Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Republic of the Philippines


Don Severino de las Alas Campus
Indang, Cavite
College of Economics, Management and Development Studies

Glazed Daisy L. Nilo

Master of Management Dr. Gilchor P. Cubillo
First Semester, AY 2019-2020 Professor


Instructions: Resolve the following issues for each of the following cases related to labor
relations by citing the appropriate provisions in the Labor Code of the Philippines. Each item is
worth 25 points.

CASE 1. National Union of Workers, in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries – Manila Pavilion
Hotel, Chapter vs. Secretary of Labor (G.R. No.181531, July 31, 2009.

Facts: A certification election was conducted on June 2006 among the rank-and-file employees
of Holiday Inn. Petitioner and another union (HIMPHIL) refer the case back to Mediator Arbiter to
decide which among those votes be opened and tallied. 22 votes were segregated because (1)
eleven were cast by dismissed employees, albeit the legality of their dismissal is still pending
before the CA, (2) six were cast by those already occupying supervisory positions, and (3) five
were cast by probationary employees, and pursuant to the CBA, such employees cannot vote.

Issue: Whether employees on probationary status at the time of the certification election should
be allowed to vote.

Yes, the employees should be allowed to vote. In an election, all rank and file employees
in the correct bargaining unit, a probationary or permanent employee are entitled to vote. This
principle is clearly stated in Art. 255 of the Labor Code which states that the “labor organization
designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall
be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for purposes of collective
bargaining.” Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the employment relation and the outcome
CBA negotiated by the certified union binds all employees in the bargaining unit. With that, all
rank and file employees, probationary or permanent, have a significant interest in the selection of
the bargaining representative. The Labor Code makes no discrepancy as to their employment
status as basis for eligibility in supporting the petition for certification election. All they need to do
is be eligible to support the petition is to belong to the bargaining unit.
The significance of an employee’s right to vote in a certification election cannot be over
estimate. For he/she has considerable interest in who shall represent him/her in negotiating the
terms and conditions of his/her employment. All the probationary employees should be included,
under the particular circumstances of this case and the period of time which it took for the appeal
to be decided, the votes of the six supervisory employees must be excluded because at the time
the certification elections was conducted, they had ceased to be part of the rank and file
Republic of the Philippines
Don Severino de las Alas Campus
Indang, Cavite
College of Economics, Management and Development Studies
CASE 2. Oldarico Traveno vs. Bobongan Banana Growers Multipurpose Cooperative (G.R. No.
164205, September 3, 2009.
Facts: Petitioner was hired by TACOR and DFI to work at a banana plantation in Davao del Norte.
Petitioner asseverated that while they worked under the direct supervision of TACOR and DFI,
these companies used different schemes to make it appear that petitioners were hired through
independent contractors, that they are required to join cooperative and be member of the
Sometime in 2000, the respondent began to utilizing harassment tactics to ease them out of their
jobs. Without seeking approval from DOLE, they changed the compensation package to
“pakyawan” rate. One after another, three separate complaints for illegal dismissal were filed by
petitioners with the NLRC against respondent including TACOR and DFI. In a consolidated
decision, Labor Arbiter (LA) found respondent guilty of illegal dismissal. On partial appeal,
petitioner questioned the LA denial of their money claims and dropping their complaints against
TACOR and DFI. The NLRC sustained the decision of the LA. On appeal, CA dismissed petition
on the ground that the verification and certification for forum shopping is defective. Hence, this
Issue: Whether DFI with TACOR had been merged and DFI should be held solidarily liable with
the Cooperative for petitioner’s illegal dismissal and money claims.
In the matter of whether the cooperative is an independent contractor or a labor only
contractor may not be used to declare a ruling in this case. Job contracting refers to arrangement
whereby a principal agrees to farm out with a contractor or sub-contractor the performance of a
specific job (job description), or service within a distinct period, regardless whether the job or
service is to be performed or completed within or outside the property of the principal.
There is no employer- employee relationship between petitioners and the coop respondents, the
latter are not solidarily liable with cooperatives for petitioner’s illegal dismissal and money claims.

CASE 3. Philippines Transmarine Carriers (PTC) vs. Carella (525SCRA586)

Facts: Felicisimo Carella was hired by PTC, a manning agent, in behalf of its principal Anglo
Eastern Ship Mngt., Ltd. To work as master on board MV handy cam azobe for 12 months. They
approved the POEA contract, they would get US$ 170,000 as basic monthly pay, fixed monthly
overtime as US$765.00, master allowance of US$170.00 and leave with pay of six (6) days per
month or US$ 340.00 or a total of US$2,975.00 a month.
While the vessel was in Bombay, India, Carella was dismissed and repatriated to the Philippines.
On August 1995, he filed with DOLE the illegal dismissal with claims for salaries and other benefits
for the unexpired portion of its contract as well as unremitted allotments and damages. He alleged
that he was dismissed without notice and hearing and without valid reason.
Issue: Whether Carella’s dismissal is illegal.
Republic of the Philippines
Don Severino de las Alas Campus
Indang, Cavite
College of Economics, Management and Development Studies
No it was not. Carella’s overtime and leave pays should not be included in the computation of the
unexpired portion since he was no longer rendering services during that period of time, because
he has already been repatriated. Overtime pay is granted only if the worker actually rendered
service in the excess of the number of his regular work hours. It was correct to include that even
without sufficient evidence of actual rendition of overtime work, Carella would automatically be
entitled to overtime pay.

CASE 4. Patricia Halaguena et. al. vs. PAL (G.R. No. 172013, October 2, 2009)
Facts: Petitioners were employed as flight attendants of respondent on different dates prior to
November 1996. They are members of FASAP union exclusive bargaining organization of the
flight attendants, flight stewards and pursers. On July 2001, respondent and FASAP entered into
a CBA incorporating the terms and conditions of their agreement for the years 2000 to 2005
(compulsory retirement of 55 for female and 60 for males).
In July 2003, petitioner and several female cabin crews, in a letter, manifested that the provision
in CBA on compulsory retirement is discriminatory. On July 2004, FASAP president submitted
their willingness to commence the collective bargaining negotiations at the soonest possible time.
On the same month, petitioners filed a Special Civil Action for Declaratory Relief with issuance of
TRO with the RTC Makati. The RTC issued a TRO. After the denial of the respondent on its
motion for reconsideration for TRO, it filed a Petition with the CA. CA granted respondent’s petition
and ordered lower court to dismiss the case. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether the provision on compulsory retirement in CBA is unlawful and unconstitutional.
The issue that the petitioner and the female cabin crews raised cannot be solved solely by
applying the labor code because it requires the application of the constitution by our country (they
filed a Special Civil Action for Declaratory Relief with issuance of TRO), the convention on the
elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (CEDAW: Known as the International Bill
of Rights of Women, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against
Women is the only human rights treaty which affirms the reproductive rights of women and targets
culture and tradition as influential forces shaping gender roles and family relations. It affirms
women's rights to acquire, change or retain their nationality and the nationality of their children,
Philippine Commission on Women, 2009), given that CEDAW is in the jurisdiction of Trial Courts.
Also, the court affirms that not every dispute between employer and employee relationship
involves matters that only labor arbiters and the NLRC can resolve the cases. The Labor Arbiters
and NLRC’s jurisdiction under Article 217 of the Labor Code is limited to conflict arising from an
employer and employee relationship which can resolve by the Labor Code or their own CBA per