1. G.R.

No 152121, July 29, 2003

EDUARDO G. EVIOTA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. JOSE BAUTISTA and
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

Doctrines

A. Under Article 285 (a) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended (the Labor Code), an employee may
terminate without just cause the employer-employee relationship by serving written notice on the
employer at least one (1) month in advance.
B. A money claim by a worker against the employer or vice-versa is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
labor arbiter only if there is a “reasonable causal connection” between the claim asserted and
employee-employer relation. Absent such a link, the complaint will be cognizable by the regular courts
of justice.
C. The jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter under Article 217 of the Labor Code, as amended, is limited to
disputes arising from an employer-employee relationship which can only be resolved by reference to
the Labor Code of the Philippines, other labor laws or their collective bargaining agreements.1
D. The complaint of the employer against the employee for damages for wanton justice and refusal without
just cause to report for duty, and for having maliciously and with bad faith violated the terms and
conditions of their agreement for a course of conversion training at the expense of the employer, we
ruled that jurisdiction over the action belongs to the civil court.2

2. G.R. No. 198587, 198587

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES and BRENDA J. BETIA, petitioners, vs. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO,
MONTASSAH B. SACAR-ADIONG, ROUEN RUTH A. CRISTOBAL and LORAINE S. SCHNEIDER-CRUZ,
respondents

Doctrines

A. Constructive dismissal is 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 It is tantamount to involuntarily resignation due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable
conditions set by the employer.4
B. In termination cases, the burden of proving just or valid cause for dismissing an employee rests on the
employer.5
C. Moral damages are awarded in termination cases where the employee's dismissal was attended by bad
faith, malice or fraud, or where it constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or where it was done in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.6
1
Georg Grotjahn GMBH & Co. v. IsnaniG.R. No. 109272
2
Singapore Airlines Limited v. PañoG.R. No. L-47739
3
Siemens Philippines, Inc. v. Domingo

4
Penaflor v. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing Corporation

5
Dusit Hotel Nikko v. Galbonton

6
San Miguel Properties Philippines, Inc. v. Gucaban
3. G.R. No. 198967, March 7, 2016

JOSE EMMANUEL P. GUILLERMO, petitioner, vs. CRISANTO P. USON

Doctrine

Not all conflicts between a stockholder and the corporation are intra-corporate; an examination of the complaint
must be made on whether the complainant is involved in his capacity as a stockholder or director, or as an
employee. If the latter is found and the dispute does not meet the test of what the qualities as an intra-
corporate controversy, then the case is a labor case cognizable by the NLRC and is not within the jurisdiction
of any other tribunal.

4. G.R. No. 201595, January 25, 2016

ALLAN M. MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. OFFICERS OF MANILA WATER EMPLOYEES UNION (MWEU),

namely, EDUARDO B. BORELA, BUENAVENTURA QUEBRAL, ELIZABETH COMETA, ALEJANDRO
TORRES, AMORSOLO TIERRA, SOLEDAD YEBAN, LUIS RENDON, VIRGINIA APILADO, TERESITA
BOLO, ROGELIO BARBERO, JOSE CASAÑAS, ALFREDO MAGA, EMILIO FERNANDEZ, ROSITA BUENA
VENTURA, ALMENIO CANCINO ADELA IMANA, MARIO MANCENIDO, WILFREDO MANDILAG,
ROLANDO MANLAP AZ, EFREN MONTEMAYOR, NELSON PAGULAYAN, CARLOS VILLA, RIC
BRIONES, and CHITO BERNARDO, Respondents.

Doctrines

A. Inter-Union Dispute refers to any conflict between and among legitimate labor unions involving
representation questions for purposes of collective bargaining or to any other conflict or dispute
between legitimate labor unions. "Intra-Union Dispute" refers to any conflict between and among union
members, including grievances arising from any violation of the rights and conditions of membership,
violation of or disagreement over any provision of the union's constitution and by-laws, or disputes
arising from chartering or affiliation of union.
In essence, unfair labor practice relates to the commission' of acts that transgress the workers' right to
organize.7
B. The term unfair labor practice refers to that gamut of offenses defined in the Labor Code which, at their
core, violates the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization.8
C. The right of self-organization-includes the right to organize or affiliate with a labor union or determine
which of two or more unions in an establishment to join, and to engage in concerted activities with co-
workers for purposes of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing, or for their
mutual aid and protection, i.e., the protection, promotion, or enhancement of their rights and interests.9

7
Baptista v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 194709, July 31, 2013, 703 SCRA 48, 57.
8
Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon, G.R. No. 175002, February 18, 2013, 691 SCRA 113, 133.
9
Reyes v. Trajano, G.R. No. 84433, June 2, 1992, 209 SCRA 484, 488-489.
5. G.R. No. 176264, January 10, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. TERESITA “TESSIE” LAOGO, Appellant.

Doctrines

A. Recruitment and placement refers to the act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for
employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not.
B. Recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority are deemed illegal and
punishable by law.
And when the illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group,
then it is deemed committed in large scale and carries with it stiffer penalties as the same is deemed a
form of economic sabotage.
C. It is important that there must at least be a promise or offer of an employment from the person posing
as a recruiter, whether locally or abroad.

6. G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, v. JOY C. CABILES, Respondent.

Doctrines

A. Limiting wages that should be recovered by an illegally dismissed overseas worker to three months is
both a violation of due process and the equal protection clauses of the Constitution.”10
B. “Overseas workers regardless of their classifications are entitled to security of tenure, at least for the
period agreed upon in their contracts.”11
C. “It is state policy to protect the rights of workers without qualification as to the place of employment.” 12
D. “Section 10 of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 provides that the foreign
employer and the local employment agency are jointly and severally liable for money claims including
claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship and/or damages.”13

7. G.R. No. 180636, March 13, 2013

LORENZO T. TANGGA-AN, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., UNIVERSE

TANKSHIP DELAWARE LLC, AND CARLOS C. SALINAS, Respondents.

Doctrines

A. “We cannot subscribe to the view that private respondent is entitled to three (3) months salary only. A
plain reading of Sec. 10 clearly reveals that the choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed

10 Serrano v. Gallant Maritime

11
DionellaGopio v. Salvador Bautista
12 Id.
13
ATCI Overseas Corporation v. Echin, G.R. No. 178551, October 11, 2010, 632 SCRA 528, 533 [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division], citing Datuman
v. First Cosmopolitan Manpower and Promotion Services, Inc., 591 Phil. 662, 673 (2008) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division]; Migrant Workers
and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, sec. 2(b).
 overseas contract worker, i.e., whether his salaries forthe unexpired portion of his employment contract
or three (3) months salary for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, comes into play only
when the employment contract concerned has a term of at least one (1) year or more. This is evident
from the wording

"for every year of the unexpired term" which follows the [wording] "salaries x x x for three months." To
follow petitioners' thinking that private respondent is entitled to three (3) months salary only simply
because it is the lesser amount is to completely disregard and... overlook some words used in the
statute while giving effect to some. This is contrary to the well-established rule in legal hermeneutics
that in interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part or word thereof be given effect since
the lawmaking body is presumed to... know the meaning of the words employed in the statute and to
have used them advisedly. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat.”14

B. It is the obligation of the employer to pay an illegally dismissed employee or worker the whole amount
of the salaries or wages, plus all... other benefits and bonuses and general increases, to which he
would have been normally entitled had he not been dismissed and had not stopped working.15

8. G.R. No. 186475, June 26, 2013

POSEIDON INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SERVICES, INC, vs. TITO R. TAMALA, FELIPE S. SAURIN, JR.,
ARTEMIO A. BO-OC and JOEL S. FERNANDEZ

Doctrine

A. Sec. 10 of RA 8042, relied by the CA in their decision.

Sec. 10 of RA 8042 does not apply to cases where the overseas Filipino worker was not illegally
dismissed. Said provision applies only to an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker or a worker
dismissed from overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause.16

9. G.R. No. 200811, June 19, 2019

JULITA M. ALDOVINO, et al. vs. GOLD AND GREEN MANPOWER MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES, INC., et al.

Doctrines

A. Waivers and quitclaims executed by employees are generally frowned upon for being contrary to public
policy. This is based on the recognition that employers and employees do not stand on equal footing. 17

B. Quitclaims do not bar employees from filing labor complaints and demanding benefits to which they are
legally entitled. 18

14
Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC
15
Sarona v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 185280, January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 394, 424, citing St. Louis College of Tuguegarao v.
National Labor Relations Commission, 257 Phil. 1002, 1008 (1989) and East Asiatic Co., Ltd. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 148-B Phil. 401, 429
(1971).
16
SEC. 10 of RA 8042 MONEY CLAIMS. – x x x In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid
or authorized cause as defined by law or contract
17
Sicangco v. National Labor Relations Commission, 305 Phil. 102, 108 (1994) [Per J. Cruz, First Division].
 C. The law does not recognize agreements that result in compensation less than what is mandated by law.
These quitclaims do not prevent employees from subsequently claiming benefits to which they are
legally entitled. 19

D. In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof that employees were validly dismissed rests on the
employers. Failure to discharge this burden means that the dismissal is illegal. 20

E. A valid dismissal must comply with substantive and procedural due process: there must be a valid
cause and a valid procedure. The employer must comply with the two (2)-notice requirement, while the
employee must be given an opportunity to be heard.21
F. "Moral damages are recoverable when the dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith or
fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals,
good customs or publi0c policy. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are recoverable when
the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner."22

12. G.R. No. 229404, January 24, 2018

MARILYN B. ASENTISTA vs. JUPP & COMPANY, INC

Doctrine

A. It is settled that once the employee has set out with particularity in his complaint, position paper,
affidavits and other documents the labor standard benefits he is entitled to, and which he alleged that
the employer failed to pay him, it becomes the employer's burden to prove that it has paid these money
claims. One who pleads payment has the burden of proving it, and even where the employees must
allege non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather
than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment.23
B. In the absence of specific terms and conditions governing a car plan agreement between the employer
and employee, the former may not retain the installment payments made by the latter on the car plan
and treat them as rents for the use of the service vehicle, in the event that the employee ceases his
employment and is unable to complete the installment payments on the vehicle. The underlying reason
is that the service vehicle was precisely used in the former's business; any personal benefit obtained by
the employee from its use is merely incidental.24

18
Goodyear Philippines, Inc. v. Angus, 746 Phil. 668 (2014) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division] citing Solgus Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 543 Phil.
483 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
19
Fuentes v. National Labor Relations Commission, 249 Phil. 712 (1988) [Per J. Paras, En Banc].
20
Industrial Personnel & Management Services, Inc. v. De Vera, 782 Phil. 230, 252 (2016) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
21
Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v. Doza, 681 Phil. 427 (2012) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
22
G.R. No. 229881, September 5, 2018, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64603> [Per J. Gesmundo, Third Division].
23
G.R. No. 167701, December 12, 2007, FERNANDITO P. DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE
RABBIT BUS LINE COMPANY and NATIVIDAD NISCE, respondents.
24
G.R. No. 192105, December 09, 2013 - ANTONIO LOCSIN II, Petitioners, v. MEKENI FOOD CORPORATION, Respondent.
13. G.R. No. 172161, March 2, 2011

SLL INTERNATIONAL CABLES SPECIALIST and SONNY L. LAGON, Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, 4th DIVISION, ROLDAN LOPEZ, EDGARDO ZUÑIGA and DANILO CAÑETE,
Respondents

Doctrines

A. Settled is the rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in
matters within their respective jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality, and
bind the Court when supported by substantial evidence. It is not the Court’s function to assess and
evaluate the evidence all over again, particularly where the findings of both the Labor tribunals and the
CA concur.25
B. With respect to labor cases, the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer,
the rationale being that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar
documents — which will show that overtime, differentials, service incentive leave and other claims of
workers have been paid — are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody and absolute
control of the employer.26
C. Distinction between “facilities” and “supplement” is needed. "Supplements," therefore, constitute extra
remuneration or special privileges or benefits given to or received by the laborers over and above their
ordinary earnings or wages. "Facilities," on the other hand, are items of expense necessary for the
laborer's and his family's existence and subsistence so that by express provision of law (Sec. 2[g]), they
form part of the wage and when furnished by the employer are deductible therefrom, since if they are
not so furnished, the laborer would spend and pay for them just the same.27
D. The benefit or privilege given to the employee which constitutes an extra remuneration above and over
his basic or ordinary earning or wage is supplement; and when said benefit or privilege is part of the
laborers' basic wages, it is a facility. The distinction lies not so much in the kind of benefit or item (food,
lodging, bonus or sick leave) given, but in the purpose for which it is given28

14. G.R No. 204651, August 6, 2014

OUR HAUS REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. ALEXANDER PARIAN, JAY C,
ERINCO, ALEXANDER CANLAS, BERNARD TENEDERO and JERRY SABULAO, Respondents

Doctrines

A. In charging, there is no reduction of the employee’s wage since the facility’s value will just be
theoretically added to the wage for purposes of complying with the minimum wage requirement.29
B. Legal requirements if the facility’s value is part of the wage: First, proof must be shown that such
facilities are customarily furnished by the trade. Second, the provision of deductible facilities must be

25
Stamford Marketing Corp. v. Julian, 468 Phil 34 (2004).
26
Dansart Security Force & Allied Services Company v. Bagoy, G.R. No. 168495, July 2, 2010; G & M Philippines, Inc. v. Cruz, 496 Phil. 119
(2005); Villar v. National Labor Relations Commission, 387 Phil. 706.
27
G.R. No. L-7349, July 19, 1955, ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, petitioner,
vs. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, respondents.
28
States Marine Corporation and Royal Line, Inc. v. Cebu Seamen’s Assocication, Inc. 117 Phil. 307 (1963)
29
Rollo p. 16
 voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee. Finally, facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable
value. 30
C. Distinction between “facilities” and “supplement” is needed. "Supplements," therefore, constitute extra
remuneration or special privileges or benefits given to or received by the laborers over and above their
ordinary earnings or wages. "Facilities," on the other hand, are items of expense necessary for the
laborer's and his family's existence and subsistence so that by express provision of law (Sec. 2[g]), they
form part of the wage and when furnished by the employer are deductible therefrom, since if they are
not so furnished, the laborer would spend and pay for them just the same.31

15. G.R. No. 162324, February 4, 2009

RFM CORPORATION-FLOUR DIVISION and SFI FEEDS DIVISION, vs.KASAPIAN NG MANGGA-

GAWANG PINAGKAISA-RFM (KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU) and SANDIGAN AT UGNAYAN NG
MANGGAGAWANG PINAGKAISA-SFI (SUMAPI-NAFLU-KMU)

Doctrines

A. Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)

“If the terms of a CBA are clear and have no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, as in
the herein questioned provision, the literal meaning thereof shall prevail. That is settled. As such, the
daily-paid employees must be paid their regular salaries on the holidays which are so declared by the
national government, regardless of whether they fall on rest days.” 32
B. Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that the State shall
afford protection to labor.Its purpose is not merely "to prevent diminution of the monthly income of the
workers on account of work interruptions. In other words, although the worker is forced to take a rest,
he earns what he should earn, that is, his holiday pay."33
C. The CBA is the law between the parties, hence, they are obliged to comply with its provisions.34
D. The Labor Code specifically enjoins that in case of doubt in the interpretation of any law or provision
affecting labor, it should be interpreted in favor of labor.35

16. G.R. No. 177524, July 23, 2014

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES (NUWHRAIN-

APL-IUF), PHILIPPINE PLAZA CHAPTER, vs. PHILIPPINE PLAZA HOLDINGS, INC.

Doctrines

A. Preliminary considerations: jurisdictional limitations of the Court’s Rule 45

30
G.R. No. 118506 April 18, 1997 - NORMA MABEZA v. NLRC, ET AL.
31
G.R.No.L-7349, July 19, 1955, ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, petitioner,
vs. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, respondents.
32
United Kimberly-Clark Employees Union–Philippine Transport General Workers’ Organization (UKCEU- PTGWO) v. Kimberly – Clark Philippines, Inc.,
G.R. No. 162957, March 6, 2006
33
Asian Transmission Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144664, March 15, 2004, 425 SCRA 478, 484-485.
34
TSPIC Corporation v. TSPIC Employees’ Union, et al., G.R. No. 163419, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 215, 225.
35
FAMIT v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164060, June 15, 2007, 524 SCRA 709, 717.
 The Court’s jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari is limited to resolving only questions
of law. A question of law arises when the doubt or controversy exists as to what law pertains to a
particular set of facts; and a question of fact arises when the doubt or controversy pertains to the truth
or falsity of the alleged facts.36

B. Jurisprudence settles that a CBA is the law between the contracting parties who are obliged under the
law to comply with its provisions.37

As a contract and the governing law between the parties, the general rules of statutory construction
apply in the interpretation of its provisions. Thus, if the terms of the CBA are plain, clear and leave no
doubt on the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations, as they appear on
the face of the contract, shall prevail.38

Only when the words used are ambiguous and doubtful or leading to several interpretations of the
parties’ agreement that a resort to interpretation and construction is called for.39

17. G.R. No. 146530, January 17, 2005

PEDRO CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SUPREME

PACKAGING, INC. and ALVIN LEE, Plant Manag, Respondents

Doctrines

A. The threshold issue that needs to be resolved is whether there existed an employer-employee
relationship between the respondent company and the petitioner.

The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are:

(1) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(2) the payment of wages;
(3) the power of dismissal; and
(4) the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct.40

B. “This is merely a method of computing compensation and not a basis for determining the existence or
absence of employer-employee relationship. One may be paid on the basis of results or time expended
on the work, and may or may not acquire an employment status, depending on whether the elements of
an employer-employee relationship are present or not.”41

36
Baguio Central University v. Gallente, G.R. No. 188267, December 2, 2013.
37
Goya, Inc. v. Goya, Inc. Employees Union-FFW, G.R. No. 170054, January 21, 2013, 689 SCRA 1, 15-16, citing TSPIC Corporation v. TSPIC
Employees Union (FFW), G.R. No. 163419, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 215, 225.
38
PNCC Skyway Traffic Management and Security Division Workers Organization (PSTMSDWO) v. PNCC Skyway Corporation, G.R. No.171231,
February 17, 2010, 613 SCRA 28, 45; Goya, Inc. v. Goya, Inc. Employees Union-FFW, supra, note 29, at 16.
39
United Kimberly-Clark Employees Union-Philippine Transport General Workers’ Organization (UKCEU-PTGWO) v. Kimberly-Clark Philippines, Inc.,
G.R. No. 162957, March 6, 2006, 519 Phil. 176, 191; Honda Philippines, Inc. v. Samahan ng MalayangManggagawasa Honda, G.R. No. 145561, June
15, 2005, 499 Phil. 174, 180.
40
Sy v. Court of Appeals , 398 SCRA 301 (2003).
41
Tan v. Lagrama, 387 SCRA 393 (2002).
 C. “The payroll should show, among other things, the employee’s rate of pay, deductions made, and the
amount actually paid to the employee.”42

18. G.R. No. 167217, February 4, 2008

P.I. MANUFACTURING, INCORPORATED, vs.P.I. MANUFACTURING SUPERVISORS AND FOREMAN

ASSOCIATION and the NATIONAL LABOR UNION

Doctrine

“The Court adopts the policy that requires recognition and validation of wage increases given by
employers either unilaterally or as a result of collective bargaining negotiations in an effort to correct
wage distortion. The provisions of the CBA should be read in harmony with the wage orders, whose
benefits should be given only to those employees covered thereby.”43

19. G.R. No. 157098, June 30, 2005

NORKIS FREE AND INDEPENDENT WORKERS UNION, Petitioner, vs. NORKIS TRADING COMPANY,
INC

Doctrine

“There are two methods of adjusting the minimum wage. There were identified as the "floor wage" and the
"salary-ceiling" methods. The "floor wage" method involves the fixing of a determinate amount to be added to
the prevailing statutory minimum wage rates. On the other hand, in the "salary-ceiling" method, the wage
adjustment was to be applied to employees receiving a certain denominated salary ceiling.16 In other words,
workers already being paid more than the existing minimum wage (up to a certain amount stated in the Wage
Order) are also to be given a wage increase.”44

20. G.R. No. 173648, January 16, 2012

ABDULJUAHID R. PIGCAULAN,* vs. SECURITY and CREDIT NVESTIGATION, INC. and/or RENE AMBY
REYES

Doctrine

“RIGHT TO HOLIDAY PAY. – (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays,
except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers;”

RIGHT TO SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE. – (a) Every employee who has rendered at least one year of
service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive of five days with pay.
42
Tan v. Lagrama, supra.
43
Capitol Wireless, Inc. v. Bate
44
Employers Confederation of the Phils. v. National Wages and Productivity Commision
Consistent with the rule that all money claims arising from an employer-employee relationship shall be filed
within three years from the time the cause of action accrued,”45

21. G.R. No. 188169, November 28, 2011

NIÑA JEWELRY MANUFACTURING OF METAL ARTS, INC. (otherwise known as NIÑA

MANUFACTURING AND METAL ARTS, INC.) and ELISEA B. ABELLA, vs.MADELINE C. MONTECILLO
and LIZA M. TRINIDAD

Doctrines

A. “Wage Deduction. No employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any deduction
from the wages of his employees, except:
a. In cases where the worker is insured with his consent by the employer, and the deduction is to
recompense the employer for the amount paid by him as premium on the insurance;
b. For union dues, in cases where the right of the worker or his union to check-off has been
recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual worker concerned; and
c. In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of
Labor.“ 46
B. Constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or
both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the
employee47

22. G.R. No. 168654, March 25, 2009

ZAYBER JOHN B. PROTACIO vs. LAYA MANANGHAYA & CO. and/or MARIO T. MANANGHAYA

Doctrines

A. Section 8, Article IX of respondent firm’s Amended Articles of Partnership states: Nothing in this
Agreement shall prevent the Chairman and Managing Partner, from fixing the just compensation of any
employee of the Firm, fully or partially, on the basis of a share in the Partnership’s net profits.48
B. Sec. 2. Status of employees paid by the month. ― Employees who are uniformly paid by the month,
irrespective of the number of working days therein, with a salary not less than the statutory or
established minimum wage shall be presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or
not.

For this purpose, the monthly minimum wage shall not be less than the statutory minimum wage
multiplied by 365 days divided by twelve.49
45
Article 94 and 95 of The Labor Code

46
Article 113 of The Labor Code

47
Fe La Rosa, et al. v. Ambassador Hotel, G.R. No. 177059, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 340, 346-347.

Section 8, Article IX of respondent firm’s Amended Articles of Partnership

48
23. G.R. No. 151966, July 8, 2005

JPL MARKETING PROMOTIONS, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, NOEL GONZALES, RAMON ABESA III and FAUSTINO ANINIPO

Doctrines

A. Separation pay is authorized only in cases of dismissals due to any of these reasons: (a) installation of
labor saving devices; (b) redundancy; (c) retrenchment; (d) cessation of the employer’s business; and
(e) when the employee is suffering from a disease and his continued employment is prohibited by law or
is prejudicial to his health and to the health of his co-employees50
B. ”bona fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6)
months, wherein an employee/employees are placed on the so-called “floating status.” When that
“floating status” of an employee lasts for more than six months, he may be considered to have been
illegally dismissed from the service. Thus, he is entitled to the corresponding benefits for his
separation, and this would apply to suspension either of the entire business or of a specific component
thereof.”51
C. “an employer is liable to pay indemnity in the form of nominal damages to a dismissed employee if, in
effecting such dismissal, the employer failed to comply with the requirements of due process.”52
D. “Service incentive leave is clearly demandable after one year of service.”53

24. G.R. No. 14813, June 16, 2006

PETROLEUM SHIPPING LIMITED (formerly ESSO INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING (BAHAMAS) CO., LTD.)
and TRANS-GLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY, INC., Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and FLORELLO W. TANCHICO, Respondents

Doctrines

A. Seafarers are Contractual Employees not a Regular Employees. Their employment is governed by the
contracts they sign everytime they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract
expires.54
B. 13th month pay does not apply to seafarers, contemplates the situation of land-based workers, and not
of seafarers who generally earn more than domestic land-based workers.55

49
Sec. 2. Status of employees paid by the month
50
Art.283 and 284 of the labor code

51
Reynaldo Valdez vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 349 Phil. 760, 766 (1998), citing Agro Commercial Security Services Agency, Inc. vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, 175 SCRA 790 (1989).

52
Agabon vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 158693, 17 November 2004, 442 SCRA 573.

53
Imbuido vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 385 Phil. 999, 1013 (2000), citing Fernandez vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 285 SCRA
149 (1998).

54
Ravago v. Esso Eastern Marine, Ltd., G.R. No. 158324, 14 March 2005, 453 SCRA 381.

55
Millares v. NLRC 434 Phil. 524 (2002).
25. G.R. No. 166208, June 29, 2007

KING OF KINGS TRANSPORT INC., CLAIRE DELA FUENTE and MELISSA LIM, petitioners, vs.
SANTIAGO O. MAMAC, Respondent

Doctrines

A. Due process under the Labor Code involves two aspects: first, substantive––the valid and authorized
causes of termination of employment under the Labor Code; and second, procedural––the manner of
dismissal.56
B. Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against
dismissal except for a just and authorized cause without prejudice to the requirement of notice under
Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be
terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the
latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he
so desires in accordance with company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by
the Department of Labor and Employment. Any decision taken by the employer shall be without
prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the validity or legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint
with the regional branch of the National Labor Relations Commission. The burden of proving that the
termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer57
C. “The exceptions in the coverage of the payment of the 13th-month benefit. The provision states:
SEC. 3. Employers covered.––The Decree shall apply to all employers except to:
xxxx
e) Employers of those who are paid on purely commission, boundary, or task basis, and those who are
paid a fixed amount for performing a specific work, irrespective of the time consumed in the
performance thereof, except where the workers are paid on piece-rate basis in which case the employer
shall be covered by this issuance insofar as such workers are concerned.”58

26. G.R. NO. 156225, January 29, 2008

LETRAN CALAMBA FACULTY and EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION and COLEGIO DE SANJUAN DE LETRAN CALAMBA, INC., respondent

Doctrines

A. In a special civil action for certiorari brought before the CA, the appellate court can review the factual
findings and the legal conclusions of the NLRC. Absence in any findings by the CA of the need to
resolve any unclear or ambiguous factual findings of the NLRC, the grant of the writ of certiorari is not
warranted59

56
Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, GR No. 158693, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 573, 612.

57
Art. 277 of the Labor Code

58
Section 3 of the Rules Implementing Presidential Decree No. 85122

59
Agustilo v. Court of Appeals 417 Phil. 218 (2001).
 B. Basic salary includes and excludes: The all-embracing phrase “earnings and other remunerations”
which are deemed not part of the basic salary includes within its meaning payments for sick, vacation,
or maternity leaves, premium for works performed on rest days and special holidays, pay for regular
holidays and night differentials.

As such they are deemed not part of the basic salary and shall not be considered in the computation of
the 13th-month pay. If they were not so excluded, it is hard to find any “earnings and other
remunerations” expressly excluded in the computation of the 13thmonth pay. Then the exclusionary
provision would prove to be idle and with no purpose.

In the same manner that payment for overtime work and work performed during special holidays is
considered as additional compensation apart and distinct from employees regular wage or basic salary,
an overload pay, owing to its very nature and definition, may not be considered as part of a teacher’s
regular or basic salary, because it is being paid for additional work performed in excess of the regular
teaching load. Even if it is performed within the normal eight-hour working day, an overload is still an
additional or extra teaching work which is performed after the regular teaching load has been
completed.

Hence, any pay given as compensation for such additional work should be considered as extra and not
deemed as part of the regular or basic salary. excess teaching load is paid by the hour, while the
regular teaching load is being paid on a monthly basis; and that the assignment of overload is subject to
the availability of teaching loads. This only goes to show that overload pay is not integrated with a
teacher’s basic salary for his or her regular load.60

27. G.R. No. 15, August 17, 2007

CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION,vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GLORIA C. PALAD

Doctrines

A. Prior approval by the DOLE of the proposed apprenticeship program is a condition sine qua non before
an apprenticeship agreement can be validly entered into.61
B. An employment is deemed regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which
are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.62
C. An employer may terminate the services of an employee for just causes or for authorized causes
Furthermore, under Article 277of the Labor Code, the employer must send the employee who is about
to be terminated, a written notice stating the causes for termination and must give the employee the
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. Thus, to constitute valid dismissal from employment, two

60
SMC vs. Inciong G.R. No. L-49774, February 24, 1981, 103 SCRA 139.

61
Nitto Enterprises v. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 114337, 29 September 1995, 248 SCRA 654.

62
Art. 280 of the Labor Code
 requisites must concur: (1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the employee
must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.63
D. The employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause.64

28. G.R. No. 180636, March 13, 2013

LORENZO T. TANGGAAN vs. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., UNIVERSE TANKSHIP

DELAWARE LLC, and CARLOS C. SALINAS

Doctrines

A. A plain reading of Sec. 10 clearly reveals that the choice of which amount to award an illegally
dismissed overseas contract worker, i.e., whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract or three (3) months salary for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less,
comes into play only when the employment contract concerned has a term of at least one (1) year or
more. This is evident from the wording "for every year of the unexpired term" which follows the wording
"salaries x x x for three months."65
B. Article 279 of the Labor Code mandates that an employee’s full backwages shall be inclusive of
allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent.66
C. It is the obligation of the employer to pay an illegally dismissed employee or worker the whole amount
of the salaries or wages, plus all other benefits and bonuses and general increases, to which he would
have been normally entitled had he not been dismissed and had not stopped working.67
D. Settled is the rule that in actions for recovery of wages, or where an employee was forced to litigate
and, thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and interests, a monetary award by way of attorney's
fees is justifiable under Article Ill of the Labor Code; Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing
Rules; and paragraph 7, Article 208 of the Civil Code. The award of attorney's fees is proper, and there
need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages.
There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly.68

63
Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v. Maguad, G.R. No. 166363, 15 August 2006, 498 SCRA 639.

64
Manly Express, Inc. v. Payong, Jr., G.R. No. 167462, 25 October 2005, 474 SCRA 323; Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 153180, 2 September 2005, 469 SCRA 353

65
Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 127195, August 25, 1999.
66
Equitable Banking Corporation (EQUITABLE-PCI BANK) v. Sadac, 523 Phil. 781, 811, (2006).
67
Sarona v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 185280, January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 394, 424, citing St. Louis College of Tuguegarao v.
National Labor Relations Commission, 257 Phil. 1002, 1008 (1989) and East Asiatic Co., Ltd. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 148-B Phil. 401, 429
(1971).
68
RTG Construction, Inc. v. Facto and in Ortiz v. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 85278, August 29, 1989.
29. G.R. No 163419, February 13, 2008

TSPIC CORPORATION vs. TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION (FFW), representing MARIA FE FLORES, FE
CAPISTRANO, AMY DURIAS, CLAIRE EVELYN VELEZ, JANICE OLAGUIR, JERICO ALIPIT, GLEN
BATULA, SER JOHN HERNANDEZ, RACHEL NOVILLAS, NIMFA ANILAO, ROSE SUBARDIAGA,
VALERIE CARBON, OLIVIA EDROSO, MARICRIS DONAIRE, ANALYN AZARCON, ROSALIE RAMIREZ,
JULIETA ROSETE, JANICE NEBRE, NIA ANDRADE, CATHERINE YABA, DIOMEDISA ERNI, MARIO
SALMORIN, LOIDA COMULLO, MARIE ANN DELOS SANTOS, JUANITA YANA, and SUZETTE DULAY.

Doctrines
A. A collective bargaining agreement or CBA refers to the negotiated contract between a legitimate labor
organization and the employer concerning wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of
employment in a bargaining unit. As in all contracts, the parties in a CBA may establish such
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient provided these are not
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. Thus, where the CBA is clear and
unambiguous, it becomes the law between the parties and compliance therewith is mandated by the
express policy of the law.69
B. In the resolution of labor cases, we have always been guided by the State policy enshrined in the
Constitution: social justice and protection of the working class. Social justice does not, however,
mandate that every dispute should be automatically decided in favor of labor. In any case, justice is to
be granted to the deserving and dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law
and doctrine.70

30. G.R. No. 189951, JUNE 22, 2016

INTEC CEBU INC., vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

Doctrines

A. “Constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or
both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the
employee”71.
B. “Management is free to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all aspects of
employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place, and manner of work,
processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work
supervision, lay-off of workers, and discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. The exercise of
management prerogative, however, is not absolute as it must be exercised in good faith and with due
regard to the rights of labor”72.
C. “It is a settled doctrine that the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with abandonment
of employment. An employee who takes steps to protest his dismissal cannot logically be said to have

69
Honda Phils., Inc. v. Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda, G.R. No. 145561, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 187, 190-191.
70
Norkis Union v. Norkis Trading, G.R. No. 157098, June 30, 2005, 462 SCRA 485, 497.
71
Mcmer Corporation, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 193421, 4 June 2014, 725 SCRA 1, 13
72
Royal Plant Workers Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines. - Cebu Plant, 709 Phil. 350, 364 (2013)
 abandoned his work. The filing of such complaint is proof enough of his desire to return to work, thus
negating any suggestion of abandonment”73.

31. G.R. No. 212070, January 20, 2016

CEBU PEOPLE'S MULTI¬PURPOSE COOPERATIVE AND MACARIO G. QUEVEDO, PETITIONERS, VS.

NICERATO E. CARBONILLA, JR., RESPONDENT.

Doctrines

A. Article 282 of the Labor Code:

“Art. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following
causes:

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or
representative in connection with his work;

(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative;

(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any
immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and

(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.”74

B. “Loss of trust and confidence will validate an employee's dismissal when it is shown that: (a) the
employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence; and (b) he performs an act that would
justify such loss of trust and confidence”75.

32. G.R. No. 211015 & 213835

CAGAYAN ELECTRIC POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, INC. (CEPALCO) AND CEPALCO ENERGY
SERVICES CORPORATION (CESCO) vs. CEPALCO EMPLOYEE’S LABOR UNION JUNE 20, 2016

Doctrine

A. The Union has no legal standing to demand the regularization of employees of job contractor; Labor-
only contracting.”76

73
MZR Industries v. Colambot, 716 Phil. 617, 627-628 (2013)
Sec 18 Art 2 of the 1987 Constitution
74
Article 282, Labor Code of the Philippines
75
See Alvarez v. Golden Tri Bloc, Inc., G.R. No. 202158, September 25, 2013, 706 SCRA 406, 417-418, citing Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. v.
Episcope, G.R. No. 192826, February 27, 2013, 692 SCRA 227, 235.
76
Article 106 of the Labor Code of the Philippines
 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