Clemente vs GSIS 152 SCRA 500

Facts:
Carolinas husband, Pedro Clemente, worked as a janitor for 10 years in the Department of
Health in Dagupan City, assigned at the Ilocos Norte Skin Clinic, Laoag City. He got hospitalized from
November 3 to 14, 1976 at Central Luzon Sanitarium in Tala Sanitarium, Tala, Caloocan City due to his
sickness of nephritis. Not only that but also was known to be suffering Hansens disease (portal cirrhosis
and leprosy). He died on November 14, 1976 due to uremia (due to nephritis) and, petitioner filed with
the GSIS a claim for employees compensation under the Labor Code, as amended.
On February 4, 1977, GSIS denied the claim of the petitioner because the ailments are not
occupational diseases taking into consideration the nature of his work or at least his duties and
responsibility at work. Petitioner, on March 9, 1977, requested for reconsideration of the GSIS denial of
her claim, stating that the ailments of her husband were contracted in the course of employment and
were aggravated by the nature of his work. Petitioner alleged that his husband worked in direct contact
with other persons having infected with different ailments and was also exposed to obnoxious dusts and
dirt that contributed to his suffering of Hansens disease. Having requested for a reconsideration, GSIS
forwarded the petitioners claim for review by Employees Compensation Commission (ECC); which
was later on dismissed since there was no substantial evidence of causal connection and there was no
evidence that the deceased had already contracted the Hansens disease before employment.
There is no question that the claim falls under the provisions of the Labor Code, as amended.
Under Article 167(L) of the Labor Code and Section 1 (b) Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees'
Compensation, for the sickness and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the sickness
must be the result of an occupational disease listed under Annex "A" of the Rules with the conditions
therein satisfied; otherwise, proof must be shown that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by
the working conditions (De Jesus v. Employees' Compensation Commission, 142 SCRA 92, 96). We rule
for the petitioner.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to the employees compensation?
Held:
The husband of the petitioner worked in a skin clinic. As janitor of the Ilocos Norte Skin Clinic,
Mr. Clemente was exposed to different carriers of viral and bacterial diseases. It is, therefore, not
unreasonable to conclude that Mr. Clemente's working conditions definitely increased the risk of his
contracting the aforementioned ailments. GSIS conservative stand is not consistent with the liberal
interpretation of the Labor Code and the social justice guarantee embodied in the Constitution in favor
of workers. Disposition decision appealed from is set aside and GSIS is ordered to pay petitioner death
benefits and attorneys fees.

Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc vs Ople GR 73681

Facts:
On March 1, 1985, the respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor
Relations (BLR) on ground of unfair labor practice consisting of alleged refusal to bargain, dismissal of
union officers/members; and coercing employees to retract their membership with the union and
restraining non-union members from joining the union. After efforts at amicable settlement proved
unavailing, the Office of the MOLE, upon petition of petitioner assumed jurisdiction over the dispute
pursuant to Article 264 (g) of the Labor Code. In its position paper, the petitioner pointed out that the
infractions committed by the three salesmen fully convinced the company, after investigation of the
existence of just cause for their dismissal, that their dismissal was carried out pursuant to the inherent
right and prerogative of management to disciplne erring employees. Moreover, the petitioner refuted the
unions charge that the membership in union and refusal to retract precipitated their dismissal was totally
false
and amounted to malicious imputation of union busting. The respondent union on the other
hand assailed its answers to the petitioners position paper.
On August 9,1985, respondent Minister rendered a decision whichfound no merit in the Union's
Complaint for unfair labor practice allegedly committed by petitioner and that the the three salesmen,
Peregrino Sayson, Salvador Reynante & Cornelio Mejia, "not without fault" hence "the company has
grounds to dismiss above named salesmen". At the same time respondent Minister directly certified the
respondent Union as the collective bargaining agent for the sales force in petitioner company and
ordered the reinstatement of the three salesmen to the company on the ground that the employees were
first offenders. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by respondent Minister
in hisassailed Order, dated December 27, 1985.
Issue:
Whether the respondent Minister committed a grave abuse of discretion when, notwithstanding
his very own finding that there was just cause for the dismissal of the three (3) salesmen, he nevertheless
ordered their reinstatement.
Held:
The respondent Minister has the power to decide a labor dispute in a case assumed by him
under Art. 264 (g) of the Labor Code. The order of the respondent Minister to reinstate the employees
despite a clear finding of guilt on their part is not in conformity with law. Reinstatement is simply
incompatible with a finding of guilt. Where the totality of the evidence was sufficient to warrant the
dismissal of the employees the law warrants their dismissal without making any distinction between a
first offender and a habitual delinquent. Under the law, respondent Minister is duly mandated to equally
protect and respect not only the labor or workers' side but also the management and/or employers' side.
The law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the
employer. To order the reinstatement of the erring employees would in effect encourage unequal
protection of the laws as a managerial employee of petitioner company involved in the same incident
was already dismissed and was not ordered to be reinstated. As stated by Us in the case of San Miguel
Brewery vs. National Labor Union, "an employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the
employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance towards his
employer, and whose continuance in the service of the latter is patently inimical to his interest."

Nicario vs NLRC GR 125340 September 17, 1998

Facts:
Petitioner, Emelita Nicario, was employed with respondent company Mancao Supermarket, on
June 6, 1986 as a salesgirl and was later on promoted as sales supervisor. However, private respondent
terminated her services on February 7, 1989. A complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for
backwages,
wage differential, service incentive leave pay, overtime pay, 13th month pay and unpaid wages was filed
by petitioner before NLRC. On July 25, 1989, Labor Arbiter Amado M. Solamo dismissed the complaint
for lack of merit. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC Fifth Division, Cagayan de Oro City. In a resolution
dated July 25, 1989, the NLRC set aside the labor arbiters decision for lack of due process. It ruled that
since petitioner assailed her supposed signatures appearing on the payrolls presented by the company as
a forgery, the labor arbiter should not have merely depended on the photocopies of the payrolls, as
submitted in evidence by the private respondent but ordered a formal hearing on the issue. Thus, the
Commission ordered the case remanded to the arbitration branch for appropriate proceedings. The case
was assigned to Labor Arbiter Marissa Macaraig-Guillen. On May 23, 1994, Labor Arbiter MacaraigGuillen awarded petitioners claims for unpaid service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, overtime pay
and rest day pay for the entire period of her employment, but dismissed her claims for holiday premium
pay and unpaid salaries from February 3 to 5, 1989.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in in modifying its earlier
resolution and thus recommends that the December 21, 1995 resolution be set aside, and its August
16, 1995 resolution be reinstated
Held:
Daily time record were unreliable since the original copies were not presented as evidence. There
was no noon break observed yet the time record shows that petitioner has a rest period from 12nn to two
oclock in the afternoon. All entries are suspiciously inconsistent in controversies between a laborer and
his master, doubts reasonably arising from evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing
should be resolved in the formers favor.

St. Theresas School of Novaliches Foundation and Adoracion Roxas vs NLRC and Esther Reyes
Facts:
Adoracion Roxas is the president of St. Theresas School of Novaliches Foundation when she
hired Esther Reyes, private respondent, on a contractual basis for the period of June 1, 1991 to March
31, 1992. However, Reyes commenced work on May 2, 1991 and during the said period, she became ill.
She went on a leave of absence from February 17 to 21 and 24 to 28, 1992 and such leave has been duly
approved by Roxas. On March 2, 1992, Reyes reported for work yet she stayed in her place from 6:48 in
the morning until 9:38am; she never returned. Petitioners theorized that she abandoned work yet the
latter maintains that she was replaced. When she went back to work on 20 th of February 1992, she
discovered that her table, chair and other belongings were moved to a corner in their office and was
replaced by Annie Roxas, the daughter of petitioner Adoracion Roxas. She tried to contact her employer
but to no avail. On March 25, 1992, petitioners sent Reyes a letter by registered mail telling her that her
contract, due to expire on March 31, 1992 would not be renewed. Prior thereto, or on March 3, 1992, to
be precise, Reyes instituted NLRC NCR Case No. 00-03-0148-92[3] against herein petitioners for unfair
labor practice based on harassment, illegal dismissal, 13th month pay, allowances, removal of desk and
chair from workplace and refusal to communicate, moral and exemplary damages.
On November 12, 1993, Labor Arbiter came out with a decision disposing, thus, declaring
complainant (sic) dismissal from the service is illegal. Respondent is hereby ordered to reinstate
complainant to her former position without loss of seniority rights and to pay for full backwages from
the time of dismissal to her actual reinstatement in the amount of seventy six thousand seven hundred
one (P76,701.00) Pesos.
Petitioners then appealed the aforesaid decision to the NLRC. Private respondent then presented
a motion for Partial Execution of the reinstatement aspect of the Labor Arbiters decision. However, no
action was taken by Labor Arbiter on her motion. On petitioners appeal, the resolution of the second
division of NLRC was the reversal of the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated November 12, 1993 and
set aside and another one rendered, declaring the separation of Esther Reyes from service legal and
valid. However, respondent is directed to pay the backwages of herein complainant from November 12,
1993 up to the date of promulgation of this resolution. Both parties moved for reconsideration;
petitioners assailing the award of backwges in favor of private respondent. Both motions denied.
Issue:
Whether or not its proper in light of the finding that her dismissal was valid?
Held:
The dismissal has been adjudged valid and lawful, the challenged award of backwages is
decidedly improper and contrary to law and jurisprudence. Wherefore, the decision of NLRC rendered
on November 29, 1995 in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-6078-94 is hereby modified by deleting therefrom
the award of backwages in question.