G.R No. 172724 August 23, 2010 Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc., et. al.

,
Petitioners v. Ricardo P. Albayda, Jr., Respondent.

Facts: Respondent Albayda is a District Sales Manager of Petitioner Pharmacia and

Upjohn, Inc. assigned in District XI in the Western Visayas. Pursuant to a district
territorial configuration for the new marketing and sales direction for the year 2000,
Respondent was informed in a memorandum that he will be reassigned as a District
Sales Manager to District XII in the northern Mindanao, which respondent adamantly
refused for reasons of personal inconvenience and dislocation from his family.
Pharmacias National Sales and External

Business Manager tried to convince him because being one of the top performing
sales managers of the company, his skills and expertise are needed by the District
office in Northern Mindanao which has been dismally performing in the past,
however, respondent still refused the transfer. The Human Resource Manager also
met with respondent telling him that he will be entitled to Relocation Benefits and
Allowance and reiterated in a series of memorandum that his services were badly
needed in Cagayan de Oro City due to the latters poor performance and also for his
personal growth. Respondent was even given the option to transfer in Metro Manila
with the same position as the District Manager was transferred to a different
position which he again refused. He viewed the transfer as the companys scheme
to terminate his employment. Respondent stopped answering these memoranda,
thus, the company sent him another memo dated 26 June 2000 directing him to
report for work within 5 days from receipt, otherwise, he will be terminated on the
basis of being absent without official leave (AWOL) and on July 13, 2000, the
company sent him a memo notifying him of their decision to terminate his services
on the ground of being AWOL and insubordination after he had repeatedly refused
to report for work despite due notice, hence this complaint for constructive
dismissal.

Issue: WON the transfer of respondent from Western Visayas to Cagayan de Oro City
was a valid exercise of the companys management prerogative.

Held: Yes. Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management prerogative to

transfer or assign employees from one office or area to another, provided there is
no demotion in rank, diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges, and the
action is not motivated by discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of
punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. The transfer in this case was a
valid exercise of a legitimate management prerogative to maximize business
opportunities, growth and development of personnel and the expertise of
respondent was needed to build the companys business in CDO which dismally
performed in 1999.There was no demotion as he will also be holding the same
position and the transfer did not indicate that his emoluments will be reduced. He
was even informed that he will be entitled to Relocation benefits and allowance.
Furthermore, in his employment contract, he agreed that he was willing to be
assigned to any work or workplace during the period of his employment as may be
determined by the company whenever the operations require such assignment.
There was no evidence showing that the restructuring of the company was done
with ill motives or with malice and bad faith purposely to constructively terminate
respondent. The CA failed to recognize the very nature of a salesman that it is
mobile and ambulant. On the issue of due process, while no actual hearing was
held, the same is not fatal, as only an ample opportunity to be heard is what the
law requires in order to satisfy due process of law. The twin notice were complied
with when respondent was sent a memo which served as a final warning directing
him to report for work within 5 days otherwise he will be terminated on the ground
of being AWOL. Upon receipt of this first memo, respondent could have asked for a
conference with the company which he failed to do, hence the second memo
informing him of the companys decision to terminate his services for being AWOL
and for insubordination for deliberately ignoring the defying the lawful orders of his
employer which is a valid ground for termination under Art. 282 (a) of the LC. He
was, however, awarded separation pay as a measure of social justice as this was his
1st infraction and considering his 22 years of services with the company.

Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/128132993/Pharmacia-v-Albayda-palattao-
Angel#scribd
St. Lukes Medical Center EmployeesAssociationvs. NLRC

[G.R. No. 162053.March 7, 2007]

Facts:

Maribel S. Santos was an X-Ray Technician in the Radiology department of St.

Lukes. Subsequently,
Congress passed and enacted Republic Act No. 7431 known as the Radiologic
Technology Act of
1992, which required that a person must obtain the proper certificate of
registration from the Board
of Radiologic Technology for the practice or offer to practice as a radiology and/or x-
ray technologist
in the Philippines. In turn, the Director of the Institute of Radiology issued a final
notice to Santos
requiring her to comply by taking and passing the examination; otherwise St. Lukes
may be
compelled to retire her from employment should there be no other position
available where she may
be absorbed. Despite extensions of time within which she could comply, Santos
failed to comply with
the requirement for her continued employment.
Issue:

Was Santos validly dismissed for failure to secure a certificate of registration from
the Board of
Radiologic Technology?

Held:

While the right of workers to security of tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution, its
exercise may be
reasonably regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health,
morals, peace,
education, order, safety, and the general welfare of the people. Consequently,
persons who desire to
engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may
be required to take
an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. The most
concrete example of
this would be in the field of medicine, the practice of which in all its branches has
been closely
regulated by the State. It has long been recognized that the regulation of this field is
a reasonable
method of protecting the health and safety of the public to protect the public from
the potentially
deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance among those who would practice
medicine. The same
rationale applies in the regulation of the practice of radiologic and x-ray technology.

The enactment of R.A. (Nos.) 7431 and 4226 are recognized as an exercise of the
States inherent
police power. It should be noted that the police power embraces the power to
prescribe regulations
to promote the health, morals, educations, good order, safety or general welfare of
the people. The
state is justified in prescribing the specific requirements for x-ray technicians and/or
any other
professions connected with the health and safety of its citizens. St. Lukes being
engaged in the
hospital and health care business, is a proper subject of the cited law; thus, having
in mind the legal
requirements of these laws, the latter cannot close its eyes and [let] complainant-
appellants private
interest override public interest.

Fulache vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp (AJG)

GR No. 183810
January 21, 2010
Brion, J.

Petitioner: FARLEY FULACHE, MANOLO JABONERO, DAVID CASTILLO, JEFFREY LAGUNZAD, MAGDALENA
MALIG-ON BIGNO, FRANCISCO CABAS, JR., HARVEY PONCE and ALAN C. ALMENDRAS
Respondents: ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

SUMMARY: Workers of ABS CBN (drivers, cameramen, editors, etc) filed a complaint for regularization. They also
said that they are excluded from CBA. ABS countered, saying that they are mere talents (independent contractors).
LA ruled that they are regulars. Pending appeal, ABS dismissed the drivers (some of the petitioners), saying that their
functions are validly contracted out, hence they filed an illegal dismissal case. Proceedings ensued. SC said that
employer-employee relationship exists, and that the drivers are illegally dismissed. Read for more info. Also, please
study the portions on CBA, baka kasi lumabas din.

FACTS:
Regularization Case
 Petitioners Fulache and Castillo (drivers and cameramen), Atinen, Lagunzad, Jabonero (drivers), Ponce and
Almendras (cameramen/editors), Bigno (PA/Teleprompter) and Cabas (VTR man/editor) filed complaints for
regularization, unfair labor practice, and several money claims against ABS.
They alleged that ABSCBN and their union entered into a CBA, and they learned that they had been
excluded from its coverage as ABS-CBN considered them temporary employees. They claimed they had
already rendered more than a year of service in the company and, therefore, should have been recognized
as regular employees entitled to security of tenure and to the privileges and benefits enjoyed by regular
employees.
To properly establish their side, ABS-CBN first explained the nature of the employment of the complainants:
o A local station, like the Cebu station, can resort to cost-effective and cost-saving measures to
remain viable; local stations produced shows and programs that were constantly changing because
of the competitive nature of the industry, the changing public demand or preference, and the
seasonal nature of media broadcasting programs.
o To cope with fluctuating business conditions, it contracts on a case-to-case basis the services of
persons, also called talents (considered independent contractors) who possess the necessary
qualifications to meet the requirements of its programs. These talents are paid a pre-arranged
talent fee. They do not undergo probation and their services are terminated at the completion of
the program.
o ABSCBN alleged that the complainants in this case are off-camera talents, hence not entitled to
regularization.
LA ruling ONE petitioners are regular employees.

Illegal Dismissal Case

During its appeal to NLRC, ABSCBN terminated the services of the drivers (Note only five of the above:
Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo, Lagunzad and Atinen [Atinen will execute a quitclaim later]).
Hence, they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal case (Note: The same Labor Arbiter above [LA Rendoque]
handled this case)
ABSCBNs Defense:
o Petitioners refused to sign with service contractor Able Services.
o Before all these cases started, it had already undertaken a comprehensive review of its existing
organizational structure to address its operational requirements. Some services, such driving
services, belongs to a job category that had already been contracted out.
o Even if the petitioners had been found to have been illegally dismissed, their reinstatement had
become a physical impossibility because their employer-employee relationships had been strained
and that Atinen had executed a quitclaim and release.
LA Ruling TWO contracting out of ABS CBN is valid. No illegal dismissal of petitioners due to redundancy,
an authorized cause.

Merger of cases
NLRCs Joint Decision
o Regularization Case - EER exists between ABS CBN and petitioners.
They cannot be considered contractual employees since they were not paid for the result
of their work, but on a monthly basis and were required to do their work in accordance
with the companys schedule.
Granted CBA benefits.
o Illegal Dismissal Case Drivers are illegally dismissed.
Awarded backwages, separation pay, CBA benefits (BUT NOTE: No award for 13th month
pay, sick leaves cash conversion, medical allowances, etc. So petitioners still appealed
this)
Both appealed. Here are their allegations:
o Employees No award for 13th month pay blah blah see above.
o ABS CBN
No backwages should be awarded because they are independent contractors.
Petitioners should not be entitled to the CBA benefits because they never claimed these
benefits in their position paper before the labor arbiter while the NLRC failed to make a
 clear and positive finding that that they were part of the bargaining unit; neither was there
evidence to support this finding.
NLRCs Reconsideration EER exists, BUT there is redundancy so no illegal dismissal! They are also
denied CBA benefits and that they are not deemed part of the collective bargaining unit!
CAs Ruling
o Petitioners failed to prove their claim to CBA benefits since they never raised the issue in the
compulsory arbitration proceedings, and did not appeal the labor arbiters decision which was silent
on their entitlement to CBA benefits.
o No illegal dismissal redundancy! No showing of abuse of prerogative on the part of ABS CBN!
o Except for separation pay, the CA denied the petitioners claim for backwages, moral and
exemplary damages, and attorneys fees.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners are regular employees YES
Whether or not they are entitled to CBA benefits (issue of whether or not they are covered by the CBA) YES
Whether or not the drivers are illegally dismissed - YES

HELD:
o Petition GRANTED.
o Decision of CA REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
o Confirming that petitioners FARLEY FULACHE, MANOLO JABONERO, DAVID CASTILLO,
JEFFREY LAGUNZAD, MAGDALENA MALIG-ON BIGNO, FRANCISCO CABAS, JR., HARVEY
PONCE and ALAN C. ALMENDRAS are regular employees of ABS-CBN BROADCASTING
CORPORATION, and declaring them entitled to all the rights, benefits and privileges, including
CBA benefits, from the time they became regular employees in accordance with existing company
practice and the Labor Code;
o Declaring illegal the dismissal of Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad, and ordering ABS-
CBN to immediately reinstate them to their former positions without loss of seniority rights with full
backwages and all other monetary benefits, from the time they were dismissed up to the date of
their actual reinstatement;
o Awarding moral damages of P100,000.00 each to Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad; and,
o Awarding attorneys fees of 10% of the total monetary award decreed in this Decision.
RATIO:
Petitioners Arguments
The CA gravely erred in:
o Not considering the evidence submitted to the NLRC on appeal to bolster their claim that they were
members of the bargaining unit and therefore entitled to the CBA benefits.
o Not ordering ABS-CBN to pay the petitioners salaries, allowances and CBA benefits after the
NLRC has declared that they were regular employees of ABS-CBN;
o Not ruling that under existing jurisprudence, the position of driver cannot be declared redundant,
and that the petitioners-drivers were illegally dismissed; and
o Not ruling that the petitioners were entitled to damages and attorneys fees.
The petitioners then proceeded to describe the work they render for the company. Collectively, they claim
that they work as assistants in the production of the Cebuano news program broadcast daily over ABS-CBN
Channel 3, as follows:
o Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad as production assistants to drive the news team;
o Ponce and Almendras, to shoot scenes and events with the use of cameras owned by ABS-CBN;
o Malig-on Bigno, as studio production assistant and assistant editor/teleprompter operator; and
o Cabas, Jr., as production assistant for video editing and operating the VTR machine recorder.
As production assistants, the petitioners submit that they are rank-and-file employees who are entitled to
salary increases and other benefits under the CBA.
Relying on the Courts ruling in New Pacific Timber and Supply Company, Inc. v. NLRC, they posit that to
exclude them from the CBA "would constitute undue discrimination and would deprive them of monetary
benefits they would otherwise be entitled to. (CBA issue. Bago to. Aralin nyo. Baka biglang tanungin)
 Petitioners impute bad faith on ABS-CBN when it abolished the positions of drivers claiming that the
company failed to comply with the requisites of a valid redundancy action.

ABS CBNs Arguments

Technicalities nalang arguments nila, such as the petition raises question of facts and not of law kahit na
certiorari ito, lapsed with finality without appeal, etc.

SCs Ruling
Claim for CBA Benefits
As regular employees, the petitioners fall within the coverage of the bargaining unit and are therefore
entitled to CBA benefits as a matter of law and contract.
The ruling of the Labor Arbiter unequivocally settled the petitioners employment status: they are ABS-CBNs
regular employees entitled to the benefits and privileges of regular employees. These benefits and privileges
arise from entitlements under the law and from their employment contract as regular ABS-CBN employees,
part of which is the CBA if they fall within the coverage of this agreement.
Thus, what only needs to be resolved as an issue for purposes of implementation of the decision is whether
the petitioners fall within CBA coverage. Their CBA provides:

Section 1. APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT. The parties agree that the appropriate bargaining unit
shall be regular rank-and-file employees of ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION but shall not
include:

a) Personnel classified as Supervisor and Confidential employees;

b) Personnel who are on "casual" or "probationary" status as defined in Section 2 hereof;

c) Personnel who are on "contract" status or who are paid for specified units of work such as writer-
producers, talent-artists, and singers.

The inclusion or exclusion of new job classifications into the bargaining unit shall be subject of discussion
between the COMPANY and the UNION.

Under these terms, the petitioners are members of the appropriate bargaining unit because they are regular
rank-and-file employees and do not belong to any of the excluded categories. Specifically, nothing in the
records shows that they are supervisory or confidential employees; neither are they casual nor probationary
employees.
CBA coverage is not only a question of fact, but of law and contract. The factual issue is whether the
petitioners are regular rank-and-file employees of ABS-CBN. The tribunals below uniformly answered this
question in the affirmative.

Illegal Dismissal Case

The termination of employment of the four drivers occurred under highly questionable circumstances and
with plain and unadulterated bad faith.
The regularization case was in fact the root of the resulting bad faith as this case gave rise and led to the
dismissal case. In the course of this appeal, ABS-CBN took matters into its own hands and terminated the
petitioners services, clearly disregarding its own appeal then pending with the NLRC. To justify the
termination of service, the company cited redundancy as its authorized cause but offered no justificatory
supporting evidence. It merely claimed that it was contracting out the petitioners activities in the exercise of
its management prerogative. This move (dismissed while there is a pending case) is a direct affront to the
authority of the NLRC and an abuse of the appeal process)
It also forgot that by claiming redundancy, they admitted that petitioners are regular employees.
ABS-CBN forgot that it had an existing CBA with a union, which agreement must be respected in any move
affecting the security of tenure of affected employees; otherwise, it ran the risk of committing unfair labor
practice both a criminal and an administrative offense.
Awards
By law, illegally dismissed employees are entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges and to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent
from the time their compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement. The
four dismissed drivers deserve no less.
Moreover, they are also entitled to moral damages since their dismissal was attended by bad faith.40 For
having been compelled to litigate and to incur expenses to protect their rights and interest, the petitioners
are likewise entitled to attorneys fees.

(Note: Pinagalitan din ni Brion yung LA, NLRC, saka CA. Di to part pero nakakatuwa lang basahin. Eto sabi
nya: )
The errors and omissions do not belong to ABS-CBN alone. The labor arbiter himself who handled both
cases did not see the totality of the companys actions for what they were. He appeared to have blindly
allowed what he granted the petitioners with his left hand, to be taken away with his right hand, unmindful
that the company already exhibited a badge of bad faith in seeking to terminate the services of the
petitioners whose regular status had just been recognized. He should have recognized the bad faith from the
timing alone of ABS-CBNs conscious and purposeful moves to secure the ultimate aim of avoiding the
regularization of its so-called "talents."
The NLRC, for its part, initially recognized the presence of bad faith. However, in an inexplicable turnaround,
it reconsidered its joint decision and reinstated not only the labor arbiters decision of January 17, 2002 in
the regularization case, but also his illegal dismissal decision of April 21, 2003.38 Thus, the NLRC joined the
labor arbiter in his error that we cannot but characterize as grave abuse of discretion.
The Court cannot leave unchecked the labor tribunals patent grave abuse of discretion that resulted, without
doubt, in a grave injustice to the petitioners who were claiming regular employment status and were
unceremoniously deprived of their employment soon after their regular status was recognized. Unfortunately,
the CA failed to detect the labor tribunals gross errors in the disposition of the dismissal issue. Thus, the CA
itself joined the same errors the labor tribunals committed.