1. G.R. No.

191902, July 30, 2019

MARINO B. DAANG vs. SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC, INC. and COMMERCIAL S.A.

Doctrines

A. 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.1

2. G.R. No. 202388, April 10, 2019

ELPIDIO T. QUE vs. ASIA BREWERY, INC. and/or MICHAEL G. TAN

Doctrines

A. Redundancy exists when the service of an employee is in excess of what is reasonably demanded by
the actual requirements of the business. A redundant position is one rendered superfluous by any
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 a service activity
formerly undertaken by the enterprise.
For a valid implementation of a redundancy program, the employer must comply with the following
requisites: (1) written notice served on both the employee and the DOLE at least one month prior to the
intended date of termination; (2) payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at
least one month paylnd reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant.
Among the accepted criteria in implementing a redundancy program are: (1) preferred status; (2)
efficiency; and (3) seniority.2

B. 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."3

3. G.R. No. 237020, July 29, 2019

DOMINIC INOCENTES, ET AL. vs. R. SYJUCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. (RSCI)/ARCH. RYAN I. SYJUCO

Doctrine

A. A regular employee as (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 a least a year, with respect to the activity
he or she is engaged, and the work of the employee remains while such activity exists. 4

1
MST Marine Services (Philippines). Inc. v. Asuncion, G.R. No. 211335, March 27, 2017, 821 SCRA 535, 546.
2
Lowe, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 612 Phil. 1044, 1056 (2009).
3
Morales v. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc., 680 Phil. I 12, 120(2012).
4
Article 295 of the Labor Code
 B. A project employee is assigned to a project that starts and ends at a determined or determinable time.
The principal test to determine if an employee is a project employee is -whether he or she is assigned
to carry out a particular project or undertaking, which duration or scope was specified at the time of
engagement. 5

C. The employer has the burden to prove that the employee is indeed a project employee. On this, the
employer must establish that (a) the employee was assigned to carry out a particular project or
undertaking; and, (b) the duration and scope of which was specified at the time of engagement.6

4. G.R. No. 208920, July 10, 2019

JAIME BILAN MONTEALEGRE and CHAMONTE, INC., vs. SPOUSES ABRAHAM and REMEDIOS DE
VERA

Doctrine

As a general rule, a writ of execution must strictly conform to every particular of the judgment to be
executed. It should not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce, nor may it go beyond the
terms of the judgment sought to be executed, otherwise, if it is in excess of or beyond the original
judgment or award, the execution is void.7

5. G.R. No. 236496, July 8, 2019

F.F. CRUZ & CO., INC., vs. JOSE B. GALANDEZ, DOMINGO I. SAJUELA, and MARLON D. NAMOC

Doctrines

A. In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its findings
and the conclusions reached thereby are not supported by substantial evidence. This requirement of
substantial evidence is clearly expressed in Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court which provides
that 'In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it
is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. 8
B. It is a valid and binding agreement between the parties, provided that it constitutes a credible and
reasonable settlement and the one accomplishing it has done so voluntarily and with a full
understanding of its import. 9
C. [t]here is no justification to disallow a compromise agreement, solely because it was entered into after
final judgment. The validity of the agreement is determined by compliance with the requisites and
principles of contracts, not by when it was enter into 10
D. For a deed of release, waiver, and quitclaim to be valid, it must be shown that: (a) there was no fraud or
deceit on the part of any parties; (b) that the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable;

5
Dacuital vs. L.M Camus Engineering Corp.
6
Bajaro vs. Metro Stonerich Corp., G.R. No. 227982, April 23, 2018.
7
Pascual v. Daquioag, G.R. No. 162063, March 31, 2014, 720 SCRA 230, 240-24
8
Quillopa v. Quality Guards Services ond Investigation Agency, id. at 206-207, citing Omni Hauling Services, Inc. v. Bon, id. at 343.
9
Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v Molon, 704 Phil. 120, 142 (2013).
10
497 Phil. 511 (2005).
 and (c) that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or
prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. 11
E. The burden rests on the employer to prove that the quitclaim constitutes a credible and reasonable
settlement of what an employee is entitled to recover, and that the one accomplishing it has done so
voluntarily and with a full understanding of its import 12

6. G.R. No. 222939, July3, 2019

MECO MANNING & CREWING SERVICES, INC. and CAPT. IGMEDIO G. SORRERA, vs. CONSTANTINOR.
CUYOS

Doctrines

A. It is settled that in termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the
dismissal is for a just and valid cause. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was
illegal 13
B. In termination proceedings, it is settled that for the manner of dismissal to be valid, the employer must
comply with the employee's right to procedural due process by furnishing him with two written notices
before the termination of his employment. The first notice apprises the employee of the particular acts
or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, while the second informs the employee of the employer's
decision to dismiss him 14
C. It is settled that the correct criterion in determining the propriety of the award of overtime pay is whether
the seafarer rendered service in excess of the hours he was required to work under his contract.15

7. G.R. No. 225847, July 3, 2019

DANILO L. PACIO vs. DOHLE-PHILMAN MANNING AGENCY, INC., DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED and/or
MANOLO T. GACUTAN

Doctrines

A. “At the outset, the Court reiterates that in a pet1t1on for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, its jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. The Court is not a trier of facts,
and this applies with greater force in labor cases. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-
judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters,
are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality. They are binding upon this Court unless
there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at
arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the evidence on record. However. It is equally settled that one of the
exceptions to this rule is when the factual findings of the quasi-judicial agencies concerned arc

11
See Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation v. Caballeda, 582 Phil. 118, 135 (2008).
12
See Sv. Neai, lnc.,G.R. No.213748, November27,2017.
13
Grande v. Philippine Nautical Training Colleges, 806 Phil. 601, 617 (2017).
14
Distribution & Control Products, Inc. v. Santos, G.R. No. 212616, July 10, 2017, 830 SCRA 452,463.
15
PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 540 Phil. 65, 83-84 (2006).
 conflicting or contrary with those of the Court of Appeals, as in the present case. Thus, the Court
proceeds with its own factual determination herein based on the evidence of the parties.”16

B. In the absence of a CBA between the petitioner and the respondents, it is the POEA SEC as well as
relevant labor laws which will govern the petitioner's claim, especially as these are deemed written in
the contract of employment between the parties. 17

C. Sec. 2. Period of Entitlement - (a) The income benefit shall be paid beginning on the first day of such
disability. If caused by an injury or sickness it shall not be µaid longer than 120 consecutive days except
where such injury or sickness still requires medical attendance beyond 120 days but not to exceed 240
days from onset of disability in which case benefit for temporary total disability shall be paid. However,
the System may declare the total and permanent status at any time after 120 days of continuous
temporary total disability as may be warranted by the degree of actual loss or impairment of physical or
mental functions as determined by the System.18

D. For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a
company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically
incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed
as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result
in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.19

E. While the law recognizes that an illness may be disputably presumed to be work-related, the seafarer or
the claimant must still show a reasonable connection between the nature of work on board the vessel
and the illness contracted or aggravated. Thus the burden is placed upon the claimant to present
substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the
disease.20

8. G.R. No. 223246, June 26, 2019

JAN FREDERICK PINEDA DE VERA vs. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC. and/or HOLLAND AMERICA
LINE WESTOUR, INC. and DENNY RICARDO C. ESCOBAR

Doctrines

A. By contract, the seafarers and their employers are governed, not only by their mutual agreements, but
also by the provisions of the POEA-SEC which are mandated to be integrated in every seafarer's
contract. 21
B. Jurisprudence holds that a seafarer's inability to resume his work after the lapse of more than 120 days
from the time he suffered an injury and/or illness is not a magic wand that automatically warrants the
grant of total and permanent disability benefits in his favor. It cannot be used as a cure-all formula for all
maritime compensation cases. 22

16
Maria Vilma G. Doctor and Jaime Lao. Jr. v. NII Enterprises and/or Mrs. Nilda C. Ignacio G.R. No. 19400 I, November 22, 2017.
17
TSM Shipping Phils., Inc., et al. v. Patino, 807 Phil. 666, 676(2017).
18
Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code
19
Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA SEC
20
Espere v. NFD International Manning Agents, Inc., el al., 814 Phil. 820, 838(2017
21
Tradephil Shipping Agencies, Inc. v. Dela Cruz, 806 Phil. 338, 354-355 (20 I 7)
22
Calimlim v. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc., supra note 32, at 841
 C. Thus, to be valid, a deed of release, waiver, and quitclaim must meet the following requirements: (1)
that there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties; (2) that the consideration for the
quitclaim is sufficient and reasonable; and (3) that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public
policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. 23

9. G.R. No. 223082, June 26, 2019

CMP FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY, INC. and/or MS. CAROLINA MABANTA-PIAD vs. NOEL T. REYES,
SR.

Doctrines

A. Actual hearing or conference is not a condition sine qua non for procedural due process in labor cases
because the provisions of the Labor Code prevail over its implementing rules.24
B. Misconduct is defined as an improper or wrong conduct. It is a transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful
intent and not mere error in judgment. To constitute a valid cause for the dismissal within the text and
meaning of Article 282 of the Labor Code, the employee's misconduct must be serious, i.e., of such
grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.25

10. G.R. No. 225075, June 19, 2019

ARNULFO M. FERNANDEZ vs. KALOOKAN SLAUGHTERHOUSE INCORPORATED/ ERNESTO
CUNANAN

Doctrines

It is settled that "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”26

11. G.R. No. 224753, June 19, 2019

JOSE ASPIRAS MALICDEM VS. ASIA BULK TRANSPORT PHILS., INC., ET AL.

Doctrines

A. Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC grants to him, the law requires the seafarer to prove that: (1) he
suffered an illness; (2) he suffered this illness during the term of his employment contract; (3) he
complied with the procedures prescribed under Section 20(A)(3); ( 4) his illness is one of the
enumerated occupational disease or that his illness or injury is otherwise work-related; and (5) he
complied with the four conditions enumerated under Section 32(A) for an occupational disease or a
disputably-presumed work-related disease to be compensable.27

23
De Andres v. Diamond H Marine Services & Shipping Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 217345, July 12, 2017, 831 SCRA 129, 150
24
602 Phil. 522, 537-542 (2009)
25
746 Phil. 172 (2014)
26
David v. Macasio, 738 Phil. 293,307 (2014)
27
Aldaba v. Career Philippines Ship-Management, Inc., 811 Phil. 486, 498 (2017).
 B. Under Article 192(c)(l) of the Labor Code, permanent total disability includes temporary total disability
lasting continuously for more than one hundred twenty (120) days, except as otherwise provided in the
Rules. The rule adverted to is Section 2, Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation,
implementing Book IV of the Labor Code, which states: SECTION 2. Period of entitlement. (a) The
income benefit shall be paid beginning on the first day of such disability. If caused by an injury or
sickness it shall not be paid longer than 120 consecutive days except where such injury or sickness still
requires medical attendance beyond 120 days but not to exceed 240 days from onset of disability in
which case benefit for temporary total disability shall be paid. However, the System may declare the
total and pennant status at any time after 120 days of continuous temporary total disability as may be
warranted by the degree of actual loss or impairment of physical or mental functions as determined by
the System.28
C. 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. 29

12. G.R. No. 213874, June 19, 2019

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

Doctrine

A. Following Elburg, the company-designated physicians' failure to issue a final and definite
assessment within the 120-day period makes respondent entitled to permanent and total
disability benefits. It was no longer necessary for respondent to present evidence that his
illness is work related and compensable because the law operates to declare respondent
entitled to total and permanent disability benefits after the company designated physicians'
failure to issue a final and definite assessment within the 120-day period30

13. G.R. No. 233413. June 17, 2019

CELIA R. ATIENZA VS. NOEL SACRAMENTO SALUTA

Doctrine

A. 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. Thus, in filing a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for
illegal dismissal, based on the premise that he was an employee of CRY Corporation, it is incumbent
upon the respondent to prove the employer-employee relationship by substantial evidence.31
B. The burden to prove the elements of an employer-employee relationship, viz.:
(1) the selection and engagement of the employee;
28
Under Article 192(c)(l) of the Labor Code,
29
See Jebsen Maritime, Inc. v. Ravena, 743 Phil. 371,388 (2014).
30
Pastor v. Bibby Shipping Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 238842, November 19, 2018, pp. 8-9.
31
Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc., 760 Phil. 779, 789 (2015); Lopez v. Bodega City,
 (2) the payment of wages;
(3) the power of dismissal; and
(4) the power of control, lies upon the respondent.32
C. 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.33
D. Article 141, Chapter III, Book III on Employment of House helpers of the Labor Code provides that
family drivers are covered in the term domestic or household service. It states:
ART. 141. Coverage. -This Chapter shall apply to all persons rendering services in household for
compensation.
"Domestic or household service" shall mean service in the employer's 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; employer’s household, including services of family
drivers.34
E. SEC. 2. Coverage. - This xx x [IRR] shall apply to all parties to an employment contract for the services
of the following Kasambahay, whether on a live-in or live-out arrangement, such as but not limited to:
General house help;
1) Yaya;
2) Cook;
3) Gardener;
4) Laundry person; or
5) Any person who regularly performs domestic work in one
6) household on an occupational basis.
The following are not covered:
(a) Service providers;
(b) Family drivers;
(c) Children under foster family arrangement; and
(d) Any other person who performs work occasionally or sporadically and not on an occupational
basis.35
F. ART. 1699. Upon the extinguishment of the service relation, the [househelper] may demand from the
head of the family a written statement on the nature and duration of the service and the efficiency and
conduct of the [househelper]36
G. ART. 302. Repealing clause. - All labor laws not adopted as part of this Code either directly or by
reference are hereby repealed. All provisions of existing laws, orders, decrees, rules and regulations
inconsistent herewith are likewise repealed.37

14. G.R. No. 219419, April 10, 2019

32
Valencia v., Classique Vinyl Products Corporation, G.R. No. 206390, January 30, 2017, 816 SCRA 144, 156.
33
Functional, Inc. v. Granfil, 676 Phil. 279, 288-289 (2011).
34
Section 4(d) of the Kasambahay Law
35
Section 2 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Kasambahay Law
36
Civil Code provisions, particularly Articles1689, 1697 and 1699, Section 1, Chapter 3, Title VIII, Book IV
37
Article 302 of the Labor Code
CAROLINA’S LACE SHOPPE, LOURDES RAGAS AND CLAUDINE MANGASING VS. GLORIA MAQUILAN
AND JOY MAQUILAN

Doctrines

A. "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."38
B. 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. If the employer introduces evidence
purportedly executed by an employee as proof of voluntary resignation and the employee specifically
denies the authenticity and due execution of said document, the employer is burdened to prove the due
execution and genuineness of such document.39

15. G.R. No. 204971 April 10, 2019

CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION-ASSOCIATES LABOR UNIONS (CIO-ALU), v. COURT
OF APPEALS AND THE METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY

Doctrines

A. “Certiorari is not the proper remedy from a decision of the Court Appeals in a labor proceeding, review
of NLRC decisions must be made before the CA by petition for certiorari under Rule 65; and then before
this Court by petition for review under Rule 45 for the special civil action of certiorari is a distinct remedy
from, and not a substitute for, appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.”40
B. “That mere levy on property of sufficient value to cover the judgment award does not operate as a
satisfaction of the judgment, but merely as a prima facie evidence or a presumption of satisfaction.” 41
C. “A levy only creates a lien over the property in favor of the judgment obligee In order to afford full
satisfaction of the judgment from the levied property, an execution sale must be conducted, and the
proceeds therefrom be used to satisfy the judgment debt.”42

16. G.R. No. 226578, January 28, 2019

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

Doctrines

38
Doble, Jr. v. ABB, lnc./Nitin Desai, 810 Phil. 210, 228-229 (2017).
39
Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines
40
St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC 356 Phil. 811 (1998).
41
Am. Jur. 2d §§ 341-342, citing Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. Schiedler, 130 Ind. 214, 29 N.E. 1071; Smith v. Condon, 174 Mass. 550, 55 N.E. 324;
Churchill v. Warren, 2 NH 298; United States v. Dashiel, 70 U.S. 688; Doughty v. Meek, 105 Iowa 16, 74 N.W. 744; Reed P Co. v. Crosthwait, 6
Iowa 219; Doe ex dem. Shelton v. Hamilton, 23 Miss. 296; Kershaw v. Merchants' Bank of New York, 8 Miss. 386; and Cravens v. Wilson, 48
Tex. 324. As regards real property, levy does not even create a presumption of satisfaction, as it does not interfere with the debtor's
possession thereof. 30 Am Jur 2d §342, citing United States v. Dashiel, 70 U.S. 688, 3 Wall. 688, 18 L. Ed. 268.
42
2002 NLRC Manual on Execution of Judgment, Rule I Section 3.
 A. “As a rule, termination disputes should be brought before the LA, except when the parties agree to
submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration pursuant to then Article 262 (now Article 275) of the Labor
Code” 43
B. “The phrase "all disputes" is not sufficient to divest the LA of its jurisdiction over termination disputes. In
the same manner, the phrase "all claims and complaints" in respondents' employment contracts does
not remove the LA's jurisdiction to decide whether respondents were legally terminated.” 44
C. “Section 10 of Republic Act No. (RA) 8042,[31] as amended by RA 10022,explicitly provides that LAs
have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising out of employer-employee relations or by
virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment, as in this case. The
relevant portion of the provision reads:
Section 10. Money Claims. – Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor
Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after filing of the complaint, the claims
arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino
workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of
damages. x x x” 45
D. “Settled is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and cannot be acquired
or waived by agreement of the parties.” 46
E. “It is, however, not sufficient to merely say that the parties agree on the principle that "all disputes"
should first be submitted to a Voluntary Arbitrator. There is a need for an express stipulation that illegal
termination disputes should be resolved by a Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators,
since the same fall within a special class of disputes that are generally within the exclusive [and] original
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters by express provision of law.”47
F. “Section 10 of RA 8042, as amended; expressly provides that a recruitment agency, such as AICI, 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. Jurisprudence explains that this
solidary liability is meant to assure the aggrieved worker of immediate and sufficient payment of what is
due him, as well as to afford overseas workers an additional layer of protection against foreign
employers that tend to violate labor laws.” 48

17. G.R. No. 235873, January 21, 2019

ENRIQUE MARCO G. YULO v. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC.

Doctrines

43
Article 275 (formerly 262) of the Labor Code, as renumbered pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act No. (RA) 10151, entitled "AN ACT
ALLOWING THE EMPLOYMENT OF NIGHT WORKERS, THEREBY REPEALING ARTICLES 130 AND 131 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NUMBER
FOUR HUNDRED FORTY-TWO, As AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES," approved on June 21,
2011. See also Department Advisory No. 01, Series of 2015 of the Department of Labor and Employment entitled "RENUMBERING OF THE
LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS AMENDED."
44
Vivero v. Court of Appeals, 398 Phil. 158 (2000); and Negros Metal Corporation v. Lamayo, 643 Phil. 675 (2010).
45
Section 7 of RA 10022, entitled "AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT No. 8042, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE MIGRANT WORKERS AND
OVERSEAS FILIPINOS ACT OF 1995, AS AMENDED, FURTHER IMPROVING THE STANDARD OF PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE
WELFARE OF MIGRANT WORKERS, THEIR FAMILIES AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS IN DISTRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on
March 8, 2010.
46
Office of the Court Administrator v. CA, 428 Phil. 696 (2002).
47
Rollo, pp. 31-32.
48
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, 740 Phil. 403, 445 (2014),
 A. “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.” 49
B. “The characterization of an employee's services as redundant, and therefore, properly terminable, is an
exercise of management prerogative, considering that an employer has no legal obligation to keep
more employees than are necessary for the operation of its business 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.”50
C. "To exhibit its good faith and that there was a fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining redundant
positions, a company claiming to be over manned must produce adequate proof of the same."51
D. “That fair and reasonable criteria may include but are not limited to the following: "(a) less preferred
status (e.g., temporary employee); (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." 52
E. "In case of termination due to xxx 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." 53

18. G.R. No. 209116, January 14, 2019

DANNY BOY C. MONTERONA, ET AL. VS. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. AND GIOVANNI
ACORDA

DOCTRINE:

A. Res judicata requires that stability be accorded to judgments. Controversies once decided on the merits
shall remain in repose for there should be an end to litigation which, without the doctrine, would be
endless. The concept of Res judicata is founded on the principle of estoppel, and are based on the
salutary public policy against unnecessary multiplicity of suits. Matters settled by a Court’s final
judgment should not be litigated upon or invoked again. Relitigation of issues already settled merely
burdens the Courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion, and wastes valuable time
and energy that could be devoted to worthier causes. As the Roman maxim goes, Non bis in edem54

19. G.R. No. 212520, July 3, 2019

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. ANTONIO P. MAGNO, JR. AND MELCHOR L. OCAMPO,
JR.

49
PNB v. Dalmacio, G.R. No. 202308, July 5, 2017.
50
General Milling Corporation v. Viajar, supra notes 21, at 543;
51
364 Phil. 215(1999)
52
Arabit v. Jardine Pacific Finance, Inc. (Formerly MB Finance), 733 Phil. 41, 58-59 (2014).
53
Article 298 of The Labor Code

Pfizer, Inc. v. Velasco

54
Doctrine
A. “An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their
monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his
actual reinstatement”55

20. G.R. NO. 200811. JUNE 19, 2019

JULITA M. ALDOVINO, ET AL. VS. GOLD AND GREEN MANPOWER MANAGEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

DOCTRINE:

“The law looks with dis favor upon quitclaims and releases by employees pressured into signing by
unscrupulous employers minded to evade legal responsibilities. As a rule, deeds of release or quitclaim cannot
bar employees from demanding benefits to which they are legally entitled or from contesting the legality of their
dismissal. The acceptance of those benefits would not amount to estoppel. The amounts already received by
the retrenched employees as consideration for signing the quitclaims should, however, be deducted from their
respective monetary awards.”56

Art.294 of the labor code

55

Sicangca v. NLRC, 305 Phil. 102

56
 Mindanao State University
MSU-MAIN College of Law

CASE DOCTRINES

LABOR LAW REVIEW

Course Subject

Submitted by:

BENITO, HANIPA A.

HARON, JOHAIMAH S.

MADLAWI, MOHAMAD AREPODIN D.

MANGATE, NAHJASSI D.

RASHID, MAHARDIKAR C.

TOROGANAN, JAMALI A.

Submitted to:

Labor Arbiter Abdul Aziz U. Metmug