Sie sind auf Seite 1von 31

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER

UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

Probationary employees can join a union and can vote in a CE

Any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall beginning on the first day
of his/her service, be eligible for membership in any labor organization. In a certification
election for the bargaining unit of rank and file employees, all rank and file employees,
whether probationary or permanent are entitled to vote. As long as probationary employees
belong to the defined bargaining unit, they are eligible to support the petition for certification
election.

NUWHRAIN-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter v. Secretary, July 31, 2009


Confidential Employees
Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, (2) to
persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor
relations. The two (2) criteria are cumulative, and both must be met
The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties,
become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective
sought to be accomplished by the confidential employee rule.

Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia Brewery, August 3, 2010


Confidential Employees

Payroll Master and employees who have access to salary and compensation data are NOT
Confidential employees. Their position do not involve dealing with confidential labor
relations information.

San Miguel Foods v. SMC Supervisors and Exempt Union, August 1, 2011
20% requirement must be at the time of union registration
Art. 234(c) requires the list of names of all the union members of an INDEPENDENT UNION
comprising at least 20% of the bargaining unit. This should not be equated with the list of
workers who participated in the organizational meetings (par [b]).

Subsequent affidavits of retraction (withdrawal of membership) will not retroact to the time of
the application for registration or even way back to the organizational meeting.

Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club v. CA, March 18, 2010
20% requirement not required at organizational meeting
It does not appear in Article 234 (b) of the Labor Code that the attendees in the organizational
meeting must comprise 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit. In fact, even the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code does not so provide. It is only under Article 234 (c) that
requires the names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees
in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate. Clearly, the 20% minimum requirement pertains to
the employees' membership in the union and not to the list of workers who participated in the
organizational meeting.
Takata Philippines v. BLR and SALAMAT, June 4, 2014

Charter Certificate

NOT required to be certified under oath

The charter certificate need not be certified under oath by the local unions secretary or
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

treasurer and attested to by its president.

Considering that the charter certificate is prepared and issued by the national union and not
the local/chapter, it does not make sense to have the local/chapters officers certify or attest
to the due execution of such document.

Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Chemical (SMCC-SUPER) v. Charter Chemical and


Coating Corp., March 16, 2011
Mixture of R&F and Supervisory employees does not negate the unions legitimacy
The mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a union does not nullify its legal
personality as a legitimate labor organization.

Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Chemical (SMCC-SUPER) v. Charter Chemical and


Coating Corp., March 16, 2011

As amended by R.A. 9481, the Labor Code now allows a R&F union and a Supervisory union
of the same company to be part of the same federation.
Voluntary Recognition
An employer cannot ignore the existence of a legitimate labor organization at the time of its
voluntary recognition of another union. The employer and the voluntarily recognized union
cannot, by themselves, decide whether the other union represented an appropriate
bargaining unit.

Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation v. Hon. Secretary Of Labor, August 14, 2009

NOTE: DO 40-I-15 repealed the provisions on Voluntary Recognition


Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping NOT required in PCE

There is no requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping in the Labor Code or in the
rules.

A certification proceeding, even though initiated by a petition, is not a litigation but an


investigation of a non-adversarial and fact-finding character. Such proceedings are not
predicated upon an allegation of misconduct requiring relief, but, rather, are merely of an
inquisitorial nature.

SAMMA-LIKHA v. SAMMA Corporation, March 13, 2009


Unions legal personality
not subject to collateral attack

The legal personality of petitioner union cannot be collaterally attacked in the certification
election proceedings. A separate action for cancellation of the unions registration/legal
personality must be filed.

Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Chemical (SMCC-SUPER) v. Charter Chemical and


Coating Corp., March 16, 2011
Legend International Resorts v. Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legend, February 23, 2011
Employer as Bystander
Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a mere bystander to any
petition for certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely
investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 2 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. The choice of their
representative is the exclusive concern of the employees; the employer cannot have any
partisan interest therein; it cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a
motion to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that some employees
participating in a petition for certification election are actually managerial employees will lend
an employer legal personality to block the certification election. The employer's only right in
the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof.

Republic of the Philippines, represented by DOLE, v. Kawashima Textile, July 23, 2008
Holy Child Catholic School v. HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS, July 23, 2013
Whoever alleges fraud/misrepresentation
has burden of proof

The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing its
registration is a serious charge that should be clearly established by evidence and the
surrounding circumstances.

The petitioner (the party that filed the Petition for Cancellation) has the burden of proof.

Yokohama Tire Phils. v. Yokohama Employees Union, March 10, 2010; Heritage Hotel Manila
v. PIGLAS-Heritage, October 30, 2009
Signing of Petition for CE not disloyalty

The mere signing of the authorization in support of a Petition for Certification Election before
the freedom period, is not sufficient ground to terminate the employment of union
members under the Union Security Clause respondents inasmuch as the petition itself was
actually filed during the freedom period.

PICOP Resources, Inc. v. Taeca, August 9, 2010


CBAs 5-year term
While the parties may agree to extend the CBAs original five-year term together with all other
CBA provisions, any such amendment or term in excess of five years will not carry with it a
change in the unions exclusive collective bargaining status. By express provision of the
above-quoted Article 253-A, the exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond five years and
the representation status is a legal matter not for the workplace parties to agree upon. In
other words, despite an agreement for a CBA with a life of more than five years, either as an
original provision or by amendment, the bargaining unions exclusive bargaining status is
effective only for five years and can be challenged within sixty (60) days prior to the
expiration of the CBAs first five years.
FVC Labor Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (FVCLU-PTGWO) v.
Sama-Samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa Sa FVC-Solidarity Of Independent And General
Labor Organizations (SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO), November 27, 2009
Bargaining Unit
The test of grouping is community or mutuality of interest.
There should be only one bargaining unit for employees involved in dressed chicken
processing and workers engaged in live chicken operations.
Although they seem separate and distinct from each other, the tasks of each division are
actually interrelated and there exists mutuality of interests which warrants the formation of a
single bargaining unit.
San Miguel Foods v. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union, August 1, 2011
1 Union; 2 Bargaining Units

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 3 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

An academic institution should have two bargaining units: one for academic personnel; and
another for non-academic personnel.
The differences, however, between the two categories of employees are not substantial
enough to warrant a dismissal of a petition for certification election, seeking an election for
only one unit.
The solution should be to hold two certification elections.

Holy Child Catholic School v. HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS, July 23, 2013


ULP
Violation of the union shop agreement in the CBA, even assuming it was malicious and
flagrant, is not a violation of an economic provision in the agreement. Hence, not ULP.
An outsourcing program that would not result to any transfer or dismissal of the employees
who are members of the bargaining unit cannot be considered as a reduction of positions in
the collective bargaining unit and cannot be considered as interference with the right to self-
organization.

BPI Employees Union-Davao v. BPI, July 24, 2013


ULP
Retrenchment in good faith is not ULP.
The fact that the retrenchment program was implemented on a company-wide basis shows
that the scheme was not calculated to stymie union activities.
Absent any perceived threat to the unions existence or a violation of the employees right to
self-organization, the company cannot be said to have committed ULP.

Pepsi Cola Products v. Molon et al., February 18, 2013


ULP
Removal of chairs, which had been provided for more than three decades, was not ULP. The
rights of the Union under any labor law were not violated.
Since the CBA stated that any benefit not expressly provided for in the CBA shall be deemed
as purely voluntary acts, and shall not be construed as obligation of the company, its
subsequent removal was valid. The long practice did not convert it into an obligation or a
vested right in favor of the union.
Chairs not benefits, hence, not covered by the prohibition against diminution.

Royal Plant Workers Union v. Coca Cola Bottlers, April 15, 2013
ULP

In Silva v. National Labor Relations Commission, we explained the correlations of Article 248
(1) and Article 261 of the Labor Code to mean that for a ULP case to be cognizable by the
Labor Arbiter, and for the NLRC to exercise appellate jurisdiction thereon, the allegations in
the complaint must show prima facie the concurrence of two things, namely: (1) gross
violation of the CBA; and (2) the violation pertains to the economic provisions of the CBA.

This pronouncement in Silva, however, should not be construed to apply to violations of the
CBA which can be considered as gross violations per se, such as utter disregard of the very
existence of the CBA itself, similar to what happened in this case. When an employer
proceeds to negotiate with a splinter union despite the existence of its valid CBA with the

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 4 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

duly certified and exclusive bargaining agent, the former indubitably abandons its
recognition of the latter and terminates the entire CBA.

Employees Union of Bayer v. Bayer Phils., December 6, 2010


ULP
A CBA which prescribes three categories of employees (probationary, regular, casual) and
provides for the definition, functions and duties of each, serves as a limitation on
managements prerogative of outsourcing parts of its operations, particularly if it involves
functions or duties specified under the CBA.
While the engagement of a contractor was not ULP, it was not in keeping with the intent and
spirit of the CBA. With the provision on casual employees, the hiring of contractual
employees was not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the CBA.
The CBA delimit the free exercise of management prerogative pertaining to the hiring of
contractual employees.

Goya v. Goya Employees Union, January 21, 2013


ULP
For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that the employer was
motivated by ill-will, bad faith or fraud, or was oppressive to labor. The employer must have
acted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy causing social
humiliation, wounded feelings or grave anxiety. While the law makes it an obligation for the
employer and the employees to bargain collectively with each other, such compulsion does
not include the commitment to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other. All
it contemplates is that both parties should approach the negotiation with an open mind and
make reasonable effort to reach a common ground of agreement.

Manila Mining Corporation Employees Association v. manila Mining Corp., September 29,
2010

ULP
Basic is the principle that good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty
to prove the same. By imputing bad faith to the actuations of CAB, CABEU-NFL has the
burden of proof to present substantial evidence to support the allegation of unfair labor
practice. Apparently, CABEU-NFL refers only to the circumstances mentioned in the letter-
response, namely, the execution of the supposed CBA between CAB and CABELA and the
request to suspend the negotiations, to conclude that bad faith attended CABs actions. The
Court is of the view that CABEU-NFL, in simply relying on the said letter-response, failed to
substantiate its claim of unfair labor practice to rebut the presumption of good faith.

Central Azucarera de Bais Employees Union v. Central Azucarera de Bais, November 17, 2010

Bonus in the CBA

Generally, a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable obligation. For a bonus to be


enforceable, it must have been promised by the employer and expressly agreed upon by the
parties. Given that the bonus in this case is integrated in the CBA, the same partakes the
nature of a demandable obligation. Verily, by virtue of its incorporation in the CBA, the
Christmas bonus due to respondent Association has become more than just an act of
generosity on the part of the petitioner but a contractual obligation it has undertaken.

Lepanto Ceramics v. Lepanto Ceramics Employees Association, March 2, 2010; Eastern

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 5 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

Telecoms v. Eastern Telecoms Employees Union, February 8, 2012


Signing Bonus
for Government Employees

The grant of a signing bonus for government employees in a Collective Negotiations


Agreement (CNA) is illegal as it is contrary to the objectives of R.A. No. 6758 of standardizing
the salaries and compensation of civil servants.

Signing bonus is inherently unnecessary since orderly behavior and conciliatory approach to
collective negotiations are expected of members of the public sector, the performance of
which is not subject to their whims or conditioned on their receipt of a monetary award.
Manila International Airport Authority v. COA, February 14, 2012

Grievance
Petitioners clearly and consistently questioned the legality of RGMIs adoption of the new
salary scheme (i.e., piece-rate basis), asserting that such action, among others, violated the
existing CBA. Indeed, the controversy was not a simple case of illegal dismissal but a labor
dispute involving the manner of ascertaining employees salaries, a matter which was
governed by the existing CBA.
Article 217(c) of the Labor Code requires labor arbiters to refer cases involving the
implementation of CBAs to the grievance machinery provided therein and to voluntary
arbitration.
Moreover, Article 260 of the Labor Code clarifies that such disputes must be referred first to
the grievance machinery and, if unresolved within seven days, they shall automatically be
referred to voluntary arbitration.

Santuyo v. Remerco Garments, March 22, 2010

Grievance

Individual employees cannot raise a grievance.

Only disputes involving the union and the company shall be referred to the grievance
machinery or voluntary arbitrators.

A FEDERATION cannot raise a grievance on behalf of members of its local/chapter.

Insular Hotel Employees Union v. Waterfront Insular Hotel, September 22, 2010
Arbitral Award
While an arbitral award cannot per se be categorized as an agreement voluntarily entered into
by the parties because it requires the intervention and imposing power of the State thru the
Secretary of Labor when he assumes jurisdiction, the arbitral award can be considered an
approximation of a collective bargaining agreement which would otherwise have been
entered into by the parties, hence, it has the force and effect of a valid contract obligation.

Cirtek Employees Labor Union v. Cirtek Electronics, November 15, 2010


Arbitral Award
The hold-over principle, i.e., the duty of the parties to keep the status quo and to continue in
full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing CBA until a new agreement is
reached by the parties applies to an imposed CBA (i.e., an arbitral award).
The law does not provide for any exception nor qualification on which economic provisions

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 6 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

of the existing agreement are to retain its force and effect. Likewise, the law does not
distinguish between a CBA duly agreed upon by the parties and an imposed CBA.

General Milling Corporation-ILU v. General Milling Corp., June 15, 2011


Union Security Clause
Another cause for termination is dismissal from employment due to the enforcement of the
union security clause in the CBA.
A stipulation in the CBA authorizing the dismissal of employees are of equal import as the
statutory provisions on dismissal under the Labor Code, since a CBA is the law between the
company and the union and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy to give
protection to labor.
In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the union security clause, the
employer needs only to determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable;
(2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA;
and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of the union to expel the employee
from the union. These requisites constitute just cause for terminating an employee based on
the union security provision of the CBA.

General Milling Corporation v. Casio, March 10, 2010

Union Security Clause


Union security is a generic term, which is applied to and comprehends closed shop,
union shop, maintenance of membership, or any other form of agreement which
imposes upon employees the obligation to acquire or retain union membership as a
condition affecting employment.
There is union shop when all new regular employees are required to join the union
within a certain period as a condition for their continued employment.
There is maintenance of membership shop when employees, who are union members
as of the effective date of the agreement, or who thereafter become members, must
maintain union membership as a condition for continued employment until they are
promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit or the agreement is terminated.
A closed shop, on the other hand, may be defined as an enterprise in which, by
agreement between the employer and his employees or their representatives, no person
may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless he or
she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, remains a member in good
standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a
part.

General Milling Corporation v. Casio, March 10, 2010

Union Security Clause


The power to dismiss is a normal prerogative of the employer. However, this is not without
limitations. The employer is bound to exercise caution in terminating the services of his
employees especially so when it is made upon the request of a labor union pursuant to the
Collective Bargaining Agreement. x x x.
While respondent company may validly dismiss the employees expelled by the union for
disloyalty under the union security clause of the collective bargaining agreement upon the
recommendation by the union, this dismissal should not be done hastily and summarily
thereby eroding the employees right to due process, self-organization and security of tenure.
The enforcement of union security clauses is authorized by law provided such enforcement
is not characterized by arbitrariness, and always with due process. Even on the assumption

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 7 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

that the federation had valid grounds to expel the union officers, due process requires that
these union officers be accorded a separate hearing by respondent company.

General Milling Corporation v. Casio, March 10, 2010

Union Security Clause


The Union Shop Clause in the CBA simply states that new employees who during the
effectivity of the CBA may be regularly employed by the Bank must join the union within
thirty (30) days from their regularization. There is nothing in the said clause that limits its
application to only new employees who possess non-regular status, meaning probationary
status, at the start of their employment. Petitioner likewise failed to point to any provision in
the CBA expressly excluding from the Union Shop Clause new employees who are
absorbed as regular employees from the beginning of their employment. What is
indubitable from the Union Shop Clause is that upon the effectivity of the CBA, petitioners
new regular employees (regardless of the manner by which they became employees of BPI)
are required to join the Union as a condition of their continued employment.

BPI v. BPI employees Union-Davao, August 10, 2010

Union Security Clause


Theoretically, there is nothing in law or jurisprudence to prevent an employer and a union
from stipulating that existing employees (who already attained regular and permanent status
but who are not members of any union) are to be included in the coverage of a union security
clause. Even Article 248(e) of the Labor Code only expressly exempts old employees who
already have a union from inclusion in a union security clause.

BPI v. BPI employees Union-Davao, August 10, 2010, October 19, 2011

STRIKE
Article 212 of the Labor Code, as amended, defines strike as any temporary stoppage of work
by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. A labor
dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment
or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing
or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether or not the
disputants stand in the proximate relation of employers and employees.
The term strike shall comprise not only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns,
mass leaves, sitdowns, attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage plant equipment and
facilities and similar activities. Thus, the fact that the conventional term strike was not
used by the striking employees to describe their common course of action is
inconsequential, since the substance of the situation, and not its appearance, will be deemed
to be controlling.

Solidbank Corp. v. Gamier, November 15, 2010


STRIKE

Mass leave refers to a simultaneous availment of authorized leave benefits by a large


number of employees in a company.

Ifreasons,
only 5 employees were absent on the same day, and they went on leave for various
they cannot be considered to have gone on mass leave. They did not go on
strike.

Concerted is defined as mutually contrived or planned or performed in unison


Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 8 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

Naranjo v. Biomedica Heath Care, September 19, 2012


STRIKE & PICKETING
To strike is to withhold or to stop work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an
industrial or labor dispute. The work stoppage may be accompanied by picketing by the
striking employees outside of the company compound. While a strike focuses on stoppage
of work, picketing focuses on publicizing the labor dispute and its incidents to inform the
public of what is happening in the company struck against. A picket simply means to march
to and from the employers premises, usually accompanied by the display of placards and
other signs making known the facts involved in a labor dispute. It is a strike activity separate
and different from the actual stoppage of work.

PHIMCO Industries v. PHIMCO Industries Labor Association, August 11, 2010


STRIKE & PICKETING
While the right of employees to publicize their dispute falls within the protection of freedom
of expression and the right to peaceably assemble to air grievances, these rights are by no
means absolute. Protected picketing does not extend to blocking ingress to and egress from
the company premises. That the picket was moving, was peaceful and was not attended by
actual violence may not free it from taints of illegality if the picket effectively blocked entry to
and exit from the company premises.

PHIMCO Industries v. PHIMCO Industries Labor Association, August 11, 2010


PICKETING
While the picket was moving, the movement was in circles, very close to the gates, with the
strikers in a hand-to-shoulder formation without a break in their ranks, thus preventing non-
striking workers and vehicles from coming in and getting out. Supported by actual blocking
benches and obstructions, what the union demonstrated was a very persuasive and quietly
intimidating strategy whose chief aim was to paralyze the operations of the company, not
solely by the work stoppage of the participating workers, but by excluding the company
officials and non-striking employees from access to and exit from the company premises. No
doubt, the strike caused the company operations considerable damage, as the NLRC itself
recognized when it ruled out the reinstatement of the dismissed strikers.

PHIMCO Industries v. PHIMCO Industries Labor Association, August 11, 2010


STRIKE

Employees refusal to work on three consecutive holidays, prompted by their disagreement


with the management-imposed new work schedule, was considered a strike that was
grounded on a non-strikeable issue, and a violation of the No-Strike Clause in the CBA.

A. Soriano Aviation v. Employees Association of A. Soriano Aviation, August 14, 2009


Placards/Banners
may make strike illegal
The display of placards and banners imputing criminal negligence on the part of the
employer and its officers, apparently with the end in view of intimidating the employers
clientele, are, given the nature of its business, that serious as to make the strike illegal. The
putting up of those banners and placards, coupled with the name-calling and harassment,
indicates that it was resorted to to coerce the resolution of the dispute. That the alleged acts
were committed in nine non-consecutive days during the almost eight months that the strike
was on-going does not render the violence less pervasive or widespread to be excusable.
Art. 264 does not require that violence must be continuous or that it should be for the entire
duration of the strike.

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 9 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

A. Soriano Aviation v. Employees Association of A. Soriano Aviation, August 14, 2009


Deadlock
The issue of whether there was already deadlock between the union and the company is a question
of fact. It requires the determination of evidence to find whether there is a "counteraction" of forces
between the union and the company and whether each of the parties exerted "reasonable effort at
good faith bargaining." A 'deadlock' is the counteraction of things producing entire stoppage. The
union's reliance on item 8 of the ground rules governing the parties' negotiations which required
mutual consent for a declaration of deadlock was reduced to irrelevance by the actual facts.
Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association v. Pilipinas Shell, April 7, 2014
In Pari Delicto rule
When management and union are in pari delicto, the contending parties must be brought
back to their respective positions before the controversy, i.e., before the strike.

Automotive Engine Rebuilders v. Progresibong Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa AER, July 13,
2011
Termination of Strikers
Strikers who were not covered by the charges for illegal strike cannot be among those found
guilty of illegal strike. They cannot be considered in pari delicto. They should be reinstated
and given their backwages.

Automotive Engine Rebuilders v. Progresibong Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa AER, January


16, 2013
Termination of Strikers
Union members who were illegally dismissed for mere participation in an illegal strike are
entitled to separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement) but not to backwages.
The principle of a "fair days wage for a fair days labor" remains as the basic factor in
determining the award thereof. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no
wage or pay unless, of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was
illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed or otherwise illegally prevented from working.
For this exception to apply, it is required that the strike be legal.

VCMC v. Yballe, January 15, 2014


LIABILITY OF OFFICERS
The effects of illegal strikes, outlined in Article 264 of the Labor Code, make a distinction
between participating workers and union officers. The services of an ordinary striking
worker cannot be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike; proof must be
adduced showing that he or she committed illegal acts during the strike. The services of a
participating union officer, on the other hand, may be terminated, not only when he actually
commits an illegal act during a strike, but also if he knowingly participates in an illegal strike.

PHIMCO Industries v. PHIMCO Industries Labor Association, August 11, 2010

The use of unlawful means in the course of a strike renders such strike illegal. The filing of a
petition to declare the strike illegal is thus unnecessary. Article 263 provides that an
employer may terminate employees found to have committed illegal acts in the course of a
strike.

Jackbilt Industries v. Jackbilt Employees Union, March 20, 2009


Illegal Strike

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 10 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

A strike conducted by a union which acquired its legal personality AFTER the filing of its
Notice of Strike and the conduct of the Strike Vote is ILLEGAL.

Magdala Multipurpose & Livelihood v. KMLMS, October 19, 2011


Termination Due to Strikes
Conformably with the long honored principle of a fair days wage for a fair days labor,
employees dismissed for joining an illegal strike are not entitled to backwages for the period
of the strike even if they are reinstated by virtue of their being merely members of the striking
union who did not commit any illegal act during the strike.

Escario v. NLRC, Pinakamasarap Corp., September 27, 2010


Assumption of Jurisdiction
Article 263(g) is both an extraordinary and a preemptive power to address an extraordinary
situation a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. This grant
is not limited to the grounds cited in the notice of strike or lockout that may have preceded
the strike or lockout; nor is it limited to the incidents of the strike or lockout that in the
meanwhile may have taken place.
As the term assume jurisdiction connotes, the intent of the law is to give the Labor
Secretary full authority to resolve all matters within the dispute that gave rise to or which
arose out of the strike or lockout; it includes and extends to all questions and controversies
arising from or related to the dispute, including cases over which the labor arbiter has
exclusive jurisdiction.

Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Triumph v. Secretary, July 5, 2010


Serious Misconduct
A series of irregularities when put together may constitute serious misconduct which is a
just cause for dismissal.
An employers Code of Discipline which provides that an employee who commits three
different acts of misconduct within a twelve-month period commits serious misconduct is
valid.

SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN v. VA Magsalin, June 6, 2011


Serious Misconduct
Theft committed against a co-employee (missing cellphone was found in the employees
locker) is considered as a case analogous to serious misconduct, for which the penalty of
dismissal from service may be meted out to the erring employee.

Cosmos Bottling Co. v. Fermin, June 20, 2012


Serious Misconduct
Reckless driving by a bus driver constitutes serious misconduct, or, at the very least,
conduct analogous to serious misconduct.

Sampaguita Auto Transport v. NLRC & Sagad, January 30, 2013

Willful Disobedience
An employees act of lending his I.D. card to another employee who used the said I.D. in
entering the compound of the company is NOT willful disobedience when the employee did
not benefit from such act, nor prejudiced the business interests of the employer. The
employee acted in good faith and with the sole intention of facilitating deliveries for the

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 11 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

employer when he allowed his co-employee to use his company I.D.

Dongon v. Rapid Movers, Augsut 28, 2013


Confidential Employee;
Breach of Trust

Loss of confidence should ideally apply to employees holding a position of trust and
confidence, and to employees routinely charged with the care and custody of the employers
money or property.

The position of Programmer is analogous to the second category, i.e., employees having care
and custody of money or property.

Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Labor Union v. NLRC, June 13, 2012
Confidential Employee;
Breach of Trust
A driver assigned with a specific vehicle, and entrusted with the transportation of the
employers goods and property, and consequently, with its handling and protection, can be
said to beholding a position of responsibility.
His attempt to smuggle out the scrap iron belonging to the company is work-related willful
breach of trust.

Lopez v. Altruras Group of Companies, April 11, 2011


Extramarital Affairs
While the employees act of engaging in extra-marital affairs may be considered personal to
him and does not directly affect the performance of his assigned task as bookkeeper, it can
be a ground for dismissal. Aside from the fact that the act was specifically provided for by
the employers Personnel Policy as one of the grounds for termination of employment (act
that brings discredit to the cooperative) , said act raised concerns to the employer as its
Board received numerous complaints and petitions from the cooperative members
themselves asking for the removal of employee because of his immoral conduct.

Alilem Credit Cooperative v. Bandiola, February 25, 2013


Neglect of Duties
Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal, must be both gross and habitual. Gross
negligence implies want of care in the performance of ones duties. Habitual neglect imparts
repeated failure to perform ones duties for a period of time, depending on the
circumstances.
The employees four absences spread out over a six-month period, and which was the
employees only recorded infraction in six years cannot be considered a just cause for
dismissal. The termination of employment is unreasonable, especially since the first three
absences had already been penalized, and the fourth absence was due to illness.

Cavite Apparel v. Marquez, February 6, 2013


Redundancy
Is not enough for a company to merely declare that it has excess personnel. It must produce
adequate proof of such redundancy to justify the dismissal of the affected employees.
Evidence must be presented to substantiate redundancy such as but not limited to the new
staffing pattern, feasibility studies/proposal, on the viability of the newly created positions,
job description and the approval by the management of the restructuring.

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 12 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

General Milling Corp. v. Viajar, January 30, 2013


Suspension of Operations/Termination
An employment should be deemed terminated, should the suspension of operation go
beyond six (6) months, even if the continued suspension is due to a cause beyond the
control of the employer.
The decision to suspend operation ultimately lies with the employer, who in its desire to avert
possible financial losses, declares suspension of operations.
Article 283 is emphatic that an employee, who was dismissed due to cessation of business
operation, is entitled to the separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-
half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. And it is jurisprudential
that separation pay should also be paid to employees even if the closure or cessation of
operations is not due to losses.
Manila Mining Corporation Employees Association v. manila Mining Corp., September 29,
2010
Suspension of Operations/Termination
Suspension of operations is bona fide when it is due to a fire that caused substantial losses
to the employer and damaged its factory.
However, the employees should be considered illegally dismissed after the employer failed to
recall them after six months, when its bona fide suspension of operations lapsed.

SKM Art Corp. v. Bauca, November 27, 2013


Intent to Terminate
Need Not Be in the 1st Notice
The law does not require that an intention to terminate ones employment should be included
in the first notice. It is enough that employees are properly apprised of the charges brought
against them so they can properly prepare their defenses; it is only during the second notice
that the intention to terminate ones employment should be explicitly stated.

Esguerra v. Valle Verde, June 13, 2012


No Need for Hearing or Conference
in Termination Process
Art. 227 (b) of the Labor Code provides that, in cases of termination for a just cause, an
employee must be given ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. This right
to be heard is satisfied not only by a formal face to face confrontation but by any meaningful
opportunity to controvert the charges against him and to submit evidence in support thereof.
It does not mean verbal argumentation alone inasmuch as a person may be heard just as
effectively through written explanations, submissions or pleadings. Ample opportunity to
be heard means any meaningful opportunity verbal or written given to the employee to
answer the charges against him and submit evidence in support of his defense, whether in a
hearing, conference or some other fair, just and reasonable way.

Perez v. PT&T, April 7, 2009; Esguerra v. Valle Verde, June 13, 2012
Termination Due to Strikes
Article 277(b), in relation to Article 264(a) and (e) of the Labor Code recognizes the right to
due process of all workers, without distinction as to the cause of their termination, even if the
cause was their supposed involvement in strike-related violence prohibited under Article
264(a) and (e) of the Labor Code.

PHIMCO Industries v. PHIMCO Industries Labor Association, August 11, 2010


Notice of Closure

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 13 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

The mere posting on the company bulletin board or in conspicuous places within the
business premises, does not, meet the requirement under the law of "serving a written notice
on the workers. The purpose of the written notice is to inform the employees of the specific
date of termination or closure of business operations, and must be served upon them at least
one month before the date of effectivity to give them sufficient time to make the necessary
arrangement. In order to meet the foregoing purpose, service of the written notice must be
made individually upon each and every employee of the company.

Sangwoo Phil. v. Sangwoo Phils. Employees Union, December 9, 2013


Nominal Damages - Reduction

In instances where the payment of nominal damages becomes impossible, unjust, or too
burdensome, modification becomes necessary in order to harmonize the disposition with the
prevailing circumstances.
In the determination of the amount of nominal damages which is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court, several factors are taken into account: (1) the authorized cause
invoked, whether it was a retrenchment or a closure or cessation of operation of the
establishment due to serious business losses or financial reverses or otherwise; (2) the
number of employees to be awarded; (3) the capacity of the employers to satisfy the awards,
taken into account their prevailing financial status as borneby the records; (4) the employers
grant of other termination benefits in favor of the employees; and (5) whether there was a
bona fide attempt to comply with the notice requirements as opposed to giving no notice at
all.

Sangwoo Phil. v. Sangwoo Phils. Employees Union, December 9, 2013 (citing Industrial
Timber Corporation v. Ababon, 2006)
No Need for Writ of Execution Before Labor Arbiters Order of Reinstatement Can Be Made
Executory
The reinstatement aspect of the Labor Arbiters order is self-executory. The employee need
not file a motion for the issuance of the writ of execution. Under the NLRC Rules of
Procedure, the employer is required to submit a report of compliance within 10 calendar days
from receipt of the Labor Arbiters decision. If the employer disobeys the directive or refuses
to reinstate the dismissed employee, the Labor Arbiter shall immediately issue a writ of
execution, i.e., motu propio. If the employer disobeys the writ, the employer may be cited for
contempt.

Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, January 20, 2009


If there is no finding of illegal dismissal and the reinstatement was ordered as a measure of
equitable and compassionate relief, the employee is not entitled to reinstatement pending
appeal.

The provision mandating the immediate execution of the reinstatement order of the Labor
Arbiter pending appeal applies only if there is a finding of illegal dismissal. Article 223 gives
an interim relief, granted to an employee while the case for illegal dismissal is pending
appeal. Where there is no finding of illegal dismissal, such interim relief does not apply.

Lansangan v. Amkor Technology Philippines, January 30, 2009


No Reimbursement of Amount Received Under Payroll Reinstatement

Even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory
on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during
the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court. The Labor Arbiters order of
reinstatement is immediately executory and the employer has to either re-admit the employee

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 14 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

to work under the same terms and condition prevailing prior to the dismissal, or to reinstate
the employee in the payroll, and that failing to exercise the options in the alternative,
employer must pay the employees salaries. If the employee has been reinstated during the
appeal period and such reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the employee is not
required to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is entitled to such, more so if he
actually rendered services during the period. The social justice principles of labor outweigh
or render inapplicable the civil law doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, January 20, 2009


If no actual or payroll reinstatement was effected during the period of appeal despite the Labor
Arbiters reinstatement order, can the employee still collect the wages due him for the period of
the supposed reinstatement even after the Labor Arbiters decision has already been reversed by
the NLRC?

Yes. The reinstatement aspect of the Labor Arbiters order is self-executory. The salary
automatically accrued from notice of the Labor Arbiters order of reinstatement until its
ultimate reversal by the NLRC or a higher court. Hence, even after the Labor Arbiters order
has been reversed, the employee can still collect the wages due for the period of the
reinstatement pending appeal. The employee may be barred from collecting the accrued
wages, however, if it is shown that the delay in enforcing the reinstatement pending appeal
was without fault on the part of the employer.

Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, January 20, 2009; Islriz Trading v.Capada, January 31, 2011

Reinstatement
A transfer of work assignment without any justification therefor, even if the employee would
be presumably doing the same job with the same pay cannot be deemed as faithful
compliance with a reinstatement order.

Pfizer v. Velasco, March 9, 2011


Recomputation of Backwages & Separation Pay
Recomputation of the amount of backwages and separation pay due an illegally dismissed
employee, after the resolution has attained finality, is a necessary consequence that flows
from the nature of the illegality of dismissal.
A recomputation is part of the law that is read into the decision. By the nature of an illegal
dismissal case, the reliefs continue to add up until full satisfaction.
The recomputation does not amount to an alteration or amendment of the final decision
being implemented.

Nacar v. Gallery Frames, August 13, 2013


Updating of Award of Backwages
Updating the computation of awards to include as well backwages and separation pay
corresponding to the period after the rendition of the labor arbiters decision up to its finality
is not violative of the principle of immutability of a final and executory judgment. No essential
change is made by a re-computation as this step is a necessary consequence that flows from
the nature of the illegality of dismissal declared in that decision. A re-computation (or an
original computation, if no previous computation has been made) is a part of the law
specifically, Article 279 of the Labor Code and the established jurisprudence on this
provision that is read into the decision. By the nature of an illegal dismissal case, the
reliefs continue to add on until full satisfaction.

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 15 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

University of Pangasinan v. Fernandez, November 12, 2014


Backwages
The computation of backwages of a probationary employee should not cover the entire
period from the time her compensation was withheld up to the time of her actual
reinstatement. The computation of backwages shall end upon the end of the probationary
employment.
The lapse of the probationary employment without any appointment as a regular employee of
the employer effectively severed the employer-employee relationship between the parties.
NOTE: In this case, the SC said that the employer cannot be expected to retain the employee
as a regular employee after she lost P20,000 while acting as cashier.

Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corp. v. Ranchez, January 19, 2011.


Financial Assistance
Even if there is a finding that the employee indeed resigned and was not dismissed, the
employee may still be granted financial assistance on equity considerations.

Luna v. Allado Construction, May 30, 2011; Villaruel v. Yeo Han Guan, June 1, 2011

Separation Pay/
Financial Assistance
In addition to serious misconduct, in dismissals based on other grounds under Art. 282 like
willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duty, fraud or willful breach of trust, and
commission of a crime against the employer or his family, separation pay should not be
conceded to the dismissed employee.
In analogous causes for termination like inefficiency, drug use, and others, the NLRC or the
courts may opt to grant separation pay anchored on social justice in consideration of the
length of service of the employee, the amount involved, whether the act is the first offense,
the performance of the employee and the like.

International School v. ISAE, February 5, 2014


Reinstatement without Backwages
An employees act of lending his I.D. card to a relative who was an applicant at the employer
company (to allow the relative to have free pass for the shuttle bus) was considered as
insufficient ground for termination, despite the guilt of the employee.
Reinstatement WITHOUT backwages was ordered, because: (1) dismissal of the employee
was too harsh a penalty; (2) the employer was in good faith in terminating the employee.

Integrated Microelectronics v. Pionilla, August 28, 2013


Dismissal Criminal case
The employer may validly dismiss for loss of trust and confidence an employee who commits
an act of fraud prejudicial to the interest of the employer.
Neither a criminal prosecution nor a convicton beyond reasonable doubt for the crime is a
requisite for the validity of the dismissal.
The dismissal for a just cause must still be made upon compliance with the requirements of
due process, otherwise, the employer is liable to pay nominal damages.

Concepcion vs. Minex Import Corp., January 24, 2012


Dismissal Criminal case
A first notice which stated that the employment contract had expired but likewise made

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 16 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

general references to alleged criminal suits filed against the employee is non-compliant with
the twin-notice requirement.
An employees guilt or innocence in a criminal case is not determinative of the existence of a
just or authorized cause for the employees dismissal. The pendency of a criminal suit
against an employee does not, by itself, sufficiently establish a ground for an employer to
terminate the employees servcies.

United Tourist Promotion v. Kemplin, February 5, 2014


Suspension for Failure to Remit Boundary
The employers policy of suspending drivers who fail to remit the full amount of the boundary
was fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
An employer has free rein and enjoys a wide latitude of discretion to regulate all aspects of
employment, including the prerogative to instill discipline on the employees.
Since the case involved a suspension, not a termination, the strict application of the twin-
notice rule is not warranted.

Caong v. Regualos, January 26, 2011.

Constructive Dismissal
Constructive Dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely as when there is a demotion in
rank or diminution in pay or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an
employer becomes unbearable to the employee, leaving the latter with no other option but to
quit.
If there is no quitting (as when the employee had returned to work), there can be no
constructive dismissal.

The University of the Immaculate Conception v. NLRC, January 26, 2011.


Constructive Dismissal
The employers non-payment of the employees salaries for three months constituted
constructive dismissal, even if it was the employee who resigned, since the employee clearly
cited in the resignation letter the non-payment of salaries as the reason for the resignation.

Dreamland Hotel v. Johnson, March 12, 2014


Constructive Dismissal
There is constructive dismissal when the employer pre-judged the employees guilt without
proper investigation, and instantly reported her to the police as the suspected thief, after the
employee herself (a cashier) reported the loss of money. (The employee languished in jail for
two weeks.)
The due process requirements under the Labor Code are mandatory and may not be
supplanted by police investigation or court proceedings. The criminal aspect of the case is
considered independent of the administrative aspect. Employers should not rely solely on
the findings of the Prosecutors Office. They are mandated to conduct their own separate
investigation, and to accord the employee every opportunity to defend himself/herself.

Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corp. v. Ranchez, January 19, 2011.


Floating Status
Off-detailing or Floating status is not dismissal unless it lasts for more than six months.

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 17 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

A complaint for illegal dismissal filed prior to the lapse of the six-month period and/or the
actual dismissal of the employee is generally considered premature.

Nippon Housing v. Leynes, August 3, 2011

Disease
Separation pay under Article 284 presupposes that it is the employer who terminates the
services of the employee found to be suffering from disease. It does not apply to a situation
where it is the employee who severe his or her employment ties.

Villaruel v. Yeo Han Guan, June 1, 2011


Padillo v. Rural bank of Nabunturan, January 21, 2013
Termination due to Disease
Covers non-contagious disease. The phrase "prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of
his co-employees" is construed to mean "prejudicial to his health or to the health of his co-
employees".
Certificate a substantive requirement. The third element substantiates the contention that the
employee has indeed been suffering from a disease that: (1) is prejudicial to his health as well as to
the health of his co-employees; and (2) cannot be cured within a period of six months even with
proper medical treatment. Without the medical certificate, there can be no authorized cause for the
employee's dismissal. The absence of this element thus renders the dismissal void and illegal.
Deoferio v. Intel Technology, June 18, 2014
Retirement
Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of the parties, a voluntary agreement between the
employer and the employee whereby the latter, after reaching a certain age, agrees to sever
his or her employment with the former.
A retirement plan giving the employer the option to retire its employees below the ages
provided by law must be assented to and accepted by the latter, otherwise, its adhesive
imposition will amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law.

Cercado v. Uniprom, October 13, 2010


Secondment
The continuity, existence or termination of an employer-employee relationship in a typical
secondment contract is measured by the FOUR FOLD TEST. If the acceptance of the new
assignment required the abandonment of the employees permanent position with the
former employer, in order for him to assume a position in an entirely different company, the
permanent transfer or assignment constituted a severance of employment with the former
employer.

Intel Technology v. NLRC & Cabiles, February 5, 2014


Control
The main issue of whether an agency or an employment relationship exists depends on the
incidents of the relationship. The Labor Code concept of control has to be compared and
distinguished with the control that must necessarily exist in a principal-agent relationship.
The principal cannot but also have his or her say in directing the course of the principal-
agent relationship, especially in cases where the company-representative relationship in the
insurance industry is an agency.

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 18 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

Tongko v. Manufacturers Life Insurance (GR 167622, June 29, 2010 & January 25, 2011)
Control
Guidelines indicative of labor law control,, should not merely relate to the mutually
desirable result intended by the contractual relationship; they must have the nature of
dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining the result, or of fixing the
methodology and of binding or restricting the party hired to the use of these means.

Tongko v. Manufacturers Life Insurance (GR 167622, June 29, 2010 & January 25, 2011)

Control
Not every form of control is indicative of employer-employee relationship. A person who
performs work for another and is subjected to its rules, regulations, and code of ethics does
not necessarily become an employee. As long as the level of control does not interfere with
the means and methods of accomplishing the assigned tasks, the rules imposed by the
hiring party on the hired party do not amount to the labor law concept of control that is
indicative of employer-employee relationship.

Royale Homes v. Alcantara, July 28, 2014

Control
Guidelines or rules and regulations that do not pertain to the means or methods to be
employed in attaining the result are not indicative of control as understood in labor law.
Neither does the repeated hiring of the employee prove the existence of employer-employee
relationship. Nor does the exclusivity clause of contract establish the existence of
the labor law concept of control. Exclusivity of contract does not necessarily result in
employer-employee relationship.

Royale Homes v. Alcantara, July 28, 2014

Officer vs. Employee


Conformably with Section 25, a position must be expressly mentioned in the By-Laws in
order to be considered as a corporate office. Thus, the creation of an office pursuant to or
under a By-Law enabling provision is not enough to make a position a corporate office.
The criteria for distinguishing between corporate officers who may be ousted from office at
will, on one hand, and ordinary corporate employees who may only be terminated for just
cause, on the other hand, do not depend on the nature of the services performed, but on the
manner of creation of the office.

Matling Industrial v. Coros, October 13, 2010


Officer vs. Employee
The contents of the General Information Sheets, which identifies the employee as an officer
of the company could neither govern nor establish the nature of the office held by the
employee and his appointment thereto.
The mere fact that the complainant employee was a stockholder of the company does not
necessarily make the action an intra-corporate cotroversy.

Cosare v. Broadcom Asia, February 5, 2014


Two-Tier Test:
Officer vs. Employee

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 19 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

The fact that the parties involved in the controversy are all stockholders or that the parties
involved are the stockholders and the corporation does not necessarily place the dispute
within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Two-tier Test: (1) the status or relationship of the parties; (2) the nature of the question that
is the subject of the controversy.
If the worker was not appointed by the Board of Directors, there is no intra-corporate
relationship. If what is involved is termination of employment, it is a labor controversy, and
not an intra-corporate dispute.

Real v. Sangu Phils., January 19, 2011


PBA Referees NOT Employees
The contractual stipulations do not pertain to, much less dictate, how and when the referees
will blow the whistle and make calls.
They merely serve as rules of conduct or guidelines in order to maintain the integrity of the
professional basketball league.

Bernante v. PBA, September 14, 2011


Talents
Production assistants, drivers/cameramen, security guards, are NOT talents
They are employees

Fulache v. ABS-CBN, January 21, 2010; Television and Production Exponents v. Servaa,
January 28, 2008; ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Nazareno, Sept. 26, 2006

Job Contracting
A person is considered engaged in legitimate job contracting or subcontracting if the
following conditions concur:
(a) The contractor carries on a distinct and independent business and undertakes the
contract work on his account under his own responsibility according to his own manner and
method, free from the control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters
connected with the performance of his work except as to the results;
(b) The contractor has substantial capital or investment; and
(c) The agreement between the principal and the contractor or subcontractor assures the
contractual employees' entitlement to all labor and occupational safety and health standards,
free exercise of the right to self-organization, security of tenure, and social welfare benefits.

Babas v. Lorenzo Shipping, December 15, 2010 (citing Vinoya)


Job Contracting
A contractors Certificate of Registration is not sufficient proof that it is an independent
contractor. A Certificate of Registration issued by the Department of Labor and Employment
is not conclusive evidence of such status.
The fact of registration simply prevents the legal presumption of being a mere labor-only
contractor from arising.

Babas v. Lorenzo Shipping, December 15, 2010 (citing San Miguel Corporation v. Vicente B.
Semillano, Nelson Mondejas, Jovito Remada, Alilgilan Multi-Purpose Coop (AMPCO), and
Merlyn N. Policarpio)
Possession by contractor of

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 20 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

substantial capital NOT ENOUGH


Mere compliance with substantial capital requirement will not suffice for a contractor to be
considered a legitimate contractor. If the workers supplied by the contractor work alongside
the principals regular employees who are performing identical work, such is an indicium of
labor-only contracting.
It is the totality of the facts and the surrounding circumstances of the case which is
determinative of the parties relationship. Several factors may be considered, such as,
whether the contractor was carrying on an independent business; the nature and extent of
the work; the skill required; the term and duration of the relationship; the right to assign the
performance of specified pieces of work; the control and supervision of the workers the
power of the employer with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the workers of the
contractor; the control of the premises; the duty to supply premises, tools, appliances,
materials and labor; and the mode, manner and terms of payment.
Coca-Cola Bottlers v. Agito, February 13, 2009

Solidary Liability of Principal


and Labor-Only Contractor

A labor-only contractor is solidarily liable with its principal. Article 106 provides that in cases
of labor-only contracting, the intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of the
employer who shall be responsible to the workers in the same manner and extent as if the
latter were directly employed by him.
Since the contractor is solidarily liable with its principal, the releases, waivers and quitclaims
executed by the employees in favor of the contractor already expunged the liability of the
principal.

Vigilla v. Philippine College of Criminology, June 10, 2013

Probationary & Fixed-Term Contracts for Teachers


In a situation where the probationary status overlaps with a fixed-term contract not
specifically used for the fixed term it offers, Article 281 should assume primacy and the fixed-
period character of the contract must give way.
The fixed-term character of employment essentially refers to the period agreed upon between
the employer and the employee; employment exists only for the duration of the term and
ends on its own when the term expires. In a sense, employment on probationary status also
refers to a period because of the technical meaning probation carries in Philippine labor
law a maximum period of six months, or in the academe, a period of three years for those
engaged in teaching jobs. Their similarity ends there, however, because of the overriding
meaning that being on probation connotes, i.e., a process of testing and observing the
character or abilities of a person who is new to a role or job.

Mercado v. AMA Computer College, April 13, 2010;


Colegio del Santisimo Rosario v. Rojo, September 4, 2013

Probationary Employees

Mere completion of the three-year probation, even with an above-average performance, does
not guarantee that the teacher will automatically acquire a permanent employment status.
The probationer can only qualify upon fulfilment of the reasonable standards set for
permanent employment as a member of the teaching personnel. The requirement of a

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 21 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

masters degree for ataining permanent full time faculty member status is a reasonable
qualification.
A school CBA must be read in conjunction with statutory and administrative regulations
governing faculty qualifications.

University of the East v. Pepanio, January 23, 2013


Herrera-Manaois v. St. Scholasticas College, December 11, 2013
Termination of Employment
of probationary employees

Section 2, Rule I, Book VI: If the termination is brought about by the completion of a contract
or phase thereof, or by failure of an employee to meet the standards of the employer in the
case of probationary employment, it shall be sufficient that a written notice is served the
employee, within a reasonable time from the effective date of termination.

Tamsons Enterprises v. CA, November 16, 2011; Abbot Laboratories vs. Alcaraz, July 23,
2013
Termination of Employment
of probationary employees

The adequate performance of ones duties is, by and of itself an inherent and implied
standard for a probationary employee to be regularized; such is a regularization standard
which need not be spelled out or mapped into technical indicators in every case.

Abbot Laboratories vs. Alcaraz, July 23, 2013


Termination of Employment
of probationary employees

The employers violation of its own company procedure for termination renders the
termination procedurally infirm, warranting the payment of nominal damages.

Abbot Laboratories vs. Alcaraz, July 23, 2013


Regular Employment with Fixed Term Contract
The employees contract indicating a fixed term did not automatically mean that she could never be
a regular employee. This is precisely what Article 280 seeks to avoid. The ruling in Brent remains as
the exception rather than the general rule. Further, an employee can be a regular employee with a
fixed-term contract. The law does not preclude the possibility that a regular employee may opt to
have a fixed-term contract for valid reasons. This was recognized in Brent: For as long as it was the
employee who requested, or bargained, that the contract have a "definite date of termination," or that
the fixed-term contract be freely entered into by the employer and the employee, then the validity of
the fixed-term contract will be upheld.
Fuji Television v. Espiritu, December 3, 2014
Project Employment
Project could refer to one or the other of at least two (2) distinguishable types of activities.
Firstly, a project could refer to a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or
usual business of the employer company, but which is distinct and separate, and identifiable
as such, from the other undertakings of the company. Such job or undertaking begins and
ends at determined or determinable times.
The term project could also refer to, secondly, a particular job or undertaking that is not
within the regular business of the corporation. Such a job or undertaking must also be

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 22 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

identifiably separate and distinct from the ordinary or regular business operations of the
employer. The job or undertaking also begins and ends at determined or determinable times.

Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union v. PNOC, March 30, 2011

Project Employment
The principal test used to determine whether employees are project employees is whether or
not the employees were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration
or scope of which was specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project.
When the employees Project Employment Contract allowed an extension of the three-month
duration but there was no subsequent contract or appointment that specified a particular
duration for the extension, and the services were just extended indefinitely until termination,
the employee should be considered regular. While for the first three months, the employee
can be considered a project employee, his employment thereafter, made him a regular
employee.

Asos v. PNCC, July 3, 2013


Project Employment
Where the only stipulations in the contracts were the dates of their effectivity, the duties and
responsibilities of the employees, the rights and obligations of the parties, and the
employees compensation and allowances, there is no actual project. As there was no
specific project or undertaking to speak of, the company cannot invoke the exception in
Article 280 of the Labor Code.
Granting that they were project employees, the employees could only be considered as
regular employees as the two factors enumerated in Maraguinot, Jr., are present. It is
undisputed that the petitioners were continuously rehired by the same employer for the same
position. Hence, their work was vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or
trade of the employer.

Malicdem v. Marulas Industrial Corp., February 26, 2014


Project Employment
If there is continuous rehiring for the same tasks or nature of tasks under different projects,
which tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the
employer, an employee who was initially hired as a project employee may eventually acquire
regular status.

Exodus International Construction v. Biscocho, February 23, 2011

Project Employment
The second paragraph of Art. 280 demarcates as casual employees, all other employees
who do not fall under the definition of the preceding paragraph. The proviso, in said second
paragraph, deems as regular employees those casual employees who have rendered at
least one year of service regardless of the fact that such service may be continuous or
broken.
The proviso is applicable only to the employees who are deemed casuals but not to the
project employees nor the regular employees treated in paragraph one of Art. 280.

Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union v. PNOC, March 30, 2011

Termination
of Project Employees

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 23 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

Completion of the work or project automatically terminates the employment.


Prior or advance notice of termination is not part of procedural due process if the termination
is brought about by the completion of the contract or phase thereof for which the employee
was engaged.
There is no violation of any requirement of procedural due process by failing to give the
project employees advance notice of their termination; thus, there is no basis for the
payment of nominal damages (Agabon).

DM Consunji v. Gobres, August 8, 2010

Seasonal Employment
Seasonal employees may be considered as regular employees. Regular seasonal employees
are those called to work from time to time. The nature of their relationship with the employer
is such that during the off season, they are temporarily laid off; but reemployed during the
summer season or when their services may be needed. They are in regular employment
because of the nature of their job, and not because of the length of time they have worked.
The rule, however, is not absolute. Seasonal workers who have worked for one season only
may not be considered regular employees. Similarly, when seasonal employees are free to
contract their services with other farm owners, then the former are not regular employees.

Gapayao v. Fulo, June 13, 2013


Regular Seasonal Employees
The regular and repeated hiring of the same workers (two different sets) for two separate
seasons has put in place, principally through jurisprudence, the system of regular seasonal
employment in the sugar industry and other industries with a similar nature of operations.
However, regular seasonal employees should not be confused with the regular employees of
the sugar mill such as the administrative or office personnel who perform their tasks for the
entire year regardless of the season.
The regular seasonal employees should not be entitled to the benefits granted, under the
CBA, to the sugar mills regular employees.

Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. v. Acibo, January 15, 2014


Foreign Employee
A foreigner who alleged illegal dismissal and sought to claim under our labor laws is required
to establish first that he was qualified and duly authorized to obtain employment within our
jurisdiction. A requirement for foreigners who intend to work within the country is an
employment permit.
The failure of the foreigner to obtain an employment permit, by itself, necessitates the
dismissal of his labor complaint.

McBurnie v. Ganzon, EGI-Managers, Inc., October 17, 2013


Secretary cannot question CA Decision
The court or tribunal exercising quasi-judicial functions is bereft of any right or personality to
question the decision of an appellate court reversing its decision. The Secretary of Labor is
not the real party-in-interest vested with personality to file the present petitions. A real party-
in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or
the party entitled to the avails of the suit.

Republic of the Philippines v. Namboku Peak, July 18, 2014


Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 24 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

As a general rule, a claim only needs to be sufficiently connected to the labor issue raised
and must arise from an employer-employee relationship for the labor tribunals to have
jurisdiction. The return of the employers properties in the employees possession by virtue
of their status as employees is an issue that must be resolved to determine whether benefits
can be released to them. Since the issue raised by the employer is connected to the
employees claim for benefits and is sufficiently intertwined with the parties employer-
employee relationship, it is properly within the labor tribunals jurisdiction.
Milan v. NLRC, February 4, 2015
Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter
Not all claims involving employees can be resolved solely by our labor courts, specifically
when the law provides otherwise. If there is a reasonable causal connection between the
claim asserted and the employer-employee relations, then the case is within the jurisdiction
of the labor courts; and in the absence thereof, it is the regular courts that have jurisdiction.
The acts complained of appear to constitute matters involving employee-employer relations
since respondent used to be the Civil Engineer of petitioner. But the claim for damages is
specifically grounded on petitioner's gross negligence to provide a safe, healthy and
workable environment for its employees a case of quasi-delict. Where the resolution of
the dispute requires expertise in the application of the general civil law, such claim falls
outside the area of competence of expertise ordinarily ascribed to the LA and the NLRC.
Indophil v. Adviento, August 4, 2014
Appeal Bond
The filing of a motion to reduce appeal bond shall be entertained by the NLRC subject to the
following grounds: (1) There is a meritorious ground; and (2) a bond in a reasonable amount
is posted.
For item 2, 10% should be posted together with the motion to reduce (exclusive of damages
and attorneys fees)
Compliance with the 10% requirement will suspend the running of the 10 day period for
appeal
The NLRC retains its authority and duty to resolve the motion and determine the final amount
of bond
If the NLRC denies the motion, or requires a higher amount of bond, the appellant shall have
a fresh period of 10 days from notice of the order.

McBurnie v. Ganzon, EGI-Managers, Inc., October 17, 2013


Appeal Bond
The amount of 10% of the award is not a permissible bond but is only such amount that shall
be deemed reasonable in the meantime that the appellants motion is pending resolution by
the NLRC. The actual reasonable amount yet to be determined is necessarily a bigger
amount. In an effort to strike a balance between the constitutional obligation of the state to
afford protection to labor on the one hand, and the opportunity afforded to the employer to
appeal, on the other, the Court considered the appeal bond which is equivalent to 25% of the
monetary award as sufficient in one case, and 20% in another case.
Balite v. SS Ventures, Feb. 2015; Sara Lee v. Macatlang, June 4, 2014; McBurnie v. Ganzon,
EGI-Managers, Inc., October 17, 2013
NLRC Decision Finality
The finality of the NLRCs decision does not preclude the filing of a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. That the NLRC issues an entry of judgment after the
lapse of ten (10) days from the parties receipt of its decision will only give rise to the
prevailing partys right to move for the execution thereof but will not prevent the CA from
taking cognizance of a petition for certiorari on jurisdictional and due process

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 25 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

considerations.
Since an appeal to this Court is not an original and independent action but a continuation of
the proceedings before the CA, the filing of a petition for review under Rule 45 cannot be
barred by the finality of the NLRCs decision in the same way as a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65.

Sarona v. NLRC, January 18, 2012.

Appeal
Even if the petitioner workers did not specifically question the award of separation pay, and
did not ask for reinstatement, the court can grant reinstatement as a remedy for the illegal
dismissal.
A court can grant the relief warranted by the allegation and the proof even if it is not
specifically sought by the injured party. The inclusion of a general prayer may justify the
grant of a remedy different from or together with the specific remedy sought, if the facts
alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant.

Prince Transport v. Garcia, January 12, 2011.

Appeal
A party who does not appeal, or file a petition for certiorari, is not entitled to any affirmative
relief. Due process prevents the grant of additional awards to parties who did not appeal. An
appellee who is not an appellant may assign errors in his brief where his purpose is to
maintain the judgment, but he cannot seek modification or reversal of the judgment or claim
affirmative relief unless he has also appealed.
The CA cannot grant an affirmative relief to an employee who did not ask for it.

Unilever v. Rivera, June 3, 2013.

Under Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730, the DOLE is fully empowered to
make a determination as to the existence of an employer-employee relationship, subject to
judicial review, not review by the NLRC.

No limitation in the law was placed upon the power of the DOLE to determine the existence of
an employer-employee relationship. No procedure was laid down where the DOLE would only
make a preliminary finding, that the power was primarily held by the NLRC. The law did not
say that the DOLE would first seek the NLRCs determination of the existence of an
employer-employee relationship, or that should the existence of the employer-employee
relationship be disputed, the DOLE would refer the matter to the NLRC. The DOLE must have
the power to determine whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists, and from
there to decide whether or not to issue compliance orders in accordance with Art. 128(b) of
the Labor Code.

Peoples Broadcasting v. Secretary, March 6, 2012 (revisiting the May 8, 2009 decision)
Labor Arbiter & Voluntary Arbitrator
Under Art. 217, it is clear that a labor arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over
termination disputes. On the other hand, under Article 261, a voluntary arbitrator has original
and exclusive jurisdiction over grievances arising from the interpretation or enforcement of
company policies.
As a general rule then, termination disputes should be brought before a labor arbiter, except

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 26 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

when the parties, under Art. 262, unmistakably express that they agree to submit the same to
voluntary arbitration.

Negros Metal v. Lamayo, August 25, 2010


VA decision subject to MR
The VAs decision may still be reconsidered on the basis of a motion for reconsideration
seasonably filed within 10 days from receipt thereof. The seasonable filing of a motion for
reconsideration is a mandatory requirement to forestall the finality of such decision.
The absence of a categorical language in Article 262-A does not preclude the filing of a
motion for reconsideration of the VAs decision within the 10-day period.

Albert Teng Fish Trading v. Pahagac, November 17, 2010

VA Jurisdiction
The voluntary arbitrator had plenary jurisdiction and authority to interpret the agreement to
arbitrate and to determine the scope of his own authority subject only, in a proper case, to
the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court.
The failure of the parties to specifically limit the issues to that which was stated allowed the
arbitrator to assume jurisdiction over the related issue.
While voluntary arbitrators are generally expected to decide only those questions expressly
delineated by the submission agreement; nevertheless, they can assume that they have the
necessary power to make a final settlement on the related issues, since arbitration is the final
resort for the adjudication of disputes.

Manila Pavillion v. Delada, January 25, 2012

VA Jurisdiction and
Employers Disciplinary Powers
An employee cannot hide under the legal cloak of the grievance machinery of the CBA or the
voluntary arbitration proceedings to disobey a valid order of transfer from the management
of the hotel. While it is true that the employers transfer of assignment is the subject of the
grievance machinery in accordance with the provisions of their CBA, the employee is
expected to comply first with the said lawful directive while awaiting the results of the
decision in the grievance proceedings.
Unless the order of the employer is rendered invalid, there is a presumption of the validity of
that order. The employer had the authority to continue with the administrative proceedings
for insubordination and willful disobedience against the employer and to impose the penalty
of suspension despite the case before the grievance machinery and the panel of voluntary
arbitrators.
Manila Pavillion v. Delada, January 25, 2012
Appeal of VA Decision
An appeal to reverse or modify a Voluntary Arbitrator's award or decision must be filed
before the Court of Appeals within 10 calendar days from receipt of the award or decision.
Should the aggrieved party choose to file a motion for reconsideration with the Voluntary
Arbitrator, the motion must be filed within the same 10-day period since a motion for
reconsideration is filed "within the period for taking an appeal." Despite Rule 43 providing
for a 15-day period to appeal, the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision must be appealed before the
Court of Appeals within 10 calendar days from receipt of the decision as provided in
the Labor Code. Statute provides that the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision "shall be final and
executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by
the parties." Being provided in the statute, this 10-day period must be complied with;

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 27 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

otherwise, no appellate court will have jurisdiction over the appeal.


PHILEC v. CA, December 10, 2014
MR required for Rule 65 Petition
While a government office may prohibit altogether the filing of a motion for reconsideration
with respect to its decisions or orders, the fact remains that certiorari inherently requires the
filing of a motion for reconsideration, which is the tangible representation of the opportunity
given to the office to correct itself. Unless it is filed, there could be no occasion to rectify.
Worse, the remedy of certiorari would be unavailing. Rule 65 states that where a motion for
reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the
petition shall be filed not later than 60 days counted from the notice of the denial of the
motion. This can only mean that even though a motion for reconsideration is not required or
even prohibited by the concerned government office, and the petitioner files the motion just
the same, the 60-day period shall nonetheless be counted from notice of the denial of the
motion.
PHILTRANCO v. PWU-AGLO, February 26, 2014
Release, Waiver & Quitclaim
As a rule, deeds of release and quitclaim cannot bar employees from demanding benefits to
which they are legally entitled or from contesting the legality of their dismissal. The
acceptance of those benefits would not amount to estoppel. To excuse employees from
complying with the terms of their waivers, they must prove any of three grounds: (1) the
employer used fraud or deceit in obtaining the waivers; (2) the consideration the employer
paid is incredible and unreasonable; or (3) the terms of the waiver are contrary to law, public
order, public policy, morals, or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right
recognized by law.
As the ground for termination of employment was illegal, the quitclaims are deemed illegal as
the employees consent had been vitiated by mistake or fraud. The circumstances show that
petitioners misrepresentation led its employees to believe that the company was suffering
losses which necessitated the implementation of the voluntary retirement and retrenchment
programs, and eventually the execution of the deeds of release, waiver and quitclaim.
Phil. Carpet Manufacturing Corp. v. Tagyamon, December 11, 2013
OFWs entitled to salary for UNEXPIRED PORTION of contract
An OFW dismissed from overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as
defined by law or contract, is entitled to:
Full reimbursement of the placement fee with interest at 12% per annum
His salary for the UNEXPIRED PORTION of his employment contract

NOTE: The 3-month limit in the law is INVALID


Serrano vs. Gallant Doctrine (2009)
Operative Fact
The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue
burden on those who have relied on the invalid law.
It does not apply to a situation where the declaration of unconstitutionality of Sec. 10. R.A.
8042 happened while the illegal dismissal case was pending before the Supreme Court.

Yap v. Thenamaris Ships Management, May 30, 2011


3-Month Limitation
in RA 8042
The declaration in March 2009 of the unconstitutionality of the clause or for three months for

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 28 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less in RA 8042 shall be given retroactive
effect to the termination that occurred in January 1999 because an unconstitutional clause in
the law confers no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection. The unconstitutional
provision is inoperative, as if it was not passed into law at all.

Skippers United v. Doza, February 8, 2012

3-Month Limitation
in RA 8042
The clause, "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less"
in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 amending Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 is
unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. Limiting wages that should be recovered by
an illegally dismissed overseas worker to three months is both a violation of due process and
the equal protection clauses of the Constitution. When a law or a provision of law is null
because it is inconsistent with the Constitution, the nullity cannot be cured by
reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar law or provision. A law or provision
of law that was already declared unconstitutional remains as such unless circumstances
have so changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion.
Sameer Overseas v. Cabiles, August 5, 2014
Money claims of seafarers
Article 291 is the law governing the prescription of money claims of seafarers, a class of
overseas contract workers. This law prevails over Section 28 of the Standard Employment
Contract for Seafarers which provides for claims to be brought only within one year from the
date of the seafarers return to the point of hire.
Section 28 of the Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers, insofar as it limits the
prescriptive period within which the seafarers may file their money claims, is null and void.
The applicable provision is Article 291 of the Labor Code, it being more favorable to the
seafarers and more in accord with the States declared policy to afford full protection to
labor.
The prescriptive period in the present case is thus three years from the time the cause of
action accrues.

Southeastern Shipping v. Navarra, June 22, 2010


Commencement of Relationship
The commencement of the employment relationship must be treated separately from the
perfection of an employment contract.
The perfection of the contract, which (as a general rule) coincides with the date of execution,
occurred when the parties agreed on the object and the cause, and the terms and conditions.
Despite the non-deployment (which caused the non-commencement of the employment
relationship), rights have arisen based on the perfected conract.

C.F. Sharp v. Pioneer Insurance, February 15, 2012, citing Santiago v. C.F. Sharp, July 10,
2007
Non-Deployment
Without Just Cause
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers Act) which provides for money claims
by reason of a contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment applies to a case
of non deployment without valid reasons claims arising out of an employer-employee
relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.
Following the law, the claim is still cognizable by the labor arbiters of the NLRC.

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 29 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

Stolt-Nielsen v. Medequillo, January 18, 2011


CBA of OFWs
Disputes involving the interpretation or implementation of CBA provisions applicable to
seafarers should be covered by Art. 261 and 262 of the Labor Code, not by Section 10 of R.A.
8042.
Voluntary Arbitrator has jurisdiction.
Estate of Nelso Dulay v. Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime, June 13, 2012
Liability of Corporate Officers/Director of Recruitment Agency
The liability of corporate directors and officers is not automatic. To make them jointly and
severally liable with their company, there must be a finding that they were remiss in directing
the affairs of that company, such as sponsoring or tolerating the conduct of ilegal activities.

Hon. Sto. Tomas v. Salac, November 13, 2012


Withholding of Wages
Management prerogative refers to the right of an employer to regulate all aspects of
employment, such as the freedom to prescribe work assignments, working methods,
processes to be followed, regulation regarding transfer of employees, supervision of their
work, lay-off and discipline, and dismissal and recall of work. Although management
prerogative refers to the right to regulate all aspects of employment, it cannot be
understood to include the right to temporarily withhold salary/wages without the consent of
the employee. To sanction such an interpretation would be contrary to Article 116 of the
Labor Code.

SHS Perforated Materials v. Diaz, October 13, 2010

Withholding of TERMINAL PAY


An employer is allowed to withhold terminal pay and benefits pending the employees return
of its properties. Requiring clearance before the release of last payment to the employee is a
standard procedure among employers, whether public or private. Clearance procedures are
instituted to ensure that the properties, real or personal, belonging to the employer but are in
the possession of the separated employee, are returned to the employer before the
employees departure. Our law supports the employers institution of clearance procedures
before the release of wages, as an exception to the general rule that wages may not be
withheld and benefits may not be diminished. The Civil Code provides that the employer is
authorized to withhold wages for debt.

Milan v. NLRC, February 4, 2015


Writ of Habeas Data
The habeas data rule, in general, is designed to protect by means of judicial complaint the
image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual. It is meant to
provide a forum to enforce ones right to the truth and to informational privacy, thus
safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a persons right to life, liberty and security
against abuse in this age of information technology.
The writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to protect purely property or commercial
concerns nor when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague or
doubtful. Employment constitutes a property right under the context of the due process
clause of the Constitution.

Manila Electric Company v. Gopez Lim, October 5, 2010


Apprenticeship

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 30 of 31
JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
UPDATES
Labor Jurisprudence
Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

The fact that the workers were already rendering service to the company when they were
made to undergo apprenticeship renders the apprenticeship agreements irrelevant as far as
the employees are concerned, especially since, prior to the apprenticeship, the employees
performed tasks that were usually necessary and desirable to the companys usual business.
Even assuming there was a valid apprenticeship, the expiration of the first agreement and the
retention of the employees was a recognition by the employer of their training and
acquisition of a regular employee status.
The second apprenticeship agreement for a second skill which was not even mentioned in
the agreement is a violation of the Labor Codes implementing rules.

Atlanta Industries v. Sebolino, January 26, 2011.

Prohibition Against Running for Elective Office


ABS CBNs policy requiring the resignation of employees who intend to run for public office
or accept political appointment is valid.
So long as a companys management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the
advancement of the employers interest and not for the purpose of defeating or
circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements,
they should be upheld.
ABS CBN validly justified its policy as within its rights to ensure that it maintains its
objectivity and credibility and freeing itself from any appearance of impartiality.

Ymbong v. ABS CBN, March 7, 2012

Updates on Labor Jurisprudence by Atty. Marlon J. Manuel for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists
Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 31 of 31