Mindanao State University

MSU College of Law

Iligan Extension

CASE DIGESTS
and
CASE DOCTRINES

In Compliance for the Course Subject on Labor Law Review

Submitted by:

GROUP 10
Jamalmalik Dimalotang Alonto
Jinnan Casanguan Banding
Almerah Dalupang Boloto
Norhaya Ali Lago
Sittie Fat’ma Rizhmeen Arumpac Sinal
Fifth Year

Submitted to:

Labor Arbiter Abdul Azis U. Metmug

September 14, 2019

 Page 2 of 6

CASE DOCTRINES

CASE #27
CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GLORIA
C. PALAD
G.R. No. 152894 August 17, 2007

An apprenticeship program should first be approved by the DOLE before

an apprentice may be hired, otherwise the person hired will be considered a
regular employee.1

To constitute valid dismissal from employment, two 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. 2

Under Article 227 of the Labor Code, the employer has the burden of
proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. 3

When the alleged valid cause for the termination of employment is not
clearly proven, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal. 4

1
Nitto Enterprises v. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 114337, September 29, 1995.
2
Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v. Maguad, G.R. No. 166363, 15 August 2006, 498 SCRA 639.
3
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.
4
Philippine National Bank v. Cabansag, G.R. No. 157010, 21 June 2005, 460 SCRA 514.
 Page 3 of 6

CASE #28
LORENZO T. TANGGA-AN vs. PIDLIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC.,
UNIVERSE TANKSHIP DELAWARE LLC, and CARLOS C. SALINAS
G.R. No. 180636 March 13, 2013

This Court's labor pronouncements must be read and applied with utmost
care and caution, taking to mind that in the very heart of the judicial system, labor
cases occupy a special place. More than the State guarantees of protection of
labor and security of tenure, labor disputes involve the fundamental survival of
the employees and their families, who depend -upon the former for all the basic
necessities in life.5

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"
6
which follows the wording "salaries x x x for three months."

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.7

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.8

5
G.R. No. 180636 March 13, 2013
6
Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 127195, August 25, 1999.
7
G.R. No. 127195, August 25, 1999.
8
Equitable Banking Corporation (EQUITABLE-PCI BANK) v. Sadac, 523 Phil. 781, 811, (2006).
 Page 4 of 6

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. 9

Article 111 of the Labor Code, as amended, contemplates the

extraordinary concept of attorney’s fees and that Article 111 is an exception to the
declared policy of strict construction in the award of attorney’s fees. Although an
express finding of facts and law is still necessary to prove the merit of the award,
there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith
when it withheld the wages.10

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. 11

9
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).
10
PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 153031, December 14, 2006.
11
RTG Construction, Inc. v. Facto and in Ortiz v. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 85278, August 29, 1989.
 Page 5 of 6

CASE #29
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.
G.R. No. 163419 February 13, 2008

The path towards industrial peace is a two-way street. Fundamental

fairness and protection to labor should always govern dealings between labor
and management. Seemingly conflicting provisions should be harmonized to
arrive at an interpretation that is within the parameters of the law, compassionate
to labor, yet, fair to management.12

It is familiar and fundamental doctrine in labor law that the CBA is the law
between the parties and they are obliged to comply with its provisions. 13

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. 14

12
G.R. No. 163419 February 13, 2008
13
Centro Escolar University Faculty and Allied Workers Union-Independent v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165486, May 31, 2006, 490
SCRA 61, 72.
14
Honda Phils., Inc. v. Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda, G.R. No. 145561, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 187, 190-191.
 Page 6 of 6

Littera necat spiritus vivificat. An instrument must be interpreted according

to the intention of the parties. It is the duty of the courts to place a practical and
realistic construction upon it, giving due consideration to the context in which it is
negotiated and the purpose which it is intended to serve. 15

Absent clear administrative guidelines, Petitioner Corporation cannot be

faulted for erroneous application of the law. Payment may be said to have been
made by reason of a mistake in the construction or application of a "doubtful or
difficult question of law". Since it is a past error that is being corrected, no vested
right may be said to have arisen nor any diminution of benefit under Article 100 of
the Labor Code may be said to have resulted by virtue of the correction. 16

Though it is the state’s responsibility to afford protection to labor, this

policy should not be used as an instrument to oppress management and
capital.17

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.18

15
Marcopper Mining Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 103525, March 29, 1996, 255 SCRA 322, 333; citing Davao Integrated Port
Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez, G.R. No. 102132, March 19, 1993, 220 SCRA 197.
16
Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. NLRC No. L-74156, June 29, 1988, 163 SCRA 71, 78.
17
Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 573, 614.
18
Norkis Union v. Norkis Trading, G.R. No. 157098, June 30, 2005, 462 SCRA 485, 497.