Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

LABOR LAW

Dean Salvador A. Poquiz

LABOR & SOCIAL LEGISLATION

RECRUITMENT & PLACEMENT

*People of the Philippines v. Edith Ramos Abat; G.R. No. 168651, 16 March 2011

The absence or receipts in a criminal case for illegal recruitment does not warrant the
acquittal of the accused and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

*Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd. And Agemar Manning Agency, Inc., v.


EstanislaoSurio, Freddie Palguiran, et al.; G.R. No. 154213, 23 August 2012

Although R.A. 8042, through its Section 10, transferred the original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide money claims involving overseas Filipino workers from the
POEA to the Labor Arbiters, the law did not remove from the POEA the original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all disciplinary cases and other special cases
administrative in character involving such workers. The NLRC had no appellate
jurisdiction to review the decision of the POEA in disciplinary cases involving overseas
contract workers. Petitioners should have appealed the adverse decision of the POEA to
the Secretary of Labor instead of the NLRC.

LABOR STANDARDS

*Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. Ernesto C. Tanawan; G.R. No. 160444, 29 August
2012

A seafarer, to be entitled to disability benefits, must prove that the injury was suffered
during the term of the employment, and must submit himself to the company-designated
physician for evaluation within three days from his repatriation.

While the seafarers and their employers are governed by their mutual agreements, the
POEA rules and regulations require that the POEA SEC, which contains the standard
terms and conditions of the seafarers’ employment in foreign ocean-going vessels, be
integrated in every seafarers’ contract.

Company-designated physician--The one tasked to determine whether the seafarer


suffers from any disability or is fit to work is the company-designated physician. As such,
the seafarer must submit himself to the company-designated physician for a post
employment medical examination within three days from his repatriation. But the
assessment of the company-designated physician is not final, binding or conclusive on
the seafarer, the labor tribunals, or the courts. The seafarer may request a second opinion
and consult a physician of his choice regarding his ailment or injury, and the medical
report issued by the physician of his choice shall also be evaluated on its inherent merit
by the labor tribunal and the court.

Disability benefits—Even in the absence of an official finding by the company-designated


physician to the effect that the seafarer suffers a disability and is unfit for sea duty, the
seafarer may still be declared to be suffering from a permanent disability if he is unable
to work for more than 120 days. What clearly determines the seafarer’s entitlement to
permanent disability benefits is his inability to work for more than 120 days.

1
*Netlink Computer Incorporated v. Eric Delmo; G.R. No. 160827, 18 June 2014

In the absence of a written agreement between the employer and the employer that sales
commissions shall be paid in a foreign currency, the latter has the right to be paid in such
foreign currency once the same has become an established practice of the former. The
rate of exchange at the time of payment, not the rate of exchange at the time of the sales,
controls.

Non-diminution of benefits—With regard to the length of time the company practice


should have been observed to constitute a voluntary employer practice that cannot be
unilaterally reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer, the
Supreme Court finds that jurisprudence has not laid down any rule requiring a specific
minimum number of years.

*Mega Magazine Publications, Inc. v. Margaret A. Defensor; G.R. No. 162021, 16 June
2014

The grant of a bonus or special incentive, being a management prerogative, is not a


demandable and enforceable obligation, except when the bonus or special incentive is
made part of the wage, salary orcompensation of the employee, or is promised by the
employer and expressly agreed upon by the parties. By its very definition, bonus is a
gratuity or act of liberality of the giver, and cannot be considered part of an employee’s
wages if it is paid only when profits are realized or a certain amount of productivity is
achieved. If the desired goal of production or actual work is not accomplished, the bonus
does not accrue.

*National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC) v. Alliance of Progressive Labor


(APL); G.R. No. 150326, 12 March 2014

The Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards (RTWPBs) could issue
exemption s from the application of the wage orders as long as the exemptions complied
with the rules of the National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC). The wage
orders issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards could be
reviewed by the National Wages and Productivity Commission motupropioor upon
appeal. Any party aggrieved by the wage order issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages
and Productivity Boards could appeal.

POST EMPLOYMENT (EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP)

*Legend Hotel (Manila) v. Hernani S. Ruyo; G.R. No. 153511, 18 July 2012

A petition for certiorari brought to assail the decision of the NLRC may raise factual
issues, and the CA may then review the decision of the NLRC and pass upon such factual
issues in the process. The power of the CA to review factual issues in the exercise of its
own original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is based on Section 9 of B.P. 129.
There is no need to prove that the NLRC is guilty of grave abuse of discretion first before
the CA can acquire jurisdiction.

Where a pianist who performs in the restaurant of a hotel could not choose the time and
place of his performance, was required by the restaurant manager to conform with the
venue’s motif, and had been subjected to the rules on employees’ representation checks
and chits, said pianist is an employee of the restaurant. The power of the employer to
control the work of the employee is considered most significant determinant of the
existence of an employer-employee relationship.

*Alumaymay O. Jamias, Jennifer Matuguinas and Jennifer Cruz v. NLRC, et al; G.R. No.
159350. 9 March 2016

The test to determine whether a particular employee is engaged as a project or regular


employee is whether or not the employee assigned to carry out specific project or

2
undertaking, the duration or scope of which was specified at the time of his engagement.
There must be a determination of, or a clear agreement on, the completion or termination
of the project at the time the employee is engaged.

*D.M. Consunji Corporation v. Rogelio P. Bello; G.R. No. 159371, 29 July 2013

For the resignation of an employee to be a viable defense in an action for illegal dismissal,
an employer must prove that the resignation was voluntary, and its evidence thereon
must be clear, positive and convincing. The employer cannot rely on the weakness of the
employee’s evidence.

A project employee is one who is hired for a specific project or undertaking, and the
completion or termination of such project or undertaking has been determined at the time
of engagement of the employee.

The extension of the employment of a project employee long after the supposed project
has been completed removes the employee from the scope of a project employee and
makes him a regular employee.

It is axiomatic in labor law that the employer who interposes the defense of voluntary
resignation of the employee in an illegal dismissal case must prove by clear, positive and
convincing evidence that the resignation was voluntary; and that the employer cannot
rely on the weakness of the defense of the employee.

*Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. The Lepanto CAPATAZ Union; G.R. No.
157086, 18 February 2013

Capatazes are not rank-and-file employees because they perform supervisory functions
for the management; hence, they may form their own union that is separate and distinct
from the labor organization of rank-and-file employees.

*Jao v. BCC Products Sales, Inc.; G.R. No. 163700, 18 April 2012

The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact. Generally, a


re-examination of factual findings cannot be done by the Court acting on a petition for
review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts but reviews only questions of
law. – Nor may the court be bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence adduced
and considered in the proceedings below. This rule is not absolute, however, and admits
of exceptions. For one, the Court may look into factual issues in labor cases when the
factual findings of the labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA are conflicting.

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

*Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation v. Ricardo Coros; G.R. No. 157802, 13
October 2010

As a rule, the illegal dismissal of an officer or other employee of a private employer is


properly cognizable by the Labor Arbiter. However, where the complaint for illegal
dismissal concerns a corporate officer, the controversy falls under the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court.

*DaniloEscario, et al. v. NLRC, Pinakamasarap Corporation, et al.; G.R. No. 160302, 27


September 2010

Art. 264(a) authorizes the award of full backwages only when the termination of
employment is a consequence of an unlawful lockout. On the consequences of an illegal
strike, the provision distinguishes between a union officer and a union member
participating in an illegal strike. A union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal
strike is deemed to have lost his employment status, but a union member who is merely
instigated or induced to participate in the illegal strike is more benignly treated.

3
*Jennifer Lagahit v. Pacific Concord Container Lines/Monette Cuenca; G.R. No. 177680,
13 January 2016

In cases of unlawful dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proving that the
termination was for a valid or authorized cause, but before the employer is expected to
discharge its burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first
establish a substantial evidence the fact of her dismissal from employment.

As a rule, the employer who interposes the resignation of the employee as s defense
should prove that the employee voluntarily resigned.

To justify the dismissal of an employee, the employer must, as a rule, prove that the
dismissal was for a just cause, and that the employee was afforded due process prior to
dismissal.

For loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for the termination of the employee,
the employer must establish that: (1) the employee must be holding a position of trust
and confidence; and (2) the act complained against would justify the loss of trust and
confidence.

Her position as sales manager did not immediately make the petitioner a managerial
employee. The actual work that she performed, not her job title, determined whether she
was managerial employee vested with trust and confidence.

The cause of the loss of trust must ne work-related as to expose the employee as unfit
to continue working for the employer.

*Radio Mindanao Network, Inc. v. Michael Maximo R. Amurao III; G.R. No. 167225, 22
October 2014

A quitclaim is invalid or contrary to public policy only: (1) where there is clear proof that
the waiver was wrangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person; or (2) where the terms
of settlement are unconscionable on their face.

*Northwest Airlines Inc. v. Ma. Concepcion M. Del Rosario; G.R. No. 157633, 10
September 2014

Misconduct or improper behavior, to be a just cause for termination of employment, must:


(a) be serious; (b) relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and (c) show that
the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.

*Lolita S Concepcion v. Minex Import Corporation/Minerama Corporation et al.; G.R. No.


153569, 24 January 2012

The employer may validly dismiss for loss of trust and confidence an employee who
commits an act of fraud prejudicial to the interest of the employer. Neither a criminal
prosecution nor a conviction beyond reasonable doubt for the crime is a requisite for the
validity of the dismissal. Nonetheless, the dismissal of due process under the Labor
Code; otherwise, the employer is liable to pay nominal damages as indemnity to the
dismissed employee.

*Rosalie L. Gargoles v. Reylita S. Del Rosario (Jay Anne’s One Hour Photo Shop); G.R.
No. 158583, 10 September 2014

An act of dishonesty by an employee who has been put in charge of the employer’s
money and property amounts to breach of the trust reposed by the employer, and
normally leads to loss of confidence in her. Such dishonesty comes within the just and
valid causes for the termination of her employment under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
The dishonesty imputed to the petitioner included the making of double entries in the
production reports and thereby enriching herself by pocketing the extra cash generated
from the double entries. The failure of the employee to rebut or disprove the proof of
wrongdoing then establishes the charge against her. This is especially true in a case for

4
dismissal grounded on loss of confidence or breach of trust, in which the employer may
proceed to dismiss the erring employee once the employer becomes morally convinced
that she was guilty of a breach of trust and confidence.

*Crisanto F. Castro, Jr. v. Ateneo De Naga University, Fr. Joel Abora, et al.; G.R. No.
175293, 23 July 2014

The employer is obliged to reinstate the dismissed employee and to pay his wages during
the period of appeal of the decision in the latter’s favor until the reversal of the decision.

*Dongon v. Rapid Movers and Forwarders Co. Inc.; G.R. No. 163431, 28 August 2013

The prerogative of an employer to dismiss an employee on the ground of willful


disobedience to company policies must be exercised in good faith and with due regard
to the rights of labor.

For willful disobedience to be a ground to terminate an employee, it is required that: (1)


the conduct of the employee must be willful or intentional; and (2) the order the employee
violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must
pertain to the duties that he had been engaged to discharge. The management
prerogative will be upheld for as long as it is not wielded as an implement to circumvent
the laws and oppress labor.

RETIREMENT

*Masing and Sons Development Corporation and Crispin Chan v. Gregorio P. Rogelio;
G.R. No. 161787, 27 April 2011

The benefits under R.A. 7641 can be extended not only from the date of its enactment
but retroactively to the time the employment contracts started.

*Robina Farms Cebu/Universal Robina Corporation v. Elizabeth Villa; G.R. No. 175869,
18 April 2016

Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of both the employer and the employee based
on their voluntary agreement that upon reaching a certain age, the employees agree to
sever his employment. On one hand, voluntary retirement cuts the employment ties
leaving no residual liability; on the other, involuntary retirement amounts to a discharge,
rendering the employer liable for termination without cause. The employee’s intent is
decisive.

In case of early retirement, the offer of benefits must be certain while the acceptance to
be retired should be absolute. The acceptance by the employees contemplated herein
must be explicit, voluntary, free and uncompelled. Employees are free to accept the
employer’s offer to lower the retirement age if they feel they can get a better deal with the
retirement plan presented by the employer. Having terminated an employee solely on
the basis of a provision of a retirement plan which was not freely assented to by
the employee, respondent was guilty of illegal dismissal.

*Samar-Med Distribution v. NLRC; G.R. No. 162385, 15 July 2013

Although an employer may legally dismiss an employee for a just cause, the non-
observance of the requirements of due process before effecting the dismissal leaves the
employer liable for nominal damages.

For loss of trust and confidence to constitute a sufficient ground for termination, the
employer must have a reasonable ground to believe, if not to entertain the moral
conviction, that the employee was responsible for the misconduct, and that the nature of
his participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of the trust and confidence
demanded by his position.

5
*Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Trajano; G.R. No. 160982, 26 June 2013

An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to her reinstatement without loss of seniority


rights and other privileges, and to full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other
benefits or their monetary equivalent. Should the reinstatement be no longer feasible, an
award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement will be justified, and the backwages shall
be reckoned from the time her wages were withheld until the finality of the decision.

Loss of the employer’s trust and confidence is a just cause under Article 282 (c), a
provision that ideally applies only to cases involving an employee occupying a position of
trust and confidence, or to a situation where the employee has been routinely charged
with the care and custody of the employer’s money or property.

*Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. Journal Employees Union (JEU), for its union member,
Michael Alfante; G.R. No. 192601, 3 June 2013

The coverage of the term legal dependent as used in a stipulation in a collective


bargaining agreement (CBA) granting funeral or bereavement benefit to a regular
employee for the death of a legal dependent, if the CBA is silent about it, is to be found
construed as similar to the meaning that contemporaneous social legislations have set.
This is because the terms of such social legislations are deemed incorporated in or
adopted by the CBA.

The concurrence of a legitimate spouse does not disqualify a child or a parent of the
employee from being a legal dependent provided substantial evidence is adduced to
prove the actual dependency of the child or parent on the support of the employee.

LABOR RELATIONS
PEACEFUL CONCERTED ACTIVITIES

*The Hongkong& Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union, et al. v. NLRC; G.R.
No. 156635, 11 January 2016

A strike staged without compliance with the requirements of Article 263 of the Labor Code
is illegal, and may cause the termination of the employment of the participating union
officers and members. However, the liability for the illegal strike is individual, not
collective. To warrant the termination of an officer of the labor organization on that basis,
the employer must show that the officer knowingly participated in the illegal strike. An
ordinary striking employee cannot be terminated based solely on his participation in the
illegal strike, for the employer must further show that the employee committed illegal acts
during the strike.

*Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) v. Hon. Hans Leo J. Cacdac; G.R.
No. 155097, 27 September 2010

The petition for the plebiscite to amend PALEA’s Constitution and By-laws was merely
incidental to the conduct of the general election pursuant to the final and executory
decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. As such, the recourse open to PALEA was not
to file the petition for certiorari to assail such denial, but to first await the final election
results as certified by DOLE-NCR.

*Rogelio Baronda v. Hon. Court of Appeals and HIDECO Sugar Milling Co., Inc.; G.R.
No. 161006, 14 October 2015

The reinstatement aspect of the Voluntary Arbitrator’s award or decision is immediately


executor from its receipt by the parties.

- end -

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen