Labor Digests FINAL

8/15/2019 Labor Digests FINAL

1/514

1. People v. Julio Pomar

FACTS:

Defendant (Pomar) runs a tobacco manufacturing company; People & Macaria (Defendant-

Appellant) is an employee of the former. Pomar is accused of not paying Macaria what is due to

her regular wages as she was on pregnancy lea!e (P"#). Pomar is arguing that the pro!isions of

Act $#% is !oid and unconstitutional. ' ruled in fa!or of Macaria P*# and imprisonment if

insol!ent. Pomar now appeals raising that ' erred in not declaring +ec. $ to be

unconstitutional +ec $ gi!es women the right to be paid while on pregnancy $# days prior and

another $# post-pregnancy. Defendant,s main argument is that he is depri!ed of his liberty to

contract which the constitution of the Philippine slands guarantees to e!ery citien his liberty

and one of his liberties is the liberty to contract.

ISSUE:

hether or not the pro!isions of sections $ and * of Act /o. $#% are a reasonable and lawful

e0ercise of the police power of the state1

RULING:

2nconstitutional ',s ruling re!o3ed. 4he rule in this 5urisdiction is that the contracting partiesmay establish any agreements terms and conditions they may deem ad!isable pro!ided they are

not contrary to law morals or public policy. (Art. 6** 'i!il 'ode.)

4he police power of the state is a growing and e0panding power. As ci!iliation de!elops and

public conscience becomes awa3ened the police power may be e0tended as has been

demonstrated in the growth of public sentiment with reference to the manufacture and sale of

into0icating li7uors. 8ut that power cannot grow faster than the fundamental law of the state nor

transcend or !iolate the e0press inhibition of the people9s law : the constitution. f the people

desire to ha!e the police power e0tended and applied to conditions and things prohibited by the

organic law they must first amend that law.

n other words said section creates a term or condition in e!ery contract made by e!ery person

firm or corporation with any woman who may during the course of her employment become

pregnant and a failure to include in said contract the terms fi0ed to a fine and imprisonment.


2/514

'learly therefore the law has depri!ed e!ery person firm or corporation owning or managing

a factory shop or place of labor of any description within the Philippine slands of his right to

enter into contracts of employment upon such terms as he and the employee may agree upon.

4he law creates a term in e!ery such contract without the consent of the parties.


3/514

2. WEST COAST OTEL Co. v. PARRIS

FACTS:

n $ the state of ashington enacted a minimum to protect women and minorities. 4he

ospital (6$) which o!erturned ashington D.'.,s minimum wage under the ifth

Amendment due to the change in economic conditions (the Breat Depression).8oth cases in!ol!e

the freedom of contract@ howe!er the th and the th Amendment does not mention contracts

it only spea3s of liberty and places a limit on liberty by due process of law. As such regulation

which is reasonable in relation to its sub5ect and is adopted in the interests of the community is

due process. 4his limitation of liberty in particular go!erns the freedom of contract.@ 4here is no

absolute freedom to do as one wills or to contract as one chooses because liberty implies the

absence of arbitrary restraint not immunity from reasonable regulation imposed in the interests

of the community. 4his allows for state inter!ention when the state holds a particular interest of

protection; especially when the parties to a contact do not stand one 7uality@ such as in an

employerEemployee relationship.


4/514

!. ACCFA v. ACCFA WOR"ERS ASSOCIATION # CRI

FACTS:

4he Agricultural 'redit and 'ooperati!e inancing Administration (A''A) was a go!ernment

agency created under


5/514

employment. +uch employees may belong to any labor organiation which does not impose the

obligation to stri3e or to 5oin in stri3eC Pro!ided >owe!er that this section shall apply only to

employees employed in go!ernmental functions of the Bo!ernment including but not limited to

go!ernmental corporations.?


6/514

%. &e'()o' v*. +rilo'

FACTS:


7/514

least he should e0pect now that his wor3 is done and his youth is gone. =!en as he feels the

weariness in his bones and glimpses the approach of the lengthening shadows he should be able

to lu0uriate in the thought that he did his tas3 well and was rewarded for it.?

or as long as these retired Hustices are entitled under laws which continue to be effecti!e the

go!ernment cannot depri!e them of their !ested right to the payment of their pensions.

Article K +tate Policies

+ection #. 4he +tate shall promote social 5ustice in all phases of national de!elopment.

4his policy mandates the state to promote social 5ustice in all phases of national de!elopment. n

the fulfillment of this duty the state must gi!e preferential attention to the welfare of the less

fortunate members of the community K the poor the underpri!ileged whose who ha!e less in

life.

t is discussed fully under Article L (+ocial Hustice and >uman


8/514

,. Calala'( v. William*

FACTS:


9/514


10/514

in!estigations; the defamatory language heaped on 4obias as well as the scornful remar3 on

ilipinos; the poison letter sent to


11/514


12/514

t must be underscored that no less than our 'onstitution loo3s with compassion on the

wor3ingman and protects his rights not only under a general statement of a state policy but

under the Article on +ocial Hustice and >uman


13/514

5. FUENTES v. NLRC # AGUSAN PLANTATION

FACTS:

Petitioners %* of them was terminated by P< because of retrenchment measures. P< contended

that they conducted themsel!es properly before terminating. FA ordered P< to pay P salary

differentials and attorney,s fees. /F


14/514

'ode as amended by


15/514


16/514

compelling an employer to retain the ser!ices of an employee who has been shown to be a gross

liability to the employer. t should be made clear that when the law tilts the scale of 5ustice in

fa!or of labor it is but a recognition of the inherent economic ine7uality between labor and

management. 4he intent is to balance the scale of 5ustice; to put the two parties on relati!ely

e7ual positions. 4here may be cases where the circumstances warrant fa!oring labor o!er the

interests of management but ne!er should the scale be so tilted if the result is an in5ustice to the

employer Husticia remini regarda est (Hustice is to be denied to none).


17/514


18/514


19/514

11. PL+T v*. NLRC

FACTS:

Pri!ate respondent Fettie 'orpu was employed as traffic operator at the Manila nternational

4raffic Di!ision (M4D) by the Philippine Fong Distance 4elephone 'ompany (PFD4) for ten

years and nine months from +eptember %" until her dismissal on Hune % ". >er

primary tas3 was to facilitate re7uests for incoming and outgoing international calls through the

use of a digital switchboard. +ometime in December "% PFD4s ran3-and-file employees and

telephone operators went on stri3e prompting the super!isors of the M4D to discharge the

formers duties to pre!ent a total shutdown of its business operations. hile in the course of their

emergency assignments two super!isors almost simultaneously recei!ed two different re7uests

for o!erseas calls bound for different Middle =ast countries and both callers reported the same

calling number ("-I"-I).NO 4he tone !erifications ha!ing yielded negati!e results the callers

were ad!ised to hang up their telephones to enable the super!isors to effect an alternati!e

!erification system by calling the same number again. As in the first instance the number

remained un!erified. n!estigating the seemingly anomalous incident the matter was reported to

the Quality 'ontrol nspection Department (Q'D) which re!ealed that the sub5ect number was

temporarily disconnected on Hune # "% and permanently on +eptember 6 "%. t also

showed that $ o!erseas calls were made through the same number between May and

/o!ember "%. Due these circumstances the pri!ate respondent were dismissed by the

company as she was one of the operators who recei!ed one of the highest call from the said

disconnected telephone line. 4he Fabor Arbiter decided in fa!or of the pri!ate respondent as well

as the /F


20/514

through the e0ercise of its police power. 4his is so because the preser!ation of the li!es of

citiens is a basic duty of the +tate an obligation more !ital than the preser!ation of corporate

profits.

4he records show howe!er that the sub5ect phone calls were neither unusual nor coincidental as

other operators shared similar e0periences. A certain =ric Maramba declared that it is not

impossible for an operator to recei!e continuous calls from the same telephone number. >e

testified that at one time he was a witness to se!eral calls consistently effected from C$# p.m. to

*C$# a.m. 4he calls ha!ing passed the !erification tone system the incident was undoubtedly

alarming enough but there was no way that he or his co-operators could e0plain the same.

4his 'ourt agrees with the labor arbiter when he stated that the more fre7uent handling by the

respondent of o!erseas calls from the same calling number than other operators does not gi!e

rise to the conclusion that indeed respondent was a party to such anomalous transaction.

As regards petitioners claim that no call can be filed through a disconnected line a certain Ms.

8autista a!erred getting the same sub5ect number after going through the standard !erification

procedures. +he added that this comple0ity e0tends e!en to other disconnected telephone lines.

=7ually important is the fact that on ebruary % " or about two years after it was

permanently disconnected telephone number "-I"-I was used in calling an international

number *I-I"## that lasted for I minutes.N*O 4elephone operator number " seems to ha!e

been spared from any administrati!e sanction considering that this lapse has aggra!ated the

persistent problem concerning telephone number "-I"-I.

t should be borne in mind that in termination cases the employer bears the burden of pro!ing

that the dismissal is for 5ust cause failing which would mean that the dismissal is not 5ustified

and the employee is entitled to reinstatement.N"O 4he essence of due process in administrati!e

proceedings is the opportunity to e0plain ones side or a chance to see3 reconsideration of the

action or ruling complained of.NO 4he twin re7uirements of notice and hearing constitute the

essential elements of due process. 4his simply means that the employer shall afford the wor3er

ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representati!e if

he so desires. Ample opportunity connotes e!ery 3ind of assistance that management must

accord the employee to enable him to prepare ade7uately for his defense including legal


21/514

representation.N#O n the instant case the petitioner failed to con!incingly establish !alid bases

on the alleged serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence.

n carrying out and interpreting the Fabor 'odes pro!isions and its implementing regulations the

wor3ingmans welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration. 4his 3ind of

interpretation gi!es meaning and substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as

pro!ided for in Article of the Fabor 'ode as amended which states that all doubts in the

implementation and interpretation of the pro!isions of the Fabor 'ode including its

implementing rules and regulations shall be resol!ed in fa!or of laborNO as well as the

'onstitutional mandate that the +tate shall afford full protection to labor and promote full

employment opportunities for all. Fi3ewise it shall guarantee the rights of all wor3ers to security

of tenure. +uch constitutional right should not be denied on mere speculation of any unclear and

nebulous basis.


22/514

12. J// Promo9io'* v*. CA

FACTS:

ollowing the death of Maricris +iosan President 'oraon A7uino ordered a total ban against

deployement of performers o!erseas. 4his order was assailed by leaders of o!erseas employment

industry. n its place the go!ernment through the +ecretary of Fabor and =mployment

subse7uently issued Department Grder /o. 6" creating the =ntertainment ndustry Ad!isory

'ouncil (=A') which was tas3ed with issuing guidelines on the training testing certification

and deployment of performing artists abroad. Pursuant to the =A'9s recommendations the

+ecretary of Fabor on Hanuary I issued Department Grder /o. $ establishing !arious

procedures and re7uirements for screening performing artists under a new system of training

testing certification and deployment of the former. Performing artists successfully hurdling the

test training and certification re7uirement were to be issued an Artist9s


23/514

abroad lured by higher salaries better wor3 opportunities and sometimes better li!ing

conditions.

Gf the hundreds of thousands of wor3ers who left the country for greener pastures in the last few

years women composed slightly close to half of those deployed constituting %R between

"%- e0ceeding this proportion (*"R) by the end of I the year former President

A7uino instituted the ban on deployment of performing artists to Hapan and other countries as a

result of the gruesome death of ilipino entertainer Maricris +ioson.

t was during the same period that this 'ourt too3 5udicial notice not only of the trend but also of

the fact that most of our women a large number employed as domestic helpers and entertainers

wor3ed under e0ploitati!e conditions ?mar3ed by physical and personal abuse.? % =!en then we

noted that ?NtOhe sordid tales of maltreatment suffered by migrant ilipina wor3ers e!en rape and

!arious forms of torture confirmed by testimonies of returning wor3ers? compelled ?urgent

go!ernment action.? "

Pursuant to the alarming number of reports that a significant number of ilipina performing

artists ended up as prostitutes abroad (many of whom were beaten drugged and forced into

prostitution) and following the deaths of number of these women the go!ernment began

instituting measures aimed at deploying only those indi!iduals who met set standards which

would 7ualify them as legitimate performing artists. n spite of these measures howe!er a

number of our countrymen ha!e nonetheless fallen !ictim to unscrupulous recruiters ending up

as !irtual sla!es controlled by foreign crime syndicates and forced into 5obs other than those

indicated in their employment contracts. orse some of our women ha!e been forced into

prostitution.

'learly the welfare of ilipino performing artists particularly the women was paramount in the

issuance of Department Grder /o. $. +hort of a total and absolute ban against the deployment of

performing artists to ?high ris3? destinations a measure which would only dri!e recruitment

further underground the new scheme at the !ery least rationalies the method of screening

performing artists by re7uiring reasonable educational and artistic s3ills from them and limits

deployment to only those indi!iduals ade7uately prepared for the unpredictable demands of


24/514

employment as artists abroad. t cannot be gainsaid that this scheme at least lessens the room for

e0ploitation by unscrupulous indi!iduals and agencies.

Gb!iously protection to labor does not indicate promotion of employment alone. 2nder the

welfare and social 5ustice pro!isions of the 'onstitution the promotion of full employment

while desirable cannot ta3e a bac3seat to the go!ernment9s constitutional duty to pro!ide

mechanisms for the protection of our wor3force local or o!erseas. As this 'ourt e0plained in

Philippine Association of +er!ice =0porters (PA+=) !. Drilon in reference to the recurring

problems faced by our o!erseas wor3ersC

hat concerns the 'onstitution more paramountly is that such an employment be abo!e all

decent 5ust and humane. t is bad enough that the country has to send its sons and daughters to

strange lands because it cannot satisfy their employment needs at home. 2nder these

circumstances the Bo!ernment is duty-ade7uate protection personally and economically while

away from home.

e now go to petitioners9 assertion that the police power cannot ne!ertheless abridge the right

of our performing wor3ers to return to wor3 abroad after ha!ing earlier 7ualified under the old

process because ha!ing pre!iously been accredited their accreditation became a ?property

right? protected by the due process clause. e find this contention untenable.


25/514


26/514

1%. LN Pi09ure* v. P;ilippi'e /u*i0ia'* Guil< # CIR

FACTS:

F/ and +ampaguita (P) see3s to de-certify 'ighway =0press 'o. !s. Focal I6 #" +. 6d $*#.)


27/514

1,. Ro*ario &ro9;er* I'0. v. Ople # NLRC

FACTS:

P argues that there e0ists no ==< between them and P


28/514

1-. /a'ila Gol= v. IAC # Llamar

FACTS:

'addies of P are demanding that they be included in the co!erage of the +ocial +ecurity +ystem

through the ++' arguing that they are employees of P. P on the other hand they ha!e no direct

control o!er P


29/514


30/514

15. Taa* v. C/C

FACTS:

P demands reinstatement and benefits. 'M' filed to dismiss claiming that there is no ==< since

Ps are promotional merchandisers pursuant to a manpower supply agreement with F

manpower ser!ices wEc agreement pro!ided that 'M' has no control or super!ision whatsoe!er

o!er Ps. Gn the other hand it is also stipulated that cola and holidays will be charged directly to

'M' whose payroll will be deli!ered through F at 'M'. Ps now claims that they became

regular 'M' employees. FA ruled that there is no ==< in light of the manpower supply contract.

ISSUE:

hether or not there is an ==ence they

cannot be separated without due process of law.

t has been li3ewise held based on Article #I of the Fabor 'ode that notwithstanding the

absence of a direct employer-employee relationship between the employer in whose fa!or wor3

had been contracted out by a ?labor-only? contractor and the employees the former has the

responsibility together with the ?labor-only? contractor for any !alid labor claims by operation

of law. 4he reason so we held is that the ?labor-only? contractor is considered ?merely an agent

of the employer? and liability must be shouldered by either one or shared by both.

4he nature of one9s business is not determined by self-ser!ing appellations one attaches thereto

but by the tests pro!ided by statute and pre!ailing case law. 4he bare fact that Fi!i maintains a


31/514

separate line of business does not e0tinguish the e7ual fact that it has pro!ided 'alifornia with

wor3ers to pursue the latter9s own business.


32/514

16. I'*ular Li=e v. NLRC # &a*iao

FACTS:

P< entered into a contract to solicit for insurance applications in I" K later on %6 they

entered into an Agency Management 'ontract (AM') K P later terminated the AM' wEc

prompted P< to sue which led to P terminating also his original contract. 8asiao complained for

the unclaimed commissions to the MGF P argues that MGF has no 5urisdiction and that since P


33/514

28. So')a v. NLRC

FACTS:

A8+-'8/ entered into an agreement wE M=F&HAJ Management and De!elopment 'orp.

(MHMD') K to host a 4 program there will be a monthly talent fee of $#S for the st year

and $% for the 6nd and $rd year. +ona later wrote to A8+-'8/ for the rescission of the

agreement in !iew of P


34/514

21. &ro9;er;oo< Laor U'i9 /oveme'9 o= 9;e P;ilippi'e* v. 7amora

FACTS:

Ps are cargadores and pahinantes wor3ing on for as long as % years on a!erage on a piece rate

basis wor3ing to load unload or piling of bottles produced by +M'. # organied and

affiliated themsel!es to 8F2MP (P


35/514

perform acti!ities necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the respondent and are

therefore regular employees.


36/514

22. S/C v. NLRC

FACTS:

ega (P


37/514

be usefully in!o3ed in clarifying the scope of paragraph $ and any other paragraph of Article

6% of the Fabor 'ode as amended.

4hus whether or not an enforceable contract albeit implied and innominate had arisen between

petitioner 'orporation and pri!ate respondent ega in the circumstances of this case and if so

whether or not it had been breached are preeminently legal 7uestions 7uestions not to be

resol!ed by referring to labor legislation and ha!ing nothing to do with wages or other terms and

conditions of employment but rather ha!ing recourse to our law on contracts.


38/514


39/514


40/514

2%. /e


41/514

AF2-42'P !s. /F


42/514

>=FDC

/G. Petition for 'ertiorari dismissed for lac3 of merit. /F


43/514

,8. er ui*er v* (9e


44/514

" inclusi!e especially where the employee must learn a particular 3ind of wor3 such as

selling or when the 5ob re7uires certain 7ualifications s3ills e0perience or training.

n the case at bar it is shown that pri!ate respondent 'ompany needs at least eighteen (")

months to determine the character and selling capabilities of the petitioners as sales

representati!es. an eighteen month probationary period is recognied by the Fabor 2nion in the

pri!ate respondent company which is Article of the 'ollecti!e 8argaining Agreement ... thusC

Probationary Period : /ew employees hired for regular or permanent shall undergo a

probationary or trial period of si0 (I) months e0cept in the cases of telephone or sales

representati!es where the probationary period shall be eighteen ( ") months.

And as indicated earlier the !ery contracts of employment signed and ac7uiesced to by the

petitioners specifically indicate that ?the company hereby employs the employee as telephonesales representati!e on a probationary status for a period of eighteen (") months i.e. from May

"# to Gctober " inclusi!e. 4his stipulation is not contrary to law morals and public policy.


45/514

,1. /ARIWASA /ANUFACTURING4 INC. v*. LEOGAR+O4 JR.

FACTS:

Hoa7uin A. De7uila (or De7uilla) was hired on probation by Mariwasa Manufacturing nc. as a

general utility wor3er on Hanuary # %. After I months he was informed that his wor3 was

unsatisfactory and had failed to meet the re7uired standards. 4o gi!e him another chance and

with De7uila,s written consent Mariwasa e0tended De7uila,s probationary period for another

three monthsC from Huly # to Gctober %. De7uila,s performance howe!er did not

impro!e and Mariwasa terminated his employment at the end of the e0tended period.

De7uila filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Mariwasa and its P for Administration

Angel 4. Dao and !iolation of Presidential Decrees /os. 6" and $".

D


46/514


47/514

,!. Sameer Over*ea* Pla0eme'9 A(e'04 I'0. v*. NLRC

Fa09*:

+ometime in petitioner company +ameer G!erseas Placement Agency nc. deployedrespondents Maricel /. 8a5aro (8a5aro) Pamela P. Morilla (Morilla) Daisy F. Magdaong Feah

H. 4abu5ara Fea M. 'ancino Michiel D. Meliang


48/514

el


49/514

,%. +ela 0ru) v NLRC +e0emer 11 288!

FACTS:

Petitioner lorencio M. de la 'ru Hr. was hired by pri!ate respondent +hemberg Mar3eting

'orporation (+hemberg) as senior sales manager. +hemberg was engaged in the business of

manufacturing trading distributing and importing !arious consumer products. >is duties

included among others the super!ision and control of the sales force of the company.

4he senior sales manager was also !ested with some discretion to decide on matters within the

scope of his functions including the appointment of district sales representati!es and the

reshuffling of salesmen to achie!e sales targets. on +eptember I +hembergs human

resource department manager Ms. Filybeth J. Flanto summoned petitioner and informed him of

the managements decision to terminate his ser!ices.

Petitioner as3ed Flanto for the reason but the latter merely informed him that it had something to

do with the drop in the companys sales. Petitioner then re7uested a meeting with +hembergs !ice

president =rnesto 2. Dacay Hr. but was told that the decision of the management was final. >is

re7uest to be furnished a $#-day written notice was also denied by the management. >ence

petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal non-payment of salary bac3wages $th month

pay and damages against +hemberg =rnesto Dacay Hr. and Filybeth Flanto.


50/514

motion for reconsideration and modified its pre!ious resolution. Petitioner ele!ated the case to

the 'ourt of Appeals on a petition for certiorari but it was dismissed for lac3 of merit >ence this

petition.

ISSUE:

4>= 'G2+4A/D/B 4+ A'42AF /D/B 4>A4


51/514

Probationary employment Probationary employment shall not e0ceed si0 (I) months from the

date the employee started wor3ing unless it is co!ered by an apprenticeship agreement

stipulating a longer period. 4he ser!ices of an employee who has been engaged on a

probationary basis may be terminated for a 5ust cause or when he fails to 7ualify as a regular

employee in accordance with reasonable standards made 3nown by the employer to the

employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is allowed to wor3 after a

probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.

Petitioner !igorously contends that he was not a probationary employee since +hemberg failed to

disclose to him the reasonable standards for 7ualifying as a regular employee. the e!idence on

record clearly showing that petitioner was well informed of the standards to be met before he

could 7ualify as a regular employee

A probationary employee is one who for a gi!en period of time is under obser!ation and

e!aluation to determine whether or not he is 7ualified for permanent employment. During the

probationary period the employer is gi!en the opportunity to obser!e the s3ill competence and

attitude of the employee while the latter see3s to pro!e to the employer that he has the

7ualifications to meet the reasonable standards for permanent employment.

4he length of time is immaterial in determining the correlati!e rights of both the employer and

the employee in dealing with each other during said period. 4here is no dispute that petitioner as

a probationary employee en5oyed only temporary employment status. As long as the

termination was made before the e0piration of the si0-month probationary period the employer

was well within his rights to se!er the employer-employee relationship. A contrary interpretation

would defect the clear meaning of the term probationary. n this case respondent +hemberg had

good reason to terminate petitioners employment and that was his dishonesty.


52/514

,,. CENTRAL NEGROS ELECTRIC COOPERATIE4 INC CENECO vs. NLRC

FACTS:

Pri!ate respondents are employees of petitioner an electric cooperati!e company. 4hey ha!e

wor3ed for petitioner from a high of four and one half

( E6) years to a low of ten (#) months. 4heir wor3 forms an integral part of the business of

petitioner. Despite the length of their ser!ice they were e0tended permanent appointments only

on Huly $ "" retroacti!e to Hune I "".

4hough they were made permanent in "" pri!ate respondents demanded payment of the three

hundred fifty pesos (P$*#.##) wage increase for the year "% as pro!ided by the abo!e

collecti!e bargaining agreement. Petitioner denied their demand. As called for by the parties9

collecti!e bargaining agreement the demand was treated as a grie!ance. 4he grie!ance remained

unsettled until their collecti!e bargaining agreement e0pired on April #.

Pri!ate respondents then filed their complaint with the Fabor Arbiter dismissed the complaint

for lac3 of merit Decision was howe!er re!ersed by the /F


53/514

linemen messengers secretaries cler3s typists plumbers mechanics draftsmen >


54/514


55/514

after his dismissal he was re-hired by the respondent company indirectly through the itas-

Magsaysay illage Fi!elihood 'ouncil a labor agency of respondent company and was made to

perform the tas3s which he used to do. =miliano 4an7ue Hr. corroborated these a!erments of

petitioner in his affida!it. Gn the other hand pri!ate respondent claimed that petitioner was not a

regular employee but only a casual wor3er hired allegedly only to paint a certain building in the

company premises and that his wor3 as a painter terminated upon the completion of the painting

5ob.

I**ue:

hether or not a casual employee who perform odd 5obs from time to time as assigned aside

from the performing his original tas3 in for being employed for more one year can be considered

as regular employee1

el


56/514

the rights and benefits due a regular employee by !irtue of lopsided agreements with the

economically powerful employer who can maneu!er to 3eep an employee on a casual status for

as long as con!enient. 4hus contrary agreements notwithstanding an employment is deemed

regular when the acti!ities performed by the employee are usually necessary or desirable in the

usual business or trade of the employer. /ot considered regular are the so-called ?pro5ect

employment? the completion or termination of which is more or less determinable at the time of

employment such as those employed in connection with a particular construction pro5ect and

seasonal employment which by its nature is only desirable for a limited period of time. >owe!er

any employee who has rendered at least one year of ser!ice whether continuous or intermittent

is deemed regular with respect to the acti!ity he performed and while such acti!ity actually

e0ists.

4he primary standard therefore of determining a regular employment is the reasonable

connection between the particular acti!ity performed by the employee in relation to the usual

business or trade of the employer. 4he test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable

in the usual business or trade of the employer. 4he connection can be determined by considering

the nature of the wor3 performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade

in its entirety.

Also if the employee has been performing the 5ob for at least one year e!en if the performance

is not continuous or merely intermittent the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its

performance as sufficient e!idence of the necessity if not indispensability of that acti!ity to the

business.

>ence the employment is also considered regular but only with respect to such acti!ity and

while such acti!ity e0ists. n the case at bar the respondent company which is engaged in the

business of manufacture and distillery of wines and li7uors claims that petitioner was contracted

on a casual basis specifically to paint a certain company building and that its completion

rendered petitioner9s employment terminated.


57/514

4his may ha!e been true at the beginning and had it been shown that petitioner9s acti!ity was

e0clusi!ely limited to painting that certain building respondent company9s theory of casual

employment would ha!e been worthy of consideration.

>owe!er during petitioner9s period of employment the records re!eal that the tas3s assigned to

him included not only painting of company buildings e7uipment and tools but also cleaning and

oiling machines e!en operating a drilling machine and other odd 5obs assigned to him when he

had no painting 5ob. A regular employee of respondent company =miliano 4an7ue Hr. attested in

his affida!it that petitioner wor3ed with him as a maintenance man when there was no painting

5ob.

4herefore all things considered the petitioner,s status of employment became regular hence

pri!ate respondent is ordered to reinstate petitioner as a regular maintenance man and to pay

petitioner bac3 wages ='GFA and $th Month Pay.


58/514

,3. "I/&ERL$ IN+EPEN+ENT LA&OR UNION +RILON

FACTS

- Simberly-'lar3 Philippines nc. (SM8=


59/514

status of regular employees the regulariation being effecti!e as of the date of the decision;$.

2S'=2-P4BG ha!ing garnered more !otes than SF2+A/-GFAFA was certified as the

e0clusi!e bargaining representati!e of SlM8=


60/514


61/514

,5. Ferro0;rome P;ilippi'e* v. NLRC

FACTS:

8artsch was assigned to the Philippines as a consultant-engineer of petitioner errochrome asubsidiary of oest-Alpine. >is contract of employment >is contract of employment pro!ided

that he would be employed at errochrome for a period of three ($) months.

After 8artsch9s employment e0pired on May * "" his ser!ices were still engaged by

petitioner errochrome. >owe!er his continued employment was no longer co!ered by any

written contract.

rom Huly 6-* "" 8artsch was confined at the 'apitol 'ollege Beneral >ospital in

Misamis Griental for treatment of a psychological disorder.

petitioner granted 8artsch a !acation lea!e. 8artsch returned to the Philippines on +eptember 6"

"". Gn Gctober "" he assumed his former position at errochrome.

errochrome terminated his ser!ices in a letter dated Hanuary $# " stating that it became

apparent that his ser!ices as consultant to the +enior P-Gperations are presently no longer

needed and a discontinuation in the meantime was agreed upon.

Hune * " 8artsch filed a complaint against petitioners for unpaid salary non-payment of

!acation lea!e separation pay and $th month pay plus damages and attorney9s fees before the

/F


62/514

EL+:

n the termination letter ser!ed by petitioner the latter claims that the ser!ices of pri!ate

respondent were no longer needed and that management intends to hire him again ?when the

e7uipment for the new dedusting facility is ready for installation and other pro5ects ha!e arri!ed

at the implementation stage.? t would thus appear that at the time the termination letter was

made petitioner company did not consider pri!ate respondent 8artsch as one of its regular

employees. >ence it would appear from said letter that 8artsch9s ser!ices were terminated for

they were no longer deemed necessary.

>owe!er during the proceedings before the labor arbiter petitioner company alleged a new

ground for terminating 8artsch9s employment. Petitioner claimed that the ?real? reason for 8artsch9s dismissal was the latter9s psychological illness.

t is this !acillating position of petitioner corporation regarding the cause of pri!ate respondent9s

termination which wor3ed against it. As correctly found by the /F


63/514

,6. Si'(er Se>i'( /a0;i'e Compa' v. +rilo'

Fa09*:

2nion filed petition for direct certification as the sole and e0clusi!e bargaining agent of all

collectors of the ++M' 8aguio 'ity 8ranch.

'ompany opposed on the ground that the union members are not employees but are independent

contractors as e!idenced by the collection agency agreement which they signed.

Med-Arbiter 'haguile found employer-employee relationship e0ists so certification election was

granted. Gn appeal +ec. of Fabor Drilon affirmed Med-Arbiter,s decision.

2nion contends that they are employees because of Art. 6"# citing that they perform the most

desirable and necessary acti!itites for the continuous and effecti!e operations of the business of

the 'ompany.

I**ue:

G/ an employer-employee relationship e0ists which will gi!e them the right to organie for

purposes of bargaining

el


64/514

-8. /a(*ali' v. Na9io'al Or(a'i)a9io' o= Wori'( /e'

Fa09*:

. 4he pri!ate respondents wor3ed as sales route helpers for the petitioner ('oca 'ola) for *months and thereafter they were hired on a daily basis. According to the petitioner the

respondents were merely hired as substitutes for regular helpers when the latter were una!ailable

or due to shortage of manpowerEhigh !olume of wor3. 4hese wor3ers would then wait e!ery

morning outside the gates and if hired they would be paid their wages at the end of the day.

6. 4he respondents as3ed the petitioner to ma3e them regular but the latter refused. >ence 6$ of

these temporary wor3ers filed a case for illegal dismissal.

I**ue:

E/ the respondents9 wor3 is deemed necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade of

the petitioner

RULING:

Jes. 4he repeated hiring of the respondent wor3ers and continuing need of their daily ser!ices

clearly attest to the necessity or desirability of their ser!ices in the regular conduct of the

businessEtrade of petitioner.

n determining whether employment is regular or not the applicable test is the reasonable

connection between a particular acti!ity performed in relation to the usual business or trade of

the employer. 4he nature of wor3 must be !iewed from the perspecti!e of the business in its

entirety and not confined scope.


65/514

-1. &RENT SCOOL v*. 7A/ORA

FACTS:

Pri!ate respondent Doroteo


66/514

RULING:


67/514

engagement of the employee or where the wor3 or ser!ice to be performed is seasonal in nature

and the employment is for the duration of the season.

+ubse7uently the foregoing articles regarding employment with ?a definite period? and ?regular?

employment were amended by Presidential Decree /o. "*# effecti!e December I %*.

Article $6# dealing with ?Probationary and fi0ed period employment? was altered by

eliminating the reference to persons ?employed with a fi0ed period? and was renumbered

(becoming Article 6%).

As it is e!ident that Article 6"# of the Fabor 'ode under a narrow and literal interpretation not

only fails to e0haust the gamut of employment contracts to which the lac3 of a fi0ed period

would be an anomaly but would also appear to restrict without reasonable distinctions the right

of an employee to freely stipulate with his employer the duration of his engagement it logically

follows that such a literal interpretation should be eschewed or a!oided. 4he law must be gi!en a

reasonable interpretation to preclude absurdity in its application. Gutlawing the whole concept

of term employment and sub!erting to boot the principle of freedom of contract to remedy the

e!il of employer9s using it as a means to pre!ent their employees from obtaining security of

tenure is li3e cutting off the nose to spite the face or more rele!antly curing a headache by

lopping off the head.

+uch interpretation puts the seal on 8ibiso upon the effect of the e0piry of an agreed period of

employment as still good rule:a rule reaffirmed in the recent case of =scudero !s. Gffice of the

President (B.


68/514

e0piration of his last contract with 8rent +chool on Huly I %I without the necessity of any

notice. 4he ad!ance written ad!ice gi!en the Department of Fabor with copy to said petitioner

was a mere reminder of the impending e0piration of his contract not a letter of termination nor

an application for clearance to terminate which needed the appro!al of the Department of Fabor

to ma3e the termination of his ser!ices effecti!e. n any case such clearance should properly

ha!e been gi!en not denied.


69/514

-2. PA"ISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES v*. OPLE

FACTS:

Gn 6 December %" petitioner Pa3istan nternational Airlines 'orporation (PA) a foreign

corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines e0ecuted in Manila 6 separate contracts of

employment one with pri!ate respondent arrales and the other with pri!ate respondent

Mamasig. 4he contracts which became effecti!e on Hanuary % pro!ided in pertinent

portion as followsC

*. D2


70/514

PA,s 'ontentionC 4he PA submitted its position paper but no e!idence and there claimed that

both pri!ate respondents were habitual absentees; that both were in the habit of bringing in from

abroad sieable 7uantities of Upersonal effectsV; and that PA personnel at the Manila

nternational Airport had been discreetly warned by customs officials to ad!ise pri!ate

respondents to discontinue that practice. PA further claimed that the ser!ices of both pri!ate

respondents were terminated pursuant to the pro!isions of the employment contract.

a!orable decision for the respondents. 4he Grder stated that pri!ate respondents had attained

the status of regular employees after they had rendered more than a year of continued ser!ice;

that the stipulation limiting the period of the employment contract to $ years was null and !oid as

!iolati!e of the pro!isions of the Fabor 'ode and its implementing rules and regulations on

regular and casual employment; and that the dismissal ha!ing been carried out without the

re7uisite clearance from the MGF= was illegal and entitled pri!ate respondents to reinstatement

with full bac3wages.

Decision sustained on appeal. >ence this petition for certiorari

ISSUE: (


71/514

in the Philippines; lastly pri!ate respondents were based in the Philippines in between their

assigned flights to the Middle =ast and =urope. All the abo!e contacts point to the Philippine

courts and administrati!e agencies as a proper forum for the resolution of contractual disputes

between the parties.

2nder these circumstances paragraph # of the employment agreement cannot be gi!en effect so

as to oust Philippine agencies and courts of the 5urisdiction !ested upon them by Philippine law.

inally and in any e!ent the petitioner PA did not underta3e to plead and pro!e the contents of

Pa3istan law on the matter; it must therefore be presumed that the applicable pro!isions of the

law of Pa3istan are the same as the applicable pro!isions of Philippine law.

NDG'4


72/514

-!. Cielo v*. NLRC

Fa09*:

4he petitioner is a truc3 dri!er who claims he was illegally dismissed by the pri!ate respondent

the >enry Fei 4ruc3ing 'ompany. Petitioner were made to sign an agreement with the pri!ate

respondent that they don,t ha!e an employer-employee relationship but in an affida!it that

petitioner is being forced to sign states that he recei!ed his salary and allowanced from the

pri!ate respondent. 2pon refusal to sign pri!ate respondent dismissed petitioner on the basis of

disrespect and insubordination.

I**ue:

hether or not petitioner was legally dismissed1

el


73/514

FACTS:

t appears on record that pri!ate respondents Huanito Acuin Mamerta Mangubat


74/514

Gn April I " pri!ate respondents and 4upas Focal 'hapter /o. $I6 filed a complaint

against petitioner for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice with the /F


75/514

term period was further defined to be the length of e0istence; duration. A point of time mar3ing a

termination as of a cause or an acti!ity; an end a limit a bound; conclusion; termination. A

series of years months or days in which something is completed. A time of definite length or the

period from one fi0ed date to another fi0ed date. 4his ruling is only in consonance with Article

6"# of the Fabor 'ode which pro!idesC.

nasmuch as pri!ate respondents9 contracts of employment categorically pro!ided a fi0ed period

and their termination had already been agreed upon at the time of their engagement pri!ate

respondents9 employment was one with a specific period or day certain agreed upon by the

parties.

As can be gleaned from the said case (8rent +chool nc. !s. Tamora " +'


76/514

-,. IOLETA NLRC

FACTS:

Petitioner ioleta wor3ed in 'onstruction and De!elopment 'orporation of the Philippines

('D'P) a sister corporation of pri!ate respondent at its pro5ect in 'D'P Mines 8asay /egros

Griental from December * "# up to ebruary * ". Pri!ate respondent then hired him as

=rector at the formers pro5ect for Philphos in sabel Feyte on /o!ember # "6 until the

termination of the pro5ect on December $ ". Gn Hanuary 6 "* he was reassigned as

=rector for i!e +tand 4'M Pro5ect with !acation and sic3 lea!es and was designated as a

regular pro5ect employee at pri!ate respondents pro5ect for /ational +teel 'orporation (/+') in

ligan 'ity. After recei!ing a salary ad5ustment he was again hired on Hune I " as

>andyman for the ci!il wor3s of a construction pro5ect for /+'

Gn ebruary # 6 he was appointed for pro5ect employment again as >andyman to /+'

=4F Z$ 'i!il or3s by pri!ate respondent. Due to the completion of the particular item of wor3

he was assigned to pri!ate respondent terminated the ser!ices of petitioner ioleta on March *

6.

Petitioner 8altaar started in the employ of 'D'P. Fi3e petitioner ioleta he was transferred

from one pro5ect to another as a regular pro5ect employee.N$O Gn /o!ember 6" he was

hired as Feadman in =4F Z$ 'i!il or3s by pri!ate respondent in its pro5ect for /+' but he

was separated from such employment on December 6# as a result of the completion of said

item of wor3.

2pon their separation petitioners e0ecuted a 7uitclaim wherein they declared that they ha!e no

claim against pri!ate respondent and supposedly discharged pri!ate respondent from any liability

arising from their employment.

'ontending that they are already regular employees who cannot be dismissed on the ground of

completion of the particular pro5ect where they are engaged petitioners filed two separatecomplaints for illegal dismissal against pri!ate respondent with a prayer for reinstatement and

bac3 wages plus damages.

ISSUE: whether petitioners are regular (non-pro5ect) employees or pro5ect employees

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119523.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119523.htm#_edn3


77/514

EL+:

4he source of the definition of a regular employee vis--vis a pro5ect employee is found in Article

6"# of the Fabor 'ode which pro!idesC

Art. 6"#.


78/514


79/514

--. CUA TEE +EE S. CA

Fa09*:

H.'. Agricom De!elopment 'orporation nc. (Agricom) is the owner of a rubber plantation

located at Da!ao 'ity. Agricom planned to lease the plantation. 'hua 4ee Dee married to Amado

Dee is a businesswoman doing business under the name of Pioneer =nterprises (Pioneer).

Manuel B. Alba the president of Agricom had a business meeting in Da!ao 'ity with Amado

Dee where they discussed the possibility of leasing the rubber plantation to 'hua 4ee

DeeEPioneer.

A contract of lease was entered into by Agricom represented by Alba and 'hua 4ee Dee doing

business under the name and style Pioneer. Fillian 'arriedo a stoc3holder of Agricom also

signed the contract. 4hereafter Alba informed the employees of the rubber plantation of the

impending termination of their employment due to the company,s contract of lease with 'hua

4ee Dee. 4he employees were told that they would be gi!en separation pay. Gn Hune $ "*

Amado Dee deli!ered the amount of Php 6%####.## to the +pouses Alba as deposit for the lease.

n the meantime Agricom sent letters to the said employees confirming the termination of their

employment and informing of their separation pay. 4he se!ered employees filed a complaint for

illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice against Agricom Amado Dee and Pioneer. 4he labor

arbiter rendered his decision holding that the termination of the complainants, employment was

illegal but the complaint for unfair labor practice was dismissed for lac3 of merit. Gn May 6

# the counsel of the 'arriedo heirs the stoc3holders-owners of Agricom sent a telegraphic

note to Amado Dee demanding payment of long o!erdue rentals. Pioneer sent a letter to Agricom

complaining of facts and e!ents which disrupted its operations in the plantation. Pioneer claimed

that it was dragged into labor disputes not of its own ma3ing and complained of being pestered

by some indi!iduals who claimed portions of the plantation as their own property. +ome of them

went to its office and e!en presented ta0 declarations to pro!e their claims. Agricom informed

Pioneer that after due in!estigation it concluded that the latter,s complaints were unfounded. t

also demanded the payment of bac3 rentals for Hune Huly and August #.

As Pioneer was unable to pay its monthly rentals Agricom filed on +eptember # a ci!il

action for sum of money damages and attorney,s fees against 'hua 4ee Dee. n her Answer

'hua 4ee Dee asserted that Agricom had no cause of action against her. +he claimed that it was


80/514

Agricom which failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract of lease when it

failed to settle the labor dispute with its former employees and that Agricom failed to maintain

her in the 7uiet and peaceful possession and en5oyment of the leased premises during the

effecti!ity of the lease contract. 4he ence this petition filed by 'hua 4ee Dee.

I**ue:

Did Agricom fail to maintain 'hua 4ee Dee in a 7uiet and peaceful en5oyment of the leased

premises1

Ruli'(:

4he +upreme 'ourt held that Agricom did not depri!ed 'hua 4ee Dee of the 7uiet and peaceful

en5oyment of the leased premises. As lessor Agricom had the duty to maintain 'hua 4ee Dee in

the peaceful and ade7uate en5oyment of the leased premises. +uch duty was made as part of the

contract of lease entered into by the parties. =!en if it had not been so the lessor is still duty-

bound under Art.I*of the 'i!il 'ode. 4he duty Uto maintain the lessee in the peaceful and

ade7uate en5oyment of the lease for the duration of the contractV mentioned in /o. $ of the

article is merely a warranty that the lessee shall not be disturbed in his legal and not physical

possession. n the case at bar 'hua 4ee Dee claims that se!eral people presented ta0 declarations

to her and claimed some portions of the leased premises. >owe!er no case was filed by any of

the said claimants against her or her lessor during the time she occupied the premises.

Patently then 'hua 4ee Dee had not been disturbed in her legal possession of the property in

derogation of Article I* of the /ew 'i!il 'ode. hen 'hua 4ee Dee,s representati!e saw that

a portion of the leased premises was being fenced by the claimants she had all the right to sue

the intruders who had disturbed her physical possession as pro!ided for in Article I* of the

/ew 'i!il 'ode. >owe!er the petitioner did not file any suit against any of the claimants. 4hus

it cannot be said that Agricom !iolated the contract of lease 'hua 4ee Dee failed to pro!e that


81/514

she suffered any loss from the labor case that was filed against her enterprise and her husband.

4rue the labor case was instituted during the effecti!ity of the lease contract until the case was

finally resol!ed on August 66 "I. +urprisingly howe!er during the interregnum appellant

regularly paid the monthly rentals for the years "* to ". t was after the labor case has been

resol!ed that appellant started to fail to pay her rentals strongly indicating that the labor case has

not dampened her peaceful and ade7uate possession of the leased premises. 4he /F


82/514

-3. CARTAGENAS . RO/AGO ELECTRIC CO/PAN$

FACTS:


83/514

-5. FERNAN+E7 v*. NATIONAL LA&OR RELATIONS CO//ISSION

FACTS:

Petitioners who are employees of pri!ate respondent Agencia 'ebuana->. Fhuillier andEor

Margueritte Fhuillier filed a complaint before Dept. of Fabor for illegal dismissal and payment

of bac3wages when the latter denied them their demand to increase their salaries and

subse7uently terminated their employment.

Fabor Arbiter fa!ored petitioners but /F


84/514

+B,s recommendation is contrary to the ruling of the 'ourt in 8ustamante et al. !s. /Fence petitioners e0cept Fim and 'anonigo should be entitled to ser!ice incenti!e

lea!e pay from December I %* up to their actual reinstatement.

[[[ull bac3wages including the accrued thirteenth month pay are also awarded to the nine

petitioners from the date of their illegal dismissal to the time of their actual reinstatement


85/514

-6. ALU?TUCP v*. NLRC a'< NSC

FACTS:

Petitioners as employees of pri!ate respondent /ational +teel 'orporation (/+') filed separate

complaints for unfair labor practice regulariation and monetary benefits with the /F


86/514

unction of the pro!iso. Petitioners are not considered Upermanent employeesV. >owe!er

contrary to petitioners, apprehensions the designation of named employees as Upro5ect

employeesV and their assignment to a specific pro5ect are effected and implemented in good

faith and not merely as a means of e!ading otherwise applicable re7uirements of labor laws.

Gn the claim that petitioners, ser!ice to /+' of more than si0 (I) years should 7ualify them as

Uregular employeesV the +upreme 'ourt belie!ed this claim is without legal basis. 4he simple

fact that the employment of petitioners as pro5ect employees had gone beyond one () year does

not detract from or legally dissol!e their status as Upro5ect employeesV. 4he second paragraph

of Article 6"# of the Fabor 'ode 7uoted abo!e pro!iding that an employee who has ser!ed for

at least one () year shall be considered a regular employee relates to casual employees not to

pro5ect employees.


87/514

38. /er0a


88/514

I**ue: hether or not petitioners are regular and permanent farm wor3ers and therefore entitled

to the benefits which they pray for1

el


89/514

31. a0ie'


90/514

32. ASSAR IN+USTRIAL E/PLO$EES UNION ESTRELLA

FACTS:

4here was in e0istence a collecti!e bargaining agreement between pri!ate respondents

Associated Fabor 2nions and assar ndustries nc. which e0pired on May * %%. Prior to

such date of a total number of *# employees of such firm disaffiliated from the former

labor organiation and formed their own union. 4hereafter they filed an application for

registration of their union with the 8ureau of Fabor


91/514

4he petition to repeat is impressed with merit. certiorari lies.

?=mployees shall ha!e the right to self-organiation and to form 5oin or assist labor

organiations of their own choosing for the purpose of collecti!e bargaining through

representati!es of their own choosing and to engage in concerted acti!ities for the purpose of

collecti!e bargaining and other mutual aid or protection.? 4he new Fabor 'ode is e7ually e0plicit

on the matter. 4husC ?4he +tate shall assure the rights of wor3ers to self-organiation collecti!e

bargaining security of tenure and 5ust and humane conditions of wor3.?

t is 7uite ob!ious that when the two parties entered into such a collecti!e bargaining agreement

such a mo!e was moti!ated by the desire to impart a moot and academic aspect to this petition. t

should not therefore elicit the appro!al of this 'ourt especially so as upon the e0piration oil the

collecti!e contract it is made ?the duty of both parties to 3eep the status 7uo and to continue in

full force and effect the terms and conditions of the e0isting agreement during the si0ty-day

period andEor until a new agreement is reached by the parties.? 1- ith a pending petition for

certification any such agreement entered into by management with a labor organiation is

fraught with the ris3 that such a labor union may not be chosen thereafter as the collecti!e

bargaining representati!e. 4hat is the situation that is confronted by pri!ate respondents. Any

other !iew would render nugatory the clear statutory policy to fa!or certification election as the

means of ascertaining a true e0pression of the will of the wor3ers as to which labor organiation

would represent them.


92/514

3!. TROPICAL UT E/PLO$EES UNION?CGW v*. TROPICAL UT FOO+/AR"ET4 INC.

FACTS:

Hanuary 6 I" the ran3 and file wor3ers of the 4ropical >ut ood Mar3et ncorporated

referred to herein as respondent company organied a local union called the 4ropical >ut

=mployees 2nion 3nown for short as the 4>=2 elected their officers adopted their constitution

and by-laws and immediately sought affiliation with the /ational Association of 4rade 2nions

(/A42). Gn Hanuary $ I" the /A42 accepted the 4>=2 application for affiliation.

ollowing such affiliation with /A42


93/514

May 6 % respondent company and 4>=2-/A42 entered into a new 'ollecti!e 8argaining

Agreement which ended on March $ %. 4his new '8A incorporated the pre!ious union-

shop security clause and the attached chec3off authoriation form.

/A42 recei!ed a letter dated December * %$ 5ointly signed by the incumbent officers of thelocal union informing the /A42 that 4>=2 was disaffiliating from the /A42 federation.

+ecretary of the 4>=2 /emesio 8arro made an announcement in an open letter to the general

membership of the 4>=2 concerning the latter,s disaffiliation from the /A42 and its affiliation

with the 'onfederation of Beneral or3ers ('B). 4he letter was passed around among the

members of the 4>=2-/A42 to which around one hundred and thirtyse!en ($%) signatures

appeared as ha!ing gi!en their consent to and ac3nowledgment of the decision to disaffiliate the

4>=2 from the /A42.

so-called 4>=2-'B held its annual election of officers with Hose =ncinas elected as

President. Gn Hanuary $ % =ncinas in his capacity as 4>=2-'B President informed the

respondent company of the result of the elections. Gn Hanuary % Pacifico =2-

'Bto the respondent company demanding the remittance of the union dues collected by the

4ropical >ut ood Mart ncorporated to the 4>=2-'B but this was refused by the

respondent company.

re7uest made by the /A42 federation to the respondent company to dismiss him (=ncinas) in

!iew of his !iolation of +ection $ of Article of the 'ollecti!e 8argaining Agreement.

re7uest of /A42 respondent company applied for clearance with the +ecretary of Fabor to

dismiss the other officers and members of 4>=2-'B. 4he company also suspended them

effecti!e that day. /F


94/514

PresidentEBeneral Manager of respondent company upon Dilag,s re7uest suspended twenty four

(6) wor3ers on March * %another thirty se!en ($%) on March " % and two (6) more on

March % pending appro!al by the +ecretary of Fabor of the application for their

dismissal.

Fabor Arbiter Arbitrator Daniel Fucas issued an orderdated March 6 % holding that the

issues raised by the parties became moot and academic with the issuance of /Fe also orderedC a) the reinstatement of all complainants; b) for the respondent

company to cease and desist from committing further acts of dismissals without pre!ious order

from the /F


95/514

6) local union being a separate and !oluntary association is free to ser!e the interest of all its

members including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. 4his right is

consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. All employees en5oy

the right to self organiation and to form and 5oin labor organiations of their own choosing

for the purpose of collecti!e bargaining and to engage in concerted acti!ities for their mutual

aid or protection. 4his is a fundamental right of labor that deri!es its e0istence from the

'onstitution.

4he inclusion of the word /A42 after the name of the local union 4>=2 in the registration

with the Department of Fabor is merely to stress that the 4>=2 is /A42,s affiliate at the

time of the registration. t does not mean that the said local union cannot stand on its own.

/either can it be interpreted to mean that it cannot pursue its own interests independently of

the federation. A local union owes its creation and continued e0istence to the will of its

members and not to the federation to which it belongs. hen the local union withdrew from

the old federation to 5oin a new federation it was merely e0ercising its primary right to labor

organiation for the effecti!e enhancement and protection of common interests. n the

absence of enforceable pro!isions in the federation,s constitution pre!enting disaffiliation of

a local union a local may se!er its relationship with its parent. /othing in the constitution

and by laws of 4>=2 /A42 prohibits the disaffiliation from /A42. 8esides /A42 is not

e!en recognied as a national federation.

$) hen the 4>=2 disaffiliated from its mother federation the former did not lose its legal

personality as the bargaining union under the '8A. Moreo!er the union security clause

embodied in the agreements cannot be used to 5ustify the dismissals meted to petitioners

since it is not applicable to the circumstances obtaining in this case. 4he '8A imposes

dismissal only in case an employee is e0pelled from the union for 5oining another federation

or for forming another union or who fails or refuses to maintain membership therein. 4he

case at bar does not in!ol!e the withdrawal of merely some employees from the union but of

the whole 4>=2 itself from its federation. 'learly since there is no !iolation of the union

security pro!ision in the'8A there was no sufficient ground to terminate the employment of

petitioners.


96/514

3%. Ra'0e v*. N.L.R.C.

FACTS:

A close K shop agreement was established in the '.8.A. between the parties. Gne of the grounds

for dismissal is loyalty. Petitioners herein were among the members of the respondent union who

were e0pelled by the latter for disloyalty in that they allegedly 5oined the /AF2 : a large

federation. 8ecause of the e0pulsion petitioners were dismissed by respondent 'orporation.

Petitioners sued for reinstatement and bac3wages stating their dismissal was without due

process. Fosing both in the decisions of the Fabor Arbiter and the /ational Fabor


97/514

NO. n any e!ent e!en if petitioners who were complainants in /F


98/514

4ime and again this 'ourt has reminded employers that while the power to dismiss is a normal

prerogati!e of the employer the same is not without limitations. 4he employer is bound to

e0ercise caution in terminating the ser!ices of his employees especially so when it is made upon

the re7uest of a labor union pursuant to the 'ollecti!e 8argaining Agreement as in the instant

case. Dismissals must not be arbitrary and capricious. Due process must be obser!ed in

dismissing an employee because it affects not only his position but also his means of li!elihood.

=mployers should therefore respect and protect the rights of their employees which include the

right to labor


99/514

3,. Sampa'( v*. I'0io'(

FACTS:

/ati!idad +ampang has been wor3ing for the Jebana company for $ years. 2pon the re7uest of

the members of the union +ampang as the president of the union sent a letter for cut K off of the

o!ertime wor3. >owe!er it was unheeded. Gn Hanuary 6 %" the members of the union

conducted a stri3e from night until the ne0t day which caused loss of profits for the company in

the amount of P6 %I.##. 4he company then dismissed petitioner +ampang on the ground that

she instigated the said stri3e.

ISSUE:

hether or not the dismissal is proper1

RULING:

NO. 4he first decision interpreting the security of tenure pro!ision is Philippine "ir Lines# $nc.

v. Philippine "ir Lines %mployees "ssociation. After referring to the aforesaid security of tenure

pro!ision in the present 'onstitution the opinion of the 'ourt went on to stateC t was not that

specific in the $* 'harter. 4he mandate was limited to the +tate affording 9protection to labor

especially to wor3ing women and minors ... f by !irtue of the abo!e it would not be legally

5ustifiable to re!erse the order of reinstatement it becomes e!en more readily apparent that such

a conclusion is e!en more unwarranted now. 4o reach it would be to show lac3 of fealty to a

constitutional command. 4his is not to say that dismissal for cause is now outlawed. /o such

thing is intimated in this opinion. t is merely to stress that where respondent 'ourt of ndustrial


100/514

acceptance of the !iew that under all the circumstances of this case petitioners should not be

depri!ed of their means of li!elihood.

n the recent case of &ustillos v. $nciong it was held that petitioner who had been employed by

pri!ate respondent for eighteen years ought not to ha!e been dismissed and that a two-year

suspension would suffice. 4he opinion li3ewise notedC ?4he length of ser!ice was accorded due

consideration in decisions of this 4ribunal ordering reinstatement twenty years in 'e Leon v.

National Labor elations !ommission and eyes v. Philippine 'uplicators and twenty-two years

in (nion of )upervisors v. )ecretary of labor .? >ow then 5ustify a dismissal in this case.

'onsidering all the circumstances e!en a two-year period of suspension might be considered

e0cessi!e.

t is thus e!ident that the case could be decided without considering the points raised by counsel

for petitioner. t suffices to state that the competence of the Deputy Minister of Fabor to pass

upon the appeal cannot be disputed. >e acted by ?authority of? the Minister of Fabor. A more

e0tended in7uiry into the factual aspects could ha!e shed more light on the en!ironmental

circumstances. /onetheless since the appealed decision could be set aside there being a

!iolation of the security of tenure pro!ision the claim that; procedural due process was not

obser!ed does not call for any further discussion +uffice it to state that the motion for

reconsideration. not to mention the appeal was curati!e in character as held by this 'ourt in a

number of cases.


101/514

3-. P;ilippi'e Sla'


102/514

+uch dictum has been punctiliously followed since then.

2pon an application of the aforecited principle to the issue at hand the impropriety of the

7uestioned Decisions becomes clearly apparent. 4here is nothing shown in the records nor is it

claimed by PAF2 that the local union was e0pressly forbidden to disaffiliate from thefederation nor were there any conditions imposed for a !alid brea3away. As such the pendency

of an election protest in!ol!ing both the mother federation and the local union did not constitute

a bar to a !alid disaffiliation. /either was it disputed by PAF2 that signatories out of the

6# members of the local union or an e7ui!alent of 6.*R of the total union membership

supported the claim of disaffiliation and had in fact disauthoried PAF2 from instituting any

complaint in their behalf. +urely this is not a case where one () or two (6) members of the local

union decided to disaffiliate from the mother federation but it is a case where almost all local

union members decided to disaffiliate.

Policy considerations dictate that in weighing the claims of a local union as against those of a

national federation those of the former must be preferred. Parenthetically though the desires of

the mother federation to protect its locals are not altogether to be shunned. t will howe!er be to

err greatly against the 'onstitution if the desires of the federation would be fa!ored o!er those of

its members. 4hat at any rate is the policy of the law. or if it were otherwise instead of

protection there would be disregard and neglect of the lowly wor3ingmen.


103/514

33. UST Fa0ul9 U'io' v*. &i9o'io

FACTS:

Gn +eptember 6 I 'ollantes the +ecretary Beneral of the 2ni!ersity of +anto 4omas

aculty 2nion (2+42) notified all the members of the union that there will be an election of

Gctober * I for the ne0t set of officers of their union. t was also contained in the

notification that there was a 'GM=F=' for the election. Gn Gctober I the petitioners

filed a case before the Med K arbiter for temporary restraining order of the election to be held on

Gctober * I contending that the 'GM=F=' was not constituted in accordance with the

union,s constitution and by K laws ('8F). 4he 4.owe!er and despite the 4.ence this petition.

ISSUE:

hether or not the election that was conducted on Gctober I is !alid1

RULING:

NO. 4he constitutional right to self-organiation is better understood in the conte0t of FG

'on!ention /o. "% (reedom of Association and Protection of


104/514

well as the members are defined. t is the organic law that determines the !alidity of acts done by

any officer or member of the union. ithout respect for the '8F a union as a democratic

institution degenerates into nothing more than a group of indi!iduals go!erned by mob rule.

A union election is held pursuant to the union9s constitution and bylaws and the right to !ote in it

is en5oyed only by union members. A union election should be distinguished from a certification

election which is the process of determining through secret ballot the sole and e0clusi!e

bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collecti!e

bargaining. +pecifically the purpose of a certification election is to ascertain whether or not a

ma5ority of the employees wish to be represented by a labor organiation and in the affirmati!e

case by which particular labor organiation.

n a certification election all employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit can

!ote. 4herefore a union member who li3ewise belongs to the appropriate bargaining unit is

entitled to !ote in said election. >owe!er the re!erse is not always true; an employee belonging

to the appropriate bargaining unit but who is not a member of the union cannot !ote in the union

election unless otherwise authoried by the constitution and bylaws of the union. erily union

affairs and elections cannot be decided in a non-union acti!ity.

n both elections there are procedures to be followed. 4hus the Gctober I election cannot properly be called a union election because the procedure laid down in the 2+429s '8F for the

election of officers was not followed. t could not ha!e been a certification election either

because representation was not the issue and the proper procedure for such election was not

followed. 4he participation of non-union members in the election aggra!ated its irregularity.


105/514

35. i09oria'o v*. Eli)al


106/514


107/514

36. "apa9ira' *a /ea9 # Ca''i'( +ivi*io' v*. CalleBa

FACTS:

42PA+ local chapter (union) is a union which has a '.8.A. with


108/514

Gctober $ "% before 42PA+9 old '8A e0pired on /o!ember * "% and before it signed a

new '8A with the company on December $ "%. As pointed out by Med-Arbiter Abdullah a

?certification election is the best forum in ascertaining the ma5ority status of the contending

unions wherein the wor3ers themsel!es can freely choose their bargaining representati!e thru

secret ballot.? +ince it has not been shown that this order is tainted with unfairness this 'ourt

will not thwart the holding of a certification election.


109/514

58. U'i9e< Pep*i Cola v*. La(ue*ma

FACTS:

Petitioner is a union of super!isory employees. t appears that on March 6# * the union filed

a petition for certification election on behalf of the route managers at Pepsi-'ola Products

Philippines nc. >owe!er its petition was denied by the med-arbiter and on appeal by the

+ecretary of Fabor and =mployment on the ground that the route managers are managerial

employees and therefore ineligible for union membership under the first sentence of Art. 6* of

the Fabor 'ode which pro!idesC neligibility of managerial employees to 5oin any labor

organiation; right of super!isory employees. : Managerial employees are not eligible to 5oin

assist or form any labor organiation. +uper!isory employees shall not be eligible for

membership in a labor organiation of the ran3-and-file employees but may 5oin assist or form

separate labor organiations of their own.

ISSUE:

1ST i**ue: hether or not route managers are managerial employees1

2'


110/514

employees to accomplish ob5ecti!es set by those abo!e them. 4hey are not mere functionaries

with simple o!ersight functions but business administrators in their own right.

2'


111/514

51. NATU RP& v*. Torre*

FACTS:

Gn Gctober * # petitioner union filed before the Department of Fabor and =mployment(DGF=) a Petition for Direct 'ertification or 'ertification =lection among the super!isors and

e0empt employees of the +M' Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of 'abuyao +an ernando and

Gtis. Gn Hanuary " respondent +an Miguel 'orporation filed a /otice of Appeal with

Memorandum on Appeal pointing out among others the Med-Arbiter9s error in grouping

together all three ($) separate plants Gtis 'abuyao and +an ernando into one bargaining unit

and in including super!isory le!els $ and abo!e whose positions are confidential in nature.

2ndersecretary Faguesma granted the motion filed by +an Miguel and ruled that since

+uper!isory employees from le!el K are considered confidential employees they are

prohibited from participating in certification of election.

ISSUE:

hether or not the super!isory employees and e0empt employees of +M' are confidential

employees1

RULING:

NO. 4here is no 7uestion that the said employees super!isors and the e0empt employees are not

!ested with the powers and prerogati!es to lay down and e0ecute management policies andEor to

hire transfer suspend layoff recall discharge or dismiss employees. 4hey are therefore not

7ualified to be classified as managerial employees who under Article 6* % of the Fabor 'ode

are not eligible to 5oin assist or form any labor organiation. n the !ery same pro!ision they are

not allowed membership in a labor organiation of the ran3-and-file employees but may 5oin

assist or form separate labor organiations of their own. 4he only 7uestion that need be

addressed is whether these employees are properly classified as confidential employees or not.

'onfidential employees are those who () assist or act in a confidential capacity (6) to persons

who formulate determine and effectuate management policies in the field of labor


112/514

relations. , 4he two criteria are cumulati!e and both must be met if an employee is to be

considered a confidential employee : that is the confidential relationship must e0ist between

the employee and his super!isor and the super!isor must handle the prescribed responsibilities

relating tolabor relations.

4he e0clusion from bargaining units of employees who in the normal course of their duties

become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal ob5ecti!e sought

to be accomplished by the 99confidential employee rule.? /he broad rationale behind this rule is

that employees should not be placed in a position involving a potential conflict of

interests. 3 ?Management should not be re7uired to handle labor relations matters through

employees who are represented by the union with which the company is re7uired to deal and

who in the normal performance of their duties may obtain ad!ance information of the company9s position with regard to contract negotiations the disposition of grie!ances or other labor

relations matters.

Branting arguendo that an employee has access to confidential labor relations information but

such is merely incidental to his duties and 3nowledge thereof is not necessary in the performance

of such duties said access does not render the employee a confidential employee. 1- ?f access to

confidential labor relations information is to be a factor in the determination of an employee9s

confidential status such information must relate to the employer9s labor relations policies. 4hus

an employee of a labor union or of a management association must ha!e access to confidential

labor relations information with respect to his employer the union or the association to be

regarded a confidential employee and 3nowledge of labor relations information pertaining to the

companies with which the union deals or which the association represents will not cause an

employee to be e0cluded from the bargaining unit representing employees of the union or

association.? Access to information which is regarded by the employer to be confidential from

the business standpoint such as financial information or technical trade secrets will not render

an employee a confidential employee.

t is e!ident that whate!er confidential data the 7uestioned employees may handle will ha!e to

relate to their functions. rom the foregoing functions it can be gleaned that the confidential

information said employees ha!e access to concern the employer9s internal business operations.


113/514


114/514

52. Sa' /i(uel Corpora9io' Supervi*or* v. La(ue*ma

FACTS:

Gn Gctober * # petitioner union filed before the Department of Fabor and =mployment

(DGF=) a Petition for District 'ertification or 'ertification =lection among the super!isors and

e0empt employees of the +M' Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of 'abuyao +an ernando and

Gtis. Gn Hanuary " respondent +an Miguel 'orporation filed a /otice of Appeal with

Memorandum on Appeal pointing out among others the Med-Arbiters error in grouping

together all three ($) separate plants Gtis 'abuyao and +an ernando into one bargaining unit

and in including super!isory le!els $ and abo!e whose positions are confidential in nature. 4he

public respondent 2ndersecretary Faguesma granted respondent company,s Appeal and ordered

the remand of the case to the Med-Arbiter of origin for determination of the true classification of

each of the employees sought to be included in the appropriate bargaining unit. 2pon petitioner-

union,s motion 2ndersecretary Faguesma granted the reconsideration prayed for and directed

the conduct of separate certification elections among the super!isors ran3ed as super!isory le!els

to (+ to +) and the e0empt employees in each of the three plants at 'abuyao +an ernando

and Gtis.

ISSUEC

hether +uper!isory employees $ and and the e0empt employees of the company are

considered confidential employees hence ineligible from 5oining a union.

RULLING:

4his 'ourt rules that said employees do not fall within the term confidential employees who may

be prohibited from 5oining a union. 4here is no 7uestion that the said employees super!isors and

the e0empt employees are not !ested with the powers and prerogati!es to lay down and e0ecute

management policies andEor to hire transfer suspend layoff recall discharge or dismiss

employees. 4hey are therefore not 7ualified to be classified as managerial employees who

under Article 6*NO of the Fabor 'ode are not eligible to 5oin assist or form any labor


115/514


116/514

5!. Su(ua'o' Rural &a' v. o'. U'e also held that until

and unless a final order is issued cancelling AP+G4=2-42'P9s registration certificate it had the

legal right to represent its members for collecti!e bargaining purposes.

ISSUE:

hether or not the members of the respondent union are managerial employees andEor highly-

placed confidential employees hence prohibited by law from 5oining labor organiations and

engaging in union acti!ities1

Documents

Labor Digests FINAL