Syllabus 3

Lumanta vs. 82819 Facts: On 20 March 1987, petitioner Luz Lumanta, joined by fifty-
NLRC four (54) other retrenched employees, filed a complaint for unpaid
'd retrenchment or separation pay against private respondent
Food Terminal, Inc. ("FTI") with the Department of Labor and
Employment. The complaint was later amended to include charges
of underpayment of wages and non-payment of emergency cost of
living allowances (ECOLA).

Private respondent FTI moved to dismiss the complaint on the

ground of lack of jurisdiction. It argued that being a government-
owned and controlled corporation, its employees are governed by
the Civil Service Law not by the Labor Code, and that claims
arising from employment fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil
Service Commission and not the Department of Labor and
Employment.

Issue: WON a labor claim against FTI, a GOCC, is under the

jurisdiction of DOLE.

Held: FTI is government-owned and controlled corporation without

original charter, it is the Department of Labor and Employment,
and not the Civil Service Commission, which has jurisdiction over
the dispute arising from employment of the petitioners with private
respondent FTI, and that consequently, the terms and conditions
of such employment are governed by the Labor Code and not by
the Civil Service Rules and Regulations.

Salenga vs. 174941 https://vdocuments.site/labor-case-digest-batch-2.html

CA
NASUREFCO 122277 https://www.scribd.com/document/338281723/Labor-
vs. Pabiona Relations-Case-Digest-Part-2
Duterte vs. 160325 http://pinoylegal.com/dutertevskingswood.pdf
Kingswood
Autobus vs. 156367 https://vbdiaz.wordpress.com/2016/12/20/auto-bus-
bautista transport-vs-bautista-digest/
Far East 162813 http://www.uberdigests.info/2010/09/far-east-agricultural-
Agricultural supply-inc-andor-alexander-uy-vs-jimmy-lebatique-and-the-
Supply vs. honorable-court-of-appeals/
Libatique
Serrano vs 187698
Severino FACTS: Petitioner Rodolfo J. Serrano was hired as bus conductor by
respondent Severino Santos Transit, a bus company owned and
operated by its co-respondent Severino Santos.
Syllabus 3

After 14 years of service or on July 14, 2006, petitioner applied

for optional retirement from the company. As petitioner’s request to
first go over the computation of his retirement pay was denied, he
signed the Quitclaim on which he wrote U.P. (under protest) after his
signature, indicating his protest to the amount of P75,277.45 which he
received, computed by the company at 15 days per year of service.

Petitioner soon filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter,

alleging that the company erred in its computation since under Republic
Act No. 7641, otherwise known as the Retirement Pay Law, his
retirement pay should have been computed at 22.5 days per year of
service to include the cash equivalent of the 5-day service incentive
leave (SIL) and 1/12 of the 13th month pay which the company did not.

The company maintained, however, that the Quitclaim signed

by petitioner barred his claim and, in any event, its computation was
correct since petitioner was not entitled to the 5-day SIL and pro-rated
13th month pay for, as a bus conductor, he was paid on commission
basis.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of petitioner and awarded

him P116,135.45 as his retirement pay differential. On respondent’s
appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the
LA’s decision but ordered the payment of petitioner’s retirement
differential in the P2,365.35. The NLRC held that since petitioner was
paid on purely commission basis, he was excluded from the coverage
of the laws on 13thmonth pay and SIL pay, hence, the 1/12 of the
13th month pay and the 5-day SIL should not be factored in the
computation of his retirement pay.

ISSUE: Whether or not the 5-day SIL and pro-rated 13th month pay
should be included in the computation of petitioner’s retirement pay.

RULING: The Supreme Court reinstated the LA’s previous decision and
held that petitioner’s retirement pay should include the cash equivalent
of the 5-day SIL and 1/12 of the 13th month pay.

Republic Act No. 7641 amended Article 287 of the Labor Code
by providing for retirement pay to qualified private sector employees
in the absence of any retirement plan in the establishment.

Admittedly, petitioner worked for 14 years for the bus company

which did not adopt any retirement scheme. Even if petitioner as bus
conductor was paid on commission basis then, he falls within the
coverage of R.A. 7641 and its implementing rules. It bears emphasis
that under P.D. 851 or the SIL Law, the exclusion from its coverage of
workers who are paid on a purely commission basis is only with respect
to field personnel.

Arica vs 78210 https://www.scribd.com/doc/159459577/Arica-vs-NLRC-Digest

NLRC
Syllabus 3

Picaulan vs 173648 https://lawphil.blogspot.com/2012/01/case-digest-pigcaulan-

Security and v-scii-reyes.html
Credit
Investigation
Realda vs 192190 https://www.scribd.com/document/275148025/Realda-v-
New Age New-Age-Graphics
Graphic
Ariel David 195406
vs. MAcasio
Linton 163147
Commercial
vs Hellera
Bisig vs 151309
NLRC
Philippin 181972
Hotelier vs.
National
Union of
Workers
National 177524
Union of
WOkers in
Hotel vs.
Philippine
Plaza
holdings
SLL vs NLEC 172161
Our Haus vs 204651
Parian
Bluer than 192582
Blue vs
Esteban
Eastern 185665
Telecom vs.
Eastern
Telecoms
Uion
Kaisahan ng 174179
Kapatiran vs.
Manila
Water Inc
Vergara vs. 176985
Coca Cola
Syllabus 3

Wesleyan vs 181806
NEtlink vs 160827
Delmo
Grand Asian 178184
Shipping
Lines vs
Galvez
Quebral vs. 178184
Angbus
Toyota Pasig 213488
vs Peralta
Supra Multi 192297
Services vs
LAbitigan
RObina 175869
Farms Cebu
HSY 219569
Marketing
Ltd vs
Villastique
Perez vs 197557
Comparts
Intec Cebu 189851
vs CA
South 217575
COtabato vs.
Santo Tomas
Peoples 179652
Broadcasting
vs SOLE
Samonte vs. 199683
La Salle
Greenhills
Diamond 173254
Farms Inc vs.
SPFL
Cepalco vs. 211015
Cepalco
De Castro vs 204261
Ca
Light rail vs 188047
Alvarez
Syllabus 3

Manila 208451
Memorial
Park vs Lluz
Quintanar 210565
vs. Coca Cola
Bottlers