Consolidated Cases in Labor

Shiera Mae L.
Dizon
Labor Law Review
Summary Outline of Labor Law Case
Title of the Case Labor Standards/ Issue
G.R. No Labor Relations Ruling
[G.R. No. 207639. July 1, Labor Standard Issue: WON the CA correctly
2015.] affirmed the NLRC ruling
BAHIA SHIPPING Health, safety and holding respondent to be
SERVICES, INC. and/or V- social welfare benefits entitled to permanent total
SHIP NORWAY and/or disability benefits.
CYNTHIA C. MENDOZA, - Disability
petitioners, vs. CARLOS L. Benefits
FLORES, JR., * respondent. Ruling: YES, that respondent
is deemed to be suffering
from a permanent total
disability. A temporary total
disability only becomes
permanent when so declared
by the company physician
within the periods he is
allowed to do so, or upon the
expiration of the maximum
240-day medical treatment
period without a declaration
of either fitness to work or the
existence of a permanent
disability. In the present case,
while the initial 120-day
treatment or temporary total
disability period was
exceeded, the company-
designated doctor duly made
a declaration well within the
extended 240-day period that
the petitioner was fit to work.
[G.R. No. 189262. July 6, Issue:
2015.] 1. Whether respondent was
GBMLT MANPOWER Labor Relation illegally dismissed
SERVICES, INC., petitioner, 2. Whether the Quitclaim and
vs. MA. VICTORIA H. Illegally Dismissal Release was valid
MALINAO, respondent. Rulīng:
NO. Respondent was not

illegally dismissed.
Under Section 10 of R.A.

8042, workers who are
illegally terminated are
entitled to their salaries for
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
the unexpired portion of their
employment contracts or for
three months for every year
of the unexpired term,
whichever is less, in addition
to the reimbursement of their
placement fee with interest at
the rate of 12% per annum.
This applies only to an

illegally dismissed overseas
contract worker or a worker
dismissed from overseas
employment without just,
valid or authorized cause as
defined by law or contract.
Respondent was not illegally
dismissed.
Article X of the POEA-

approved Contract of
Employment, as well as the
second contract given to
respondent for signing upon
her arrival in Ethiopia,
provides: “This contract may
be terminated by either
party, at any time and for
no cause by giving three
months notice to the other
party.
2. YES. The Quitclaim and

Release is valid.
Where a person executing a

waiver or quitclaim has done
so voluntarily with a full
understanding of its terms
and conditions, coupled with
the other person's payment of
credible and reasonable
consideration, the transaction
is valid and binding.
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
[G.R. No. 183735. July 6, ISSUE: WON the dismissal

2015.] by reason of loss of trust and
SEGIFREDO T. VILCHEZ, Labor Relation confidence is lawful
petitioner, vs. FREE PORT
SERVICE CORPORATION - Dismissal RULING:
and ATTY. ROEL JOHN T. (1.) YES. Vilches was
KABIGTING, President, lawfully terminated.
respondents. Loss of trust and
confidence will
validate an
employee's dismissal
only upon compliance
with certain
requirements, namely:
(a) the employee concerned

must be holding a position of
trust and confidence; and
(b) there must be an act that
would justify the loss of trust
and confidence.
In order to constitute a just

cause for dismissal, the act
complained of must be work-
related such as would show
employee concerned to be
unfit to continue working for
the employer.
In the present case, there is

no doubt that Vilches held a
position of trust and
confidence as respondents'
Physical Security Department
Manager responsible for the
department's operation and
administration and with about
800 people under his charge.
Secondly, his failure to

produce the licenses of the
100 security personnel for
two years and to account for
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
the money received is
definitely an important aspect
of his work as Free Port’s
Department Manager. He
failed to perform what he had
represented or what was
expected of him, thus,
respondents had a valid
reason in losing confidence in
him which justified his
termination.
Further, failed to account and

produce the licenses of the
FSC Security personnel after
two (2) years from the date of
issuance of the check. This
act alone by Vilches
constitutes gross misconduct
and disobedience which is
already a sufficient ground for
his dismissal.
(2.) He could not just place

the blame on Col. Gerangco
when it was him who had the
obligation to secure the
licenses as represented.
Moreover, there was no
showing that Vilches had
exerted efforts for the
immediate release of the
licenses.
[G.R. No. 187491. July 8, ISSUE: Whether the LA’s
2015.] Decision has attained finality
FAR EAST BANK AND Lbor Relations in light of petitioner’s direct
TRUST COMPANY, filing of its appeal before the
petitioner, vs. LILIA S. NLRC instead of the Regional
CHUA, respondent. Arbitration Branch XII in
Cotabato City.
RULING:
YES.
 Art. 218 on the Powers of

Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
the Commission provides
that it shall “promulgate
rules and regulations
governing the hearing and
disposition of cases
before it and its regional
branches, as well as those
pertaining to its internal
functions and such rules
and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the
purposes of the Code.”
 Rule VI, Section 3 of the
1999 Rules of Procedure
of the NLRC that were in
effect when petitioner
appealed from LA’s
Decision provides for the
requisites that must be
satisfied for an appeal
from the LA’s decision
may be perfected:
(a) The appeal shall be
filed within the
reglementary period;
under oath with proof of
payment of the required
appeal fee and the posting
of a cash or surety bond;
accompanied by a
memorandum of appeal
which shall state the
grounds relied upon and
the arguments in support
thereof; the relief prayed
for; and a statement of the
date when the appellant
received the appealed
decision, order or award
and proof of service on
the other party of such
appeal.
(b) The appellee may file
with the Regional
Arbitration Branch,
Regional Office or in the
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
POEA where the appeal
was filed, his answer or
reply to appellant's
memorandum of appeal,
not later than 10 calendar
days from receipt thereof.
Failure on the part of the
appellee who was
properly furnished with a
copy of the appeal to file
his answer or reply within
the said period may be
construed as a waiver on
his part to file the same.
(c) Subject to the
provisions of Article 218,
once the appeal is
perfected in accordance
with these rules, the
Commission may limit
itself to reviewing and
deciding specific issues
that were elevated on
appeal.
 Rule VI, Section 4 of the
same rules stipulates that
appeal shall be filed with
the respective Regional
Arbitration Branch, the
Regional Office, or the
Philippine Overseas
Employment
Administration where the
case was heard and
decided.
[G.R. No. 199660. July 13, ISSUES:

2015.]
U-BIX CORPORATION and 1. WON MAPFRE is a
EDILBERTO B. BRAVO, bonding company
petitioners, vs. VALERIE Labor Standards accredited by both the
ANNE H. HOLLERO, NLRC and the Supreme
respondent. Court
2. WON Petitioner Bravo’s
signature in the indemnity
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
agreement constitutes his
personal guarantee of the
bond-
RULING:
1. Yes
That the CA erred in
concluding that the
supersedeas bond they
posted was irregular and
therefore has no force and
effect based on the OCA
certification that Mapfre's
authority to transact business
as a bonding company refers
only to civil and special
cases.
2.No, that petitioners failed to

comply with the bond
requirement in perfecting their
appeal. Article 223 of the
Labor Code provides in part: 
Article 223. Appeal.

Decisions, awards, or orders
of the Labor Arbiter are final
and executory unless
appealed to the Commission
by any or both parties within
ten (10) calendar days from
receipt of such decisions,
awards, or orders. x x x
xxxx
In case of a judgment
involving a monetary award,
an appeal by the employer
may be perfected only upon
the posting of a cash or
surety bond issued by a
reputable bonding company
duly accredited by the
Commission in the amount
equivalent to the monetary
award in the judgment
appealed from.
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
[G.R. No. 212049. July 15, ISSUE:

2015.] WON the CA committed
MAGSAYSAY MARITIME Labor Standards grave error in awarding
CORPORATION, PRINCESS Romeo Panoglinog
CRUISE LINES, MARLON R. - Total Disability permanent total disability
ROÑO and "STAR Benefits benefits.
PRINCESS," petitioners, vs.
ROMEO V. PANOGALINOG, RULING: YES.
respondent.
It is doctrinal that the
entitlement of seamen on
overseas work to disability
benefits is a matter
governed not only by
medical findings but by law
and by contract. Since
respondent's injury on board
the vessel "Star Princess"
Temporary total that caused his eventual
disability only repatriation was sustained
becomes permanent during the effectivity of the
CBA, his claim for the
when so declared by
payment of permanent total
the company- disability compensation shall
designated physician be governed by Article 12 (2)
within the periods he of the CBA. A seafarer shall
is allowed to do so, be entitled to the payment of
or upon the the full amount of disability
expiration of the compensation only if his
injury, regardless of the
maximum 240-day
degree of disability, results in
medical treatment loss of profession, i.e., his
period without a physical condition prevents a
declaration of either return to sea service. Based
fitness to work or the on the submissions of the
existence of a parties, this contractual
attribution refers to
permanent disability
permanent total disability
compensation as known in
labor law.
While respondent has the

right to seek the opinion of
other doctors under Section
20 (B) of the POEA-SEC and
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
the CBA, it bears stressing
that the employer is liable for
a seafarer's disability, arising
from a work-related injury or
illness, only after the degree
of disability has been
established by the company-
designated physician and, if
the seafarer consulted with a
physician of his choice whose
assessment disagrees with
that of the company
designated physician, the
disagreement must be
referred to a third doctor for a
final assessment. Petition
Granted.
[G.R. No. 205575. July 22, ISSUE/S:
2015.]
VISAYAN ELECTRIC Labor Relation 1 WON THE FILING OF
COMPANY EMPLOYEES THE PETITION MAY BE
UNION-ALU-TUCP and - Unfair labor ALLOWED DESPITE
CASMERO MAHILUM, practice ONE-DAY DELAY?
petitioners, vs. VISAYAN
ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. - Illegal Dismissal 2. WON NLRC
(VECO), respondent. COMMITTED A SERIOUS
ERROR IN ABSOLVING
VECO FROM THE
CHARGE OF UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE AND
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL OF
MAHILUM?
RULING:YES,
Section 4, Rule 65 of the

1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, certiorari should
be filed "not later than sixty
Two requisites for a (60) days from notice of the
judgment, order or resolution"
valid dismissal from
sought to be assailed.
employment have been
met, namely: (1) it must Therefore, the 60-day period
be for a just or within which to file a petition
authorized cause; and for certiorari ended on
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
(2) the employee must October 17, 2011. But the
be afforded due certiorari petition was filed
process. one day after, or on October
18, 2011.
The Court cannot subscribe

to the theory that the ends of
justice would be better
subserved by allowing a
petition for certiorari filed only
one-day late. When the law
fixes sixty (60) days, it cannot
be taken to mean also sixty-
one (61) days, as the Court
had previously declared.
Petitioners failed to
satisfactorily show that the
refusal of VECO to follow the
grievance machinery
procedure under Section 4,
Article XVII of the CBA in the
suspension and termination
from employment of the other
union officers and members
constituted unfair labor
practice.
Fundamental doctrine
As in this case, when general
in labor law that the and specific provisions of the
CBA is the law CBA are inconsistent, the
between the parties specific provision shall be
and they are obliged paramount to and govern the
to comply with its general provision.
provisions
Consistent with jurisprudential
rulings supporting an
employer's free reign and
"wide latitude of discretion to
regulate all aspects of
employment, including the
prerogative to instill
discipline in its employees
and to impose penalties,
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
including dismissal, upon
erring employees.
It is clear from the foregoing

that Mahilum was not an
ordinary rank and-file
employee. His job entailed
the observance of proper
company procedures relating
to processing and
determination of electrical
service applications
culminating in the signing of
service contracts, which
constitutes the very lifeblood
of VECO's existence.
Mahilum's job involved a high
degree of responsibility
requiring a substantial
amount of trust and
confidence on the part of his
employer.
The state's
responsibility to afford
Mahilum was terminated for a
protection to labor, this
just and valid cause. VECO
policy should not be
complied with the procedural
used as an instrument
due process requirements of
to oppress
furnishing Mahilum with two
management and
written notices before the
capital. In resolving
termination of employment
disputes between labor
can be effected.
and capital, fairness
and justice should
The fact that Mahilum served
always prevail. Social
the company for a
justice does not
considerable period of time
mandate that every
will not help his cause. The
dispute should be
longer an employee stays in
automatically decided
the service of the company,
in favor of labor.
the greater is his
Justice is to be granted
responsibility for knowledge
to the deserving and
and compliance with the
dispensed in the light
norms of conduct and the
of the established facts
code of discipline in the
and the applicable law
company.
and doctrine.
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
[ G.R. No. 188464. July 29, Labor Relation ISSUE: Whether petitioner
2015. ] Raza's numerous acts of
ALBERTO J. RAZA, - Dismissal taking the company car home
petitioner, vs. DAIKOKU overnight and lying about one
ELECTRONICS PHILS., INC. of the incidents to the
and MAMORU ONO, company president legally
respondents. ART. 282. deserve the supreme penalty
Termination by of dismissal from the
employer. — An company.
employer may
terminate an RULING:YES.
employment for any of
the following causes: Raza's acts amounted to
(a) Serious serious misconduct which
`misconduct or willful falls under the valid grounds
disobedience by the for termination of the services
employee of the of an employee as provided
lawful orders of his for in the Labor Code,
employer or
representative in Misconduct is improper or
connection with his wrongful conduct. It is the
work transgression of some
established and definite rule
of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction of duty, willful in
For misconduct to character, and implies
justify dismissal wrongful intent and not mere
under the law, (a) it error of judgment
must be serious, (b)
must relate to the In the case at bar, Raza was
terminated not for the singular
performance of the
act of taking home the
employee's duties; and company car but that the
(c) must show that the incident was preceded by 31
employee has become other instances of
unfit to continue unauthorized use of the car.
working for the By taking the vehicle out and
employer. driving it to his home, the
driver exposes such company
property to the risk of damage
or loss due to collisions, theft
or even untoward incidents
such as a fire or civil
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
disturbance. There is also a
risk of company liability to
third persons arising from
such use. In addition, such
use is not free of costs, since
the extra journey entails fuel
use, wear and tear, and other
allied expenses. The
infractions of Raza were
numerous enough that they
already amount to an
unlawful taking of company
resources and that they may
be subsumed under the
charge of serious misconduct
leveled against him.
ISSUE/S: WON QUIOGUE IS

[G.R. No. 211882. July 29, ENTITLED TO PERMANENT
2015.] Labor Relations AND TOTAL DIS ABILITY
ELBURG BENFITS AND OTHER
SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILS., - Total disabity CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES?
INC., ENTERPRISE Benefit
SHIPPING AGENCY SRL RULING: It is a well-settled
AND/OR EVANGELINE rule that if the medical
RACHO, petitioners, vs. treatment or evaluation
ERNESTO S. QUIOGUE, exceeds 240 days, the
JR., respondent seafarer is entitled to
permanent and total disability
benefits. The doctrine
recognizes that, in awarding
disability benefits to the
seaman, disability should
not be understood more on
its medical significance but
on the loss of earning
capacity.
The records show that

Quiogue still experienced
recurring pains in his injured
left foot. The company-
designated physician,
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
however, even with the
recurring pains, declared him
as fit to work. Thus, Quiogue
sought the opinion of his own
physician, Dr. Escutin, who
after the necessary tests and
examination declared him
unfit for sea duty in whatever
capacity as a seaman.
The right of a seafarer to

consult a physician of his
choice can only be sensible
when his findings are duly
evaluated by the labor
tribunals in awarding disability
claims.40
The credibility of the findings

of Quiogue's private doctor
was properly evaluated by the
NLRC when it found that the
findings of Dr. Escutin who
gave Grade 1 disability rating
was more appropriate and
applicable to the injury
suffered by Quiogue. With
these medical findings and
the fact that Quiogue failed to
be re-deployed by petitioners
despite the fit to work
assessment, Dr. Escutin's
assessment should be
upheld.
Even in the absence of an

official finding by Dr. Escutin,
Quiogue is deemed to have
suffered permanent total
disability.
The fact that Quiogue was

declared "fit to work" by the
company-designated
physician (with whom he
underwent treatment and
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
therapy from November 2010
to April 2011) on April 13,
2011 does not matter
because the certification was
issued beyond the authorized
120-day period.
There is no merit in
petitioners' argument that
Quiogue's entitlement to
permanent total disability
benefits was merely based on
his inability to return to work
for 120 days. He was entitled
to permanent and total
disability benefits not solely
because of his incapacity to
work for more than 120 days,
but also because the
company-designated
physician belatedly gave his
definite assessment on
Quiogue medical condition,
without any justifiable reason
therefor.
.[G.R. No. 215555. July 29, ISSUE: Whether there has
2015.] been constructive dismissal.
CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE Labor Relation
BAIS, INC. and ANTONIO RULING: No.
STEVEN L. CHAN, - Constructive
petitioners, vs. JANET T. Dismissal A judicious review of the
SIASON, respondent. records reveals that CABI's
accounting department
indeed made an audit of the
purchases made by the
company through its
Purchasing Officer, Siason.
This resulted in the discovery
of a number of questionable
discrepancies in several
purchasing transactions
undertaken by Siason,
consisting in different price
quotations for identical items
contained in various purchase
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
documents prepared by
Siason herself.
These circumstances show

that she was given the option
to voluntarily resign from
CABI, instead of dealing with
an investigation which might
result in her dismissal. Verily,
Chan's decision to give
Siason a graceful exit rather
than to file an action for
redress is perfectly within the
discretion of the former; as it
is not uncommon that an
employee is permitted to
resign to avoid the humiliation
and embarrassment of being
terminated for just cause after
the exposure of her
malfeasance. It is settled that
there is nothing reprehensible
or illegal when the employer
grants the employee a
chance to resign and save
face rather than smear the
latter's employment record,
as in this case.
In sum, petitioners did not

constructively dismiss Siason;
but rather, the latter
voluntarily resigned from her
job in order to avoid a full-
blown administrative trial
regarding her misdeeds
which could potentially result
in her termination for just
cause. While it may be said
that she did not tender her
resignation wholeheartedly,
circumstances of her own
making did not give her any
other option but to voluntarily
do so. Therefore, in view of
her voluntary resignation from
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
CABI, she is not entitled to
any separation pay in the
absence of any agreement
with petitioners providing for
such.
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
Title of the Case Labor Standards/ Labor ISSUE
G.R. No Relations RULING
[ G.R. No. 212096, ISSUE: Whether or not
October 14, 2015 ] Lumahan was illegally
NIGHTOWL WATCHMAN Labor Relation dismissed.
& SECURITY AGENCY,
INC., petitioner, vs. - Illegally dismissal RULING:
NESTOR LUMAHAN,
respondent. NO. The SC find that the
CA erred in disregarding
the NLRC's conclusion that
there had been no
dismissal, and in
immediately proceeding to
tackle Nightowl's defense
that Lumahan abandoned
his work.
In every employee
dismissal case, the
employer bears the burden
of proving the validity of
the employee's dismissal,
i.e., the existence of just or
authorized cause for the
dismissal and the
observance of the due
process requirements. The
employer's burden of proof,
however, presupposes that
the employee had in fact
been dismissed, with the
burden to prove the fact of
dismissal resting on the
employee. Without any
dismissal action on the part
of the employer, valid or
otherwise, no burden to
prove just or authorized
cause arises.
As no dismissal was
carried out in this case,
any consideration of
abandonment - as a
defense raised by an
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
employer in dismissal
situations -was clearly
misplaced. To our mind,
the CA again committed a
reversible error in
considering that Nightowl
raised abandonment as a
defense.
Abandonment, as
understood under our labor
laws, refers to the
deliberate and unjustified
refusal of an employee to
resume his employment. It
is a form of neglect of duty
that constitutes just cause
for the employer to dismiss
the employee.
Under this construct,

abandonment is a defense
available against the
employee who alleges a
dismissal. Thus, for the
employer "to successfully
invoke abandonment,
whether as a ground for
dismissing an employee or
as a defense, the employer
bears the burden of
proving the employee's
unjustified refusal to
resume his employment."
This burden, of course,
proceeds from the general
rule that places the burden
on the employer to prove
the validity of the
dismissal.
In cases where no
dismissal took place, the
proper award is
reinstatement, without
backwages, not as a relief
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
for any illegal dismissal but
on equitable grounds.
When, however,
reinstatement of the
employee is rendered
impossible, as when the
employee had been out for
a long period of time, the
award of separation pay is
proper.
[ G.R. No. 194410, ISSUE: Whether the

October 14, 2015 ] redundancy program was
OCEAN EAST AGENCY, Labor Relation legally implemented.
CORPORATION, ENGR.
ARTURO D. CARMEN, - Termination of RULING:
AND CAPT. NICOLAS employment
SKINITIS, petitioners, vs. NO.
ALLAN I. LOPEZ,
respondent. Redundancy exists when
the service capability of the
workforce is in excess of
what is reasonably needed
to meet the demands of
the enterprise. A redundant
position is one rendered
superfluous by any number
Article 283 of the Labor of factors, such as over
Code. For the hiring of workers,
implementation of a decreased volume of
redundancy program to be business, dropping of a
valid, the employer must particular product line
comply with these previously manufactured
requisites: by the company, or
(1) written notice phasing-out of a service
served on both the activity previously
employee and the undertaken by the
Department of Labor and business. Under these
Employment at least one factors, the employer has
month prior to the no legal obligation to keep
intended date of in its payroll more
retrenchment; employees than are
(2) payment of necessary for the operation
separation pay of its business. Even if a
equivalent to at least one business is doing well, an
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
month pay or at least employer can still validly
one month pay for every dismiss an employee from
year of service, the service due to
whichever is higher; redundancy if that
(3) good faith in employee's position has
abolishing the redundant already become in excess
positions; and of what the employer's
(4) fair and reasonable enterprise requires.
criteria in ascertaining
what positions are to be As an authorized cause for
declared redundant and termination of employment,
accordingly abolished. redundancy may be
implemented subject only
to strict requirements
spelled out in Article 283.
The Court finds that

petitioners failed to
establish compliance with
the first, third and fourth
requisites for a valid
implementation of a
redundancy program,
thereby making Ocean
East liable for illegal
dismissal.
In this case, petitioners

were able to establish
through Ocean East's
Quality Procedures Manual
that Lopez' position as a
Documentation Officer was
redundant because its
duties and functions were
similar to those of the
Documentation Clerks in
its operations department.
However, they failed to
prove by substantial
evidence their observance
of the fair and reasonable
criteria of seniority and
efficiency in ascertaining
the redundancy of the
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
position of Documentation
Officer, as well as good
faith on their part in
abolishing such position.
Petitioners were unable to
justify why it was more
efficient to terminate Lopez
rather than its two other
Documentation Clerks,
Reynolds and Hing. Also,
while Reynolds was
supposedly retained for
being more senior than
Lopez, petitioners were
silent on why they chose to
retain Hing who was hired
in 1996, instead of Lopez
who was hired about eight
(8) years earlier in 1988.
[ G.R. No. 194969, ISSUE: Whether or not
October 07, 2015 ] Albia was not a regular
CONVOY MARKETING Labor Relation employee of Convoy, but
CORPORATION AND/OR merely a contractual one
ARNOLD LAAB, - Status of whose services ended
petitioners, vs. OLIVER Employment upon the expiration of the
B. ALBIA,* respondent. period agreed upon.
RULING: NO. The

existence of an employer-
employee relationship
cannot be negated by
expressly repudiating it in a
contract and providing
therein that the employee
is an independent
contractor when the facts
clearly show otherwise.
The employment status
of a person is defined
and prescribed by law
and not by what the
parties say it should be.
Contrary to petitioners'
claim, the fact that Convoy
has fifteen (15)regular
drivers only underscores
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
that indeed, having been
hired as a driver, Albia was
The test of independent engaged to perform an
contractorship is whether activity which is necessary
one claiming to be an or desirable in the usual
independent contractor company business of
marketing and distribution
has contracted to do the
of bottled wines, liquor and
work according to his own bottled water. No less
methods and without than Convoy's daily trip
being subject to the summary breakdowns
control of the employer, contradict petitioner’s
except only as to the allegation that Albia is
results of the work only an on-call driver
who does not have to
report for work daily.
Albia has become a
regular employee is
evident from the Delivery
Agency Agreements (For
Driver) — which indicate
that he had rendered at
least one year of broken
service with respect to the
same activity in which he
was employed from the
time he was hired as a
driver on November 22,
2002 until he was
terminated on July 23,
2004.
Albia cannot be
considered as in
independent contractor.
There is no dispute that it
was Convoy who engaged
the services of Albia as a
driver without the
intervention of a third party,
paid his wages on a per
trip basis, and abruptly
terminated his services the
next day after admitting to
have consumed three
bottles of beer after
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
finishing his deliveries on
July 22, 2004. There is,
likewise, no question that
Convoy controls or has
reserved its right to control
Albia's conduct, not only as
to the result of his work but
also as to the means and
methods by which such
result is to be
accomplished.
ISSUE: WON posting a
[G.R. No. 206612. August bond is required to perfect
17, 2015.] Labor Relation the appeal in this case.
TOYOTA ALABANG, INC.,
petitioner, vs. EDWIN - Illegally Dismissed RULING:
GAMES, respondent.
The decision that
petitioner illegally
dismissed respondent was
already final and executory
because of petitioner's
failure to file a timely
appeal. Petitioner itself
was negligent in advancing
its case and failed to
exhibit diligence when it
did not attend the hearings.
the Court finds that the CA
justly refused to reopen the
case in the former's favor.
Definitely, petitioner cannot
now be allowed to claim
denial of due process
when it was petitioner who
was less than vigilant of its
rights. No appeal may be
taken from an order of
execution of a final and
executory judgment. After
all, just as a losing party
has the right to file an
appeal within the
prescribed period, so does
the winning party have the
correlative right to enjoy
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
the finality of the resolution
of the case. An appeal is
not a matter of right, but is
a mere statutory privilege.
The bond is required to

perfect an appeal.
Article223 of the Labor
Code and Section 6, Rule
VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules
of Procedure, uniformly
state that “In case the
decision of the Labor
Arbiter or the Regional
Director involves a
monetary award, an appeal
by the employer may be
perfected only upon the
posting of a bond, which
shall either be in the form
of cash deposit or surety
bond equivalent in amount
to the monetary award,
exclusive of damages and
attorney's fees.” These
rules generally state that in
case the ruling of the LA
involves a monetary
award, an employer's
appeal may be perfected
only upon the posting of a
bond. Therefore, absent
any qualifying terms,13 so
long as the decision of the
LA involves a monetary
award, as in this case,14
that ruling can only be
appealed after the
employer posts a bond.
The purpose of the bond is
to ensure that the
employee has properties
on which he or she can
execute upon in the event
of a final, providential
award. PETITION
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
DENIED.
[G.R. No. 190984. August
19, 2015.] ISSUE: Whether or not the
ACOMARIT PHILS., Labor Standard respondent is entitled to
and/or ACOMARIT permanent disability
HONGKONG LIMITED, - Permanent Disability benefits?
petitioners, vs. GOMER L.
DOTIMAS, respondent. RULING: No, the
respondent is not entitled
to the permanent disability
benefits.
When respondent was

declared fit to work 144
days from the date of his
medical repatriation, he
cannot be considered
under the state of
permanent total disability.
Hence, he cannot be said
to have acquired a cause
of action for total and
benefits. To stress, the rule
is that a temporary total
disability only becomes
permanent when the
company-designated
physician, within the 240-
day period, declares it to
be so, or when after the
lapse of the same, he fails
to make such declaration.
In this case, he was
declared fit to work 144
days from the date of his
medical repatriation or
before the lapse of 240
days.
[G.R. No. 202090.

September 9, 2015.] ISSUE:
ICT MARKETING Labor Relation WON THE COMPLAINT IS
SERVICES, INC. (now ILLEGALY DISMISSED
known as SYKES AND SEPARATION PAY
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
MARKETING SERVICES, - illegally dismissed
INC.), petitioner, vs. RULING:
MARIPHIL L. SALES,
respondent. Concerning the transfer of
Labor Standard employees, these are the
following jurisprudential
- Separation Pay guidelines: (a) a transfer is
a movement from one
position to another of
equivalent rank, level or
salary without break in the
service or a lateral
movement from one
position to another of
equivalent rank or salary;
(b) the employer has the
inherent right to transfer or
reassign an employee for
legitimate business
purposes; (c) a transfer
becomes unlawful where it
is motivated by
discrimination or bad faith
or is effected as a form of
punishment or is a
demotion without sufficient
cause; (d) the employer
must be able to show that
the transfer is not
unreasonable,
inconvenient, or prejudicial
to the employee.
While the prerogative to

transfer respondent to
another account belonged
to petitioner, it wielded the
same unfairly. The
evidence suggests that at
the time respondent was
transferred from the
Washington Mutual
account to the Bank of
America program,
petitioner was hiring
additional CSRs/TSRs.
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
This simply means that if it
was then hiring new
CSRs/TSRs, then there
should be no need to
transfer respondent to the
Bank of America program;
it could simply train new
hires for that program.
Transferring respondent -
an experienced employee
who was already familiar
with the Washington
Mutual account, and who
even proved to be
outstanding in handling the
same - to another account
means additional expenses
for petitioner: it would have
to train respondent for the
Bank of America account,
and train a new hire to take
her place in the
Washington Mutual
account. This does not
make sense; quite the
contrary, it is impractical
and entails more expense
on petitioner's part. If
respondent already knew
her work at the
Washington Mutual
account very well, then it is
contrary to experience and
logic to transfer her to
another account which she
is not familiar with, there to
start from scratch; this
could have been properly
relegated to a new hire.
There can be no truth to

petitioner's claim either that
respondent's transfer was
made upon request of the
client. If she was
performing outstanding
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
work and bringing in good
business for the client,
there is no reason - indeed
it is beyond experience
and logic - to conclude that
the client would seek her
transfer. Such a claim
could only be fabricated.
The managerial
prerogative to transfer
personnel must be
exercised without grave
abuse of discretion,
bearing in mind the basic
elements of justice and fair
play. Having the right
should not be confused
with the manner in which
that right is exercised.
Thus, it cannot be used as
a subterfuge by the
employer to rid himself of
an undesirable worker. In
particular, the employer
must be able to show that
the transfer is not
unreasonable,
inconvenient or prejudicial
to the employee; nor does
it involve a demotion in
rank or a diminution of his
salaries, privileges and
other benefits. Should the
employer fail to overcome
this burden of proof, the
employee's transfer shall
be tantamount to
constructive dismissal,
which has been defined as
a quitting because
continued employment is
rendered impossible,
unreasonable or unlikely;
as an offer involving a
demotion in rank and
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
diminution in pay.
Likewise, constructive
dismissal exists when an
act of clear discrimination,
insensibility or disdain by
an employer has become
so unbearable to the
employee leaving him with
no option but to forego with
his continued employment.
In placing respondent on
"floating status," petitioner
further acted arbitrarily and
unfairly, making life
unbearable for her. In so
doing, it treated
respondent as if she were
a new hire; it improperly
disregarded her
experience, status,
performance, and
achievements in the
company; and most
importantly, respondent
was illegally deprived of
her salary and other
emoluments.
For her single absence

during training for the Bank
of America account, she
was refused certification,
and as a result, she was
placed on floating status
and her salary was
withheld. Clearly, this was
an act of discrimination
and unfairness considering
that she was not an
inexperienced new hire,
but a promising and award-
winning employee who
was more than eager to
succeed within the
company. This conclusion
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
is not totally baseless, and
is rooted in her outstanding
performance at the
Washington Mutual
account and her complaint
regarding the incentives,
which only proves her zeal,
positive work attitude, and
drive to achieve financial
success through hard
work. But instead of
rewarding her, petitioner
unduly punished her;
instead of inspiring her,
petitioner dashed her
hopes and dreams; in
return for her industry,
idealism, positive outlook
and fervor, petitioner left
her with a legacy of, and
awful examples in, office
politicking, intrigue, and
internecine schemes.
[G.R. No. 201536. ISSUE: Whether or not
September 9, 2015.] Respondent is entitled to
GRACE MARINE permanent disability
benefits?
SHIPPING
CORPORATION and/or RULING:
CAPT. JIMMY BOADO,
petitioners, vs. ARON S. Yes, he is entitled to
ALARCON, respondent. permanent disability
benefits. The court held the
following:

respondent’s psoriasis and
nummular eczema, which
have not been cured, are
work-connected and thus
compensable. He is unfit to
continue his duties as
messman, as his illness
prevents him from
performing his functions as
such. Up to this point, it
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
does not appear that
petitioners took him back
to work for their principal,
or that a declaration of
fitness to work or that his
condition has been
resolved or cured has been
issued. “[A]n employee’s
disability becomes
permanent and total when
so declared by the
company-designated
physician, or, in case of
absence of such a
declaration either of fitness
or permanent total
disability, upon the lapse of
the 120 or 240-day
treatment period under
Article 192 (c) (1) of the
Labor Code and Rule X,
Section 2 of the Amended
Rules on Employees’
Compensation
Commission, while the
employee’s disability
continues and he is unable
to engage in gainful
employment during such
period, and the company-
designated physician fails
to arrive at a definite
assessment of the
employee’s fitness or
disability. This is true
regardless of whether the
employee loses the use of
any part of his body or if
the injury or disability is
classified as Grade 1
under the POEA-SEC.”
The evidence further

suggests that before
respondent was employed
by petitioners, he did not
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
suffer from psoriasis and
nummular eczema; if he
had been afflicted with
these ailments prior to
employment, surely he
would not have been taken
in. He was given a clean
bill of health through the
standard pre-employment
physical examination.
Besides, in any of their
pleadings, petitioners did
not contest this fact; nor
did they claim that
respondent had these
conditions prior to his
employment.
G.R. No. 201536.
September 9, 2015.
ISSUE: Whether or not
GRACE MARINE Labor Relations
Respondent is entitled to
SHIPPING permanent disability
CORPORATION and/or benefits?
CAPT. JIMMY BOADO,
petitioners, vs. ARON S.
ALARCON, respondent.
RULING:
Yes, he is entitled to
benefits. The court held the
following:

respondent’s psoriasis and
nummular eczema, which
have not been cured, are
work-connected and thus
compensable. He is unfit to
continue his duties as
messman, as his illness
prevents him from
performing his functions as
such. Up to this point, it
does not appear that
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
petitioners took him back
to work for their principal,
or that a declaration of
fitness to work or that his
condition has been
resolved or cured has been
issued. “[A]n employee’s
disability becomes
permanent and total when
so declared by the
company-designated
physician, or, in case of
absence of such a
declaration either of fitness
or permanent total
disability, upon the lapse of
the 120 or 240-day
treatment period under
Article 192 (c) (1) of the
Labor Code and Rule X,
Section 2 of the Amended
Rules on Employees’
Compensation
Commission, while the
employee’s disability
continues and he is unable
to engage in gainful
employment during such
period, and the company-
designated physician fails
to arrive at a definite
assessment of the
employee’s fitness or
disability. This is true
regardless of whether the
employee loses the use of
any part of his body or if
the injury or disability is
classified as Grade 1
under the POEA-SEC.”
The evidence further

suggests that before
respondent was employed
by petitioners, he did not
suffer from psoriasis and
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
nummular eczema; if he
had been afflicted with
these ailments prior to
employment, surely he
would not have been taken
in. He was given a clean
bill of health through the
standard pre-employment
physical examination.
Besides, in any of their
pleadings, petitioners did
not contest this fact; nor
did they claim that
respondent had these
conditions prior to his
employment.
[ G.R. No. 196597, ISSUE: WON Rivera was

October 21, 2015 ] illegally dismissed from
MODESTO W. RIVERA, Labor Relations work
petitioner, vs. ALLIED
BANKING RULING:
CORPORATION, CORA D.
CORPUS AND ANTONIO NO. Under Article 282 (c)
H. SANTOS, respondents. of the Labor Code, as
amended, an employer
may dismiss the employee
either for (1) fraud; or (2)
willful breach by the
employee of the trust
reposed in him by his
employer or duly
authorized representative.
There is no question that
petitioner's position as
Branch Head requires a
high degree of trust and
confidence. Given the
sensitive functions of his
office, he is thus expected
to strictly observe and
comply with the Bank's
standard operating
procedures.
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
The practice of accepting
for deposit second-
endorsed US Dollar
denominated checks is
strictly prohibited under the
Bank's established policies,
and may be allowed only in
certain exceptional cases.
The Bank's investigation on
the transactions involving
foreign currency checks
during petitioner's tenure
as Branch Head disclosed
that petitioner deliberately
disregarded the foregoing
rules when he accepted for
deposit several US Dollar
denominated checks from
Ms. Sta. Cruz. Thus, the
Bank is justified in
imposing the supreme
penalty of dismissal.
G.R. No. 185058,

November 09, 2015 ISSUES:
JOVITA S. MANALO, Labor Relations
petitioner, vs. ATENEO 1. WON the jurisdiction
DE NAGA UNIVERSITY, of the Court of Appeals
FR. JOEL TABORA AND to review the decisions
MR. EDWIN BERNAL,
of the NLRC and that the
respondent.
facts found by LA and
NLRC are binding upon
the CA.
2. WON it is a form of
Constructive Dismissal.
RULINGS:
1. YES,
Court of Appeals can
review the decisions of
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
NLRC and the facts found
by LA and NLRC are not
binding upon it.
CA was bound by the facts

found by LA and NLRC,
the fact that under rule
Rule 65, determination of
jurisdiction and grave
abuse of discretion, CA
should not be faulted for
examining the records of
the case to have a proper
analysis whether LA or
NLRC properly performed
their duties and functions in
disposing of the case. Had
it found no error, then the
CA could just dismiss the
Rule 65 petition.
2. NO,There was no
constructive dismissal.
Constructive dismissal It can happen in any

number of ways. At its core
arises "when continued
is the gratuitous,
employment is rendered unjustified, or unwarranted
impossible, unreasonable or nature of employer's
unlikely; when there is a action.
demotion in rank and/or
diminution in pay; or when a However, not every
inconvenience, disruption,
clear discrimination,
difficulty, or disadvantage
insensibility or disdain by an that an employee must
employer becomes endure results in a finding
unbearable to the of constructive dismissal.
employee. " Jurisprudence has long
recognized that a transfer
of employee done fairly
and in good faith is a valid
exercise of management
prerogative.
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
ISSUES:
[ G.R. No. 174115, Labor Relations
November 09, 2015 ]
PUNONGBAYAN AND 1. Whether respondent
ARAULLO, et was validly dismissed –
al., petitioners, vs. 2. Whether respondent
ROBERTO PONCE was deprived of his
LEPON, respondent. right to due process –
NO
RULING:
1. YES,
The affidavits constitute

substantial evidence to
prove that respondent
committed acts breaching
the trust and confidence
reposed on him by P&A.
The colleagues and
subordinates of respondent
executed the affidavits
based on their personal
knowledge, and without
any proof of coercion. Their
statements, as discussed
below, corroborate each
other and leave no room
for doubt as to the acts
committed by respondent.
The affidavits of his co-

employees are sufficient
basis for P&A's loss of
trust and confidence.
[Art. 297(c), Labor Code].
An employer may
While the right of an terminate an employee for
employer to freely select or willful breach by the
discharge his employees is employee of trust reposed
subject to regulation by the in him by his employer or
State in the exercise of its duly authorized
paramount police power, representative
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
there is also an equally  The following requisites
established principle that an must be satisfied to
employer cannot be justify a valid dismissal
compelled to continue in based on loss of trust
and confidence, to wit:
employment an employee
(1) The employee
guilty of acts inimical to concerned must be one
the interest of the holding a position of
employer and justifying trust and confidence;
loss of confidence in him. and (2) There must be
an act that would justify
the loss of trust and
confidence.
 The two requisites are
present in this case.
Respondent was
a managerial employee. At
 Degree of Proof the time of his termination,
Required: he was the Manager-in-
In Mendoza v. HMS Charge of the Cebu
Credit Corporation, operations and Director of
the Court the Visayas-Mindanao
distinguished the operations of P&A.
degree of proof Respondent failed to
required in proving dispute that his position, as
loss of trust and the highest ranking officer
confidence in a of P&A's Visayas-
managerial employee Mindanao operations,
and a rank and file demanded utmost trust and
employee – With confidence.
respect to RANK- P&A's loss of trust and
AND-FILE confidence is based on a
PERSONNEL, loss willful breach of trust, and
of trust and is founded on clearly
confidence as ground established facts.
for valid dismissal
 CAB: Respondent
requires proof of
breached the trust
involvement in the
reposed in him by
alleged events in
committing the following
question, and that
acts: (1) negotiating to
mere uncorroborated
transfer to a competing
assertions and
firm while still employed
accusations by the
with P&A; (2) enjoining
employer will not be
a number of P&A's
sufficient. But as
clients to transfer their
regards a
audit business to a
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
MANAGERIAL competing firm; (3)
EMPLOYEE, the inviting P&A's staff to
mere existence of a join him in his transfer
basis for believing to a competing firm;
that such employee and (4) enjoining P&A's
has breached the staff to engage in a
trust of his sympathy strike during
employer would his preventive
suffice for his suspension.
dismissal. Hence, in -The affidavits of Nanola,
the case of Ganhinhin, Verdida, and
managerial Diane show respondent's
employees, proof commission of these acts
beyond reasonable which are all in breach of
doubt is not the trust and confidence
required, it being reposed in him by P&A.
sufficient that there
is some basis for Respondent was validly
such loss of dismissed on the ground
confidence, such as of loss of trust and
when the employer confidence
has reasonable
ground to believe
that the employee
concerned is
responsible for the
purported
misconduct, and the
nature of his
participation therein
renders him
unworthy of the trust
and confidence
demanded by his
position.
[ G.R. No. 202859,

November 11, 2015 ] ISSUE:
NEW FILIPINO MARITIME Labor Standards WON the CA was correct
AGENCIES, INC., et in finding that the NLRC
al., petitioners, vs. Health, Safety, and Social committed grave abuse of
VINCENT H. D ATAYAN - Welfare Benefits. discretion in denying
HEIR OF SIMON VINCENT respondent's claim for
H. DATAYAN III, death benefits.
respondent.
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
RULING:
No, As claimant for death

benefits, respondent has
the burden to prove by
substantial evidence that
his son's death is work-
related and that it
transpired during the term
of his employment
contract.
In this respect, respondent

has discharged his burden.
Simon died during the term
of his contract. The next
question is whether
Simon's death was due to
his deliberate act. That
Simon's death was a result
of his willful act is a matter
of defense. Petitioners
have the burden to prove
this circumstance by
substantial evidence.
petitioners discharged their
burden to prove that Simon
committed suicide.
In this regard, respondent

failed to discharge his
burden and only relied on
the alleged negligence of
the Master in ordering the
conduct of the drill.
Respondent argues that
Simon could not have
written a suicide note
because of the proximity of
the time when the drill was
conducted and the time
when Simon jumped
overboard.
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
 No proof was presented
indicating that said
suicide note was
fabricated, as no
specimen of Simon's
handwriting was
submitted to prove that
it was not written by
him.
On the contrary, the
signature in the suicide
note and the signature of
Simon in his employment
contract appear to be the
same. Hence, by
substantial evidence, there
are adequate reasons and
proof that Simon
committed suicide.
Under Section 20(D) of the

POEA SEC, no
compensation or benefits
shall arise in case of death
of a seafarer resulting from
his willful act, provided that
the employer could prove
that such death is
attributable to the seafarer.
Although Simon died

during the term of his
contract with petitioners,
still, respondent is not
entitled to receive benefits
arising from his death. As
clearly established, Simon
died by his willful act of
committing suicide and
death under that
circumstance is not
compensable under the
POEA SEC.
[ G.R. No. 215471, ISSUE: WON Osias is

November 23, 2015 ] entitled to the permanent
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
MARLOW NAVIGATION Labor Relations and total disability given
PHILIPPINES INC., et al., that the 120 days
petitioners, vs. BRAULIO prescribed by law has
A. OSIAS, respondent. already lapsed.
RULING:
NO. There are two periods

that should be reckoned
with 120 days and 240
days. Jurisprudence and
law both recognizes that
there are certain disabilities
that will be deemed total
and permanent if it lasted
for more than 120 days
under the Labor Code,
however in the implement
rules it was stated "except
if such disability still
requires medical
attendance for more than
120 days but not more than
240 days." These 2
statutes must be read in
consonance with each
other.
In this case, Osias' medical
condition cannot be
considered as permanent
and total disability since he
was declared fit to return to
work after 147 days. It
must be noted also that the
delay was caused
respondent himself and the
fact that the medical
certificate certifying the
unfitness or declaring the
permanent and total
disability must be done by
the company designated
physician; since under the
law it is an indispensible
requirement.
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
[ G.R. No. 189229, ISSUE:
November 23, 2015 ] WON the employees are
REYNALDO NOBLADO, Labor Standard entitled to reinstatement
ET AL., petitioners, VS. with full backwages
PRTNCESITA K.
ALFONSO, respondent. RULING: YES. There was
no habitual neglicence on
their part. In termination
cases, the employer bears
the burden of proving that
the dismissal of the
employee is for a just or an
authorized case. Failure to
dispose of the burden
would imply that the
dismissal is not lawful and
that the employee is
entitled to reinstatement,
backwages and accruing
benefits.
[ G.R. No. 195654,

November 25, 2015 ] Labor Relations ISSUE: WON are entitled
REYNALDO INUTAN, et to backwages due to the
al., petitioners, vs. illegal constructive
NAPAR CONTRACTING & dismissal
ALLIED SERVICES, et al.,
respondents. RULING:
YES, Petitioners, as being
regular employees, are
deemed to have been
constructively and illegally
dismissed by respondents.
Being on floating status
and off-detailed for more
than six months, not having
been reinstated and
reassigned by
respondents, petitioners
are considered to have
been constructively
dismissed. Settled is the
rule that an employee who
is unjustly dismissed from
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
work shall be entitled to
reinstatement, or
separation pay if
reinstatement is no longer
viable, and to his full
backwages.
[ G.R. No. 209559, Labor Relations

December 09, 2015 ] ISSUES
ENCHANTED KINGDOM, - Illegal dismissal
INC., petitioner, vs. 1. WON the dismissal
MIGUEL J. VERZO, was legal?
respondent.
2. Whether Verzo was
properly apprised of
the standards for his
regularization?
RULING:
Yes, Enchanted had basis
when it decided not to
continue with the services
of Verzo as SH-MIM.
First, while the CA leaned

heavily on the fact that the
performance evaluation
given by Enchanted did not
specify the instances of
Verzo’s unfitness, it should
be pointed out that Verzo
himself admitted that the
performance evaluation he
received on February 3,
2010 was accompanied by
the respective reports of
Schoefield, Montemayor
and Velesrubio. As earlier
stated, these reports
detailed the reasons why
Verzo failed to meet the
standards set by
Enchanted and
compromised the safety of
its patrons.
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
Second, granting that

Verzo was not informed of
his specific duties and
responsibilities,
nonetheless, his dismissal
was valid because he
failed to adhere to the
dictates of common sense
which required that he act
in accordance with the
necessary work ethics and
basic skills required by his
position as SH-MIM and by
his profession as licensed
engineer.
Third, while the CA

considered the fact that
Velesrubio advised Verzo
to resign because he was
not going to be regularized
even before his
performance appraisal, the
Court finds that such
should not be taken as an
indication of bad faith on
the part of Enchanted. For
this Court, the same could
only be Velesrubio’s own
opinion of Verzo, because
he was the one supervising
his performance. Whether
Enchanted had decided to
discontinue Verzo’s
employment cannot, at that
point, be said to have been
a foregone conclusion.
Suffice it to state that

Enchanted was able to
substantially comply with
the requirement of the law
in apprising him of the
standards for his
regularization. Verily, the
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
purpose of the law in
requiring that an employee
be notified of the standards
for his regularization during
his probationary
employment is to simply
afford him due process, so
that the employee will be
aware that he will be under
close observation and his
performance of his
assigned duties and
functions would be under
continuous scrutiny by his
superiors.
[ G.R. No. 204275,

December 09, 2015 ] ISSUE:
LILIOSA C. LISONDRA, Labor Relations Whether or not CA erred
petitioner, vs. in dismissing the petitioner
MEGACRAFT - Illegal dismissal
INTERNATIONAL RULING: YES. Before
CORPORATION AND going to the issues of the
SPOUSES MELECIO AND case, the court noted that
ROSEMARIE OAMIL, the petitioner failed to
respondents. attach copies of the
decision of the LA and the
NLRC in this petition. That
alone would have been a
ground to dismiss the case
outright. However since
what is at stake is
petitioners livelihood itself,
leniency should be applied
in order to serve the ends
of justice
Proof of Service;
Essentially, the purpose of

this service is to apprise
such party of the pendency
of an action in the CA.
Thus, if such party had
already been notified of the
same and had even
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
participated in the
proceedings, such purpose
would have already been
served.
In this case, respondents

were informed and even
filed their Comment to the
petition. Thus, the purpose
of the rule had been
achieved. It would have
been "more prudent for the
Court [of Appeals] to
excuse a technical lapse
and afford the parties a
substantive review of the
case in order to attain the
ends of justice than to
dismiss the same on mere
technicalities."
Other grounds for

dismissal
 Failure to include
public respondent's
name in the title was
mere inadvertence.
 Failure to indicate
his roll number and
the place of the
notary public's
commission, does
not affect the merits
of the petition
.[ G.R. No. 202215, ISSUES:
December 09, 2015 ] 1. WON the
VICMAR DEVELOPMENT Labor Relations. respondents were
CORPORATION, et al., considered as
petitioners, vs. CAMILO regular employees,
ELARCOSA, MARLON 2. WON there was a
BANDA, DANTE L. valid independent
BALAMAD, et al., contracting.
respondents.
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
RULING:
YES,the Respondents
were regular employees.
Section 280 of the Labor
Code defines a regular
employee as one who is
1) engaged to perform
tasks usually necessary or
desirable in the usual
business or trade of the
employer, unless the
employment is one for a
specific project or
undertaking or where the
work is seasonal and for
the duration of a season; or
2) has rendered at least 1
year of service, whether
such service is continuous
or broken, with respect to
the activity for which he is
employed and his
To determine the existence employment continues as
of independent long as such activity exists.
contractorship, it is
necessary to establish that
the contractor carries a 2.NO, the contractors have
distinct and independent substantial capital or
business, and undertakes to investment, tools and the
perform work on its own like. Neither was it
account and under its established that they
responsibility and pursuant owned equipment and
to its own manner and machineries for the
method, without the control purported contracted job.
of the principal, except as to Also, the allegation that
the result; that the they had clients other than
contractor has substantial Vicmar remained to be
capital or investment; and, bare assertion without
that the agreement between corresponding proof. More
the principal and the importantly, there was no
contractor assures the evidence presented that
contractual employees to all these contractors
labor and occupational undertook the performance
safety and health standards, of their service contracts
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
to right to self-organization, with Vicmar pursuant to
security of tenure and other their own manner and
benefits. method, without the control
and supervision of Vicmar.
ISSUE:
[ G.R. No. 203882,
January 11, 2016 ] 1st issue : 1st; Wether or not Iladan’s
LORELEI O. ILADAN, peti resignation was voluntary
tioner, vs. Labor Relations.
LA SUERTE INTERNATIO nd Issue:
2nd; Whether or not
NAL MANPOWER AGENC 2 placement fee was paid.
Y, INC., and DEBBIE LAO,
Labor Standards.
Respondents. RULING:
YES. Iladan's resignation

was voluntary; Hence,
there was no illegal
dismissal
When it comes to illegal

dismissal cases, the
employer has the burden of
proving that the employee's
dismissal was legal.
However, to discharge this
burden, the employee must
first prove, by substantial
evidence, that he had been
dismissed from
employment. Iladan did not
adduce any competent
evidence to prove that
respondents used force
and threat.
2. No, placement fee was

paid.
The court finds no

sufficient evidence that
payment had been made.
Iladan and her mother's

affidavit attesting to its
payment are self-serving
evidence and deserve no
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
weight at all. Neither did
the mortgage loan and
deed of transfer executed
in favor of third persons as
well as the letter from
Nippon prove that
placement fee was paid to
respondents. These
documents merely show
that Iladan is indebted to
certain persons and to
Nippon; however, they do
not prove that these
indebtedness were
incurred in connection with
the placement fee she
purportedly paid to
respondents. As aptly ruled
by the CA, Iladan has the
burden of proving, with
clear and convincing
evidence, the fact of
payment.
[ G.R. No.214092, January ISSUE:

11, 2016 ] WON was lawful
ENRIQUEZ, LEONORA K. termination?
BENEDICTO vs.
OBRERO FILIPINO- Labor Relations RULING:
ECHO 2000 CHAPTER
Yes. The offer or transfer
is, in legal contemplation, a
promotion, which the
respondents validly
refused. Such refusal
cannot be the basis for the
respondents’ dismissal. For
promotion to occur, there
must be an advancement
from one position to
another or an upward
vertical movement of the
employee’s rank. An
employee is not bound to
accept a promotion, which
is in the nature of a gift or
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
reward. Refusal to be
promoted is a valid
exercise of a right. Such
exercise cannot be
considered in law as
insubordination, or willful
disobedience of a lawful
order of the employer,
hence, it cannot be the
basis of an employee’s
dismissal from service.
In the case at bar, a

Warehouse Checker and a
Forklift Operator are rank
and file employees. The
job of Delivery
Coordinators requires the
exercise of discretion and
judgment from time to time.
Hence, they are not the
same weight as those of
Warehouse Checker or
Forklift Operator. Despite
the fact that no salary
increases were effected,
the assumption of the post
of a Delivery Coordinator
should be considered a
promotion. The
respondents’ refusal to
accept the same was valid.
A dismissal may be
contrary to law but by itself
alone, it does not establish
bad faith to entitle the
dismissed employee to
moral damages. Damages
cannot be justified solely
upon the premise that the
employer dismissed his
employee without just or
authorized cause. In the
case at bar, the right not to
accept an offered
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
promotion pertained to
each of the respondents.
However, they exhibited
disrespectful behavior by
their repeated refusal to
receive the memoranda.
Although the court finds the
dismissal unwarranted,
there is no basis for the
moral and exemplary
damages in their favor.
Echo merely imposed
disciplinary penalties upon
the respondents
intransigence.
The court further ruled that

there was no Unfair Labor
Practice in this case. Unfair
labor practices violate the
constitutional right of
workers and employees to
self-organization. The
respondents allege that
their transfer/promotion
was intended to deprive
the Union of leadership
and membership. However
it lack substantiation.
Unfair labor practice is a
serious charge, and the
respondents failed to show
that the petitioners
conclusively interfered
with, restrained, or coerced
employees in the exercise
of their right to self-
organization.
[ G.R. No. 187691, Labor Relations ISSUE:

January 13, 2016] WON there is an employer
OLYMPIA HOUSING, INC. – employee relationship
vs. ALLAN LAPASTORA between Petitioner and
AND IRENE UBALUBAO Respondents
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
RULING:
Lapastora was a
regular employee of OHI.
His uninterrupted
employment from March 3,
1995 until he was placed
on floating status on
February 2000 manifests
the continuing need and
desirability of his services,
which characterize regular
employment
By the nature of its

business of managing
condominium units, it is
imperative that OHI
maintains a pool of
housekeeping staff. It is no
wonder why Lapastora,
among several others, was
continuously employed by
OHI precisely because of
the indispensability of their
services to its business.
The fact alone that
Lapastora was allowed to
work for an unbroken
period of almost five years
is all the same a reason to
consider him a regular
employee.
[ G.R. No. 209921 January ISSUE: WON Quiro-

13, 2016 ] quiro’s dismissal was valid
QUIRO-QUIRO vs. Labor Relations and complied with due
BALAGTAS CREDIT process requirements.
COOPERATIVE & illegal dismissal.
COMMUNITY RULING:
DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Yes. Quiro-quiro was
validly dismissed. BCCCDI
was able to prove by
substantial evidence that
Quiro-quiro’s dismissal is
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
lawful. BCCCI presented
documents and affidavits
establishing Quiro-quiro’s
gross negligence and her
breach of respondent’s
trust and confidence in her.
We agree with the finding
of the CA that Quiro-quiro’s
“inability to stop during her
watch an over withdrawal
by one member, amounting
to P250,000.00,” and
followed by a series of
monthly withdrawals,
“constitutes gross and
habitual neglect of duty
that is a just cause for her
dismissal.” Clearly, Quiro-
quiro’s act of allowing the
over withdrawal of
P250,000 on the time
deposit placement of a
member and her
subsequent inaction and
non-rectification of such
misconduct breached
respondent’s trust and
confidence in her,
warranting the penalty of
dismissal. While Quiro-
quiro's dismissal is lawful,
we sustain the award of
P30,000 nominal damages
in favor of Quiro-quiro for
BCCCDI's nonobservance
of the due process
requirements in dismissing
her. Furthermore, the 48
hours given to Quiro-quiro
to explain her side was
insufficient time to consult
the union official or lawyer,
gather data and evidence
and decide on her
defenses. Quiro-quiro
should have been given at
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
least five calendar days
from receipt of the notice to
prepare for her defense.
Notwithstanding, the lack
of statutory due process
does not nullify the
dismissal or render it illegal
or ineffectual when the
dismissal was for just
cause, but it will merit the
grant of nominal damages
as indemnification.
Petition denied.
G.R. No. 208986 January Labor Relations ISSUE:

13, 2016 ]
HIJO RESOURCES WON decision in a
CORPORATION, petitione certification election does
r, vs. foreclose further dispute as
EPIFANIO P. MEJARES, e to the existence or non-
t al., respondents. existence of an employer-
employee relationship.
RULING: NO. The Med-

Arbiter's order in this case
dismissing the petition for
certification election on the
basis of non-existence of
employer-employee
relationship was issued
after the members of the
respondent union were
dismissed from their
employment. The purpose
of a petition for certification
election is to determine
which organization will
represent the employees in
their collective bargaining
with the employer.The
respondent union, without
its member-employees,
was thus stripped of its
personality to challenge the
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
Med-Arbiter's decision in
the certification election
case. Thus, the members
of the respondent union
were left with no option but
to pursue their illegal
dismissal case filed before
the Labor Arbiter. To
dismiss the illegal
dismissal case filed before
the Labor Arbiter on the
basis of the
pronouncement of the
Med-Arbiter in the
certification election case
that there was no
employer-employee
relationship between the
parties, which the
respondent union could not
even appeal to the DOLE
Secretary because of the
dismissal of its members,
would be tantamount to
denying due process to the
complainants in the illegal
dismissal case. This,
Supreme Court cannot
allow.
[ GR No. 212070, January Labor Relations ISSUE:

27, 2016 ] WON the CA correctly
CEBU PEOPLE'S MULTI- ascribed grave abuse of
PURPOSE discretion on the part of the
COOPERATIVE, petitione NLRC in ruling that
r, vs. NICERATO E. Carbonilla, Jr.'s dismissal
CARBONILLA, JR., was valid.
respondent.
RULING:
NO,
Guided by the foregoing

considerations, the Court
finds that the CA
committed reversible error
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
in granting Carbonilla, Jr.'s
certiorari petition since the
NLRC did not gravely
abuse its discretion in
ruling that he was validly
dismissed from
employment as CPMPC
was able to prove, through
substantial evidence, the
existence of just causes
warranting the same.
Basic is the rule that an

For misconduct to be employer may validly
considered as a just cause terminate the services of
for termination, the following an employee for any of the
requisites must concur: (a) just causes enumerated
the misconduct must be under Article 296 (formerly
serious; (b) it must relate to Article 282) of the Labor
the performance of the Code.
employee's duties showing
that the employee has As may be gathered from
become unfit to continue the tenor of CPMPC's
working for the employer; Notice of Dismissal, it is
and (c) it must have been apparent that Carbonilla,
performed with wrongful Jr.'s employment was
intent. terminated on the grounds
of, among others, serious
misconduct and loss of
trust and confidence.
All of the foregoing

requisites have been duly
established in this case.
Records reveal that
Carbonilla, Jr.'s serious
misconduct consisted of
him frequently exhibiting
disrespectful and
belligerent behavior, not
only to his colleagues, but
also to his superiors. He
even used his stature as a
law graduate to insist that
he is "above" them, often
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
using misguided legalese
to weasel his way out of
the charges against him,
as well as to strong-arm his
colleagues and superiors
into succumbing to his
arrogance.
[ G.R. No. 203642, Labor Relations ISSUE:

January 27, 2016 ] WON there was violation of
THOMASITES CENTER Illegal Dismissal TCIS’s right to due
FOR INTERNATIONAL process?
STUDIES vs.
RODRIGUEZ, PADRIGON RULING:
AND RILLERA Section 3, Rule 38 of the
Rules of Court states that,
a party filing a petition for
relief from judgment must
strictly comply with 2
reglementary periods: The
petition must be filed within
60 days from knowledge of
the judgment, order or
other proceeding to be set
aside; within a fixed period
of 6 months from entry of
such judgment, order or
other proceeding. NLRC
pointed out that TCIS’s
petition for relief was filed
beyond the period
provided. The earliest it
could have learned of the
LA’s judgment was one
June 21, 2006 when Dr.
Cho received a copy and
the latest was during the
pre-execution conference.
The Court agrees with the

CA that no fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable
negligence prevented TCIS
from filing an appeal from
the decision of the LA,
even as the NLRC also
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
noted that the petition also
lacked the requisite
affidavit showing the fraud,
accident, mistake or
excusable negligence, and
the facts constituting its
good and substantial cause
of action. TCIS was
afforded every opportunity
to be heard.
[ G.R. No. 208451, Labor Standard ISSUE:

February 3, 2016 ]
MANILA MEMORIAL WON an employer-
PARK CEMETERY, INC., employee relationship
petitioner, vs. EZARD D. exists between Manila
LLUZ, et al., respondents. Memorial and respondents
for the latter to be entitled
to their claim for wages
and other benefits.
RULING: YES.
Labor-only contracting
exists when the contractor
or subcontractor merely
recruits, supplies or places
workers to perform a job,
work or service for a
principal and any of the
following elements are
present:
1) The contractor or
subcontractor does
not have substantial
capital or investment
which relates to the
job, work or service
to be performed and
the employees
recruited, supplied
or placed by such
contractor or
subcontractor are
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
performing activities
which are directly
related to the main
business of the
principal; or
2) The contractor does
not exercise the
right to control the
performance of the
work of the
contractual
employee.
A closer look at the

Contract of Service reveals
that Ward Trading does not
have substantial capital or
investment in the form of
tools, equipment,
machinery, work premises
and other materials since it
is Manila Memorial which
owns the equipment used
in the performance of work
needed for interment and
exhumation services.
Further, the records show

that Manila Memorial and
Enrique B. Lagdameo
admitted that respondents
performed various
interment services at its
Sucat, Parañaque branch
which were directly related
to Manila Memorial’s
business of developing,
selling and maintaining
memorial parks and
interment functions. Manila
Memorial even retained the
right to control the
performance of the work of
the employees concerned.
The NLRC also found that

Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
Ward Trading’s business
documents fell short of
sound business practices.
For failing to register as a
contractor, a presumption
arises that one is engaged
in labor-only contracting
unless the contractor
overcomes the burden of
proving that it has
substantial capital,
investment, tools and the
like.
G.R. No. 196110, Labor Relation ISSUE:

February 06, 2017
- Termination of WON the honorable court
PNCC SKYWAY employment of appeals erred in
CORPORATION upholding the labor
(PSC), Petitioner, v. THE secretary's failure to
SECRETARY OF LABOR consider that the
& EMPLOYMENT, PNCC employees were paid of
SKYWAY TRAFFIC their salaries and benefits
MANAGEMENT, AND for the month of january
SECURITY DIVISION 2008 which is considered
WORKERS as substantial compliance
ORGANIZATION, Respond with the requirements of
ent. article 283 of the labor
code.
RULING:
NO,
SOLE committed no grave
abuse of discretion in its
resolution that while there
was an authorized cause
for the closure of PSC's
operations and the
subsequent termination of
its employees, it however
failed to comply with the
procedural requirements
set forth under Article 283
of the Labor Code, that is,
by serving notices of
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
termination upon the
employees and the DOLE
at least one (1) month
before the intended date
thereof. The provision of
Article 283 of the Labor
Code is instructive on the
notice requirement,
to wit:ChanRoblesVirtuala
wlibrary
Art. 283. Closure of

establishment and
reduction of personnel. The
employer may also
terminate the employment
of any employee due to the
installation of labor saving
devices, redundancy,
retrenchment to prevent
losses or the closing or
cessation of operation of
the establishment or
undertaking unless the
closing is for the purpose
of circumventing the
provisions of this Title, by
serving a written notice on
the workers and the
Ministry of Labor and
Employment at least one
(1) month before the
intended date thereof. In
case of termination due to
the installation of labor
saving devices or
redundancy, the worker
affected thereby shall be
entitled to a separation pay
equivalent to at least his
one (1) month pay or to at
least one (1) month pay for
every year of service,
whichever is higher. In
case of retrenchment to
prevent losses and in
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
cases of closures or
cessation of operations of
establishment or under
taking not due to serious
business losses or financial
reverses, the separation
pay shall be equivalent to
one (1) month pay or at
least one-half (1/2) month
pay for every year of
service, whichever is
higher. A fraction of at least
six (6) months shall be
considered one (1) whole
year.
In sum, under Article 283
of the Labor Code, three
requirements are
necessary for a valid
cessation of business
operations: (a) service of a
written notice to the
employees and to the
DOLE at least one month
before the intended date
thereof; (b) the cessation of
business must be bona
fide in character; and (c)
payment to the employees
of termination pay
amounting to one month
pay or at least one-half
month pay for every year of
service, whichever is
higher.
In the instant case, while

both the SOLE and the
appellate court found the
closure of PSC's business
operation to be bona fide,
the required notices were,
however, served on the
employees and the DOLE
only three (3) days before
the closure of the
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
company. PSC contends
that it had substantially
complied with the one (1)
month notice requirement
since the termination of its
employees was made
effective only on January
31, 2008, or more than one
(1) month after it had given
the notice of termination on
December 28, 2007. It
insists that they have in
fact paid the affected
employees for the said
period covered by the
supposed one-month
notice.
G.R. No. 218871, January LABOR STANDARD ISSUE:
11, 2017 WON the CA correctly held
- Permanent and tota that respondent is entitled
JEBSENS* MARITIME, disabiity Benefits to permanent and total
INC., SEA CHEFS disability benefits.
**
LTD., and ENRIQUE M.
ABOITIZ, Petitioners, RULING:
vs.
FLORVIN G. RAPIZ, YES
Respondent.
the VA and the CA' s
award of permanent and
total disability benefits in
respondent's favor was
heavily anchored on his
failure to obtain any gainful
employment for more than
120 days after his medical
repatriation. However,
in Ace Navigation
Company v. Garcia,27the
Court explained that the
company-designated
physician is given an
additional 120 days, or a
total of 240 days from
repatriation, to give the
seafarer further treatment
and, thereafter, make a
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
declaration as to the nature
of the latter's disability
G.R. No. 207838, January
25, 2017
LEO T.
MAULA, Petitioner, v. XIM
EX DELIVERY EXPRESS,
INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 197492, January ISSUE:

18, 2017
Labor Relation WON the respondents
CHATEAU ROYALE were constructively
SPORTS and COUNTRY dismissed.
CLUB, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
RACHELLE G. BALBA WON the respondents
and MARINEL N. from one area of operation
CONSTANTE, to another was valid
Respondents.
RULING:
YES,
the scope and limitation of

the exercise of
management prerogative
and the employees' right to
security of tenure is
necessary. We have to
weigh and consider, on the
one hand, that
management has a wide
discretion to regulate all
aspects of employment,
including the transfer and
re-assignment of
employees according to
the exigencies of the
business; 33 and, on the
other, that the transfer
constitutes constructive
dismissal when it is
unreasonable,
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
inconvenient or prejudicial
to the employee, or
involves a demotion in rank
or diminution of salaries,
benefits and other
privileges, or when the acts
of discrimination,
insensibility or disdain on
the part of the employer
become unbearable for the
employee, forcing him to
forego her employment. 34
In this case of constructive

dismissal, the burden of
proof lies in the petitioner
as the employer to prove
that the transfer of the
employee from one area of
operation to another was
for a valid and legitimate
ground, like genuine
business necessity.35 We
are satisfied that the
petitioner duly discharged
its burden, and thus
established that, contrary
to the claim of the
respondenjjtsj that they
had been constructively
dismissed, their transfer
had been an exercise of
the petitioner's legitimate
management prerogative.
Management had the

prerogative to determine
the place where the
employee is best qualified
to serve the interests of the
business given the
qualifications, training and
performance of the
affected employee.
The respondents, by
Shiera Mae L. Dizon
Labor Law Review
having voluntarily affixed
their signatures on their
respective letters of
appointment, acceded to
the terms and conditions of
employment incorporated
therein. One of the terms
and conditions thus
incorporated was the
prerogative of
management to transfer
and re-assign its
employees from one job to
another "as it may deem
necessary or advisable," to
wit:
The company reserves the

right to transfer you to any
assignment from one job to
another, or from one
department/section to
another, as it may deem
necessary or advisable.

Consolidated Cases in Labor

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Consolidated Cases in Labor

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Shiera Mae L.

NO. Respondent was not

Under Section 10 of R.A.

This applies only to an

Article X of the POEA-

2. YES. The Quitclaim and

Where a person executing a

[G.R. No. 183735. July 6, ISSUE: WON the dismissal

(a) the employee concerned

In order to constitute a just

In the present case, there is

Secondly, his failure to

Further, failed to account and

(2.) He could not just place

 Art. 218 on the Powers of

[G.R. No. 199660. July 13, ISSUES:

2.No, that petitioners failed to

Article 223. Appeal.

[G.R. No. 212049. July 15, ISSUE:

While respondent has the

Section 4, Rule 65 of the

The Court cannot subscribe

It is clear from the foregoing

ISSUE/S: WON QUIOGUE IS

The records show that

The right of a seafarer to

The credibility of the findings

Even in the absence of an

The fact that Quiogue was

These circumstances show

In sum, petitioners did not

Under this construct,

[ G.R. No. 194410, ISSUE: Whether the

The Court finds that

In this case, petitioners

RULING: NO. The

The bond is required to

When respondent was

[G.R. No. 202090.

While the prerogative to

There can be no truth to

For her single absence

The Court finds that

The evidence further

The Court finds that

The evidence further

[ G.R. No. 196597, ISSUE: WON Rivera was

G.R. No. 185058,

CA was bound by the facts

Constructive dismissal It can happen in any

The affidavits constitute

The affidavits of his co-

[ G.R. No. 202859,

No, As claimant for death

In this respect, respondent

In this regard, respondent

Under Section 20(D) of the

Although Simon died

[ G.R. No. 215471, ISSUE: WON Osias is

NO. There are two periods

[ G.R. No. 195654,

[ G.R. No. 209559, Labor Relations

First, while the CA leaned

Second, granting that