DIMAPORO LALANTO UMPA

DIMAAMPAO JALI
Mariano B. Daang v Skippers United Pacific Inc. and Commercial S.A.1
Gr. No. 191902 , July , 2019

1. The law does not consider as valid any agreement to receive less
compensation than what a worker is entitled to recover nor prevent him
from demanding benefits to which he is entitled.2

2. A conditional settlement of a judgment award which is highly prejudicial to

the employee will be treated as a voluntary settlement of his/her claim that
operates as a final satisfaction in his/her favor, rendering a case
questioning the award moot and academic.3

3. The parties executed a Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment. Under the

parties’ Agreement, in the event of a reversal of the NLRC ruling,
Hernandez not only committed to return what he received, he also waived
his right to judicial recourse, thereby leaving him with the proverbial empty
bag. We held that such conditional payment of the seafarer’s claim should
be treated as a “voluntary settlement” in full satisfaction of the NLRC’s
judgment – which consequently rendered the employer’s petition before
the CA moot and academic.4

1
Mariano B. Daang v Skippers United Pacific Inc. and Commercial S.A, Gr. No. 191902, July, 2019

2
Ibid.
3
ibid
4
Ibid citing Hernandez v Crossworld Marine Services, Inc
 Elpidio T. Que v Asia Brewer, Inc and/or Michael G. Tan,
Gr. No. 202388, April 10, 2019

1. Redundancy exist when the service of an employee is in excess of what is

reasonably demanded by the actual requirement of the business. A
redundant position is one rendered superfluous by an number of factors,
such as over hiring of workers, decreased volume of business, dropping of a
particular product line previously manufactured by the company or phasing
out of service activity formerly undertaken by the enterprise.5

2. Among the accepted criteria in implementing a redundancy program are: 1)

preferred status; 2) efficiency; 3) seniority.6

3. The determination of the continuing necessity of a particular officer or

position in a business corporation is a management prerogative and the
court will not interfere unless arbitrary or malicious action on the part of
management is shown.7

4. It is within the exclusive prerogative of management to determine the

qualification and fitness of an employee for hiring and firing, promotion or
reassignment. Indeed, an employer has no legal obligation to keep more
employees than are necessary for the operation of its business.8

5
Lowe, Inc v CA, 612 Phil. 1, 1056 (2009)
6
Elpidio T. Que v Asia Brewer, Inc and/or Michael G. Tan, Gr. No. 202388, April 10, 2019

7
Ibid.
8
Ibid.
 5. Substantial evidence, as amply explained in numerous cases, is that amount
of “relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.”9

6. Constructive dismissal has been defined as the “cessation of work because

continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as
an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay and other
benefits.”10 It may exist “if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or
disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the
employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his
continued employment.”11

Dominic Inocentes, etc al v. R. Syjuco Construction, Inc, Ryan I. Syjuco, G.r no.
237020, July 29,201912

1. The principal test to determine whether employees were project, not

regular, employees, was to ascertain if they were assigned to carry out a
specific project or undertaking, the scope and duration of which was
specified and made known to the employees at the time of engagement.13

2. The issue of whether a person is a regular employee (of a project employee

at that) involves factual matter which are generally beyond the scope of a

9
Ibid citing Raymundo v Central Azucarera Dela Carlota
10
Ibid citing Morales v Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc, 68 Phil 112, 120 (2012)
11
ibid
12
Dominic Inocentes, Jeffrey Inocentes, Joseph Cornelio and Reymark Catangui v. R. Syjuco Construction,
Inc (RSCI/Arch. Ryan I. Syjuco G.r no. 237020, July 29,2019

13
Ibid.
 petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as only questions of law may
be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. 14

3. The Labor Code as amended defines a regular employee as a (a) one that
has been engaged to perform tasks usually necessary or desirable in the
employer’s usual business or trade – without falling within the category of
either a fixed, a project, or a seasonal employee; or (b) one that has been
engaged for at least a year, with respect to the activity exists.15 On the
other hand, a project employee is one whose employment has been fixed
for a specified project or undertaking, the completion or termination of
which is a made known at the time of the engagement of the employee.16

4. While the lack of a written contract does not necessarily make one a
regular employee, a written contract serves as proof that employees were
informed of the duration and scope of their work and their statues as
project employee at the commencement of their engagement. There being
none that was adduced here, the presumption that the employees are
regular employees prevails.17

Jaime Montealegre Chamon’te, Inc v Spouses Abraham and Remedios de vera,

G.r no. 208920, July 10, 201918

14
Ibid citing Dacuital v L.m Camus Engineering Corp. Phil. 158, 169 (2010)
15
Article 295 of the Labor Code of the Philippines
16
ibid
17
ibid
18
Jaime Montealegre Chamon’te, Inc v Spouses Abraham and Remedios de vera, G.r no. 208920, July 10,
2019
 1. The Doctrine of Piercing the veil applies only in three basic areas, namely:
1) defeat of public convenience as when the corporate fiction is used as a
vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation; 2) fraud cases or when the
corporate entity is used to justify a wrong protect fraud, or defend a crime;
or 3) alter ego cases, where a corporation is merely a farce since it is a mere
alter ego or business conduit of a person, or where the corporation is so
organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it
merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of another
corporation. In the absence of malice, bad faith or a specific provision of
law making a corporate officer liable, such corporate officer cannot be
made personally liable for corporate liabilities.19

2. The general rule is corporate officers are not held solidarily liable with the
corporation for separation pay because the corporation is invested by law
with a personality separate and distinct from those persons composing it as
well as from that of any other legal entity to which it may be related. To
hold a director or officer personally liable for corporate obligation is the
exception and it only occurs when the following requisite are present: 1)
the complaint must allege that the director or officer was guilty of gross
negligence or bad faith; and 2) there must be proof that the director or
officer acted in bad faith. 20

19
ibid
20
Ibid citing Lozada v Mendoza
 ARNULF0 M. FERNANDEZ vs. KALOOKANSLAUGHTERHOUSE
INCORPORATED/ERNESTO CUNANAN, GR No. 22507521
4. To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, four
elements generally need to be considered, namely: (1) the selection and
engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of
dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee's conduct. These
elements or indicators comprise the so-called 'four-fold' test of
employment relationship.22

5. the fact that the company provided identification cards and uniforms and
the vague affidavit of the purported employer were sufficient evidence to
prove the existence of employer-employee relationship.23

JOSE ASPIRAS MALICDEM vs. ASIA BULK TRANSPORT PHILS., INC., INTER-OCEAN
COMPANY LIMITED (formerly OCEAN SHIPPING COMPANY) AND ERNESTO T.
TUVIDA, GR No. 224753, June 19, 201924
7. For disability to be compensable under Section 20(A) of the Amended
Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of
Filipino Seafarers on-Board Ocean-Going Ships issued on October 26, 2010
(2010 POEA-SEC),49 two (2) elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness

21
Fernandez v. Kalookan Slaughterhouse Inc. GR No. 225075, June 19, 2019.
www.sc.judiciary.gov.ph/5784/
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid, citing Masonic Contractor vs. Madjos.
24
Malicdem v. Asia Bulk Transport Phils, GR No. 224753, June 19, 2019.
www.sc.judiciary.gov.ph/5782/
 must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have
existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract.25

8. The degree of proof required in compensation cases is substantial evidence

or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to justify the conclusion. 26

9. For the seaman's claim to prosper, however, it is mandatory that he should

be examined by a company-designated physician within three days from his
repatriation. Failure to comply with this mandatory reporting requirement
without justifiable cause shall result in forfeiture of the right to claim the
compensation and disability benefits provided under the POEA-SEC. 27

10. the mandatory requirement does admit of exceptions, namely: (1)

when the seafarer is incapacitated to report to the employer upon his
repatriation; and (2) when the employer inadvertently or deliberately
refused to submit the seafarer to a post-employment medical examination
by a company-designated physician.28

11. Factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, including

labor tribunals, are accorded much respect by the Court as they are
specialized to rule on matters falling within their jurisdiction, these findings
are only binding when supported by substantial evidence.29

25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid, citing Coastal Safeway Marine Services, Inc. v Esguerra.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid.
 12. Section 20(A)(4) of the 2010 POEA-SEC creates a disputable
presumption that illnesses not listed as an occupational disease in Section
32 are work-related. This disputable presumption is made in the law to
signify that the non-inclusion in the list of compensable diseases/illnesses
does not translate to an absolute exclusion from disability benefits. At the
same time, however, this disputable presumption does not signify an
automatic grant of compensation and/or benefits claim.30

13. It is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the

task of assessing a seafarer's illness for purposes of claiming disability
benefits.31

JEBSENS MARITIME, INC. AND/OR STAR CLIPPERS, LTD, vs. EDGARDO M.

MIRASOL, G.R. No. 213874 , June 19, 201932

5. the rules when a seafarer claims total and permanent disability benefits, as
follows:

3. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment

on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the
time the seafarer reported to him;
4. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the
period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's
disability becomes permanent and total;

30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
32
Jibsens Maritime Inc. v. Mirasol, GR No. 213874, June 19, 2019. www.sc.judiciary.gov.ph/5776/
 5. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the
period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g. seafarer required
further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period
of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer
has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has
sufficient justification to extend the period; and
6. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within
the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes
permanent and total, regardless of any justification. 33
CELIAR. ATIENZA vs. NOEL SACRAMENTO SALUTA, GR No. 233413, June 17,
201934
1. In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to
prove that its dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause. However,
before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee
relationship must first be established.35

2. Before the employer is obliged to prove that the dismissal was legal, the
employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his
dismissal from service.36

3. The evidence presented to show the employee's termination from

employment must be clear, positive, and convincing.37

33
Ibid, citing El burg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, Jr.
34
Atienza v. Saluta, GR No. 233413, june 17, 2019. www.sc.judiciary.gov.ph/6014/
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
37
 4. Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to
resume his employment. It is a form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause
for termination of employment by the employer. For a valid finding of
abandonment, these two factors should be present: (1) the failure to report
for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear
intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with the second as the
more determinative factor which is manifested by overt acts from which it
may be deduced that the [employee] has no more intention to work. The
intent to discontinue the employment must be shown by clear proof that it
was deliberate and unjustified.38

5. Mere absence or failure to report for work is not tantamount to

abandonment of work.39

6. Section 4( d) of the Kasambahay Law pertaining to who are included in the

enumeration of domestic or household help cannot also be interpreted to
include family drivers because the latter category of worker is clearly not
included.40

7. The constitutionality or validity of laws, orders, or such other rules with the
force of law cannot be attacked collaterally. There is a legal presumption of
validity of these laws and rules. Unless a law or rule is annulled in a direct
proceeding, the legal presumption of its validity stands. 41

38
Ibid, citing Protective Maximum Security Agency, Inc. v. Fuentes.
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.

41 Ibid.
 8. A reversal of a judgment on appeal is binding on the parties to the suit, but
shall not benefit the parties against whom the judgment was rendered in
the court a quo, but who did not join in the appeal, unless their rights and
liabilities and those of the parties appealing are so interwoven and
dependent as to be inseparable, in which case a reversal as to one operates
as a reversal as to all.42

42
Ibid.
 14. GR No. Carolina’s Lace Shoppe, Lourdes Ragas and Claudine
Mangasing
vs. Gloria Maquilan and Joy Maquilan

Case Doctrine:

I.
In illegal dismissal cases, the fundamental rule is that when an employer
interposes the defense of resignation, the burden to prove that the
employee indeed voluntarily resigned necessarily rests upon the employer.
43

II.
The act of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be
considered to determine whether in fact, he or she intended to relinquish
such employment. 44

III.
Resignation letters which are in the nature of a quitclaim, loopsidedly
worded to free the employer from liabilities revel the absence of
voluntariness. 45

IV.

43
Doble, Jr. v. ABB, Inc/Nitin Desai, 810 Phil. 210, 228-229 (2010)
44
Fortuny Garments/Johnny Co. v. Castro, 514 Phil. 317 (2005)
45
Mobile Protective & Detective Agency, 563 Phil. 1 (2007)
 Basic Contents and of a valid and effective quitclaim, to wit:

1. A fixed amount as full and final compromise settlement;

2. The benefits of the employees if possible with the corresponding
amounts, which the employees are giving up in consideration of the fixed
compromise amount;
3. A statement that the employer has clearly explained to the employee in
English, Filipino, or in the dialect known to the employees—that by signing
the waiver or quitclaim, they are forfeiting or relinquishing their right to
receive the benefits which are due them under the law; and
4. A statement that the employees signed and executed the document
voluntarily, and had fully understood the contents of the document and
that their consent was freely given without any threat, violence, duress,
intimidation, or undue influence exerted on their person. 46

V.
Under the law, there are no shortcuts in terminating the security of tenure
of an employee. 47

46
Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.
47
Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines, GR No. 229881, September
2018
 15. GR No. 204971, April 10, 2019
CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION – ASSOCIATES LABOR
UNIONS
v. COURT OF APPEALS

Case Doctrine:

I.
Review of NLRC decisions must be made before the CA by petition for
certiorari under Rule 6548; and then before this court by petition for review
under Rule 4549, for the special civil action of certiorari is a distinct remedy
from, and not a substitute for, appeal by certiorari under Rule 4550.

16. GR No. 226578, January 28, 2019

AUGUSTIN INTERNATIONAL CENTER, INC. vs. ELFRENITO B. BARTOLOME
AND RUMBY L. YAMAT

Case Doctrine:

I.
The mechanism contemplated herein is an amicable settlement whereby
the parties can negotiate with each other; it is not a voluntary arbitration

48
St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC 356 Phil. 811 (1998)
49
RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Section 1; Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Espiritu, 749 Phil. 388
(2014)
50
People vs. Sandiganbayan, 490 Phil 105, 113-114
 under the Labor Code wherein a third party renders a decision to resolve
the dispute. The text of the contractual provision shows that the
designated person is tasked merely to participate in the amicable
settlement and not to decide the dispute. This participation is in line with
the mandate of Filipino Resource Centers, in which labor attachés are
members, to engage in the conciliation of disputes arising from employer-
employee relationship. 51

II.
A recruitment agency is solidarily liable with the foreign employer for
money claims arising out of the employee-employer relationship between
the latter and the overseas Filipino worker. 52

51
Under RA 8042 Labor Attachés remain active in protecting migrant workers as a member of the
Filipinos /resources Center
52
RA 8042, as amended by RA 10022
 17. GR No. 235873, january 21, 2019
Enrique arco G. Yulo vs. Concentrix Daksh Services Philippines, Inc.

Case Doctrine:

I.
Essentially, redundancy exists when an employee’s position is superfluous,
or an employee’s services are in excess of what would reasonably be
demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. Redundancy could
be the result of a number of factors, such as the overhiring of workers, a
decrease in the volume of business, or the dropping of a particular line or
service previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise. 53

II.

The characterization of an employee’s services as redundant and therefore,

properly terminable, is an exercise of management prerogative, 54
considering that an employer has no legal obligation to keep more than are
necessary for the operation of its business. 55 Nevertheless, case law
qualifies that the exercise of such prerogative “must not be in violation of
the law, and must not be arbitrary or malicious.56

53
PNB v. Dalmacio, GR No. 202308, July 5, 2017
54
General Milling Corporation v. Viajar, 702 Phil. 532, 545 (2013)
55
Morales vs Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, 699 Phil. 129, 140 (2012)
56
General Milling Corporation vs. Viajar, supra note 21.
 III.

It is not enough for a company to merely declare that it has become

overmanned. Rather, it must produce adequate proof of such redundancy
to justify the dismissal of the affected employees, such as but not limited to
the new staffing pattern, feasibilty studies/proposal, on the viability of the
newly created positions, job description and the approval by the
management of the restructuring. 57

IV.
Fair and reasonable criteria may include but are not limited to the
following:
(a) less preferred status; (b) efficiency; and (c) seniority. The presence of
these criteria used by the employer shows good faith on its part and is
evidence that the implementation of redundancy was painstakingly done
by the employer in order to properly justify the termination from the
service of its employees. 58

57
Id.
58
Golden Thread Kniting Industries, Inc. v. NLRC, 364 Phil. 215 (1999)