0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
76 Ansichten2 Seiten
The document summarizes three labor law cases in the Philippines:
1) Eagle Security v. NLRC - The court held that both a contractor and principal company are jointly and severally liable for paying increased wages and allowances to security guards as mandated by law.
2) SSS Employees v. CA - The court held that employees of the government-controlled Social Security System do not have the right to strike as civil servants.
3) De Vera v. NLRC - The court held that an employee's dismissal was in violation of due process because the employer did not furnish the employee with the required written charges before dismissal.
Originalbeschreibung:
CASE DIGEST
EAGLE SECURITY V. NLRC
SSS Employees v. CA
De Vera v. NLRC
The document summarizes three labor law cases in the Philippines:
1) Eagle Security v. NLRC - The court held that both a contractor and principal company are jointly and severally liable for paying increased wages and allowances to security guards as mandated by law.
2) SSS Employees v. CA - The court held that employees of the government-controlled Social Security System do not have the right to strike as civil servants.
3) De Vera v. NLRC - The court held that an employee's dismissal was in violation of due process because the employer did not furnish the employee with the required written charges before dismissal.
The document summarizes three labor law cases in the Philippines:
1) Eagle Security v. NLRC - The court held that both a contractor and principal company are jointly and severally liable for paying increased wages and allowances to security guards as mandated by law.
2) SSS Employees v. CA - The court held that employees of the government-controlled Social Security System do not have the right to strike as civil servants.
3) De Vera v. NLRC - The court held that an employee's dismissal was in violation of due process because the employer did not furnish the employee with the required written charges before dismissal.
FACTS: Respondents filed for unpaid wage and allowance increases under Wage Order Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6, where they were assigned by EAGLE as security guards to PTSI pursuant to the Contract for Security Services entered by the 2 agencies, which was granted in their favor hence this petition. In this case, both PTSI and EAGLE point to the other as the one who should be solely be liable for paying the increases. PTSI also alleges that it is exempt from payment under the Wage Orders because it is a public sector while the Wage Orders cover only employers and employees in the private sector. ISSUE: HELD: The Labor Code provides used in Book Three, Title II on Wages, the term employer includes "the Government and all its branches, subdivisions and instrumentalities, all government-owned or controlled corporations and institutions . . . The contractor is made Liable by being the direct employer. The principal, on the other hand, is made the indirect employer of the contractor's employees for purposes of paying the employees their wages should the contractor be unable to pay them. The application of the provisions of the Labor Code on joint and several liabilities of the principal and contractor is appropriate just as stated under the Wage Orders that payment of the increases are "to be borne" by the principal or client. So it is only right to jointly and severally pay the wage and allowance increases as mandated to assure compliance of the provisions including the statutory minimum wage [Article 99, Labor Code]. This joint and several liability facilitates payment of the workers' performance of any work, task, job or project, thus giving the workers ample protection as mandated by Article II Sec. 18 and Article XIII Sec. 3.
11.1 SSS Employees v. CA (supra, Right to Form Association)
FACTS: The petitioners went on strike after the SSS failed to act upon the unions demands on the implementation of their CBA. SSS filed action for damages for staging an illegal strike. Contending that petitioners are covered by the Civil Service laws, rules and regulation thus have no right to strike. ISSUE: Whether the SSS employees have the right to strike. HELD: Employees in the civil service may not resort to strikes, walk-outs and other temporary work stoppages. The SSS is one such government-controlled corporation and therefore its employees are part of the civil service and are covered by the Civil Service Commissions memorandum prohibiting strikes. The right to strike given to unions in private industry are not applicable to public and civil service employees under Memorandum Circular No. 6 and as implied in E.O. No. 180. The Labor Code is silent as to whether or not government employees may strike, for such are excluded from its coverage MAINPOINT: Article Art. XIII, Sec. 3 on Social Justice and Human Rights, provides that the State "shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law"
11.2 De Vera v. NLRC 200 SCRA 439
FACTS: The decision in question pertains to the NLRC for deleting the award of separation pay granted by the labor arbiter to the petitioner when he was placed by BPI under preventive suspension then subsequently dismissed on the ground of fraud or willful breach of trust. He contends that while it is true that he was interviewed and later summoned by the CIS to give sworn statements in connection with the anomalous transaction, he was not aware that he was already being indicted and tried for an offense of which he was never informed. But the bank argued that the Notice of Preventive Suspension received by him was sufficient notice, and that it should have already alerted him that the investigation conducted was partly being done to determine the extent of his involvement in the anomalies for 4 days therefore, the petitioner was given ample opportunity to be heard. ISSUE: Whether or not the requirements in dismissing the petitioner were substantially complied. HELD: Employers is mandated to furnish the employee sought to be dismissed two notices, the written charge, and the notice of dismissal, if, after hearing, dismissal is indeed warranted as enunciated under labor code. No written charge was furnished the petitioner in this case, therefore, his dismissal was in violation of due process. MAINPOINT: Aside from the rights to protection, security and wages, they shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law as depicted under Art. XIII Section 3.