Notes On Labor Law Jurisprudence by Prof. Marlon Manuel

Atty. Marlon J.
Manuel
Labor
Jurisprudence
Labor Jurisprudence 2019
Self-Organization
• The right to self-organization is not limited to unionism. Workers
may also form or join an association for mutual aid and protection
and for other legitimate purposes.
• Right to self-organization includes right to form a union, workers'
association and labor management councils. While every labor union
is a labor organization, not every labor organization is a labor union.
• Collective bargaining is not the end-goal of employee representation,
but employee participation.
• Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard v. BLR, October 14, 2015
MJManuel
20% requirement must be at

the time of union registration
• Art. 234(c) requires the list of names of all the union members of an
INDEPENDENT UNION comprising at least 20% of the
bargaining unit. This should not be equated with the list of workers
who participated in the organizational meetings (par [b]).
• Subsequent affidavits of retraction (withdrawal of membership) will
not retroact to the time of the application for registration or even way
back to the organizational meeting.
• Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club v. CA, March 18, 2010
MJManuel
20% requirement not required

at organizational meeting
• It does not appear in Article 234 (b) of the Labor Code that the
attendees in the organizational meeting must comprise 20% of the
employees in the bargaining unit. In fact, even the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code does not so provide. It is
only under Article 234 (c) that requires the names of all its members
comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the
bargaining unit where it seeks to operate. Clearly, the 20% minimum
requirement pertains to the employees' membership in the union
and not to the list of workers who participated in the organizational
meeting.
• Takata Philippines v. BLR and SALAMAT, June 4, 2014
MJManuel
Pendency of Cancellation Case

• The pendency of the cancellation of union registration brought
against the labor organization applying for the certification election
should not prevent the conduct of the certification election. Only a
final order for the cancellation of the registration would have
prevented the petitioner union from continuing to enjoy all the rights
conferred on it as a legitimate labor union, including the right to the
petition for the certification election.
• Heritage Hotel v. Secretary, July 23, 2014
MJManuel
Employer-Employee in CE Case
• The Med-Arbiter has the jurisdiction to decide on the issue of the
existence of employer-employee relationship in a certification
election case.
• The findings of the Med-Arbiter, however, on the absence or
existence of the relationship is not binding on the Labor Arbiter in
an illegal dismissal case.
• Hijo Resources Corp. v. Mejares, January 13, 2016
MJManuel
Petition for Cancellation

• The employer was correct in filing a petition for cancellation of
respondent's certificate of registration. The employer’s sole ground for
seeking cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration — that its
members are managerial employees and for this reason, its registration is
thus a patent nullity for being an absolute violation of Article 245 of
the Labor Code which declares that managerial employees are ineligible to
join any labor organization — is, in a sense, an accusation that respondent
is guilty of misrepresentation for registering under the claim that its
members are not managerial employees.
• AIM vs. AIM Faculty Association, January 23, 2017
MJManuel
1 Union; 2 Bargaining Units

• An academic institution should have two bargaining units: one for
academic personnel; and another for non-academic personnel.
• The differences, however, between the two categories of employees
are not substantial enough to warrant a dismissal of a petition for
certification election, seeking an election for only one unit.
• The solution should be to hold two certification elections.
• Holy Child Catholic School v. HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS, July 23, 2013
MJManuel
3 companies – 1 bargaining unit
• The 3 companies were sister companies that had a common human resource
department responsible for hiring and disciplining the employees of the
three companies. The three companies constantly rotated their workers.
• These companies may be considered as one and the same entity for the
purpose of determining the appropriate bargaining unit in a certification
election. DOLE correctly applied the concept of multi-employer
bargaining in finding that the three companies could be considered as the
same entity.
• Erson Ang Lee Doing Business as Super Lamination v. SMSLS-NAFLU-KMU,
November 21, 2016
MJManuel
Disaffiliation without PCE

• Even with the disaffiliation of members of the incumbent
bargaining agent and the formation of a new union, if no petition for
certification election was filed within the 60-day freedom period,
then, the employer shall continue to recognize the majority status of
the incumbent bargaining agent.
• Ren Transport Corp. V. NLRC, June 27, 2016
MJManuel
ULP Test - Totality of Conduct

• The test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, is
whether the employer has engaged in conduct which, it
may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of
employees' rights; and that it is not necessary that there be direct
evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by
statements of threats of the employer if there is a reasonable
inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an
adverse effect on self-organization and collective bargaining.
• T&H Shopfitters v. T&H Shopfitters Workers Union, February 26, 2014
MJManuel
ULP
• Violation of the union shop agreement in the CBA, even assuming it
was malicious and flagrant, is not a violation of an economic
provision in the agreement. Hence, not ULP.
• An outsourcing program that would not result to any transfer or
dismissal of the employees who are members of the bargaining unit
cannot be considered as a ―reduction of positions in the collective
bargaining unit‖ and cannot be considered as interference with the
right to self-organization.
• BPI Employees Union-Davao v. BPI, July 24, 2013
MJManuel
ULP
• Retrenchment in good faith is not ULP.
• The fact that the retrenchment program was implemented on a
company-wide basis shows that the scheme was not calculated to
stymie union activities.
• Absent any perceived threat to the union’s existence or a violation of
the employees’ right to self-organization, the company cannot be
said to have committed ULP.
• Pepsi Cola Products v. Molon et al., February 18, 2013
MJManuel
ULP
• Removal of chairs, which had been provided for more than three
decades, was not ULP. The rights of the Union under any labor law
were not violated.
• The long practice did not convert it into an obligation or a vested
right in favor of the union.
• Chairs not ―benefits‖, hence, not covered by the prohibition against
diminution.
• Royal Plant Workers Union v. Coca Cola Bottlers, April 15, 2013
MJManuel
CBA can delimit hiring of

contractual employees
• A CBA which prescribes three categories of employees (probationary, regular,
casual) and provides for the definition, functions and duties of each, serves as
a limitation on management’s prerogative of outsourcing parts of its
operations, particularly functions or duties specified under the CBA.
• While the engagement of a contractor was not ULP, it was not in keeping with
the intent and spirit of the CBA. With the provision on casual employees, the
hiring of contractual employees was not in keeping with the spirit and intent
of the CBA. The CBA delimit the free exercise of management prerogative
pertaining to the hiring of contractual employees.
• Goya v. Goya Employees Union, January 21, 2013
MJManuel
2 Retirement Benefits in the CBA

• Unilateral changes or suspensions in the implementation of the provisions
of the CBA cannot be allowed without the consent of both parties.
• Since there is substantial evidence to prove that there is an existing practice
of giving two retirement benefits, one under the CBA, and another under
the PERAA Plan, the company cannot, without the consent of the union,
eliminate the two-retirement policy and implement a one-retirement policy
as this would violate the rule on non-diminution of benefits.
• Wesleyan University v. Wesleyan University Faculty and Staff Association, March
12, 2014
MJManuel
CBA entered into by former

SEBA ―temporary‖
• A CBA entered into at a time when the petition for certification election had
already been filed by a challenger and was then pending resolution cannot be
deemed permanent, precluding the commencement of negotiations by another
union with the management. This interim agreement must be recognized and
given effect on a temporary basis so as not to deprive the workers of the favorable
terms of the agreement.
• If, as a result of the certification election, a union other than union which executed
the interim agreement is certified as the exclusive bargaining representative, such
union may adopt the interim collective bargaining agreement or negotiate with
management for a new collective bargaining agreement.
• SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union v. URC, October 5, 2016
MJManuel
ULP of Labor Union

• Expulsion of union members, and denial of the appeal procedures
in the union's constitution and by-laws could be a form of ULP by
the union.
• The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have jurisdiction, as this is not an
intra-union dispute.
• Mendoza v. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union, January 25, 2016
MJManuel
STRIKE
• ―Mass leave‖ refers to a simultaneous availment of authorized
leave benefits by a large number of employees in a company.
• If only 5 employees were absent on the same day, and they
went on leave for various reasons, they cannot be considered to
have gone on ―mass leave‖. They did not go on strike.
• ―Concerted‖ is defined as ―mutually contrived or planned‖ or
―performed in unison‖
• Naranjo v. Biomedica Heath Care, September 19, 2012
MJManuel
STRIKE
• Union officers’ instigation of two (2) employees to abstain from
working overtime constitutes instigation to commit slowdown – a
―strike on installment plan‖, hence, illegal
• Ramirez v. Polyson Industries, October 19, 2016
MJManuel
Deadlock
• The issue of whether there was already deadlock between the union and
the company is a question of fact. It requires the determination of
evidence to find whether there is a "counteraction" of forces between the
union and the company and whether each of the parties exerted
"reasonable effort at good faith bargaining." A 'deadlock' is the
counteraction of things producing entire stoppage. The union's reliance on
item 8 of the ground rules governing the parties' negotiations which
required mutual consent for a declaration of deadlock was reduced to
irrelevance by the actual facts.
• Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association v. Pilipinas Shell, April 7, 2014
MJManuel
Termination of Strikers
• Union members who were illegally dismissed for mere participation in an
illegal strike are entitled to separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement) but not
to backwages.
• The principle of a "fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor" remains as the
basic factor in determining the award thereof. If there is no work
performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay unless, of course,
the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out,
suspended or dismissed or otherwise illegally prevented from working. For
this exception to apply, it is required that the strike be legal.
• VCMC v. Yballe, January 15, 2014
MJManuel
Strike Conducted 1 day earlier

• A strike conducted one day before the completion of the cooling-off
period and the seven day strike ban is NOT ILLEGAL, since the
premature start of the strike was prompted by the employer’s lockout
of employees on that day.
• PMI Faculty and Employees Union v. PMI Colleges, June 19, 2016
MJManuel
Strike Vote
• The conduct of the strike vote must be by secret ballot. Open
voting is in violation of the requirements of the law for a valid strike.
• The good faith strike doctrine will not apply, as the union failed to
comply with the requirements.
• The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp. Employees Union v. NLRC, January
11, 2016
MJManuel
No-Strike Clause
• A ―no-strike, no-lock-out‖ clause does not apply to a strike based on the
employer’s bad faith bargaining as it is a ULP strike.
• Even if the CBA contains a broad definition of grievance, which includes,
―all disputes‖, absent any express stipulation that even ULP shall be
submitted to voluntary arbitration, the phrase 'all disputes' should be
construed as limited to the areas of conflict traditionally within the
jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators, i.e., disputes relating to contract-
interpretation, contract-implementation, or interpretation or enforcement
of company personnel policies.
• Guagua National Colleges v. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union, July 13, 2016
MJManuel
Assumption of Jurisdiction
• The power of the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume
jurisdiction over the dispute includes and extends to all questions
and controversies arising from the said dispute, such as, but not
limited to the union's allegation of bad faith bargaining.
• It includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising
from or related to the dispute, including cases over which
the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction.
• Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association v. Pilipinas Shell, April 7, 2014
MJManuel
Serious Misconduct
• Reckless driving by a bus driver constitutes serious misconduct, or, at
the very least, conduct analogous to serious misconduct.
• Sampaguita Auto Transport v. NLRC & Sagad, January 30, 2013
MJManuel
Willful Disobedience
• An employee’s act of lending his I.D. card to another employee who
used the said I.D. in entering the compound of the company is NOT
willful disobedience when the employee did not benefit from such
act, nor prejudiced the business interests of the employer. The
employee acted in good faith and with the sole intention of
facilitating deliveries for the employer when he allowed his co-
employee to use his company I.D.
• Dongon v. Rapid Movers, Augsut 28, 2013
MJManuel
Extramarital Affairs
• While the employee’s act of engaging in extra-marital affairs may be
considered personal to him and does not directly affect the performance of
his assigned task as bookkeeper, it can be a ground for dismissal. Aside
from the fact that the act was specifically provided for by the employer’s
Personnel Policy as one of the grounds for termination of employment
(―act that brings discredit to the cooperative‖) , said act raised concerns to
the employer as its Board received numerous complaints and petitions
from the cooperative members themselves asking for the removal of
employee because of his immoral conduct.
• Alilem Credit Cooperative v. Bandiola, February 25, 2013
MJManuel
Premarital Sexual Relations/Pregnancy

• Pre-marital sexual relations between two consenting adults who have no
impediment to marry each other, and, consequently, conceiving a child out of
wedlock, gauged from a purely public and secular view of morality, does not
amount to a disgraceful or immoral conduct
• That the employee was employed by a Catholic educational institution per se does
not absolutely determine whether her pregnancy out of wedlock is disgraceful or
immoral. There is still a necessity to determine whether the pregnancy out of
wedlock is considered disgraceful or immoral in accordance with the prevailing
norms of conduct. Public and secular morality should determine the prevailing
norms of conduct, not religious morality.
• Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove, January 28, 2015; Capin-Cadiz v. Brent Hospital and
Colleges, February 24, 2016; Inocente v. St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging, June 22, 2016
MJManuel
Termination due to Pregnancy

• The flight attendants were terminated pursuant to SAUDIA’s ―Unified
Employment Contract for Female Cabin Attendants,‖ which deemed void the
employment of a flight attendant who becomes pregnant. The employees were
dismissed for no other reason than simply that they were pregnant. This is as
wanton, oppressive, and tainted with bad faith as any reason for termination of
employment can be.
• This is no ordinary case of illegal dismissal. This is a case of manifest gender
discrimination. It is an affront not only to our statutes and policies on employees’
security of tenure, but more so, to the Constitution’s dictum of fundamental
equality between men and women. SAUDIA’s policy excludes from and restricts
employment on the basis of no other consideration but sex.
• Saudi Arabian Airlines [SAUDIA] v. Rebesencio, January 14, 2015

MJManuel
Neglect of Duties - Quota

• Repeated failure to perform the employees duties, i.e., reaching the
monthly sales quota, falls under the concept of gross inefficiency.
• Gross inefficiency is analogous to ―gross neglect of duty‖ and is a
just cause for dismissal.
• Puncia v. Toyota Shaw, June 28, 2016
MJManuel
Redundancy
• Is not enough for a company to merely declare that it has excess
personnel. It must produce adequate proof of such redundancy to
justify the dismissal of the affected employees.
• Evidence must be presented to substantiate redundancy such as but
not limited to the new staffing pattern, feasibility studies/proposal,
on the viability of the newly created positions, job description and
the approval by the management of the restructuring.
• General Milling Corp. v. Viajar, January 30, 2013
MJManuel
Suspension of
Operations/Termination
• Suspension of operations is bona fide when it is due to a fire that
caused substantial losses to the employer and damaged its factory.
• However, the employees should be considered illegally dismissed
after the employer failed to recall them after six months, when its
bona fide suspension of operations lapsed.
• SKM Art Corp. v. Bauca, November 27, 2013
MJManuel
Notice of Closure
• The mere posting on the company bulletin board or in conspicuous
places within the business premises, does not, meet the requirement
under the law of "serving a written notice on the workers.― The purpose
of the written notice is to inform the employees of the specific date of
termination or closure of business operations, and must be served upon
them at least one month before the date of effectivity to give them
sufficient time to make the necessary arrangement. In order to meet the
foregoing purpose, service of the written notice must be made
individually upon each and every employee of the company.
• Sangwoo Phil. v. Sangwoo Phils. Employees Union, December 9, 2013

MJManuel
30-day Notice
• It was within the employer’s prerogative and discretion to retain the
services of its employees for one month and to continue paying their
salaries and benefits corresponding to that period even when there is
no more work to be done.
• An employer may opt not to require the dismissed employees to
report for work during the 30-day notice period.
• PNCC Skyway Corp. v. Secretary, April 19, 2016
MJManuel
30-day Notice
• Considering that the notices of termination were given merely three
(3) days before the cessation of the employer’s operation, it defeats
the very purpose of the required notice and the mandate of the Labor
Code.
• Neither the payment of employees' salaries for the said one-month
period nor the employees' alleged actual knowledge of the
amendment of the agreement between PNCC and the government
(which caused the cessation of operations) is sufficient to replace the
formal and written notice required by the law.
• PNCC Skyway Corp. v. Secretary, February 6, 2017
MJManuel
Nominal Damages - Reduction

• In instances where the payment of nominal damages becomes impossible, unjust, or
too burdensome, modification becomes necessary in order to harmonize the
disposition with the prevailing circumstances.
• Several factors are taken into account: (1) the authorized cause invoked, whether it was
a retrenchment or a closure or cessation of operation of the establishment due to
serious business losses or financial reverses or otherwise; (2) the number of employees
to be awarded; (3) the capacity of the employers to satisfy the awards, taken into
account their prevailing financial status as borne by the records; (4) the employer’s
grant of other termination benefits in favor of the employees; and (5) whether there
was a bona fide attempt to comply with the notice requirements as opposed to giving
no notice at all.
• Sangwoo Phil. v. Sangwoo Phils. Employees Union, December 9, 2013 (citing Ababon case, 2006)
MJManuel
Recomputation of Backwages &

Separation Pay
• Recomputation of the amount of backwages and separation pay due
an illegally dismissed employee, after the resolution has attained
finality, is a necessary consequence that flows from the nature of the
illegality of dismissal.
• A recomputation is part of the law that is read into the decision. By
the nature of an illegal dismissal case, the reliefs continue to add up
until full satisfaction. The recomputation does not amount to an
alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented.
• Nacar v. Gallery Frames, August 13, 2013
MJManuel
Updating of Award of
Backwages
• Updating the computation of awards to include as well backwages and separation
pay corresponding to the period after the rendition of the labor arbiter’s decision
up to its finality is not violative of the principle of immutability of a final and
executory judgment. No essential change is made by a re-computation as this step
is a necessary consequence that flows from the nature of the illegality of
dismissal declared in that decision. A re-computation (or an original computation,
if no previous computation has been made) is a part of the law — specifically,
Article 279 of the Labor Code and the established jurisprudence on this provision
— that is read into the decision. By the nature of an illegal dismissal case, the
reliefs continue to add on until full satisfaction.
• University of Pangasinan v. Fernandez, November 12, 2014; Metroguards Security v.
Hilongo, March 9, 2015
MJManuel
End of Period of Backwages

• When there is an order of separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement or when the
reinstatement aspect is waived or subsequently ordered in light of a supervening
event making the award of reinstatement no longer possible), the employment
relationship is terminated only upon the finality of the decision ordering the
separation pay. The finality of the decision cuts-off the employment relationship
and represents the final settlement of the rights and obligations of the parties
against each other.
• It does not matter if the delay caused by an appeal was brought about by the
employer or by the employee. If the LA's decision, which granted separation pay
in lieu of reinstatement, is appealed by any party, the employer-employee
relationship subsists and until such time when decision becomes final and
executory, the employee is entitled to all the monetary awards awarded by the LA.
• CICM Mission Seminaries v. Perez, January 18, 2017
MJManuel
Separation Pay/
Financial Assistance
• In addition to serious misconduct, in dismissals based on other grounds under Art.
282 like willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duty, fraud or willful
breach of trust, and commission of a crime against the employer or his family,
separation pay should not be conceded to the dismissed employee.
• In analogous causes for termination like inefficiency, drug use, and others, the
NLRC or the courts may opt to grant separation pay anchored on social justice in
consideration of the length of service of the employee, the amount involved,
whether the act is the first offense, the performance of the employee and the like.
• International School v. ISAE, February 5, 2014

MJManuel
Reinstatement without
Backwages
• An employee’s act of lending his I.D. card to a relative who was an
applicant at the employer company (to allow the relative to have free
pass for the shuttle bus) was considered as insufficient ground for
termination, despite the guilt of the employee.
• Reinstatement WITHOUT backwages was ordered, because: (1)
dismissal of the employee was too harsh a penalty; (2) the employer
was in good faith in terminating the employee.
• Integrated Microelectronics v. Pionilla, August 28, 2013
MJManuel
Dismissal – Criminal case

• A first notice which stated that the employment contract had expired but
likewise made general references to alleged criminal suits filed against the
employee is non-compliant with the twin-notice requirement.
• An employee’s guilt or innocence in a criminal case is not determinative of
the existence of a just or authorized cause for the employee’s dismissal.
The pendency of a criminal suit against an employee does not, by itself,
sufficiently establish a ground for an employer to terminate the employee’s
services.
• United Tourist Promotion v. Kemplin, February 5, 2014
MJManuel
Constructive Dismissal
• The employer’s non-payment of the employee’s salaries for three
months constituted constructive dismissal, even if it was the
employee who resigned, since the employee clearly cited in the
resignation letter the non-payment of salaries as the reason for the
resignation.
• Dreamland Hotel v. Johnson, March 12, 2014
MJManuel
Reduction of work Hours -

Constructive Dismissal
• If there is no reason to implement a cost-cutting measure in the
form of reducing the employees’ working days from 6 to 2-4 days,
the employer committed illegal reduction of work hours. This
constitutes constructive dismissal.
• The employer’s unilateral and arbitrary reduction of the work day
scheme had significantly greatly reduced the workers’ salaries,
rendering it liable for constructive dismissal
• INTEC Cebu v. CA, June 22, 2016.

MJManuel
Floating Status
• Floating status must not exceed six (6) months. An employer must
assign the security guard to another posting within six (6) months
from his last deployment, otherwise, he would be considered
constructively dismissed.
• The security guard must be assigned to a specific or particular client.
A general return-to-work order does not suffice.
• Ibon v. Genghis Khan Security Services, June 19, 2017
MJManuel
Termination due to Disease

• Covers non-contagious disease. The phrase "prejudicial to his health as well as to
the health of his co-employees" is construed to mean "prejudicial to his
health or to the health of his co-employees".
• Certificate a substantive requirement. The third element substantiates the
contention that the employee has indeed been suffering from a disease that: (1) is
prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees; and (2) cannot
be cured within a period of six months even with proper medical treatment.
Without the medical certificate, there can be no authorized cause for the
employee's dismissal. The absence of this element thus renders the
dismissal void and illegal.
• Deoferio v. Intel Technology, June 18, 2014
MJManuel
Secondment
• The continuity, existence or termination of an employer-employee
relationship in a typical secondment contract is measured by the
FOUR FOLD TEST. If the acceptance of the new ―assignment‖
required the abandonment of the employee’s permanent position
with the former employer, in order for him to assume a position in an
entirely different company, the ―permanent transfer or assignment‖
constituted a severance of employment with the former employer.
• Intel Technology v. NLRC & Cabiles, February 5, 2014

MJManuel
Retirement
• Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of the parties, a voluntary agreement between the
employer and the employee whereby the latter, after reaching a certain age, agrees to sever his or
her employment with the former. Acceptance by the employees of an early retirement age option
must be explicit, voluntary, free, and uncompelled. While an employer may unilaterally retire an
employee earlier than the legally permissible ages under the Labor Code, this prerogative must be
exercised pursuant to a mutually instituted early retirement plan. In other words, only the
implementation and execution of the option may be unilateral, but not the adoption and
institution of the retirement plan containing such option.
• An employees’ receipt of her retirement benefits will stop her from pursuing an illegal dismissal
complaint against the employer. Her repeated application and availment of the re-hiring program
for qualified retirees for 3 consecutive years reveals that she has already voluntarily and freely
signified her consent to the retirement policy despite her initial opposition to it.
• Catotocan v. Lourdes School, April 26, 2017

MJManuel
Part-time employees entitled to

Retirement Benefits
• Based on RA 7641 and its Implementing Rules, part-time employees
are entitled to retirement benefits. The general coverage of the
law is broad enough to encompass all private sector employees, and
part-time employees are not among those specifically exempted from
the law.
• De La Salle Araneta University v. Bernardo, February 13, 2017
MJManuel
Control
• Not every form of control is indicative of employer-employee
relationship. A person who performs work for another and is
subjected to its rules, regulations, and code of ethics does not
necessarily become an employee. As long as the level of control does
not interfere with the means and methods of accomplishing the
assigned tasks, the rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired
party do not amount to the labor law concept of control that is
indicative of employer-employee relationship.
• Royale Homes v. Alcantara, July 28, 2014

MJManuel
Control
• Guidelines or rules and regulations that do not pertain to the means
or methods to be employed in attaining the result are not indicative
of control as understood in labor law. Neither does the repeated
hiring of the employee prove the existence of employer-employee
relationship. Nor does the exclusivity clause of contract establish the
existence of the labor law concept of control. Exclusivity of contract
does not necessarily result in employer-employee relationship.
• Royale Homes v. Alcantara, July 28, 2014
MJManuel
Officer vs. Employee

• The contents of the General Information Sheets, which identifies the
employee as an ―officer‖ of the company could neither govern nor
establish the nature of the office held by the employee and his
appointment thereto.
• The mere fact that the complainant employee was a stockholder of
the company does not necessarily make the action an intra-corporate
controversy.
• Cosare v. Broadcom Asia, February 5, 2014
MJManuel
Termination of Employment
of probationary employees
• The adequate performance of one’s duties is, by and of itself an
inherent and implied standard for a probationary employee to be
regularized; such is a regularization standard which need not be
spelled out or mapped into technical indicators in every case.
• Abbot Laboratories vs. Alcaraz, July 23, 2013
MJManuel
Failure to Provide Standards

for Probation
• The job description attached to the employee’s appointment letter
merely answers the question: ―what duties and responsibilities does the
position entail?‖, but fails to provide the answer/s to the question: ―how
would the employer gauge the performance of the probationary
employee?‖
• Performance of duties and responsibilities is a necessary standard. But,
there must also be a measure as to how poor, fair, satisfactory, or
excellent the performance has been.
• PNOC-EDC vs. Buenviaje, June 29, 2016

MJManuel
• The employer’s violation of its own company procedure for

termination renders the termination procedurally infirm,
warranting the payment of nominal damages.
• Abbot Laboratories vs. Alcaraz, July 23, 2013
MJManuel
• Different rules apply in determining whether loss of trust and

confidence may validly be used as a justification in termination
cases. Managerial employees are treated differently than fiduciary
rank-and-file employees.
• The employer must adduce proof of actual involvement in the
alleged misconduct for loss of trust and confidence to warrant the
dismissal of fiduciary rank-and-file employees. However, "mere
existence of a basis for believing that [the] employee has breached
the trust [and confidence] of [the] employer" is sufficient for
managerial employees.
• Bravo vs. Urios College, June 7, 2017
MJManuel
Regular Employment with

Fixed Term Contract
• The employee’s contract indicating a fixed term did not automatically
mean that she could never be a regular employee. This is precisely what
Article 280 seeks to avoid. The ruling in Brent remains as the exception
rather than the general rule. Further, an employee can be a regular
employee with a fixed-term contract. The law does not preclude the
possibility that a regular employee may opt to have a fixed-term contract
for valid reasons. For as long as it was the employee who requested, or
bargained, that the contract have a "definite date of termination," or that
the fixed-term contract be freely entered into by the employer and the
employee, then the validity of the fixed-term contract will be upheld.
• Fuji Television v. Espiritu, December 3, 2014
MJManuel
Fixed-Term Employee
• A fixed-term employment is allowable only if the term was voluntarily and
knowingly entered into by the parties who must have dealt with each other on
equal terms not one exercising moral dominance over the other. A fixed-term
contract is an employment contract, the repeated renewals of which make for a
regular employment.
• Petitioners, medical professionals as they were, were still not on equal footing
with their employer as they obviously did not want to lose their jobs that they
had stayed in for fifteen (15) years. The uniform one-page Contracts of
Retainer signed by the petitioners were prepared by the employer alone. There
is no specificity in the contracts regarding terms and conditions of
employment that would indicate that petitioners and the employer were on
equal footing in negotiating it.
• Samonte v. La Salle Greenhills, Inc., February 10, 2016
MJManuel
Seasonal Employment
• The regular and repeated hiring of the same workers (two different
sets) for two separate seasons has put in place, principally through
jurisprudence, the system of regular seasonal employment in the
sugar industry and other industries with a similar nature of
operations. However, regular seasonal employees should not be
confused with the regular employees of the sugar mill such as the
administrative or office personnel who perform their tasks for the
entire year regardless of the season.
• The regular seasonal employees should not be entitled to the benefits
granted, under the CBA, to the sugar mill’s regular employees.
• Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. v. Acibo, January 15, 2014
MJManuel
Project Employment
• An employment contract that does not mention particular dates that
establish the specific duration of the project does not preclude one's
classification as a project employee.
• Although an employment contract provided that the stated date may be
"extended or shortened depending on the work phasing," it will still
qualify as a project employment as it specified the termination of the
parties' employment relationship on a "day certain," which is "upon
completion of the phase of work for which the employee was hired."
• Ganzon, Inc. v. Ando, February 20, 2017
MJManuel
Secretary cannot question

CA Decision
• The court or tribunal exercising quasi-judicial functions is bereft of
any right or personality to question the decision of an appellate court
reversing its decision. The Secretary of Labor is not the real party-
in-interest vested with personality to file the present petitions. A real
party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by
the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the
suit.
• Republic of the Philippines v. Namboku Peak, July 18, 2014

MJManuel
Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter

• As a general rule, a claim only needs to be sufficiently connected to the
labor issue raised and must arise from an employer-employee relationship
for the labor tribunals to have jurisdiction. The return of the employer’s
properties in the employees’ possession by virtue of their status as
employees is an issue that must be resolved to determine whether benefits
can be released to them. Since the issue raised by the employer is
connected to the employees’ claim for benefits and is sufficiently
intertwined with the parties’ employer-employee relationship, it is properly
within the labor tribunals’ jurisdiction.
• Milan v. NLRC, February 4, 2015
MJManuel

• Not all claims involving employees can be resolved solely by our labor courts,
specifically when the law provides otherwise. If there is a reasonable causal connection
between the claim asserted and the employer-employee relations, then the case is
within the jurisdiction of the labor courts; and in the absence thereof, it is the regular
courts that have jurisdiction. The acts complained of appear to constitute matters
involving employee-employer relations since respondent used to be the Civil Engineer
of petitioner. But the claim for damages is specifically grounded on petitioner's gross
negligence to provide a safe, healthy and workable environment for its employees — a
case of quasi-delict. Where the resolution of the dispute requires expertise in the
application of the general civil law, such claim falls outside the area of competence of
expertise ordinarily ascribed to the LA and the NLRC.
• Indophil v. Adviento, August 4, 2014
MJManuel

• The jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the NLRC is comprehensive enough to
include claims for all forms of damages ―arising from the employer-employee
relations.‖ This applies with equal force to the claim of an employer for actual
damages against its dismissed employee, where the basis for the claim arises from
or is necessarily connected with the fact of termination, and should be entered as a
counterclaim in the illegal dismissal case.
• If the employer’s counterclaim for payment of the employee’s outstanding cash
advances, although arising from employer-employee relations, did not arise from or
was not necessarily connected with the fact of the employee’s termination. Hence,
the LA and the NLRC do not have jurisdiction to rule on the counterclaim.
• Supra Multi-Services v. Tambunting, August 3, 2016
MJManuel

• An employer’s action for replevin against a dismissed employee
(demand for payment of 50% company equity over the car, or to
surrender its possession) involves the parties’ relationship as debtor
and creditor, not their ―employer-employee‖ relationship.
• The employer’s complaint is civil in nature, and is separate and
distinct from the illegal dismissal case filed by the employee, even if
the employee availed of the car under the company’s Car Financing
Plan.
• Malayan Insurance Company v. Alibudbud, April 20, 2016
MJManuel
Technical Rules Not Binding

• The dismissed employee was directly implicated in the controversy through
the extrajudicial confession of his co-employee, who had admitted to be
the author of the checks' alterations. The NLRC deemed the same to be
inadmissible in evidence on account of the res inter alios acta rule - a party
cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.
• The NLRC should not have bound itself by the technical rules of
procedure as it is allowed to be liberal in the application of its rules in
deciding labor cases.
• Buenaflor Car Services v. David, November 7, 2016
MJManuel
Appeal Bond
• The filing of a motion to reduce appeal bond shall be entertained by the
NLRC subject to the following grounds: (1) There is a meritorious ground; and
(2) a bond in a reasonable amount is posted.
• For item 2, 10% should be posted together with the motion to reduce (exclusive
of damages and attorney’s fees)
• Compliance with the 10% requirement will suspend the running of the 10 day
period for appeal
• The NLRC retains its authority and duty to resolve the motion and determine
the final amount of bond
• If the NLRC denies the motion, or requires a higher amount of bond, the
appellant shall have a fresh period of 10 days from notice of the order.
• McBurnie v. Ganzon, EGI-Managers, Inc., October 17, 2013

MJManuel
Appeal Bond
• The amount of 10% of the award is not a permissible bond but is only such
amount that shall be deemed reasonable in the meantime that the appellant’s
motion is pending resolution by the NLRC. The actual reasonable amount yet
to be determined is necessarily a bigger amount. In an effort to strike a
balance between the constitutional obligation of the state to afford protection
to labor on the one hand, and the opportunity afforded to the employer to
appeal, on the other, the Court considered the appeal bond which is equivalent
to 25% of the monetary award as sufficient in one case, and 20% in another
case.
• Balite v. SS Ventures, Feb. 2015; Sara Lee v. Macatlang, June 4, 2014; McBurnie v.
Ganzon, EGI-Managers, Inc., October 17, 2013
MJManuel
Appeal
• A party who does not appeal, or file a petition for certiorari, is not entitled
to any affirmative relief. Due process prevents the grant of additional
awards to parties who did not appeal. An appellee who is not an appellant
may assign errors in his brief where his purpose is to maintain the
judgment, but he cannot seek modification or reversal of the judgment or
claim affirmative relief unless he has also appealed.
• The CA cannot grant an affirmative relief to an employee who did not ask
for it.
• Unilever v. Rivera, June 3, 2013.

MJManuel
Without employer-employee relationship,

Secretary has no jurisdiction
to determine violations of labor standards
• If the Regional Director’s Order merely noted the discovery of violations of
labor standards provisions in the course of inspection, without making any
categorical determination on the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, and without making reference to any concrete evidence to
support a finding of an employer-employee relationship, the DOLE does not
have jurisdiction to direct compliance with the violations of labor standards.
• There must be substantial evidence, such as proofs of employment, clear
exercise of control, and the power to dismiss. The workers’ allegations are
inadequate to justify their status as employees.
• South Cotabato Communications Corp. v. Sto. Tomas, June 15, 2016

MJManuel
VA Decision subject to judicial review

despite agreement
• In view of the nature of their functions, voluntary arbitrators act in a quasi-
judicial capacity; hence, their judgments or final orders which are declared
final by law are not so exempt from judicial review when so warranted.
• Any agreement, including a CBA, stipulating that 'the decision of the
arbitrator shall be final and unappealable' and 'that no further judicial
recourse if either party disagrees with the whole or any part of the
arbitrator's award may be availed of' cannot be held to preclude in proper
cases the power of judicial review which is inherent in courts.
• Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines v. Bacolod Salesforce Union, September 21, 2016
MJManuel
Reinstatement Aspect of VA Decision

• The reinstatement aspect of the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision or award remains
executory regardless of the ﬁling of a motion for reconsideration or appeal.
• There is no reason to treat it any less than the reinstatement that is ordered by the
Labor Arbiter. Voluntary arbitration really takes precedence over other dispute
settlement devices. The reinstatement order by the Voluntary Arbitrator should
have the same authority, force and eﬀect as that of the reinstatement order by the
Labor Arbiter not only to encourage parties to settle their disputes through this
mode, but also, and more importantly, to enforce the constitutional mandate to
protect labor, to provide security of tenure, and to enhance social justice.
• Baronda v. CA, October 14, 2015
MJManuel
VA has no jurisdiction over tax matters

• The Labor Code vests the Voluntary Arbitrator original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the
interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company
personnel policies. Upon agreement of the parties, the Voluntary Arbitrator
shall also hear and decide all other labor disputes, including
unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks. In short, the Voluntary
Arbitrator's jurisdiction is limited to labor disputes.
• Honda Cars v. Honda Cars Technical Specialists and Supervisors’ Union,
November 19, 2014
MJManuel
MR required for Rule 65 Petition

• While a government office may prohibit altogether the filing of a motion for
reconsideration with respect to its decisions or orders, the fact remains
that certiorari inherently requires the filing of a motion for reconsideration, which
is the tangible representation of the opportunity given to the office to correct itself.
Unless it is filed, there could be no occasion to rectify. Worse, the remedy
of certiorari would be unavailing. Rule 65 states that where a motion for
reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not,
the petition shall be filed not later than 60 days counted from the notice of the
denial of the motion. This can only mean that even though a motion for
reconsideration is not required or even prohibited by the concerned government
office, and the petitioner files the motion just the same, the 60-day period shall
nonetheless be counted from notice of the denial of the motion.
• PHILTRANCO v. PWU-AGLO, February 26, 2014
MJManuel
Release, Waiver & Quitclaim

• As a rule, deeds of release and 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. To excuse employees from complying with the
terms of their waivers, they must prove any of three grounds: (1) the employer used fraud or
deceit in obtaining the waivers; (2) the consideration the employer paid is incredible and
unreasonable; or (3) the terms of the waiver are contrary to law, public order, public policy,
morals, or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
• As the ground for termination of employment was illegal, the quitclaims are deemed illegal as the
employees’ consent had been vitiated by mistake or fraud. The circumstances show that
petitioner’s misrepresentation led its employees to believe that the company was suffering losses
which necessitated the implementation of the voluntary retirement and retrenchment programs,
and eventually the execution of the deeds of release, waiver and quitclaim.
• Phil. Carpet Manufacturing Corp. v. Tagyamon, December 11, 2013
MJManuel
3-Month Limitation
in RA 8042 & 10022
• The clause, "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less" in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 amending Section 10
of Republic Act No. 8042 is unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
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. When a law or a provision of law is null
because it is inconsistent with the Constitution, the nullity cannot be cured by
reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar law or provision. A law
or provision of law that was already declared unconstitutional remains as such
unless circumstances have so changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion.
• Sameer Overseas v. Cabiles, August 5, 2014
MJManuel
CBA of OFWs
• Disputes involving the interpretation or implementation of CBA
provisions applicable to seafarers should be covered by Art. 261 and
262 of the Labor Code, not by Section 10 of R.A. 8042.
• Voluntary Arbitrator has jurisdiction.
• Estate of Nelson Dulay v. Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime, June 13, 2012
MJManuel
Withholding of
TERMINAL PAY
• An employer is allowed to withhold terminal pay and benefits pending the
employee’s return of its properties. Requiring clearance before the release of
last payment to the employee is a standard procedure among employers,
whether public or private. Clearance procedures are instituted to ensure that
the properties, real or personal, belonging to the employer but are in the
possession of the separated employee, are returned to the employer before the
employee’s departure. Our law supports the employers’ institution of
clearance procedures before the release of wages, as an exception to the
general rule that wages may not be withheld and benefits may not be
diminished. The Civil Code provides that the employer is authorized to
withhold wages for debt.
• Milan v. NLRC, February 4, 2015
MJManuel
Labor-only Contracting
• The possession of sufficient capital is only one element. Labor-only
contracting exists when any of the two elements is present.
• Even if the contractor had more than sufficient capital or investment in the
form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, still, it cannot be
denied that the workers were performing activities which were directly
related to the principal business of such employer.
• Despite the registration with DOLE and the capitalization of 27 Million
and machineries and equipment worth 12 Million pesos, labor-only
contracting still exists.
• Quintanar v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, June 28, 2016 (EN BANC)
MJManuel
Labor-only contracting
not necessarily ULP
• Labor-only contracting is considered a form of ULP when the same is
devised by the employer to ―interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in
the exercise of their rights to self-organization.‖
• The need to determine whether or not the contracting out of services (or
any particular activity or scheme devised by the employer for that matter)
was intended to defeat the workers’ right to self-organization is impelled by
the underlying concept of ULP.
• Labor-only contracting does not amount to ULP if there is no evidence to
show that such arrangements violated the workers’ right to self-
organization, which constitutes the core of ULP.
• CEPALCO v. CEPALCO Employees Labor Union, June 20, 2016
MJManuel
Pakyaw - Field Personnel

• The payment of an employee on task or pakyaw basis alone is
insufficient to exclude one from the coverage of SIL and holiday pay.
They are exempted from the coverage of Title I (including the
holiday and SIL pay) only if they qualify as "field personnel."
However, insofar as the payment of the 13th month pay is concerned,
the law did not intend to qualify the exemption from its coverage
with the requirement that the task worker be a ―field personnel‖ at
the same time. Hence, an employee paid on ―pakyaw‖ or task basis
is not entitled to 13th month pay law.
• David v. Macasio, July 2, 2014
MJManuel
Field Personnel
• Bus drivers and conductor s are NOT field personnel.
• In order to monitor the drivers and conductors, the bus companies put
checkers, who are assigned at tactical places along the travel routes that are
plied by their buses. The drivers and conductors are required to be at the
specific bus terminals at a specified time. In addition, there are always
dispatchers in each and every bus terminal, who supervise and ensure
prompt departure at specified times and arrival at the estimated proper
time.
• Obviously, these employees are under the control and constant supervision
of the bus companies while in the performance of their work.
• Dasco v. PHILTRANCO, June 29, 2016
MJManuel
Foreign Law’s Application to OFW

contracts
• General Rule: Philippine laws apply even to overseas contracts. Even if the
OFW has his employment abroad, it does not strip him of his rights to
security of tenure, humane conditions of work and a living wage.
• Exception: Parties may agree that a foreign law shall govern the
employment contract, subject to the following:
• It is expressly stipulated in the contract;
• The foreign law invoked must be proved before the courts pursuant to our rules on evidence;
• The foreign law must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy of
the Philippines;
• The overseas employment contract must be processed through the POEA.
• Absence of any one of the four requisites would invalidate the application
of foreign law.
• IPAMS v. De Vera, March 7, 2016
MJManuel
Philippine laws apply to OFW

contracts
• Security of tenure remains even if employees, particularly the OFWs,
work in a different jurisdiction. Since the employment contracts of
OFWs are perfected in the Philippines, and following the principle
of lex loci contractus , these contracts are governed by our laws. Our
laws generally apply as our Constitution explicitly provides that the
State shall afford full protection to labor, whether local or
overseas. Thus, even if a Filipino is employed abroad, he or she is
entitled to security of tenure, among other constitutional rights. A
contract that allows the employer to reserve a right to terminate
employees without cause is violative of this guarantee of security of
tenure and, thus, invalid.
• Dagasdas v. Grand Placement, January 18, 2017
MJManuel
Liability of Responsible Officers

• The veil of corporate fiction can be pierced, and responsible corporate
directors and officers or even a separate but related corporation, may be
impleaded and held answerable solidarily in a labor case, even after final
judgment and on execution, so ling as it is established that such persons have
deliberately used the corporate vehicle to unjustly evade the judgment
obligation, or have resorted to fraud, bad faith or malice in doing so.
• When the shield of a separate corporate identity is used to commit
wrongdoing and opprobriously elude responsibility, the courts and the legal
authorities in a labor case have not hesitated to step in and shatter the said
shield and deny the usual protections to the offending party, even after final
judgment. The key element is the presence of fraud, malice or bad faith.
• Guillermo v. Uson, March 7, 2016
MJManuel
Prescriptive Period
• The prescriptive period for filing an illegal dismissal complaint is four years
from the time the cause of action accrued. This four-year prescriptive period,
not the three-year period for filing money claims under Article 291 of
the Labor Code, applies to claims for backwages and damages due to illegal
dismissal. A claim for backwages, may be a money claim "by reason of its
practical effect." Legally, however, an award of backwages "is merely one of
the reliefs which an illegally dismissed employee prays the labor arbiter and the
NLRC to render in his favor as a consequence of the unlawful act committed
by the employer." Similarly, actions for damages due to illegal dismissal are
likewise actions "upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff." If there are
claims for unpaid salaries that are instituted with the illegal dismissal
complaint, however, such claims for unpaid salaries shall follow the three-year
prescriptive period for money claims.
• Arriola v. Pilipino Star Ngayon, August 13, 2014
MJManuel
Liability for non-remittance

of SSS contributions
• Even when the employer is a corporation, it shall still be held liable for the non-
remittance of SSS contributions. It is, however, the head, directors or officers that
shall suffer the personal criminal liability. Although a corporation is invested by law
with a personality separate and distinct from that of the persons composing it, the
corporate veil is pierced when a director, trustee or officer is made personally liable
by specific provision of law. Section 28 (f) of R.A. No. 8282 explicitly provides for
this. Thus, a corporation cannot invoke its separate judicial entity.
• To acquire jurisdiction over the corporation in a criminal case, its head, directors or
partners must be served with a warrant of arrest. The arrest of its representative is
sufficient to acquire jurisdiction over it. The arrest binds the corporation.
• Ambassador Hotel v. SSS, June 21, 2017
MJManuel

Notes On Labor Law Jurisprudence by Prof. Marlon Manuel

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Notes On Labor Law Jurisprudence by Prof. Marlon Manuel

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Atty. Marlon J.

20% requirement must be at

20% requirement not required

Pendency of Cancellation Case

Petition for Cancellation

1 Union; 2 Bargaining Units

3 companies – 1 bargaining unit

Disaffiliation without PCE

ULP Test - Totality of Conduct

CBA can delimit hiring of

2 Retirement Benefits in the CBA

CBA entered into by former

ULP of Labor Union

• Ramirez v. Polyson Industries, October 19, 2016

Strike Conducted 1 day earlier

• Sampaguita Auto Transport v. NLRC & Sagad, January 30, 2013

Premarital Sexual Relations/Pregnancy

Termination due to Pregnancy

• Saudi Arabian Airlines [SAUDIA] v. Rebesencio, January 14, 2015

Neglect of Duties - Quota

• Puncia v. Toyota Shaw, June 28, 2016

• SKM Art Corp. v. Bauca, November 27, 2013

• Sangwoo Phil. v. Sangwoo Phils. Employees Union, December 9, 2013

• PNCC Skyway Corp. v. Secretary, April 19, 2016

Nominal Damages - Reduction

Recomputation of Backwages &

• Nacar v. Gallery Frames, August 13, 2013

End of Period of Backwages

• International School v. ISAE, February 5, 2014

Dismissal – Criminal case

• Dreamland Hotel v. Johnson, March 12, 2014

Reduction of work Hours -

• INTEC Cebu v. CA, June 22, 2016.

• Ibon v. Genghis Khan Security Services, June 19, 2017

Termination due to Disease

• Intel Technology v. NLRC & Cabiles, February 5, 2014

• Catotocan v. Lourdes School, April 26, 2017

Part-time employees entitled to

• Royale Homes v. Alcantara, July 28, 2014

Officer vs. Employee

• Abbot Laboratories vs. Alcaraz, July 23, 2013

Failure to Provide Standards

• PNOC-EDC vs. Buenviaje, June 29, 2016

• The employer’s violation of its own company procedure for

• Abbot Laboratories vs. Alcaraz, July 23, 2013

• Different rules apply in determining whether loss of trust and

Regular Employment with

Secretary cannot question

• Republic of the Philippines v. Namboku Peak, July 18, 2014

Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter

Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter

Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter

Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter

Technical Rules Not Binding

• McBurnie v. Ganzon, EGI-Managers, Inc., October 17, 2013

• Unilever v. Rivera, June 3, 2013.

Without employer-employee relationship,

• South Cotabato Communications Corp. v. Sto. Tomas, June 15, 2016

VA Decision subject to judicial review

Reinstatement Aspect of VA Decision

VA has no jurisdiction over tax matters

MR required for Rule 65 Petition