reduction o! 122,500.00 as o! September 2001. 1etitioner was not paid her mid9 year bonus a eged y because the company was not earning we . #n #ctober2001, petitioner did not recei)e her sa ary !rom the company. She made repeated !o ow9upswith the company cashier but she was ad)ised that the company was not earning we . #n #ctober 15, 2001, petitioner as%ed !or her sa ary !rom Acedo and the rest o! the o!!icers but she was in!ormed that she is no onger connected with the company. Since she was no onger paid her sa ary, petitioner did not report !or wor% and !i ed an action !or constructi)e dismissa be!ore the abor arbiter I !": whether there e:ist an emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship

H"#$: ;es. 7he supreme court used the under ying economic rea ities o! the acti)ity or re ationship method in determining the e:istence o! emp oyer emp oyee re ationship in the case. the determination o! the re ationship between emp oyer and emp oyee depends upon the circumstances o! the who e economic acti)ity, such as: ,1- the e:tent to which the ser)ices per!ormed are an integra part o! the emp oyer<s business( ,2- the e:tent o! the wor%er<s in)estment in e6uipment and !aci ities( ,0- the nature and degree o! contro
1 %1age

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

e:ercised by the emp oyer( ,=- the wor%er<s opportunity !or pro!it and oss( ,5the amount o! initiati)e, s%i , 8udgment or !oresight re6uired !or the success o! the c aimed independent enterprise( ,'- the permanency and duration o! the re ationship between the wor%er and the emp oyer( and ,2- the degree o! dependency o! the wor%er upon the emp oyer !or his continued emp oyment in that ine o! business. 7he proper standard o! economic dependence is whether the wor%er is dependent on the a eged emp oyer !or his continued emp oyment in that ine o! business. &n the >nited States, the touchstone o! economic rea ity in ana y5ing possib e emp oyment re ationships !or purposes o! the .edera "abor Standards Act is dependency. *y ana ogy, the benchmar% o! economic rea ity in ana y5ing possib e emp oyment re ationships !or purposes o! the "abor Code ought to be the economic dependence o! the wor%er on his emp oyer. SON&A ' . ABS(CBN B)*a$ca t+,- C*).*)at+*, /UNE 10, 2000 Fact 1 A*S9C*? signed an Agreement with the $e and 4ay $anagement and /e)e opment Corporation ,$4$/C-. +e!erred to as A@A?7, $4$/C agreed to pro)ide 4ay Son5as ser)ices e:c usi)e y to A*S9C*? as ta ent. A!ter more than two years, Son5a as agent o! $4$/C wrote a etter to A*S9C*? noti!ying them o! the !ormer<s intention to rescind the agreement. Son5a wai)ed and renounced the reco)ery o! the remaining amounts stipu ated in the agreement but reser)ed the right to see% the reco)ery o! other bene!its under the same. "ater, S#?BA !i ed a comp aint against A*S9C*? be!ore the /#"A9?C+, a eging that A*S9C*? did not pay his sa aries, separation pay, ser)ice incenti)e ea)e pay, 10th month pay, signing bonus, tra)e a owance and amounts due under the Amp oyees Stoc% #ption 1 an ,CAS#1C-. &n response A*S9C*? !i ed a $otion to /ismiss on the ground that no emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship e:isted between the parties. $eanwhi e, pursuant to the Agreement, A*S9C*? continued to remit S#?BAs month y ta ent !ees through his account at 1C& *an%. A*S9C*? ater opened a new account with the same ban% where A*S9C*? deposited S#?BA<s ta ent !ees and other payments due him under the Agreement I !"1 whether an emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship e:ist in the case

H"#$1 ?o. Case aw has consistent y he d that the e ements o! an emp oyer9 emp oyee re ationship are: ,a- the se ection and engagement o! the emp oyee( ,b- the payment o! wages( ,c- the power o! dismissa ( and ,d- the emp oyer<s power to contro the emp oyee on the means and methods by which the wor% is accomp ished.1D 7he ast e ement, the so9ca ed C c*,t)*# t" tC, is the most important e ement. &ndependent contractors o!ten present themse )es to possess uni6ue s%i s, e:pertise or ta ent to distinguish them !rom ordinary emp oyees. 7he speci!ic se ection and hiring o! S#?BA, because of his unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees, is a circumstance indicati)e, but not conc usi)e, o! an independent contractua re ationship. &!
2 %1age

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

S#?BA did not possess such uni6ue s%i s, ta ent and ce ebrity status, A*S9C*? wou d not ha)e entered into the Agreement with S#?BA but wou d ha)e hired him through its personne department 8ust i%e any other emp oyee. /AVIER VS. FLYACE CORP FEBRUARY 12, 2012 Fact 1 #n $ay 20, 200D, 4a)ier !i ed a comp aint be!ore the ?"+C !or underpayment o! sa aries and other abor standard bene!its. Ee a eged that he was an emp oyee o! . y Ace since September 2002, per!orming )arious tas%s at the respondent<s warehouse such as c eaning and arranging the canned items be!ore their de i)ery to certain ocations, e:cept in instances when he wou d be ordered to accompany the company<s de i)ery )ehic es, as pahinante. that on $ay ', 200D, he reported !or wor% but he was no onger a owed to enter the company premises by the security guard upon the instruction o! +uben #ng (Mr. Ong), his superior( that a!ter se)era minutes o! begging to the guard to a ow him to enter, he saw #ng whom he approached and as%ed why he was being barred !rom entering the premises( that #ng rep ied by saying, C Tanungin mo anak mo;C that he then went home and discussed the matter with his !ami y( that he disco)ered that #ng had been courting his daughter Anna yn a!ter the two met at a !iesta ce ebration in $a abon City( that Anna yn tried to ta % to #ng and con)ince him to spare her !ather !rom troub e but he re!used to accede( that therea!ter, 4a)ier was terminated !rom his emp oyment without notice( and that he was neither gi)en the opportunity to re!ute the causeFs o! his dismissa !rom wor%. #n the other hand . y Ace a)erred that it was engaged in the business o! importation and sa es o! groceries. Sometime in /ecember 2002, 4a)ier was contracted by its emp oyee, $r. #ng, as e:tra he per on a pakyaw basis at an agreed rate o! 1 000.00 per trip, which was ater increased to 1 025.00 in 4anuary 200D. $r. #ng contracted 4a)ier rough y 5 to ' times on y in a month whene)er the )ehic e o! its contracted hau er, $i mar Eau ing Ser)ices, was not a)ai ab e. #n Apri 00, 200D, . y Ace no onger needed the ser)ices o! 4a)ier. /enying that he was their emp oyee, . y Ace insisted that there was no i ega dismissa .. y Ace submitted a copy o! its agreement with $i mar Eau ing Ser)ices and copies o! ac%now edgment receipts e)idencing payment to 4a)ier !or his contracted ser)ices bearing the words, Cdai y manpower (pakyaw/piece rate pay)C and the atter<s signaturesFinitia s. I !"1 Ghether an Amp oyer9emp oyee re ationship e:ist

H"#$1 ?o. 7he Court is o! the considerab e )iew that on 4a)ier ies the burden to pass the we 9sett ed tests to determine the e:istence o! an emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship, viz: ,1- the se ection and engagement o! the emp oyee( ,2- the payment o! wages( ,0- the power o! dismissa ( and ,=- the power to contro the emp oyee<s conduct. #! these e ements, the most important criterion is whether the emp oyer contro s or has reser)ed the right to contro the emp oyee not on y as to the resu t o! the wor% but a so as to the means and methods by which the resu t is to be accomp ished.

0 %1age

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

&n this case, 4a)ier was not ab e to persuade the Court that the abo)e e ements e:ist in his case.1avvphi1 Ee cou d not submit competent proo! that . y Ace engaged his ser)ices as a regu ar emp oyee( that . y Ace paid his wages as an emp oyee, or that . y Ace cou d dictate what his conduct shou d be whi e at wor%. &n other words, 4a)ier<s a egations did not estab ish that his re ationship with . y Ace had the attributes o! an emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship on the basis o! the abo)e9mentioned !our9!o d test. Gorse, 4a)ier was not ab e to re!ute . y Ace<s assertion that it had an agreement with a hau ing company to underta%e the de i)ery o! its goods. &t was a so ba!! ing to rea i5e that 4a)ier did not dispute . y Ace<s denia o! his ser)ices< e:c usi)ity to the company. &n short, a that 4a)ier aid down were bare a egations without corroborati)e proo!. . y Ace does not dispute ha)ing contracted 4a)ier and paid him on a Cper tripC rate as a ste)edore, a beit on a pakyaw basis. 7he Court cannot !ai to note that . y Ace presented documentary proo! that 4a)ier was indeed paid on a pakyaw basis per the ac%now edgment receipts admitted as competent e)idence by the "A. >n!ortunate y !or 4a)ier, his mere denia o! the signatures a!!i:ed therein cannot automatica y sway us to ignore the documents because C!orgery cannot be presumed and must be pro)ed by c ear, positi)e and con)incing e)idence and the burden o! proo! ies on the party a eging !orgery.C SMCEU(PTG3O ' . BERSAMINA Fact 1 Sometime in 19D0 and 19D=, San$ig entered into contracts !or merchandising ser)ices with "ipercon and /H+ite. 7hese companies are independent contractors du y icensed by the /epartment o! "abor and Amp oyment ,/#"A-. &t was understood that there is no emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship between san $igue and "ipercon and d<rite. 1etitioner San $igue Corporation Amp oyees >nion917G@# ,the >nion, !or bre)ity- as%ed san $igue to regu ari5e the emp oyment o! "ipercon and /<rite emp oyees. "iperscon and d<rite emp oyees a so signed up !or membership be!ore the petitioner union. I !"1 Ghether there e:ist an emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship between san $igue and ipercon and d<rite emp oyees H"#$1 ?o. the e ements o! emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship are( ,1- the se ection and engagement o! the emp oyee( ,2- the payment o! wages( ,0- the power o! dismissa ( and ,=- the power to contro the emp oyee<s conduct. #! these e ements, the most important criterion is whether the emp oyer contro s or has reser)ed the right to contro the emp oyee not on y as to the resu t o! the wor% but a so as to the means and methods by which the resu t is to be accomp ished. &t was c ear in this case that ipercon and d<rite emp oyees are not emp oyees o! san $igue , rather they are independent contractors.

DEFINITION OF LABOR DISPUTE


CITIBAN4 VS. CA NOVEMBER 25, 1667
= %1age

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

Fact 1 &n 19D0, Citiban% and A 7oro Security Agency, &nc. ,herea!ter A 7oroentered into a contract !or the atter to pro)ide security and protecti)e ser)ices to sa!eguard and protect the ban%Hs premises, situated at D2=1 1aseo de +o:as, $a%ati, $etro $ani a. Citiban% renewed the security contract with A 7oro year y unti 1990. #n Apri 22, 1990, the contract between Citiban% and A 7oro e:pired. Citiban% did not renew its contract with A toro and instead rep aced them with @o den 1yramid Security Agency. respondent Citiban% &ntegrated @uards "abor A iance9SA@A97>1ASF.S$ ,herea!ter C&@"A- !i ed a!ter re!erring the case be!ore the ?ationa Conci iation and $ediation *oard ,?C$*- it !i ed a notice o! stri%e. Citiban% !i ed an in8uncti)e re ie! !rom the tria court, whi e respondent mo)ed to dismiss since the 8urisdiction shou d be in the abor arbiter being a abor dispute. Citiban% contended that the case is not a abor dispute since no emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship e:ist between Citiban% and e toro. I !"1 whether the case is a abor dispute hence the abor arbiter shou d ha)e 8urisdiction H"#$1 ?o. 7his Court has he d in many cases that Cin determining the e:istence o! an emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship, the !o owing e ements are genera y considered: 1- the se ection and engagement o! the emp oyee( 2- the payment o! wages( 0- the power o! dismissa ( and =- the emp oyerHs power to contro the emp oyee with respect to the means and methods by which the wor% is to be accomp ishedC. 5 &t has been decided a so that the "abor Arbiter has no 8urisdiction o)er a c aim !i ed where no emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship e:isted between a company and the security guards assigned to it by a security ser)ice contractor. 7&n this case, it was the security agency A 7oro that recruited, hired and assigned the watchmen to their p ace o! wor%. &t was the security agency that was answerab e to Citiban% !or the conduct o! its guards. 7he 6uestion arises. &s there a abor dispute between Citiban% and the security guards, members o! respondent C&@"A, regard ess o! whether they stand in the re ation o! emp oyer and emp oyeesI Artic e 212, paragraph 1 o! the "abor Code pro)ides the de!inition o! a C abor disputeC. &t Cinc udes any contro)ersy or matter concerning terms or conditions o! emp oyment or the association or representation o! persons in negotiating, !i:ing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions o! emp oyment, regard ess o! whether the disputants stand in the pro:imate re ation o! emp oyer and emp oyee. &! at a , the dispute between Citiban% and A 7oro security agency is one regarding the termination or non9renewa o! the contract o! ser)ices. 7his is a ci)i dispute. 6 A 7oro was an independent contractor. 7hus, no emp oyer9 emp oyee re ationship e:isted between Citiban% and the security guard members o! the union in the security agency who were assigned to secure the ban%Hs premises and property. Eence, there was no abor dispute and no right to stri%e against the ban%.

ARTICLE 215 /URISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITER


5 %1age

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

HALAGUENA ' PAL OCTOBER 2, 2006 Fact 1 1etitioners were emp oyed as !ema e ! ight attendants o! 1hi ippine Air ines ,1A"- and i%ewise members o! . ight Attendants and Stewards Association o! the 1hi ippines ,.ASA1-. 1A" and .ASA1 entered into a Co ecti)e *argaining Agreement ,C*A- regarding: retirement age ,$a e: '0 years o d and .ema e: 55 years o d-. .ASA1 demanded e6ua treatment to ma e counterpart regarding the age retirements. .ASA1 !i ed a specia ci)i action !or dec aratory re ie! with temporary restraining order and writ o! pre iminary in8unction be!ore the +egiona 7ria Court o! $a%ati city against 1A" contending the in)a idity o! Sec.1==9A o! the C*A. +7C $a%ati ac6uired 8urisdiction reasoned that the C*A )io ates the "abor CodeFCA/AG to which the court ru ed in !a)or o! the petitioners and issued a 7+# en8oining 1A" to imp ement the pro)ision o! the C*A in dispute. And directed the issuance o! the writ o! pre iminary in8unction against 1A". 1A" !i ed a petition !or certiorari and prohibition with temporary restraining order and writ o! pre iminary in8unction with the Court o! Appea s. CA ru ed in !a)or o! 1A" dec aring +7C $a%ati had no 8urisdiction o)er the matter. .ASA1 !i ed a motion !or reconsideration but was denied by the CA. hence this petition. ISSUE1 whether or not the +7C has 8urisdiction o)er .ASA1<s action cha enging the constitutiona ity or ega ity o! the pro)ision o! the C*A ,sec 1==9A-. HELD1 ;es. A Co ecti)e *argaining Agreement entered into by the emp oyer and emp oyees are not mere y contractua in nature. 7hey are so impressed with pub ic interest. Eence, any )io ations with respect to the constitutiona ity o! the pro)isions o! the said C*A, the regu ar courts are not di)ested o! its 8urisdiction to decide on matters pertaining to the ega ity o! the said pro)isions o! the C*A.

Sa,t+a-* '. CF S8a). /!#9 10, 2005 Fact 1 1etitioner wor%ed as a sea!arer !or Smith *e $anagement !or about !i)e years. 1etitioner signed a new contract with respondent !or nine months. 1#AA appro)ed said contract. A wee% be!ore departure, Santiago was ad)ised not to board $J Seaspread but he was reassured !or some !uture dep oyment.

' %1age

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

1etitioner !i ed a comp aint !or i ega dismissa because he was not dep oyed and said contract was not !u !i ed as agreed in the contract o! ser)ice. "abor Arbiter rendered its decision ho ding respondent C. Sharp iab e !or i ega dismissa . #n appea , respondent ?"+C ru ed that there was no emp oyer9 emp oyee re ationship between the parties hence there was no i ega dismissa to spea% o! in the !irst p ace. 1etitioner !i ed a motion !or reconsideration but was denied by the ?"+C !or ac% o! merit. 7hen the matters were e e)ated to the CA )ia petition !or certiorari. CA decided that damages are not reco)erab e by a wor%er who was not dep oyed by his agency. Eence this petition. ISSUE1 Ghether or not petitioner<s 1#AA appro)ed emp oyment contract !a s within the 8urisdiction o! the "abor Arbiter. HELD1 ;es. 7he instant case o! the petitioner !a s under the 8urisdiction o! the "abor Arbiter. 7he aw pro)ides, +.A. ?o. D0=2 ,$igrants Gor%ers Actparticu ar y: Section10 $oney C aims: "abor Arbiter o! the ?"+C sha ha)e origina and e:c usi)e 8urisdiction o)er c aims arising out o! an emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship by )irtue o! any aw or contract in)o )ing .i ipino wor%ers !or o)erseas dep oyment inc uding c aims !or actua , mora and e:emp ary damages. 7here!ore, the "abor Arbiter has 8urisdiction to try and hear the case at bar.

At#a Fa): ' NLRC, /. D"#a P",a N*'":;") 17, 2002 Fact 1 /e a 1ena emp oyed as )eterinary aide by petitioner At as .arms. Ee was among se)era emp oyees terminated but he was re9hired and gi)en additiona 8obs. 1ena was a eged y caught urinating and de!acing on company premises. Ee was noti!ied about said )io ation but disregarded the matter. ?otice o! 7ermination with pay was sent to him. Co9respondent Abion was i%ewise terminated !or the same reason as 1ena. 1ena and Abion !i ed a separate comp aints !or i ega dismissa that were conso idated. "abor Arbiter dismissed the action ho ding that the grie)ance machinery in the C*A had not yet been e:hausted. +espondents a)ai ed the grie)ance process but re!i ed be!ore the ?"+C. 1etitioner !i ed a motion to dismiss !or ac% o! 8urisdiction o! the ?"+C.

2 %1age

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

"abor Arbiter dismissed the comp aint !inding the case was one o! i ega dismissa and did not in)o )e the interpretation or imp ementation o! any pro)ision o! the C*A. ?"+C re)ersed the decision o! the "abor Arbiter. At as !i ed a petition !or re)iew on certiorari to the Court o! Appea s. 7he atter denied the petition. Eence, this petition. ISSUE1 Ghether or not the "abor Arbiter and ?"+C had 8urisdiction o)er i ega dismissa cases. HELD1 ;es. 7he ?"+C !ound that At as did not comp y with the re6uirements o! a )a id dismissa . 7he re ationship between the emp oyer and the emp oyees are not mere y contractua in nature, it is imbued with pub ic interest( hence, any dismissa o! emp oyees must yie d to the due process c ause as enshrined in the Constitution. &n order to constitute a )a id dismissa the re6uirements must concur: 1- due process must be strict y obser)ed and 2- dismissa must be !or any )a id causes pro)ided by aw. PERPETUAL HELP '. FABURADA Oct*;") 07, 2001 Fact 1 +espondents !i ed a comp aint with the Arbitration *ranch9/#"A !or i ega dismissa . 1ECC& ,1erpetua Ee p- !i ed a motion to dismiss contending that there is no emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship because they are members and co9owners o! the cooperati)e. 1erpetua Ee p !i ed a supp ementa motion to dismiss a eging that Artic e 121 o! the +.A. '909 ,cooperati)e /e)e opment Authority "aw- re6uires conci iation or mediation be!ore resorting to courts. "abor Arbiter denied the motion to dismiss ho ding that there is emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship. #n appea , the ?"+C a!!irmed the decision o! the "abor Arbiter. ISSUE1 Ghether or not there is emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship thus con!erring 8urisdiction o! the "abor Arbiter. HELD1 ;es the "abor Arbiter has 8urisdiction o)er i ega y dismissed emp oyees. 1erpetua Ee p hired the respondents to wor% !or it and it was du y pro)en that the said emp oyees: 1- wor%ed regu ar y 2- assigned with speci!ic duties and 0paid regu ar wages. 7o estab ish emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship the re6uisites must be present to which: 1- 7he power o! se ectionF hire

D %1age

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS


2- 1ower to dismiss 0- 1ayment o! wages =- 1ower to contro A! t)+a ' NLRC <A!-! t 16, 1666=

2012

Fact 1 1ri)ate respondent Centra 1hi ippine >nion $ission Corporation o! the Se)enth /ay Ad)entists ,S/A- is a re igious corporation under 1hi ippine aw and is represented by the other pri)ate respondents. 1etitioner was a pastor o! S/A unti 1991, when his ser)ices were terminated. Austria wor%ed with S/A !or 2D years.Ee started as a iterature e)ange ist in 19'0 then got promoted se)era times. Ee became the Assistant 1ub ishing /irector in the Gest Jisayan $ission o! the S/A in 19'D and 1astor in the Gest Jisayan $ission in 1922. .ina y in 19D9, he was promoted as /istrict 1astor o! the ?egros $ission o! the S/A. #n )arious occasions !rom August to #ctober 1991, Austria recei)ed se)era communications !rom $r. &besate, treasurer o! the ?egros $ission, as%ing the !ormer to admit accountabi ity and responsibi ity !or the church tithes and o!!erings co ected by his wi!e, 7he ma Austria, in his district and to remit the same to the ?egros $ission. &n his answer, petitioner said that he shou d not be made accountab e since it was pri)ate respondent 1astor *uhat and $r. &besate who authori5ed his wi!e to co ect the tithes and o!!erings since he was )ery sic% to do the co ecting at that time. 7herea!ter, petitioner went to the o!!ice o! 1astor *uhat, president o! the ?egros $ission, and as%ed !or a con)ention to sett e the dispute between petitioner and 1astor +odrigo. 1astor *uhat denied the re6uest o! petitioner because there was no 6uorum. 7he two e:changed heated arguments unti petitioner e!t the o!!ice. Eowe)er, whi e on his way out, he heard 1astor *uhat saying, C1astor daw inisog na ina iya ,1ador you are ta %ing tough-K which prompted him to go bac% and o)erturn 1astor *uhat<s tab e, scatter boo%s in the o!!ice, bang *uhat<s attachL case and throw the phone. 1etitioner recei)ed a etter in)iting him and his wi!e to attend the meeting to discuss the non9remittance o! church co ection and the e)ents that transpired between him and 1astor *uhat. A !act9!inding committee was created to in)estigate petitioner. Subse6uent y, petitioner recei)ed a etter o! dismissa citing misappropriation o! denominationa !unds, wi !u breach o! trust, serious misconduct, gross and habitua neg ect o! duties, and commission o! an o!!ense
9 %1age

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

against the person o! emp oyerHs du y authori5ed representati)e, as grounds !or the termination o! his ser)ices. ,?a%a%ainis Mtong part na Mto dahi appea nang appea N Eahaha1- 1etitioner !i ed a comp aint with the "abor Arbiter !or i ega dismissa . O decision rendered in !a)or o! petitioner 2- S/A appea ed to ?"+C O decision rendered in !a)or o! respondent 0- 1etitioner !i ed motion !or reconsideration O reinstated decision o! "abor Arbiter =- S/A !i ed motion !or reconsideration O decision rendered in !a)or o! respondent ,grabe ang %u itNEence, this recourse to the court by the petitioner. I !" 1

1- G#? the "abor ArbiterF?"+C has 8urisdiction to try and decide the comp aint !i ed by petitioner against the S/A( 2- G#? the termination o! the ser)ices o! petitioner is an ecc esiastica a!!air, and, as such, in)o )es the separation o! church and state( H"#$1 1- ;AS. 2- ?#. Rat+* D"c+$",$+1 7he princip e o! separation o! church and state !inds no app ication in this case. 7he rationa e o! the princip e o! the separation o! church and state is summed up in the !ami iar saying, CStrong !ences ma%e good9neighbors.C7he idea ad)ocated by this princip e is t* $"#+,"at" t8" ;*!,$a)+" ;"t>"", t8" t>* +, t+t!t+*, a,$ t8! a'*+$ ",c)*ac8:",t ;9 *," a-a+, t t8" *t8") because o! a misunderstanding o! the imits o! their respecti)e e:c usi)e 8urisdictions. 7he case at bar does not concern an ecc esiastica or pure y re igious a!!air as to bar the State !rom ta%ing cogni5ance o! the same. An ecc esiastica a!!air is Cone that concerns doctrine, creed, or !orm o! worship o! the church, or the adoption and en!orcement within a re igious association o! need!u aws and regu ations !or the go)ernment o! the membership, and the power o! e:c uding !rom such associations those deemed unworthy o! membership. A:amp es o! this so9ca ed ecc esiastica a!!aits are proceedings !or e:communication, ordinations o! re igious ministers, administration o! sacraments and other acti)ities with attached re igious signi!icance. 7he case at bar does not e)en remote y concern any o! the gi)en e:amp es. Ghat is in)o )ed here is the re ationship o! the
10 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

church as an emp oyer and the minister as an emp oyee. &t is pure y secu ar and has no re ation whatsoe)er with the practice o! !aith, worship or doctrines o! the church. 7he matter o! terminating an emp oyee, which is pure y secu ar in nature, is di!!erent !rom the ecc esiastica act o! e:pe ing a member !rom the re igious congregation. DFA VS. NLRC SEPTEMBER 17 1666 Fact 1 a comp aint !or i ega dismissa was !i ed against the Asian /e)e opment *an% ,A/*-. >pon receipt o! summons, both the A/* and /.A noti!ied the abor arbiter that the A/*, as we as its president and o!!icers, were co)ered by immunity !rom ega process e:cept !or the borrowings, guaranties or the sa e o! securities pursuant to artic e 50,1- and artic e 55 o! the agreement estab ishing the A/*. I !"1 whether the abor arbiter has 8urisdiction

H"#$1 ?o. &n Holy See v . Hon. !o ario" #r., 16 this Court has e:p ained the matter in good datai ( viz: &n 1ub ic &nternationa "aw, when a state or internationa agency wishes to p ead so)ereign or dip omatic immunity in a !oreign court, it re6uests the .oreign #!!ice o! the state where it is sued to con)ey to the court that said de!endant is entit ed to immunity. &n the >nited States, the procedure !o owed is the process o! Csuggestion,C where the !oreign state or the internationa organi5ation sued in an American court re6uests the Secretary o! State to ma%e a determination as to whether it is entit ed to immunity. &! the Secretary o! State !inds that the de!endant is immune !rom suit, he, in turn, as%s the attorney @enera to submit to the court a CsuggestionC that the de!endant is entit ed to immunity. &n Ang and, a simi ar procedure is !o owed, on y the .oreign #!!ice issues a certi!ication to the e!!ect instead o! submitting a CsuggestionC ,#HConne , &n &nternationa "aw 100 P19'5Q( ?ote: &mmunity !rom Suit o! .oreign So)ereign &nstrumenta ities and #b igations 50 ;a e "aw 4ourna 10DD P19=1Q-. &n the 1hi ippines, the practice is !or the !oreign go)ernment or the internationa organi5ation to !irst secure an e:ecuti)e endorsement o! its c aim o! so)ereign or dip omatic immunity. *ut how the 1hi ippine .oreign #!!ice con)eys its endorsement to the courts )aries. &n $nternational %atholic Migration %ommi ion v . %alle&a, 190 SC+A 100 ,1990-, the Secretary o! .oreign A!!airs 8ust sent a etter direct y to the Secretary o! "abor and Amp oyment, in!orming the atter that the respondent9emp oyer cou d not be sued because it en8oyed dip omatic immunity. &n 'orl( Health Organization v . )*uino, =D SC+A 2=2 ,1922-, the Secretary o! .oreign A!!airs sent the tria court a te egram to that e!!ect. &n +aer v . Tizon, 52 SC+A 1 ,192=-, the >.S. Ambassy as%ed the Secretary o! .oreign A!!airs to re6uest the So icitor @enera to ma%e, in beha ! o! the Commander o! the >nited States ?a)a *ase at # ongapo City, Bamba es, a CsuggestionC to respondent 4udge. 7he So icitor @enera embodied the CsuggestionC in a mani!estation and memorandum as amicu curiae.

11 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

&n the case at bench, the /epartment o! .oreign A!!airs, through the #!!ice o! "ega A!!airs mo)ed with this Court to be a owed to inter)ene on the side o! petitioner. 7he Court a owed the said /epartment to !i e its memorandum in support o! petitionerHs c aim o! so)ereign immunity. &n some cases, the de!ense o! so)ereign immunity was submitted direct y to the oca courts by the respondents through their pri)ate counse s ,+a6ui5a )s. *rad!ord, 25 1hi . 50 P19=5Q( $i6uiabas )s. 1hi ippine9+yu%yus Command, D0 1hi . 2'2 P19=DQ( >nited States o! America )s. @uinto, 1D2 SC+A '== P1990Q and companion cases-. &n cases where the !oreign states bypass the .oreign #!!ice, the courts can in 6uire into the !acts and ma%e their own determination as to the nature o! the acts and transactions in)o )ed. PNB '. CABANSAG G.R. N*. 125010. /!," 21, 2002 PANGANIBAN, /. Fact 1 &n ate 199D, . orence Cabansag arri)ed in Singapore as a tourist. She app ied !or emp oyment, with the Singapore *ranch o! the 1hi ippine ?ationa *an%, a pri)ate ban%ing corporation organi5ed and e:isting under the aws o! the 1hi ippines, with principa o!!ices at the 1?* .inancia Center, +o:as *ou e)ard, $ani a. At the time, the Singapore 1?* *ranch was under the he m o! +uben C. 7obias, a awyer, as @enera $anager, with the ran% o! Jice9 1resident o! the *an%. At the time, too, the *ranch #!!ice had 2 types o! emp oyees: ,a- e:patriates or the regu ar emp oyees, hired in $ani a and assigned abroad inc uding Singapore, and ,b- oca y ,direct- hired. She app ied !or emp oyment as *ranch Credit #!!icer, at a tota month y pac%age o! RS@=,500.00, e!!ecti)e upon assumption o! duties a!ter appro)a . +uben C. 7obias !ound her eminent y 6ua i!ied and wrote on #ctober 2', 199D, a etter to the 1resident o! the *an% in $ani a, recommending the appointment o! . orence #. Cabansag, !or the position. 7he 1resident o! the *an% was impressed with the credentia s o! . orence #. Cabansag that he appro)ed the recommendation o! +uben C. 7obias. She then !i ed an MApp ication,< with the $inistry o! $anpower o! the @o)ernment o! Singapore, !or the issuance o! an MAmp oyment 1ass< as an emp oyee o! the Singapore 1?* *ranch. Eer app ication was appro)ed !or a period o! 2 years. +uben C. 7obias wrote a etter to . orence #. Cabansag o!!ering her a temporary appointment, as Credit #!!icer, at a basic sa ary o! Singapore /o ars =,500.00, a month and, upon her success!u comp etion o! her probation to be determined so e y, by the *an%, she may be e:tended at the discretion o! the *an%, a permanent appointment and that her temporary appointment was sub8ect to the !o owing terms and conditions: 1. S;ou wi be on probation !or a period o! three ,0- consecuti)e months !rom the date o! your assumption o! duty. 2. ;ou wi obser)e the *an%<s ru es and regu ations and those that may be adopted !rom time to time. 0. ;ou wi %eep in strictest con!idence a matters re ated to transactions between the *an% and its c ients.
12 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

=. ;ou wi de)ote your !u time during business hours in promoting the business and interest o! the *an%. 5. ;ou wi not, without prior written consent o! the *an%, be emp oyed in anyway !or any purpose whatsoe)er outside business hours by any person, !irm or company. '. 7ermination o! your emp oyment with the *an% may be made by either party a!ter notice o! one ,1- day in writing during probation, one month notice upon con!irmation or the e6ui)a ent o! one ,1- day<s or month<s sa ary in ieu o! notice.K . orence #. Cabansag accepted the position and assumed o!!ice. *are y 0 months in o!!ice, . orence #. Cabansag submitted to +uben C. 7obias, on $arch 9, 1999, her initia M1er!ormance +eport.< +uben C. 7obias was so impressed with the M+eport< that he made a notation and, on said M+eport<: M@##/ G#+K.< Eowe)er, in the e)ening o! Apri 1=, 1999, whi e . orence #. Cabansag was in the ! at, which she and Ceci ia A6uino, the Assistant Jice91resident and /eputy @enera $anager o! the *ranch and +osanna Sarmiento, the Chie! /ea er o! the said *ranch, rented, she was to d by the 2 that +uben C. 7obias has as%ed them to te . orence #. Cabansag to resign !rom her 8ob. . orence #. Cabansag was perp e:ed at the sudden turn o! e)ents and the runabout way +uben C. 7obias procured her resignation !rom the *an%. 7he ne:t day, . orence #. Cabansag ta %ed to +uben C. 7obias and in6uired i! what Ceci ia A6uino and +osanna Sarmiento had to d her was true. +uben C. 7obias con!irmed the )eracity o! the in!ormation, with the e:p anation that her resignation was imperati)e as a Mcost9 cutting measure< o! the *an%. +uben C. 7obias, i%ewise, to d . orence #. Cabansag that the 1?* Singapore *ranch wi be so d or trans!ormed into a remittance o!!ice and that, in either way, . orence #. Cabansag had to resign !rom her emp oyment. 7he more . orence #. Cabansag was perp e:ed. She then as%ed +uben C. 7obias that she be !urnished with a M.orma Ad)ice< !rom the 1?* Eead #!!ice in $ani a. Eowe)er, +uben C. 7obias ! at y re!used. . orence #. Cabansag did not submit any etter o! resignation. +uben C. 7obias again summoned . orence #. Cabansag to his o!!ice and demanded that she submit her etter o! resignation, with the prete:t that he needed a Chinese9spea%ing Credit #!!icer to penetrate the oca mar%et, with the in!ormation that a Chinese9spea%ing Credit #!!icer had a ready been hired and wi be reporting !or wor% soon. She was warned that, un ess she submitted her etter o! resignation, her emp oyment record wi be b emished with the notation M/&S$&SSA/< spread thereon. Githout gi)ing any de!initi)e answer, . orence #. Cabansag as%ed +uben C. 7obias that she be gi)en su!!icient time to oo% !or another 8ob. +uben C. 7obias to d her that she shou d be Mout< o! her emp oyment by $ay 15, 1999. Eowe)er, on Apri 19, 1999, +uben C. 7obias again summoned . orence #. Cabansag and adamant y ordered her to submit her etter o! resignation. She re!used. #n Apri 20, 1999, she recei)ed a etter !rom +uben C. 7obias terminating her emp oyment with the *an%. I !" 1

10 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

1. G#? the arbitration branch o! the ?"+C in the ?ationa Capita +egion has 8urisdiction o)er the instant contro)ersy( 2. G#? the arbitration o! the ?"+C in the ?ationa Capita +egion is the most con)enient )enue or !orum to hear and decide the instant contro)ersy( and 0. G#? the respondent was i ega y dismissed, and there!ore, entit ed to reco)er mora and e:emp ary damages and attorney<s !ees H"#$1 7he 8urisdiction o! abor arbiters and the ?"+C is speci!ied in Artic e 212 o! the "abor Code as !o ows: SA+7. 212. 4urisdiction o! "abor Arbiters and the Commission. T ,a- A:cept as otherwise pro)ided under this Code the "abor Arbiters sha ha)e origina and e:c usi)e 8urisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty ,00- ca endar days a!ter the submission o! the case by the parties !or decision without e:tension, e)en in the absence o! stenographic notes, the !o owing cases in)o )ing a wor%ers, whether agricu tura or non9agricu tura : 1. >n!air abor practice cases( 2. 7ermination disputes( 0. &! accompanied with a c aim !or reinstatement, those cases that wor%ers may !i e in)o )ing wage, rates o! pay, hours o! wor% and other terms and conditions o! emp oyment =. C aims !or actua , mora , e:emp ary and other !orms o! damages arising !rom the emp oyer9emp oyee re ations( 5. Cases arising !rom any )io ation o! Artic e 2'= o! this Code, inc uding 6uestions in)o )ing the ega ity o! stri%es and oc%outs( and '. A:cept c aims !or Amp oyees Compensation, Socia Security, $edicare and maternity bene!its, a other c aims, arising !rom emp oyer9emp oyee re ations, inc uding those o! persons in domestic or househo d ser)ice, in)o )ing an amount o! e:ceeding !i)e thousand pesos ,15,000.00regard ess o! whether accompanied with a c aim !or reinstatement. ,b- 7he commission sha ha)e e:c usi)e appe ate 8urisdiction o)er a cases decided by "abor Arbiters. $ore speci!ica y, Section 10 o! +A D0=2 reads in part: SSAC7&#? 10. Money %laim . U ?otwithstanding any pro)ision o! aw to the contrary, the "abor Arbiters o! the ?ationa "abor +e ations Commission ,?"+Csha ha)e the origina and e:c usi)e 8urisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety ,90- ca endar days a!ter the !i ing o! the comp aint, the c aims arising out o! an emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship or by )irtue o! any aw or contract in)o )ing .i ipino wor%ers !or o)erseas dep oyment inc uding c aims !or actua , mora , e:emp ary and other !orms o! damages. abor arbiters c ear y ha)e original an( e,clu ive 8urisdiction o)er c aims arising !rom emp oyer9emp oyee re ations, inc uding termination (i pute in)o )ing all wor%ers, among whom are o)erseas .i ipino wor%ers ,#.G-.
1= % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

+espondent was direct y hired, whi e on a tourist status in Singapore, by the 1?* branch in that city state. 1rior to emp oying respondent, petitioner had to obtain an emp oyment pass !or her !rom the Singapore $inistry o! $anpower. Securing the pass was a regu atory re6uirement pursuant to the immigration regu ations o! that country. 7he 1hi ippine go)ernment re6uires non9.i ipinos wor%ing in the country to !irst obtain a oca wor% permit in order to be ega y emp oyed here. 7hat permit, howe)er, does not automatica y mean that the non9citi5en is thereby bound by oca aws on y, as a)erred by petitioner. &t does not at a imp y a wai)er o! one<s nationa aws on abor. Absent any c ear and con)incing e)idence to the contrary, such permit simp y means that its ho der has a ega status as a wor%er in the issuing country. a branch o!!ice in Singapore. Signi!icant y, respondent<s emp oyment by the Singapore branch o!!ice had to be appro)ed by *en8amin 1. 1a ma @i , the president o! the ban% whose principa o!!ices were in $ani a. 7his circumstance mi itates against petitioner<s contention that respondent was S oca y hiredK( and tota y Sgo)erned by and sub8ect to the aws, common practices and customsK o! Singapore, not o! the 1hi ippines. &nstead, with more reason does this !act rein!orce the presumption that respondent !a s under the ega de!inition o! migrant worker, in this case one dep oyed in Singapore. Eence, petitioner cannot escape the app ication o! 1hi ippine aws or the 8urisdiction o! the ?"+C and the abor arbiter. Ghether emp oyed oca y or o)erseas, a .i ipino wor%ers en8oy the protecti)e mant e o! 1hi ippine abor and socia egis ation, contract stipu ations to the contrary notwithstanding. 7his pronouncement is in %eeping with the basic pub ic po icy o! the State to a!!ord protection to abor, promote !u emp oyment, ensure e6ua wor% opportunities regard ess o! se:, race or creed, and regu ate the re ations between wor%ers and emp oyers. Section 1,a- o! +u e &J o! the ?"+C +u es o! 1rocedure reads: SSection 1. -enue T ,a- A cases which "abor Arbiters ha)e authority to hear and decide may be !i ed in the +egiona Arbitration *ranch ha)ing 8urisdiction o)er the wor%p ace o! the comp ainantFpetitioner( 1ro)ided, howe)er that cases o! #)erseas .i ipino Gor%er ,#.G- sha be !i ed be!ore the +egiona Arbitration *ranch where the comp ainant resides or where the principa o!!ice o! the respondentFemp oyer is situated, at the option o! the comp ainant. S.or purposes o! )enue, wor%p ace sha be understood as the p ace or oca ity where the emp oyee is regu ar y assigned when the cause o! action arose. &t sha inc ude the p ace where the emp oyee is supposed to report bac% a!ter a temporary detai , assignment or tra)e . &n the case o! !ie d emp oyees, as we as ambu ant or itinerant wor%ers, their wor%p ace is where they are regu ar y assigned, or where they are supposed to regu ar y recei)e their sa ariesFwages

15 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

or wor% instructions !rom, and report the resu ts o! their assignment to their emp oyers.K >nder the S$igrant Gor%ers and #)erseas .i ipinos Act o! 1995K ,+A D0=2-, a migrant worker Kre!ers to a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in a remunerated acti)ity in a state o! which he or she is not a ega resident( to be used interchangeab y with o)erseas .i ipino wor%er.K >ndeniab y, respondent was emp oyed by petitioner in its branch o!!ice in Singapore. Admitted y, she is a .i ipino and not a ega resident o! that state. She thus !a s within the category o! Smigrant wor%erK or So)erseas .i ipino wor%er.K As such, it is her option to choose the )enue o! her Comp aint against petitioner !or i ega dismissa . 7he aw gi)es her two choices: ,1- at the +egiona Arbitration *ranch ,+A*- where she resides or ,2- at the +A* where the principa o!!ice o! her emp oyer is situated. Since her dismissa by petitioner, respondent has returned to the 1hi ippines 99 speci!ica y to her residence at .i in)est &&, Vue5on City. 7hus, in !i ing her Comp aint be!ore the +A* o!!ice in Vue5on City, she has made a )a id choice o! proper )enue. +espondent was a ready a regu ar emp oyee at the time o! her dismissa , because her three9month probationary period o! emp oyment had a ready ended. 7his ru ing is in accordance with Artic e 2D1 o! the "abor Code: SAn emp oyee who is a owed to wor% a!ter a probationary period sha be considered a regu ar emp oyee.K &ndeed, petitioner recogni5ed respondent as such at the time it dismissed her, by gi)ing her one month<s sa ary in ieu o! a one9month notice, consistent with pro)ision ?o. ' o! her emp oyment Contract. As a regu ar emp oyee, respondent was entit ed to a rights, bene!its and pri)i eges pro)ided under our abor aws. #ne o! her !undamenta rights is that she may not be dismissed without due process o! aw. 7he twin re6uirements o! notice and hearing constitute the essentia e ements o! procedura due process, and neither o! these e ements can be e iminated without running a!ou o! the constitutiona guarantee. &n dismissing emp oyees, the emp oyer must !urnish them two written notices: 1- one to apprise them o! the particu ar acts or omissions !or which their dismissa is sought( and 2- the other to in!orm them o! the decision to dismiss them. As to the re6uirement o! a hearing, its essence ies simp y in the opportunity to be heard. +espondent was not noti!ied o! the speci!ic act or omission !or which her dismissa was being sought. ?either was she gi)en any chance to be heard, as re6uired by aw. At any rate, e)en i! she were gi)en the opportunity to be heard, she cou d not ha)e de!ended herse ! e!!ecti)e y, !or she %new no cause to answer to. A that petitioner tendered to respondent was a notice o! her emp oyment termination e!!ecti)e the )ery same day, together with the e6ui)a ent o! a one9month pay. 7his Court has a ready he d that nothing in the

1' % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

aw gi)es an emp oyer the option to substitute the re6uired prior notice and opportunity to be heard with the mere payment o! 00 days< sa ary. 7he emp oyer sha be sanctioned !or noncomp iance with the re6uirements o!, or !or !ai ure to obser)e, due process that must be obser)ed in dismissing an emp oyee. $oreo)er, Artic es 2D2, 2D0 and 2D= o! the "abor Code pro)ide the )a id grounds or causes !or an emp oyee<s dismissa . 7he emp oyer has the burden o! pro)ing that it was done !or any o! those 8ust or authori5ed causes. 7he !ai ure to discharge this burden means that the dismissa was not 8usti!ied, and that the emp oyee is entit ed to reinstatement and bac% wages. 1etitioner has not asserted any o! the grounds pro)ided by aw as a )a id reason !or terminating the emp oyment o! respondent. &t mere y insists that her dismissa was )a id y e!!ected pursuant to the pro)isions o! her emp oyment Contract, which she had )o untari y agreed to be bound to. BANE& VS. VALDEVILLA MAY 6, 2000 Fact 1 1etitioner was the sa es operations manager o! pri)ate respondent in its branch in & igan City. &n 1990, pri)ate respondent Cinde!inite y suspendedC petitioner and the atter !i ed a comp aint !or i ega dismissa with the ?ationa "abor +e ations Commission ,C?"+CC- in & igan City. &n a decision dated 4u y 2, 199=, "abor Arbiter ?icodemus @. 1a angan !ound petitioner to ha)e been i ega y dismissed and ordered the payment o! separation pay in ieu o! reinstatement, and o! bac%wages and attorneyHs !ees. #n ?o)ember 10, 1995, pri)ate respondent !i ed a comp aint !or damages be!ore the +egiona 7ria Court. #n 4anuary 00, 199', petitioner !i ed a motion to dismiss the abo)e comp aint. Ee interposed in the court be ow that the action !or damages, ha)ing arisen !rom an emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship, was s6uare y under the e:c usi)e origina 8urisdiction o! the ?"+C under Artic e 212,a-, paragraph = o! the "abor Code and is barred by reason o! the !ina 8udgment in the abor case. I !"1 Ghether +7C has 4urisdiction

H"#$1 ?#. Art. 212,a-, paragraph = o! the "abor Code, which was a ready in e!!ect at the time o! the !i ing o! this case, reads: Art. 212. #uri (iction o. /a0or )r0iter an( the %ommi ion. U ,a- A:cept as otherwise pro)ided under this Code the "abor Arbiters sha ha)e origina and e:c usi)e 8urisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty ,00- ca endar days a!ter the submission o! the case by the parties !or decision without e:tension, e)en in the absence o! stenographic notes, the !o owing cases in)o )ing a wor%ers, whether agricu tura or non9

12 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

agricu tura : =. C aims !or actua , mora , e:emp ary and other !orms o! damages arising !rom the emp oyer9emp oyee re ations( SANTOS VS. SERVIER PHILIPPINES NOVEMBER 27, 2007 Fact 1 emp oyee !i ed a comp aint ,money c aim- !or incomp ete retirement bene!it and a ta: was deducted !rom the retirement pac%age. I !"1 whether the ?"+C can decide on the ega ity o! deduction

H"#$1 ;AS. 7he issue o! deduction !or ta: purposes is intertwined with the main issue o! whether or not petitioner<s bene!its ha)e been !u y gi)en her. &t is, there!ore, a money c aim arising !rom the emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship, which c ear y !a s within the 8urisdiction o! the "abor Arbiter and the ?"+C. 7his is not the !irst time that the abor tribuna is !aced with the issue o! i ega deduction. &n $ntercontinental +roa(ca ting %orporation ($+%) v. )marilla, &*C withhe d the sa ary di!!erentia s due its retired emp oyees to o!!set the ta: due on their retirement bene!its. 7he retirees thus odged a comp aint with the ?"+C 6uestioning said withho ding. 7hey a)erred that their retirement bene!its were e:empt !rom income ta:( and &*C had no authority to withho d their sa ary di!!erentia s. 7he "abor Arbiter too% cogni5ance o! the case, and this Court made a de!initi)e ru ing that retirement bene!its are e:empt !rom income ta:, pro)ided that certain re6uirements are met. PEPSI COLA DISTRIBUTOR PHILS VS. GALANG SEPTEMBER 20, 1661 Fact 1 7he pri)ate respondents were emp oyees o! the petitioner who were suspected o! comp icity in the irregu ar disposition o! empty 1epsi Co a bott es. #n 4u y 1', 19D2, the petitioners !i ed a crimina comp aint !or the!t against them but this was ater withdrawn and substituted with a crimina comp aint !or !a si!ication o! pri)ate documents. #n ?o)ember 2', 19D2, a!ter a pre iminary in)estigation conducted by the $unicipa 7ria Court o! 7anauan, "eyte, the comp aint was dismissed. 7he dismissa was a!!irmed on Apri D, 19DD, by the #!!ice o! the 1ro)incia 1rosecutor. $eantime, a eged y a!ter an administrati)e in)estigation, the pri)ate respondents were dismissed by the petitioner company on ?o)ember 20, 19D2. As a resu t, they odged a comp aint !or i ega dismissa with the +egiona Arbitration *ranch o! the ?"+C in 7ac oban City on /ecember 1, 19D2, and decisions manded reinstatement with damages. &n addition, they instituted in the +egiona 7ria Court o! "eyte, on Apri =, 19DD, a separate ci)i comp aint against the petitioners !or damages arising !rom what they c aimed to be their ma icious prosecution. 7he petitioners mo)ed to dismiss the ci)i comp aint on the ground that the tria court had no 8urisdiction o)er the case because it in)o )ed emp oyee9emp oyer re ations that were e:c usi)e y cogni5ab e by the abor arbiter. 7he motion was
1D % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

granted on .ebruary ', 19D9. #n 4u y ', 19D9, howe)er, the respondent 8udge, acting on the motion !or reconsideration, reinstated the comp aint, saying it was Cdistinct !rom the abor case !or damages now pending be!ore the abor courts.C 7he petitioners then came to this Court !or re ie!. I !"1 whether +7C has 8urisdiction H"#$1 ;AS. &t does not appear that there is a Creasonab e causa connectionC between the comp aint and the re ations o! the parties as emp oyer and emp oyees. 7he comp aint did not arise !rom such re ations and in !act cou d ha)e arisen independent y o! an emp oyment re ationship between the parties. ?o such re ationship or any un!air abor practice is asserted. Ghat the emp oyees are a eging is that the petitioners acted with bad !aith when they !i ed the crimina comp aint which the $unicipa 7ria Court said was intended Cto harass the poor emp oyeesC and the dismissa o! which was a!!irmed by the 1ro)incia 1rosecutor C!or ac% o! e)idence to estab ish e)en a s ightest probabi ity that a the respondents herein ha)e committed the crime imputed against them.C 7his is a matter which the abor arbiter has no competence to reso )e as the app icab e aw is not the "abor Code but the +e)ised 1ena Code. C7a ents di!!er, a is we and wise y put,C so obser)ed the phi osopher9poet. So it must be in the case we here decide. ARTICLE 217 LAND BAN4 OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SEVERINO LISTANA, RESPONDENT. G.R. N*. 167102, /!#9 25, 2011 Fact 1 "istana is the owner o! a property ocated in Sorsogon. 7he and was )o untari y o!!ered !or sa e to the go)ernment under the Comprehensi)e Agrarian +e!orm 1rogram. ,"*1- )a ued the property !or ac6uisition at 15,D21,'D9.00. Since the respondent re8ected the said amount, a summary proceeding !or determination o! 8ust compensation was conducted by ,/A+-. "istana e:ecuted a deed o! trans!er upon acceptance o! payment !rom the go)ernment in the !orm o! cash and "*1 bonds worth 10.2$. /A+ issued a decision dec aring the )a ue o! the property worth 110$. A!ter a year "*1 !i ed a petition !or 8udicia dec aration o! 8ust compensation be!ore the +7C contending that the )a uation was unacceptab e. "istana !i ed a motion to dismiss contending that the contract was binding and there!ore constitutes res 8udicata citing a so a pending case against "*1 !or contempt. A motion !or reconsideration as we as the appea by the "*1 was denied. "*1 !i ed a app ication !or writ o! pre iminary in8uction against the o! their manager which was ater granted by the +7C. "istana !i ed a petition !or certiorari be!ore CA which nu i!ies the decision o! the +7C. 7he tria court issued the order granting respondentHs motion !or reconsideration and dismissing the petition !or ha)ing been !i ed a most one year !rom receipt o! the copy o! the 1A+A/Hs decision. A motion !or reconsideration was denied. I !"1 whether or not the SAC may ta%e cogni5ance o! the petition !or determination o! 8ust compensation which is !i ed beyond the prescribed 159day

19 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

period or more than 100 days a!ter the 1A+A/ rendered its )a uation in a summary administrati)e proceeding. R!#+,-1 7he )a uation o! property in e:propriation cases pursuant to +.A. ?o. ''52 or the Comprehensi)e Agrarian +e!orm "aw, is essentia y a 8udicia !unction which is )ested in the +7C acting as Specia Agrarian Court and cannot be odged with administrati)e agencies such as the /A+. Conse6uent y, a though the new ru es spea% o! direct y appea ing the decision o! ad8udicators to the +7Cs sitting as Specia Agrarian Courts, it is c ear !rom W52 that the original and e,clu ive 8urisdiction to determine such cases is in the +7Cs. Any e!!ort to trans!er such 8urisdiction to the ad8udicators and to con)ert the origina 8urisdiction o! the +7Cs into appe ate 8urisdiction wou d be contrary to W52 and there!ore wou d be )oid. 7he 8urisdiction o! the +egiona 7ria Courts is not any ess Corigina and e:c usi)eC because the 6uestion is !irst passed upon by the /A+, as the 8udicia proceedings are not a continuation o! the administrati)e determination. #n the supposed y con! icting pronouncements in the cited decisions, the Court reiterates its ru ing in this case that the agrarian re!orm ad8udicatorHs decision on and )a uation attains !ina ity a!ter the apse o! the 159day period stated in the /A+A* +u es. 7he petition !or the !i:ing o! 8ust compensation shou d there!ore, !o owing the aw and sett ed 8urisprudence, be !i ed with the SAC within the said period. 1etitioner c ear y s ept on its rights by not !i ing the petition in the SAC within the prescribed !i!teen9day period or a reasonab e time a!ter notice o! the denia o! its motion !or reconsideration. &t is a !undamenta ega princip e that a decision that has ac6uired !ina ity becomes immutab e and una terab e, and may no onger be modi!ied in any respect, e)en i! the modi!ication is meant to correct erroneous conc usions o! !act and aw, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court o! the and. 7he on y e:ceptions to the genera ru e on !ina ity o! 8udgments are the so9ca ed nunc pro tunc entries which cause no pre8udice to any party, )oid 8udgments, and whene)er circumstances transpire a!ter the !ina ity o! the decision which render its e:ecution un8ust and ine6uitab e. &ndeed, itigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, e)en at the ris% o! occasiona errors.

ARTICLE 221
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ' . /AN CARLO GALA G.R. N* . 161277 ? 161@00 Ma)c8 5, 2012

20 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

Fact 1 @a a was emp oyed by $era co as probationary ineman. Ee initia y ser)ed the crew o! two truc%s under the super)ision o! by $atis and Buniaga respecti)e y. #n 4u y 22, 200', bare y !our months on the 8ob, @a a was dismissed !or a eged comp icity in pi !erages o! $era co<s e ectrica supp ies, particu ar y, !or the incident which too% p ace on $ay 25, 200'. #n that day @a a was assigned to he p digging !or a post in Je en5ue a. Ghen they came in to the )icinity they !ound out that the team o! Ja en5ue a was a ready there so they decided to he p. @a a noticed a non9emp oyee named " anes who con)ersing with the !oreman. " anes boarded the truc%s, without being stopped, and too% out what were ater !ound as e ectrica supp ies. Aside !rom @a a, the !oremen and the other inemen who were at the wor%site when the pi !erage happened were ater charged with misconduct and dishonesty !or their in)o )ement in the incident. >n%nown to @a a and the rest o! the crew, a $era co sur)ei ance tas% !orce was monitoring their acti)ities and recording e)erything with a Sony )ideo camera. $era co ca ed !or an in)estigation o! the incident and as%ed @a a to e:p ain. @a a denied in)o )ement in the pi !erage, contending that e)en i! his superiors might ha)e committed a wrongdoing, he had no participation in what they did. /espite @a a<s e:p anation, $era co proceeded with the in)estigation and e)entua y terminated his emp oyment on 4u y 22, 200'. @a a responded by !i ing an i ega dismissa comp aint against $era co. 7he comp aint was dismissed by the abor arbiter. ?"+C re)ersed the decision o! the "A upon appea but it ru ed out @a a<s reinstatement, stating that his tenure asted on y up to the end o! his probationary period. &t awarded him bac%wages and attorney<s !ees. *oth parties mo)ed !or partia reconsideration but the same was denied. *oth parties !i ed a petition !or certiorari be!ore CA ru ing !or the reinstatement o! @a a and denying the petition o! $era co, hence, this present. @a a contended that the petition shou d be dismissed because o! procedura de!ect in the )eri!ication and certi!ication and that the counse o! $era co !ai ed to indicate his $C"A comp iance number. I !"1 Ghether or not the petition shou d be dismissed due to procedura de!ect

R!#+,-1 ?#. Ge stress at this point that it is the spirit and intention o! abor egis ation that the ?"+C and the abor arbiters sha use e)ery reasonab e means to ascertain the !acts in each case speedi y and ob8ecti)e y, without regard to technica ities o! aw or procedure, pro)ided due process is du y obser)ed.19 &n %eeping with this po icy and in the interest o! substantia 8ustice, we deem it proper to gi)e due course to the petition, especia y in )iew o! the con! ict between the !indings o! the abor arbiter, on the one hand, and the ?"+C and the CA, on the other. As we said in S.S. Jentures &nternationa , &nc. ). S.S. Jentures "abor >nion,20 Cthe app ication o! technica ru es o! procedure in abor cases may be re a:ed to ser)e the demands o! substantia 8ustice.C

21 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

NATION3IDE SECURITY a,$ ALLIED SERVICES, INC., ' . THE COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION a,$ /OSEPH DIMPA&, HIPOLITO LOPE&, ED3ARD ODATO, FELICISIMO PABON a,$ /OHNNY AGBAY, G.R. N*. 122700 /!#9 10, 2007 Fact 1 D security guards !i ed a comp aint !or i ega dismissa against ?SAS be!ore the "A. "A ru ed that ?SAS was not iab e !or the dismissa o! the security guards but it was ordered to pay their separation !ees, unpaid sa aries and attorney<s !ees. ?SAS appea ed be!ore the ?"+C but it was denied !or !i ing beyond the reg amentary period and insu!!iciency o! bond. A petition !or certiorari under ru e '5 to CA was a so denied !or the said errors assigned were not re)ersib e. I !"1 GEA7EA+ #+ ?#7 7ACE?&CA"&7&AS &? "A*#+ CASAS $>S7 1+AJA&" #JA+ 7EA S1&+&7 A?/ &?7A?7&#? #. 7EA "A*#+ C#/A >?/A+ A+7&C"A 221 R!#+,-1 ;es. At the outset it must be pointed out here that the petition !or certiorari !i ed with the Court by petitioner under +u e '5 o! the +u es o! Court is inappropriate. 7he proper remedy is a petition !or re)iew under +u e =5 pure y on 6uestions o! aw. 7here being a remedy o! appea )ia petition !or re)iew under +u e =5 o! the +u es o! Court a)ai ab e to the petitioner, the !i ing o! a petition !or certiorari under +u e '5 is improper. *ut e)en i! we bend our +u es to a ow the present petition !or certiorari, sti it wi not prosper because we do not !ind any gra)e abuse o! discretion amounting to ac% o! or e:cess o! 8urisdiction on the part o! the Court o! Appea s when it dismissed the petition o! the security agency. Ge must stress that under +u e '5, the abuse o! discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an e)asion o! positi)e duty or to a )irtua re!usa to per!orm a duty en8oined by aw, or to act at a in contemp ation o! aw, as where the power is e:ercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason o! passion or persona hosti ity. ?o such abuse o! discretion happened here. 7he assai ed decision by the Court o! Appea s was certain y not capricious nor arbitrary, nor was it a whimsica e:ercise o! 8udgment amounting to a ac% o! 8urisdiction. .ai ure to per!ect an appea renders the decision !ina and e:ecutory. 7he right to appea is a statutory right and one who see%s to a)ai o! the right must comp y with the statute or the ru es. 7he ru es, particu ar y the re6uirements !or per!ecting an appea within the reg ementary period speci!ied in the aw, must be strict y !o owed as they are considered indispensab e interdictions against need ess de ays and !or the order y discharge o! 8udicia business. &t is on y in high y meritorious cases that this Court wi opt not to strict y app y the ru es and thus pre)ent a gra)e in8ustice !rom being done. 7he e:ception does not obtain here. 7hus, we are in agreement that the decision o! the "abor Arbiter a ready became !ina and e:ecutory because petitioner !ai ed to !i e the appea within 10 ca endar days !rom receipt o! the decision.

ARTICLE 22@ APPEAL


22 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS


ISLRI& TRADING VS. CAPADA ET AL /ANUARY @1, 2011

2012

Fact : +espondents A!ren Capada, "auro "icup, ?orberto ?igos and @odo!redo $agnaye were dri)ers whi e respondents +onnie Abe , Arne Siberre, Admundo Capada, ?omer ito $agnaye and A berto /e a Jega were he pers o! &s ri5 7rading, a gra)e and sand business owned and operated by petitioner Jictor Eugo "u. C aiming that they were i ega y dismissed, respondents !i ed a Comp aint !or i ega dismissa and non9payment o! o)ertime pay, ho iday pay, rest day pay, a owances and separation pay against petitioner on August 9, 2000 be!ore the "abor Arbiter. #n his part, petitioner imputed abandonment o! wor% against respondents. 7he abor arbiter ru ed in !a)or o! the respondents but was re)ersed be!ore the ?"+C. 1etitioner did not pay the 8udgment monetary award to the respondents pending appea o! the case to the ?"+C. 1etitioner now contends that since the 8udgment was re)ersed, it has no ob igation to pay anymore the monetary award by the abor arbiter I !": whether respondents may co ect their wages during the period between the "abor ArbiterHs order o! reinstatement pending appea and the ?"+C +eso ution o)erturning that o! the "abor Arbiter. H"#$: ;es. paragraph 0 o! Artic e 220 o! the "abor Code which reads: &n any e)ent, the decision o! the "abor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated emp oyee, inso!ar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, sha immediate y be e:ecutory, pending appea . 7he emp oyee sha either be admitted bac% to wor% under the same terms and conditions pre)ai ing prior to his dismissa or separation or, at the option o! the emp oyer, mere y reinstated in the payro . 7he posting o! a bond by the emp oyer sha not stay the e:ecution !or reinstatement pro)ided herein. A)en i! the order o! reinstatement o! the "abor Arbiter is re)ersed on appea , it is ob igatory on the part o! the emp oyer to reinstate and pay the wages o! the dismissed emp oyee during the period o! appea unti re)ersa by the higher court. #n the other hand, i! the emp oyee has been reinstated during the appea period and such reinstatement order is re)ersed with !ina ity, the emp oyee is notre6uired to reimburse whate)er sa ary he recei)ed !or he is entit ed to such, more so i! he actua y rendered ser)ices during the period. GARCIA VS. 4/ COMMERCIAL FEBRUARY 26, 2012 Fact : +espondent K4 Commercia is a so e proprietorship. &t owns truc%s and engages in the business o! distributing cement products. #n di!!erent dates, K4 Commercia emp oyed as truc% dri)ers and truc% he pers petitioners Cesar J. @arcia, Car os +a5on, A berto /e @u5man, 7omas +a5on, #mer A. 1a o, +i5a de Ja encia,A an *asa, 4essie @arcia, 4uanito 1aras, A e8andro #rag, +omme 1angan, +ue So iman, and Cenen Can apan . #n 2 4anuary 200', petitioners demanded !or a 1=0 dai y sa ary increase. 7o pressure K4 Commercia to grant their demand, they stopped wor%ing and abandoned their
20 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

truc%s at the ?orthern Cement 1 ant Station in Sison, 1angasinan. 7hey a so b oc%ed other wor%ers !rom reporting to wor%. #n 0 .ebruary 200', petitioners !i ed with the "abor Arbiter a comp aint !or i ega dismissa , underpayment o! sa ary and non9payment o! ser)ice incenti)e ea)e and thirteenth month pay. 7he abor arbiter ru ed in !a)our o! the petitioners. #n appea the ?"+C initia y denied K4<s appea with motion to reduce the bond and presenting a partia bond o! 1E1 50,000 howe)er it was ater on granted a!ter K4 !i ed a motion o! reconsideration and presented to the tota amount !or the bond ,2,'12,900.00-. petitioner now contends that the ?"+C committed gra)e abuse o! discretion in a owing the appea . 1etitioners c aim that K4 Commercia !ai ed to per!ect an appea since the motion to reduce bond did not stop the running o! the period to appea . I !": whetherthe "abor Arbiter<s 00 #ctober 200D /ecision became !ina and e:ecutory( H"#$: ?o. K4 Commercia <s !i ing o! a motion to reduce bond and de ayed posting o! the 12,5'2,900 surety bond did not render the "abor Arbiter<s 00 #ctober 200D /ecision !ina and e:ecutory. 7he +u es o! 1rocedure o! the ?"+C a ows the !i ing o! a motion to reduce bond sub8ect to two conditions: ,1- there is meritorious ground, and ,2- a bond in a reasonab e amount is posted. &n Ong v. %ourt o. )ppeal , the Court he d that the bond re6uirement on appea s may be re a:ed when there is substantia comp iance with the +u es o! 1rocedure o! the ?"+C or when the appe ant shows wi ingness to post a partia bond. 7he Court he d that, SGhi e the bond re6uirement on appea s in)o )ing monetary awards has been re a:ed in certain cases, this can on y be done where there was substantia comp iance o! the +u es or where the appe ants, at the )ery east, e:hibited wi ingness to pay by posting a partia bond.K ONG VS. CA SEPTEMBER 22, 2000 Fact : 1etitioner is the so e proprietor o! $i estone $eta $anu!acturing ,$i estone-, which manu!actures, among others, wearing appare s, be ts, and umbre as.0 Sometime in $ay 199D, the business su!!ered )ery ow sa es and producti)ity because o! the economic crisis in the country. Eence, it adopted a rotation scheme by reducing the wor%days o! its emp oyees to three days a wee% or ess !or an inde!inite period.#n separate dates, the 15 respondents !i ed be!ore the ?ationa "abor +e ations Commission ,?"+C- comp aints !or i ega dismissa , underpayment o! wages, non9payment o! o)ertime pay, ho iday pay, ser)ice incenti)e ea)e pay, 10th month pay, damages, and attorney<s !ees against petitioner. 7hese were conso idated and assigned to "abor Arbiter $anue $anasa a. 7he "abor arbiter ru ed in !a)or o! respondents, 1etitioner !i ed with the ?"+C a notice o! appea with a memorandum o! appea and paid the doc%et !ees there!or. Eowe)er, instead o! posting the re6uired cash or surety bond, he !i ed a motion to reduce the appea bond. 7he ?"+C, in a reso ution dated Apri 2D, 2000, denied the motion to reduce bond and dismissed the appea !or !ai ure to post cash or surety bond within the reg ementary period.2 1etitioner<s motion !or reconsideration was i%ewise
2= % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

denied. 1etitioner contends that the bond re6uired ,11,=22,D02,0=- was un8ust and prohibiti)e !urthermore he !au ts the ?"+C because it too% 102 days to reso )e his motion I !": whether 7EA /AC&S&#? #. 7EA ?"+C /&S$&SS&?@ 7EA A11AA" #. 1A7&7&#?A+S .#+ ?#?91A+.AC7&#? GEA? A $#7&#? 7# +A/>CA A11AA" *#?/ GAS SAAS#?A*"; .&"A/ was )a id. H"#$: ;es. 7ime and again it has been he d that the right to appea is not a natura right or a part o! due process, it is mere y a statutory pri)i ege, and may be e:ercised on y in the manner and in accordance with the pro)isions o! aw. 7he party who see%s to a)ai o! the same must comp y with the re6uirements o! the ru es. .ai ing to do so, the right to appea is ost. +iogeneric Marketing an( !e earch %orporation v. 1/!%, 7he mandatory !i ing o! a bond !or the per!ection o! an appea is e)ident !rom the a!ore6uoted pro)ision that the appea may be per!ected on y upon the posting o! cash or surety bond. &t is not an e:cuse that the o)er 12 mi ion award is too much !or a sma business enterprise, i%e the petitioner company, to shou der.7he aw does not re6uire its outright payment, but on y the posting o! a bond to ensure that the award wi be e)entua y paid shou d the appea !ai . Ghat petitioners ha)e to pay is a moderate and reasonab e sum !or the premium !or such bond. Ghi e the bond re6uirement on appea s in)o )ing monetary awards has been re a:ed in certain cases, this can on y be done where there was substantia comp iance o! the +u es or where the appe ants, at the )ery east, e:hibited wi ingness to pay by posting a partia bond. 22 1etitioner<s re iance on the case o! !o ewoo( 2roce ing" $nc. v. 1/!%20 is misp aced. 1etitioner in the said case substantia y comp ied with the ru es by posting a partia surety bond o! !i!ty thousand pesos issued by 1rudentia @uarantee and Assurance, &nc. whi e his motion to reduce appea bond was pending be!ore the ?"+C. ROSE3OOD PROCESSING VS. NLRC Fact : a comp aint !or i ega dismissa ( underpayment o! wages( and !or nonpayment o! o)ertime pay, ega ho iday pay, premium pay !or ho iday and rest day, thirteenth month pay, cash bond deposit, unpaid wages and damages was !i ed against Jeterans 1hi ippine Scout Security Agency andFor Sergio 4ami a &J. 7herea!ter, petitioner was imp eaded as a third9party respondent by the security agency. 7he appea !i ed by petitioner was dismissed by the ?ationa "abor +e ations Commission !or !ai ure o! the petitioner to !i e the re6uired appea bond within the reg ementary period. &n its motion !or reconsideration, petitioner contended that it recei)ed a copy o! the abor arbiterHs /ecision on y on Apri ', 1990, and that it !i ed on Apri 1', 1990 within the prescribed time a ?otice o! Appea with a $emorandum on Appea , a $otion to +educe Appea *ond and a surety bond issued by 1rudentia @uarantee and Assurance, &nc. in the amount o! 150,000. I !": whether there was Substantia +e6uirement despite being insu!!icient Comp iance with the Appea *ond

25 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

H"#$: ;es. 7he per!ection o! an appea within the reg ementary period and in the manner prescribed by aw is 8urisdictiona , and noncomp iance with such ega re6uirement is !ata and e!!ecti)e y renders the 8udgment !ina and e:ecutory. &ndisputab e is the ega doctrine that the appea o! a decision in)o )ing a monetary award in abor cases may be per!ected Con y upon the posting o! a cash or surety bond.C 10 7he awma%ers intended the posting o! the bond to be an indispensab e re6uirement to per!ect an emp oyerHs appea . Eowe)er, in a number o! cases, this Court has re a:ed this re6uirement in order to bring about the immediate and appropriate reso ution o! contro)ersies on the merits. 12 Some o! these cases inc ude: C,a- counse Hs re iance on the !ootnote o! the notice o! the decision o! the abor arbiter that the aggrie)ed party may appea . . . within ten ,10- wor%ing days( ,b- !undamenta consideration o! substantia 8ustice( ,c- pre)ention o! miscarriage o! 8ustice or o! un8ust enrichment, as where the tardy appea is !rom a decision granting separation pay which was a ready granted in an ear ier !ina decision( and ,d- specia circumstances o! the case combined with its ega merits or the amount and the issue in)o )ed.C 1@ FSFI ' NLRC DECEMBER 11, 200@ Fact : that a comp aint !or i ega dismissa and monetary c aims !or ser)ice incenti)e ea)e, 10th month pay and night shi!t di!!erentia was !i ed by respondents against petitioners be!ore the ?"+C 7he comp aint was assigned to "abor Arbiter /onato @. Vuinto, 4r. who ordered the parties to !i e their position paper. +espondents comp ied, but not the petitioners despite se)era warnings and time e:tensions. 7he inaction was construed as a wai)er by petitioners o! their right to present e)idence. 7he "abor Arbiter decided the comp aint on the merit and ru ed in !a)or o! respondents. Ee sustained their c aim o! i ega dismissa as petitioners !ai ed to adduce contrary e)idence. 1etitioners were ordered to reinstate respondents. 7he monetary c aims o! the respondents were i%ewise granted. 1etitioners appea ed to the ?ationa "abor +e ations Commission. .or the !irst time, they submitted e)idence that respondents were pro8ect emp oyees and that their dismissa was due to the discontinuation o! the 4a%a 7ower & pro8ect where they were assigned. +espondents, howe)er, assai ed the 8urisdiction o! the ?"+C o)er the appea !or !ai ure o! the petitioners to !i e the appea bond within the ten ,10-9day reg ementary period. 7hey !urther contended that it was too ate !or petitioners to present e)idence in the ?"+C. 7he ?"+C ne)erthe ess assumed 8urisdiction o)er the appea . /ue to the e)idence presented by petitioners on the issue o! i ega dismissa , it remanded the case to the "abor Arbiter !or !urther proceedings. +espondents motion !or reconsideration was denied.

2' % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

I !": Ghether the ?"+C committed a gra)e abuse o! discretion in assuming 8urisdiction and remanding the case to the abor arbiter H"#$: ;es. 7he "abor Code pro)ides a ten ,10-9day period !rom receipt o! the decision o! the Arbiter !or the !i ing o! an appea together with an appea bond i! the decision in)o )es a monetary award in !a)or o! the emp oyees, viz: ART. 22@. Appea . /ecisions, awards, or orders o! the "abor Arbiter are !ina and e:ecutory un ess appea ed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten ,10- ca endar days !rom receipt o! such decisions, awards, or orders. &n case o! a 8udgment in)o )ing a monetary award, an appea by the emp oyer may be .")A"ct"$ *,#9 upon the posting o! a cash or surety bond issued by a reputab e bonding company du y accredited by the Commission in the amount e6ui)a ent to the monetary award in the 8udgment appea ed !rom. &n the case at bar, petitioners a eged that they recei)ed a copy o! the Arbiters decision on #ctober 01, 199D. 7heir memorandum o! appea was dated ?o)ember 9, 199D, but their appea bond to stay e:ecution o! the decision was e:ecuted on y on ?o)ember 12, 199D. 7he records show no partia payment o! the bond was made during the reg ementary period nor was there any e:p anation !or its ate !i ing. @i)en these !acts, the ate !i ing o! the bond di)ested the ?"+C o! its 8urisdiction to entertain petitioners appea .

BUENABORA VS. LIM 4ING GUAN /ANUARY 20, 2000 Fact 1 1etitioners were emp oyees o! pri)ate respondent >ni: &nternationa A:port Corporation ,>?&X-, a corporation engaged in the business o! manu!acturing bags, wa ets and the i%e.Sometime in 1991 and 1992, petitioners !i ed se)era cases against >?&X and its incorporators and o!!icers !or un!air abor practice, i ega oc%outFdismissa , underpayment o! wages, ho iday pay, proportionate 10th month pay, unpaid wages, interest, mora and e:emp ary damages and attorney<s !ees. 7he abor arbiter ru ed in !a)or o! the petitioners and the 8udgment become !ina and e:ecutory. 1etitioner contends that >?&X in order to a)oid 8udgment incorporated another entity ca ed .>4& which is composed o! same owners. 1etitioner !i ed another case against .>4& and won. 1ri)ate respondents .>4&, its o!!icers and stoc%ho ders !i ed a memorandum on appea and a motion to dispense with the posting o! a cash or surety appea bond on the ground that they were not the emp oyers o! petitioners. 7hey a eged that they cou d not be he d responsib e !or petitioners<
22 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

c aims and to re6uire them to post the bond wou d be un8ust and un!air, and not sanctioned by aw. ?"+C denied .>4&<s motion howe)er on respondents second motion !or reconsideration, the ?"+C a owed them to !i e the bond which the petitioner assai s being a ready !i ed out o! time. I !"1 whether the ?"+C acted without or in e:cess o! its 8urisdiction and with gra)e abuse o! discretion when it a owed the posting o! respondent<s bond H"#$: ?o. 7he pro)ision o! Artic e 220 o! the "abor Code re6uiring the posting o! bond on appea s in)o )ing monetary awards must be gi)en ibera interpretation in ine with the desired ob8ecti)e o! reso )ing contro)ersies on the merits. 0 &! on y to achie)e substantia 8ustice, strict obser)ance o! the reg ementary periods may be re a:ed i! warranted. 7he ?"+C, 7hird /i)ision cou d not be said to ha)e abused its discretion in re6uiring the posting o! bond a!ter it denied pri)ate respondents< motion to be e:empted there!rom. &t is true that the per!ection o! an appea in the manner and within the period prescribed by aw is not on y mandatory but 8urisdictiona , and !ai ure to per!ect an appea has the e!!ect o! ma%ing the 8udgment !ina and e:ecutory. Eowe)er, technica ity shou d not be a owed to stand in the way o! e6uitab y and comp ete y reso )ing the rights and ob igations o! the parties. = Ge ha)e a owed appea s !rom the decisions o! the abor arbiter to the ?"+C, e)en i! !i ed beyond the reg ementary period, in the interest o! 8ustice. 7he !acts and circumstances o! the instant case warrant ibera ity considering the amount in)o )ed and the !act that petitioners a ready obtained a !a)orab e 8udgment on .ebruary 20, 1990 against their emp oyer >?&X.

REINSTATEMENT ASPECT OF LABOR ARBITERBS DECISION


PIONEER TEXTURI&ING COPR ' . NLRC Fact 1 1ri)ate respondent "ourdes A. de 4esus is petitionersH re)iserFtrimmer since 19D0. As re)iserFtrimmer, de 4esus based her assigned wor% on a paper note posted by petitioners. 7he posted paper which contains the corresponding price !or the wor% to be accomp ished by a wor%er is identi!ied by its 1.#. ?umber. #n August 15, 1992, de 4esus wor%ed on 1.#. ?o. 0D50 by trimming the c othsH ribs. She therea!ter submitted tic%ets corresponding to the wor% done to her super)isor. 7hree days ater, de 4esus recei)ed !rom petitionersH personne manager a memorandum re6uiring her to e:p ain why no discip inary action shou d be ta%en against her !or dishonesty and tampering o! o!!icia records and documents with the intention o! cheating as 1.#. ?o. 0D50 a eged y re6uired no
2D % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

trimming. 7he memorandum a so p aced her under pre)enti)e suspension !or thirty days starting !rom August 19, 1992. &n her handwritten e:p anation, de 4esus maintained that she mere y committed a mista%e in trimming 1.#. ?o. 0D50 as it has the same sty e and design as 1.#. ?o. 0D2= which has an attached price ist !or trimming the ribs and admitted that she may ha)e been neg igent in presuming that the same wor% was to be done with 1.#. ?o. 0D50, but not !or dishonesty or tampering. 1etitionersH personne department, nonethe ess, terminated her !rom emp oyment and sent her a notice o! termination dated September 1D, 1992. 7he abor arbiter he d that "ourdes was accorded due process but her dismissa was not 8usti!ied. #n appea the ?"+C ordered her reinstatement but with no bac%wages. 1etitioner contends that a writ o! e:ecution is needed to en!orce reinstatement. I !"1 whether an order o! reinstatement needs a writ o! e:ecution

H"#$1 ?o. the necessity !or a writ o! e:ecution under Artic e 22= app ies on y to !ina and e:ecutory decisions which are not within the co)erage o! Artic e 220. Artic e 22= states that the need !or a writ o! e:ecution app ies on y within .ive (3) year .rom the (ate a (eci ion" an or(er or awar( 0ecome .inal an( e,ecutory. &t can not re ate to an award or order o! reinstatement sti to be appea ed or pending appea which Artic e 220 contemp ates. 7he pro)ision o! Artic e 220 is c ear that an award !or reinstatement hall 0e imme(iately e,ecutory even pen(ing appeal and the po ting o. a 0on( 0y the emp oyer hall not tay the e,ecution .or rein tatement . 7he egis ati)e intent is 6uite ob)ious, i.e., to ma%e an award o! reinstatement immediate y en!orceab e, e)en pending appea . 7o re6uire the app ication !or and issuance o! a writ o! e:ecution as prere6uisites !or the e:ecution o! a reinstatement award wou d certain y betray and run counter to the )ery ob8ect and intent o! Artic e 220, i.e., the immediate e:ecution o! a reinstatement order. 7he reason is simp e. An app ication !or a writ o! e:ecution and its issuance cou d be de ayed !or numerous reasons. A mere continuance or postponement o! a schedu ed hearing, !or instance, or an inaction on the part o! the "abor Arbiter or the ?"+C cou d easi y de ay the issuance o! the writ thereby setting at naught the strict mandate and nob e purpose en)isioned by Artic e 220. &n other words, i! the re6uirements o! Artic e 22= were to go)ern, as we so dec ared in Maranaw, then the e:ecutory nature o! a reinstatement order or award contemp ated by Artic e 220 wi be undu y circumscribed and rendered ine!!ectua .

ROCUERO VS. PAL APRIL 2, 2000 Fact 1 +o6uero, a ong with +ene 1abayo, were ground e6uipment mechanics o! respondent 1hi ippine Air ines, &nc. ,1A" !or bre)ity-. .rom the e)idence on record, it appears that +o6uero and 1abayo were caught red9handed possessing and using Methampethamine Hy(rochlori(e or shabu in a raid conducted by 1A" security o!!icers and ?A+C#$ personne . 7he two a eged that they did not
29 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

)o untari y indu ge in the said act but were instigated by a certain 4o8ie A ipato who was introduced to them by 4oseph #cu , $anager o! the Airport $aintenance /i)ision o! 1A". 1abayo a eged that A ipato o!ten bragged about the drugs he cou d smugg e inside the company premises and in)ited other emp oyees to ta%e the prohibited drugs. A ipato was unsuccess!u , unti one day, he was ab e to persuade 1abayo to 8oin him in ta%ing the drugs. 7hey met +o6uero a ong the way and he agreed to 8oin them. &nside the company premises, they oc%ed the door and A ipato ost no time in preparing the drugs to be used. Ghen they started the procedure o! ta%ing the drugs, armed men entered the room, arrested +o6uero and 1abayo and sei5ed the drugs and the parapherna ia used.1 +o6uero and 1abayo were sub8ected to a physica e:amination where the resu ts showed that they were positi)e o! drugs. 7hey were a so brought to the security o!!ice o! 1A" where they e:ecuted written con!essions without the bene!it o! counse . 1etitioners were subse6uent y terminated and !i ed a comp aint !or i ega dismissa against 1A". 7he "abor arbiter uphe d the )a idity o! the dismissa , whi e the case was pending on appea be!ore the ?"+C, the +7C ac6uitted the petitioners on drug possession on the ground o! instigation. 7he ?"+C !ound 1A" gui ty o! instigation and ordered the reinstatement, to which 1A" re!used to e:ecute and !i e an appea be!ore the CA. the CA re)ersed ?"+C<s decision and he d tht the dismissa was )a id howe)er it denied the payment o! separation pay and attorneys !ees. I !"1 whether the reinstatement order by the abor arbiter can be ha ted by a petition !i ed in higher courts without any restraining order or pre iminary in8unction ordered in the meantime H"#$: ?o. Artic e 220 ,0rd paragraph- o! the "abor Code as amended by Section 12 o! +epub ic Act ?o. '215, 21 and Section 2 o! the ?"+C &nterim +u es on Appea s under +A ?o. '215, Amending the "abor Code, pro)ide that an order o! reinstatement by the "abor Arbiter is immediate y e:ecutory e)en pending appea . 7he rationa e o! the aw has been e:p ained in )ri (2hil.) $nc. v . 1/!%: C&n authori5ing e:ecution pending appea o! the reinstatement aspect o! a decision o! the "abor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated emp oyee, the aw itse ! has aid down a compassionate po icy which, once more, )i)i!ies and enhances the pro)isions o! the 19D2 Constitution on abor and the wor%ing man. 7he order o! reinstatement is immediate y e:ecutory. 7he un8usti!ied re!usa o! the emp oyer to reinstate a dismissed emp oyee entit es him to payment o! his sa aries e!!ecti)e !rom the time the emp oyer !ai ed to reinstate him despite the issuance o! a writ o! e:ecution. >n ess there is a restraining order issued, it is ministeria upon the "abor Arbiter to imp ement the order o! reinstatement. &n the case at bar, no restraining order was granted. 7hus, it was mandatory on 1A" to actua y reinstate +o6uero or reinstate him in the payro . Ea)ing !ai ed to do so, 1A" must pay +o6uero the sa ary he is entit ed to, as i! he was reinstated, !rom the time o! the decision o! the ?"+C unti the !ina ity o! the decision o! this Court. Ge reiterate the ru e that technica ities ha)e no room in abor cases where the +u es o! Court are app ied on y in a supp etory manner and on y to e!!ectuate the ob8ecti)es o! the "abor Code and not to de!eat them.
00 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

?ote: 7hen, by and pursuant to the same power ,po ice power-, the State may authori5e an immediate imp ementation, pending appea , o! a decision reinstating a dismissed or separated emp oyee since that sa)ing act is designed to stop, a though temporari y since the appea may be decided in !a)or o! the appe ant, a continuing threat or danger to the sur)i)a or e)en the i!e o! the dismissed or separated emp oyee and his !ami y.C AIRPHIL CORP VS. &AMORA AUGUST 5, 2000 Fact 1 Anrico Bamora ,Bamora- was emp oyed with Air 1hi ippines Corporation ,A1C- as a *9202 . ight /ec% Crew. Ee app ied !or promotion to the position o! airp ane captain and underwent the re6uisite training program. A!ter comp eting training, he in6uired about his promotion but A1C did not act on it( instead, it continued to gi)e him assignments as ! ight dec% crew. 7hus, Bamora !i ed a Comp aint with the "abor Arbiter. Ee argued that the act o! A1C o! withho ding his promotion rendered his continued emp oyment with it oppressi)e and un8ust. Ee there!ore as%ed that A1C be he d iab e !or constructi)e dismissa . A1C denied that it dismissed comp ainant. &t pointed out that, when the comp aint was !i ed on $ay 1=, 1992, comp ainant was sti emp oyed with it. &t was on y on $ay 22, 1992 that comp ainant stopped reporting !or wor%, not because he was !orced to resign, but because he had 8oined a ri)a air ine, @rand Air. 7he abor arbiter he d that there was i ega dismissa and ordered payment o! unpaid sa aries. #n appea the ?"+C re)ersed the "A<s decision and he d that there was no i ega dismissa but ordered to pay the unpaid sa aries. 1etitioner 6uestions the ru ing o! ?"+C with respect to the payment o! unpaid sa aries since there was no i ega dismissa I !"1 whether there was a gra)e abuse o! discretion in ordering the petitioner to pay respondent<s unpaid sa aries despite !inding that there was no i edga dismissa H"#$1 ?#. 7he premise o! the award o! unpaid sa ary to respondent is that prior to the re)ersa by the ?"+C o! the decision o! the "abor Arbiter, the order o! reinstatement embodied therein was a ready the sub8ect o! an a ias writ o! e:ecution e)en pending appea . A though petitioner did not comp y with this writ o! e:ecution, its intransigence made it iab e nonethe ess to the sa aries o! respondent pending appea . 7here is ogic in this reasoning o! the ?"+C. &n !o*uero v. 2hilippine )irline " $nc., we reso )ed the same issue as !o ows: Ge reiterate the ru e that technica ities ha)e no room in abor cases where the +u es o! Court are app ied on y in a supp etory manner and on y to e!!ectuate the ob8ecti)es o! the "abor Code and not to de!eat them. H",c", "'", +A t8" *)$") *A )"+, tat":",t *A t8" La;*) A);+t") + )"'") "$ *, a.."a#, +t + *;#+-at*)9 *, t8" .a)t *A t8" ":.#*9") t* )"+, tat" a,$ .a9 t8" >a-" *A t8" $+ :+ "$ ":.#*9"" $!)+,- t8" .")+*$ *A a.."a# !,t+# )"'") a# ;9 t8" 8+-8") c*!)t. #n the other hand, i! the emp oyee has been reinstated during the appea period and such reinstatement order is re)ersed with !ina ity,
01 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

the emp oyee is not re6uired to reimburse whate)er sa ary he recei)ed !or he is entit ed to such, more so i! he actua y rendered ser)ices during the period. LANSANGAN VS. AM4OR TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES /ANUARY @0, 2006 Fact 1 An anonymous e9mai was sent to the @enera $anager o! Am%or 7echno ogy 1hi ippines ,respondent- detai ing a egations o! ma !easance on the part o! its super)isory emp oyees "unesa "ansangan and +osita CendaYa ,petitioners- !or Cstea ing company time.C +espondent thus in)estigated the matter, re6uiring petitioners to submit their written e:p anation. &n handwritten etters, petitioners admitted their wrongdoing. +espondent thereupon terminated petitioners !or Ce:treme y serious o!!ensesC as de!ined in its Code o! /iscip ine, prompting petitioners to !i e a comp aint !or i ega dismissa against it. 7he abor arbiter he d that the dismissa was )a id but ordered reinstatement Cas a measure o! e6uitab e and compassionate re ie!C owing main y to petitioners< prior unb emished emp oyment records, show o! remorse, harshness o! the pena ty and de!ecti)e attendance monitoring system o! respondent. 7he petitioner emp oyees did not appea the issue regarding the )a idity o! their dismissa but rather mo)ed !or the issuance o! writ o! e:ecution as to the order o! reinstatement. Eence the order as to the )a idity o! their dismissa became !ina and e:ecutor. Am%or appea ed the order o! reinstatement and the ?"+C re)ersed the "A<s ru ing. 1etitioner now c aims that they are entit ed to the unpaid sa aries when the case was pending since the order o! reinstatement was immediate y e:ecutory. I !"1 Ghether petitioners are entit ed to the payment o! unpaid sa aries when the case was pending appea re ying on the case o! roquero vs. PAL H"#$1 ?#. 7he decision o! the Arbiter !inding that petitioners committed Cdishonesty as a !orm o! serious misconduct and !raud, or breach o! trustC had become !ina , petitioners not ha)ing appea ed the same be!ore the ?"+C as in !act they e)en mo)ed !or the e:ecution o! the reinstatement aspect o! the decision. &t bears reca ing that it was on y respondent which assai ed the Arbiter<s decision to the ?"+C T to so e y 6uestion the propriety o! the order !or reinstatement, and it succeeded.+o6uero, as we as Artic e 220 o! the "abor Code on which the appe ate court a so re ied, !inds no app ication in the present case. Artic e 220 concerns itse ! with an interim re ie!, granted to a dismissed or separated emp oyee whi e the case !or i ega dismissa is pending appea , as what happened in +o6uero. &t does not app y where there is no !inding o! i ega dismissa , as in the present case. 7he Arbiter !ound petitioners< dismissa to be )a id. Such !inding had, as stated ear ier, become !ina , petitioners not ha)ing appea ed it. .o owing Artic e 229 which pro)ides: &n cases o! regu ar emp oyment, the emp oyer sha not terminate the ser)ices o! an emp oyee e:cept !or a 8ust cause or when authori5ed by this 7it e. An emp oyee who is un8ust y dismissed !rom wor% sha be entit ed to reinstatement
02 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

without oss o! seniority rights and other pri)i eges and to his !u bac%wages, inc usi)e o! a owances, and to his other bene!its or their monetary e6ui)a ent computed !rom the time his compensation was withhe d !rom him up to the time o! his actua reinstatement ,Amphasis, underscoring and ita ics supp ied-, petitioners are not entit ed to !u bac%wages as their dismissa was not !ound to be i ega . Agabon ). ?"+C so states TT payment o! bac%wages and other bene!its is 8usti!ied on y i! the emp oyee was un8ust y dismissed. GENUINO VS. NLRC DECEMBER 0, 2005 Fact 1 @enuino was emp oyed by Citiban% sometime in 4anuary 1992 as 7reasury Sa es /i)ision Eead with the ran% o! Assistant Jice91resident. She recei)ed a month y compensation o! 1h1 '0,=D2.9', e:c usi)e o! bene!its and pri)i eges. #n August 20, 1990, Citiban% sent @enuino a etter charging her with C%now edge andFor in)o )ementC in transactions Cwhich were irregu ar or e)en !raudu ent.C &n the same etter, @enuino was in!ormed she was under pre)enti)e suspension. 1etitioner as%ed !or the detai s o! the accusations since the charges were too genera , her counse as%ed !or a bi o! particu ars !rom Citiban% but the atter re!used, petitioner did not attend the administrati)e in)estigation nor sent any answer and was subse6uent y terminated by Citiban%. 1etitioner !i ed a comp aint !or i ega dismissa ( the abor arbiter he d that genuino<s dismissa was without 8ust cause and ordered Citiban% to reinstate and pay genuine !or unpaid sa aries and !or damages, #n appea , the ?"+C he d that the dismissa was !or 8ust cause but ordered Citiban% to pay genuine because the dismissa was not in accordance with the two twin notice re6uirement. I !"1 whether genuine is sti entit ed to the payment o! her unpaid sa ary pending appea o! the case as ordered by the "A, since an order o! reinstatement is immediate y e:ecutory H"#$1 ?#. #rdinari y, the emp oyer is re6uired to reinstate the emp oyee during the pendency o! the appea pursuant to Art. 220, paragraph 0 o! the "abor Code, which states: &n any e)ent, the decision o! the "abor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated emp oyee, inso!ar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, sha immediate y be e:ecutory, e)en pending appea . 7he emp oyee sha either be admitted bac% to wor% under the same terms and conditions pre)ai ing prior to his dismissa or separation or, at the option o! the emp oyer, mere y reinstated in the payro . 7he posting o! a bond by the emp oyer sha not stay the e:ecution !or reinstatement pro)ided herein. &! the decision o! the abor arbiter is ater re)ersed on appea upon the !inding that the ground !or dismissa is )a id, then the emp oyer has the right to re6uire the dismissed emp oyee on payro reinstatement to re!und the sa aries sFhe
00 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

recei)ed whi e the case was pending appea , or it can be deducted !rom the accrued bene!its that the dismissed emp oyee was entit ed to recei)e !rom hisFher emp oyer under e:isting aws, co ecti)e bargaining agreement pro)isions, and company practices. Eowe)er, i! the emp oyee was reinstated to wor% during the pendency o! the appea , then the emp oyee is entit ed to the compensation recei)ed !or actua ser)ices rendered without need o! re!und. Considering that @enuino was not reinstated to wor% or p aced on payro reinstatement, and her dismissa is based on a 8ust cause, then she is not entit ed to be paid the sa aries awarded pending the case was on appea .

/UANITO A. GARCIA a,$ ALBERTO /. DUMAGO, ' . PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC G.R. N*. 160726 /a,!a)9 20, 2006 Fact 1 7he case stemmed !rom the administrati)e charge !i ed by 1A" against its emp oyees9herein petitioners0 a!ter they were a eged y caught in the act o! sni!!ing shabu when a team o! company security personne and aw en!orcers raided the 1A" 7echnica Center<s 7oo room Section. A!ter due notice, 1A" dismissed petitioners !or transgressing the 1A" Code o! /iscip ine, prompting 1etitioners to !i e a comp aint !or i ega dismissa and damages which was, reso )ed by the "abor Arbiter in their !a)or, thus ordering 1A" to, inter alia" immediate y comp y with the reinstatement aspect o! the decision. >pon appea to ?"+C the decision o! the "A was re)ersed. 1etitioner<s $+ was denied !o owed by the entry o! 8udgment. 1rior to the promu gation o! the "abor Arbiter<s decision, the Securities and A:change Commission ,SAC- p aced 1A" ,herea!ter re!erred to as respondent-, which was su!!ering !rom se)ere !inancia osses, under an &nterim +ehabi itation +ecei)er Subse6uent y "A issued a Grit o! A:ecution ,Grit- respecting the reinstatement aspect o! its !ormer decision, and ater issued a ?otice o! @arnishment ,?otice-. 1A" thereupon mo)ed to 6uash the Grit and to i!t the ?otice whi e petitioners mo)ed to re ease the garnished amount. ?"+C ru ed in !a)or o! petitioners. 1A" !i ed a petition !or certiorari with in8unction against ?"+C which was granted by the CA. 7he rehabi itation proceeding was terminated, hence this petition. I !"1 G#? a subse6uent !inding o! a )a id dismissa remo)es the basis !or imp ementing the reinstatement aspect o! a abor arbiter<s decision R!#+,-1 ?#. &n any e)ent, the decision o! the "abor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated emp oyee, inso!ar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, sha immediate y be e:ecutory, pending appea . 7he emp oyee sha either be admitted bac% to wor% under the same terms and conditions pre)ai ing prior to his dismissa or separation or, at the option o! the emp oyer, mere y reinstated in the payro . 7he posting o! a bond by the emp oyer sha not stay

0= % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

the e:ecution !or reinstatement pro)ided herein. ,Amphasis and underscoring supp ied7he )iew as maintained in a number o! cases is that: : : : PAQ)en i! the order o! reinstatement o! the "abor Arbiter is re)ersed on appea , it is ob igatory on the part o! the emp oyer to reinstate and pay the wages o! the dismissed emp oyee during the period o! appea unti re)ersa by the higher court. #n the other hand, i! the emp oyee has been reinstated during the appea period and such reinstatement order is re)ersed with !ina ity, the emp oyee is not re6uired to reimburse whate)er sa ary he recei)ed !or he is entit ed to such, more so i! he actua y rendered ser)ices during the period. &n other words, a dismissed emp oyee whose case was !a)orab y decided by the "abor Arbiter is entit ed to recei)e wages pending appea upon reinstatement, which is immediate y e:ecutory. >n ess there is a restraining order, it is ministeria upon the "abor Arbiter to imp ement the order o! reinstatement and it is mandatory on the emp oyer to comp y therewith. 7he spirit o! the ru e on reinstatement pending appea animates the proceedings once the "abor Arbiter issues the decision containing an order o! reinstatement. 7he immediacy o! its e:ecution needs no !urther e aboration. +einstatement pending appea necessitates its immediate e:ecution during the pendency o! the appea , i! the aw is to ser)e its nob e purpose. At the same time, any attempt on the part o! the emp oyer to e)ade or de ay its e:ecution, as obser)ed in 2anuncillo and as what actua y transpired in 4im0erly"20 %ompo ite"2= )ir 2hilippine "25 and !o*uero,2' shou d not be countenanced. A!ter the abor arbiter<s decision is re)ersed by a higher tribuna , the emp oyee may be barred !rom co ecting the accrued wages, i! it is shown that the de ay in en!orcing the reinstatement pending appea was without !au t on the part o! the emp oyer. 7he test is two9!o d: ,1- there must be actua de ay or the !act that the order o! reinstatement pending appea was not e:ecuted prior to its re)ersa ( and ,2- the de ay must not be due to the emp oyer<s un8usti!ied act or omission. &! the de ay is due to the emp oyer<s un8usti!ied re!usa , the emp oyer may sti be re6uired to pay the sa aries notwithstanding the re)ersa o! the "abor Arbiter<s decision. MT. CARMEL COLLEGE, ' . /OCELYN RESUENA, EDDIE VILLALON, SYLVIA SEDAYON a,$ &ONSAYDA EMNACE, G.R. N*. 15@056 Oct*;") 10, 2005 Fact 1 +espondents were emp oyees o! $CC, 4oce yn +esuena ,Accounting C er%-, Addie Ji a on ,A ementary /epartment 1rincipa -( Sy )ia Sedayon ,7reasurer-, and Bonsayda Amnace ,Secretary to the /irector-. +espondents, together with se)era !acu ty members, non9academic personne , and other students, participated in a protest action against $CC. $CC issued a $emorandum to each o! the respondents directing them to e:p ain in writing why they shou d not be dismissed !or oss o! trust and con!idence !or 8oining the protest action against the schoo administration. A!ter hearing conducted by the .act9.inding Committee they recommended the dismissa o! the respondents which were atter terminated a!ter the notice o! termination was gi)en to them. Separate comp aints were !i ed by each o! the !our respondents against
05 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

petitioner be!ore +egiona Arbitration !or i ega dismissa . "A a!!irmed the )a idity o! dismissa o! the respondents but they were awarded separation !ee, 10th month pay and attorneys !ees. $CC appea ed to the ?"+C but it was dismissed. "abor Arbiter /ri on issued to the parties a ?otice o! 4udgmentF/ecision o! his 25 $ay 1999 /ecision indicating that a Cdecision o! the "abor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated emp oyee, in so !ar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, sha immediate y be e:ecutory, e)en pending appea . An $+ be!ore the ?"+C was denied. An appea by certiorari be!ore the CA was a so denied. +espondents !i ed on 1= 4u y 200= yet another $otion to &ssue a Grit o! A:ecution to co ect bac%wages !rom 1 4anuary 200= to 00 4une 200=. 1etitioner opposed the motion, but the $otion to &ssue a Grit o! A:ecution was granted. $CC !i ed a $otion !or +econsideration o! the !oregoing #rder contending that the 8udgment o! the ?"+C mandated the payment o! separation pay as computed in the appea ed decision. A $+ by $CC was denied and their petition !or certiorari be!ore the CA was dismissed. I !"1 G#? Art.220 o! the abor code is app icab e in this case

R!#+,-1 ?#. 7his Court had dec ared in the a!oresaid case that reinstatement during appea is warranted on y when the "abor Arbiter himse ! ru es that the dismissed emp oyee shou d be reinstated. *ut this was precise y because on appea to the ?"+C, it !ound that there was no i ega dismissa ( thus, neither reinstatement nor bac%wages may be awarded. &n the instant petition, the ?"+C /ecision dated 00 #ctober 2001 !inding the termination o! respondents i ega , had the e!!ect o! re)ersing "abor Arbiter /ri on<s /ecision dated 25 $ay 1999. 7his Court sees no cogent reason as to the re e)ance o! a discussion on whether or not reinstatement is se !9e:ecutory. Eowe)er, since petitioner raised this issue, this Court has opted to discuss it. Jeri y, Artic e 220 o! the "abor Code is not app icab e in the instant case. 7he said pro)ision stipu ates that the decision o! the "abor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated emp oyee, inso!ar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, sha immediate y be e:ecutory, e)en pending appea . 7his Court ta%es this occasion to reiterate that e:ecution is the !ina stage o! itigation, the end o! the suit. &t can not and shou d not be !rustrated e:cept !or serious reasons demanded by 8ustice and e6uity.=2 C"itigation must end sometime and somewhere. An e!!ecti)e and e!!icient administration o! 8ustice re6uires that, once a 8udgment has become !ina , the winning party be not, through a mere subter!uge, be depri)ed o! the !ruits o! the )erdicts. Courts must, there!ore, guard against any scheme ca cu ated to bring about that resu t. Constituted as they are to put an end to contro)ersies, courts shou d !rown upon any attempt to pro ong them.C NERISSA BUENVIA/E, SONIA FLORES, BELMA OLIVIO, GENALYN PELOBELLO, MARY /ANE MENOR, /OSIE RACUERO, ESTRELITA MANAHAN, REBECCA EBOL, a,$ ERLINDA ARGA, ."t+t+*,") , ' . THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS <SPECIAL FORMER SEVENTH DIVISION=,

0' % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

HONORABLE ARBITER ROMULUS PROTASIO, COTTON3AY MAR4ETING CORPORATION a,$ MICHAEL G. TONG, G.R. N*. 105706 N*'":;") 12, 2002 Fact 1 1etitioners were !ormer emp oyees o! Cottonway $ar%eting Corp. ,Cottonway-, hired as promo gir s !or their garment products. A!ter their ser)ices were terminated as the company was a eged y su!!ering business osses, petitioners !i ed with the ?"+C a comp aint !or i ega dismissa , underpayment o! sa ary and non9payment o! other remuneration against their emp oyer. "A ru ed in !a)or o! the )a idity o! retrenchment but ordered Cottonway to pay their separation !ee and 10th month pay. >pon appea to ?"+C the decision o! the "A was re)ersed ordering the reinstatement o! the petitioners p us payment o! bac% wages and remunerations. A motion !or reconsideration by Cottonway was denied. Cottonway !i ed a mani!estation be!ore the ?"+C stating that they a ready ga)e notice to the petitioners re6uiring them to go bac% to wor% but the atter !ai ed to do so prompting Cottonway to terminate their emp oyment. A petition !or certiorari be!ore the SC by Cottonway was dismissed. 1etitoners !i ed a motion !or e:ecution be!ore the ?"+C contending that the 8udgment o! ?"+C became !ina and e:ecutor. Cottonway !i ed another mani!estation reiterating its !irst a egation and that the petitioners ha)e !ound emp oyment e sewhere. 7hey a so !i ed a mani!estation re6uesting !or reception o! e)idence !or the same matter. "A issued an order that the amount o! bac% wages sha on y co)er the time the petitioners are i ega y terminated unti the order o! reinstatement contending that the !ai ure o! the petitioners to report despite the notice gi)en by Cottonway is a 8usti!iab e reason to decrease their bac% wages. 7he order was set aside by the reso ution o! the ?"+C ordering the "A to issue a writ o! e:ecution according to the decision o! ?"+C. >pon appea to CA the decision o! ?"+C was re)ersed. I !"1 Ghether or not the reinstatement aspect o! the decision o! "A is immediate y e:ecutor Ghether or not the order o! the "A decreasing the bac% wages o! the petitioner is )a id R!#+,-1 1. ;AS. &n any e)ent, the decision o! the "abor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated emp oyee, inso!ar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, sha immediate y be e:ecutory, e)en pending appea . 7he emp oyee sha either be admitted bac% to wor% under the same terms and conditions pre)ai ing prior to his dismissa or separation or, at the option o! the emp oyer, mere y reinstated in the payro . 7he posting o! a bond by the emp oyer sha not stay the e:ecution !or reinstatement pro)ided herein. 2. ?#. 7he !oregoing pro)ision is intended !or the bene!it o! the emp oyee and cannot be used to de!eat their own interest. 7he aw mandates the emp oyer to either admit the dismissed emp oyee bac% to wor% under the same terms and conditions pre)ai ing prior to his dismissa or to reinstate him in the payro to abate !urther oss o! income on the part o! the emp oyee during the pendency o! the appea . *ut we cannot stretch the anguage o! the aw as to gi)e the emp oyer the right to remo)e an emp oyee who !ai s to immediate y comp y with the reinstatement order, especia y when there is reasonab e e:p anation
02 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

!or the !ai ure. &! Cottonway were rea y sincere in its o!!er to immediate y reinstate petitioners to their !ormer positions, it shou d ha)e gi)en them reasonab e time to wind up their current preoccupation or at east to e:p ain why they cou d not return to wor% at Cottonway at once. Cottonway did not do either. &nstead, it ga)e them on y !i)e days to report to their posts and when the petitioners !ai ed to do so, it ost no time in ser)ing them their indi)idua notices o! termination. Ge are, there!ore, not impressed with the c aim o! respondent company that petitioners ha)e been )a id y dismissed on August 1, 199' and hence their bac%wages shou d on y be computed up to that time. Ge ho d that petitioners are entit ed to recei)e !u bac%wages computed !rom the time their compensation was actua y withhe d unti their actua reinstatement, or i! reinstatement is no onger possib e, unti the !ina ity o! the decision, in accordance with the /ecision o! the ?"+C dated $arch 2', 199' which has attained !ina ity.2D PFI&ER, INC. ANDDOR REY GERARDO BACARRO, ANDDOR FERDINAND CORTES, ANDDOR ALFRED MAGALLON, ANDDOR ARISTOTLE ARCE, P"t+t+*,") , ' . GERALDINE VELASCO, R" .*,$",t. G.R. N*. 155065 Ma)c8 6, 2011 Fact 1 Je asco was emp oyed with petitioner 1.&BA+, &?C. as 1ro!essiona Eea th Care +epresentati)e. Je asco had a medica wor% up !or her high9ris% pregnancy and was subse6uent y ad)ised bed rest which resu ted in her e:tending her ea)e o! absence. Je asco !i ed her sic% ea)e !or the period !rom 2' $arch to 1D 4une 2000, her )acation ea)e !rom 19 4une to 20 4une 2000, and ea)e without pay !rom 20 4une to 1= 4u y 2000. Ghi e Je asco was sti on ea)e, 1.&BA+ through its Area Sa es $anager, Corte5, persona y ser)ed Je asco a CShow9cause ?oticeC dated 25 4une 2000. Aside !rom mentioning about an in)estigation on her possib e )io ations o! company wor% ru es regarding Cunauthori5ed dea s andFor discounts in money or samp es and unauthori5ed withdrawa andFor pu 9out o! stoc%sC and instructing her to submit her e:p anation on the matter within =D hours !rom receipt o! the same, the notice a so ad)ised her that she was being p aced under Cpre)enti)e suspensionC !or 00 days or !rom that day to ' August 2000 and conse6uent y ordered to surrender the !o owing Caccountabi ities(C Je asco sent a etter addressed to Corte5 dated 2D 4une 2000 denying the charges. Je asco recei)ed a CSecond Show9cause ?oticeC in!orming her o! additiona de)e opments in their in)estigation. Je asco !i ed a comp aint !or i ega suspension with money c aims be!ore the +A*. 1.&BA+ sent her a etter in)iting her to a discip inary hearing. Je asco recei)ed it under protest and in!ormed 1.&BA+ )ia the recei)ing copy o! the said etter that she had odged a comp aint against the atter and that the issues that may be raised in the 4u y 22 hearing Ccan be tac% ed during the hearing o! her caseC or at the pre iminary con!erence set !or 5 and D o! August 2000. Je asco recei)ed a C7hird Show9cause ?oticeK which Je asco !ai ed to heed prompting 1!i5er to terminate her emp oyment. "A ru ed that Je asco<s dismissa was i ega which was a!!irmed by the ?"+C. A motion !or reconsideration by 1!i5er was denied. 1!i5er !i ed a petition !or certiorari under
0D % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

+u e '5 be!ore CA which the court granted in its !a)or. Je asco !i ed an $+ and the court a!!irmed the )a idity o! her dismissa ordering 1!i5er to pay her the wages to which she is entit ed to !rom the time the reinstatement order was issued unti the promu gation o! the decision. 1!i5er !i ed the instant petition assai ing the a!orementioned CA +eso utions as to the period !rom which to be computed !or the payment o! respondent<s bac% wages. I !"1 Ghether or not the decision o! the "A re6uires a writ o! e:ecution to become e:ecutory to be inc uded in the period to which bac% wages wi be computed R!#+,-1 ?#. &n sum, the Court reiterates the princip e that reinstatement pending appea necessitates that it must be immediate y se !9e:ecutory without need !or a writ o! e:ecution during the pendency o! the appea , i! the aw is to ser)e its nob e purpose, and any attempt on the part o! the emp oyer to e)ade or de ay its e:ecution shou d not be a owed. .urthermore, we i%ewise restate our ru ing that an order !or reinstatement entit es an emp oyee to recei)e his accrued bac%wages !rom the moment the reinstatement order was issued up to the date when the same was re)ersed by a higher court without !ear o! re!unding what he had recei)ed. .oreseeab y, an emp oyer may circum)ent the immediate y en!orceab e reinstatement order o! the "abor Arbiter by cra!ting return9to9wor% directi)es that are ambiguous or meant to be re8ected by the emp oyee and then disc aim iabi ity !or bac%wages due to non9reinstatement by capita i5ing on the emp oyee<s purported re!usa to wor%. &n sum, the option o! the emp oyer to e!!ect actua or payro reinstatement must be e:ercised in good !aith. >nder Artic e 220 o! the "abor Code, an emp oyee entit ed to reinstatement Ssha either be admitted bac% to wor% under the same terms and conditions pre)ai ing prior to his dismissa or separation or, at the option o! the emp oyer, mere y reinstated in the payro .K &t is estab ished in 8urisprudence that reinstatement means restoration to a state or condition !rom which one had been remo)ed or separated. 7he person reinstated assumes the position he had occupied prior to his dismissa . 7he Court rea!!irms the pre)ai ing princip e that e)en i! the order o! reinstatement o! the "abor Arbiter is re)ersed on appea , it is ob igatory on the part o! the emp oyer to reinstate and pay the wages o! the dismissed emp oyee during the period o! appea unti re)ersa by the higher court.

ARTICLE 220 EXECUTION OF DECISIONS, ORDERS OR A3ARDS


SY ET AL 4NITCRAFT CO., DECEMBER 12, 2011

09 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

Fact : 1etitioners are emp oyees o! Geesan @arment ,"abor on y- which is contracted by .air and Knitcra!t. 7he emp oyees !i ed a comp aint !or underpayment andFor non9payment o! wages, o)ertime pay, premium pay !or ho idays, 10th month pay and other monetary bene!its against SusanFGeesan. A certain atty. @eronimo appeared and !i ed position papers on beha ! o! !air and and weesan. 7he "abor arbiter dismissed the comp aint !or ac% o! merit. Eowe)er the ?"+C re)ersed said decision. +espondent appea ed to the CA which was granted on the ground that the ?"+C did not ac6uire 8urisdiction o! the respondents, contending that atty. @eronimo was not authori5ed by !air and, and that !air and was not summoned or was sent a copy by the ?"+C hence the decision did not attain !ina ity under art 22=, because the ser)ice must be sent to the parties and counse . 7hat the ser)ice to counse binds the c ient is not app icab e. 7he CA then conc uded that since .air and and its counse were not separate y !urnished with a copy o! the August 2', 2005 ?"+C +eso ution denying the motions !or reconsideration o! its ?o)ember 00, 200= /ecision, said /ecision cannot be en!orced against .air and. 7he CA i%ewise conc uded that because o! this, said ?o)ember 00, 200= /ecision which he d SusanFGeesan and .air and so idari y iab e to the wor%ers, has not attained !ina ity I !": whether the ru ing o! the ?"+C attained !ina ity.

H"#$: ;es. Artic e 22= contemp ates the !urnishing o! copies o! !ina decisions, orders or awards 0oth to the parties and their counse in connection with the e:ecution o! such !ina decisions, orders or awards . H*>"'"), A*) t8" .!).* " *A c*:.!t+,- t8" .")+*$ A*) A+#+,- a, a.."a# A)*: t8" NLRC t* t8" CA, a:" 8a## ;" c*!,t"$ A)*: )"c"+.t *A t8" $"c+ +*,, *)$") *) a>a)$ ;9 t8" c*!, "# *A )"c*)$ .!) !a,t t* t8" " ta;#+ 8"$ )!#" t8at ,*t+c" t* c*!, "# + ,*t+c" t* .a)t9. A,$ +,c" t8" .")+*$ A*) A+#+,- *A a, a.."a# + )"cE*,"$ A)*: t8" c*!, "#B )"c"+.t *A t8" $"c+ +*,, *)$") *) a>a)$, +t ,"c" a)+#9 A*##*> t8at t8" )"cE*,+,- .")+*$ A*) t8"+) A+,a#+t9 + #+E">+ " t8" c*!, "#B $at" *A )"c"+.t t8")"*A, i! a party is represented by counse . Eence, the date o! receipt re!erred to in Sec. 1=, +u e J&& o! the then in !orce ?ew +u es o! 1rocedure o! the ?"+C which pro)ides that decisions, reso utions or orders o! the ?"+C sha become e:ecutory a.ter 15 calen(ar (ay .rom receipt o. the ame, re!ers to the date o! receipt by counse . 7hus contrary to the CA<s conc usion, the said ?"+C /ecision became !ina , as to .air and, 10 ca endar days a!ter Atty. 7ecson<s receipt thereo!. &n sum, we ho d that the "abor Arbiter had )a id y ac6uired 8urisdiction o)er .air and and its manager, /ebbie, through the appearance o! Atty. @eronimo as their counse and i%ewise, through the atter<s !i ing o! p eadings on their beha !. YUPANGCO COTTON MILLS VS. CA /ANUARY 16, 2002
=0 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

Fact : a writ o! e:ecution was issued against Arte: /e)e opment Corporation as a conse6uence o! the decision rendered by the said commission in abor case. 1etitioner ;upangco a eges that its property was wrong!u y e)ied by the said e:ecution. 1etitioner !i ed a third party c aim be!ore the abor arbiter but was dismissed, i%ewise his appea to the ?"+C. 1etitioner !i ed a comp aint ,accion re)indicatoria- be!ore the +7C and appea ed to CA which was a so dismissed on the ground o! !orum shopping. I !": Ghether the power o! the commission to e:ecute its 8udgment e:tends to properties be onging to persons not party to the case. And whether there is !orum shopping H"#$: ?o. 7he power o! the ?"+C to e:ecute its 8udgments e:tends on y to properties un6uestionab y be onging to the 8udgment debtor ,Specia Ser)icing Corp. ). Centro "a 1a5, 121 SC+A 2=D-. C7he genera ru e that no court has the power to inter!ere by in8unction with the 8udgments or decrees o! another court with concurrent or coordinate 8urisdiction possessing e6ua power to grant in8uncti)e re ie!, app ies on y when no third9 party c aimant is in)o )ed ,7raders +oya *an% ). &ntermediate Appe ate Court, 100 SC+A 1=1 P19D=Q-. Ghen a third9party, or a stranger to the action, asserts a c aim o)er the property e)ied upon, the c aimant may )indicate his c aim by an independent action in the proper ci)i court which may stop the e:ecution o! the 8udgment on property not be onging to the 8udgment debtor.C ,>nderscoring oursin Conso idated *an% and 7rust Corp. ). Court o! Appea s, 190 SC+A 15D P1991Q, we ru ed that: C7he we 9sett ed doctrine is that a Hproper e)yH is indispensab e to a )a id sa e on e:ecution. A sa e un ess preceded by a )a id e)y is )oid. 7here!ore, since there was no su!!icient e)y on the e:ecution in 6uestion, the pri)ate respondent did not ta%e any tit e to the properties so d thereunder : : :. CA person other than the 8udgment debtor who c aims ownership or right o)er the e)ied properties is not prec uded, howe)er, !rom ta%ing other ega remedies.C F*)!: 8*..+,?o. &n @o angco ). Court o! Appea s, we he d: CGhat is tru y important to consider in determining whether !orum shopping e:ists or not is the )e:ation caused the courts and parties9 itigant by a party who as%s di!!erent courts andFor administrati)e agencies to ru e on the same on re ated caused andFor grant the same or substantia y the same re ie!s, in the process creating possibi ity o! con! icting decisions being rendered by the di!!erent !or a upon the same issues.

=1 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

C7here is no !orum9shopping where two di!!erent orders were 6uestioned, two distinct causes o! action and issues were raised, and two ob8ecti)es were sought.C R":"$9 >8", t8")" + >)*,- #"'9 , a third party whose property has been e)ied upon by a sheri!! to en!orce a decision against a 8udgment debtor is a!!orded with se)era a ternati)e remedies to protect its interests. 7he third party may a)ai himse ! o! a ternati)e remedies cumu ati)e y, and one wi not prec ude the third party !rom a)ai ing himse ! o! the other a ternati)e remedies in the e)ent he !ai ed in the remedy !irst a)ai ed o!. 7hus, a third party may a)ai himse ! o! the !o owing a ternati)e remedies: a- .i e a third party c aim with the sheri!! o! the "abor Arbiter, and b- &! the third party c aim is denied, the third party may appea the denia to the ?"+C.10 A)en i! a third party c aim was denied, a third party may sti !i e a proper action with a competent court to reco)er ownership o! the property i ega y sei5ed by the sheri!!. 7his !inds support in Section 12 ,now 1'-, +u e 09, +e)ised +u es o! Court. ANDO VS. CAMPO FEBRUARY 16, 2002 Fact 1 1etitioner was the president o! 1remier A ied and Contracting Ser)ices, &nc. ,1ACS&-, an independent abor contractor. +espondents were hired by 1ACS& as pi ers or hau ers tas%ed to manua y carry bags o! sugar !rom the warehouse o! Jictorias $i ing Company and oad them on truc%s. &n 4une 199D, respondents were dismissed !rom emp oyment. 7hey !i ed a case !or i ega dismissa and some money c aims with the ?ationa "abor +e ations Commission ,?"+C-, +egiona Arbitration *ranch ?o. J&, *aco od City. 7he abor arbiter and ?"+C ru ed in !a)or o! the respondents emp oyees, and upon !ina ity respondents mo)ed !or e:ecution. 7o answer !or the monetary award, ?"+C Acting Sheri!! +omeo 1asustento issued a ?otice o! Sa e on A:ecution o! 1ersona 1roperty o)er the property co)ered by 7rans!er Certi!icate o! 7it e ,7C7- ?o. 791=01'2 in the name o! C1a6uito J. Ando : : : married to Ar inda S. Ando.C 7his prompted petitioner to !i e an action !or prohibition and damages with prayer !or the issuance o! a temporary restraining order ,7+#- be!ore the +egiona 7ria Court ,+7C-, *ranch 50, *aco od City. 1etitioner c aimed that the property be onged to him and his wi!e, not to the corporation, and, hence, cou d not be sub8ect o! the e:ecution sa e. Since it is the corporation that was the 8udgment debtor, e:ecution shou d be made on the atter<s properties.

=2 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

#n /ecember 22, 200', the +7C issued an #rder denying the prayer !or a 7+#, ho ding that the tria court had no 8urisdiction to try and decide the case. 7he +7C ru ed that, pursuant to the ?"+C $anua on the A:ecution o! 4udgment, petitioner<s remedy was to !i e a third9party c aim with the ?"+C Sheri!!. /espite ac% o! 8urisdiction, howe)er, the +7C went on to decide the merits o! the case. 7he CA a!!irmed the ru ing +7C on the ground o! ac% o! 8urisdiction I !"1 whether the regu ar courts has 8urisdiction to restrain imp ementation o! the writ o! e:ecution issued by the "abor arbiter the

H"#$1 ?#. 7he Court has ong recogni5ed that regu ar courts ha)e no 8urisdiction to hear and decide 6uestions which arise !rom and are incidenta to the en!orcement o! decisions, orders, or awards rendered in abor cases by appropriate o!!icers and tribuna s o! the /epartment o! "abor and Amp oyment. 7o ho d otherwise is to sanction sp itting o! 8urisdiction which is obno:ious to the order y administration o! 8ustice. 7hus, it is, !irst and !oremost, the ?"+C $anua on the A:ecution o! 4udgment that go)erns any 6uestion on the e:ecution o! a 8udgment o! that body. 1etitioner need not oo% !urther than that. 7he +u es o! Court app y on y by ana ogy or in a supp etory character. Consider the pro)ision in Section 1', +u e 09 o! the +u es o! Court on third9party c aims: SAC. 1'. 2rocee(ing where property claime( 0y thir( per on.6 &! the property e)ied on is c aimed by any person other than the 8udgment ob igor or his agent, and such person ma%es an a!!ida)it o! his tit e thereto or right to the possession thereo!, stating the grounds o! such right or tit e, and ser)es the same upon the o!!icer ma%ing the e)y and a copy thereo! upon the 8udgment ob igee, the o!!icer sha not be bound to %eep the property, un ess such 8udgment ob igee, on demand o! the o!!icer, !i es a bond appro)ed by the court to indemni!y the third9party c aimant in a sum not ess than the )a ue o! the property e)ied on. &n case o! disagreement as to such )a ue, the same sha be determined by the court issuing the writ o! e:ecution. ?o c aim !or damages !or the ta%ing or %eeping o! the property may be en!orced against the bond un ess the action there!or is !i ed within one hundred twenty ,120- days !rom the date o! the !i ing o! the bond. 7he o!!icer sha not be iab e !or damages !or the ta%ing or %eeping o! the property, to any third9party c aimant i! such bond is !i ed. ?othing herein contained sha pre)ent such c aimant or any third person !rom )indicating his c aim to the property in a separate action, or pre)ent the 8udgment ob igee !rom c aiming damages in the same or a separate action against a third9party c aimant who !i ed a !ri)o ous or p ain y spurious c aim. Ghen the writ o! e:ecution is issued in !a)or o! the +epub ic o! the 1hi ippines, or any o!!icer du y representing it, the !i ing o! such bond sha not be re6uired, and in case the sheri!! or e)ying o!!icer is sued !or damages as a resu t o! the e)y, he sha be represented by the So icitor @enera and i! he d iab e there!or, the actua damages ad8udged by the court sha be paid by the ?ationa 7reasurer out o! such !unds as may be appropriated !or the purpose.
=0 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

#n the other hand, the ?"+C $anua on the A:ecution o! 4udgment dea s speci!ica y with third9party c aims in cases brought be!ore that body. &t de!ines a third9party c aim as one where a person, not a party to the case, asserts tit e to or right to the possession o! the property e)ied upon. &t a so sets out the procedure !or the !i ing o! a third9party c aim, to wit: SAC7&#? 2. 2rocee(ing . U &! property e)ied upon be c aimed by any person other than the osing party or his agent, such person sha ma%e an a!!ida)it o! his tit e thereto or right to the possession thereo!, stating the grounds o! such right or tit e and sha !i e the same with the sheri!! and copies thereo! ser)ed upon the "abor Arbiter or proper o!!icer issuing the writ and upon the pre)ai ing party. >pon receipt o! the third party c aim, a proceedings with respect to the e:ecution o! the property sub8ect o! the third party c aim sha automatica y be suspended and the "abor Arbiter or proper o!!icer issuing the writ sha conduct a hearing with due notice to a parties concerned and reso )e the )a idity o! the c aim within ten ,10- wor%ing days !rom receipt thereo! and his decision is appea ab e to the Commission within ten ,10- wor%ing days !rom notice, and the Commission sha reso )e the appea within same period. 7here is no doubt in our mind that petitioner<s comp aint is a third9 party c aim within the cogni5ance o! the ?"+C. 1etitioner may indeed be considered a Cthird partyC in re ation to the property sub8ect o! the e:ecution )is9Z9)is the "abor Arbiter<s decision. 7here is no 6uestion that the property be ongs to petitioner and his wi!e, and not to the corporation. &t can be said that the property be ongs to the con8uga partnership, not to petitioner a one. 7hus, the property be ongs to a third party, i.e., the con8uga partnership. At the )ery east, the Court can consider that petitioner<s wi!e is a third party within contemp ation o! the aw. ?ote: petitioner shou d ha)e !i ed a third party comp ain be!ore the ?"+C, wrong choice o! remedy but ne)erthe ess the SC granted the petition %asi sobrang taga na nung %aso.

ARTICLE 226 BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS


EMPLOYEES UNION OF BAYER PHILS VS. BAYER PHILS DECEMBER 6, 2010 Fact : 1etitioner Amp oyees >nion o! *ayer 1hi ippines0 ,A>*1- is the e:c usi)e bargaining agent o! a ran%9and9!i e emp oyees o! *ayer 1hi ippines ,*ayer-, and is an a!!i iate o! the .ederation o! .ree Gor%ers ,..G-. &n 1992, A>*1, headed by its president 4uanito S. .acundo ,.acundo-, negotiated with *ayer !or the signing o! a co ecti)e bargaining agreement ,C*A-. /uring the negotiations, A>*1
== % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

re8ected *ayer<s 9.93 wage9increase proposa resu ting in a bargaining dead oc%. Subse6uent y, A>*1 staged a stri%e, prompting the Secretary o! the /epartment o! "abor and Amp oyment ,/#"A- to assume 8urisdiction o)er the dispute. &n ?o)ember 1992, pending the reso ution o! the dispute, respondent A)e ina +emigio ,+emigio- and 22 other union members, without any authority !rom their union eaders, accepted *ayer<s wage9increase proposa . A>*1<s grie)ance committee 6uestioned +emigio<s action and reprimanded +emigio and her a ies. #n 4anuary 2, 199D, the /#"A Secretary issued an arbitra award ordering A>*1 and *ayer to e:ecute a C*A retroacti)e to 4anuary 1, 1992 and to be made e!!ecti)e unti /ecember 01, 2001. 7he said C*A was registered on 4u y D, 199D with the &ndustria +e ations /i)ision o! the /#"A9?ationa Capita +egion ,?C+-. $eanwhi e, the ri!t between .acundo<s eadership and +emigio<s group broadened. #n August 0, 199D, bare y si: months !rom the signing o! the new C*A, during a company9sponsored seminar,' +emigio so icited signatures !rom union members in support o! a reso ution containing the decision o! the signatories to: ,1- disa!!i iate !rom ..G, ,2- rename the union as +e!ormed Amp oyees >nion o! *ayer 1hi ippines ,+A>*1-, ,0- adopt a new constitution and by9 aws !or the union, ,=- abo ish a e:isting o!!icer positions in the union and e ect a new set o! interim o!!icers, and ,5- authori5e +A>*1 to administer the C*A between A>*1 and *ayer.2 7he said reso ution was signed by 1=2 o! the 252 oca union members. A subse6uent reso ution was a so issued a!!irming the !irst reso ution. A tug9o!9war then ensued between the two ri)a groups, with both see%ing recognition !rom *ayer and demanding remittance o! the union dues co ected !rom its ran%9and9!i e members. #n September D, 199D, +emigio<s sp inter group wrote .acundo, ..G and *ayer in!orming them o! the decision o! the ma8ority o! the union members to disa!!i iate !rom ..G. 7his was !o owed by another etter in!orming .acundo, ..G and *ayer that an interim set o! +A>*1 e:ecuti)e o!!icers and board o! directors had been appointed, and demanding the remittance o! a union dues to +A>*1. +emigio a so as%ed *ayer to desist !rom !urther transacting with A>*1. .acundo, meanwhi e, sent simi ar re6uests to *ayer re6uesting !or the remittance o! union dues in !a)or o! A>*1 and accusing the company o! inter!ering with pure y union matters. *ayer responded by deciding not to dea with either o! the two groups, and by p acing the union dues co ected in a trust account unti the con! ict between the two groups is reso )ed. A>1* !i ed a comp aint against *ayer !or no remittance o! union dues and !or )io ating the C*A, the abor arbiter he d that it has no 8urisdiction because the root cause !or *ayer<s !ai ure to remit the co ected union dues can be traced to the intra9union con! ict between A>*1 and +emigio<s group and
=5 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

that the charges imputed against *ayer shou d ha)e been submitted instead to )o untary arbitration I !": whether ?"+C has 8urisdiction

H"#$: ;es. 7he ?"+C and not the *"+ has 8urisdiction in the case, An intra9union dispute re!ers to any con! ict between and among union members, inc uding grie)ances arising !rom any )io ation o! the rights and conditions o! membership, )io ation o! or disagreement o)er any pro)ision o! the union<s constitution and by9 aws, or disputes arising !rom chartering or disa!!i iation o! the union. Sections 1 and 2, +u e X& o! /epartment #rder ?o. =0900, Series o! 2000 o! the /#"A enumerate the !o owing circumstances as interFintra9union disputes, )i5: +>"A X& &?7A+F&?7+A9>?&#? /&S1>7AS A?/ #7EA+ +A"A7A/ "A*#+ +A"A7&#?S /&S1>7AS Section 1. Co)erage. 9 &nterFintra9union disputes sha inc ude: ,a- cance ation o! registration o! a abor organi5ation !i ed by its members or by another abor organi5ation( ,b- conduct o! e ection o! union and wor%ers< association o!!icersFnu i!ication o! e ection o! union and wor%ers< association o!!icers( ,c- auditFaccounts e:amination o! union or wor%ers< association !unds( ,d- deregistration o! co ecti)e bargaining agreements( ,e- )a idityFin)a idity o! union a!!i iation or disa!!i iation( ,!- )a idityFin)a idity o! acceptanceFnon9acceptance !or union membership( ,g- )a idityFin)a idity o! impeachmentFe:pu sion o! union and wor%ers< association o!!icers and members( ,h- )a idityFin)a idity o! )o untary recognition( ,i- opposition to app ication !or union and C*A registration( ,8- )io ations o! or disagreements o)er any pro)ision in a union or wor%ers< association constitution and by9 aws( ,%- disagreements o)er chartering or registration o! abor organi5ations and co ecti)e bargaining agreements( , - )io ations o! the rights and conditions o! union or wor%ers< association membership( ,m- )io ations o! the rights o! egitimate abor organi5ations, e:cept interpretation o! co ecti)e bargaining agreements( ,n- such other disputes or con! icts in)o )ing the rights to se !9 organi5ation, union membership and co ecti)e bargaining T ,1- between and among egitimate abor organi5ations( ,2- between and among members o! a union or wor%ers< association.
=' % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

Section 2. Co)erage. T #ther re ated abor re ations disputes sha inc ude any con! ict between a abor union and the emp oyer or any indi)idua , entity or group that is not a abor organi5ation or wor%ers< association. 7his inc udes: ,1cance ation o! registration o! unions and wor%ers< associations( and ,2- a petition !or interp eader. &t is c ear !rom the !oregoing that the issues raised by petitioners do not !a under any o! the a!orementioned circumstances constituting an intra9union dispute. $ore important y, the petitioners do not see% a determination o! whether it is the .acundo group ,A>*1- or the +emigio group ,+A>*1- which is the true set o! union o!!icers. &nstead, the issue raised pertained on y to the )a idity o! the acts o! management in ight o! the !act that it sti has an e:isting C*A with A>*1. MONTANO VS. VERCELES /ULY 26, 2010 Fact : Atty. $ontaYo wor%ed as ega assistant o! ..G "ega Center on #ctober 1, 199=.Subse6uent y, he 8oined the union o! ran%9and9!i e emp oyees, the ..G Sta!! Association, and e)entua y became the emp oyees< union president in 4u y 1992. &n ?o)ember 199D, he was i%ewise designated o!!icer9in9charge o! ..G "ega Center. /uring the 21st ?ationa Con)ention and A ection o! ?ationa #!!icers o! ..G, Atty. $ontaYo was nominated !or the position o! ?ationa Jice91resident. &n a etter dated $ay 25, 2001, howe)er, the Commission on A ection ,..G C#$A"AC-, in!ormed him that he is not 6ua i!ied !or the position as his candidacy )io ates the 199D ..G Constitution and *y9"aws, particu ar y Section 2' o! Artic e X&X and Section 25 ,a- o! Artic e J&&&, both in Chapter && thereo!. Atty. $ontaYo thus !i ed an >rgent $otion !or +econsideration praying that his name be inc uded in the o!!icia ist o! candidates. A ection ensued on $ay 2'922, 2001 in the ?ationa Con)ention he d at Subic &nternationa Eote , # ongapo City. /espite the pending motion !or reconsideration with the ..G C#$A"AC, and strong opposition and protest o! respondent Atty. Arnesto C. Jerce es ,Atty. Jerce es-, a de egate to the con)ention and president o! >ni)ersity o! the Aast Amp oyees< Association ,>AAA9..G- which is an a!!i iate union o! ..G, the con)ention de egates a owed Atty. $ontaYo<s candidacy. Ee emerged )ictorious and was proc aimed as the ?ationa Jice91resident. #n $ay 2D, 2001, through a etter to the Chairman o! ..G C#$A"AC, Atty. Jerce es reiterated his protest o)er Atty. $ontaYo<s candidacy which he mani!ested during the p enary session be!ore the ho ding o! the e ection in the Con)ention. #n 4une 1D, 2001, Atty. Jerce es sent a !o ow9up etter to the 1resident o! ..G re6uesting !or immediate action on his protest. S!; "F!",t#9 '")c"#" a# * A+#"$ a ."t+t+*, A*) ,!##+A+cat+*, *A t8" "#"ct+*, *A :*,ta,* ;"A*)" t8" BLR, ."t+t+*,") *, t8" *t8") 8a,$ a a+# t8at t8" )"-+*,a# $+)"ct*) *A DOLE 8*!#$ 8a'" G!)+ $+ct+*, I !": whether the *"+ has 8urisdiction

=2 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

H"#$: ;es. Section 22' o! the "abor Code c ear y pro)ides that the *"+ and the +egiona /irectors o! /#"A ha)e concurrent 8urisdiction o)er inter9union and intra9union disputes. Such disputes inc ude the conduct or nu i!ication o! e ection o! union and wor%ers< association o!!icers. 7here is, thus, no doubt as to the *"+<s 8urisdiction o)er the instant dispute in)o )ing member9unions o! a !ederation arising !rom disagreement o)er the pro)isions o! the !ederation<s constitution and by9 aws. +u e XJ& ays down the decentra i5ed intra9union dispute sett ement mechanism. Section 1 states that any comp aint in this regard Msha be !i ed in the +egiona #!!ice where the union is domici ed.< 7he concept o! domici e in abor re ations regu ation is e6ui)a ent to the p ace where the union see%s to operate or has estab ished a geographica presence !or purposes o! co ecti)e bargaining or !or dea ing with emp oyers concerning terms and conditions o! emp oyment. 7he matter o! )enue becomes prob ematic when the intra9union dispute in)o )es a !ederation, because the geographica presence o! a !ederation may encompass more than one administrati)e region. 1ursuant to its authority under Artic e 22', this *ureau e:ercises origina 8urisdiction o)er intra9union disputes in)o )ing !ederations. &t is we 9sett ed that ..G, ha)ing oca unions a o)er the country, operates in more than one administrati)e region. 7here!ore, this *ureau maintains origina and e:c usi)e 8urisdiction o)er disputes arising !rom any )io ation o! or disagreement o)er any pro)ision o! its constitution and by9 aws. DIO4NO VS. CACDAC /ULY 0, 2005 Fact : 7he .irst "ine Association o! $era co Super)isory Amp oyees ,."A$AS- is a egitimate abor organi5ation which is the super)isory union o! $era co. 1etitioners and pri)ate respondents are members o! ."A$AS. #n 1 Apri 2000, the ."A$AS A:ecuti)e *oard created the Committee on A ection ,C#$A"AC- !or the conduct o! its union e ections schedu ed on 2 $ay 2000. 7he C#$A"AC was composed o! petitioner /ante $. 7ong as its chairman, and petitioners 4aime C. $endo5a and +omeo $. $acapu ay as members. 1ri)ate responded edgardo daya and others are candidates !or the said e ections but was dis6ua i!ied because the C#$A"AC he d that daya and his group a owed themse )es to be assisted by other unions the $era co Sa)ings and "oan Association ,$ASA"A- and the $era co $utua Aid and *ene!its Association ,$A$A*A- and e:erted undue in! uence on the members o! ."A$AS. /aya and other pri)ate respondents !i ed a petition to nu i!y the e ection be!ore the med arbiter. 7he petitioner members o! come ec assai s the 8urisdiction o! *"+ because o! the !ai ure o! pri)ate respondents /aya, et a ., to e:haust administrati)e remedies within the union. &t is the stance o! petitioner that Artic e 22' o! the "abor Code which grants power to the *"+ to reso )e inter9 union and intra9union disputes is dead aw, and has been amended by Section 1= o! +epub ic Act ?o. '215, whereby the conci iation, mediation and )o untary arbitration !unctions o! the *"+ had been trans!erred to the ?ationa Conci iation and $ediation *oard. I !": Ghether *"+ has 8urisdiction

=D % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

H"#$: ;es. A+7. 22'. *>+AA> #. "A*#+ +A"A7&#?S. T 7he *ureau o! "abor +e ations and the "abor +e ations /i)isions in the regiona o!!ices o! the /epartment o! "abor sha ha)e origina and e:c usi)e authority to act, at their own initiati)e or upon re6uest o! either or both parties, on a inter9union and intra9union con! icts, and a disputes, grie)ances or prob ems arising !rom or a!!ecting abor9management re ations in a wor%p aces whether agricu tura or nonagricu tura , e:cept those arising !rom the imp ementation or interpretation o! co ecti)e bargaining agreements which sha be the sub8ect o! grie)ance procedure andFor )o untary arbitration. 7he *ureau sha ha)e !i!teen ,15- wor%ing days to act on abor cases be!ore it, sub8ect to e:tension by agreement o! the parties. 7he amendment to Artic e 22', as couched in +epub ic Act ?o. '215, which is re ied upon by petitioners in arguing that the *"+ had been di)ested o! its 8urisdiction, simp y reads, thus: Sec. 1=. 7he second paragraph o! Artic e 22' o! the same Code is i%ewise hereby amended to read as !o ows: C7he *ureau sha ha)e !i!teen ,15- ca endar days to act on abor cases be!ore it, sub8ect to e:tension by agreement o! the parties.C 7his Court in *autista ). Court o! Appea s, interpreting Artic e 22' o! the "abor Code, was e:p icit in dec aring that the *"+ has the origina and e:c usi)e 8urisdiction on a inter9union and intra9union con! icts. Ge said that since Artic e 22' o! the "abor Code has dec ared that the *"+ sha ha)e origina and e:c usi)e authority to act on a inter9union and intra9union con! icts, there shou d be no more doubt as to its 8urisdiction. As de!ined, an intra9union con! ict wou d re!er to a con! ict within or inside a abor union, whi e an inter9union contro)ersy or dispute is one occurring or carried on between or among unions. $ore speci!ica y, an intra9union dispute is de!ined under Section ,5-, +u e & o! the +u es &mp ementing *oo% J o! the "abor Code, )i5: ,5- C&ntra9>nion /isputeC re!ers to any con! ict between and among union members, and inc udes a disputes or grie)ances arising !rom any )io ation o! or disagreement o)er any pro)ision o! the constitution and by9 aws o! a union, inc uding cases arising !rom chartering or a!!i iation o! abor organi5ations or !rom any )io ation o! the rights and conditions o! union membership pro)ided !or in the Code. 7he contro)ersy in the case at bar is an intra9union dispute. 7here is no 6uestion that this is one which in)o )es a dispute within or inside ."A$AS, a abor union. At issue is the propriety o! the dis6ua i!ication o! pri)ate respondents /aya, et a ., by the ."A$AS C#$A"AC in the 2 $ay 2000 e ections. &t must a so be stressed that e)en as the dispute in)o )es a egations that pri)ate respondents /aya, et a ., sought the he p o! non9members o! the union in their e ection campaign to the detriment o! ."A$AS, the same does not detract !rom the rea character o! the contro)ersy. &t remains as one which in)o )es the grie)ance o)er the constitution and by aws o! a union, and it is a contro)ersy in)o )ing members o! the union. $oreo)er, the non9members o! the union who were a eged to ha)e aided pri)ate respondents /aya, et a ., are not parties in the case.
=9 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

ARTICLE 225 COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS


MAGBANUA '. UY MAY 6, 2002 Fact : 7he Supreme Court rendered a !ina and e:ecutory decision which a!!irmed the decision o! the ?"+C to determine the amount o! wage di!!erentia s due the eight petitioners therein. 1etitioners !i ed a motion !or issuance o! writ o! e:ecution. +espondent, >y, !i ed a $ani!estation stating that 8udgment award was satis!ied. 1etitioners !i ed an >rgent $otion !or the issuance o! Grit o! A:ecution c aiming that they recei)ed partia payment on y. >y opposed contending that said award was !u y satis!ied. Si: out o! the eight petitioners !i ed a $ani!estation re6uesting the case be considered c osed as they are a ready satis!ied with what ha)e recei)ed !rom the respondent. "abor Arbiter issued an order denying the motion o! the petitioners. #n appea , ?"+C re)ersed the decision ho ding that a !ina and e:ecutor decision can no onger be a tered and that 6uitc aims and re eases are norma y !rowned upon as contrary to pub ic po icy. Court o! Appea s he d that said compromise agreements may be entered into e)en a!ter !ina 8udgment. $otion !or reconsideration was denied !or ha)ing been !i ed out o! time. ISSUES1 Ghether or not !ina and e:ecutor 8udgment o! the Supreme Court cou d be sub8ect to compromise agreement. Ghether or not petitioner<s a!!ida)its wai)ing their awards without the assistance o! their counse and abor arbiter is )a id. HELD1 ;es. 1etitioners )o untari y entered into a compromise agreement as shown in the !o owing !acts: 7hey signed respondent<s $ani!estation ,!i ed in the "abor Arbiter- that the 8udgment award was satis!ied( 7hey e:ecuted 8oint a!!ida)it attesting to the receipt o! payment and wai)er o! a bene!its due them and Si: out o! eight petitioners !i ed a mani!estation with the "abor Arbiter re6uesting that the case be terminated because o! their receipt o! payment in !u satis!action o! their c aims. the princip e o! no)ation supports the )a idity o! a compromise agreement a!ter !ina 8udgment. A compromise agreement o! a !ina 8udgment operates as a no)ation o! the 8udgment ob igation, upon comp iance with either re6uisite. &n the present case, the incompatibi ity o! the !ina 8udgment with the compromise agreement is e)ident, because the atter was precise y entered into to supersede the !ormer. 7he presence or absence o! a counse when a wai)er is e:ecuted does not determine its )a idity. 7he test is whether it was e:ecuted )o untari y, !ree y and inte igent y( whether the consideration !or it was credib e and reasonab e. 1etition is denied. 7he decision o! the Court o! Appea s is a!!irmed.
50 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

SOLOMON '. PO3ERTECH CORP /a,!a)9 22, 2007 Fact 1 A comp aint !or i ega dismissa and other monetary c aims !i ed by the ?ag%a%aisang $anggagawa ng 1owertech Corp. at the Arbitration e)e o! the ?"+C, "abor Arbiter de a Cru5 rendered a decision dec aring i ega termination o! 22 emp oyees and granting their monetary c aims. #n appea by 1owertech, $r. @estiada, !or himse ! and on beha ! o! other comp ainants e:ecuted a 6uitc aim, re ease and wai)er in !a)or o! 1owertech !or 1150,000. ISSUE1 Ghether or not there is a )a id compromise agreement made by $r. @estiada in beha ! o! the comp ainants. HELD1 ?o. 7he ?"+C and the Supreme Court stated that the 1150,000 compromise is ine6uitab e compared to the 12.5$ award a ready won on the Arbiter e)e . &t does not represent a true and !air amount which a reasonab e agent may bargain !or his principa . &n support to their decision, reiterates the andmar% case o! @a icia ). ?"+C, which he d that the consideration !or the 6uitc aim, a meas y 112,000Fwor%er and the tota sum o! 1000,000 are inordinate y ow and e:ceeding y unreasonab e re ati)e to the 1102,0D0Fwor%er. 7he 6uitc aim cannot be considered an obstac e to the pursuit o! their egitimate c aims. &t was estab ished that 1owertech co uded with $r. @estiada in shortchanging !raudu ent y depri)ed the other emp oyees o! their 8ust share in the award. 7he Supreme Court he d that co usion is a species o! !raud. Artic e 222 o! the "abor Code empowers the ?"+C to a)oid compromise agreement !or !raud. 7hus, ?"+C was 8usti!ied in dec aring the compromise agreement !or 1150,000 as )oid and reinstating the 8udgment award o! 12.5$. PHILIPPINE /OURNALISTS INC. ' NLRC SEPYEMBER 22, 2007 Fact 1 14& is a domestic corporation engaged in the pub ication and sa e o! newspapers and maga5ines. 4ourna Amp oyees >nion ,e:c usi)e bargaining unit o! ran%9and9!i e emp oyees- !i ed a notice o! stri%e be!ore the ?C$*, c aiming that 14& was gui ty o! un!air abor practice. 14& was then going to imp ement a retrenchment program due to So)er9sta!!ing or b oated wor% !orce and continuing actua osses by the company.K /#"A certi!ied the abor dispute to the ?"+C !or compu sory arbitration. 1arties were re6uired to submit position papers. 14& !i ed a motion to dismiss contending that the Secretary o! "abor had no 8urisdiction to assume o)er the case and erred in certi!ying it to the ?"+C. ?"+C denied the motion, 14& then !i ed a motion to de!er !urther proceedings, a eging that the !i ing o! its position
51 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

paper might 8eopardi5e attempts to sett e matter e:tra8udicia y. ?"+C a so denied the motion. 7he case was submitted !or decision. ?"+C dec ared that 00 comp ainants were i ega y dismissed and that there was no basis !or the retrenchment program. 1arties e:ecuted a compromise agreement then 14& undertoo% to reinstate the 01 comp ainants without oss o! seniority rights and bene!its. ?"+C ru ed that the comp ainants were not i ega y dismissed. 1etition !or certiorari was !i ed be!ore the Court o! Appea s by the >nion. CA rendered decision and he d ?"+C gra)e y abused its discretion in ru ing !or 14&. Eence this petition. ISSUE1 Ghether or not the ?"+C +eso ution, which inc udes a pronouncement that the members o! a union had been i ega y dismissed is abandoned or rendered Smoot and academicK by a compromise agreement subse6uent y entered into between the dismissed emp oyees and the emp oyer. HELD1 ?o. contrary to the a egation o! 14&, the e:ecution and subse6uent appro)a by the ?"+C o! the agreement !orged between it and the >nion did not render the ?"+C +eso ution ine!!ectua nor render it moot and academic. 7he agreement becomes part o! the 8udgment o! the court or tribuna and as ogica conse6uence, there is an imp icit wai)er o! the right to appea . 7he compromise agreement cannot bind a party who did not )o untari y ta%e part in the sett ement itse ! and ga)e speci!ic indi)idua consent. A compromise agreement is a so a contract( it re6uires the consent o! the parties and it on y then that agreement may be considered as )o untari y entered into. Court o! Appea s was correct in ho ding that the compromise agreement pertained on y to the Smonetary ob igationK o! the emp oyer to the dismissed emp oyees and in no way a!!ected the ?"+C +eso ution where it made the pronouncement that there was no basis !or the imp ementation o! petitioner<s retrenchment program. 1etition is denied.

ARTICLE 2@2 PROHIBITION ON CERTIFICATION ELECTION


COLEGIO DE SAN /UAN DE LETRAN '. ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES AND FACULTY SEPTEMBER 17, 2000 Fact 1 +espond >nion initiated the renegotiation o! its C*A, on that some year the >nion e ected new set o!!icers wherein respondent Ambas is the new president. Ambas wanted to continue negotiation but petitioner c aimed that C*A was a ready prepared !or signing by the parties. 1etitioner accused the >nion o!!icers o! bargaining in bad !aith. "abor Arbiter decided in !a)or o! petitioner but ?"+C re)ersed the decision. >nion noti!ied the ?C$* o! its intention to stri%e on the grounds that petitioner did not comp y to the !o owing: 1- de ete the name o! Atty. "egres as the >nion<s counse 2re!usa to bargain.

52 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

1arties agreed to start a new 59year C*A, then Ambas was in!ormed that her wor% schedu e was changed. Ambas protested and due to petitioner<s inaction the >nion !i ed a notice o! stri%e. 1etitioner dismissed Ambas !or insubordination. Eowe)er, petitioner stopped the negotiation a!ter a new group o! emp oyees !i ed a petition !or certi!ication e ection. Secretary o! "abor assumed 8urisdiction and ordered a stri%ing emp oyees to return to wor%. 1etitioner readmitted stri%ing >nion e:cept Ambas. Secretary o! "abor issued an #rder dec aring petitioner gui ty o! un!air abor practice and directing the reinstatement o! Ambas with bac%wages. 1etitioner !i ed a motion !or reconsideration but was denied. Eence this petition. ISSUE1 Ghether or not the petitioner is gui ty o! un!air abor practice by re!using to bargain with the >nion when it suspended the ongoing negotiations !or a new C*A upon mere in!ormation that a petition !or certi!ication has been !i ed by another egitimate organi5ation. HELD1 ;es. A though the management has the prerogati)e to discip ine its emp oyees !or insubordination but when the e:ercise o! such management right tends to inter!ere with the emp oyee<s right to se !9organi5ation, it amounts to >nion busting and is there!ore a prohibited act. 7he dismissa o! Ambas was c ear y designed to !rustrate the >nion in its desire to !orge a new C*A. Ghen management re!used to treat the charge o! insubordination as a grie)ance within the scope o! the grie)ance machinery, the action o! the co ege in !ina y dismissing her !rom the ser)ice constitute a )io ation o! right to due process against Ambas. 1etition is denied.

ARTICLE 2@0 RECUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION


MARI3ASA SIAM CERAMICS '. SECRETARY OF LABOR DECEMBER 21, 2006 Fact 1 +espondent, Samahan ng $ga $anggagawa sa Siam Ceramics &nc. ,S$$SC9independent- was issued a certi!icate o! registration by the /#"A +egion &J9A. petitioner !i ed a petition !or cance ation o! >nion +egistration against S$$SC, c aiming that they )io ated Artic e 20= o! the "abor Code !or not comp ying with the 203 re6uirement and that it committed massi)e !raud and misrepresentation in )io ation o! Artic e 209 o! the "abor Code. +egiona /irector issued an #rder granting the petition, re)o%ing the registration and de isting it !rom the roster o! acti)e abor unions. S$$SC9

50 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

&ndependent, appea ed to the *"+ and ru ed in !a)or o! the >nion, thus, they remain in the roster o! egitimate abor organi5ations. $ariwasa appea ed and insisted that pri)ate respondent !ai ed to comp y with 203 union membership re6uirement !or its registration because o! the disa!!i iation !rom the tota number o! >nion members o! 102 members who e:ecuted a!!ida)its recanting their union membership. Eence, this petition !or re)iew on certiorari. ISSUES1 Ghether or not the !ai ure to comp y with the 203 union membership re6uirement. Ghether or not withdrawa o! 01 union members a!!ected the petition !or certi!ication e ection inso!ar as the 003 re6uirement is concerned. HELD1 Supreme Court denied the petition. Ghi e it is true that the withdrawa o! support may be considered as a resignation !rom the union, the !act remains that at the time o! the >nion<s app ication !or registration, the a!!iants were members o! respondent and they comprised more than the re6uired 203 membership !or purposes o! registration as a abor union. Artic e 20= o! the "abor Code mere y re6uires a 203 minimum membership during the app ication !or union registration. &t does not mandate that a union must maintain the 203 minimum membership re6uirement a throughout its e:istence. &t appears that the 01 union members had withdrawn their support to the petition be!ore !i ing o! said petition. 7he distinction must be that withdrawa s made be!ore the !i ing o! the petition are presumed )o untary un ess there is con)incing proo! to the contrary, whereas withdrawa s made a!ter !i ing the petition are deemed in)o untary. 7here!ore, !o owing 8urisprudence, the emp oyees were not tota y !ree !rom the emp oyer<s pressure and so the )o untariness o! the emp oyee<s e:ecution o! the a!!ida)its became suspect. 7he cance ation o! a union<s registration doubt ess has an impairing dimension on the right o! abor to se !9organi5ation. .or !raud and misrepresentation to be grounds !or cance ation o! union registration under the "abor Code, the nature o! the !raud and misrepresentation must be gra)e and compe ing enough to )itiate the consent o! a ma8ority o! union members.

ELECTROMAT MANUFACTURING AND RECORDING CORP. '. LAGUN&AD /ULY 25, 2011 Fact 1 +espondent ?ag%a%aisang Samahan ng $anggagawa ng A ectromat9 Gasto ,>nion-, a charter a!!i iate o! the Gor%ers Ad)ocates !or strugg e, trans!ormation #rgani5ation ,GAS7#-, app ied !or registration with the *"+.
5= % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

*"+ issued union a certi!ication o! Creation o! "oca Chapter ,e6ui)a ent to the certi!icate o! registration o! an independent union- pursuant to /.#. ?o. =0900. 1etitioner !i ed a petition !or cance ation o! the union<s certi!icate, !or the union<s !ai ure to comp y with Artic e 20= o! the "abor Code. &t argued that /.#. =0900 is an unconstitutiona diminution o! the "abor Code<s union registration re6uirements under Artic e 20=. Acting /irector "agun5ad dismissed the petition. #n appea , *"+ /irector a!!irmed the dismissa . 7hen e e)ated to the Court o! Appea s )ia petition !or certiorari contending gra)e abuse o! discretion by the *"+. &t assai ed the )a idity o! /.#. =0900 reducing the re6uirements under Artic e 20=. &t maintained that *"+ shou d ha)e not granted the registration through the issuance o! a certi!ication o! creation o! oca chapter since the union submitted on y the charter certi!icate issued by GAS7#. Court o! Appea s dismissed the petition. #n motion !or reconsideration, A ecromat argued that union<s certi!icate was in)a id because GAS7# do not ha)e at east 10 oca s or chapter as re6uired by /.#.=0900. Court o! Appea s denied the motion ho ding that no such re6uirement is !ound under the ru es. Eence this petition. ISSUE1 Ghether or not /.#. =0900 is a )a id e:ercise o! the ru e ma%ing power o! the /#"A. HELD1 ;es. &n )iew o! the princip e o! Sprogressi)e de)e opmentK T the intent o! the aw in imposing esser re6uirements in the case o! a branch or oca registered !ederation or nationa union is to encourage the a!!i iation o! a oca union with a !ederation or nationa union in order to increase the oca union<s bargaining powers respecting terms and conditions o! abor. /.#. =0900 represents an e:pression o! the go)ernment<s imp ementing po icy on trade unionism. &n any case, the union has more than satis!ied the re6uirements the petitioner comp ains about. 1etition is denied. EAGLE RIDGE GOLF ? COUNTRY CLUB, P"t+t+*,"), ' . COURT OF APPEALS a,$ EAGLE RIDGE EMPLOYEES UNION <EREU= G.R. N*. 157676 Ma)c8 17, 2010 Fact 1 203 o! Aag e +idge<s ran%9and9!i e emp oyeesUthe percentage thresho d re6uired under Artic e 20=,c- o! the "abor Code !or union registrationUhad a meeting where they organi5ed themse )es into an independent abor union, named CAag e +idge Amp oyees >nionC ,A+A>-. A+A><s app ication was granted by the /#"A. A+A> then !i ed a petition !or certi!ication e ection in Aag e +idge @o ! [ Country C ub but it was opposed by Aag e +idge !o owed by a petition !or cance ation due to an a eged !raud and misrepresentation in their constitution and by9 aws and e ection o! o!!icers. 1etitioner contends that in the A+A> registration !orm they dec ared that they ha)e 00 members whi e in their meeting it shows that they on y ha)e 2' and that !i)e o! their members ha)e mani!ested their intention to withdraw through their a!!ida)its. A+A> on the
55 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

other hand contends that the petition !or cance ation was de!icient in !orm ac%ing certi!ication against !orum shopping, they admitted = new members and that they ha)e rati!ied their constitution and by9 aws. /#"A ru ed in !a)or o! Aag e +idge. A+A> e e)ated the case be!ore the *"+ which a!!irmed the decision o! /#"A +egiona /irector. An $+ re)ersed the decision o! /#"A and *"+. Aag e went to CA !or certiorari but the same was denied !or gi)ing a machine copy o! the reso utions and the de!iciencies in the certi!ication against !orum shopping. I !"1 G#? the withdrawa o! the emp oyee a!!ects the status o! the >nion

R!#+,-1 ?#. *e!ore their amendment by +epub ic Act ?o. 9=D1 =0 on 4une 15, 2002, the then go)erning Art. 20= ,on the re6uirements o! registration o! a abor union- and Art. 209 ,on the grounds !or cance ation o! union registration- o! the "abor Code respecti)e y pro)ided as !o ows: A+7. 20=. !789$!7M71TS O: !7;$ST!)T$O1 . TT Any app icant abor organi5ation, association or group o! unions or wor%ers sha ac6uire ega persona ity and sha be entit ed to the rights and pri)i eges granted by aw to egitimate abor organi5ations upon issuance o! the certi!icate o! registration based on the !o owing re6uirements: ,a- .i!ty pesos ,150.00- registration !ee( ,b- 7he names o! its o!!icers, their addresses, the principa address o! the abor organi5ation, the minutes o! the organi5ationa meetings and the ist o! wor%ers who participated in such meetings( ,c- 7he names o! a its members comprising at east twenty percent ,203- o! a the emp oyees in the bargaining unit where it see%s to operate( :::: ,e- .our copies ,=- o! the constitution and by9 aws o! the app icant union, minutes o! its adoption or rati!ication and the ist o! the members who participated in it.=1 A scrutiny o! the records !ai s to show any misrepresentation, !a se statement, or !raud committed by A+A> to merit cance ation o! its registration. &n 7a tlan( Manu.acturing %ompany" $nc. v. 1oriel ,52 the Court emphasi5ed, and reiterated its ear ier ru ings,50 that Ce)en i! there were ess than 003 Pthe re6uired percentage o! minimum membership thenQ o! the emp oyees as%ing !or a certi!ication e ection, that o! itse ! wou d not be a bar to respondent /irector ordering such an e ection pro)ided, o! course, there is no gra)e abuse o! discretion.C5= Citing 2hilippine ) ociation o. :ree /a0or 9nion v. +ureau o. /a0or !elation ,55 the Court emphasi5ed that a certi!ication e ection is the most appropriate procedure !or the desired goa o! ascertaining which o! the competing organi5ations shou d represent the emp oyees !or the purpose o! co ecti)e bargaining.5' Ge are not persuaded. As apt y noted by both the *"+ and CA, these most y undated written statements submitted by Jentures on $arch 20, 2001, or se)en months a!ter it !i ed its petition !or cance ation o! registration, parta%e o! the nature o! withdrawa o! union membership e:ecuted a!ter the >nion<s !i ing o! a petition !or certi!ication e ection on $arch 21, 2000. Ge ha)e in precedent cases said that the emp oyees< withdrawa !rom a abor union made be!ore the !i ing o! the petition !or certi!ication e ection is presumed )o untary, whi e withdrawa a!ter the !i ing o! such petition is considered to be in)o untary and
5' % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

does not a!!ect the same. ?ow then, i! a withdrawa !rom union membership done a!ter a petition !or certi!ication e ection has been !i ed does not )itiate such petition, is it not but ogica to assume that such withdrawa cannot wor% to nu i!y the registration o! the unionI >pon this ight, the Court is inc ined to agree with the CA that the *"+ did not abuse its discretion nor gra)e y err when it conc uded that the a!!ida)its o! retraction o! the D2 members had no e)identiary weight.59 ,Amphasis supp ied.TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INCORPORATED, ."t+t+*,"), ' . TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION(PGT3O, )" .*,$",t. G.R. N*. 102000 /a,!a)9 22, 200@ Fact 1 7he 7EA>9 1hi ippine 7ransport and @enera Gor%ers #rgani5ation ,17@G#- representing the ma8ority o! the ran%9and9!i e emp oyees o! the petitioner !i ed a petition !or certi!ication e ection be!ore the /#"A. 1etitioner opposed the petition on the ground that the ist o! union members submitted by it was de!ecti)e and !ata y ! awed as it inc uded the names and signatures o! super)isors, resigned, terminated and absent without ea)e ,AG#"- emp oyees, as we as emp oyees o! 7he Country C ub, &nc., a corporation distinct and separate !rom 7E&@C&( and that out o! the 192 signatories to the petition, on y 21 were actua ran%9and9!i e emp oyees o! 7E&@C&. /#"A ru ed in !a)or o! 7EA>. An $+ by the petitioner was denied and /#"A ru ed that the twenty percent ,203- membership re6uirement is not necessary !or it to ac6uire egitimate status. A petition !or certiorari was !i ed be!ore SC and the case was re!erred to CA but it was denied by the CA !or !ai ure to adduce substantia e)idence to support its a egations. I !"1 G#? the opposition o! the petitioner is su!!icient to 6uestion the persona ity o! the >nion R!#+,-1 ?#. A!ter a certi!icate o! registration is issued to a union, its ega persona ity cannot be sub8ect to co atera attac%. &t may be 6uestioned on y in an independent petition !or cance ation in accordance with Section 5 o! +u e J, *oo% &J o! the C+u es to &mp ement the "abor CodeC ,&mp ementing +u es- which section reads: Sec. 5. 7..ect o. regi tration. 7he abor organi5ation or wor%ers< association sha be deemed registered and )ested with ega persona ity on the date o! issuance o! its certi!icate o! registration. Such ega persona ity cannot therea!ter be sub8ect to co atera attac%, but may be 6uestioned on y in an independent petition !or cance ation in accordance with these +u es. Ghi e petitioner submitted a ist o! its emp oyees with their corresponding 8ob tit es and ran%s,2= there is nothing mentioned about the super)isors< respecti)e duties, powers and prerogati)es that wou d show that they can e!!ecti)e y recommend manageria actions which re6uire the use o! independent 8udgment.25 As this Court put it in 2ep i<%ola 2ro(uct 2hilippine " $nc. v. Secretary o. /a0or:2'
52 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

/esignation shou d be reconci ed with the actua 8ob description o! sub8ect emp oyees : : : 7he mere !act that an emp oyee is designated manager does not necessari y ma%e him one. #therwise, there wou d be an absurd situation where one can be gi)en the tit e 8ust to be depri)ed o! the right to be a member o! a union. &n the case o! ?ationa Stee Corporation )s. "aguesma ,@. +. ?o. 1002=0, 4anuary 29, 199'-, it was stressed that: Ghat is essentia is the nature o! the emp oyee<s !unction and not the nomenc ature or tit e gi)en to the 8ob which determines whether the emp oyee has ran%9and9!i e or manageria status or whether he is a super)isory emp oyee.

S.S. VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, INC., P"t+t+*,"), ' . S.S. VENTURES LABOR UNION <SSVLU= a,$ DIR. HANS LEO CACDAC, +, H+ ca.ac+t9 a D+)"ct*) *A t8" B!)"a! *A La;*) R"#at+*, <BLR=, R" .*,$",t . G.R. N*. 161660 /!#9 2@, 2007 Fact 1 7he >nion !i ed with /#"A9+egion &&& a petition !or certi!ication e ection in beha ! o! the ran%9and9!i e emp oyees o! Jentures. .i)e hundred !orty two ,5=2signatures, D2 o! which be ong to terminated Jentures emp oyees, appeared on the basic documents supporting the petition. Jentures !i ed a 1etition 1 to cance the >nion<s certi!icate o! registration in)o%ing the grounds set !orth in Artic e 209,a- o! the "abor Code. Jentures contend that they ma icious y inc uded D2 signatures o! !ormer emp oyees, some signatures appeared twice or thrice, a meeting was not he d !or the purpose and the union !ai ed to attain the 203 membership re6uirement under the "abor Code. &n its Answer with $otion to /ismiss,5 the >nion denied committing the imputed acts o! !raud or !orgery and a eged that: ,1- the organi5ationa meeting actua y too% p ace on 4anuary 9, 2000 at the Shoe City bas%etba court in $ari)e es( ,2the D2 emp oyees ad)erted to in Jentures< petition were 6ua i!ied >nion members !or, a though they ha)e been ordered dismissed, the one9year prescripti)e period to 6uestion their dismissa had not yet apsed( ,0- it had comp ied with the 2039member registration re6uirement since it had 5=2 members( and ,=- the Cdoub eC signatures were inad)ertent human error. /#"A ru ed in !a)or o! the Jentures ordering the cance ation o! the certi!icate o! the >nion. >nion !i ed $+ be!ore *"+ and it was !i ed be ated y but it was gi)en due course by *"+ and treated is as an appea . Jentures !i ed a motion to e:punge the appea but *"+ rendered decision in !a)or o! the >nion. A motion !or reconsideration by Jentures was denied by the CA. I !"1 whether the union comp ied with the 203 re6uirement !or registration

R!#+,-1 ;es.7o our mind, the re e)ancy o! the D2 indi)idua s< acti)e participation in the >nion<s organi5ationa meeting and the signing ceremonies
5D % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

therea!ter comes in on y !or purposes o! determining whether or not the >nion, e)en without the D2, wou d sti meet what Art. 20=,c- o! the "abor Code re6uires to be submitted, to wit: Art. 20=. +e6uirements o! +egistration.UAny app icant abor organi5ation : : : sha ac6uire ega persona ity and sha be entit ed to the rights and pri)i eges granted by aw to egitimate abor organi5ations upon issuance o! the certi!icate o! registration based on the !o owing re6uirements: ,c- 7he names o! a its members comprising at east twenty percent ,203- o! a the emp oyees in the bargaining unit where it see%s to operate. &n its union records on !i e with this *ureau, respondent union submitted the names o! P5=2Q members : : :. 7his number easi y comp ied with the 203 re6uirement, be it 1,92D or 2,202 emp oyees in the estab ishment. A)en subtracting the D2 emp oyees !rom 5=2 ea)es ='0 union members, sti within ==0 or 203 o! the ma:imum tota o! 2,202 ran%9and9!i e emp oyees. Ghate)er misgi)ings the petitioner may ha)e with regard to the D2 dismissed emp oyees is better addressed in the inc usion9e:c usion proceedings during a pre9e ection con!erence : : :. 7he issue surrounding the in)o )ement o! the D2 emp oyees is a matter o! membership or )oter e igibi ity. &t is not a ground to cance union registration.

ARTICLE 2@7 H 2@6


THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, act+,- t8)*!-8 +t *>,"), GRAND PLA&A HOTEL CORPORATION, P"t+t+*,"), ' . NATIONAL UNION OF 3OR4ERS IN THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES(HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA SUPERVISORS CHAPTER <NU3HRAIN(HHMSC=, R" .*,$",t. G.R. N*. 157266 /a,!a)9 12, 2011 Fact 1 7he >nion !i ed with the ,/#"A9?C+- a petition !or certi!ication e ection. 7he petition was a!!irmed by the $ed9Arbiter and /#"A secretary and a owed the ho ding o! a pre9e ection con!erence. Eeritage !i ed $+ but it was denied. 7he pre9e ection con!erence was he d a year ater. 1etitioner mo)ed to archi)e or to dismiss the petition due to a eged repeated non9appearance o! respondent. 7he atter agreed to suspend proceedings unti !urther notice. 7he pre9e ection con!erence resumed 2 years ater. Subse6uent y, Eeritage disco)ered that respondent had !ai ed to submit to the ,*"+- its annua !inancia report !or se)era years and the ist o! its members since it !i ed its registration papers in 1995. Eeritage !i ed a 1etition !or Cance ation o! +egistration o! respondent, on the ground o! the non9submission o! the said documents. Eeritage reiterated its re6uest by !i ing a $otion to /ismiss or Suspend the PCerti!ication A ectionQ 1roceedings,5 arguing that the dismissa or suspension o! the proceedings is warranted, considering that the egitimacy o! respondent is serious y being cha enged in the petition !or cance ation o! registration. ?e)erthe ess the e ection proceeded and the >nion was the winner. Eeritage !i ed a 1rotest with $otion to /e!er Certi!ication o! A ection +esu ts and Ginner. >nion !i ed an Answer contending that Eeritage is stopped !rom 6uestioning
59 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

their status, Eeritage is not a party in interest and that the >nion comp ied with the re6uirements o! the aw. /#"A ru ed in !a)or o! the >nion and $+ by the Eeritage was denied. An appea to the *"+ and CA was a so denied. I !"1 whether the union sti meets the re6uirements prescribed by aw despite the be ated !i ing o! .inancia +eports R!#+,-1 ;AS. Artic es 20D and 209 o! the "abor Code read: A+7. 20D. CA?CA""A7&#? #. +A@&S7+A7&#?( A11AA" 7he certi!icate o! registration o! any egitimate abor organi5ation, whether nationa or oca , sha be cance ed by the *ureau i! it has reason to be ie)e, a!ter due hearing, that the said abor organi5ation no onger meets one or more o! the re6uirements herein prescribed.0= A+7. 209. @+#>?/S .#+ CA?CA""A7&#? #. >?&#? +A@&S7+A7&#?. 7he !o owing sha constitute grounds !or cance ation o! union registration: ,d- .ai ure to submit the annua !inancia report to the *ureau within thirty ,00days a!ter the c osing o! e)ery !isca year and misrepresentation, !a se entries or !raud in the preparation o! the !inancia report itse !( ,i- .ai ure to submit ist o! indi)idua members to the *ureau once a year or whene)er re6uired by the *ureau.05 7hese pro)isions gi)e the +egiona /irector amp e discretion in dea ing with a petition !or cance ation o! a union<s registration, particu ar y, determining whether the union sti meets the re6uirements prescribed by aw. &t is su!!icient to gi)e the +egiona /irector icense to treat the ate !i ing o! re6uired documents as su!!icient comp iance with the re6uirements o! the aw. A!ter a , the aw re6uires the abor organi5ation to submit the annua !inancia report and ist o! members in order to )eri!y i! it is sti )iab e and !inancia y sustainab e as an organi5ation so as to protect the emp oyer and emp oyees !rom !raudu ent or ! y9by9night unions. Gith the submission o! the re6uired documents by respondent, the purpose o! the aw has been achie)ed, though be ated y. &t is undisputed that appe ee !ai ed to submit its annua !inancia reports and ist o! indi)idua members in accordance with Artic e 209 o! the "abor Code. Eowe)er, the e:istence o! this ground shou d not necessari y ead to the cance ation o! union registration. Artic e 209 recogni5es the regu atory authority o! the State to e:act comp iance with reporting re6uirements. ;et there is more at sta%e in this case than mere y monitoring union acti)ities and re6uiring periodic documentation thereo!. As apt y ru ed by respondent *ureau o! "abor +e ations /irector ?orie : C7he rights o! wor%ers to se !9organi5ation !inds genera and speci!ic constitutiona guarantees. : : : Such constitutiona guarantees shou d not be ight y ta%en much ess nu i!ied. A hea thy respect !or the !reedom o! association demands that acts imputab e to o!!icers or members be not easi y )isited with capita punishments against the association itse !.C

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES


ARTICLE 205(206
'0 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

GENERAL SANTOS COCA(COLA PLANT FREE 3OR4ERS UNION(TUPAS, P"t+t+*,"), ' . COCA(COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. <GENERAL SANTOS CITY= R" .*,$",t . FACTS1 +espondent Coca9Co a *ott ers 1hi ., &nc. ,CC*1&- e:perienced a signi!icant dec ine in pro!itabi ity due to the Asian economic crisis, thus to curb the negati)e e!!ects on the company, it imp emented three ,0- wa)es o! an Aar y +etirement 1rogram. An inter9o!!ice memorandum was a so issued mandating to put on ho d Sa re6uests !or hiring to !i in )acancies in both regu ar and temporary positions in PtheQ Eead #!!ice and in the 1 ants.K .aced with the S!ree5e hiringK directi)e, CC*1& @en San engaged the ser)ices o! 4"*1 Ser)ices Corporation ,4"*1-, a manning agency. 1etitioner then !i ed with the ?ationa Conci iation and $ediation *oard ,?C$*- a ?otice o! Stri%e on the ground o! a eged un!air abor practice committed by CC*1& @en San !or contracting9out ser)ices regu ar y per!ormed by union members. &n a +eso ution, the ?"+C ru ed that CC*1& was not gui ty o! un!air abor practice !or contracting out 8obs to 4"*1. 7he ?"+C he d that petitioner !ai ed to pro)e by substantia e)idence that the system was meant to curtai the right to se !9organi5ation o! petitioner<s members. 1etitioner !i ed a 1etition !or Certiorari be!ore the Court o! Appea s. 7he CA upho d the ?"+C<s !inding that CC*1& was not gui ty o! un!air abor practice. &t he d that the contract between CC*1& and 4"*1 did not amount to abor9on y contracting. &t !ound that 4"*1 was an independent contractor and that the decision to contract out 8obs was a )a id e:ercise o! management prerogati)e to meet e:igent circumstances. Eence, this 1etition !or +e)iew on Certiorari under +u e =5. RULING1 7he petition is bere!t o! merit. Eence, the Court deny the 1etition. 7he issues raised by petitioner o! whether 4"*1 is an independent contractor, whether CC*1&<s contracting9out o! 8obs to 4"*1 amounted to un!air abor practice, and whether such action was a )a id e:ercise o! management prerogati)e, ca !or a re9e:amination o! e)idence, which is not within the ambit o! this Court<s 8urisdiction. 7he CA s6uare y addressed the issue o! 8ob contracting in its assai ed /ecision and +eso ution. 7he CA itse ! e:amined the !acts and e)idence o! the parties and !ound that, based on the e)idence, CC*1& did not engage in abor9on y contracting and, there!ore, was not gui ty o! un!air abor practice.

'1 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

7he ?"+C !ound T and the same was sustained by the CA T that the company<s action to contract9out the ser)ices and !unctions per!ormed by >nion members did not constitute un!air abor practice as this was not directed at the members< right to se !9organi5ation. *oth the ?"+C and the CA !ound that petitioner was unab e to pro)e its charge o! un!air abor practice. &t was the >nion that had the burden o! adducing substantia e)idence to support its a egations o! un!air abor practice,12 which burden it !ai ed to discharge.

DELA SALLE UNIVERSITY, ."t+t+*,"), ' . DELA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION(NATIONAL FEDERATION OF TEACHERS AND EMPLOYEES UNION <DLSUEA(NAFTEU=, )" .*,$",t . FACTS1 /e a Sa e >ni)ersity ,>?&JA+S&7;- and /e a Sa e >ni)ersity Amp oyees Association T ?ationa .ederation o! 7eachers and Amp oyees >nion ,/"S>AA9 ?A.7A>-, which is composed o! regu ar non9academic ran% and !i e emp oyees, ,>?&#?- entered !or a new co ecti)e bargaining agreement which, howe)er, turned out to be unsuccess!u . A!ter se)era conci iation9mediation meetings, !i)e ,5- out o! the e e)en ,11- issues raised were reso )ed by the parties. 7he parties entered into a Submission Agreement, identi!ying the remaining si: ,'unreso )ed issues !or arbitration, name y: ,1- scope o! the bargaining unit, ,2- union security c ause, ,0- security o! tenure, ,=- sa ary increases ,5- inde!inite union ea)e, reduction o! the union presidents wor% oad, specia ea)e, and !ina y, ,'- duration o! the agreement. 7he parties appointed *uena)entura $agsa in as )o untary arbitrator. Jo untary arbitrator rendered the assai ed decision as !o ows: #n the !irst issue, ru ed that the Computer #perators assigned at the Computer Ser)ices Center, shou d be inc uded as members o! the bargaining unit( 7he discip ine o!!icers, be ong - to the ran%9and9!i e on the basis o! the nature o! their 8ob( and with respect to the emp oyees o! the Co ege o! St. *eni de, they

'2 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

had a persona ity separate and distinct !rom the >ni)ersity and thus, they are outside the bargaining unit o! the >ni)ersitys ran%9and9!i e emp oyees. #n the second issue regarding the propriety o! the inc usion o! a union shop c ause, the )o untary arbitrator opined that a union shop c ause is a )a id !orm o! union security whi e the C*A is in !orce and in accordance with the Constitutiona po icy to promote unionism and co ecti)e bargaining and negotiations. Gith respect to the use o! the S ast9in9!irst9outK method in case o! retrenchment and trans!er to other schoo s or units, the )o untary arbitrator uphe d the Se ementary right and prerogati)e o! the management o! the >ni)ersity to se ect andFor choose its emp oyees, a right e6ua y recogni5ed by the Constitution and the aw. +egarding the !ourth issue concerning sa ary increases, the )o untary arbitrator opined that the proposed budget o! the >ni)ersity !or S; 1992990 cou d not su!!icient y cope up with the demand !or increases by the >nion. As to the >nions demand !or a reduction o! the wor% oad o! the union president, specia ea)e bene!its and inde!inite union ea)e with pay, the )o untary arbitrator denied the >nions demand !or specia ea)e bene!its. #n the ast issue, regarding the duration o! the co ecti)e bargaining agreement, the )o untary arbitrator ru ed the same became a binding agreement between them. Subse6uent y, both parties !i ed their respecti)e motions !or reconsideration . ISSUES1 ,1- whether the computer operators assigned at the >ni)ersitys Computer Ser)ices Center and the >ni)ersitys discip ine o!!icers may be considered as con!identia emp oyees and shou d there!ore be e:c uded !rom the bargaining unit which is composed o! ran% and !i e emp oyees o! the >ni)ersity, and whether the emp oyees o! the Co ege o! St. *eni de shou d a so be inc uded in the same bargaining unit( ,2- whether a union shop c ause shou d be inc uded in the parties co ecti)e bargaining agreement, in addition to the e:isting maintenance o! membership c ause( ,0- whether the denia o! the >nions proposed S ast9in9!irst9outK method o! aying9o!! emp oyees, is proper(

'0 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

,=- whether the ru ing that on the basis o! the >ni)ersitys proposed budget, the >ni)ersity can no onger be re6uired to grant a second round o! wage increases, is correct( ,5- whether the denia o! the >nions proposa s on the de oading o! the union president, impro)ed ea)e bene!its and inde!inite union ea)e with pay, is proper( ,'- whether the !inding that the mu ti9sectora committee in the >ni)ersity is the egitimate group which determines and scrutini5es the annua sa ary increases and !ringe bene!its o! the emp oyees o! the >ni)ersity, is correct( ,2- whether the ru ing that the 203 share in the incrementa tuition proceeds is the on y source o! sa ary increases and !ringe bene!its o! the emp oyees, is proper. RULING1 7he Court a!!irm in part and modi!y in part. #n the !irst issue, the Court agrees that the e:press e:c usion o! the computer operators and discip ine o!!icers !rom the bargaining unit o! ran%9and9!i e emp oyees in the 19D' co ecti)e bargaining agreement does not bar any re9 negotiation !or the !uture inc usion o! the said emp oyees in the bargaining unit. As to the discip ine o!!icers, the Court agree that based on the nature o! their duties, they are not con!identia emp oyees and shou d there!ore be inc uded in the bargaining unit o! ran%9and9!i e emp oyees. As to the the emp oyees o! the Co ege o! St. *eni de, they shou d be e:c uded !rom the bargaining unit o! the ran%9and9!i e emp oyees o! /e a Sa e >ni)ersity, because the two educationa institutions ha)e their own separate 8uridica persona ity and no su!!icient e)idence was shown to 8usti!y the piercing o! the )ei o! corporate !iction. #n in)o )ing the inc usion o! a union shop c ause, the Court a!!irm the ru ing. #n the issue regarding the use o! the S ast9in9!irst9outK method, the Court agree that as an e:ercise o! management prerogati)e, the >ni)ersity has the right to adopt )a id and e6uitab e grounds as basis !or terminating or trans!erring emp oyees. #n the issue in)o )ing the >nions proposa s on the de oading o! the union president, 7he Court we agree with the re8ection o! the said demands, there being no 8usti!iab e reason !or the granting o! the same.

'= % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

#n the si:th issue, the Court !inds that the )o untary arbitrator did not gra)e y abuse his discretion on this matter. #n ast issue in)o )ing the ru ing that the 203 share in the incrementa tuition proceeds, the Court deems that any determination o! this a eged error is unnecessary and irre e)ant. GEA+A.#+A , premises considered, the petitions in these conso idated cases, are partia y @+A?7A/. 7he assai ed decision o! )o untary arbitrator *uena)entura $agsa in is hereby A..&+$A/ with the modi!ication that the issue on sa ary increases !or the second and third years o! the co ecti)e bargaining agreement be +A$A?/A/ to the )o untary arbitrator !or de!inite reso ution within one month !rom the !ina ity o! this /ecision, on the basis o! the e:terna y audited !inancia statements o! the >ni)ersity a ready submitted by the >nion be!ore the )o untary arbitrator and !orming part o! the records. MSMG(U3P '. Ra:* <A.)+# 25, 2001= FACTS1 7he petitioners were terminated by the company but the ?"+C uphe d the dismissa . "ater on, the SC re)ersed the decision and ordered a o! them reinstated and paid !u bac%wages but it a so he d that the o!!icers o! the company shou dn<t be he d iab e. 7his is the sub8ect o! this motion !or partia record as the union argues that it was the o!!icers who made the decision to terminate the emp oyees. 1etitioners !urther contend that whi e the case was pending, the company began remo)ing its machineries and e6uipment !rom its p ant and began di)erting 8obs intended !or the regu ar emp oyees to its sub9 contractorFsate ite branches. ISSUE1 GF? the o!!icers shou d be he d iab e !or the i ega dismissed. HELD1 7he SC ru ed that the o!!icers cannot be he d iab e because a crop has a persona ity separate and distinct !rom those acting in its beha !. 7he ru e is that ob igations incurred by the corp, through its directors, o!!icers and emp oyees are its so e iabi ities. &n abor cases, corporate directors and o!!icers are so idari y iab e with the corporation !or the termination o! emp oyment or corporate emp oyees done with ma ice or in bad !aith. *ad !aith does not connote bad 8udgment or neg igence( it imports a dishonest purpose o! some mora ob i6uity and conscious doing o! wrong( it means breach o! a %nown duty thru some moti)e or interest or wi ( it partwages o! the nature o! !raud. &n this case, there is nothing on record to show that the o!!icers acted in patent bad !aith or were gui ty o! gross neg igence in terminating the ser)ices o! petitioners so as to warrant persona iabi ity.

'5 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB INC., ET AL. VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL. G.R. N*. 125611. A!-! t 6, 2002 Fact : 1etitioner A abang Country C ub &nc. ,ACC&-, is a stoc%, non9pro!it corporation that operates and maintains a country c ub and )arious sports and recreationa !aci ities !or the e:c usi)e use o! its members. Sometime in 1990, .rancisco .errer, then 1resident o! ACC&, re6uested its &nterna Auditor, to conduct a study on the pro!itabi ity o! ACC&<s .ood and *e)erage /epartment ,. [ * /epartment-. Conse6uent y, report showed that !rom 19D9 to 1990, . [ * /epartment had been incurring substantia osses. +ea i5ing that it was no onger pro!itab e !or ACC& to maintain its own . [ * /epartment, the management decided to cease !rom operating the department and to open the same to a contractor, such as a concessionaire, which wou d be wi ing to operate its own !ood and be)erage business within the c ub. 7hus, ACC& sent its . [ * /epartment emp oyee<s indi)idua etters in!orming them that their ser)ices were being terminated and that they wou d be paid separation pay. 7he >nion in turn, with the authority o! indi)idua respondents, !i ed a comp aint !or i ega dismissa . I !": Ghether or not the c ub<s right to terminate its emp oyees !or an authori5ed cause, particu ar y to secure its continued )iabi ity and e:istence is )a id. H"#$1 Ghen petitioner decided to cease operating its . [ * /epartment and open the same to a concessionaire, it did not reduce the number o! personne assigned thereat. &t terminated the emp oyment o! a personne assigned at the department. 1etitioner<s !ai ure to pro)e that the c osure o! its . [ * /epartment was due to substantia osses notwithstanding, the Court !inds that indi)idua respondents were dismissed on the ground o! c osure or cessation o! an underta%ing not due to serious business osses or !inancia re)erses, which is a owed under Artic e 2D0 o! the "abor Code. 7he c osure o! operation o! an estab ishment or underta%ing not due to serious business osses or !inancia re)erses inc udes both the comp ete cessation o! operations and the cessation o! on y part o! a company<s acti)ities. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. N*. 106527. F";)!a)9 11, 2000 Fact : @enera $i ing Corporation emp oyed 190 wor%ers. A the emp oyees were members o! a union which is a du y certi!ied bargaining agent. 7he @$C and the union entered into a co ecti)e bargaining agreement which inc uded the issue o! representation that is e!!ecti)e !or a term o! three years which wi e:pire on ?o)ember 00, 1991. #n ?o)ember 29, 1991, a day be!ore the
'' % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

e:piration o! the C*A, the union sent @$C a proposed C*A, with a re6uest that a counter proposa be submitted within ten days. on #ctober 1991, @$C recei)ed co ecti)e and indi)idua etters !rom the union members stating that they ha)e withdrawn !rom their union membership. #n /ecember 19, 1991, the union disc aimed any massi)e disa!!i iation o! its union members. #n 4anuary 10, 1992, @$C dismissed an emp oyee who is a union member. 7he union protected the emp oyee and re6uested @$C to submit to the grie)ance procedure pro)ided by the C*A, but @$C argued that there was no basis to negotiate with a union which is no onger e:isting. 7he union then !i ed a case with the "abor Arbiter but the atter ru ed that there must !irst be a certi!ication e ection to determine i! the union sti en8oys the support o! the wor%ers. I !": Ghether or not @$C is gui ty o! un!air abor practice !or )io ating its duty to bargain co ecti)e y andFor !or inter!ering with the right o! its emp oyees to se !9organi5ation. H"#$: @$C is gui ty o! un!air abor practice when it re!used to negotiate with the union upon its re6uest !or the renegotiation o! the economic terms o! the C*A on ?o)ember 29, 1991. the union<s proposa was submitted within the prescribed 09year period !rom the date o! e!!ecti)ity o! the C*A. &t was ob)ious that @$C had no )a id reason to re!use to negotiate in good !aith with the union. 7he re!usa to send counter proposa to the union and to bargain anew on the economic terms o! the C*A is tantamount to an un!air abor practice under Artic e 2=D o! the "abor Code. >nder Artic e 252 o! the "abor Code, both parties are re6uired to per!orm their mutua ob igation to meet and con)ene prompt y and e:peditious y in good !aith !or the purpose o! negotiating an agreement. 7he union i)ed up to this ob igation when it presented proposa s !or a new C*A to @$C within 0 years !rom the e!!ecti)ity o! the origina C*A. *ut @$C !ai ed in its duty under Artic e 252. Ghat it did was to de)ise a ! imsy e:cuse, by 6uestioning the e:istence o! the union and the status o! its membership to pre)ent any negotiation. &t bears stressing that the procedure in co ecti)e bargaining prescribed by the Code is mandatory because o! the basic interest o! the state in ensuring asting industria peace. 7he Court o! Appea s !ound that the etters between .ebruary to 4une, 1990 by 10 union members signi!ying their resignation !rom the union c ear y indicated that @$C e:erted pressure on the emp oyees. Ge agree with the Court o! Appea s< conc usion that the i 9timed etters o! resignation !rom the union members indicate that @$C inter!ered with the right o! its emp oyee to se !9 organi5ation. Hc+",$a Aat+:a ' . NFS3 A**$ a,$ -",")a# t)a$" /a,!a)9 27, 200@

'2 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

Fact 17he !acts are summari5ed in the ?"+C /ecision as !o ows: SContrary to the !indings o! the "abor Arbiter that comp ainants Pherein respondentsQ re!used to wor% andFor were choosy in the %ind o! 8obs they wanted to per!orm, the records is rep ete with comp ainants< persistence and dogged determination in going bac% to wor%. S&ndeed, it wou d appear that respondents did not oo% with !a)or wor%ers< ha)ing organi5ed themse )es into a union. 7hus, when comp ainant union was certi!ied as the co ecti)e bargaining representati)e in the certi!ication e ections, respondents under the prete:t that the resu t was on appea , re!used to sit down with the union !or the purpose o! entering into a co ecti)e bargaining agreement. $oreo)er, the wor%ers inc uding comp ainants herein were not gi)en wor% !or more than one month. &n protest, comp ainants staged a stri%e which was howe)er sett ed upon the signing o! a $emorandum o! Agreement which stipu ated among others that: Ma7he parties wi initia y meet !or C*A negotiations on the 11th day o! 4anuary 1991 and wi endea)or to conc ude the same within thirty ,00- days. Mb7he management wi gi)e priority to the women wor%ers who are members o! the union in case wor% re ati)e : : : or amountPingQ to gahitand P(ipolQ arises. McAriston Arue a 4r. wi be gi)en bac% his norma wor% oad which is si: ,'- days in a wee%. Md7he management wi pro)ide !i!teen ,15- wagons !or the wor%ers and that e:isting wor%!orce prior to the actua stri%e wi be gi)en priority. Eowe)er, in case the said wor%!orce wou d not be enough, the management can hire additiona wor%ers to supp ement them. Me7he management wi not anymore a ow the scabs, numbering about eighteen ,1D- wor%ersP,Q to wor% in the hacienda( and M!7he union wi immediate y i!t the pic%et upon signing o! this agreement.< SEowe)er, a eging that comp ainants !ai ed to oad the !i!teen wagons, respondents reneged on its commitment to sit down and bargain co ecti)e y. &nstead, respondent emp oyed a means inc uding the use o! pri)ate armed guards to pre)ent the organi5ers !rom entering the premises. S$oreo)er, starting September 1991, respondents did not any more gi)e wor% assignments to the comp ainants !orcing the union to stage a stri%e on 4anuary 2, 1992. *ut due to the conci iation e!!orts by the /#"A, another $emorandum o! Agreement was signed by the comp ainants and respondents which pro)ides: MGhereas the union staged a stri%e against management on 4anuary 2, 1992 grounded on the dismissa o! the union o!!icia s and members(
'D % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

MGhereas parties to the present dispute agree to sett e the case amicab y once and !or a ( M?ow there!ore, in the interest o! both abor and management, parties herein agree as !o ows: M1. 7hat the ist o! the names o! a!!ected union members hereto attached and made part o! this agreement sha be re!erred to the Eacienda payro o! 1990 and determine whether or not this concerned >nion members are hacienda wor%ers( M2. 7hat in addition to the payro o! 1990 as re!erence, herein parties wi use as guide the sub8ects o! a $emorandum o! Agreement entered into by and between the parties ast 4anuary =, 1990( M0. 7hat herein parties can use other emp oyment re!erences in support o! their respecti)e c aims whether or not any or a o! the isted 0' union members are emp oyees or hacienda wor%ers or not as the case may be( M=. 7hat in case con! ict or disagreement arises in the determination o! the status o! the particu ar hacienda wor%ers sub8ect o! this agreement herein parties !urther agree to submit the same to )o untary arbitration( M5. 7o e!!ect the abo)e, a Committee to be chaired by +ose $enga ing is hereby created to be composed o! three representati)es each and is gi)en !i)e wor%ing days starting 4an. 20, 1992 to reso )e the status o! the sub8ect 0' hacienda wor%ers. ,>nion representati)es: *ernardo 7orres, $artin A as9as, Ariston Aru ea 4r.-K S1ursuant thereto, the parties subse6uent y met and the $inutes o! the Conci iation $eeting showed as !o ows: M7he meeting started at 10:00 A.$. A ist o! emp oyees was submitted by Atty. 7ay%o based on who recei)ed their 10th month pay. I !"1 38"t8") *) ,*t t8" C*!)t *A A.."a# c*::+tt"$ -)a'" a;! " *A $+ c)"t+*, +, !.8*#$+,- t8" NLRCB c*,c#! +*, t8at .)+'at" )" .*,$",t >")" +##"-a##9 $+ :+ "$, t8at ."t+t+*,")I >")"J -!+#t9 *A !,Aa+) #a;*) .)act+c", a,$ t8at t8" !,+*, ;" a>a)$"$ :*)a# a,$ "K":.#a)9 $a:a-" .L HELD1 7he ?"+C a so !ound herein petitioners gui ty o! un!air abor practice. &t ru ed as !o ows: S&ndeed, !rom respondents< re!usa to bargain, to their acts o! economic inducements resu ting in the promotion o! those who withdrew !rom the union, the use o! armed guards to pre)ent the organi5ers to come in, and the dismissa o! union o!!icia s and members, one cannot but conc ude that respondents did
'9 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

not want a union in their haciendaUa c ear inter!erence in the right o! the wor%ers to se !9organi5ation.K Ge upho d the CA<s a!!irmation o! the abo)e !indings. &ndeed, !actua !indings o! abor o!!icia s, who are deemed to ha)e ac6uired e:pertise in matters within their respecti)e 8urisdictions, are genera y accorded not on y respect but e)en !ina ity. 7heir !indings are binding on the Supreme Court. Jeri y, their conc usions are accorded great weight upon appea , especia y when supported by substantia e)idence. Conse6uent y, the Court is not duty9bound to de )e into the accuracy o! their !actua !indings, in the absence o! a c ear showing that these were arbitrary and bere!t o! any rationa basis. 7he !inding o! un!air abor practice done in bad !aith carries with it the sanction o! mora and e:emp ary damages.

ARTICLE 222
UFE(DFA(4MU ' . N" t#" P8+# . INC. Ma)c8 @, 2007 FACTS1 *e!ore the e:piration o! the C*A between ?est e and >.A9/.A9K$>, the atter in!ormed ?est e o! their intent to Sopen new co ecti)e bargaining negotiationK !or the year 200190=. ?est e reiterated its stance that Suni atera grants, one9time company grants, company initiated po icies and programs which inc ude, but are not imited to the +etirement 1 an, &ncidenta Straight /uty 1ay and Ca ing 1ay 1remium, are by their )ery nature not proper sub8ects o! C*A ?egotiations and there!ore be e:c uded there!rom. /ia ogue ensued. ?est e re6uested pre)enti)e mediation proceedings mediation proceedings. .ound it ine!!ecti)e. >.A9/.A9K$> !i ed a notice to stri%e, twice, predicated on ?est e a eged >"1, bargaining in bad !aith by setting preconditions in the ground ru es andFor re!using to inc ude the issue o! the +etirement 1 an. ISSUE1 G#? ?est e !ai ed to per!orm its duty to bargain co ecti)e y in good !aith. RULING1 7he purpose o! co ecti)e bargaining is the reaching o! an agreement resu ting in a contract binding on the parties( but !ai ure to reach an agreement a!ter negotiations ha)e continued !or a reasonab e period does not estab ish a ac% o! good !aith. 7he statutes in)ite and contemp ate a co ecti)e bargaining contract, but they do not compe one. 7he duty to bargain does not inc ude the ob igation to reach an agreement.
20 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

&n the case at bar, ?est e ne)er re!used to bargain co ecti)e y with >.A9 /.A9.$>. 7he corporation simp y wanted to e:c ude the retirement p an !rom the issues to be ta%en up during C*A negotiations, on the postu ation that such was in the nature o! a uni atera y granted bene!it.

UST(FU ' . UST A.)+# 5, 2006 FACTS1 7here are two groups c aiming to be the >S79.>: @ami a @roup and the $ariYo @roup. /uring the con)ocation attended by members o! .acu ty o! the >ni)ersity, an e ection o! o!!icers was conducted the group ca ed +e!ormist A iance, wherein to @ami a group were e ected as the 1resident and #!!icers, $embers o! >S79.> wa %ed out, but the >S7 administration did not participate. Subse6uent y, @ami a group entered into a C*A with >S7, representing themse )es as e ected o!!icers o! >S79.>. >S79.> ed by $ariYo !i ed a comp aint !or un!air abor practice against >S7 !or entering C*A with >S79.> ed by @ami a, a eging that their e ection is not )a id. ISSUE1 G#? >S7 committed a >"1 by entering C*A with >S79.> and *y @ami a. RULING1 7he @ami a group represented by itse ! to respondents as the du y e ected o!!icia s o! the >S79.>. As such, respondents were bound to dea with them. Art. 252 T 7he duty to bargain co ecti)e y means the per!ormance o! a mutua ob igation to meet and con)ene prompt y and e:peditious y in good !aith !or the purpose o! negotiating an agreement. As such, there was no reason not to recogni5e the @ami a @roup as the new o!!icers and directors o! >S79.>. And as stated in the abo)e96outed pro)ision, the >S7 is ob igated to dea with the >S79.>, as the recogni5ed representati)e o! the bargaining unit, through the @ami a @roup. >S7<s !ai ure to negotiate with he >S79.> wou d ha)e constituted >"1. &t is not the duty or ob igation o! the respondents to in6uire into the )a idity o! the e ection o! the @ami a @roup. Such issue is proper y an intra9 union contro)ersy sub8ect to the 8urisdiction o! the $ed9Arbiter o! the /#"A. +espondents cou d not ha)e been e:pected to the stop dea ing with the @ami a @roup on the mere accusation o! the $ariYo @roup that the !ormer was not )a id y e ected into o!!ice.
21 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

ARTICLE 22@(A
FVCLU(PTG3O ' . SA3AMA(SIGLO N*'":;") 25, 2006 FACTS1 .JC">917@G# was the bargaining agent o! ran%9and9!i e emp oyees o! .JC 1hi . Corp, singed a 5 year C*A with the company. A!ter the 0 year period, .JC">917@G# and the company renegotiated the C*A, e:tending the 5 year period o! the C*A by = $onths. 9 days be!ore the the e:piration o! the origina C*A, SAGA$A9S&@"# !i ed a petition !or certi!ication e ection !or the same ran%9and9!i e unit co)ered by .JC">917@G#. .JC">917@G# mo)e to dismiss the petition on the ground that the certi!ication e ection petition was !i ed outside the !reedom period or outside the '09days be!ore the e:piration o! the C*A. ISSUE1 G#? the e:tension o! the C*A term a so change the unions e:c usi)e bargaining status. RULING1 Art. 2509A T terms o! co ecti)e bargaining agreement 9 any co ecti)e bargaining agreement that the parties may enter into, sha , inso!ar as the representation aspects is concerned, be !or a term o! 5 years. X:: Sec. 1= ,b-, +u e J&&& o! #mnibus +u e T /enia o! the petition( grounds9 the med9arbiter may dismiss the petition on any o! the !o owing grounds: X:: b.- 1etition was !i ed be!ore and a!ter the !reedom period o! a du y registered C*A( pro)ided that the origina C*A sha not be a!!ected by any amendment, e:tension or renewa o! the co ecti)e bargaining agreement. &t is he d that .JC">917@G# position to be correct, but on y with respect to the origina 59year term o! the C*A which, by aw, is a so the e!!ecti)e period o! the union<s e:c usi)e bargaining representati)e status. Ghi e the parties may agree to e:tend the C*A<s origina !i)e9year term together with a other pro)isions, any such amendments or term in e:cess o! !i)e years wi not carry with it a change in the union<s e:c usi)e bargaining status. *y e:press pro)ision o! the abo)e96uoted Art 2509A, the e:c usi)e bargaining status cannot go beyond 5 years and the representation status is a ega matter not !or the wor%p ace partied to agree upon. &n other words, despite an agreement !or C*A with a i!e more than 5 years, either as an origina pro)ision or by amendment, the bargaining union<s e:c usi)e bargaining status is e!!ecti)e on y !or 5 years
22 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

and can be cha enged within '0 days prior to the e:piration o! the C*A<s !irst 5 years.

ARTICLE 220
ANDO VS. CAMPO FEBRUARY 16, 2002 Fact 1 1etitioner was the president o! 1remier A ied and Contracting Ser)ices, &nc. ,1ACS&-, an independent abor contractor. +espondents were hired by 1ACS& as pi ers or hau ers tas%ed to manua y carry bags o! sugar !rom the warehouse o! Jictorias $i ing Company and oad them on truc%s. &n 4une 199D, respondents were dismissed !rom emp oyment. 7hey !i ed a case !or i ega dismissa and some money c aims with the ?ationa "abor +e ations Commission ,?"+C-, +egiona Arbitration *ranch ?o. J&, *aco od City. 7he abor arbiter and ?"+C ru ed in !a)or o! the respondents emp oyees, and upon !ina ity respondents mo)ed !or e:ecution. 7o answer !or the monetary award, ?"+C Acting Sheri!! +omeo 1asustento issued a ?otice o! Sa e on A:ecution o! 1ersona 1roperty o)er the property co)ered by 7rans!er Certi!icate o! 7it e ,7C7- ?o. 791=01'2 in the name o! C1a6uito J. Ando : : : married to Ar inda S. Ando.C 7his prompted petitioner to !i e an action !or prohibition and damages with prayer !or the issuance o! a temporary restraining order ,7+#- be!ore the +egiona 7ria Court ,+7C-, *ranch 50, *aco od City. 1etitioner c aimed that the property be onged to him and his wi!e, not to the corporation, and, hence, cou d not be sub8ect o! the e:ecution sa e. Since it is the corporation that was the 8udgment debtor, e:ecution shou d be made on the atter<s properties. #n /ecember 22, 200', the +7C issued an #rder denying the prayer !or a 7+#, ho ding that the tria court had no 8urisdiction to try and decide the case. 7he +7C ru ed that, pursuant to the ?"+C $anua on the A:ecution o! 4udgment, petitioner<s remedy was to !i e a third9party c aim with the ?"+C Sheri!!. /espite ac% o! 8urisdiction, howe)er, the +7C went on to decide the merits o! the case. 7he CA a!!irmed the ru ing +7C on the ground o! ac% o! 8urisdiction I !"1 whether the regu ar courts has 8urisdiction to restrain imp ementation o! the writ o! e:ecution issued by the "abor arbiter the

H"#$1 ?#. 7he Court has ong recogni5ed that regu ar courts ha)e no 8urisdiction to hear and decide 6uestions which arise !rom and are incidenta to the en!orcement o! decisions, orders, or awards rendered in abor cases by appropriate o!!icers and tribuna s o! the /epartment o! "abor and Amp oyment. 7o ho d otherwise is to sanction sp itting o! 8urisdiction which is obno:ious to the order y administration o! 8ustice. 7hus, it is, !irst and !oremost, the ?"+C $anua on the A:ecution o! 4udgment
20 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

that go)erns any 6uestion on the e:ecution o! a 8udgment o! that body. 1etitioner need not oo% !urther than that. 7he +u es o! Court app y on y by ana ogy or in a supp etory character. Consider the pro)ision in Section 1', +u e 09 o! the +u es o! Court on third9party c aims: SAC. 1'. 2rocee(ing where property claime( 0y thir( per on.6 &! the property e)ied on is c aimed by any person other than the 8udgment ob igor or his agent, and such person ma%es an a!!ida)it o! his tit e thereto or right to the possession thereo!, stating the grounds o! such right or tit e, and ser)es the same upon the o!!icer ma%ing the e)y and a copy thereo! upon the 8udgment ob igee, the o!!icer sha not be bound to %eep the property, un ess such 8udgment ob igee, on demand o! the o!!icer, !i es a bond appro)ed by the court to indemni!y the third9party c aimant in a sum not ess than the )a ue o! the property e)ied on. &n case o! disagreement as to such )a ue, the same sha be determined by the court issuing the writ o! e:ecution. ?o c aim !or damages !or the ta%ing or %eeping o! the property may be en!orced against the bond un ess the action there!or is !i ed within one hundred twenty ,120- days !rom the date o! the !i ing o! the bond. 7he o!!icer sha not be iab e !or damages !or the ta%ing or %eeping o! the property, to any third9party c aimant i! such bond is !i ed. ?othing herein contained sha pre)ent such c aimant or any third person !rom )indicating his c aim to the property in a separate action, or pre)ent the 8udgment ob igee !rom c aiming damages in the same or a separate action against a third9party c aimant who !i ed a !ri)o ous or p ain y spurious c aim. Ghen the writ o! e:ecution is issued in !a)or o! the +epub ic o! the 1hi ippines, or any o!!icer du y representing it, the !i ing o! such bond sha not be re6uired, and in case the sheri!! or e)ying o!!icer is sued !or damages as a resu t o! the e)y, he sha be represented by the So icitor @enera and i! he d iab e there!or, the actua damages ad8udged by the court sha be paid by the ?ationa 7reasurer out o! such !unds as may be appropriated !or the purpose. #n the other hand, the ?"+C $anua on the A:ecution o! 4udgment dea s speci!ica y with third9party c aims in cases brought be!ore that body. &t de!ines a third9party c aim as one where a person, not a party to the case, asserts tit e to or right to the possession o! the property e)ied upon. &t a so sets out the procedure !or the !i ing o! a third9party c aim, to wit: SAC7&#? 2. 2rocee(ing . U &! property e)ied upon be c aimed by any person other than the osing party or his agent, such person sha ma%e an a!!ida)it o! his tit e thereto or right to the possession thereo!, stating the grounds o! such right or tit e and sha !i e the same with the sheri!! and copies thereo! ser)ed upon the "abor Arbiter or proper o!!icer issuing the writ and upon the pre)ai ing party. >pon receipt o! the third party c aim, a proceedings with respect to the e:ecution o! the property sub8ect o! the third party c aim sha automatica y be suspended and the "abor Arbiter or proper o!!icer issuing the writ sha conduct a hearing with due notice to a parties concerned and reso )e the )a idity o! the c aim within ten ,10- wor%ing days !rom receipt thereo! and his decision is appea ab e to the Commission within ten ,10- wor%ing days !rom notice, and the Commission sha reso )e the appea within same period.
2= % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

7here is no doubt in our mind that petitioner<s comp aint is a third9 party c aim within the cogni5ance o! the ?"+C. 1etitioner may indeed be considered a Cthird partyC in re ation to the property sub8ect o! the e:ecution )is9Z9)is the "abor Arbiter<s decision. 7here is no 6uestion that the property be ongs to petitioner and his wi!e, and not to the corporation. &t can be said that the property be ongs to the con8uga partnership, not to petitioner a one. 7hus, the property be ongs to a third party, i.e., the con8uga partnership. At the )ery east, the Court can consider that petitioner<s wi!e is a third party within contemp ation o! the aw. ?ote: petitioner shou d ha)e !i ed a third party comp ain be!ore the ?"+C, wrong choice o! remedy but ne)erthe ess the SC granted the petition %asi sobrang taga na nung %aso.

STRI4ES AND LOC4OUTS ARTICLE 26@ ( 260


EDEN GLADYS ABARIA "t.a#. ' NLRC METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., "t.a#. G.R. N*. 12011@ D"c":;") 5, 2011

Fact 1 7he ?ationa .ederation o! "abor ,?."- is the e:c usi)e bargaining representati)e o! the ran%9and9!i e emp oyees o! $CCE&, present y %nown as the Jisayas Community $edica Center JC$C. Na'a, 1resident o! ?ag%ahiusang $amumuo sa $CCE ,?A$A9$CCE9?."- signed the 1roo! o! 1osting. &n 1995 the >nion e:presses their desire to renew the C*A in 1995 through a proposa etter signed by 150 members. ?a)a re6uested a one day union ea)e with pay o! some o! its o!!icers but but the proposa was returned by $CCE& and ordered ?a)a secure !irst the endorsement o! the ega counse o! ?." as the o!!icia bargaining representati)e. *y 4anuary 199', the co ection o! union !ees ,chec%9 o!!- was temporari y suspended by $CCE& in )iew o! the e:isting con! ict between the !ederation and its oca a!!i iate. 7herea!ter, $CCE& attempted to ta%e o)er the room being used as union o!!ice but was pre)ented to do so by ?a)a and her group who protested these actions and insisted that management direct y negotiate with them !or a new C*A. $CCE& re!erred the matter to Atty. A !or6ue, ?."<s +egiona /irector, and ad)ised ?a)a that their group is not recogni5ed by ?.". $CCE& contended in a etter that the union o! ?a)a )io ated the constitution and *y9 aws by estab ishing a pro9K$> !action. 7he group o! ?a)a was gi)en 5 days to submit a written e:p anation. $CCE& granted the one day union ea)e with pay re6uest o! ?." !or their members. 7he group o! ?a)a pic%eted outside the hospita . ?." contended that the group o! ?a)a was not sanctioned by their group. $CCE& directed the union o!!icers ed by ?a)a to submit within =D hours a written e:p anation why they shou d not be terminated !or ha)ing engaged in i ega concerted acti)ities amounting to stri%e, and
25 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

p aced them under immediate pre)enti)e suspension. ?a)a denied that there was a stoppage o! wor% and that they on y wear armband as a sign o! protest. /#"A !ound out that there is ,*t8+,- +, t8"+) )"c*)$ >8+c8 8*> that NAMA(MCCH(NFL + a )"-+ t")"$ #a;*) *)-a,+Mat+*, , and that said union submitted on y a copy o! its Charter Certi!icate on 4anuary 01, 1995. #n $arch 10, 199', ?A$A9$CCE9?." !i ed a ?otice o! Stri%e but the same was deemed not !i ed !or want o! ega persona ity on the part o! the !i er. . /espite denia o! their notice o! stri%e !or want o! persona ity, ?a)a and her group sti conducted a stri%e )ote on Apri 2, 199' during which an o)erwhe ming ma8ority o! union members appro)ed the stri%e. 7he group o! ?a)a !aced discip inary action and more than 100 members were dismissed. 7hey continued their stri%e b oc%ing the ingress and egress o! the hospita . $CCE& !i ed a petition !or in8unction in the ?"+C which was granted. 7he terminated emp oyees !i ed a case !or i ega dismissa and >"1. "abor Arbiter dismissed the comp aint and was a!!irmed by the ?"+C. An $+ was a so denied. A ."t+t+*, A*) c")t+*)a)+ )"'") "$ t8" ca ". &ssue: G#? the stri%e conducted by ?A$A9$CCE9?." was )a id +u ing: ?o. Stri%es( Art. 2'= o! the "abor Code ma%es a distinction between wor%ers and union o!!icers who participate in an i ega stri%e: an ordinary stri%ing wor%er cannot be terminated !or mere participation in an i ega stri%e.U 7he abo)e pro)ision ma%es a distinction between wor%ers and union o!!icers who participate in an i ega stri%e: an ordinary stri%ing wor%er cannot be terminated !or mere participation in an i ega stri%e. 7here must be proo! that he or she committed i ega acts during a stri%e. A union o!!icer, on the other hand, may be terminated !rom wor% when he %nowing y participates in an i ega stri%e, and i%e other wor%ers, when he commits an i ega act during a stri%e. 7he i ega dismissa case !i ed by the :":;") commit i ega act during stri%e was a!!irmed. *A t8" !,+*, who did not

YSS EMPLOYEES UNION ( PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL 3OR4ERS ORGANI&ATION, 1etitioner, )s. YSS LABORATORIES, INC., +espondent. G.R. N*. 122122 D"c":;") 0, 2006 ;SS "aboratories engaged in the pharmaceutica business. ;SSA> is a du y registered abor organi5ation and the *#" a,$ "Kc#! +'" ;a)-a+,+,)".)" ",tat+'" o! the )a,E a,$ A+#" ":.#*9"" o! ;SS "aboratories. ;SS "aboratories imp emented a retrenchment program which a!!ected 11 emp oyees= purported y chosen in accordance with the reasonab e standards estab ished by the company. 9 emp oyees are o!!icers o! ;SSA>. C aiming that ;SS "aboratories was gui ty o! $+ c)+:+,at+*, and !,+*,(;! t+,- in carrying
2' % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

out the said retrenchment program, ;SSA> decided to ho d a stri%e a!ter conducting a stri%e )ote. 7he Secretary o! "abor inter)enes in order to put an end to a pro onged abor dispute. Secretary o! "abor dec ared that continuation o! the abor dispute was inimica to nationa interest. A return to wor% order was issued by the ?"+C. ;SS re!used to comp y and !i ed an urgent $+ contending that the 6 !,+*, :":;") .a)t+c+.at"$ +, t8" +##"-a# t)+E". ;SSA> mo)ed to cite ;SS in contempt. Secretary o! "abor ru ed in !a)or o! ;SSA>. ;SS !i ed a petition !or certiorari which the CA granted, hence this petition. &ssue: G#? the emp oyees are entit ed to readmission to wor% +u ing: Art. 2'0 ,g- ::::::: &! one has a ready ta%en p ace at the time o! assumption or certi!ication, a## t)+E+,- *) #*cE"$ *!t ":.#*9"" 8a## +::"$+at"#9 )"t!), t* >*)E a,$ t8" ":.#*9") 8a## +::"$+at"#9 )" !:" *.")at+*, a,$ )"a$:+t a## >*)E") !,$") t8" a:" t"): a,$ c*,$+t+*, .)"'a+#+,- ;"A*)" t8" t)+E" *) #*cE*!t. A!ter martia aw was i!ted and democracy was restored, the assumption o! 8urisdiction in Art. 2'0,g- has now been )iewed as an e:ercise o! the po ice power o! the State with the aim o! promoting the common good19: P&Qt must be noted that Artic es 2'0 ,g- and 2'= o! the "abor Code ha)e been enacted pursuant to the po ice power o! the State, which has been de!ined as the power inherent in a go)ernment to enact aws, within constitutiona imits, to promote the order, sa!ety, hea th, mora s and genera we !are o! society. 7he po ice power, together with the power o! eminent domain and the power o! ta:ation, is an inherent power o! go)ernment and does not need to be e:press y con!erred by the Constitution. &n order to e!!ecti)e y achie)e such end, the assumption or certi!ication order sha ha)e the e!!ect o! automatica y en8oining the intended or impending stri%e or oc%out. $oreo)er, i! one has a ready ta%en p ace, a stri%ing wor%ers sha immediate y return to wor%, and the emp oyer sha immediate y resume operations and )"a$:+t a## >*)E") !,$") t8" a:" t"): a,$ c*,$+t+*, .)"'a+#+,- ;"A*)" t8" t)+E" *) #*cE*!t. 7he )ery nature o! a return9to9wor% order issued in a certi!ied case ends itse ! to no other construction. 7he certi!ication attests to the urgency o! the matter, a!!ecting as it does an industry indispensab e to the nationa interest. 7he order is issued in the e:ercise o! the court<s compu sory power o! arbitration, and there!ore must be obeyed unti set aside. NATIONAL UNION OF 3OR4ERS IN THE HOTEL RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES <NU3HRAIN(APL(IUF= DUSIT HOTEL NI44O CHAPTER, petitioner, )s. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS <F*):") E+-8t8 D+'+ +*,=, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION <NLRC=, PHILIPPINE

22 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

HOTELIERS INC., *>,") a,$ *.")at*) *A DUSIT HOTEL NI44O a,$D*) CHIYU4I FU/IMOTO, a,$ ESPERAN&A V. ALVE&, respondents. 7he >nion is the certi!ied bargaining agent o! the regu ar ran%9and9!i e emp oyees o! /usit Eote ?i%%o. >nion submitted its Co ecti)e *argaining Agreement ,C*A- negotiation proposa s to the Eote . /ue to the bargaining dead oc%, the >nion, on /ecember 20, 2001, !i ed a ?otice o! Stri%e and conducted a stri%e )ote. >nion members decided to sha)e their head. 7he Eote pre)ented these wor%ers !rom entering the premises c aiming that they )io ated the Eote Hs @rooming Standards. >nion members pic%eted and reason the Eote e:perienced a se)ere ac% o! manpower which !orced them to temporari y cease operations in three restaurants. Eote issued a notice o! suspension to pic%eting emp oyees !or ,1- )io ation o! the duty to bargain in good !aith( ,2- i ega pic%et( ,0- un!air abor practice( ,=- )io ation o! the Eote Hs @rooming Standards( ,5i ega stri%e( and ,'- commission o! i ega acts during the i ega stri%e. >nion dec ared a stri%e. Starting that day, the >nion engaged in pic%eting the premises o! the Eote . /uring the pic%et, the >nion o!!icia s and members un aw!u y b oc%ed the ingress and egress o! the Eote premises. >nion !i ed its t8+)$ N*t+c" *A St)+E" with the ?C$* this time on the ground o! !,Aa+) #a;*) .)act+c" a,$ !,+*,(;! t+,-. Secretary, assumed 8urisdiction o)er the abor dispute and certi!ied the case to the ?"+C !or compu sory arbitration. Secretary issued a )"t!), t* >*)E *)$") directing some o! the emp oyees to return to wor%, whi e ad)ising others not to do so, as they were p aced under payro reinstatement. >nion mo)ed !or reconsideration but it was denied. >nion !i ed a petition !or certiorari with CA but it was denied. ?"+C issued an order to the Eote to e:ecute a C*A a!ter 00days o! such receipt o! order. Eote contended that the emp oyees )io ated the C?o Stri%e, ?o "oc%outC pro)ision o! the C*A, and that the stri%e was i ega because it !ai ed to comp y with the mandatory 009day coo ing9o!! period10 and the "'",($a9 t)+E" ;a, as the stri%e occurred on y 29 days a!ter the submission o! the notice o! stri%e. ?"+C ru ed that the stri%e was i ega because it was attended by i ega acts by the o!!icers and members. >nion !i ed an $+ but it was denied. &ssue: G#? the Stri%e is i ega +u ing: ;es. 7he !acts are c ear that the stri%e arose out o! a bargaining dead oc% in the C*A negotiations with the Eote . 7he concerted action is an "c*,*:+c t)+E" upon which the a!ore96uoted Cno stri%eFwor% stoppage and oc%outC prohibition is s6uare y app icab e and ega y binding. 7he )io ation o! the Eote Hs @rooming Standards is a )io ation >nionHs duty and responsibi ity t* ;a)-a+, +, -**$ Aa+t8. >nion !ai ed to obser)e the mandatory @0($a9 c**#+,-(*AA .")+*$ and the "'",($a9 t)+E" ;a, be!ore it conducted the stri%e on 4anuary 1D, 2002. >nion committed i ega acts in the conduct o! its stri%e. 7he ?"+C ru ed that the stri%e was i ega since, as shown by the pictures21 presented by the Eote , the >nion o!!icers and members !ormed human barricades and obstructed the dri)eway o! the Eote .

2D % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

+egarding the >nion o!!icers and membersH iabi ities !or their participation in the i ega pic%et and stri%e, Art. 2'=,a-, paragraph 0 o! the "abor Code pro)ides that CIaJ,9 !,+*, *AA+c") >8* E,*>+,-#9 .a)t+c+.at" +, a, +##"-a# t)+E" a,$ a,9 >*)E") *) !,+*, *AA+c") >8* E,*>+,-#9 .a)t+c+.at" +, t8" c*::+ +*, *A +##"-a# act $!)+,- a t)+E" :a9 ;" $"c#a)"$ t* 8a'" #* t 8+ ":.#*9:",t tat! K K K.C 7he aw ma%es a distinction between union o!!icers and mere union members. >nion o!!icers may be )a id y terminated !rom emp oyment !or their participation in an i ega stri%e, whi e union members ha)e to participate in and commit i ega acts !or them to ose their emp oyment status.25 7hus, it is necessary !or the company to adduce proo! o! the participation o! the stri%ing emp oyees in the commission o! i ega acts during the stri%es. /AC4BILT INDUSTRIES, INC., 1etitioner, )s. /AC4BILT EMPLOYEES 3OR4ERS UNION(NAFLU(4MU, +espondent. G.R. N* . 151617(16 Ma)c8 20, 2006

/ue to the ad)erse e!!ects o! the A +a, "c*,*:+c c)+ + on the construction industry beginning 1992, petitioner 4ac%bi t &ndustries, &nc. decided to t":.*)a)+#9 t*. +t ;! +," o! producing concrete ho ow b oc%s, compe ing most o! its emp oyees to go on ea)e !or si: months. 7he union immediate y protested the shutdown. *ecause its co ecti)e bargaining agreement with petitioner was e:piring during the period o! the shutdown, respondent c aimed that petitioner ha ted production to a)oid its duty to bargain co ecti)e y. 7he shutdown was a eged y moti)ated by anti9union sentiments. >nion conducted a stri%e and b oc%ed the entrance o! the compound. E:.#*9") A+#"$ A*) +,G!,ct+*, ;"A*)" t8" NLRC >8+c8 >a -)a,t"$ but the union )io ated the order. 7he emp oyer issued a memoranda directed to the union to e:p ain why they shou d not be dismissed !or the i ega act. 7he union !i ed comp aints !or i ega oc%out, runaway shop and damages, 11 un!air abor practice, i ega dismissa . . &t argued that there was no basis !or the temporary partia shutdown as it was underta%en by petitioner to a)oid its duty to bargain co ecti)e y. Amp oyer contended that they conducted a stri%e without obser)ing the procedura re6uirements pro)ided in Artic e 2'0. Amp oyer )a id y dismissed respondent<s o!!icers and emp oyees !or committing i ega acts in the course o! a stri%e. "abor arbiter ru ed in !a)or o! the >nion. ?"+C a!!irmed the decision with modi!ication. *oth parties !i ed an $+ but it was denied. &ssue: G#? the Stri%e is i ega +u ing: ;es. 7he princip e o! conc usi)eness o! 8udgment, embodied in Section =2,c-, +u e 09 o! the +u es o! Court, ho ds that the parties to a case are bound by the !indings in a pre)ious 8udgment with respect to matters actua y raised and ad8udged therein. Artic e 2'=,e- o! the "abor Code prohibits any person engaged in pic%eting !rom obstructing the !ree ingress to and egress !rom the emp oyer<s premises. Since respondent was !ound in the 4u y 12, 199D decision o! the ?"+C to ha)e pre)ented the !ree entry into and e:it o! )ehic es !rom
29 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

petitioner<s compound, respondent<s o!!icers and emp oyees c ear y committed i ega acts in the course o! the $arch 9, 199D stri%e. 7he use o! un aw!u means in the course o! a stri%e renders such stri%e i ega . 2' 7here!ore, pursuant to the princip e o! conc usi)eness o! 8udgment, the $arch 9, 199D stri%e was ip o .acto i ega . 7he !i ing o! a petition to dec are the stri%e i ega was thus unnecessary. Conse6uent y, we upho d the ega ity o! the dismissa o! respondent<s o!!icers and emp oyees. Artic e 2'= o! the "abor Code22 !urther pro)ides that an emp oyer may terminate emp oyees !ound to ha)e committed i ega acts in the course o! a stri%e.2D 1etitioner c ear y had the ega right to terminate respondent<s o!!icers and emp oyees.29 3HEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted. 7he 4u y 10, 2005 decision and .ebruary 9, 200' reso ution o! the Court o! Appea s in CA9@.+. S1 ?o. '520D and CA9@.+. S1 ?o. '5=25 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, 1etitioner, ,A"1A1)s. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., +espondent. G.R. N*. 167@72 /!," 6, 2011

A"1A1, the egitimate abor organi5ation and e:c usi)e bargaining agent o! a commercia pi ots o! 1A". C aiming that PAL c*::+tt"$ !,Aa+) #a;*) .)act+c", A"1A1 !i ed on /ecember 9, 1992, a notice o! stri%e 2 against respondent 1A" with the /#"A, doc%eted as ?C$* ?C+ ?S 12951=992. >pon 1A"<s petition and considering that its continued operation is impressed with .!;#+c +,t")" t, the /#"A Secretary a !:"$ G!)+ $+ct+*, o)er the abor dispute per #rderD dated /ecember 20, 1992, the dispositi)e portion o! which reads: GEA+A.#+A, this #!!ice hereby assumes 8urisdiction o)er the abor dispute at the 1hi ippine Air ines, &nc. pursuant to Artic e 2'0 ,g- o! the "abor Code, as amended. According y, a stri%es and oc%outs at the 1hi ippine Air ines, &nc., whether actua or impending, are hereby strict y prohibited. 7he parties are a so en8oined !rom committing any act that may e:acerbate the situation. /espite the order A"1A1 proceed to conduct a stri%e. /#"A issued a return9to9 wor% order but 1A" re!used to accept the returning pi ots !or their !ai ure to comp y immediate y with the return9to9wor% order. A"1A1 !i ed a case !or i ega oc%out be!ore the "A . A"1A1 contend that the order was recei)ed ate which 8usti!ied their non9comp iance. 7he case was conso idated and /#"A assumed 8urisdiction. /#"A ru ed that the stri%e was i ega in de!iance o! the return to wor% order. 7he comp aint !or i ega oc%out was dismissed. ALPAP :*'"$ A*) Aa+) $"t"):+,at+*, *A >8* :! t !AA") t8" c*, "F!",c" *A t8" +##"-a#
D0 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

t)+E". /#"A ru ed that the ?C$* is bere!t o! authority to reopen an issue that has been passed upon by the Supreme Court. A"A1 !i ed a petition !or certiorari be!ore CA. 1a contended that the case A"1A1 )io ated the princip es go)erning !orum shopping, re &u(icata and mu tip icity o! suits. 7he petition was denied. &ssue: G#? the petition o! A"1A1 shou d be gi)en due course +u ing: ?#. DOCTRINE OF IMMUTABILITY OF /UGMENT Sett ed in aw is that once a decision has ac6uired !ina ity, it becomes immutab e and una terab e, thus can no onger be modi!ied in any respect Ge agree with the position ta%en by Sto. 7omas and &mson that !rom the time the return9to9wor% order was issued unti this Court rendered its Apri 10, 2002 reso ution dismissing A"1A1<s petition, no A"1A1 member has c aimed that he was unab e to comp y with the return9to9wor% directi)e because he was either on ea)e, abroad or unab e to report !or some reason. 7hese de!enses were raised in A"1A1<s twin motions on y a!ter the +eso ution in @.+. ?o. 15200' reached !ina ity in its ast ditch e!!ort to obtain a !a)orab e ru ing. &t has been he d that a proceeding may not be reopened upon grounds a ready a)ai ab e to the parties during the pendency o! such proceedings( otherwise, it may gi)e way to )icious and )e:atious proceedings. == A"1A1 was gi)en a the opportunities to present its e)idence and arguments. &t cannot now comp ain that it was denied due process /AILE OLISA "t.a#. , AND MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGA3A SA BALANCED FOODS )s. DANILO ESCARIO "t.a#., PINA4AMASARAP CORPORATION, DR. SY LIAN TIN, AND DOMINGO TAN G.R. N*. 160@02 S".t":;") 25, 2010 1etitioners were members o! the >?&#? and emp oyees o! 1&?A. At D:00 in the morning o! $arch 10, 1990, a the o!!icers and some 200 members o! the U,+*, >a#E"$ *!t o! 1&?A<s premises and proceeded to the ;a)a,-a9 *AA+c" to show !..*)t !or CaN"t", an o!!icer o! the >nion c8a)-"$ >+t8 *)a# $"Aa:at+*, by Aurora $anor, 1&?A<s personne manager, and ;o anda .abe a, $anor<s secretary.0 &t appears that the proceedings in the barangay resu ted in a sett ement, and the o!!icers and members o! the >nion a returned to wor% therea!ter. 1&?A pre)enti)e y suspended a o!!icers o! the >nion because o! the $arch 10, 1990 incident. 1&?A terminated the o!!icers o! the >nion a!ter a month. 1&?A !i ed a comp aint !or un!air abor practice ,>"1- and damages. "A ru ed that the incident was an i ega wa %out constituting >"1( and that a the >nion<s o!!icers, e:cept CaYete, had thereby ost their emp oyment. >nion !i ed a notice o! stri%e and conducted a stri%e )ote, c aiming that 1&?A was gui ty o! union busting through the constructi)e dismissa o! its o!!icers. 1&?A reta iated
D1 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

by charging the petitioners with >"1 and abandonment o! wor%, stating that they had )io ated pro)isions on stri%e o! the C*A. ?"+C issued a 7+# against the union. "A ru ed that the stri%e was i ega which was a!!irmed by the ?"+C ;!t )"'") "$ t8" LAB )!#+,- t8at t8")" >a a;a,$*,:",t . CA a!!irmed the decision o! ?"+C upon appea . &ssue: G#? the dismissed emp oyee are entit ed to bac%wages +u ing: Art. 2'=. 1rohibited acti)ities. T ,a- ::: Any wor%er whose emp oyment has been terminated as a conse6uence o! an un aw!u oc%out sha be entit ed to reinstatement with !u bac%wages. Any union o!!icer who %nowing y participates in an i ega stri%e and any wor%er or union o!!icer who %nowing y participates in the commission o! i ega acts during a stri%e may be dec ared to ha)e ost his emp oyment status( 1ro)ided, 7hat mere participation o! a wor%er in a aw!u stri%e sha not constitute su!!icient ground !or termination o! his emp oyment, e)en i! a rep acement had been hired by the emp oyer during such aw!u stri%e. Contemp ating two causes !or the dismissa o! an emp oyee, that is: ,a- un aw!u oc%out( and ,b- participation in an i ega stri%e, the third paragraph o! Artic e 2'=,a- authori5es the award o! !u bac%wages *,#9 >8", t8" t"):+,at+*, *A ":.#*9:",t + a c*, "F!",c" *A a, !,#a>A!# #*cE*!t. #n the conse6uences o! an i ega stri%e, the pro)ision distinguishes between a union o!!icer and a union member participating in an i ega stri%e. A union o!!icer who %nowing y participates in an i ega stri%e is deemed to ha)e ost his emp oyment status, but a union member who is mere y instigated or induced to participate in the i ega stri%e is more benign y treated. 1art o! the e:p anation !or the benign consideration !or the union member is the po icy o! reinstating ran%9and9!i e wor%ers who are mis ed into supporting i ega stri%es, absent any !inding that such wor%ers committed i ega acts during the period o! the i ega stri%es.1D 7he petitioners were terminated !or 8oining a stri%e that was ater dec ared to be i ega . 7he ?"+C ordered their reinstatement or, in ieu o! reinstatement, the payment o! their separation pay, because they were mere )a,E(a,$(A+#" >*)E") >8*: t8" U,+*,B *AA+c") 8a$ :+ #"$ +,t* G*+,+,- t8" +##"-a# t)+E". 7hey were not un8ust y dismissed !rom wor%. *ased on the te:t and intent o! the two a!ore6uoted pro)isions o! the "abor Code, there!ore, it is p ain that Artic e 2'=,a- is the app icab e one. 3HEREFORE, we a!!irm the decision dated August 1D, 2000 o! the Court o! Appea s, sub8ect to the modi!ication to the e!!ect that in ieu o! reinstatement the petitioners are granted bac%wages e6ui)a ent o! one month !or e)ery year o! ser)ice.

D2 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS


/UST AND ATHOURI&ED CAUSES FOR TERMINATION ARTICLE 272

2012

LOLITA S. CONCEPCION, P"t+t+*,"), ' . MINEX IMPORT CORPORATIONDMINERAMA CORPORATION, 4ENNETH MEYERS, SYLVIA P. MARIANO, a,$ VINA MARIANO, R" .*,$",t . G.R. N*. 12@266 /a,!a)9 20, 2012 Concepcion was a sa es ady promoted as super)isor assigned in S$ Earrison. Jina $ariano Assistant $anager o! $ine: Ca ung and *a6ui ar sa es ady under super)ision o! Concepcion #n a Sunday Concepcion Ca ung and *a6ui ar conducted a cash count o! their sa es amounting to 109,19=.50 7hey inc uded the sa es on .riday and Saturday tota ing an amount o! P20,612.00 Concepcion petitioner wrapped the amount in a p astic bag and deposited it in the drawer o! the oc%ed wooden cabinet o! the %ios% 7he !o owing day they !ound out that cabinet were in $+ a))a9 a,$ t8" :*,"9 >a :+ +,-. Concepcion reported the incident and she was p aced under arrest and detention !or one day Concepcion !i ed a case !or i ega dismissa 7he prosecutor !ound a probab e cause against Concepcion !or the charge o! 6ua i!ied the!t Concepcion contends that she together with Ca ung c osed the shop at D:00 and they e!t the shop a!ter Ca ung e:ecuted a sinumpaang sa aysay that Concepcion was e!t a one to c ose the shop because she has to her c othes that night $ariano contended that Concepcion )io ated the S.#.1. o! the company when she !ai ed to report !or pic%9up the sa es on Sunday which e:ceeds 110,000 Concepcion appea ed be!ore the /#4 but the same was denied "A ru ed that the dismissa o! Concepcion was i ega but it was re)ersed upon appea to the ?"+C and was sustained by the CA

I !": G#? there is 8ust cause !or the dismissa ,;AS-( G#? respondent need not a!!ord the petitioner due process to petitioner. ?#. R!#+,-1 ;AS. 7o dismiss an emp oyee, the aw re6uires the e:istence o! a 8ust and )a id cause. Artic e 2D2 o! the /a0or %o(e enumerates the &u t causes !or termination by the emp oyer: ,a- serious misconduct or wi !u disobedience by the emp oyee o! the aw!u orders o! his emp oyer or the atter<s representati)e in connection with the emp oyee<s wor%( , 0- gross and habitua neg ect by the emp oyee o! his duties( ,c- !raud or wi !u breach by the emp oyee o! the trust reposed in him by his emp oyer or his du y authori5ed representati)e( , (commission o! a crime or o!!ense by the emp oyee against the person o! his
D0 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

emp oyer or any immediate member o! his !ami y or his du y authori5ed representati)e( and ,e- other causes ana ogous to the !oregoing. &n its19=1 ru ing in 1ational /a0or 9nion" $nc. v. Stan(ar( -acuum Oil %ompany" the Court e:press y stated thus: ::: T8" c*,'+ct+*, *A a, ":.#*9"" +, a c)+:+,a# ca " + ,*t +,$+ .", a;#" t* >a))a,t 8+ $+ :+ a# ;9 8+ ":.#*9") . IA t8")" + !AA+c+",t "'+$",c" t* 8*> t8at t8" ":.#*9"" 8a ;"", -!+#t9 *A a ;)"ac8 *A t)! t, *) t8at 8+ ":.#*9") 8a a:.#" )"a *, t* $+ t)! t 8+:, +t ca,,*t G! t#9 $",9 t* t8" ":.#*9") t8" a!t8*)+t9 t* $+ :+ !c8 ":.#*9"". A that is incumbent upon the Court o! &ndustria +e ations ,now ?ationa "abor +e ations Commission- to determine is whether the proposed dismissa is !or 8ust cause :::. It + ,*t ,"c" a)9 A*) a+$ c*!)t t* A+,$ t8at a, ":.#*9"" 8a ;"", -!+#t9 *A a c)+:" ;"9*,$ )"a *,a;#" $*!;t +, *)$") t* a!t8*)+M" 8+ $+ :+ a#. 7o our mind, t8" c)+:+,a# c8a)-" +,+t+at"$ ;9 t8" c*:.a,9 a-a+, t .)+'at" )" .*,$",t a,$ t8" A+,$+,- aAt") .)"#+:+,a)9 +,'" t+-at+*, *A t8"+) prima facie -!+#t *A t8" *AA", " c8a)-"$ c*, t+t!t" !; ta,t+a# "'+$",c" !AA+c+",t t* >a))a,t a A+,$+,- by the "abor 7ribuna o! the e:istence *A a G! t ca! " A*) t8"+) t"):+,at+*, ;a "$ *, #* *A t)! t a,$ c*,A+$",c". 7he emp oyer may )a id y dismiss !or oss o! trust and con!idence an emp oyee who commits an act o! !raud pre8udicia to the interest o! the emp oyer. ?either a crimina prosecution nor a con)iction beyond reasonab e doubt !or the crime is a re6uisite !or the )a idity o! the dismissa . ?onethe ess, the dismissa !or a 8ust or aw!u cause must sti be made upon comp iance with the re6uirements o! $!" .)*c" under the /a0or %o(e( otherwise, the emp oyer is iab e to pay nomina damages 00% as indemnity to the dismissed emp oyee. E c*;+,, "t.a# ' . NLRC Fact 1Se)enty security guards were assigned to >19?/C *asi an 1 antation. Ghen p aced under the agrarian re!orm program, the p antation had to reduce the number o! security guards. .i!ty9se)en o! them were p aced on a S! oating statusK. Ghi e in that status they were instructed to report to 1&S& head o!!ice at San 4uan, $.$. !or posting to c ients in $etro $ani a. 7he guards did not rep y nor comp y. 1&S& reiterated the instruction and threatened the guards with discip inary action. Sti no rep y or comp iance. 1&S& terminated their emp oyment on ground o! insubordination or wi !u disobedience. "ate in the day, they wrote the 1&S& that they had no intention to abandon their emp oyment nor to de!y !air , reasonab e and aw!u orders. 7hey comp ained i ega dismissa by way o! constructi)e dismissa . I !"1 whether or not the re!usa to comp y with the #rder constitute the pro:imate cause o! the dismissa .

D= % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

R!#+,-1 ?o. !irst, it was gross y incon)enient !or the petitioners, who were residents and heads o! !ami ies residing in *asi an, to commute to $ani a. Second, petitioners were not pro)ided with !unds to de!ray their transportation and i)ing e:penses. 7hird, a though pri)ate respondents argues that it sent transportation money to petitioners, the recipients o! such !unds were not parties to this case. .ourth, no reason was gi)en by pri)ate respondent company e:p aining why it had !ai ed to in!orm petitioners o! their speci!ic security assignments prior to their departure !rom *asi an.

DANDY V. CUI/ANO ' . MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION a,$ NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION Fact 1 1etitioner /A?/; J. V>&4A?# was a warehouseman at the centra warehouse o! respondent $A+C>+; /+>@ C#+1#+A7&#? in "ibis, Vue5on City, since 19D0. /uring his D9year stay in the company, he recei)ed high per!ormance ratings and a corresponding 153 increase in sa ary per annum. 7hrough the years, the company has a so recogni5ed and commended him !or his dedication to his wor%. Ee has acti)e y articu ated the emp oyeesH concerns and, since 1990, has written to the management about the ma practices committed by some o!!icers o! the respondent company. Ee e:posed the e:istence o! a C!i)e9si:C oan system in their wor%p ace operated by some o! its o!!icers. Ee incurred the ire o! respondentHs manager $r. Antonio A ta)ano who operated the usurious transactions. +espondent charged petitioner with !our ,=- )io ations o! company po icies, a a eged y committed on $arch 19, 1991. &t started at about 11:00 a.m. when petitioner a eged y e!t his wor%p ace without permission. Ee was charged with oa!ing and abandonment o! wor%. 7hen, between 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. o! the same day, petitioner a eged y entered the warehouse emp oyeesH oc%er room and angri y uttered in a oud )oice : C?i o o%o tayo ng %a bong yan.C, re!erring to the warehouse manager, $r. A ta)ano. Ee was charged with disrespect to his superiors. 7hirty minutes ater, at about 1:00 p.m., petitioner a eged y grabbed the pub ic address system at the centra warehouse without permission and angri y announced: CGa a %ay $rs. A5cona ang incenti)e natin, na %ay $r. Concepcion. ?i o o%o ang tayo ,ng superiors natin-.C Ee was charged with disrupting the wor% o! his co9emp oyees. .ina y, a!ter an hour and a ha !, at about 2:00 p.m., petitioner a eged y saw $r. Simon peeping through a rac% di)ider, and shouted: CAnong tinitingin9tingin moIC Ee was charged with using abusi)e anguage in company premises. Conse6uent y, in Apri 1991, !our ,=- notices o! correcti)eFdiscip inary action were ser)ed on petitioner !or the abo)e !our o!!enses. A!ter the management conducted its in)estigation, the petitioner was c eared o! the !our charges.

D5 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

1etitioner was ser)ed another notice o! correcti)e action !or serious misconduct !or a eged y cha enging his superior to a !ist!ight and uttering death threats to the manager, $r. A ta)ano, on Apri 25, 1991, or about se)en ,2- months ear ier. 1etitionerHs beha)ior was a eged y the o!!9shoot o! the !our ,=- memoranda ear ier sent to him. 7he ne:t day, ?o)ember 19, 1991, a Specia &n)estigating Committee, !ound the petitioner gui ty not on y o! cha enging his superior to a !ist!ight and issuing death threats to the manager, but a so gui ty o! the !our ,=- charges o! misbeha)ior ear ier hur ed against him. #n ?o)ember 19, 1991, respondent sent petitioner a notice o! termination o! emp oyment. 7he dismissa was to ta%e e!!ect the ne:t day, ?o)ember 20, 1991. "e!t without !urther recourse, petitioner !i ed an i ega dismissa case against respondent be!ore the abor arbiter. #n the basis o! the position papers and e)idence submitted by the parties, the abor arbiter ru ed that petitioner was i ega y dismissed !rom ser)ice !or ac% o! 8ust cause. #n $ay 1, 1995, respondent reinstated petitioner in the payro . +espondent then appea ed the decision o! the abor arbiter to the ?"+C. I !"1 Ghether or not an i ega y dismissed emp oyee is entit ed to reinstatement. R!#+,-1;es. Ge 9entrenched is the ru e that an i ega y dismissed emp oyee is entit ed to reinstatement as a matter o! right. #)er the years, howe)er, the case aw de)e oped that where reinstatement is not !easib e, e:pedient or practica , as where reinstatement wou d on y e:acerbate the tension and strained re ations between the parties, or where the re ationship between the emp oyer and emp oyee has been undu y strained by reason o! their irreconci ab e di!!erences, particu ar y where the i ega y dismissed emp oyee he d a manageria or %ey position in the company, it wou d be more prudent to order payment o! separation pay instead o! reinstatement. Some unscrupu ous emp oyers, howe)er, ha)e ta%en ad)antage o! the o)ergrowth o! this doctrine o! Cstrained re ationsC by using it as a co)er to get rid o! its emp oyees and thus de!eat their right to 8ob security. 7o protect aborHs security o! tenure, we emphasi5e that the doctrine o! Cstrained re ationsC shou d be strict y app ied so as not to depri)e an i ega y dismissed emp oyee o! his right to reinstatement. A)ery abor dispute a most a ways resu ts in Cstrained re ationsC, and the phrase cannot be gi)en an o)erarching interpretation, otherwise, an un8ust y dismissed emp oyee can ne)er be reinstated. LORLENE A. GON&ALES )s. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FIFTH DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, a,$ ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY
D' % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

Fact 1 "or ene @on5a es, petitioner, has been a schoo teacher in the A ementary /epartment o! pri)ate respondent Ateneo de /a)ao >ni)ersity ,herea!ter A7A?A#- since 192=. Sometime in 1991 .r. #scar $i ar, S.4., Ateneo @rade Schoo Eeadmaster, sent a etter in!orming petitioner "or ene A. @on5a es o! the comp aints o! two ,2- parents !or a eged use o! corpora punishment on her students. 1etitioner c aimed that she was not in!ormed o! the identity o! the parents who a eged y comp ained o! the corpora punishment she purported y in! icted in schoo 9year 199091991. She i%ewise c aimed that she was not con!ronted about it by pri)ate respondent A7A?A# in 1991 and that it was on y two ,2- years a!ter the comp aints were made that she disco)ered, through her students and their parents, that A7A?A# was so iciting comp ainants to odge written comp aints against her. 1etitioner re!used to ta%e part in the in)estigation un ess the ru es o! procedure aid down by the Committee be re)ised, contending that the same were )io ati)e o! her right to due process. 1etitioner speci!ica y ob8ected to the pro)ision which stated: . . . 0- Counse !or $s. "or ene @on5a es sha not direct y participate in the in)estigation but wi mere y ad)ise $s. @on5a es . . . ,par. 0-. #n 10 ?o)ember 1990 pri)ate respondent ser)ed a ?otice o! 7ermination on petitioner pursuant to the !indings and recommendation o! the Committee. 7herea!ter, petitioner recei)ed a etter !rom the president o! A7A?A# demanding her )o untary resignation a wee% !rom receipt o! the etter, otherwise, she wou d be considered resigned !rom the ser)ice. 1etitioner !i ed a comp aint be!ore the "abor Arbiter !or i ega dismissa . 7he "abor Arbiter !ound the dismissa i ega !or ac% o! !actua basis. 7he re)ersed the decision o! the "abor Arbiter by dec aring petitioner<s dismissa )a id and ega . I !"1 Ghether or not the petitioner was denied o! due process.

R!#+,-1 ;es. 7he ?"+C, in our )iew, appears to ha)e s%irted se)era important issues raised by petitioner !oremost o! which is the absence o! due process. >pon being noti!ied o! her termination, she has the right to demand comp iance with the basic re6uirements o! due process. Comp iance entai s the twin re6uirements o! procedura and substantia due process. Amp e opportunity must be a!!orded the emp oyee to de!end herse ! either persona y andFor with assistance o! a representati)e( to %now the nature o! her o!!ense( and, to cross e:amine and con!ront !ace to !ace the witnesses against her. "i%ewise, due process re6uires that the decision must be based on estab ished !acts and on a sound ega !oundation. &t is precise y to demand comp iance with these re6uirements that petitioner at the )ery onset o! the in)estigation demanded the re)ision o! the ru es aid down by the &n)estigati)e Committee. 7he adamant re!usa o! the Committee to accede to this demand resu ted in her !ai ure to con!ront and cross9e:amine her accusers. 7his is not Charping at technica itiesC as wrong!u y pointed out by the ?"+C but a serious )io ation o! petitionerHs statutory and constitutiona right to due process that u timate y )itiated the in)estigation.

D2 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

CATHEDRAL SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY a,$ SR. APOLINARIA TAMBIEN, RVM )s. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION a,$ TERESITA VALLE/ERA Fact 1 1ri)ate respondent 7eresita Ja e8era sought admission as an aspirant to the Congregation o! the +e igious o! Jirgin $ary ,+J$-. 1ri)ate respondent had a change o! heart in ater years and con!essed to the sisters that she was no onger interested in becoming a nun. She p eaded, howe)er, to be a owed to continue i)ing with the sisters !or she had no other p ace to stay in, to which re6uest the sisters acceded and, in e:change there!or, she )o untari y continued to assist in the schoo ibrary. 1ri)ate respondent !orma y app ied !or and was appointed to the position o! ibrary aide with a month y sa ary o! 11,121.00. &t was at around this time, howe)er, that troub e de)e oped. 7he sisters began recei)ing comp aintsH !rom students and emp oyees about pri)ate respondentHs di!!icu t persona ity and sour disposition at wor%. *e!ore the opening o! c asses, or more speci!ica y on 4une 2, 19D9, pri)ate respondent was summoned to the #!!ice o! the /irectress by herein petitioner Sister Apo inaria 7ambien, +J$, short y a!ter the resignation o! the schoo Hs Chie! "ibrarian, Eerac ea ?ebria, on account o! irreconci ab e di!!erences with said respondent, !or the purpose o! c ari!ying the matter. 1etitioner a so in!ormed pri)ate respondent o! the negati)e reports recei)ed by her o!!ice regarding the atterHs !rictiona wor%ing re ationship with co9wor%ers and students and reminded pri)ate respondent about the proper attitude and beha)ior that shou d be obser)ed in the interest o! peace and harmony in the schoo ibrary. 1ri)ate respondent resented the obser)ations about her actuations and was comp ete y unrecepti)e to the ad)ice gi)en by her superior. She reacted )io ent y to petitionerHs remar%s and angri y o!!ered to resign, repeated y saying, C#K, & wi resign. & wi resign.C 7herea!ter, without waiting to be dismissed !rom the meeting, she stormed out o! the o!!ice in discourteous disregard and ca ous de!iance o! authority. 1etitioners sent at east three persons to ta % to and con)ince pri)ate respondent to sett e her di!!erences with the !ormer. 1ri)ate respondent, howe)er, remained adamant in her re!usa to submit to authority. #n 4une 15, 19D9, Sister Apo inaria sent a etter !orma y in!orming pri)ate respondent that she had a month !rom said date or unti 4u y 15, 19D9 to oo% !or another 8ob as the schoo had decided to accept her resignation. 1ri)ate respondent then !i ed a comp aint !or i ega deduction and underpayment o! sa ary, o)ertime pay and ser)ice incenti)e pay. 7he abor arbiter rendered a decision in !a)or o! pri)ate respondent, ho ding that she was i ega y dismissed !or ac% o! due process. 7he ?"+C a!!irmed the abor arbiterHs decision, with the modi!ications stated at the outset o! this opinion, on the rationa that whi e petitioners had )a id reasons to terminate the

DD % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

ser)ices o! pri)ate respondent, the dismissa was nonethe ess i ega !or ac% o! due process. I !"1 Ghether or not pri)ate respondent was i ega y dismissed.

R!#+,-1 ?o. An e)a uati)e re)iew o! the records o! this case nonethe ess supports a !inding o! a 8ust cause !or termination. 7he reason !or which pri)ate respondentHs ser)ices were terminated, name y, her unreasonab e beha)ior and unp easant deportment in dea ing with the peop e she c ose y wor%s with in the course o! her emp oyment, is ana ogous to the other C8ust causesC enumerated under the "abor Code, as amended: Art. 2D2. Termination 0y employer. U An emp oyer may terminate an emp oyment !or any o! the !o owing 8ust causes: ,a- Serious misconduct or wi !u disobedience by the emp oyee o! the aw!u orders o! his emp oyer or representati)e in connection with his wor%( ,b- @ross and habitua breach by the emp oyee o! his duties( ,c- .raud or wi !u breach by the emp oyee o! the trust reposed in him by his emp oyer or du y authori5ed representati)e( ,d- Commission o! a crime or o!!ense by the emp oyee against the person o! his emp oyer or any immediate member o! his !ami y or his du y authori5ed representati)e( and ,e- #ther causes ana ogous to the !oregoing.

4AMS INTERNATIONAL INC., ESVEE APPAREL MFG. INC., a,$D*) THAN3ARDASH /ES3ANI a,$ 4AMLESH /ES3ANI )s. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FIRST DIVISION, a,$ MERCEDITA T. TORRE/OS

D9 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

Fact 1 1etitioner Kams &nternationa , &nc. ,KA$S-, and petitioner As)ee Appare $anu!acturing, &nc. ,ASJAA-, are sister companies engaged in garments manu!acturing. 1etitioner ASJAA hired pri)ate respondent $ercedita 7. 7orre8os as a uti ity wor%er in the !actory. 7orre8os per!ormed her assigned tas% duti!u y, and the 4eswanis were )ery much p eased with her wor%. Sometime in /ecember 1990 management disco)ered a shortage in the in)entory o! KA$S. Conse6uent y, stricter security measures were imp emented and each emp oyee was thorough y inspected be!ore ea)ing company premises. 1ri)ate respondentHs persona tra)ai s started in August o! 199= when she bought si: ,'- yards o! !abric !rom petitioners. &n order to bring the purchased !abric out o! the !actory she had to secure a gate pass and present it to the security guard on duty at the gate. Ghen security guard ?ena * anca! or inspected the !abric and measured it using her arms, she estimated the ength to be eight ,D- yards instead o! si: ,'- yards as indicated in the gate pass. ?o discip inary action was e)er ta%en by management against 7orre8os with regard to the purported pi !erage. 7hus, 7orre8os continued per!orming her duties and responsibi ities e)en a!ter the a eged misdemeanor. *ut on 0 #ctober 199= she !ai ed to report !or wor% because she had Csore eyes.C She instructed her sister Antonia, who a so wor%ed !or petitioners, to in!orm the 4eswanis that she wou d be absent that day. Ghen Antonia arri)ed !rom wor% ater that day, she to d pri)ate respondent that management had decided to terminate her ser)ices. 7o )eri!y this, 7orre8os ca ed up Kam esh 4eswani at his o!!ice. 7he atter instructed her to ta % to his !ather instead. &t was 7hanwardash 4eswani who ater con!irmed through the te ephone that she had indeed been terminated because o! abandonment o! wor%. 7orre8os !i ed a case !or i ega dismissa . 7he "abor Arbiter rendered a decision ho ding that 7orre8os was i ega y dismissed. 7he ?"+C a!!irmed that o! "abor Arbiter<s decision. I !"1 Ghether or not 7orre8os abandoned her wor% as the emp oyer shou d not be he d iab e !or i ega dismissa . R!#+,-1 .or abandonment to e:ist, it is essentia that ,a- the emp oyee must ha)e !ai ed to report !or wor% or must ha)e been absent without )a id or 8usti!iab e reason( and, ,b- there must ha)e been a c ear intention to se)er the emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship mani!ested by some o)ert acts. &n =e 2aul/4ing 2hilip %u tom Tailor" an(/or Milagro %huakay an( 'illiam ;o v. 1/!% we he d U Abandonment, as a 8ust and )a id ground !or dismissa means the de iberate and un8usti!ied re!usa o! an emp oyee to resume his emp oyment. 7he burden o! proo! is on the emp oyer to show une6ui)oca intent on the part o! the emp oyee to discontinue emp oyment. 7he intent cannot be ight y in!erred or ega y presumed !rom certain ambi)a ent acts. .or abandonment to be a )a id ground !or dismissa , two e ements must be pro)ed: the intention o! an emp oyee to abandon, coup ed with an o)ert act

90 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

!rom which it may be in!erred that the emp oyee has no more intent to resume his wor%. Eowe)er, in the case be!ore us, petitioners !ai ed to adduce e)idence on any o)ert act o! 7orre8os showing an actua intent to abandon her emp oyment. &n !act, the e)idence on record be ies this contention. 1etitioners cannot deny the !act that 7orre8os !i ed a comp aint !or i ega dismissa against them on 2= ?o)ember 199=. 7his a one negates any intention on the part o! the emp oyee to !orsa%e her wor%. &t is a sett ed doctrine that the !i ing o! a comp aint !or i ega dismissa is inconsistent with the charge o! abandonment, !or an emp oyee who ta%es steps to protest his dismissa cannot by ogic be said to ha)e abandoned his wor%.

ARTICLE 270 VICENTE SY, TRINIDAD PAULINO, 6BBS TRUC4ING CORPORATION, a,$ SBT TRUC4ING CORPORATION, )s. HON. COURT OF APPEALS a,$ /AIME SAHOT, respondents. G.R. N*. 10226@ F";)!a)9 25, 200@ Shot was a truc% dri)er o! !ami y business o! truc%ing o! the petitioner !or 0' years Ghen sahot was a ready 59 year o d he was incurring absences due to an ai ment which a!!ects his per!ormance in wor% >pon in6uiry to SSS he !ound out that his payment !or premium was not remitted by his emp oyer Sahot !i ed !or a wee% ong ea)e due to his arthritis, hypertension and heart en argement Sahot !i ed !or an e:tension o! ea)e but his emp oyer threatened him that his emp oyment wi be terminated i! he re!use to go bac% to wor% Sahot was no onger ab e to report bac% to wor% because o! his ai ment and he was dismissed without pension Sahot !i ed an i ega dismissa case be!ore the ?"+C 1etitoner contends that they ne)er hired a dri)er and that Sahot was their +,$! t)+a# .a)t,") hence no i ega dismissa and he )o untary resigned !rom the company "A ru ed that there was no i ega dismissa but was re)ersed by the ?"+C in dec aring that Sahot was an emp oyee and that he did not abandon his wor% but was terminated on account o! his i ness. 7he same was a!!irmed by CA

I !"1 ,1- Ghether or not an emp oyer9emp oyee re ationship e:isted between petitioners and respondent Sahot( ,2- Ghether or not there was )a id dismissa
91 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

R!#+,-1 1.YES. A computation o! the age o! comp ainant shows that he was on y twenty9three ,20- years when he started wor%ing with respondent as truc% he per. Eow can we entertain in our mind that a twenty9three ,20- year o d man, wor%ing as a truc% he per, be considered an industria partner. Eence we ru e that comp ainant was on y an emp oyee, not a partner o! respondents !rom the time comp ainant started wor%ing !or respondent. T8" A*!) "#":",t *A ":.#*9")(":.#*9"" )"#at+*, 8+. a)" .)" ",t 2.NO. Ghi e it was )ery ob)ious that comp ainant did not ha)e any intention to report bac% to wor% due to his i ness which incapacitated him to per!orm his 8ob, such intention cannot be construed to be an abandonment. &nstead, the same shou d ha)e been considered as one o! those !a ing under the G! t ca! " *A t"):+,at+,- a, ":.#*9:",t . 7he insistence o! respondent in ma%ing comp ainant wor% did not change the scenario. &n termination cases, the burden is upon the emp oyer to show by !; ta,t+a# "'+$",c" that the termination was !or aw!u cause and )a id y made. Artic e 222,b- o! the "abor Code puts the ;!)$", o! pro)ing that the dismissa o! an emp oyee was !or a )a id or authori5ed cause *, t8" ":.#*9"), without distinction whether the emp oyer admits or does not admit the dismissa . F*) a, ":.#*9""B $+ :+ a# t* ;" 'a#+$, <a= t8" $+ :+ a# :! t ;" A*) a 'a#+$ ca! " a,$ <;= t8" ":.#*9"" :! t ;" aAA*)$"$ $!" .)*c" . Eowe)er, in order to )a id y terminate emp oyment on this ground, *oo% J&, +u e &, Section D o! the #mnibus &mp ementing +u es o! the "abor Code re6uires: Sec. D. /isease as a ground !or dismissa 9 Ghere the emp oyee su!!ers !rom a disease and his continued emp oyment is prohibited by aw or pre8udicia to his hea th or to the hea th o! his co9emp oyees, the emp oyer sha not terminate his emp oyment un ess there is a certi!ication by competent pub ic hea th authority that the disease is o! such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period o! si: ,'- months e)en with proper medica treatment. &! the disease or ai ment can be cured within the period, the emp oyer sha not terminate the emp oyee but sha as% the emp oyee to ta%e a ea)e. 7he emp oyer sha reinstate such emp oyee to his !ormer position immediate y upon the restoration o! his norma hea th. I, t8" ca " at ;a), t8" ":.#*9") c#"a)#9 $+$ ,*t c*:.#9 >+t8 t8" :"$+ca# c")t+A+cat" )"F!+)":",t ;"A*)" Sa8*tB $+ :+ a# >a "AA"ct"$. 7he emp oyer is re6uired to !urnish an emp oyee with two written notices be!ore the atter is dismissed: ,1- the notice to apprise the emp oyee o! the particu ar acts or omissions !or which his dismissa is sought, which is the e6ui)a ent o! a charge( and ,2- the notice in!orming the emp oyee o! his dismissa , to be issued a!ter the emp oyee has been gi)en reasonab e opportunity to answer and to be heard on his de!ense. 7hese, the petitioners !ai ed to do, e)en on y !or record purposes. Ghat management did was to threaten the emp oyee with dismissa , then actua y imp ement the threat when the occasion presented itse ! because o! pri)ate respondent<s pain!u e!t thigh. A to d, both the substanti)e and procedura aspects o! due process were )io ated. C ear y, there!ore, Sahot<s dismissa is tainted with in)a idity.

92 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS


ARTICLE 272

2012

ELSA S. MALIG(ON, )s. ECUITABLE GENERAL SERVICES, INC., G.R. N*. 172266 /!," 26, 2010 A sa was hired as a 8anitor o! the respondent !or 9 hours o! wor% 1250 per day !or ' years She was ad)ised by her super)isor that she wi be assigned to another c ient but she was ne)er assigned despite her !o ow9up A!ter D months the company to d A sa that she wou d ha)e to !i e a resignation etter !irst be!ore she wi be assigned which she did but the respondent did not assign her prompting her to !i e an i ega dismissa case +espondent contend that A sa 8us stop reporting to wor% without any reason and that they wrote two etters as%ing A sa to e:p ain her absence and a!ter more than one month A sa showed up at the company and submitted resignation etter "A ru ed the A sa<s resignation was )a id but it was re)ersed by the ?"+C in ru ing that respondent constructi)e y dismissed A sa and ordered them to reinstate her. CA re)ersed the decision o! ?"+C reinstating the decision o! "A

I !": whether or not the CA erred in ho ding that petitioner $a ig9on abandoned her wor% and e)entua y resigned !rom it rather than that respondent company constructi)e y dismissed her. R!#+,-1 YES.7he ru e in termination cases is that the ":.#*9") ;"a) t8" ;!)$", o! pro)ing that he dismissed his emp oyee !or a G! t ca! ". And, when the emp oyer c aims that the emp oyee resigned !rom wor%, the burden is on the emp oyer to pro)e that he did so wi ing y. Ghether that is the case wou d arge y depend on the c+)c!: ta,c" !))*!,$+,!c8 a##"-"$ )" +-,at+*,. 7hose circumstances must be consistent with the emp oyee<s +,t",t t* -+'" !. >*)E. Eere, the company c aims that $a ig9on )o untari y resigned, ga)e a etter o! resignation that she wrote with her own hand, used the )ernacu ar anguage, and signed it. *ut these are not enough. 7hey mere y pro)e that she wrote that etter, a thing that she did not deny. She was 6uic% to point out that she wrote it a!ter being to d that she needed to resign so she cou d be c eared !or her ne:t assignment. 7he company o! course c aims that it ga)e $a ig9on notices on August 20, 2002 and September 2, 2002, as%ing her to e:p ain her !ai ure to report !or wor% and in!orming her that the company wou d treat such !ai ure as ac% o! interest in it, respecti)e y. *ut these notices cannot possib y ta%e the p ace o! the notices re6uired by aw. 7hey came more than si: months a!ter the company p aced her
90 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

on ! oating status and, conse6uent y, the company ga)e her those notices aAt") +t 8a$ c*, t)!ct+'"#9 $+ :+ "$ 8") A)*: >*)E. An i ega y dismissed emp oyee is entit ed to t>* )"#+"A 1 ;acE>a-" a,$ )"+, tat":",t.2 Sti , the Court has he d that the grant o! ".a)at+*, .a9, rather than reinstatement, may be proper especia y when the atter is ,* #*,-") .)act+ca# or wi be !or the ;" t +,t")" t *A t8" .a)t+" , as in this case.Eere, a!ter her ast wor%, $a ig9on did not appear persistent in getting rehired. &ndeed, she did not !i e any action !or constructi)e dismissa a!ter being p aced in a ! oating status !or more than si: months. &! she were to be be ie)ed, it was on y eight months ater that she showed %een interest in being ta%en bac% by !o owing an ad)ice that she !irst tender her resignation in order to c ear up her record prior to being rehired. GEA+A.#+A, the Court @+A?7S the petition and +AJA+SAS the decision o! the Court o! Appea s

SURIGAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE <SURNECO= ANDDOR EUGENIO BALUGODCIRIACO MESALUCHA, )s. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION <2TH DIVISION= AND ELSIE ESCULANO G.R. N*. 122212 /!," 27, 1666 Vuinto, a !ormer emp oyee o! the S>+?AC# sent a resignation etter to @enera $anager *a ugo !urnishing the *oard o! /irectors stating therein the she was re6uesting to be entit ed to separation pay and other bene!its Asco ano, the 1ersonne #!!icer o! S>+?AC# sent a report *a ugo indicating therein that the termination o! se)ice o! Vuinto was not accorded with due process and recommending the company to grant her separation pay otherwise Vuinto wou d be entit ed to reinstatement without oss o! seniority rights and other pri)i eges and bene!its. S>+?AC# did not ta%e any action o)er the etter o! Vuinto hence she !i e a comp aint !or i ega dismissa with a prayer o! reinstatement based on the report o! Ascu ano to *a ugo VuintoHs case was, howe)er, dismissed on #ctober 22, 1992, !or being barred by prescription. *a ugo wrote a etter to Ascu ano ordering her to e:p ain did she commit such unauthori5ed action to re)iew the case o! Vuinto and why she shou d not be sub8ected to discip inary action Ascu ano submitted a written e:p anation in apo ogetic !orm stating that such re)iew is inherent upon her 8ob *a ugo wrote another etter to Asco ano directing her to adduce additiona e)idence i! the was any and her !ai ure to rep y within 0 days wi submit her

9= % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS


case !or reso ution

2012

Ascu ano !i ed a rep y in the 0rd day that she had no idea that she had a CcaseC and re6uesting !or in!ormation thereon. *oard o! /irectors, proceeded to act on the case o! reso )ing to terminate the ser)ices o! Asco ano through a *oard +eso ution, due to )io ation o! Section 9 o! their Code o! Athics and /iscip ine !or such unauthori5ed re)iew o! the case o! Vuinto Asco ano !i ed a comp aint !or i ega dismissa and "A ru ed in !a)our o! the )a idity o! the dismissa but ordered S>+?AC# to pay her 10,000.00 as !inancia indemnity !or ,*t 8a'+,- .)*'+$"$ .)+'at" )" .*,$",t >+t8 a 8"a)+,- to air her side and !or ,*t c*:.#9+,- >+t8 t8" *," :*,t8 ,*t+c" )"F!+)":",t pro)ided !or in *atas 1ambansa * g. 100. ?"+C dismissed the appea o! Asco ano !or ha)ing been !i ed out o! time. A motion !or reconsideration was granted and ?"+C ru ed that the dismissa was i ega

I !": G#? S>+?AC# was gui ty !or i ega dismissa in terminating the ser)ices o! Asco ano !or serious misconduct due to unauthori5ed re)iew o! a case and oss o! con!idence !or breach o! ru es R!#+,-1 ;AS. .irst, there is no basis !or petitioner cooperati)eHs charge o! serious misconduct on the part o! pri)ate respondent. $isconduct is improper or wrong conduct. &t is the transgression o! some estab ished and de!inite ru e o! action, a !orbidden act, a dere iction o! duty, wi !u in character, and imp ies wrong!u intent and not mere error in 8udgment. Asco ano, 1ersonne #!!icer, ho ds a manageria position. As such, her authority is not mere y routinary or c erica in nature but re6uires independent 8udgment. &ndeed, those occupying manageria positions are considered )ested with a certain amount o! discretion and independent 8udgment. Asco ano !unctioned within the sphere o! her 8ob when she acted on VuintoHs re6uest and drew recommendations thereon. Stated simp y, pri)ate respondent was mere y doing her 8ob. Ge !ai to see any transgression o! estab ished and de!inite ru e o! action, any !orbidden act, any dere iction o! duty, wi !u in character, nor wrong!u intent on the part o! pri)ate respondent as to ho d her iab e !or serious misconduct. 1etitionersH basis !or c#a+:+,- #* *A c*,A+$",c" is pri)ate respondentHs a eged act o! !urnishing Vuinto a copy o! her interna memorandum. Ge ha)e searched the records and !ound no direct proo! that pri)ate respondent did !urnish a copy o! her report to Vuinto. #n the other hand, Ge agree with the ?"+C that Vuinto cou d ha)e )ery we obtained her copy !rom other sources. &n other words, that pri)ate respondent a owed Vuinto to obtain a copy o! her report has not been c ear y estab ished. As such, petitioners cannot )a id y re y on oss o! con!idence as a ground to dismiss pri)ate respondent. GEA+A.#+A, premises considered, the 1etition is /&S$&SSA/ !or ac% o! merit.

95 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

ANTONIO B. MOLATO, RENATO ALE/AGA a,$ ESMERALDO B. MOLATO, )s. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER RICARDO C. NORA, REACH OUT BIBLICAL HOUSE a,$ ILDEFONSO P. BARCELO, respondents. G.R. N*. 11@072 /a,!a)9 2, 1665 *arce o, the manager o! the *ib ica Eouse send etters to the petitioners in!orming them o! their dismissa !rom wor% due to gra)e misconduct, insubordination and ine!!iciency which great y a!!ected the operations and security o! the company, to be e!!ecti)e immediate y. 1etitioners !i ed an i ega dismissa case and underpayment and non9 payment o! some bene!its "A ru ed in !a)our o! the )a idity o! the dismissa based on the a!!ida)it o! ' emp oyees pro)ing their misconduct but they ordered the emp oyer to indemni!y petitioners 15,000.00 each !or !ai ure to obser)e the twin re6uirements o! notice and hearing in e!!ecting their termination. ?"+C sustained the decision o! "A, hence, this petition

&ssue: G#? the dismissa based on the a!!ida)its o! co9emp oyees was )a id +u ing: ?#. 7he petition is meritorious. 7o constitute a )a id dismissa !rom emp oyment two ,2- re6uisites must concur: ,a- the dismissa must be !or any o! t8" ca! " .)*'+$"$ +, A)t. 272 o! the "abor Code( and, ,b- the emp oyee must be gi)en an *..*)t!,+t9 t* ;" 8"a)$ a,$ t* $"A",$ 8+: "#A . >n!ortunate y, ;*t8 )"F!+)":",t >")" ,*t at+ A+"$. *oth pub ic respondents "abor Arbiter and ?"+C !ound 8ust and )a id causes in terminating the ser)ices o! petitioners on the basis so e y on the a!!ida)its e:ecuted by A:terna Auditor Ammanue 7iongson and the si: ,'- co9emp oyees o! petitioners. Eowe)er, a perusa o! the a!oresaid a!!ida)its readi y re)ea s that the acts a eged y committed by petitioners were mere y genera a egations which were not ade6uate y substantiated Vuite ob)ious y, a!!iants !ai ed to cite particu ar acts or circumstances when petitioners were disrespect!u to their emp oyer. A!!iants mere y a eged that petitioners wou d raise their )oices and utter unp easant remar%s at their emp oyer during their meetings without howe)er pointing in detai when, where and how the incidents transpired. 7he same is true with the a!!ida)it o! Ammanue 7iongson. Ee mere y stated that he witnessed the arrogance, misconduct, gross y abusi)e anguage, serious disrespect and unca ed9!or remar%s o! petitioners towards their emp oyer. .or misconduct or improper beha)ior to be a 8ust cause !or dismissa the same must be re ated to the per!ormance o! the emp oyeeHs duties and must show that he has become un!it to continue wor%ing !or the emp oyer. 0 7he a!!ida)its o! pri)ate respondentsH witnesses are insu!!icient to warrant such !indings. &t is gra)e abuse o! discretion !or pub ic respondents "abor Arbiter and ?"+C to ru e
9' % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

that petitioners were gui ty o! serious misconduct and insubordination based on those a!!ida)its a one. DIVINE 3ORD HIGH SCHOOL AND REV. VIC TIAM, SVD. DIRECTOR, )s. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND LU& MALLBO CATEN&A, G.R. N*. 52205 A!-! t 6, 1676 "u5, a high schoo teacher o! /i)ine Gord went to a )acation and when she tried to report bac% to wor% she was not a owed anymore because o! misdeedsC and Cimmora actsC o! her husband 1ab o Caten5a, then the principa o! petitioner schoo . "u5 !i ed a case !or i ega dismissa and petitioners contend that the reason !or the termination o! her ser)ice is the contemporaneous and subse6uent conduct o! c*'")+,- !. a,$ c*,c"a#+,- t8" +::*)a# act *A 8") 8! ;a,$ coup ed with threats to %i made by said respondent on the person o! student +emie &gnacio, the )ictim o! her husbandHs immora acts. "A ru ed in !a)or o! the i ega ity o! the dismissa and ordered the schoo to reinstate "u5 ?"+C modi!ied the decision ru ing that "u5 was not denied o! due process !or her !ai ure to attend the = hearings, hence this petition

I !"1 G#? "u5 was denied o! due process and shou d be reinstated by the Schoo R!#+,-1 NO. "i%ewise de)oid o! merit is petitionersH contention that they were denied due process o! aw when the "abor Arbiter considered the case submitted !or decision notwithstanding the !act that petitioners had not yet rested their case. Scrutiny o! the records shows that petitioners were a!!orded e)ery opportunity to present their e)idence but they repeated y !ai ed to appear at the !our ,=- consecuti)e hearings schedu ed !or the purpose. &t is sett ed that there is no denia o! due process where petitioner was a!!orded an opportunity to present his case. ,$unicipa ity o! /aet ). Eida go Anterprises, &nc., 10D SC+A 2'5-. ?onethe ess Ge hesitate ordering the reinstatement o! pri)ate respondent "u5 *a ano Caten5a as a high schoo teacher in the petitioner high schoo , which is a Catho ic institution, ser)ing the educationa and mora needs o! its Catho ic studentry. Ghi e herse ! innocent, the continued presense o! $rs. Caten5a as a teacher in the schoo :a9 >"## ;" :"t >+t8 a,t+.at89 a,$ a,ta-*,+ : ;9 *:" "ct*) +, t8" c8**# c*::!,+t9. GEA+A.#+A, the petitioners are hereby #+/A+A/ to pay comp ainant9appe ee eparation pay e6ui)a ent to one month pay !or e)ery year o! ser)ice, p us her 0ackwage ,not to e:ceed three years- !rom the time o! the dismissa up to the time o! actua payment. S# #+/A+A/.
92 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

EVELYN CHUA(CUA, )s. HON. /ACOBO C. CLAVE, +, 8+ ca.ac+t9 a P)" +$",t+a# EK"c!t+'" A + ta,t, a,$ TAY TUNG HIGH SCHOOL, G.R. N*. 06206 A!-! t @0, 1660 A)er yn was a teacher in 7ay 7ung Eigh Schoo and the c ass ad)iser o! the ' th grade where *obby Vua was enro ed A)er yn, 00 years o! age !e married in o)e with *obby, 1' years o! age and got

7he Schoo !i ed with the sub9regiona o!!ice o! the /epartment o! "abor at *aco od City an app ication !or c earance to terminate the emp oyment o! petitioner on the !o owing ground: C.or a;! +'" a,$ !,"t8+ca# c*,$!ct !,;"c*:+,- *A a $+-,+A+"$ c8**# t"ac8") and that her c*,t+,!"$ ":.#*9:",t + +,+:+ca# t* t8" ;" t +,t")" t, a,$ >*!#$ $*>,-)a$" t8" 8+-8 :*)a# 'a#!" , *A t8" c8**#.C A)er yn was suspended by the "abor Arbiter and re6uired to submit position paper and supporting e)idence 7he c earance to terminate the emp oyment o! A)er yn was granted by the "A A)er y contend that she did not recei)e a copy o! the a!!ida)it o! the Schoo which the "A re ied in ru ing the case, hence, she appea ed the case be!ore the ?"+C !or denia o! due process and that there is nothing immora on her conduct ?"+C re)ersed the decision o! "A and ordered the reinstatement o! A)er yn 7he $inister o! "abor re)ersed the decision o! ?"+C, hence, A)er yn appea ed the case be!ore the o!!ice o! the 1resident which re)ersed the decision o! the $inister o! "abor. A M*t+*, A*) )"c*, +$")at+*, was granted in !a)our o! the schoo .

I !"1 3ON the dismissa based the marriage o! A)er yn was i ega ( 3ON A)er yn was denied o! due process when the a eged hearsay a!!ida)it was admitted by the "A( 3ON there was no su!!icient proo! to pro)e the misconduct o! A)er yn R!#+,-: YES. 7he charge against petitioner not ha)ing been substantiated, we dec are her dismissa as unwarranted and i ega . &t being apparent, howe)er, that the re ationship between petitioner and pri)ate respondent has been ine)itab y and se)ere y strained, we be ie)e that it wou d neither be to the interest o! the parties nor wou d any prudent purpose be ser)ed by ordering her reinstatement. NO. 7here is no denia o! due process where a party was a!!orded an opportunity to present his side. A so, the procedure by which issues are reso )ed
9D % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

based on position papers, a!!ida)its and other documentary e)idence is recogni5ed as not )io ati)e o! such right. $oreo)er, petitioner cou d ha)e insisted on a hearing to con!ront and cross9e:amine the a!!iants but she did not do so, ob)ious y because she was con)inced that the case in)o )es a 6uestion o! aw. *esides, said a!!ida)its were a so cited and discussed by her in the proceedings be!ore the $inistry o! "abor. YES. Gith the !inding that there is no substantia e)idence o! the imputed immora acts, it !o ows that the a eged )io ation o! the Code o! Athics go)erning schoo teachers wou d ha)e no basis. 7he Schoo utter y !ai ed to show that petitioner too% ad)antage o! her position to court her student. &! the two e)entua y !e in o)e, despite the disparity in their ages and academic e)e s, this on y ends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons o! its own which reason does not %now. *ut, de!inite y, yie ding to this gent e and uni)ersa emotion is not to be so casua y e6uated with immora ity. 7he de)iation o! the circumstances o! their marriage !rom the usua societa pattern cannot be considered as a de!iance o! contemporary socia mores. GEA+A.#+A, the petition !or certiorari is @+A?7A/ and the reso ution o! pub ic respondent, dated /ecember ', 192D is A??>""A/ and SA7 AS&/A. 1ri)ate respondent 7ay 7ung Eigh Schoo , &nc. is hereby #+/A+A/ to pay petitioner bac%wages e6ui)a ent to three ,0- years, without any deduction or 6ua i!ication, and separation pay in the amount o! one ,1- month !or e)ery year o! ser)ice. STANFORD MICROSYSTEMS, INC., )s. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION a,$ HENRY TRINIO G.R. N*. 50175 /a,!a)9 27, 1677 Eenry is the security coordinator o! Stan!ord assigned to super)ise a guards assigned to Stan!ord the

Eenry was dismissed !rom emp oyment upon an in)estigation a eging that he committed a serious breach o! company ru es when one night around 11pm he a owed two ady guards, @ina and Jic%y to come with him inside the o!!ice to drin% i6uor and a owed the guard on duty, $arce ino to 8oin them and ha)ing se:ua intercourse with @ina on the top o! the des% whi e Jic%y was pretending to be a s eep. Eenry !i ed an i ega Stan!ord dismissa case and un!air abor practice against

"A ru ed dismissing the comp aint !or >"1 but the comp aint !or i ega dismissa was decided in !a)or o! Eenry and the proper pena ty !or him was suspension on y and not dismissa 7he appea o! Stan!ord be!ore the ?"+C was denied

&ssue: G#? Eenry shou d on y be suspended and the dismissa was improper +u ing: ?#. 7he issue does not thereto!ore ie in the !acts, or the su!!iciency o! the e)idence in proo! thereo!. 7he issue posed, rather, is whether or not under the estab ished !acts, the pena ty o! (i mi al is merited, instead o! mere y that o! u pen ion !or not more than 00 days U which is what the company ru es by
99 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

their itera terms indicate. 7he respondent Commission, in the Comment submitted in its beha ! by the So icitor @enera , concedes that the A*):!#at+*, a,$ .)*:!#-at+*, ;9 a, ":.#*9") *A )!#" *A c*,$!ct a,$ $+ c+.#+," A*) +t ":.#*9"" , +,c#! +'" *A t8* " $"":"$ t* c*, t+t!t" ")+*! :+ c*,$!ct, ca,,*t a,$ 8*!#$ ,*t *.")at" t* a#t*-"t8") ,"-at" 8+ .)")*-at+'" a,$ )" .*, +;+#+t9 t* $"t"):+," a,$ $"c#a)" >8"t8") *) ,*t Aact ,*t "K.#+c+t#9 "t *!t +, t8" )!#" :a9 a,$ $* c*, t+t!t" !c8 ")+*! :+ c*,$!ct a t* G! t+A9 t8" $+ :+ a# *A t8" ":.#*9"" *) t8" +:.* +t+*, *A a,ct+*, 8"a'+") t8a, t8* " ."c+A+ca##9 a,$ "K.)" #9 .)" c)+;"$. 7he concession is dictated by ogic( otherwise, the ru es, literally applie(, wou d resu t in absurdity: gra)e o!!enses, e.g." rape, wou d be pena i5ed by mere suspension( this, despite the hea)ier pena ty pro)ided there!or by the "abor Code, or otherwise dictated by common sense. 7he o!!enses cannot be e:cused upon a p ea o! their being C!irst o!!enses,C or ha)e not resu ted in pre8udice to the company in any way. ?o emp oyer may rationa y be e:pected to continue in emp oyment a person whose ac% o! mora s, respect and oya ty to his emp oyer, regard !or his emp oyerHs ru es, and appreciation o! the dignity and responsibi ity o! his o!!ice, has so p ain y and comp ete y been bared. GEA+A.#+A, the /ecision o! the ?ationa "abor +e ations Commission dated $arch 10, 19D' and that o! the "abor Arbiter dated September 00, 19D0 are annu ed and set aside, and the comp aint o! Eenry 7rinio against the petitioner !or un!air abor practice and i ega termination o! emp oyment, dismissed !or ac% o! !actua and ega basis. 7he 8udgment is immediate y e:ecutory, and no motion !or e:tension o! time to !i e a motion !or reconsideration thereo! wi be entertained.

100 % 1 a g e

LABOR RELATIONS CASE DIGESTS

2012

101 % 1 a g e