Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Quintia claimed that when her contract was about to expire, she was
invited by Xavier University to be chairperson of its pharmacology dept.
But Castillo, present and gen mgr of IPI asked her to stay and assured
her of security of tenure. Hence, she declined the offer of Xavier and
remained an employ and as company physician of IPI after her contract
expired. This continued until her termination on July 12, 1986.
She alleges that her reason for her termination was because she led the
rank and file employees in the demand for a full disclosure of the Savings
and Loan Associations financial status. Her participation was resented
by association officers.
On July 10, 1986, Quintia was replaced as head of the R&D dept by Paz
Wong. Two days later, she received a memorandum officially terminating
her services.
Quintia filed a complaint for illegal dismissal praying for reinstatement
and payment of full backwages and moral damages.
LA found private respondent to have been illegally dismissed. He held
that private respondent was a regular employee and not a project
employee and could not be dismissed without just causes. NLRC
affirmed ruling and asked LA to determine whether reinstatement is
possible.
The Court is in the opinion that the Eight-Hour Labor Law only has
application where an employee or laborer is paid in a monthly or daily basis,
or is paid a monthly or daily compensation, in which case, if he is made to
work beyond the requisite period of 8 hours, he should be paid the additional
compensation prescribed by law. This law has no application when the
employee or laborer is paid on a piece-work, "pakiao", or commission basis,
regardless of the time employed. The philosophy behind this exemption is
that his earnings are in the form of commission based on the gross receipts
of the day. His participation depends upon his industry so that the more
hours he employs in the work the greater are his gross returns and the higher
his commission. This philosophy is better explained in Jewel Tea Co. vs.
Willams
, C.C.A. Okl., 118 F. 2d 202, as follows:"The reasons for excluding an outside
salesman are fairly apparent. Such salesman, to a great extent, works
individually. There are no restrictions respecting the time he shall work and
he can earn as much or as little, within the range of his ability, as his ambition
dictates. In lieu of overtime he ordinarily receives commissions as extra
compensation. He works away from his employer's place of business, is not
subject to the personal supervision of his employer, and his employer has no
way of knowing the number of hours he works per day
Uy illegally dismissed Lebatique when he told him to look for another job.
Judging at the sequence of event, Lebatique earned the ire of Uy when
he filed a complaint for nonpayment of OT pay on the day Lebatique was
suspended by Manuel Uy. Such is not a valid reason for dismissing
Lebatique.
Uy cannot therefore claim that he merely suspended Lebatique.
Further, Lebatique did not abandon his job. His filing of this case is proof
enough that he had no intention to abandon his job.
To constitute abandonment as a just cause for dismissal, there must be:
(a) absence without justifiable reason; and
(b) a clear intention, as manifested by some overt act, to sever the
employer-employee relationship.
None of the above was proven by Uy.
Also, Lebatique is not a field personnel as defined above for the following
reasons:
(1) company drivers, including Lebatique, are directed to deliver the
goods at a specified time and place;
(2) they are not given the discretion to solicit, select and contact
prospective clients; and
(3) Far East issued a directive that company drivers should stay at the
clients premises during truck-ban hours which is from 5:00 to 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 to 9:00 p.m.
As a regular employee, Lebatique is entitled to service incentive leave
and OT pay.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision but remanded
the case for properly computing Lebatiques OT pay taking in to
consideration the companys time keeping records.
they are under the effective control and supervision of petitioner through the
vessel's patron or master.
Labor Congress of the Philippines vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 123938 | May 21, 1998 | J. Davide, Jr.
FACTS:
This case originated from a complaint filed on September 20, 1990 by private
respondent FerminAgao, Jr. against petitioner for illegal dismissal, violation
of P.D. No. 851, and non-payment of five days service incentive leave for
1990. Private respondent had been employed as a "bodegero" or ship's
quartermaster on February 12, 1988. He complained that he had been
constructively dismissed by petitioner when the latter refused him
assignments aboard its boats after he had reported to work on May 28, 1990.
Private respondent alleged that he had been sick and thus allowed to go on
leave without pay for one month from April 28, 1990 but that when he
reported to work at the end of such period with a health clearance, he was
told to come back another time as he could not be reinstated immediately.
Thereafter, petitioner refused to give him work. For this reason, private
respondent asked for a certificate of employment from petitioner on
September 6, 1990. However, when he came back for the certificate on
September 10, petitioner refused to issue the certificate unless he submitted
his resignation. Since private respondent refused to submit such letter unless
he was given separation pay, petitioner prevented him from entering the
premises. Petitioner, on the other hand, alleged that it was private
respondent who actually abandoned his work.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the fishing crew members are considered field personnel as
classified in Art. 82 of the Labor Code.
HELD:
Art. 82 of the Labor Code provides: The provisions of this title [Working
Conditions and Rest Periods] shall apply to employees in all establishments
and undertakings whether for profit or not, but not to government employees,
field personnel, members of the family of the employer who are dependent
on him for support, domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of
another, and workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary
of Labor in appropriate regulations. "Field personnel" shall refer to nonagricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the
principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual
hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. In
contrast, in the case at bar, during the entire course of their fishing voyage,
fishermen employed by petitioner have no choice but to remain on board its
vessel. Although they perform non-agricultural work away from petitioner's
business offices, the fact remains that throughout the duration of their work
Doctrine:
Application of LC Article 286(n) in determination of status of piece workers as
regular workers versus LC Article 86 definition
Facts:
The 99 persons (Ana Marie Ocampo, Mary Intal, et al) as private petitioners
in the proceeding (represented by the Labor Congress of the Phils.) were
rank-and-file employees of private respondent Empire Food Products (a food
and fruit processing company), hired on various dates.
Ocampo et al filed against Empire an NLRC complaint for payment of money
claims and for violation of labor standards laws. Alongside this they also filed
a petition for direct certification for the Labor Congress to be their bargaining
representative. On Oct. 23, 1990, petitioners represented by LCP, and
private respondents Gonzalo and Evelyn Kehyeng (Kehyeng spouses)
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, recognizing the following:
On Oct. 24, 1990, the Mediator Arbiter approved the memorandum and
certified LCP as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the rank-and-file
employees of Empire.
On November 1990, LCP President Navarro submitted to Empire a proposal
for collective bargaining. However, on January 1991, the private petitioners
Ana Marie et al filed a complaint for:
Unfair Labor Practices via Illegal Lockout and Dismissal;
Union-Busting through harassment, threats and interference to the
right for self-organization;
Violation of the Oct. 23, 1990 memorandum
Underpayment of wages
Actual, moral and exemplary damages
FACTS:
University of Pangasinan did not entitle its faculty to ECOLA during the
semestral break and when it increased its tuition fee, it refused its faculty the
salary increase 60% of the incremental proceeds of increased tuition fees.
HELD:
Per various PDs on ECOLA, ECOLA pay includes LOA without
pay.The contention that the fact of receiving a salary should not be the basis
of receiving ECOLA is without merit as per IRR of Wage Order No. 1:
Allowance for Unworked days: a) All covered employees whether paid on a
monthly or daily basis shall be entitled to their daily living allowance when
they are paid their basic wage.
Separation Pay
The SC ruled that Rada was a project employee whose work was
coterminous with the project for which he was hired. Project employees, as
distinguished from regular or non-project employees, are mentioned in
Section 281 of the Labor Code as those where the employment has been
fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of
which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.
Project employees are not entitled to termination pay if they are terminated
as a result of the completion of the project or any phase thereof in which they
are employed, regardless of the number of projects in which they have been
employed by a particular construction company. Moreover, the company is
not required to obtain clearance from the Secretary of Labor in connection
with such termination.
OT Pay
FACTS:
Respondent Shell Company of the Philippines (COMPANY) dissolved its
security guard section stationed at its Pandacan Installation, notwithstanding
its (guard section) continuance and that such is assured by an existing
collective bargaining contract. The respondent company transferred 18
security guards to its other department and consequently hired a private
security agency to undertake the work of said security guards. This resulted
in a strike called by petitioner Shell Oil Workers Union (UNION), The
President certified it to respondent Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). CIR
declared the strike illegal on the ground that such dissolution was a valid
exercise of a management prerogative. Thus this appeal is taken.
Petitioner argued that the 18 security guards affected are part of the
bargaining unit and covered by the existing collective bargaining contract, as
such, their transfers and eventual dismissals are illegal being done in
violation of the existing contract. The Company maintained that in contracting
out the security service and redeploying the 18 security guards affected, it
was merely performing its legitimate prerogative to adopt the most efficient
and economical method of operation, that said action was motivated by
business consideration in line with past established practice and made after
notice to and discussion with the Union, that the 18 guards concerned were
dismissed for wilfully refusing to obey the transfer order, and that the strike
staged by the Union is illegal.
YES. The strike was legal because there was a violation of the collective
bargaining agreement by Company. It was part of the CBA that the Security
Guard Section will remain. Yet, the Company did not comply with the
stipulation in CBA. It was thus an assurance of security of tenure, at least,
during the lifetime of the agreement. For what is involved is the integrity of
the agreement reached, the terms of which should be binding on both parties
The stand of Shell Company as to the scope of management prerogative is
not devoid of plausibility, management prerogative of the Company would
have been valid if it were not bound by what was stipulated in CBA. The
freedom to manage the business remains with management. It cannot be
denied the faculty of promoting efficiency and attaining economy by a study
of what units are essential for its operation. To it belongs the ultimate
determination of whether services should be performed by its personnel or
contracted to outside agencies. However, while management has the final
say on such matter, the labor union is not to be completely left out.
An unfair labor practice is committed by a labor union or its agent by its
refusal to bargain collectively with the employer. Collective bargaining does
not end with the execution of an agreement, being a continuous process, the
duty to bargain necessarily imposing on the parties the obligation to live up to
the terms of such a collective bargaining agreement if entered into, it is
undeniable that non-compliance therewith constitutes an unfair labor
practice.
ISSUE:
In the present case, the employees or laborers may strike before being
ordered not to do so and before an industrial dispute is submitted to the CIR,
subject to the power of the latter, after hearing when public interest so
deprived of expected income, and it does not matter that the school calendar
is extended in view of the days or hours lost, for their income that could be
earned from other sources is lost during the extended days. Similarly, when
classes are called off or shortened on account of typhoons, floods, rallies,
and the like, these faculty members must likewise be paid, whether or not
extensions are ordered.
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS-FORMER THIRTEENTH DIVISION, HON. UNDERSECRETARY
JOSE M. ESPAOL, JR., Hon. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, and HON.
REGIONAL DIRECTOR ALLAN M. MACARAYA, respondents.
G.R. No. 146775. January 30, 2002
Facts:
The Department of Labor and Employment conducted a routine inspection in
San Miguel Corporation, Iligan City and it was discovered that there was
underpayment by SMC of regular Muslim holiday pay to its employees.
DOLE sent a copy of inspection result to SMC which the latter contested the
findings. SMC failed to submit proof and hence the Director of DOLE of Iligan
District Office issued a compliance order to pay both its Muslim and nonMuslim employees the Muslim Holidays. SMC appealed to DOLE main office
but dismissed for having been filed late but later on reconsidered because it
is within reglementary period but still dismissed for lack of merit. Hence, this
present petition for certiorari.
Issue: Whether or not non-Muslim employees working in Muslim areas is
entitled to Muslim Holiday Pay.
It was said also that the The Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining
Undersecretary Espaol who stated: Assuming arguendo that the
respondents position is correct, then by the same token, Muslims throughout
the Philippines are also not entitled to holiday pays on Christian holidays
declared by law as regular holidays. We must remind the respondentappellant that wages and other emoluments granted by law to the working
man are determined on the basis of the criteria laid down by laws and
certainly not on the basis of the workers faith or religion.
PNCC SKYWAY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SECURITY DIVISION
WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PSTMSDWO), represented by its President,
RENE SORIANO vs. PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION
G.R. No. 171231 (February 17, 2010)
FACTS:
Petitioner PNCC Skyway Corporation Traffic Management and Security
Division Workers' Organization (PSTMSDWO) is a labor union duly
registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
Respondent PNCC Skyway Corporation is a corporation duly organized and
operating under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines. [They entered
into CBA. Pertinent provisions are as follows:]
ARTICLE VIII
VACATION LEAVE AND SICK LEAVE
Section 1. Vacation Leave.
[b] The company shall schedule the vacation leave of
employees during
the year taking into consideration
the request of preference of the employees.
Held:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and ordered the petitioner to pay
its non-Muslim employees. The basis for this decision were Articles 169 and
170 of P.D. No. 1083 Code of Muslim Personal Laws which listed all official
Muslim holidays and provincies and cities where officially observed. In this
case, SMC is located in Iligan which is covered in the those provisions. Also
Article 169 and 170 of PD No. 1083 should be read in conjunction with Article
94 of Labor Code which provides for the right of every worker to be paid of
holiday pay.
YES. Petitioner insisted that their union members have the preference in
scheduling their vacation leave. On the other hand, respondent argued that
Article VIII, Section 1 (b) gives the management the final say regarding the
vacation leave schedule of its employees. Respondent may take into
consideration the employees' preferred schedule, but the same is not
controlling.
WON the PNCC has the sole discretion to schedule the vacation leaves of its
employees.
The rule is that where the language of a contract is plain and unambiguous,
its meaning should be determined without reference to extrinsic facts or aids.
The intention of the parties must be gathered from that language, and from
that language alone. Stated differently, where the language of a written
contract is clear and unambiguous, the contract must be taken to mean that
which, on its face, it purports to mean, unless some good reason can be
assigned to show that the words used should be understood in a different
sense.
In the case at bar, the contested provision of the CBA is clear and
unequivocal. Article VIII, Section 1 (b) of the CBA categorically provides that
the scheduling of vacation leave shall be under the option of the employer.
Thus, if the terms of a CBA are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention
of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall prevail. In
fine, the CBA must be strictly adhered to and respected if its ends have to be
achieved, being the law between the parties. In Faculty Association of
Mapua Institute of Technology (FAMIT) v. Court of Appeals, this Court held
that the CBA during its lifetime binds all the parties. The provisions of the
CBA must be respected since its terms and conditions constitute the law
between the parties. The parties cannot be allowed to change the terms they
agreed upon on the ground that the same are not favorable to them.
[T]he purpose of a vacation leave is to afford a laborer a chance to get a
much-needed rest to replenish his worn-out energy and acquire a new vitality
to enable him to efficiently perform his duties, and not merely to give him
additional salary and bounty. Accordingly, the vacation leave privilege was
not intended to serve as additional salary, but as a non-monetary benefit. To
give the employees the option not to consume it with the aim of converting it
to cash at the end of the year would defeat the very purpose of vacation
leave.
Indeed, the multitude or scarcity of personnel manning the tollways should
not rest upon the option of the employees, as the public using the skyway
system should be assured of its safety, security and convenience. Petitioner's
contention that labor contracts should be construed in favor of the laborer is
without basis and, therefore, inapplicable to the present case. This rule of
construction does not benefit petitioners because, as stated, there is here no
room for interpretation. Since the CBA is clear and unambiguous, its terms
should be implemented as they are written.
PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS, INC., DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO-MANILA v
NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL, RESTAURANT, AND
The Union appealed before the DOLE Secretary maintaining that the
wage increases granted by the NLRC Decision should not be deemed as
compliance by with WO No. 9. The DOLE, through Acting Secretary
Manuel G. Imson, granted the appeal. The DOLE Secretary reasoned
that the NLRC Decision categorically declared that the wage increase
under the CBA finalized between Dusit Hotel and the Union shall not be
credited as compliance with WOs No. 8 and No. 9. Furthermore, Section
1 of Rule IV of the Rules Implementing WO No. 9, which provides that
wage increases granted by an employer in an organized establishment
within three months prior to the effectivity of said Wage Order shall be
credited as compliance with the ECOLA prescribed therein, applies only
when an agreement to this effect has been forged between the parties or
a provision in the CBA allowing such crediting exists.
Dusit Hotel sought reconsideration, the DOLE Secretary granted the
Dusit Hotels MR. The said wage increase, plus share in the service
charges, already constituted compliance with the WO No. 9
Union filed an MR but was denied by the DOLE Secretary The DOLE
Secretary found that it would be unjust on the part of Dusit Hotel if the
hotel employees were to enjoy salary increases retroactive to 1 January
2001, pursuant to the NLRC Decision dated 9 October 2002, and yet
said salary increases would be disregarded in determining compliance by
the hotel with WO No. 9.
The Union appealed via Petition for Review, CA ruled in favor of the
Union. Referring to Section 13 of WO No. 9, the CA declared that wage
increases/allowances granted by the employer shall not be credited as
compliance with the prescribed increase in the same Wage Order, unless
provided in the law or the CBA itself; and there was no such provision.
CA also found that Dusit Hotel failed to substantiate its position that
receipt by its employees of shares in the service charges was to be
deemed substantial compliance by said hotel with the payment of
ECOLA required by WO No. 9. CA adjudged that Dusit Hotel should be
liable for double indemnity for its failure to comply with WO No. 9. CA
stressed that ECOLA is among the laborers financial gratifications under
the law, and is distinct and separate from benefits derived from
negotiation or agreement with their employer. CA disposed: MR of Dusit
Hotel was denied for lack of merit.
Dusit Hotel sought recourse from this Court by filing the instant Petition
ISSUE: WON the 144 hotel employees were still entitled to ECOLA granted
by WO No. 9 despite the increases in their salaries, retroactive to 1 January
2001. NOT ALL.
HELD:
Section 1 of WO No. 9 very plainly stated that only private sector workers
and employees in the NCR receiving daily wage rates of P250.00 to
P290.00 shall be entitled to ECOLA. Private sector workers and
In case the increases given are less than the prescribed adjustment,
the employer shall pay the difference. Such increases shall not
include anniversary increases, merit wage increases and those
resulting from the regularization or promotion of employees.
The Union harps on the fact that its CBA with Dusit Hotel does not
contain any provision on creditability, thus, Dusit Hotel cannot credit the
salary increases as compliance with the ECOLA required to be paid
under WO No. 9.
The reliance of the Union on Section 13 is misplaced. Dusit Hotel is not
contending creditability of the hotel employees salary increases as
compliance with the ECOLA mandated by WO No. 9. Creditability means
that Dusit Hotel would have been allowed to pay its employees the salary
increases in place of the ECOLA required by WO No. 9. This, however, is
not what Dusit Hotel is after. The position of Dusit Hotel is that the salary
increases should be taken into account in determining entitlement to
ECOLA. The retroactive increases could raise the daily salary rates
The Court, finds no basis to hold Dusit Hotel liable for double
indemnity. Notice of Inspection Result shall specify the violations
discovered, if any, together with the officers recommendation and
computation of the unpaid benefits due each worker with an advice that
the employer shall be liable for double indemnity in case of refusal or
failure to correct the violation within five calendar days from receipt of
notice. A careful review of the Notice of Inspection Result dated 29 May
2002, issued herein by the DOLE-NCR to Dusit Hotel, reveals that the
said Notice did not contain such an advice.
FACTS:
Respondents Felipe Patag (Patag) and Bienvenido Flora (Flora) were
former employees of petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
(Metrobank). Both respondents availed of the banks compulsory retirement
plan in accordance with the 1995 Officers Benefits Memorandum. At the
time of his retirement on February 1, 1998, Patag was an Assistant
ISSUE:
Whether respondents can still recover higher benefits under the 1998
Officers Benefits Memorandum despite the fact that they have compulsorily
retired prior to the issuance of said memorandum and did not meet the
condition therein requiring them to be employed as of June 15, 1998.
HELD:
Yes.
To be considered a company practice, the giving of the benefits should have
been done over a long period of time, and must be shown to have been
consistent and deliberate. The test or rationale of this rule on long practice
requires an indubitable showing that the employer agreed to continue giving
the benefits knowing fully well that said employees are not covered by the
law requiring payment thereof.
In other words, for over a decade, Metrobank has consistently, deliberately
and voluntarily granted improved benefits to its officers, after the signing of
each CBA with its rank and file employees, retroactive to January 1 st of the
same year as the grant of improved benefits and without the condition that
the officers should remain employees as of a certain date. This undeniably
indicates a unilateral and voluntary act on Metrobanks part, to give said
benefits to its officers, knowing that such act was not required by law or the
company retirement plan.
With regard to the length of time the company practice should have been
exercised to constitute voluntary employer practice which cannot be
unilaterally withdrawn by the employer, jurisprudence has not laid down any
hard and fast rule. In the case ofDavao Fruits Corporation v. Associated
Labor Unions, the company practice of including in the computation of the
13th-month pay the maternity leave pay and cash equivalent of unused
vacation and sick leave lasted for six (6) years. In another case,Tiangco v.
Leogardo, Jr., the employer carried on the practice of giving a fixed monthly
emergency allowance from November 1976 to February 1980, or three (3)
years and four (4) months. While in Sevilla Trading v. Semana, the employer
kept the practice of including non-basic benefits such as paid leaves for
unused sick leave and vacation leave in the computation of their 13th-month
pay for at least two (2) years. In all these cases, this Court held that the
grant of these benefits has ripened into company practice or policy which
cannot be peremptorily withdrawn. The common denominator in these cases
appears to be the regularity and deliberateness of the grant of benefits over a
significant period of time.