Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Contents
1. Insular Life v. Basiao ................................................................................................................ 1
2. Tongko vs. Manufacturers Life Insurance ......................................................................... 3
3. Indophil Textile Mills vs. Adviento ....................................................................................... 4
4. Philippine Journalist Inc. vs. Journal Employees Union............................................... 5
5. Julies bakeshop v arnaiz ............................................................................................................... 8
6. Gjt builders vs ambos ............................................................................................................. 12
7. Mirant Phils v Caro ................................................................................................................... 15
8. Benigno v ABS CBN ................................................................................................................. 19
10. Abbott vs Alcaraz.......................................................................................................................... 23
11. Colegio vs Rojo.............................................................................................................................. 26
12. AMA vs Austria .............................................................................................................................. 29
13. Tirol v NLRC .................................................................................................................................. 32
14. GOMA VS PAMPLONA .................................................................................................................. 35
15. GADIA VS SYKES ASIA............................................................................................................... 37
16. HACIENDA VS LORENZO ........................................................................................................... 42
17. TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA VS ASIA BREWERY ..................................................................... 47
18. FUJI VS ESPIRITU ........................................................................................................................ 50
19. Goya v Goya ................................................................................................................................... 53
20. Alviado vs Procter and Gamble ............................................................................................... 56
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 2 of 61
Issue:
Held :
No.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 3 of 61
ISSUE:
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 4 of 61
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 5 of 61
Issue:
Held:
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 6 of 61
The NLRC denied the partial appeal for lack of merit. It also rendered a
decision insofar as the funeral or bereavement aid is concerned, which is
hereby GRANTED, but only after submission of conclusive proofs that the
deceased is a parent, either father or mother, of the employees concerned,
as well as the death certificate to establish the fact of death of the deceased
legal dependent.
JEU and Alfante moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied such
motion. Furthermore, PJI sought the review of the CAs disposition in the
decision on the granting of the funeral and bereavement aid stipulated in the
CBA. They maintained that under Section 4, Article XIII of the CBA, funeral
and bereavement aid should be granted upon the death of a legal dependent
of a regular employee; that consistent with the definition provided by the
Social Security System (SSS), the term legal dependent referred to the
spouse and children of a married regular employee, and to the parents and
siblings, 18 years old and below, of a single regular employee; that the CBA
considered the term dependents to have the same meaning as beneficiaries,
as provided in Section 5, Article XIII of the CBA on the payment of death
benefits; that its earlier granting of claims for funeral and bereavement aid
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 7 of 61
In their comment, JEU and Alfante countered that the CBA was a
bilateral contractual agreement that could not be unilaterally changed by any
party during its lifetime; and that the grant of burial benefits had already
become a company practice favorable to the employees, and could not
anymore be reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by PJI.
Issue:
Held:
Citing statutory definitions, the Supreme Court concluded that the civil
status of the employee as either married or single is not the controlling
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 8 of 61
FACTS: Julies Bakeshop and/or Edgar Reyes (Reyes) assail the decision of
the CA which reversed the Resolutions of the NLRC and ordered petitioners
to reinstate respondents Henry Arnaiz (Arnaiz), Edgar Napal (Napal) and
Jonathan Tolores (Tolores) and to pay them their backwages for having been
constructively dismissed, as well as their other monetary benefits.
Reyes hired respondents as chief bakers in his three franchise branches of
Julies Bakeshop in Sibalom and San Jose, Antique. Respondents filed
separate complaints against petitioners for underpayment of wages,
payment of premium pay for holiday and rest day, service incentive leave
pay, 13th month pay, cost of living allowance (COLA) and attorneys fees.
These complaints were later on consolidated.
Subsequently, in a memorandum dated February 16, 2000, Reyes
reassigned respondents as utility/security personnel tasked to clean the
outside vicinity of his bakeshops and to maintain peace and order in the
area. Upon service of the memo, respondents, however, refused to sign the
same and likewise refused to perform their new assignments by not
reporting for work.
LABOR ARBITER: expressed dismay over respondents lack of good faith in
negotiating a settlement. The Labor Arbiter denounced the way respondents
dealt with Atty. Delicana during their discussions for a possible settlement
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 9 of 61
since respondents themselves later on informed the said tribunal that at the
time of the said discussions, they no longer considered Atty. Delicana as
their counsel. Despite this, the Labor Arbiter still required the parties to
submit their respective position papers. And as respondents position paper
was filed late and no evidence was attached to prove the allegations therein,
the Labor Arbiter resolved to dismiss the complaints.
NLRC overruled the Decision of the Labor Arbiter and held that the burden
of proof lies on herein petitioners as Reyes admitted being the employer of
Tolores. Hence, petitioners not Tolores, had the duty to advance proof. With
respect to Arnaiz and Napal, the NLRC noted that since their alleged
employer was not impleaded, said respondents cases should be remanded
to the Labor Arbiter, and tried as new and separate cases.
NLRC (MR) found merit in respondents Motion for Reconsideration. The
NLRC ruled that respondents demotion in rank from chief bakers to
utility/security personnel is tantamount to constructive dismissal
which entitles them to the reliefs available to illegally dismissed
employees. NLRC ratiocinated that the employer bears the burden of
proving that the employees received their wages and benefits. In this case,
however, no proof of such payment was presented by the petitioners.
CA ruled that respondents were constructively dismissed since their
designation from chief bakers to utility/security personnel is
undoubtedly a demotion in rank which involved a drastic change in
the nature of work resulting to a demeaning and humiliating work
condition. Further, respondents could not be held guilty of abandonment
of work as this was negated by their immediate filing of complaints to
specifically ask for reinstatement.
ISSUE: WAS THE TRANSFER/REASSIGNMENT OF RESPONDENTS TO
ANOTHER POSITION WITHOUT DIMINUTION IN PAY AND OTHER
PRIVILEGES TANTAMOUNT TO CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL?
HELD: The Court of Appeals is correct in reviewing the findings of the
National Labor Relations Commission.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 10 of 61
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 11 of 61
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 12 of 61
Respondents cannot be faulted for refusing to report for work as they were
compelled to quit their job due to a demotion without any just cause.
Moreover, we have consistently held that a charge of abandonment is
inconsistent with the filing of a complaint for constructive
dismissal. Respondents demand to maintain their positions as chief bakers
by filing a case and asking for the relief of reinstatement belies
abandonment.
The Court of Appeals found that G.J.T. Rebuilders Machine Shop (G.J.T.
Rebuilders) failed to prove its alleged serious business losses. Thus, when it
closed its establishment on December 15, 1997, G.J.T. Rebuilders should
have paid the affected employees separation pay.4
G.J.T. Rebuilders rented space in the Far East Asia (FEA) Building in Shaw
Boulevard, Mandaluyong City, which served as the site of its machine shop.
On September 8, 1996, a fire partially destroyed the FEA Building.6
Due to the damage sustained by the building, its owner notified its tenants
to vacate their rented units by the end of September 1996 "to avoid any
unforeseen accidents which may arise due to the damage."7
Despite the building owners notice to vacate, G.J.T. Rebuilders continued its
business in the condemned building. When the building owner finally refused
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 13 of 61
to accommodate it, G.J.T. Rebuilders left its rented space and closed the
machine shop on December 15, 1997.8 It then filed an Affidavit of Closure
before the Department of Labor and Employment on February 16, 1998 and
a sworn application to retire its business operations before the Mandaluyong
City Treasurers Office on February 25, 1998.9
In their defense, G.J.T. Rebuilders and the Trillana spouses argued that
G.J.T. Rebuilders suffered serious business losses and financial reverses,
forcing it to close its machine shop. Therefore, Ricardo, Russell, and
Benjamin were not entitled to separation pay.11
Labor Arbiter Facundo L. Leda (Labor Arbiter Leda) decided the Complaint,
finding no convincing proof of G.J.T. Rebuilders alleged serious business
losses.
Labor Arbiter Leda, in the Decision12 dated December 28, 1999, found that
Ricardo, Russell, and Benjamin were entitled to separation pay under Article
283 of the Labor Code. In contrast with the Labor Arbiters finding, the
National Labor Relations Commission found G.J.T. Rebuilders to have
suffered serious business losses. Because of the fire that destroyed the
building where G.J.T. Rebuilders was renting space, the demand for its
services allegedly declined as "no same customer would dare to entrust
machine works to be done for them in a machine shop lying in a ruined and
condemned building."
the National Labor Relations Commission vacated and set aside Labor Arbiter
Ledas Decision and dismissed the Complaint for lack of merit. Since the
Commission found that G.J.T. Rebuilders ceased operations due to serious
business losses, it held that G.J.T. Rebuilders and the Trillana spouses need
not pay Ricardo, Russell, and Benjamin separation pay.
Ruling:
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 14 of 61
G.J.T. Rebuilders must pay respondents their separation pay for failure to
prove its alleged serious business losses
It would indeed be stretching the intent and spirit of the law if [courts] were
to unjustly interfere with the managements prerogative to close or cease its
business operations just because [the] business operation or undertaking is
not suffering from any loss or simply to provide the workers continued
employment.39
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 15 of 61
The only time employers are not compelled to pay separation pay is when
they closed their establishments or undertaking due to serious business
losses or financial reverses.42
The burden of proving serious business losses is with the employer.45 The
employer must show losses on the basis of financial statements covering a
sufficient period of time.
Aside from the obligation to pay separation pay, employers must comply
with the notice requirement under Article 283 of the Labor Code. Employers
must serve a written notice on the affected employees and on the
Department of Labor and Employment at least one month before the
intended date of closure. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the
employer liable for nominal damages.55
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 16 of 61
Respondent filed a complaint10 for illegal dismissal and money claims for
13th and 14th month pay, bonuses and other benefits, as well as the
payment of moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees. Respondent
posits the following allegations in his Position Paper:11
Respondent avers that at around 11:30 a.m. of the same day, he received a
phone call from his wifes colleague who informed him that a bombing
incident occurred near his wifes work station in Tel Aviv, Israel where his
wife was then working as a caregiver.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 17 of 61
Respondent claims that after the said phone call, he proceeded to the Israeli
Embassy to confirm the news on the alleged bombing incident. Respondent
further claims that before he left the office on the day of the random drug
test, he first informed the secretary of his Department.
The NLRC further stated that these circumstances have clearly established
the falsity of respondents claims and found no justifiable reason for
respondent to refuse to submit to the petitioner corporations random drug
test. While the NLRC acknowledged that it was petitioner corporations own
Investigating Panel that considered respondents failure to take the required
drug test as mere "avoidance" and not "unjustified refusal," it concluded that
such finding was merely recommendatory to guide top management on what
action to take.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 18 of 61
Granting that you indeed received that alleged call, from your own account,
there was no compelling reason for you to act on it at the expense of your
scheduled drug testing. The call, as it were, merely stated that something
wrong happened (sic) in their neighborhood, where a bomb exploded near
her workstation. Nothing was said if your wife was affected. There is no
point in confirming it with extraordinary haste and forego the drug test
which would have taken only a few minutes to accomplish. If at all, you
should have undergone the drug testing first before proceeding to confirm
the news so as to leave your mind free from this obligation.
issue: whether the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its jurisdiction when
it construed that the terms "failure," "avoidance," "refusal" and "unjustified
refusal" have similar meanings; reversed the factual findings of the Labor
Arbiter.
Ruling:
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 19 of 61
Petitioner corporations subject Anti-Drugs Policy fell short of being fair and
reasonable.
First. The policy was not clear on what constitutes "unjustified refusal" when
the subject drug policy prescribed that an employees "unjustified refusal" to
submit to a random drug test shall be punishable by the penalty of
termination for the first offense. To be sure, the term "unjustified refusal"
could not possibly cover all forms of "refusal" as the employees resistance,
to be punishable by termination, must be "unjustified."
Finally, the petition avers that petitioner Bautista should not be held
personally liable for respondents dismissal as he acted in good faith and
within the scope of his official functions as then president of petitioner
corporation. We agree with petitioners.1wphi1 Both decisions of the Labor
Arbiter and the CA did not discuss the basis of the personal liability of
petitioner Bautista, and yet the dispositive portion of the decision of the
Labor Arbiter - which was affirmed by the appellate court - held him jointly
and severally liable with petitioner corporation, viz.:
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 20 of 61
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 21 of 61
petitioners filed a third complaint against the former, for illegal dismissal,
regularization, nonpayment of salaries and 13th month pay, unfair labor
practice, damages and attorneys fees.
The Issue
Whether or not the CA seriously and reversibly erred in brushing aside the
determination made by both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC of the existence
of an employer-employee relationship between the parties, despite
established jurisprudence supporting the same.
To determine the existence of said relation, case law has consistently applied
the four-fold test, to wit: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(b) the payment of wages;(c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's
power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the
work is accomplished.23 Of these criteria, the so-called "control test" is
generally regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the
presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. Under this test,
an employer-employee relationship is said to exist where the person for
whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the
end result but also the manner and means utilized to achieve the same.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 22 of 61
it has been ruled that the test to determine whether employment is regular
or not is the reasonable connection between the activity performed by the
employee in relation to the business or trade of the employer
the record shows that, from their initial engagement in the aforesaid
capacities, petitioners were continuously re-hired by respondents over the
years. To the mind of the Court, respondents repeated hiring of petitioners
for its long-running news program positively indicates that the latter were
ABS-CBNs regular employees.
If the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if
the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the
repeated or continuing performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if
not indispensability of that activity in the business.29 Indeed, an
employment stops being co-terminous with specific projects where the
employee is continuously re-hired due to the demands of the employers
business.
The nature of the employment depends, after all, on the nature of the
activities to be performed by the employee, considering the nature of the
employers business, the duration and scope to be done, and, in some cases,
even the length of time of the performance and its continued existence.32
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 23 of 61
it also appears that petitioners were subject to the control and supervision of
respondents which, first and foremost, provided them with the equipments
essential for the discharge of their functions. Prepared at the instance of
respondents, petitioners Talent Contracts tellingly provided that ABS-CBN
retained "all creative, administrative, financial and legal control" of the
program to which they were assigned
The presumption is that when the work done is an integral part of the
regular business of the employer and when the worker, relative to the
employer, does not furnish an independent business or professional service,
such work is a regular employment of such employee and not an
independent contractor. The Court will peruse beyond any such agreement
to examine the facts that typify the parties actual relationship.38 (Emphasis
omitted)
the Court finds that the reinstatement of petitioners ordered by said labor
officer and tribunal should, as a relief provided in case of illegal dismissal, be
left for determination in said case.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 24 of 61
Held: NO.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 25 of 61
payment of nominal damages. This was the principle laid down in the
landmark cases of Agabon v. NLRC9 (Agabon) and Jaka Food Processing
Corporation v. Pacot10 (Jaka). In the assailed Decision, the Court actually
extended the application of the Agabon and Jaka rulings to breaches of
company procedure, notwithstanding the employers compliance with the
statutory requirements under the Labor Code.11 Hence, although Abbott did
not comply with its own termination procedure, its non-compliance thereof
would not detract from the finding that there subsists a valid cause to
terminate Alcarazs employment. Abbott, however, was penalized for its
contractual breach and thereby ordered to pay nominal damages.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 26 of 61
On the other hand, petitioners argued that respondent knew that his
Teachers Contract for school year 1994-1995 with CSR would expire on
March 31, 1995. Accordingly, respondent was not dismissed but his
probationary contract merely expired and was not renewed. Petitioners also
claimed that the three years mentioned in paragraph 75 of the 1970
Manual refer to 36 months, not three school years. And since respondent
served for only three school years of 10 months each or 30 months, then he
had not yet served the three years or 36 months mentioned in paragraph
75 of the 1970 Manual.
Labor Arbiter ruled that three school years means three years of 10
months, not 12 months.16Considering that respondent had already served
for three consecutive school years, then he has already attained regular
employment status. Thus, the non-renewal of his contract for school year
1995-1996 constitutes illegal dismissal.
Issue: WON CA an error on ruling that the respondent already attained the
regular employee status for serving the petitioner school 3 consecutive
school years.
Held: NO.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 27 of 61
In this case, glaringly absent from petitioners evidence are the reasonable
standards that respondent was expected to meet that could have served as
proper guidelines for purposes of evaluating his performance. Nowhere in
the Teachers Contractcould such standards be found.Neither was it
mentioned that the same were ever conveyed to respondent. Even assuming
that respondent failed to meet the standards set forth by CSR and made
known to the former at the time he was engaged as a teacher on
probationary status, still, the termination was flawed for failure to give the
required notice to respondent. This is because Book VI, Rule I, Section 2 of
the IRR of the Labor Code provides:chanrobles virtua1aw 1ibrary
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 28 of 61
x x x x
x x x x
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 29 of 61
In the event that Mr. Austria gives up the Dean position or fails to meet the
standards of the (sic) based on the evaluation of his immediate superior, he
shall be considered for a faculty position and the appointee agrees that he
shall lose the transportation allowance he enjoys as Dean and be entitled to
his faculty rate.
3) gross inefficiency.
Issue:
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 30 of 61
Held:
The instant case falls squarely within the aforesaid exception. The Labor
Arbiter held that, while petitioners did not prove the existence of just causes
in order to warrant respondent's dismissal, the latter's employment as dean
ceased to exist upon expiration of respondent's term of employment on
September 17, 2000. In sum, the Labor Arbiter held that the nature of
respondent's employment is one for a fixed term. On the other hand, the
NLRC and the CA both held that respondent is a regular employee because
respondent had fully served the three (3)-month probationary period
required in the Handbook, which the petitioners failed to deny or contravene
in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter.
Prior to his dismissal, respondent held the position of college dean. The
letter of appointment states that he was officially confirmed as Dean of AMA
College, Paraaque, effective from April 17, 2000 to September 17, 2000.
Petitioners submit that the nature of respondent's employment as dean is
one with a fixed term.
We held that Article 280 of the Labor Code does not proscribe or prohibit an
employment contract with a fixed period. Even if the duties of the employee
consist of activities necessary or desirable in the usual business of the
employer, the parties are free to agree on a fixed period of time for the
performance of such activities. There is nothing essentially contradictory
between a definite period of employment and the nature of the employees
duties
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 31 of 61
the intention set forth in Brent School that the deanship may be rotated
among the other members of the faculty.
Second. The fact that respondent did not sign the letter of appointment is of
no moment.
The fact that respondent voluntarily accepted the employment, assumed the
position, and performed the functions of dean is clear indication that he
knowingly and voluntarily consented to the terms and conditions of the
appointment, including the fixed period of his deanship. Other than the
handwritten notes made in the letter of appointment, no evidence was ever
presented to show that respondents consent was vitiated, or that
respondent objected to the said appointment or to any of its conditions.
Furthermore, in his status as dean, there can be no valid inference that he
was shackled by any form of moral dominance exercised by AMA and the
rest of the petitioners.
Thus, the unanimous finding of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA that
respondent adequately refuted all the charges against him assumes
relevance only insofar as respondents dismissal from the service was
effected by petitioners before expiration of the fixed period of employment.
True, petitioners erred in dismissing the respondent, acting on the mistaken
belief that respondent was liable for the charges leveled against him. But
respondent also cannot claim entitlement to any benefit flowing from such
employment after September 17, 2000, because the employment, which is
the source of the benefits, had, by then, already ceased to exist.
Finally, while this Court adheres to the principle of social justice and
protection to labor, the constitutional policy to provide such protection to
labor is not meant to be an instrument to oppress employers. The
commitment under the fundamental law is that the cause of labor does not
prevent us from sustaining the employer when the law is clearly on its side.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 32 of 61
TIROL VS NLRC
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----x
The NLRC in this case affirmed the decision of Labor Arbiter Carreon in its
Decision with the modification that private respondent pay backwages
computed from the respective dates of dismissal until finality of the decision.
As a recourse, private respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA,
alleging that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in
promulgating its assailed decision and denying its motion for
reconsideration. The CA granted the petition, therefore, annulling and
setting aside the decision and resolution of the NLRC as to the award for
backwages and remanded the case to the same public respondent for the
proper computation of the backwages due to each of the petitioners herein.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 33 of 61
The only discrepancy is the Order of the NLRC that petitioners are entitled to
backwages up to the finality of its decision, when as project employees,
private respondents are only entitled to payment of backwages until the
date of the completion of the project.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 34 of 61
Applying the above disquisition, this Court agrees with the findings
of the CA that petitioners were project employees. It is not disputed
that petitioners were hired for the construction of the Cordova Reef Village
Resort in Cordova, Cebu. By the nature of the contract alone, it is clear that
petitioners' employment was to carry out a specific project. Hence, the CA
did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it affirmed the findings of the
Labor Arbiter.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 35 of 61
Facts:
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 36 of 61
On the other hand, respondent denied having hired the petitioner as its
regular employee. It instead argued that petitioner was hired by a certain
Antoy Caaveral, the manager of the hacienda at the time it was owned by
Mr. Bower and leased by Manuel Gonzales, a jai-alai pelotari known as
Ybarra. Respondent added that it was not obliged to absorb the employees
of the former owner.
Held: Article 280 of the Labor Code provides that there are two kinds of
REGULAR EMPLOYEES, namely:
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 37 of 61
If the law has been performing the job for at least a year, even if the
performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the
repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of
the necessity, if not indispensability, of that activity to the business.
Petitioner was engaged to perform carpentry work. His services were needed
for a period of 2 years until such time that respondent decided not to give
him work assignment anymore. Owing to his length of service, petitioner
became a regular employee, by operation of law.
In this case, apart from the respondents bare allegation that petitioner was
a project employee, it had not shown that petitioner was informed that he
would be assigned to a specific project or undertaking. Neither was it
established that he was informed of the duration and scope of such project
or undertaking at the time of his engagement.
Petition granted.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 38 of 61
Services for the said project went on smoothly until Alltel sent two (2)
letters to Sykes Asia informing the latter that it was terminating all support
services provided by Sykes Asia related to the Alltel Project. In view of this
development, Sykes Asia sent each of the petitioners end-of-life
notices,16 informing them of their dismissal from employment due to the
termination of the Alltel Project. Aggrieved, petitioners filed separate
complaints17 for illegal dismissal against respondents Sykes Asia, Chuck
Sykes, the President and Chief Operating Officer of Sykes Enterprise, Inc.,
and Mike Hinds and Michael Henderson, the President and Operations
Director, respectively, of Sykes Asia (respondents), praying for
reinstatement, backwages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay,
night shift differential, moral and exemplary damages, and attorneys fees.
In their complaints, petitioners alleged that their dismissal from service was
unjust as the same was effected without substantive and procedural due
process.18
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 39 of 61
Contrary to the LAs finding, the NLRC found that petitioners could not be
properly characterized as project-based employees, ratiocinating that while
it was made known to petitioners that their employment would be co-
terminus to the Alltel Project, it was neither determined nor made known to
petitioners, at the time of hiring, when the said project would end, be
terminated, or be completed.32 In this relation, the NLRC concluded that
inasmuch as petitioners had been engaged to perform activities which are
necessary or desirable in respondents usual business or trade of BPO,
petitioners should be deemed regular employees of Sykes Asia.33 This
notwithstanding, and in view of the cessation of the Alltel Project, the NLRC
found petitioners employment with Sykes Asia to be redundant; hence,
declared that they were legally dismissed from service and were only
entitled to receive their respective separation pay.34
CA annulled and set aside the ruling of the NLRC, and accordingly, reinstated
that of the LA.40 It held that a perusal of petitioners respective employment
contracts readily shows that they were hired exclusively for the Alltel Project
and that it was specifically stated therein that their employment would be
project-based.41 The CA further held that petitioners employment contracts
need not state an actual date as to when their employment would end,
opining that it is enough that such date is determinable.42
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 40 of 61
In Omni Hauling Services, Inc. v. Bon,49 the Court extensively discussed how
to determine whether an employee may be properly deemed project-based
or regular, to wit:
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 41 of 61
In this case, records reveal that Sykes Asia adequately informed petitioners
of their employment status at the time of their engagement, as evidenced by
the latters employment contracts which similarly provide that they were
hired in connection with the Alltel Project, and that their positions were
"project-based and as such is co-terminus to the project." In this light, the
CA correctly ruled that petitioners were indeed project-based employees,
considering that: (a) they were hired to carry out a specific undertaking, i.e.,
the Alltel Project; and (b) the duration and scope of such project were made
known to them at the time of their engagement, i.e., "co-terminus with the
project."
As regards the second requisite, the CA correctly stressed that "[t]he law
and jurisprudence dictate that the duration of the undertaking begins and
ends at determined or determinable times" while clarifying that "[t]he
phrase determinable times simply means capable of being determined or
fixed."51 In this case, Sykes Asia substantially complied with this requisite
when it expressly indicated in petitioners employment contracts that their
positions were "co-terminus with the project." To the mind of the Court, this
caveat sufficiently apprised petitioners that their security of tenure with
Sykes Asia would only last as long as the Alltel Project was subsisting. In
other words, when the Alltel Project was terminated, petitioners no longer
had any project to work on, and hence, Sykes Asia may validly terminate
them from employment. Further, the Court likewise notes the fact that
Sykes Asia duly submitted an Establishment Employment Report52 and an
Establishment Termination Report53 to the Department of Labor and
Employment Makati-Pasay Field Office regarding the cessation of the Alltel
Project and the list of employees that would be affected by such cessation.
As correctly pointed out by the CA, case law deems such submission as an
indication that the employment was indeed project-based.54
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 42 of 61
Respondent Rosario Lorenzo received, upon inquiry, a letter from the Social
Security System (SSS) Western Visayas Group informing her that she cannot
avail of their retirement benefits since per their record she has only paid 16
months. Such is 104 months short of the minimum requirement of 120
months payment to be entitle to the benefit. She was also informed that
their investigation of her alleged employment under employer Hda. Cataywa
could not be confirmed because Manuel Villanueva was permanently residing
in Manila and Joemarie Villanueva denied having managed the farm. She
was also advised of her options: continue paying contributions as voluntary
member; request for refund; leave her contributions in-trust with the
System, or file a petition before the Social Security Commission (SSC) so
that liabilities, if any, of her employer may be determined.3cralawred
Aggrieved, respondent then filed her Amended Petition before the SSC. She
alleged that she was employed as laborer in Hda. Cataywa managed by Jose
Marie Villanueva in 1970 but was reported to the SSS only in 1978. She
alleged that SSS contributions were deducted from her wages from 1970 to
1995, but not all were remitted to the SSS which, subsequently, caused the
rejection of her claim. She also impleaded Talisay Farms, Inc. by virtue of its
Investment Agreement with Mancy and Sons Enterprises.
Petitioners Manuel and Jose Villanueva refuted in their answer, the allegation
that not all contributions of respondent were remitted. Petitioners alleged
that all farm workers of Hda. Cataywa were reported, their contributions
were duly paid and remitted to SSS. It was the late Domingo Lizares, Jr.
who managed and administered the hacienda.5 While, Talisay Farms, Inc.
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action in the
absence of an allegation that there was an employer-employee relationship
between Talisay Farms and respondent.6cralawred
this Commission finds, and so holds, that Rosario M. Lorezo was a regular
employee subject to compulsory coverage of Hda. Cataywa/Manuel
Villanueva/ Mancy and Sons Enterprises, Inc. within the period of 1970 to
February 25, 1990. In view thereof, the aforenamed respondents are hereby
ordered to pay jointly and severallyall delinquent contributions within the
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 43 of 61
The SSS, on the other hand, is ordered to pay (subject to existing rules and
regulations) petitioner Rosario M. Lorezo her retirement benefit, upon the
filing of the claim therefor, and to inform this Commission of its compliance
herewith.
The SSC denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. The petitioner, then,
elevated the case before the CA where the case was dismissed outrightly
due to technicalities.
wlawlibrary
Petitioners are of the opinion that the SSC committed reversible error in
making conclusions founded on speculations and surmises that respondent
worked from 1970 to February 25, 1990. Petitioners argue that the SSC did
not give credence nor weight at all to the existing SSS Form R-1A and farm
bookkeeper Wilfredo Ibalobor. Petitioners insist that after thirty long years,
all the records of the farm were already destroyed by termites and elements,
thus, they relied on the SSS Form R-1A as the only remaining source of
information available. Petitioners also alleged that respondent was a very
casual worker.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 44 of 61
merely reflected the time in which the petitioners reported the respondent
for coverage of the SSS benefit. They failed to substantiate their claim that it
was only in 1978 that respondent reported for work.
The records are bereft of any showing that Demetria Denaga and Susano
Jugue harbored any ill will against the petitioners prompting them to execute
false affidavit. There lies no reason for this Court not to afford full faith and
credit to their testimonies. Denaga, in her Joint Affidavit with Jugue, stated
that she and respondent started working in Hda. Cataywa in 1970 and like
her, she was reported to the SSS on December 19, 1978.18 It was also
revealed in the records that the SSC found that Denaga was employed by
Manuel Villanueva at Hda. Cataywa from 1970 to December
1987.19cralawred
The nature of the services performed and not the duration thereof, is
determinative of coverage under the law.25 To be exempted on the basis of
casual employment, the services must not merely be irregular, temporary or
intermittent, but the same must not also be in connection with the business
or occupation of the employer.26 Thus, it is erroneous for the petitioners to
conclude that the respondent was a very casual worker simply because the
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 45 of 61
SSS form revealed that she had 16 months of contributions. It does not, in
any way, prove that the respondent performed a job which is not in
connection with the business or occupation of the employer to be considered
as casual employee.
A reading of the records would reveal that petitioners failed to dispute the
allegation that the respondent performed hacienda work, such as planting
sugarcane point, fertilizing, weeding, replanting dead sugarcane fields and
routine miscellaneous hacienda work.29 They merely alleged that respondent
was a very casual worker because she only rendered work for 16
months.30 Thus, respondent is considered a regular seasonal worker and not
a casual worker as the petitioners alleged.
Petitioners also assert that the sugarcane cultivation covers only a period of
six months, thus, disproving the allegation of the respondent that she
worked for 11 months a year for 25 years. This Court has classified farm
workers as regular seasonal employees who are called to work from time to
time and the nature of their relationship with the employer is such that
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 46 of 61
during the off season, they are temporarily laid off; but reemployed during
the summer season or when their services may be needed.31 Respondent,
therefore, as a farm worker is only a seasonal employee. Since petitioners
provided that the cultivation of sugarcane is only for six] months,
respondent cannot be considered as regular employee during the months
when there is no cultivation.
Based on the foregoing facts and evidence on record, petitioners are liable
for delinquent contributions. It being proven by sufficient evidence that
respondent started working for the hacienda in 1970, it follows that
petitioners are liable for deficiency in the SSS contributions.
The imposition upon and payment by the delinquent employer of the three
percent (3%) penalty for the late remittance of premium contributions is
mandatory and cannot be waived by the System. The law merely gives to
the Commission the power to prescribe the manner of paying the premiums.
Thus, the power to remit or condone the penalty for late remittance of
premium contributions is not embraced therein.32 Petitioners erred in
alleging that the imposition of penalty is not proper.
The law provides that should the employer misrepresent the true date of the
employment of the employee member, such employer shall pay to the SSS
damages equivalent to the difference between the amount of benefit to
which the employee member or his beneficiary is entitled had the proper
contributions been remitted to the SSS and the amount payable on the basis
of the contributions actually remitted. However, should the employee
member or his beneficiary is entitled to pension benefits, the damages shall
be equivalent to the accumulated pension due as of the date of settlement of
the claim or to the five years' pension, whichever is higher, including the
dependent's pension.33cralawred
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 47 of 61
Article I of the CBA defined the scope of the bargaining unit, as follows:
xxxxxxxx
6. Confidential and Executive Secretaries
xxxxxxxxx
12. Purchasing and Quality Control
[6]
Staff [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED.]
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 48 of 61
Machine Gauge Technician who formed part of the Quality Control Staff.
Twenty (20) checkers are assigned at the Materials Department of the
Administration Division, Full Goods Department of the Brewery Division and
Packaging Division. The rest are secretaries/clerks directly under their
respective division managers.
ISSUES:
RULING:
1. NO.
We thus hold that the secretaries/clerks, numbering about forty (40), are
rank-and-file employees and not confidential employees.
the twenty (20) checkers are not confidential employees being quality
control staff entrusted with the handling and custody of company properties
and sensitive information assigned in the storeroom section of the Materials
Department, finishing section of the Packaging Department, and the
decorating and glass sections of the Production Department plainly showed
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 49 of 61
that they perform routine and mechanical tasks preparatory to the delivery
of the finished products. While it may be argued that quality control extends
to post-production phase -- proper packaging of the finished products -- no
evidence was presented by the respondent to prove that these daily-paid
checkers actually form part of the companys Quality Control Staff who as
such were exposed to sensitive, vital and confidential information about
[companys] products or have knowledge of mixtures of the products, their
defects, and even their formulas which are considered trade secrets.
2. NO.
Considering that the herein dispute arose from a simple disagreement in the
interpretation of the CBA provision on excluded employees from the
bargaining unit, respondent cannot be said to have committed unfair labor
practice that restrained its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, nor have thereby demonstrated an anti-union stance.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 50 of 61
Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers right to organize.
The prohibited acts are related to the workers right to self organization and
to the observance of a CBA. For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper,
it must be shown that ABI was motivated by ill will, bad faith, or fraud, or
was oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs, or public policy, and, of course, that social humiliation, wounded
feelings or grave anxiety resulted x x xfrom ABIs act in discontinuing the
union dues deduction from those employees it believed were excluded by the
CBA.
After several verbal and written communications, Arlene and Fuji signed a
non-renewal contract where it was stipulated that her contract would no
longer be renewed after its expiration. The contract also provided that the
parties release each other from liabilities and responsibilities under the
employment contract.
On May 6, 2009, the day after Arlene signed the non-renewal contract, she
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and attorneys fees with the National
Capital Region Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission. She alleged that she was forced to sign the nonrenewal
contract when Fuji came to know of her illness and that Fuji withheld her
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 51 of 61
salaries and other benefits for March and April 2009 when she refused to
sign.
ISSUE:
RULING:
1. Yes.
This court has often used the four-fold test to determine the existence of
an employer-employee relationship. Under the four-fold test, the "control
test" is the most important.134 As to how the elements in the four-fold
test are proven, this court has discussed that:
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 52 of 61
For regular employees, the necessity and desirability of their work in the
usual course of the employers business are the determining factors. On the
other hand, independent contractors do not have employer-employee
relationships with their principals. Hence, before the status of employment
can be determined, the existence of an employer-employee relationship
must be established.
Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err when it upheld the findings of the
National Labor Relations Commission that Arlene was not an independent
contractor.
2.YES.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 53 of 61
The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the National Labor Relations
Commission that the successive renewals of Arlenes contract indicated the
necessity and desirability of her work in the usual course of Fujis business.
Because of this, Arlene had become a regular employee with the right to
security of tenure.
FACTS:
The Union asserted that the hiring of contractual employees from PESO is
not a management prerogative and in gross violation of the CBA tantamount
to unfair labor practice (ULP). It noted that the contractual workers engaged
have been assigned to work in positions previously handled by regular
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 54 of 61
The Union moreover advanced that sustaining the Company's position would
easily weaken and ultimately destroy the former with the latter's resort to
retrenchment and/or retirement of employees and not filling up the vacant
regular positions through the hiring of contractual workers from PESO, and
that a possible scenario could also be created by the Company wherein it
could "import" workers from PESO during an actual strike.
Company argued that: (a) the law expressly allows contracting and
subcontracting arrangements through Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) Order No. 18-02; (b) the engagement of contractual employees did
not, in any way, prejudice the Union, since not a single employee was
terminated and neither did it result in a reduction of working hours nor a
reduction or splitting of the bargaining unit; and (c) Section 4, Article I of
the CBA merely provides for the definition of the categories of employees
and does not put a limitation on the Company's right to engage the services
of job contractors or its management prerogative to address
temporary/occasional needs in its operation.
Issue: WON the Company is guilty of unfair labor acts in engaging the
services of PESO, in violation of the CBA. Yes.
Ruling:
A collective bargaining agreement is the law between the parties: It is
familiar and fundamental doctrine in labor law that the CBA is the law
between the parties and they are obliged to comply with its provisions.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 55 of 61
Note:
Section 1, Article III (Union Security) of the CBA, which states: Section 1.
Condition of Employment. As a condition of continued employment in the
Company, all regular rank-and-file employees shall remain members of the
Union in good standing and that new employees covered by the appropriate
bargaining unit shall automatically become regular employees of the
Company and shall remain members of the Union in good standing as a
condition of continued employment.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 56 of 61
FACTS:
Petitioners worked as merchandisers of P&G from various dates, allegedly
starting as early as 1982 or as late as June 1991, to either May 5, 1992 or
March 11, 1993,
Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit and ruled that there
was no employer-employee relationship between petitioners and P&G.
Affirmed by NLRC and CA.
Petitioners insist that they are employees of P&G. They claim that they were
recruited by the salesmen of P&G and were engaged to undertake
merchandising chores for P&G long before the existence of Promm-Gem
and/or SAPS. They further claim that when the latter had its so-called re-
alignment program, petitioners were instructed to fill up application forms
and report to the agencies which P&G created.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 57 of 61
P&G also contends that the Labor Code neither defines nor limits which
services or activities may be validly outsourced.Thus, an employer can farm
out any of its activities to an independent contractor, regardless of whether
such activity is peripheral or core in nature. It insists that the determination
of whether to engage the services of a job contractor or to engage in direct
hiring is within the ambit of management prerogative.
RULING 1:
ART. 106. Contractor or subcontractor. (Labor Code)
Rule VIII-A, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as
amended by Department Order No. 18-02,[24] distinguishes between
legitimate and labor-only contracting:
Clearly, the law and its implementing rules allow contracting arrangements
for the performance of specific jobs, works or services. Indeed, it is
management prerogative to farm out any of its activities, regardless of
whether such activity is peripheral or core in nature. However, in order for
such outsourcing to be valid, it must be made to an independent contractor
because the current labor rules expressly prohibit labor-only contracting.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 58 of 61
ii) The contractor does not exercise the right to control over the performance
of the work of the contractual employee. (Underscoring supplied)
On the other hand, the Articles of Incorporation of SAPS shows that it has a
paid-in capital of only P31,250.00. There is no other evidence presented to
show how much its working capital and assets are. Furthermore, there is no
showing of substantial investment in tools, equipment or other assets.
Furthermore, the petitioners have been charged with the merchandising and
promotion of the products of P&G, an activity that has already been
considered by the Court as doubtlessly directly related to the manufacturing
business,[38] which is the principal business of P&G. Considering that SAPS
has no substantial capital or investment and the workers it recruited are
performing activities which are directly related to the principal business of
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 59 of 61
RULING:
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 60 of 61
While Promm-Gem had complied with the procedural aspect of due process
in terminating the employment of petitioners-employees, i.e., giving two
notices and in between such notices, an opportunity for the employees to
answer and rebut the charges against them, it failed to comply with the
substantive aspect of due process as the acts complained of neither
constitute serious misconduct nor breach of trust. Hence, the dismissal is
illegal.
With regard to the petitioners placed with P&G by SAPS, they were given no
written notice of dismissal. The records show that upon receipt by SAPS of
P&Gs letter terminating their Merchandising Services Contact effective March
11, 1993, they in turn verbally informed the concerned petitioners not to
report for work anymore.
Going back to the matter of dismissal, it must be emphasized that the onus
probandi to prove the lawfulness of the dismissal rests with the
employer.[53] In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the
employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause.[54] In the
instant case, P&G failed to discharge the burden of proving the legality and
validity of the dismissals of those petitioners who are considered its
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira
Page 61 of 61
employees. Hence, the dismissals necessarily were not justified and are
therefore illegal.
Labrador Notes Labor law Review Case Digests Set 1 Atty. Beceira