Case Digests in Labor Standards (PART V); Atty.
Kristy Jane Balino (17-18)
TITLE FACTS
Almodiel v NLRC • Petitioner was a CPA hired by Raytheon Philippines as
Cost Account Manager thru a placement firm John
Clements Consultants
• He recommended and submitted a Cost
Accounting/Finance Reorganization, affecting the whole
finance group but the same was disapproved by the
Controller. He was assured that should his position or
department which was apparently a one-man department
with no staff becomes untenable or unable to deliver the
needed service due to manpower constraint, he would be
given a three (3) year advanced notice.
• A cost accounting system was installed at Raytheon
lessening the workload of the petitioner
• Petitioner was dismissed on the ground of redundancy. He
requested to be transferred to another department but was
told that the same was conveyed to the DOLE
LA: not illegally dismissed, no legal ground
NLRC: reversed decision and pay separation
General Milling v Torres • NCR-DOLE issued an Alien Employment Permit to Tim
Cone as sports consultant of General Milling Corporation
• Private respondent Basketball Coaches Association of the
Philippines ("BCAP") appealed the issuance of said alien
employment permit to the respondent Secretary of Labor
• issued a decision ordering cancellation of petitioner Cone's
employment permit on the ground that there was no
showing that there is no person in the Philippines who is
competent, able and willing to perform the services
required nor that the hiring of petitioner Cone would
redound to the national interest.
ISSUES
Whether bad faith, malice
and irregularity crept in the
abolition of petitioner's
position of Cost Accounting
Manager on the ground of
redundancy
HELD
• petitioner was duly advised, one (1) month
before, of the termination of his
employment on the ground of redundancy
in a written notice by his immediate
superior
• employer has no legal obligation to keep
more employees than are necessary for
the operation of its business
• indispensable functions that were
dispersed, he failed however, to specify
and point out
• employer has a much wider discretion in
terminating employment relationship of
managerial personnel compared to rank
and file employees.7 The reason obviously
is that officers in such key positions
perform not only functions which by nature
require the employer's full trust and
confidence but also functions that spell the
success or failure of an enterprise.
• no comparison can be made between
petitioner Cone and Mr. Norman Black as
the latter is "a long time resident of the
country," and thus, not subject to the
provisions of Article 40 of the Labor Code
which apply only to "non-resident aliens."
In any case, the term "non-resident alien"
and its obverse "resident alien," here must
be given their technical connotation under
our law on immigration
• Neither can petitioners validly claim that
implementation of respondent Secretary's
decision would amount to an impairment of
the obligations of contracts. The provisions
of the Labor Code and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations requiring alien
DOCTRINES/NOTES
• Art. 283. Closure of
establishment and reduction of
personnel. — The employer may
also terminate the employment of
any employee due to 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 worker
and the Department of Labor and
Employment at least one (1)
month before the intended date
thereof. In case of termination
due to installation of labor-saving
devices or redundancy, the
worker affected thereby shall be
entitled to a separation pay
equivalent to at least one (1)
month pay for every year of
service, whichever is higher. In
case of retrenchment to prevent
losses and in cases of closure or
cessation of operations of
establishment or undertaking not
due to serious business losses or
financial reverses, the separation
pay shall be equivalent to at least
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
as one (1) whole year.
• Department of Labor is the
agency vested with jurisdiction to
determine the question of
availability of local workers. The
constitutional validity of legal
provisions granting such
jurisdiction and authority and
requiring proof of non-availability
of local nationals able to carry
out the duties of the position
involved, cannot be seriously
questioned.
Art. 40. Employment per unit of non-
resident aliens. –– Any alien seeking
admission to the Philippines for employment
purposes and any domestic or foreign
Emiaj Francinne M. Mendoza
Case Digests in Labor Standards (PART V); Atty. Kristy Jane Balino (17-18)
Nitto v NLRC • Petitioner Nitto Enterprises, a company engaged in the sale
of glass and aluminum products, hired Roberto Capili
sometime in May 1990 as an apprentice machinist, molder
and core maker as evidenced by an apprenticeship
agreement2 for a period of six (6) months
• August 2, 1990, Roberto Capili who was handling a piece
of glass which he was working on, accidentally hit and
injured the leg of an office secretary
• same day, after office hours, private respondent entered a
workshop within the office premises which was not his work
station. There, he operated one of the power press
machines without authority and in the process injured his
left thumb, the following day he was asked to resign
LA: dismissal was valid, and money claims dismissed because first,
private respondent who was hired as an apprentice violated the terms
of their agreement when he acted with gross negligence resulting in the
injury not only to himself but also to his fellow worker. Second, private
employment permits were in existence
long before petitioners entered into their
contract of employment.
• Labor Code itself specifically empowers
respondent Secretary to decide as to the
availability of the services of a "person in
the Philippines who is competent, able and
willing at the time of application to perform
the services for which an alien is desired."
• The permissive language employed in the
Labor Code indicates that the authority
granted involves the exercise of discretion
on the part of the issuing authority. In the
second place, Article 12 of the Labor Code
sets forth a statement of objectives that
the Secretary of Labor should, and indeed
must, consider in exercising his authority
and jurisdiction granted by the Labor
Code,
Whether private respondent • apprenticeship agreement between
was validly dismissed petitioner and private respondent was
executed on May 28, 1990 allegedly
employing the latter as an apprentice in
the trade of "care maker/molder." same
date, an apprenticeship program was
prepared by petitioner and submitted to
the Department of Labor and Employment.
However, the apprenticeship Agreement
was filed only on June 7, 1990.
Notwithstanding the absence of approval
by the Department of Labor and
Employment, the apprenticeship
agreement was enforced the day it was
signed.
• petitioner did not comply with the
requirements of the law. It is mandated
employer who desires to engage an alien for
employment in the Philippines shall obtain an
employment permit from the Department of
Labor.
The employment permit may be issued to a
non-resident alien or to the applicant
employer after a determination of the non-
availability of a person in the Philippines who
is competent, able and willing at the time of
application to perform the services for which
the alien is desired.
For an enterprise registered in preferred
areas of investments, said employment
permit may be issued upon recommendation
of the government agency charged with the
supervision of said registered enterprise.
• Art. 12. Statement of
Objectives. –– It is the policy of
the State:
a) To promote and
maintain a state of full
employment through improved
manpower training, allocation
and utilization;
xxx xxx xxx
c) To facilitate a free
choice of available employment
by persons seeking work in
conformity with the national
interest;
d) To facilitate and
regulate the movement of
workers in conformity with the
national interest;
e)To regulate the employment of
aliens, including the
establishment of a registration
and/or work permit system;
Art. 61 of the Labor Code
Contents of apprenticeship agreement. —
Apprenticeship agreements, including the
main rates of apprentices, shall conform to
the rules issued by the Minister of Labor and
Employment. The period of apprenticeship
shall not exceed six months. Apprenticeship
agreements providing for wage rates below
the legal minimum wage, which in no case
shall start below 75% per cent of the
applicable minimum wage, may be entered
into only in accordance with apprenticeship
program duly approved by the Minister of
Labor and Employment. The Ministry shall
develop standard model programs of
apprenticeship.
Emiaj Francinne M. Mendoza
Case Digests in Labor Standards (PART V); Atty. Kristy Jane Balino (17-18)
respondent had shown that "he does not have the proper attitude in that apprenticeship agreements entered by
employment particularly the handling of machines without authority and the employer and apprentice shall be
proper training. entered only in accordance with the
NLRC: reversed apprenticeship program
• approval by the Department of Labor and
Employment of the proposed
apprenticeship program is, therefore, a
condition sine quo non before an
apprenticeship agreement can be validly
entered into.
• act of filing the proposed apprenticeship
program with the Department of Labor and
Employment is a preliminary step towards
its final approval and does not
instantaneously give rise to an employer-
apprentice relationship.
• prior approval of the DOLE to any
apprenticeship program has to be secured
as a condition sine qua non before any
such apprenticeship agreement can be
fully enforced. The role of the DOLE in
apprenticeship programs and agreements
cannot be debased.
Bernardo v NLRC • complainants were deaf-mutes who were hired at different Whether the complainants • petitioners, except sixteen of them, should • Magna Carta for Disabled
periods by Far East Bank and Trust Co as Money Counters can be considered as be deemed regular employees. As such, Persons mandates that a
and Sorters through an agreement called Employment regular employees they have acquired legal rights that this qualified disabled employee
Contract for Handicapped Workers Court is duty-bound to protect and uphold, should be given the same terms
• Bank argued that complainants are special class of workers not as a matter of compassion but and conditions of employment as
hired temporarily under a special employment agreement because of law and justice. a qualified able-bodied person
and that the idea of hiring handicapped workers was • bank entered into the aforesaid contract • primary standard, therefore, of
acceptable to them only on agreement basis with a total of 56 handicapped workers and determining regular employment
NLRC: complainants were hired as an accommodation to [the] renewed the contracts of 37 of them. In is the reasonable connection
recommendation of civic oriented personalities whose employment[s] fact, two of them worked from 1988 to between the particular activity
were covered by xxx Employment Contract[s] with special provisions on 1993. Verily, the renewal of the contracts performed by the employee in
duration of contract as specified under Art. 80. Hence, as correctly held of the handicapped workers and the hiring relation to the usual trade or
by the Labor Arbiter a quo, the terms of the contract shall be the law of others lead to the conclusion that their business of the employer. The
between the parties tasks were beneficial and necessary to the test is whether the former is
bank. More important, these facts show usually necessary or desirable in
that they were qualified to perform the the usual business or trade of the
responsibilities of their positions employer. T
• The fact that the employees were qualified
disabled persons necessarily removes the
employment contracts from the ambit of
Article 80. Since the Magna Carta accords
them the rights of qualified able-bodied
persons, they are thus covered by Article
280 of the Labor Code
• task of counting and sorting bills is
necessary and desirable to the business of
respondent bank
PLDT v NLRC • Marilyn Abucay, a traffic operator of the PLDT was found Whether the complainant is • grant of separation pay in the case at bar • Equity has been defined as
guilty of demanding and receiving for an amount in entitled to separation pay is unjustified. justice outside law, 14 being
consideration of her promise to facilitate approvals of • a person dismissed for cause as defined ethical rather than jural and
application for phone installation therein is not entitled to separation pay belonging to the sphere of
based on the principles of equity except, morals than of law. 15 It is
Emiaj Francinne M. Mendoza
Case Digests in Labor Standards (PART V); Atty. Kristy Jane Balino (17-18)
• She went to the Ministry of Labor and Employment claiming based on the demands of social justice,
that she had been illegally dismissed but the complaint was particularly the protection of the rights of
dismissed for lack of merit the workers
• separation pay, when it was considered
NLRB: upheld decision warranted, was required regardless of the
nature or degree of the ground proved, be
it mere inefficiency or something graver
like immorality or dishonesty
• where the cause of the separation is more
serious than mere inefficiency, the
generosity of the law must be more
discerning
• separation pay shall be allowed as a
measure of social justice only in those
instances where the employee is validly
dismissed for causes other than serious
misconduct or those reflecting on his moral
character.
Phil Aeolous v NLRC • a memorandum was issued by the personnel manager of • whether the • The acts complained of, under the
Philippine Aeolus to respondent Rosalinda Cortez asking to NLRC gravely circumstances they were done, did not in
explain her side on why she threw a stapler at her superior abused its any way pertain to her duties as a nurse.
William Chua and uttering invectives to him, losing a discretion in Her employment identification card
certain amount of money entrusted by her manager, and holding as discloses the nature of her employment as
asking a co-employee to punch in her time card illegal the a nurse and no other
• she did not submit the required explanation, company put dismissal of • About the third alleged infraction, i.e., the
her under preventive suspension private act of private respondent in asking a co-
• while under PS, she was asked to explain why she failed to respondent employee to punch-in her time card,
process atm applications of her co employees • whether she is although a violation of company rules,
• respondent only replied to the losing of money and time entitled to likewise does not constitute serious
card incidents damages if the misconduct.
• a third memo was issued on her termination on grounds of illegality of her • All the requirements prescribed by law are
gross habitual neglect and willful breach of trust dismissal is wanting in the present case
LA: lack of merit sustained. • On the issue of moral and exemplary
NLRC: reversed damages, the NLRC ruled that private
respondent was not entitled to recover
such damages for her failure to prove that
petitioner corporation had been motivated
by malice or bad faith or that it acted in a
wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner
in terminating her services. In disbelieving
the explanation proffered by private
respondent that the transfer of her table
was the response of a spurned lothario
Emiaj Francinne M. Mendoza
grounded on the precepts of
conscience and not on any
sanction of positive law. 16
Hence, it cannot prevail against
the expressed provision of the
labor laws allowing dismissal of
employees for cause and without
any provision for separation pay.
• separation pay, if found due
under the circumstances of each
case, should be computed at the
rate of one-month salary for
every year of service, assuming
the length of such service is
deemed material. This is without
prejudice to the application of
special agreements between the
employer and the employee
stipulating a higher rate of
computation and providing for
more benefits to the discharged
employee.
• for misconduct or improper
behavior to be a just cause for
dismissal (a) it must be serious;
(b) must relate to the
performance of the employees
duties; and, (c) must show that
the employee has become unfit
to continue working for the
employer.
• to consider it a serious
misconduct that would justify
dismissal under the law, it must
have been done in relation to the
performance of her duties as
would show her to be unfit to
continue working for her
employer
• Gross negligence implies a want
or absence of or failure to
exercise slight care or diligence,
or the entire absence of care. It
evinces a thoughtless disregard
of consequences without
exerting any effort to avoid them.
The negligence, to warrant
removal from service, should not
merely be gross but also
habitual.
• willful breach by the employee of
the trust reposed in him by his
employer" must be founded on
facts established by the
employer who must clearly and
Case Digests in Labor Standards (PART V); Atty. Kristy Jane Balino (17-18)
Apex Mining v NLRC • Sinclita Candida was employed by petitioner Apex Mining
Company, Inc. to perform laundry services at its staff house
located at Masara, Maco, Davao del Norte
• while she was attending to her assigned task and she was
hanging her laundry, she accidentally slipped and hit her
back on a stone and as a result was not able to go back to
her work
• her supervisor offered money to force her to resign but she
refused the offer and opted to go back to work. She was
still not allowed
DOLE: granted money claims; complainant not satisfied
NLRC: denied petition
Ultra Villa v Geniston • private respondent acted as a Poll Watcher for the National
Union of Christian Democrats and did not report for work
for two days because of his poll-watching
• upon arriving home, respondent discovered that his
manager called his mother and verbally lashed out on her ,
informing that Geniston was dismissed from work
• the next day he went to the residence of Tio to plead for his
job but was denied by Tio
convincingly prove by substantial
evidence the facts and incidents
upon which loss of confidence in
the employee may fairly be made
to rest
• gravamen of the offense in
sexual harassment is not the
violation of the employee's
sexuality but the abuse of power
by the employer. Any employee,
male or female, may rightfully cry
"foul" provided the claim is well
substantiated.
Whether Candida is falls • definition cannot be interpreted to include Rule XIII, Section l(b), Book 3 of the Labor
under the term househelper househelp or laundrywomen working in Code
as to entitle her to money staffhouses of a company, like petitioner The term "househelper" as used herein is
claims who attends to the needs of the company's synonymous to the term "domestic servant"
guest and other persons availing of said and shall refer to any person, whether male
facilities. or female, who renders services in and about
• difference in their circumstances (HH, the employer's home and which services are
domestic servant, laundry woman) is that usually necessary or desirable for the
in the former instance they are actually maintenance and enjoyment thereof, and
serving the family while in the latter case, ministers exclusively to the personal comfort
whether it is a corporation or a single and enjoyment of the employer's family.
proprietorship engaged in business or
industry or any other agricultural or similar
pursuit, service is being rendered in the
staffhouses or within the premises of the
business of the employer. In such
instance, they are employees of the
company or employer in the business
concerned entitled to the privileges of a
regular employee.
• The mere fact that the househelper or
domestic servant is working within the
premises of the business of the employer
and in relation to or in connection with its
business, as in its staffhouses for its guest
or even for its officers and employees,
warrants the conclusion that such
househelper or domestic servant is and
should be considered as a regular
employee of the employer and not as a
mere family househelper or domestic
servant as contemplated in Rule XIII,
Section l(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as
amended.
1. Whether Art. 141. Coverage. - This Chapter shall
respondent 1. Yes. apply to all persons rendering services in
was the households for compensation.
petitioner’s (1) Private respondents admission during the Domestic or household service shall mean
personal driver mandatory conference that he was services in the employers home which is
2. Whether petitioners personal driver usually necessary or desirable for the
respondent maintenance and enjoyment thereof and
includes ministering to the personal comfort
Emiaj Francinne M. Mendoza
Case Digests in Labor Standards (PART V); Atty. Kristy Jane Balino (17-18)
• Petitioner Rosie Tio, on the other hand, maintained that
private respondent was her personal driver, not an
employee of the Ultra Villa Food Haus. On the day of the
counting, petitioner was forced to get a substitute and
respondent merely collected his salary a week after
LA: Ganiston was personal driver
NLRC: private respondents arguments meritorious, and ordered
petitioner to reinstate private respondent
abandoned his (2) Copies of the Ultra Villa Food Haus payroll
job which do not contain private respondents
name.
(3) Affidavits of Ultra Villa Food Haus
employees attesting that private
respondent was never an employee of
said establishment.
(4) Petitioner Tios undisputed allegation that
she works as the branch manager of the
CFC Corporation whose office is in
Mandaue City. This would support the
Labor Arbiters observation that private
respondents position as driver would be
incongruous with his functions as a waiter
of Ultra Villa Food Haus.
(5) The Joint Affidavit of the warehouseman
and warehouse checker of the CFC
Corporation
Therefore, petitioner is not required by law to
grant private respondent of any benefit set forth by law
2. No. Though this job may pay more in a
day, elections in this country are so far in
between that it is unlikely that any person
would abandon his job to embark on a
career as an election watcher, the
functions of which are seasonal and
temporary in nature.
dismissal from petitioners employ being
unjust, petitioner is entitled to an indemnity
under Article 149
and convenience of the members of the
employers household, including services of
family drivers.
Art. 141. Coverage. - This Chapter shall
apply to all persons rendering services in
households for compensation.
Domestic or household service shall mean
services in the employers home which is
usually necessary or desirable for the
maintenance and enjoyment thereof and
includes ministering to the personal comfort
and convenience of the members of the
employers household, including services of
family drivers.
To constitute abandonment, two requisites
must concur: (1) the failure to report to work
or absence without valid or justifiable reason,
and (2) a clear intention to sever the
employer-employee relationship as
manifested by some overt acts, with the
second requisite as the more determinative
factor.The burden of proving abandonment
as a just cause for dismissal is on the
employer.
Art. 149. Indemnity for unjust termination of
services. If the period of household service is
fixed, neither the employer nor the
househelper may terminate the contract
before the expiration of the term, except for a
just cause. If the househelper is unjustly
dismissed, he or she shall be paid the
compensation already earned plus that for
fifteen (15) days by way of indemnity.
Emiaj Francinne M. Mendoza