Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Parties and
Case Number
Business
of the
Company
Insurance
Provider
Work of
the
Employee
Insurance
Agent, and
at the same
time Acting
Unit
Manager
2. Restituto
Palumado vs.
NLRC, Marling
Rice Mill
(G.R. No.
96520, June
28, 1996)
Trading and
Rice Mill
Truck Driver
3. Angelina
Francisco vs.
NLRC, Kasei
Corp.
(G.R. No.
170087,
August 31,
2006)
Corporation
/
Restaurant
business
Accountant
and
Corporate
Secretary,
and later on
as Acting
Manager
1. Insurance Life
Assurance Co.,
Ltd. vs. NLRC
(G. R. No.
119930, March
12, 1998)
Is there EmployerEmployee
Relationship?
Yes. The Supreme Court
stated that private
respondent was an
employee of the
petitioner because the
latter has exclusivity of
service, control of
assignments and
removal of agents under
private respondents
unit, collection of
premiums, furnishing of
company facilities and
materials as well as
capital are hallmarks of
the management
system.
No. The Supreme Court
held that the
documentary evidences
presented by the
respondent strongly
negated the
complainants charges
that he had been under
the employ Tan who was
nothing more than an
employee of Marling
Rice Mill. Complainants
documentary exhibits
failed to serve their
purpose as they are in
themselves mere scraps
of papers, irrelevant and
Immaterial.
Yes. By applying the
control test, the
petitioner is an
employee of Kasei Corp.
because she was under
the direct control and
supervision of Seiji
Kamura, the
corporations Technical
Consultant. Under the
broader economic reality
test, the petitioner can
likewise be said to be an
employee of respondent
corporation because she
What happened to
the case?
The appeal of petitioner
Insular Life Assurance
Co. was denied and the
decision of the NLRC
was affirmed. The case
was remanded to the
Labor Arbiter a quo to
hear and dispose of the
case.
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
4. Paz Martin Jo
and Cesar Jo
vs. NLRC and
Peter Mejila
(G.R. No.
121605,
February 2,
2000)
Barber
Shop
Barber on a
piece rate
basis. Later
on as
caretakerbarber.
5. Jeromie
Encasinas and
Evan Rigor
Singco vs.
Shangri-la
Mactan Island
Resort and Dr.
Jessica J.R.
Pepito
(G.R. No.
178827, March
Hotel and
Resort
Operation
Nurses
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
4, 2009)
6. Insular Life
Assurance Co.,
Ltd. vs. NLRC
and Melecio
Basiao
(G.R. No.
84484,
November 15,
1989)
Insurance
Provider
Agency
Manager
7. AFP Mutual
Benefit
Association,
Inc. vs NLRC
and Eutiguio
Bustamante
Insurance
Provider
Insurance
Underwriter
8. Great Pacific
Life Assurance
Corp.
(Grepalife) vs
NLRC, Ernesto
Insurance
Provider
District
Managers
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
and Rodrigo
Ruiz
(G.R. No.
80750-51, July
23, 1990)
9. Jose Y. Sonza
vs. ABS-CBN
Broadcasting
Corporation
(G.R. No.
138051, June
10, 2004)
Television
and radio
broadcastin
g company
TV host and
radio
broadcaster
(Talent for
television
and radio)
separation pay.
Petitioner Grepalife was
ordered to indemnify
private respondents the
amount if P1000 each
for its failure to observe
the procedural
requirements of due
process.
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
10.Coca-Cola
Bottlers
(Phils.)
Inc./Eric
Montinola,
Manager vs.
Dr. Dean N.
Climaco
(G.R. No.
146881,
February 5,
2007)
Soft drinks
Manufacturing
Company
doctor by
virtue of a
Retainer
Agreement
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Business
of the
Company
1. Samahan ng mga
Manggagawa sa
Bandolino-LMLC
vs. NLTC,
Bandolino Shoe
Corp and/or
German
Alcantara, Aida
Alcantara & Mimi
Alcantara
(G.R. No. 125195,
July 17, 1997)
Shoe
Company
School
What happened to
the case?
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
3. Me-Shurn
Corporation &
Sammy Chou vs.
Me-Shurn Workers
Union-FSM &
Rosalinda Cruz
(G.R. No. 156292.
January 11, 2005)
Clothing
Wholesale
and
Manufactur
ing
Was not
mentione
d except
that they
are
Regular
rank and
file
employee
s.
4. T & H Shopfitters
Corporation/Gin
Queen
Corporation,
Stinnes Huang,
Ben Huang and
Rogelio Madriaga
vs. T & H
Shopfitters
Corporation/Gin
Queen Workers
Union
(G.R. No. 191714)
Manufactur
er,
Distributor/
Wholesaler,
Exporter/Im
porter
Assigning
union
officers
and
active
union
members
as grass
cutters on
rotation
basis.
Unions right to
collective bargaining
and its members right
to security of tenure.
Yes. The court ruled
that to justify the
closure of a business
and the termination of
the services of the
concerned employees,
the law requires the
employer to prove that
it suffered substantial
actual losses. The
cessation of a
companys operations
shortly after the
organization of a labor
union, as well as the
resumption of business
barely a month after,
gives credence to the
employees claim that
the closure was meant
to discourage union
membership and to
interfere in union
activities. These acts
constitute unfair labor
practices.
Yes. The Court ruled
that Indubitably, the
various acts of
petitioners (specifically,
sponsoring a field trip
on the day preceding
the certification
election, warning the
employees of dire
consequences should
the union prevail, and
escorting them to the
polling center and
discriminating in regard
to conditions of
employment in order to
discourage union
membership-assigning
union officers and
active union members
as grass cutters on
rotation basis)., taken
together, reasonably
support an inference
that, indeed, such were
all orchestrated to
restrict respondents
free exercise of their
right to selforganization. The Court
is of the considered
view those petitioners
affirmed.
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
5. BaLmar Farms,
Inc. vs NLRC and
Associated Labor
Unions (ALU)
Banana
Plantation
Banana
Planters
and
Plantation
Workers
6. Arellano
University
Employees and
Workers Union,
Carlos C. A. Rivas,
Jr., Simeon B.
Inocencio, Romulo
D. Jacob, Nymia
M. Pineda,
Benedicto I. Nieto,
Jr., Luis Jacinto,
Milbert Mora,
Monico Calma,
Constancio
Bayhohan,
Bernard Sanble,
Nestor Brinosa,
Nanji
Macarampat,
Eduardo Florague
& DIony S.
Lumanta vs. CA,
NLRC & Arellano
University
Was not
mentione
d except
that they
are rankand-file
employee
s
undisputed actions
prior and immediately
before the scheduled
certification election,
while seemingly
innocuous, unduly
meddled in the affairs
of its employees in
selecting their
exclusive bargaining
representative.
Yes. The court ruled
that Balmars refusal to
bargain collectively
with ALU is a clear act
of unfair labor practice.
Article 248 (Labor
Code, as amended),
enumerates unfair
labor practices
committed by
employers such as for
them: (g) To violate the
duty to bargain
collectively as
prescribed by this
Code. BALMAR cannot
also invoke good faith
in refusing to negotiate
with ALU, considering
that the latter has been
certified as the
exclusive bargaining
representative of
BALMAR rank and file
employees.
No. The court ruled that
to constitute ULP,
however, violations of
the CBA must be gross.
Gross violation of the
CBA, under Article 261
of the Labor Code,
means flagrant and/or
malicious refusal to
comply with the
economic provisions
thereof. Evidently, the
University cannot be
faulted for ULP as it in
good faith merely
heeded the above-said
request of Union
members.
The petition is
dismissed for lack of
merit and the assailed
resolution is affirmed.
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
University, Inc.
(G.R. No. 139940,
September 19,
2006)
7. Nueva Ecija
Electric
Cooperative Inc.
(NEECO I)
Employees Assoc,
vs NLRC, Nueva
Ecija Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
(NEECO I) and
Patricio Dela Pea
Electric
Cooperativ
e
Was not
mentione
d except
that they
are
Permanen
t
Employee
s
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Insurance
Provider
Superviso
rs
the employees
application for
retirement was not
done in succession
according to the list,
but according to the
choice of the
respondents, and for
which, complainants
were singled out from
the list because they
were union officers,
past officers and active
members of the
complainant
Association."
Yes. The act of an
employer in notifying
absent employees
individually during a
strike following
unproductive efforts at
collective bargaining
that the plant would be
operated the next day
and that their jobs were
open for them should
they want to come in
has been held to be an
unfair labor practice, as
an active interference
with the right of
collective bargaining
through dealing with
the employees
individually instead of
through their collective
bargaining
representatives.
Although the union is
on strike, the employer
is still under obligation
to bargain with the
union as the
employees bargaining
representative.
Individual solicitation of
the employees or
visiting their homes,
with the employer or
his representative
urging the employees
to cease union activity
or cease striking,
constitutes unfair labor
practice. All the abovedetailed activities are
unfair labor practices
because they tend to
undermine the
concerted activity of
the employees, an
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
9. Lakas ng
Manggagawang
Makabayan
(LAKAS) vs.
Marcelo Group of
Companies and
The Court of
Industrial
Relations
(G.R. No. L-38258,
November 19,
1982)
Marcelo Group of
Companies vs
Lakas ng
Manggagawang
Makabayan
(LAKAS)
(G.R. No. L-38260,
November 19,
1992)
Rubber,
Chemical
and Steel
Companies
Was not
mentione
d
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
10.Colegio de San
Juan de Letran vs.
Association of
Employees and
Faculty of Letran
and Eleonor
Ambas
(G.R. No. 141471,
September 18,
2000)
University
Professors
and
School
Personnel
s
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review