Labor Relations Case Digests 1

8/10/2019 Labor Relations Case Digests 1

1/7

Mercury Drug Corporation vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 75662 September 151!"!

Facts:Cesar Ladisla was employed by petitioner, Mercury Drug Corporation as Stock Analyst. On

Aug. !, "##, $e was appre$ended by representati%es o& Mercury Drug Corporation w$ile in t$e act o&pil&ering company property. 'e admitted t$e guilt to t$e in%estigating representati%es. Mercury drug

&iled an application &or t$e termination o& Ladisla(s employment.)espondent opposed t$e a&oresaid application &or clearance to terminate $is ser%ices allegingamong ot$ers, t$at $is suspension and proposed dismissal were un&ounded and baseless being premisedon t$e mac$inations and incriminatory acts o& Ms. Leonora Suare* and +dgardo mperial, Manager and)etail Super%isor, respecti%ely, o& petitioner-s Claro M. )ecto ranc$/ and t$at $e was not gi%en t$eopportunity to be $eard nor allowed to e0plain $is side be&ore $e was summarily suspended.

ssue: 1$et$er or not Cesar Ladisla s$ould be dismissed on t$e grounds o& dis$onesty and breac$ o&contract

)uling:Dismissal o& a dis$onest employee is to t$e best interest not only o& management but also o&

labor. As a measure o& sel&2protection against acts inimical to its interest, a company $as t$e rig$t todismiss its erring employees. An employer cannot be compelled to continue in employment anemployee guilty o& acts inimical to its interest, 3usti&ying loss o& con&idence in $im. 4$e law does notimpose un3ust situations on eit$er labor or management.

1$ile t$e constitution is committed to t$e policy o& social 3ustice and t$e protection o& laborers,it s$ould not be supposed t$at labor dispute will be automatically decided in &a%or o& labor.Management $as also its own rig$ts w$ic$ are t$e en&orcement o& interest o& simple &air play.


2/7

Ro#an$o Revi$a$ vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 1111%5 &une 27 1!!5

Facts:A5 6 7 terminated t$e ser%ices o& #8 employees, including $erein petitioners, under a

redundancy program, pursuant to a 7residential Directi%e to lay o&& 9; o& t$e employees due to&inancial losses incurred &rom "8"2"". As a conse


3/7

Star 'aper Corporation vs. Rona#$o Simbo#

G.R. No. 16(77( )pri# 12 2%%6

Facts:Simbol was employed by t$e company, as well as Alma Dayrit. 4$e two got married. 7rior to

t$e marriage, t$ey were ad%ised t$at one s$ould resign pursuant to a company policy stating in case o&two o& our employees @bot$ singles, one male and anot$er &emale de%eloped a &riendly relations$ip

during t$e course o& t$eir employment and t$en decided to get married, one o& t$em s$ould resign topreser%e t$e policy t$at new applicants will not be allowed to be $ired i& in case $eBs$e $as a relati%e,up to t$e ?rd degree o& relations$ip, already employed by t$e company. )espondent-s %ersion t$oug$stated t$at t$ey were compelled to resign in %iew o& an illegal company policy.

7etitioners allege t$at its policy Emay appear to be contrary to Article ? o& t$e Labor CodeEbut it assumes a new meaning i& read toget$er wit$ t$e &irst paragrap$ o& t$e rule. 4$e rule does notre


4/7

Ca#te* +nc. vs. ',i#ippine Labor -rganiation

G.R. No. L/!!15 May 27 1!5!

Facts:One 'idpion del )osario was $ired as laborer by Calte0. 4wo mont$s a&ter, $e was suspended

by t$e company &or insubordination, and later, &ile a petition wit$ t$e ndustrial court &or aut$ority todismiss $im.4$e court &ound 'idpion guilty o& t$e acts complained o&. 'owe%er, t$e court belie%ed t$at

permanent dismissal was too se%ere/ $ence, it ordered t$e reinstatement wit$out back wages.7etitioner claims t$at t$e lower court committed a serious mistake o& law and gra%e abuse o&discretion in compelling it to retain 'idpion in its employ, and in substituting its 3udgment &or t$at o&petitioner in determining t$e &itness or


5/7

Continenta# Stee# Manu0acturing Corporation vs. Montao

G.R. No. 1"2"6 -ctober 1 2%%!

Facts:'ortillano, an employee o& Continental Steel and a member o& t$e respondent labor union &ile a

claim &or 7aternity Lea%e, erea%ement Lea%e and Deat$ and Accident nsurance &or dependent,pursuant to t$e CA between t$e company and union, because $is unborn c$ild died w$en $is wi&e $ad

a premature deli%ery.Continental Steel granted t$e 7aternity Lea%e but denied t$e clams &or erea%ement Lea%e andot$er deat$ bene&its. 4$e denial was based on t$e contention t$at t$e e0press pro%ision o& t$e CA didnot contemplate t$e deat$ o& an unborn c$ild, a &etus, wit$out legal personality. t argued t$at t$eunborn c$ild ne%er died because it ne%er ac


6/7

San Migue# 3re4ery Sa#es orce nion vs. -p#e an$ San Migue# Corp.

G.R. No. L/5515 ebruary " 1!"!

Facts:A pro%ision in t$e CA entered into by petitioner and respondent pro%ides t$at employees

wit$in t$e appropriate bargaining unit s$all be entitled to a basic mont$ly compensation pluscommission based on t$eir respecti%e sales. 1$ile t$e CA was in &orce, t$e company introduced a

marketing sc$eme known as t$e EComplementary Distribution SystemE w$ereby w$olesalers candirectly get beer products &rom any SMC o&&ices. t would t$en reduce t$e take2$ome pay o& t$e sales&orce. 4$e Gnion also sued t$e company &or un&air labor practice on t$e ground t$at t$e CDS wascontrary to t$e e0isting marketing sc$eme and was %iolati%e o& t$e CA.

ssue: 1$et$er or not t$e Complementary Distribution System is a %alid e0ercise o& managementprerogati%e.

)uling:=es. +%ery business enterprise may adopt or de%ise means designed towards its goal o&

increasing its pro&its. So long as a company-s management prerogati%es are e0ercised in good &ait$ &ort$e ad%ancement o& t$e employer-s interest and not &or t$e purpose o& de&eating or circum%enting t$erig$ts o& t$e employees under special laws or under %alid agreements, t$ey will be up$eld.

San Miguel Corporation-s o&&er to compensate t$e members o& its sales &orce w$o will bead%ersely a&&ected by t$e implementation o& t$e CDS by paying t$em a so2called Eback ad3ustmentcommissionE to make up &or t$e commissions t$ey mig$t lose as a result o& t$e CDS pro%es t$ecompany-s good &ait$ and lack o& intention to bust t$eir union.


7/7

L)3-R RL)8+-NS

Case Digests

. COJ4J+J4AL S4++L MAJGFAC4G)J5 CO)7O)A4OJ %s. MOJ4AKO andJMCSC2SG7+), 5.). Jo. 8>8?, October ?, >">. S4A) 7A7+) CO)7O)A4OJ et. al %s. )OJALDO D. SMOL, et. al, 5.). Jo. 9##9,

April >, >?. )OLAJDO )+DAD, et. al %s. JL)C and A567, 5.). Jo. ! une >#, ""!9. M+)CG)= D)G5 CO)7O)A4OJ %s. JA4OJAL LAO) )+LA4OJS COMMSSOJ,

et. al, 5.). Jo. #!> September !, "8"!. CAL4+N JC. %s. 7'L77J+ LAO) O)5AJA4OJ, 5.). Jo. L2""!, May >#, "!". SAJ M5G+L )+1+)= SAL+S FO)C+ GJOJ @7451O %s. O7L+ and SAJ M5G+L

CO)7., 5.). Jo. L2!?!! February 8, "8"

Submitted by:Celina May ). 4ang, lock AProfessor: Atty Mila )a

Documents

Labor Relations Case Digests 1