04-Labor-Law-Syllabus-based-eREVIEWER-2024-v1.1
04-Labor-Law-Syllabus-based-eREVIEWER-2024-v1.1
Uploaded by
Therese Gail JimenezCopyright:
Available Formats
04-Labor-Law-Syllabus-based-eREVIEWER-2024-v1.1
04-Labor-Law-Syllabus-based-eREVIEWER-2024-v1.1
Uploaded by
Therese Gail JimenezCopyright
Available Formats
Share this document
Did you find this document useful?
Is this content inappropriate?
Copyright:
Available Formats
04-Labor-Law-Syllabus-based-eREVIEWER-2024-v1.1
04-Labor-Law-Syllabus-based-eREVIEWER-2024-v1.1
Uploaded by
Therese Gail JimenezCopyright:
Available Formats
1
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Introduction Table of Contents
A Sources of Labor Laws
The Syllabus-based eReviewersofeCodal+Proisnowonits
Fundamental Principles and Concepts 2 1987 Constitution
4th edition. This passion project started in 2021whilethe
author,Atty. RGL, reviewed for the 2020_21 #BestBarEver. Civil Code
Recruitment and Placement of Workers 7
e review materials are painstakingly curated to address
Th Labor Code
thetopicsofthecurrentbarsyllabi.Knowthattheaimhere Employer-Employee Relationship 15 DOLE Issuances
istobeasconciseanddirectaspossible,whilemakingsure
alltopicsarecovered.Thematerialsarenotenvisionedtobe Jurisprudence
Labor Standards 38
a primary review material as we give deference to the
1 1987 Constitution
scholarlyworksoflegalluminaries.Itishighlyadvisedthat
Social Welfare Benefits 71
thematerialsaretobetreatedassupplementstoreviewers
Provides limitations in the enactment of Labor Laws.
as prescribed by law school professors.
Management Prerogative 91 1. N
on-impairment Clause. Sec 1 0 Art III. No law
leasenoteaswellthattheauthorhasnocrystalballandis
P impairing the obligation of c ontracts shall be
not inthebusinessofpredictingwhattopicswillcomeout
Post-Employment 97 passed.
in the Bar. What the author would like to impart to the
reader is the sense of security and confidence that after 2. E
qual Protection Clause. Sec 1 Art III. No person
Labor Relations 137 shallbedeprivedoflife,liberty,orpropertywithout
finishing the materials,all topics have been covered.
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied
astly, the author wishes to request the reader to be
L Jurisdiction and Remedies 157 the equal protection of the laws.
vanguards of the law. If you happen to grab acopyofthis
material without having subscribed to eCodal+Pro, please 3. P
rohibitionAgainstInvoluntaryServitude.Sec18(2)
contact the author at fb.com/ecodalplus, or email him at undamental Principles and
F Art III. No involuntary servitude in any form shall
I existexceptasapunishmentforacrimewhereofthe
ecodalplus@gmail.com. Concepts
party shall have been duly convicted.
ay you have the strength and peace of mind as you take
M
Sources of Labor Laws 4. D
ue ProcessClause.Sec1ArtIII.Nopersonshallbe
onemorestepintobecomingmembersofthenoblestofall
professions. State Policies deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
Padayon!
equal protection of the laws.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page2of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
onstitutional provisions on the protection of labor are
C l ockouts, closed shop, wages, workingconditions,hours rivers and conductors minimum wages and social
d
NOTSELF-EXECUTING,andaremereguidelinesthatneed of labor and similar subjects. welfare benefits.
enabling laws. They arenot judicially enforceable.
rticle 1701. Neither capital nor labor shall act
A
3 Labor Code
ouncil of Teachers & Staff of Colleges & Universities of the
C oppressively against the other, or impair the interest or
Phils. v. Sec. of Education2018 En Banc convenience of the public. (Principle of Non-oppression) a) PD 442, as amended;
e constitutional mandates of protection to labor and
Th b) Omnibus Rules.
rticle 1702.In case of doubt, all laborlegislationand
A
securityoftenuremaybedeemedasself-executinginthe
alllaborcontractsshallbeconstruedinfavorofthesafety
sense that these are automatically acknowledged and 4 DOLE Issuances
and decent living for the laborer.
observed without need for any enabling legislation.
a) 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure;
However, todeclarethattheconstitutionalprovisionsare
enough to guarantee the full exercise of the rights eProvincialBusOperatorsAssociationofthePhilippineset
Th b) Single Entry Approach (SEnA IRR);
embodied therein, and the realization of ideals therein al v. DOLE, et al.2018 En Banc
c) Th
e Revised National Conciliation and Mediation
expressed, would be impractical, if not unrealistic. statute passed to protect labor is a "legitimateexerciseof
A Board Manual of Procedures for Conciliation and
ubsequent legislation is still needed to define the
S police power, although it incidentally destroys existing contract Preventive Mediation Cases.
parameters of these guaranteed rights to ensure the rights."Contractsregulatingrelationsbetweencapitaland
labor arenotmerelycontractual,andsaidlaborcontracts 1) H
avetheforceandeffectoflaws,provided,however,that
protectionandpromotion,notonlytherightsofthelabor
are impressed with public interest,andmustyieldtothe these rules and issuances will not expand the law or
sector, but of the employers' as well.
common good. strip the law.
e relations between capital and labor are not merely
Th 2) D
OLE is the lead agency in enforcing laborlawsandit
2 Civil Code contractual as provided in Article 1700 of the Civil Code. possessesrule-makingpowerintheenforcementofthe
By statutory declaration, labor contracts are impressed Code.
rticle1700.Therelationsbetweencapitalandlaborare
A with public interest and, therefore, must yield to the 3) A
rt 5. Rules and Regulations. — The Department of
notmerelycontractual.Theyaresoimpressedwithpublic commongood.Laborcontractsaresubjecttospeciallaws Labor (now DOLE) and other government agencies
interest that labor contracts must yield to the common onwages,workingconditions,hoursoflabor,andsimilar charged with the administration and enforcement of
good.Therefore,suchcontractsaresubjecttothespecial subjects.Inotherwords,laborcontractsaresubjecttothe this Code or any of its parts shall promulgate the
laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and policepoweroftheState.TheDOwasissuedtograntbus necessary implementing rules and regulations. Such
rules and regulations shall become effective fifteen (15)
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page3of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
d ays after announcement of their adoption in newspapers of
ollectiveRightsofWorkers.—Itshallguaranteetherightsof
C 1. t he right of labor to its just share in the fruits of
general circulation. all workers to production and
5 Jurisprudence 1. self-organization, 2. t he right of enterprises to reasonable returns to
investments, and to expansion and growth.
rticle 8. Civil Code. Judicial decisions applying
A 2. collective bargaining and negotiations, and
or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall 3. p
eaceful concerted activities, including the rightto abor as Primary Social Economic
L
1
form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. strikein accordance with law. Force
B State Policies Individual Rights of Workers. —They shall be entitledto 18ArtII1987Constitution.TheStateaffirmslabor
§
as a primary social economic force. It shallprotectthe
1. security of tenure, rights of workers and promote their welfare.
Labor as Primary Social Economic Force
2. humane conditions of work, and a
Full Protection to Labor Southeastern Shipping v. Navarra2010
3. living wage.
Security of Tenure e Constitution affirms labor as a primary social
Th
ight to Participate. — They shall also participate in policy
R economicforce.Alongthisvein,theStatevowedtoafford
Social Justice and decision-making processes affecting their rights and full protectiontolabor,localandoverseas,organizedand
Equal Work Opportunities benefits as may be provided by law. unorganized, and promote full employment andequality
of employment opportunities for all.
ight to Self-Organization and Collective
R The State shall promote
Bargaining e employment of seafarers, including claims for death
Th
1. t he principle of shared responsibility between
benefits,isgovernedbythecontractstheysigneverytime
Construction in Favor of Labor workers and employers and
they are hired or rehired; and as long as thestipulations
2. t he preferential use of voluntary modes in settling therein are not contrary to law, morals, public order or
disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce public policy, they have the force of law between the
§3 Art XIII 1987 Constitution.The State shall
their mutual compliance therewith to foster parties.
1. a fford full protection to labor, local and industrial peace.
overseas, organized and unorganized, and
e State shall regulate the relationsbetweenworkersand
Th
2. p romote full employment and equality of employers, recognizing
2 Full Protection to Labor
employment opportunitiesfor all.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page4of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Dela Cruz-Cagampan v. One Network Bank2022 e academic freedom enjoyed by institutions of higher
Th
i ncreases in the compensation that they would have
received if not for their illegal dismissal.
I ndeed, employers may freely conduct their affairs and learning protects the unbridled pursuit of knowledge.
employ discretion and judgment in managingallaspects Nevertheless, the autonomy of institutions of higher erily, the Court now ordains the uniform rule that the
V
of employment. However, their exercise of this right to learning to set standards for their faculties must be awardofbackwagesand/orseparationpayduetoillegally
management prerogative must be in accord with justice temperedwiththeprotectionoflabor.Indeterminingwho dismissedemployeesshallincludeallsalaryincreasesand
and fair play. mayteach,theycannotbearbitrary.Onelimitationisthat benefits granted under the law and other government
the periodofprobationcannotexceed,amongothers,six issuances, Collective Bargaining Agreements,
hilippine Airlines, Inc. v. Dawal explained that an
P
consecutive regular semesters of satisfactory service for employment contracts, established company policiesand
employer'smanagementprerogativemaynotbepremised
those in the tertiary level, or nineconsecutivetrimesters practices, and analogous sources which the employees
on unlawful causes nor excuse unlawful acts.
ofsatisfactoryserviceforthoseinthetertiarylevelwhere would have been entitled to had they not been illegally
Management prerogative is not unbridled and limitless.
collegiate courses are offered on a trimester basis. dismissed. On theotherhand,salaryincreasesandother
Nor is it beyond this court'sscrutiny.Whereabusiveand
benefits which are contingent or dependent on variables
oppressive, the alleged business decision must be eessentiallyprotectivecharacterofprobationarystatus
Th
such as an employee's merit increase based on
tempered to safeguard the constitutional guarantee of formanagementcanreadilybeappreciated.Butthissame
protective character gives rise to the countervailing but performance or longevity or the company's financial
providingfull protection to labor.
equally protective rule that the probationary period can status shall not be included in the award.
eighed against the constitutionally mandated full
W
only last for a specific maximum period and under is ruling is consistent with the Constitutional
Th
protection to labor and the various statutory protections
reasonable, well-laid and properly communicated command that the State shall afford full protection to
accorded to the sector, this Court finds thatrespondents
standards. Otherwise stated, within the period of the labor.
failed to demonstrate the reasonable business necessity
probation, anyemployermovebasedontheprobationary
for its no-spouse employment policy.
standardsandaffectingthecontinuityoftheemployment
must strictly conform to the probationary rules. 3 Security of Tenure
Arcilla v. San Sebastian College-Recoletos2022 rt 294. Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular
A
eCourtrecognizestheneedtostrikeabalancebetween
Th employment, the employer shall not terminate the
Dumapis v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining2020 En Banc
the protection of labor and the exercise of academic services of an employee except for a just cause or
I t is simply unjust and contrary to the overarching when authorized by this Title. An employee who is
freedom—both of which are enshrined in the
purpose of making illegally dismissed employees whole unjustly dismissedfrom work shall be entitled to
Constitution.
again to deduct from their accrued backwages the
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page5of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
s ociety, through the maintenance of a proper economic r etirement plan consistentwiththepurpose
a) r einstatementwithoutlossofseniorityrights
and other privileges and andsocialequilibriumintheinterrelationofthemembers of this Act; or
of the community,constitutionally,throughtheadoption iv) The action is duly certified by the SOLE.
b) h is full backwages, inclusive of allowances,
of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally
and
throughtheexerciseofpowersunderlyingtheexistenceof ight to Self-Organization and
R
c) h is other benefits or their monetary 6
all Governments on the time-honored principle of Salus Collective Bargaining
equivalent computed from the time his Populi est suprema lex.
compensation was withheld from him up to Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 3; Labor Code, Arts. 3 and 253
the time of his actual reinstatement. a) A
n employee can join a union on the first day of
5 Equal Work Opportunities employment.
I-People Manpower Resources v. CA2023
b) C
ollective bargaining is a contract between workers
e rights and protections afforded to Filipino laborers
Th a) Th
e State shall promote full employment and
and employers on terms and conditions of
under the Constitution andtheLaborCodeshallapplyto equality of employment opportunities for all.
employment over and above those mandated by law.
Filipinos, regardless of whether they are working within b) A
manifestationofthisistheenactmentofRA10911
thecountryorabroad.Theserights,includingtherightto or the Anti-Age Discrimination in Employment Act. 7 Construction in Favor of Labor
security of tenure, do not disappear simply because a The law however accepts ofexceptions
laborer is working in a different jurisdiction. rt4.ConstructioninFavorofLabor.—Alldoubtsin
A
i) ge is a bona fide occupational qualification
A
the implementation and interpretation of the
reasonably necessary in the normal
provisions ofthisCode,includingitsimplementing
4 Social Justice operation of a particular business or where
rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of
the differentiation is based on reasonable
labor.
10 Art II 1987 Constitution. The State shall
§ factors other than age;
promote social justice in all phases of national a) I n Peñaflor v. Outdoor Clothing 2010, this principle has
ii) e intent is to observe the terms of a bona
Th
development. been extended to cover doubts in the evidence
fide seniority system that is not intended to
presented by the employer and the employee.
Calalang v. Williams evade the purpose of this Act;
b) I f doubt exists between the evidence presented by the
e promotion of the welfare of all the people, the
Th iii) e intent is to observe the terms of abona
Th
employerandtheemployee,thescalesofjusticemustbe
adoption by the Government of measures calculated to fideemployeeretirementoravoluntaryearly
tilted in favor of the latter. (D
reamland Hotel Resort v.
insureeconomicstabilityofallthecomponentelementsof
Johnson2014)
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page6of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
c) Th
e rule is that where the law speaks in clear and oubts in the interpretation of labor legislation and
d
a. a party shouldadequatelyexplainanydelayinthe
categorical language, there is no room for submission of evidence; and contractsshallbeconstruedinfavoroflabor.Likewise,the
interpretation; there is only roomforapplication.Only Court has consistently held that doubts in the
b. a party should sufficiently prove the allegations appreciation of evidence in labor cases shall work to the
whenthelawisambiguousorofdoubtfulmeaningmay
thecourtinterpretorconstrueitstrueintent.(L eonciov. sought to be proven. advantage of labor.
MST Marine Services2017) ere,respondentsfailedtoadequatelyexplainandjustify
H ere, respondent dismissedpetitionerfromemployment
H
their non-participation in the proceedings before the as she allegedly violated its Code of Conduct for the
Reyes v. Rural Bank of San Rafael (Bulacan), Inc2022 arbiter. Thus, the application of a more liberal policy is subject infraction. According to respondent, petitioner
The CA erred in affirming the NLRC Decision. unwarranted. did not state in her job application that she was once
elaxed and liberal interpretation of labor procedures—
R employed with the Bank of Placer to conceal her
espondents were not denied due process. A liberal
R
mainly for the benefit of employee, and NOT the implication in the embezzlement case thereat.
interpretation oftheproceduralruleswasnotwarranted.
Here, during the proceedings before the arbiter, employer. The principles embodiedbyallprevailinglabor eCAagreedwithrespondentthatthesubjectinfraction
Th
respondents have been accorded ample opportunity to rules, legislations, and regulations are derived from the applies against petitioner. On the other hand, the labor
presenttheirside.Theymissedatleasttwosettings. They Constitution, which intensely protects the working tribunals were one in holding that petitioner could not
have already obtained a copy of the amended complaint individual and deeply promotes social justice. have committed the subject infraction as she only
which would have enabled them to intelligently respond. f course,incertaincases,aliberalapproachtotherules
O withheld information in her job application with
maybehadevenifitfavorstheemployer.Suchallowance, respondent, an act not covered by the latter's Code of
hile it may be true that the arbiter failed to issue
W
summons, such circumstance cannot operate as a denial however, must be measured against standards stricter Conduct.
of respondents' right to due process because the fact than that imposed against the worker, and only in eing faced with different interpretations of the subject
B
remainsthatrespondentshavealreadyobtainedacopyof compelling and justified cases where the employer will provision,theCourtadoptstheconstructionwhichfavors
the amended complaint, and have been duly notified of definitely suffer injustice should such liberal petitioner in view of the Constitutional policy of giving
the hearing. The issuance of the summons would have interpretation be disallowed. protectiontolaborandresolvingdoubtfullaborprovisions
been a mere superfluity since again, respondents have or contracts in favor of workers.
already obtained a copy of the amended complaint and
notified of the upcoming hearing date. Celis v. Bank of Makati2022
L oon v. Power Master, Inc. pronounced thattheliberalityof I n linewiththeConstitutionalpolicyofgivingprotection ecruitment and Placement of
R
II
procedural rules is qualified by two requirements: to labor, the Civil Code and the Labor Code provide that Workers
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page7of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
a ndpromulgaterulesandregulationstocarryout
ecruitment and Placement of Local and
R 2. t he Office of the Undersecretary for Migrant
Workers' Affairs (OUMWA) of the DFA; the objectives and implement the provisions of
Migrant Workers
this Title.
Employment of Non-Resident Aliens 3. t heInternationalLaborAffairsBureau(ILAB)andall
Philippine Overseas Labor Offices (POLO) under rt37.VisitorialPower. —TheSecretaryofLabor
A
or his duly authorized representatives may, at any
ecruitment and Placement of Local
R DOLE;
A time,
and Migrant Workers 4. the National Maritime Polytechnic (NMP);
1. i nspect the premises, books of accounts
5. t he National Reintegration Center for OFWs (NRC) and records of any person or entity
Regulatory Authorities
under the OWWA, and covered by this Title,
egulation of Recruitment and Placement
R
6. t he Office of the Social Welfare Attaché (OSWA) 2. r equire it to submit reports regularly on
Activities
under the DSWD. prescribed forms, and
Regulatory Authorities andate. — The DMW is mandated to facilitate the
M 3. a ct on violationsofanyprovisionsofthis
overseasemploymentandreintegrationofFilipinoworkers,
1 Department of Migrant Workers Title.
while taking into consideration the national development
DOLE Secretary programs of the National Economic and Development egulation of Recruitment and
R
Authority. It is also tasked to promote the empowerment Placement Activities
a. Department of Migrant Workers and protection of OFWs through continuous training and
R.A. No. 11641§4-6 knowledge development.1 Ban on Direct Hiring; Exceptions
e Department of Migrant Workers Act (RA 11641) took
Th ntities and persons prohibited from
E
b. DOLE Secretary
effect onFebruary3,2022,whereintheDMWwascreated, recruiting
Regulatory and Visitorial Powers
established, and constituted. 2 on-transferability of License or
N
rt 36. Regulatory Power. — The Secretary of
A Authority
I t nowassumesandperformsallthepowersandfunctions
Labor shall have the power to restrict and
of seven merged agencies, namely: uspension or cancellation of license or
S
regulate the recruitment and placement
1. t he Philippine Overseas Employment activities of all agencies within the coverage of authority
Administration (POEA); thisTitleandisherebyauthorizedtoissueorders Prohibited Practices
Illegal Recruitment
1
https://www.dmw.gov.ph/about-dmw.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page8of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
b) P
rofessionals and skilled workers with duly e following are disqualified from recruitment and
Th
olidary Liability of Local Recruitment
S
executed verified/authenticated contracts placementfor domestic employment:
Agency and Foreign Employer
containingtermsandconditionsoverandabove 1) Personsconvictedof
Theory of Imputed Knowledge the standards set by the POEA. The number of
professionalsandskilledOFWshiredforthefirst a) illegal recruitment,
ermination of Contract of Migrant
T
timebytheemployershallnotexceedfive(5).For b) trafficking in persons,
Workers
thepurposeofdeterminingthenumber,workers
c) violation of child labor laws, or
a. Ban on Direct Hiring; Exceptions hired as a group shall be counted as one; or
d) crimes involving moral turpitude;
rt 18. Ban on Direct-Hiring. — No employer may
A c) W
orkers hired byarelative/familymemberwho
hireaFilipinoworkerforoverseasemploymentexcept is a permanent resident of the host country, 2) A
gencies whose licenses have previously been
through the Boards and entities authorized by the except domestic workers (live-in caregiver/care cancelledorrevoked;
Secretary of Labor. Direct-hiring bymembersofthe worker or household service workers). 3) Cooperatives;
diplomatic corps, international organizations and eir hiring nonetheless must be processed through the
Th 4) L
aw enforcers and any official or employee of the
such other employers as may be allowed by the POEA (now DMW) by submitting: DOLE.
Secretary of Labor is exempted from this provision.
1. The employment contract; 5) Th
ose against whom probable cause or prima facie
The following areexemptedfrom the ban:
2. Valid passport; finding of guilt for illegal recruitment or other
1) members of the diplomatic corps; relatedcasesexistparticularlytoownersordirectors
3. Employment visa or work permit, or equivalent;
2) international organizations; of agencies who have committed such violations.
4. Certificate of medical fitness; and
3) H eads of state and government officials with the 6) S
ole proprietors of duly licensed agencies are
5. C
ertificate of attendance to the required prohibited from securing anotherlicensetoengage
rank of at least deputy minister;
employment orientation/ briefing. in recruitment and placement.
4) O ther employers as may be allowed by the POEA,
such as b. Entities and persons prohibited from 7) S
ole proprietors, partnerships or corporations
recruiting licensed to engage in private recruitment and
a) Th
ose provided in 1, 2, and 3 above who bear a placementforlocalemploymentareprohibitedfrom
lesser rank, if endorsed by the Philippine abor Code, Art. 26; R.A. No. 8042,asamendedby
L
engaging in job contracting or subcontracting
Overseas Labor Office (POLO), or Head of R.A. No. 10022, Sec. 6(j);RevisedPOEARules2016
for Land-based Workers, Part II, Rule I, Sec. 3 activities. (Sec 5, DO No 141-14)
Mission in the absence of the POLO;
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page9of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
s tated in the license or authority be transferred,
For Overseas Employment 1) It isplace-specific;
conveyed or assigned to any other person or entity.
1) T ravel agencies and sales agencies of airline Any transfer of business address, appointment or 2) It isperson-specific; and
companies; designation of anyagentorrepresentativeincluding 3) It isprospective.
2) O fficers or Board members of any corporation or the establishment of additional offices anywhere
eDOLESecretaryhasjurisdictiontosuspendorcancela
Th
partnersinapartnershipengagedinthebusinessof shall be subject to the prior approval of the
license.
a travel agency; Department of Labor.
3) C orporations and partnerships, where any of its
e. Prohibited Practices
d. Suspension or cancellation of license or
officers, Board members or partners is also (b); authority abor Code, Art. 34; R.A. No. 8042,asamendedby
L
R.A.No.10022,Sec.6;RevisedPOEARules2016for
4) I ndividuals, partners, officers or directors of an abor Code, Art. 35; Revised POEA Rules 2016 for
L
Land-based Workers, Part I, Rule X, Sec. 76
insurance company who make, propose or provide Land-based Workers, Part III,RuleI,Secs.101and
an insurance contract under the compulsory 104 I t shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or
insurance coverage for agency-hired OFWs; holder of authority:
Meaning of License and Authority
5) S ole proprietors, partners or officers and board 1) T
o charge or accept directly or indirectly any
1. A uthority refers to a document issued by the SOLE
members with derogatory records. amount greater thanthatspecifiedintheschedule
authorizing the officers, personnel, agents or
ofallowablefeesprescribedbytheSOLE,ortomake
6) A ny official or employee of DOLE, POEA, OWWA, representatives of a licensed recruitment/manning
a worker pay or acknowledge any amount greater
DFA,DOJ,DOH,BI,IC,NLRC,TESDA,CFO,NBO, agency to conduct recruitment and placement
than that actually received by him as a loan or
PNP, CAAP, international airport authorities, and activities in a place stated in the license or in a
advance;
otherGAsdirectlyinvolvedintheimplementationof specified place.
RANo8042and/oranyofhisrelativeswithinthe4th 2. License refers to the document issued by the SOLE 2) T
o furnish or publish any false notice or
civil degree. authorizing aperson,partnershiporcorporationto informationordocumentinrelationtorecruitment
operatea private recruitment/manning agency. or employment;
c. N
on-transferability of License or
ny recruitmentactivities,includingtheprohibited
A 3) T
o give any false notice,testimony,informationor
Authority
practices, to be undertaken by non-licensees or document or commit anyactofmisrepresentation
rt 29.Non-transferability of License orAuthority.—
A
non-holders of authority shall be deemedillegal. for the purpose of securing a license or authority
No license or authority shall be used directly or
under the Labor Code, or for the purpose of
indirectlybyanypersonotherthantheoneinwhose The characteristics of a recruitment license are:
documenting hired workers with the POEA, which
favor it was issued or at any place other than that
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page10of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i nclude the act of reprocessing workers through a epartment of Labor and Employment from the
D
15) Excessive Interest. To arrange, facilitate or grant a
job order that pertains to non-existent work, work time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to
loantoanOFWwithinterest>8%perannum,which
different from the actual overseas work, or work and including the period of the expiration of the will be used for payment of legal and allowable
with adifferentemployerwhetherregisteredornot same without the approval of the Department of placement fees and make the OFW issue, either
with the POEA; Labor and Employment; personally or through a guarantor or
4) T o induce or attempt to induce a worker already 10) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or accommodation party, postdated checks inrelation
employed to quit his employment in order to offer placement agency tobecomeanofficerormember to the said loan;
him another unless the transfer is designed to of the Board of any corporation engaged in travel
16) Specifying a Loan Entity. To impose a compulsory
liberate a worker from oppressive terms and agency ortobeengageddirectlyorindirectlyinthe and exclusive arrangement whereby an OFW is
conditions of employment; management of a travel agency;
required to avail a loan only from specifically
5) T o influence or attempt toinfluenceanypersonor 11) T
o withhold or deny travel documents from designated entities;
entitynottoemployanyworkerwhohasnotapplied applicantworkersbeforedepartureformonetaryor
17) Non-renegotiation of Loan. To refuse to condone a
for employment through his agency or who has financial considerations, or for any other reasons,
loan incurred by an OFW after his employment
formed, joined or supported,orhascontactedoris other than those authorized under the Labor Code contract has been prematurely terminated not
supported by any union or workers' organization; and its implementing Rules and Regulations;
through his fault.
6) T o engage in the recruitment or placement of 12) Failure to actually deploy a contracted worker
18) Specifying a Medical Entity. Whereby an OFW is
workersinjobsharmfultopublichealthormorality without valid reason as determined by the DOLE; required to undergohealthexaminationsonlyfrom
or to the dignity of the Republic of the Philippines;
13) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the specific clinics, entities, except when the cost is
7) T oobstructorattempttoobstructinspectionbythe worker in connection with his documentation and shouldered by the principal;
SOLE or by his duly authorized representative; processing for purposes of deployment, in cases
19) Specifying a Training Entity. Whereby an OFW is
where the deployment does not actually take place
8) T o fail to submit reports on the status of required to undergo trainings, seminars only from
employment, placement vacancies, remittance of without the worker's fault; and specific entities, except when cost is shouldered by
foreign exchange earnings, separation from jobs, 14) Toallowanon-Filipinocitizentoheadormanagea the principal;
departures and such other matters or information licensed recruitment/manning agency.
20)Violation of Suspension. To engage in any kind of
as may be required by the SOLE; Other Prohibited Acts recruitment activity including the processing of
9) T
osubstituteoraltertotheprejudiceoftheworker, pending workers’ applications; and
employmentcontractsapprovedandverifiedbythe
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page11of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
21) Collection of Insurance Premium. To pass on the a. F
or syndicated. — committed by three or nder RA 8042, the third and fourth types herein
U
employerthroughdeductionofhiswagesthecostor more persons conspiring and confederating are considered Illegal Recruitment as Economic
premium of insurances under the compulsory with one another. (People v. Hashim2012) Sabotage.
workers insurance coverage.
b. F
orlargescale.— committedagainstthreeor ii. Illegal recruitment vs. Estafa
f. Illegal Recruitment more persons, individually or as a group. .A No. 8042, asamendedbyRANo.10022,
R
(P
eople v. Tuguinay2012) Sec. 6; Revised Penal Code, Art. 315, par. 2 (a)
i. Elements and Types
4. T
ypes. — There are at least four kinds of illegal 1. E
stafa by means of false pretense. A worker who
abor Code, Art. 38; R.A No. 8042, as
L
amended by R.A. No. 10022, Sec. 6 recruitment under the law. sufferspecuniarydamageasaresultofapreviousor
a. O
neissimpleillegalrecruitmentcommitted simultaneous false pretense resorted to by a
1. E ssential Element. Presupposes deceit or
by a licensee or holder of authority. nonlicensee or nonholder of authority, may
misrepresentation.
complain for estafaaside fromillegal recruitment.
a. Without being duly authorized; b. A
ny person “who is neither a licensee nor a
holderofauthority”commitsthesecondtype 2. I llegal recruitment and estafa cases may be filed
b. G ave distinct impression that he had power of illegal recruitment. simultaneously or separately. The filing of charges
or ability to deploy workers; for illegal recruitment does not bar the filing of
c. L
arge scale or Qualified. — The third type of
c. C omplainants were convinced to part with estafa, and vice versa. An accused’sacquittalinthe
illegal recruitment refers to offenders who
their money by such impression;2 illegal recruitment case does not prove that she is
either commit the offense alone or with
not guilty of estafa.
d. Th
ere must be at least a promise or offerof another person against three or more
employment.3 persons individually or as a group. ouble jeopardy will not set in because illegal
D
recruitment is malum prohibitum, inwhichthereis
2. R ecruitmentandPlacement;Presumption.Whereafee d. S
yndicated —A syndicateoragroupofthree
nonecessitytoprovecriminalintent,whereasestafa
iscollectedinconsiderationofapromiseorofferof or more persons conspiring and
ismaluminse,intheprosecutionofwhich,proofof
employment totwo or moreprospective workers. confederating with one another in carrying
criminal intent is necessary. (Sy v. People2010)
out the act circumscribed by the law
3. Additional elements
commits the fourth type of illegal g. S
olidary Liability of Local Recruitment
recruitment by the law. (People v. Sadiosa) Agency and Foreign Employer
.A. No. 8042, as amended by R.A. No.10022,Sec.
R
2
People v. Goce, GR No 113161, August 29, 1995 10
3
arvin v. CA and People, GR No 125044, July 13, 1998
D
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page12of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
1. Th
e liability of the principal/employer and the s there was no substantial proof that Sunace knew of,
A 2. T
ermination of employmentofOFWstakesplacein
recruitment/placementagencyforanyandallclaims andconsentedtobeboundunder,the2-yearemployment the following instances:
under this section shall bejoint and several. contractextension,itcouldnotbesaidtobeprivythereto. a. P
re-termination of employment contract
2. S uch liabilities shall continue during the entire Assuch,itanditsownerwerenotheldsolidarilyliablefor with approval of employer;
periodordurationoftheemploymentcontractand any of the complainant’s claims arising from the 2-year
b. Discharge for a valid cause;
shallnotbeaffectedbyanysubstitution,amendmentor employment extension.
modification made locally or in a foreigncountryof c. Suffered injury or illness; or
the said contract. (Sec 10, RA 8042) i. T
ermination of Contract of Migrant d. An OFW has died.
Workers
3. I nSto.Tomas,etal.v.Salac2012EnBanc,however,the
.A. No. 8042, as amended by R.A. No.10022,Sec.
R Skippers United Pacific Inc. v. Doza2012
Court clarified that liability maybeimputedonthe
corporate officers or directors only if it is proved 10
e OFW can pre terminate his employment contract
Th
that they are personally involved in the wrongful 1. I n case of termination of overseas employment which is akin to resignation. However, if the employer
actsof the company. withoutjust,validorauthorizedcauseasdefinedby failedtosubmitsubstantialevidencethatindeedtheOFW
4. Th
eliabilityofcorporatedirectorsandofficersisnot law or contract, or any unauthorized deductions voluntarily pre-terminated his contract; then theOFWis
automatic. To make them jointly and solidarily from the migrant worker's salary, the worker shall deemed illegally dismissed.
liable with their company, there must be a finding be entitled to
e best proof of pre-termination is a written
Th
thattheywereremissindirectingtheaffairsofthat a. t he fullreimbursementofhisplacementfee resignation.
company, such as sponsoring or tolerating the and the deductions made
conduct of illegal activities.
b. w
ith interest at twelve percent (12%) per
h. Theory of Imputed Knowledge annum, Employment of Non-Resident Aliens
aborCode,Arts.40-42;DOLED.O.No.186-17,Secs.
L
Sunace International Management Services, Inc. v. NLRC
c. p
lushissalariesfortheunexpiredportionof B
his employment contract or for three (3) 1-3and12-14,asamendedbyDOLED.O.No.221-21;
etheoryofimputedknowledgeascribestheknowledge
Th monthsforeveryyearoftheunexpiredterm, DOLE D.O. No. 205-19, Secs. 1-3, 7-8
of the agent TO the principal,nottheotherwayaround. whichever is less4. (Sec 10)
The knowledge of the principal-foreignemployercannot, 1) O
nly non-resident aliens are required to secure
employment permit. For resident aliens and
therefore, be imputed to its agent.
4
Declared unconstitutional.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page13of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i mmigrants, what is required is an Alien
b) O
fficers and staff of international xclusion. — The following c ategories of foreign
E
Employment Registration Certificate (AERC).
organizations of which the Philippine nationals are excluded from securing an
2) Th
e latest department order issued about government is a member, andtheirlegitimate employment permit:
employment of foreign workers isDO No 146-15. spousesdesiring to work in PH;
a) M
embersofthegoverningboardwithvoting
3) A foreign national working in PH without the c) O
wners and representatives of foreign rights only and do not intervene in the
requisite employment permit may file with the principals whose companies are accredited managementofthecorporationorintheday
NLRC an illegal dismissal complaint. The dismissal by the POEA, who come to the Philippines to day operation of the enterprise.
may be declared invalidandshemayberecognized
i. for a limited period and b) P
resident and Treasurer, who are
asanemployeebutshecannotbeawardedclaimfor part-owner of the company.
monetarybenefits.Todosowillsanctiontheviolation ii. s olelyforthepurposeofinterviewing
of PH labor laws requiring aliens to secure work permits Filipino applicants for employment ose providing consultancy services who
Th
before their employment.5 abroad; do not have employers in the Philippines.
(r emoved by DOLE D.O. No. 221-21)
4) A lien Employment Permit. — Revised Rules for d) F
oreign nationals who come to the
Issuance of Employment Permits to Foreign Philippinestoteach,presentand/orconduct c) Intra-corporate transferee
Nationals,DOLE D.O. No. 186, S. 2017 research studies in universities and colleges
i. ho is a manager, executive or
w
as visiting, exchange or adjunct professors specialist in accordance with Trade
overage. — All foreign nationals who intend to
C providedthattheexemptionisonareciprocal
engage in gainful employment in the Philippines Agreements and
basis;
shall apply for AEP. ii. a n employee of the foreign service
e) P
ermanent resident foreign nationals and supplier for at least one (1) year
xemption. — The following categories of foreign
E probationary or temporary resident visa
nationalsareexemptfromsecuringanemployment continuous employment.
holders;
permit: ll other intra-corporate transferees not
A
f) R
efugees and Stateless Persons recognized within these categories asdefinedaboveare
a) A ll members of the diplomatic service and by DOJ; and required to secure an AEP prior to their
foreign government officials subject to
reciprocity; g) A
ll foreign nationals granted exemption by employment in the Philippines. (removed by
law. DOLE D.O. No. 221-21)
d) C
ontractual service supplier who is a
manager, executive or specialist and an
5
WPP Marketing, et al. v. Galera2010
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page14of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
e mployeeofaforeignservicesupplierwhich a gainst the foreign national for every year or a
iii) erogatory information from the National
D
has no commercial presence in the fraction thereof, for filing the AEP application
Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA).
Philippines: beyond the prescribed period. DOLE D.O. No. 205-19
i. ho
w enters the Philippines 6) W
orkingPermits&Visas.—SeeDOLE,DOJ,BIand
temporarily to supply a service BIRJoint Guidelines No. 01, S. 2019 mployer-Employee
E
III
pursuant to a contract; 7) C
ertificateofNoObjection.—documentissuedbythe Relationship
ii. ust possess the appropriate
m DOLE to certify that there is no Party objecting to
educational and rofessional
p the issuance of work-related visa. The following Employer-Employee Relationship
qualifications; and categories of foreign nationals are exempted from egitimate Contracting vs. Labor-Only
L
iii. securing CNO from DOLE, to wit: Contracting
ust be employed by the foreign
m
service supplier for at least one year i) cholars,students,volunteersandpersonnel
S
prior to the supply of service in the of International Organizations entitled to A Employer-Employee Relationship
Philippines. 47(a)(2) visa under certain entities and
programs of the Codified Visa Rules and
Tests
e) R epresentative of the Foreign
Principal/Employer assigned intheOfficeof Regulations of 2002 of the DFA; Kinds of Employment
Licensed Manning Agency (OLMA). ii) oreign nationals exempted underSection7
F Related Concepts
of the JMC No. 001, series of 2019; and
5) S
alient Changes brought about by the New AEP
Rules (D OLE D.O. No. 221-21). — Previously, AEP iii) Foreign nationals required to secure AEP.
1) I t is in personam and involves the rendition of
applications could be filed, without penalty, within
8) G
rounds for Denial ofCNO. —TheRegionalDirector personal service by the employee, and partakes of
15workingdaysfromthesigningoftheemployment
may deny the request for CNO, based on the master and servant relationship.
contract or appointment. Under the New AEP
following grounds:
Rules,allapplicationsfortheissuanceofAEPsshall 2) I ts existence is a question of law and fact. In the
i) eritoriousobjectionorinformationonthe
M 2016 Century Properties case, SC said that the
ow be filed within 10 working days after the
n
employment of the foreign national; employment status of a person is defined and
foreign national signs his contract or after the
commencement of his employment. ii) isrepresentation of facts and submission
M prescribed by law and not by what the partiessayit
of fraudulent documents; and should be. It can not be negated by expressly
e DOLE shall impose a fine of Php 10,000.00
Th
repudiating it in a contract.
against the employer, and another Php 10,000.00
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page15of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
3) I n the 2011 Tongko case, SC aptly described the Economic Reality or the Two-Tiered Test 7) Th
e degree of dependency of the worker upon the
primary and controlling test in determining the employer for his continued employment.
is test is used when there is no existing employment
Th
existenceofanER-EErelationshipasthecontrolover
contract.
the performance of the task of the one providing the Dusol v. Lazo2021Lopez, M., J.
service. 1) Th
e putative employer’s power to control the
e records show that all the elements of an
Th
employee with respect to the manner andmethods
employer-employee relationship are present.
1 Tests by which the work is to be accomplished; and
F irst, Ralco Beach engaged the services of Pedro as
2) Th
e underlying economic realities of the activityor
The Four-Fold Test relationship, i.e. employee’s economic dependence
caretaker and Maricel as a storekeeper.
3 Rule I-A Book VI Omnibus Rules.
§ on the employer. econd, Emmarck paid their wages in the form of
S
Employer-Employee Relationship.— To ascertain the allowances and commissions.
Depends upon the circumstances of the whole economic activity:
existence of an employer-employee relationship, the
ird, Emmarck terminated their employment when he
Th
four-fold testshall apply, to wit: 1) Th
ebroadextenttowhichtheservicesperformedare
notified them that he will be leasing the beach Resort,
an integral part of the employer’s business.
1. theselectionandengagementof the employee; and that their services were no longer needed.
2) Th
e limitedextentoftheworker’sinvestmentinthe
2. the payment ofwages; F inally,andmostimportantly,Emmarckhadthepowerto
equipment and facilities.
3. the power ofdismissal; and control their conductintheperformanceoftheirduties.
3) Th
e nature and high degree of control by the The existence of control is manifestly shown by
4. t he power to controltheemployee'sconduct,or employer; Emmarck's express admission that he left the entire
the so-called "control test."
4) Th
e worker’s limited opportunities for profit and business operation of the Resort to Pedro and Maricel.
e so-called "c ontrol test"iscommonlyregardedas
Th growth; While Pedro and Maricel aretoalargeextentallowedto
the most crucial and determinative indicator of the carry out their respective duties as caretaker and store
5) Th
e small amount of initiative, skill, judgment or
presence or absence of an employer-employee keeperontheirown,thisdoesnotnegatetheexistenceof
foresight required for the success of the claimed
relationship. Under the control test, an control. It was Emmarck himself, who gave Pedro and
independent enterprise;
employer-employee relationship exists where the Maricel immense flexibility in the performance of their
personforwhomtheservicesareperformedreserves 6) Th
e high degree of permanency and duration of duties. This, alone, clearly shows that Emmarck had
the right to control not only the end achieved, but relationship; control over the conduct of Pedro and Maricel in
also the manner and means used to achieve that end. performing their duties.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page16of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ER between BSP and the security guards assigned toit
E
us, the lack of guidelines or limitations, and close
Th etitioner likewise admitted that she receives in full her
P
supervisionastotheconductofoperationsoftheresort byanagencypursuanttoaGuardServiceContract.Inthe 4% share intheClinicalSectionofthehospitalregardless
cannotbeconstruedasevidenceoflackofcontrol.More absence of such relationship, vicarious liability under of the number of hours she worked therein.The ruleis that
so that there is no proof that Pedro and Maricel were Article2180oftheCivilCodecannotapplyasagainstBSP.
Similarly, we find no EER between MCS andrespondent a. where a person who works for another
allowed to engage inothermeansoflivelihood,andthat
guards. The guards were merelyassignedbyGrandeurto b. performs his job more or less at his own pleasure,
they indeed worked for or engaged in any other business.
secureMCS'premisespursuanttotheirContractofGuard
c. in the manner he sees fit,
Services. Thus, MCS cannot be held vicariously liable for
damages caused by these guards' acts or omissions. d. n
otsubjecttodefinitehoursorconditionsofwork,
Lu v. Enopia2017
and
e fact that petitioner had registered the respondents
Th e. i s compensated according to the result of his
withSSSisproofthattheywereindeedhisemployees.The Loreche-Amit v. Cagayan De Oro Medical Center2019 efforts and not the amount thereof,
coverage of the Social Security Law is predicated on the
existence of an EER. CONOMICREALITYTEST.Thebenchmarkofeconomic
E no employer-employee relationship exists.
reality is the economic dependence of the worker on his
I t was established that petitioner exercised control over
employer.
respondents. The controltestmerelycallsfortheexistenceof Fernandez v. Kalookan Slaughterhouse2019
the right to control,and not necessarily the exercisethereof. WON Loreche-Amit was an employee of CDMC.
WON Fernandez was an employee of Kalookan Slaughterhouse.
e payment of respondents' wages based on the
Th O. CDMC does not exercise the power of control over
N
percentage share ofthefishcatchwouldnotbesufficient petitioner. ES. The Court inMasonicContractor,Inc.v.Madjosruled
Y
to negate the EER existing between them. that the fact thatthecompanyprovidedidentificationcards
etitionerwasworkingfortwootherhospitalsasidefrom
P
and uniforms and the vague affidavit of the purported
etitioner wielded the power of dismissal over
P CDMC, not to mention those other hospitals which she
caters to when herservicesareneeded.Suchfactevinces employer were sufficient evidence to prove the existence
respondentswhenhedismissedthemaftertheyrefusedto
that petitioner controls her working hours.Onthisnote, of EER.
sign the joint fishing venture agreement.
relevant is the economic reality test. alookan Slaughterhouse, through Tablit, was the one
K
whoengagedpetitioner,paidforhissalaries,andineffect
us, the fact thatpetitionercontinuedtoworkforother
Th
Reyes v. Doctolero2017 had the power to dismiss him. Further, Kalookan
hospitals strengthens the proposition thatpetitionerwas
Slaughterhouse exercised control over petitioner's
In Mamaril v. The Boy Scout of the Philippines, therewasno not wholly dependent on CDMC.
conduct through De Guzman. To the mind of the Court,
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page17of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
alookanSlaughterhousewaspetitioner'semployerandit
K o n respondents' rubber plantation. Testimonies from s tandards benefitsfromthetimeoftheirdismissalfrom
exercised its rightsasanemployerthroughTablitandDe petitioners'colleagues,whoweresimilarlyaskedtoleave employment until the finality of this Decision.
Guzman, who were its employees. the plantation, illustrate that they:
1) were required to work at set hours per day;
Ginta-Ason v. J.T.A. Packaging Corp.2022
2) were paid a set rate per day of work;
merican Power Conversion Corp v. Lim2018
A
o employer-employee relationship existed between
N
reQuasi-Contract 3) w
orked under the respondents' constant
petitioner and JTA. Here, JTA maintained thatpetitioner
ehavethisuniquesituationwhererespondentwashired
W supervision; and
is a stranger and was never an employee of JTA.
directly by APCC of the USA, but was being paid his 4) c ould be dismissed for violating the work
onsidering such denial, it was incumbent upon
C
remuneration by a separate entity — APCP BV of the standards set by respondents.
petitioner to prove the fact of his employment with JTA.
Philippines, and is supervised and controlled by APCS
lso, the testimonies submitted by petitioners establish
A However, petitionerpresentednodocumentsettingforth
from Singapore and APC Japan — all in furtherance of
the totality of economic circumstances required by the terms of his employment.
APCC's objective of doing business here unfettered by
Francisco's economic reality test. Petitioners perform
government regulation. For all legal purposes, APCC is o prove the element of payment of wages, petitioner
T
services integral to respondents' business of running a
respondent's employer. submitted pay slips allegedlyissuedbyJTA.Significantly,
rubber plantation. When applied to the two-tier test in
the pay slips presented by petitioner bore no indication
Francisco, these circumstances show that respondents
whatsoever as to their source. Valencia v. Classique Vinyl
exercised control over petitioners' hours, means, and
Wahing v. Sps Daguio2022 ProductsCorporationrejectedthepayslipssubmittedbythe
methods of work. Petitioners were also shown to be
petitioneremployeebecausetheydidnotbearthenameof
espondents employed petitioners as farm workers and
R economically dependent upon respondents for their
the respondent company. Also, there werenodeductions
are, thus, subject to the rules governing an livelihood. Thus, there exists an employer-employee
frompetitioner'ssupposedsalarysuchaswithholdingtax,
employer-employee relationship. They consistently relationship between the parties.
SSS, PhilHealth or Pag-IBIG Fund contributions which
argued before the labor tribunals that petitioners were I n view of the employer-employee relationship between are the usual deductions from employees' salaries.
not theiremployeesbecausethelatteronlysharedinthe the parties, respondents illegally terminatedpetitioners'
I n contrast, the voluminous documentary evidence
proceeds of rubber sales from their tapping activities employmentbyorderingthemtostoptheirworkwithout
adduced byJTA,i.e.,alphalistofemployeessubmittedto
instead of earning wages. just or authorized cause. Petitioners are entitled to
the BIR for the years during which petitioner claims to
owever, there is sufficient corroborating testimony to
H reinstatement,andthepaymentofbackwagesandlabor
havebeenemployedbyJTA,thepayrollmonthlyreportsas
support petitioners' claim that theyservedasemployees well as the remittances made by JTA of its employees'
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page18of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
onthly contributions which were duly signed by JTA's
m o f petitioners thatShogunShipscontinuedtopay
authorized representative and stamp received by the Parayday v. Shogun Shipping Co.2020 petitioners' salaries after they were discharged
concerned government agencies, indubitably show that from hospitalization.
petitioner was not among its employees. Petitioners are regular employees of Shogun Ships.
7. R
espondentalsohavenotcategoricallydeniedthat
s to the power of control, while it is true that the
A eapplicationofthefour-foldtestinthiscaseshowsthat
Th petitioners were verbally dismissed.
purported driver's itineraries presented by petitioner an employer-employee relationship did exist between
espondent contended that Shogun Ships did not direct
R
prescribedthemannerbywhichhisworkasadriveristo petitioners and Shogun Ships.
the manner and method in which petitioners do their
becarriedout,thesaiditinerarieswerenotsignedbyJTA's 1. R
espondent have not categorically denied that work.
authorized personnel. sometime inMay2006,petitionerswereengaged,
e control test calls merely for the existence of therightto
Th
I n all,noemployer-employeeexistedbetweenpetitioner or at the least, were permitted by herein
control the manner of doing the work and NOT the actual
and JTA. respondenttoworkonrepairsononeofthebarges
exerciseoftheright.DyKehBengv.InternationalLaborand
of Shogun Ships.
Marine Union of the Philippines held that an employer's
2. R
espondent did not also deny that petitioners power of control, particularly over personnel working
Gesolgon v. CyberOne PH2020 worked for Shogun Ships until they were under the employer, is deemed inferred, more so when
etitioners arenotemployeesofCyberOnePHsothereis
P supposedly verbally dismissed from employment said personnel are working at the employer's
no dismissal to speak of, much more illegal dismissal. on May 2008. establishment.
Other than the payslips mentioned, no other documents 3. R
espondent even admitted that petitioners were ere, petitioners were working on the barges alongside
H
tending to prove their employment with CyberOne PH, called in to do repairs on the barges of Shogun regular employees of Shogun Ships and that they were
were submitted. Ships. taking orders from its engineers as to the required
s to the power of dismissal, the records reveal that
A 4. R
espondent have not deniedthatpetitionerswere specifications on how the bargesofShogunShipsshould
petitionerssubmittedlettersofresignationasdirectorsof duly compensated for any work done by them on be repaired.
CyberOne PH and not as employees thereof. Petitioners the barges.
failed to prove the manner by which CyberOne PH
5. R
espondent categorically admitted that Shogun
allegedly supervised and controlled their work.
Ships provided petitioners financial assistance
Kinds of Employment
ereexistednoemployer employeerelationshipbetween
Th when they were hospitalized. 2 Regular
petitioners and CyberOne PH.
6. Respondent also havenotdisprovedtheallegation Casual
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page19of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
c ontinuous or broken, shall be considered a regular s ufficient evidence of the necessity and
Probationary employee with respect to the activity in which he is indispensability of an EE’s servicetotheER’strade
employed and his employment shall continue while or business.
Project
such activity exists. 6. Exceptionsto regular employment
Seasonal
a. Regular a) Project;
Fixed-Term
1. E
mployment is regular where the employee has b) Seasonal; and
RT 295. Regular and Casual Employment. — The
A beenengagedtoperformactivitieswhichareusually
c) Fixed Term.
provisions of written agreement to the contrary necessaryordesirableintheusualbusinessortrade
notwithstanding and regardless of the oral of the employer. Del Rosario v. ABS-CBN2020 En Banc
agreement of the parties, an employment shall be 2. A regular employee may either be: WON the workers are regular employees of ABS-CBN.
deemed to be regular where the employee has been
a. P
ermanent. One who has an indefinite egino v. ABS-CBN ruled that cameramen/editors and
B
engaged to perform activities which are usually
employment, whether passing the reporters are employees of ABS-CBN following the
necessaryordesirableintheusualbusinessortrade
probationary stage or not; or four-fold test. The Court's ruling in Begino is applicable
of the employer,except
b. Probationary. here.
a) w here the employment has been fixed for a
specific project or undertaking the 3. Two kinds of regular employees ere, the workers were hired by ABS-CBN through its
H
completion orterminationofwhichhasbeen personnel department. They presented certificates of
a. B
y the natureoftheirwork. Usuallynecessary
determined atthetimeoftheengagementof compensation, payment/tax withheld (BIR Form 2316),
ordesirableintheusualtradeorbusinessof
the employee or Social Security System (SSS), Pag-ibigFunddocuments,
an employer.
and Health Maintenance Cards, which all indicate that
b) w here the work orservicetobeperformedis b. B
ythelengthofservice.Haverenderedatleast they are employed by ABS-CBN.
seasonalinnatureandtheemploymentisfor 1 year of service whether continuous or not.
the duration of the season. I nthesamevein,theworkersreceivedtheirsalariesfrom
4. T
EST of regularity. Reasonable connection between ABS-CBNtwiceamonth,asproventhroughthepayslips
n employment shall be deemed to be casual ifitis
A theparticularactivityperformedbytheemployeein bearing the latter's corporate name. Their rate of wages
not covered by the preceding paragraph: relation to the employer. was determined solelybyABS-CBN.Likewise,ABS-CBN
rovided, That any employee who has rendered at
P 5. R
epeated rehiring of a jobforafixedperiodandthe wielded the power to discipline, and correspondingly
least one year of service, whether such service is continuing need for an employee’s service are dismiss, any errant employee. The workers were
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page20of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
c ontinuously under the watch of ABS-CBN and were
e recording and reproduction of moving pictures,
Th agno is deemed a regular employee of ABS-CBN. She
M
requiredtostrictlyfollowcompanyrulesandregulations visuals, andstillsofeverynature,name,anddescription wassimilarlysituatedwiththepetitionersinDelRosario
in and out of the company premises.
—orsimply,theproductionofshows—areanimportant whowereplacedundertheIJMsystemandcontinuously
inally, consistent with the most important test in
F component of ABS-CBN's overall business scheme. The rehired for various programs. As a VTR Playback
determining the existence of an employer-employee workers — who were cameramen, light men, gaffers, Operator, she rendered services necessary and desirable
relationship, ABS-CBN wielded thepowertocontrolthe lighting directors, audio men, sound engineers, system to the overall business and trade of ABS-CBN.
meansandmethodsintheperformanceoftheemployees' engineers, VTR men, video engineers, technical
work.Theworkersweresubjecttotheconstantwatchand directors, and drivers — allplayedanindispensablerole
scrutiny of ABS-CBN, through its production in the production and reproduction of shows, aswellas Laurente v. Helenar Construction2021Lopez, M., J.
supervisors.Infact,theworkerswererequiredtocomply post-production services. The necessaryjobsrequiredin
hat determines regular employment is not the
W
with ABS-CBN's company policies which entailed the the production of such shows were performed by the
employment contract, written or otherwise, but the
priorapprovalandevaluationoftheirperformance.They workers herein.
nature of the job. The applicable test is the reasonable
were further mandated to attend seminars and
us, the workers are regular employees of ABS-CBN
Th connection between the particular activityperformedby
workshopstoensuretheiroptimalperformanceatwork.
given the tasks that they were engaged in. the employee in relation to the usual business of the
Likewise, ABS-CBN controlled their schedule and work
employer.
assignments (and re-assignments). Furthermore, the
workers did not have their own equipment to perform ere, respondents are principally engaged in the
H
ABS-CBN v. Magno2022
their work. ABS-CBN provided them with the needed construction business. Freddie, as a painter, is tasked
tools and implements to accomplish their jobs. el Rosario v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation already
D with preparing, sanding and painting various
established that there is an employer-employee construction works. Inarguably, the nature of Freddie's
J ust like in Begino, the fact that the workers signed a
relationship between ABS-CBNanditstalentsunderthe job required him to perform activities, which were
"Talent Contract and/or Project Assignment Form" does
IJM system. deemed necessary in the usual business of respondents.
not ipso facto make them talents. The nature of the
employment does not depend on the willorwordofthe ese IJM talents hired by ABS-CBN were regular
Th
employer orontheprocedureforhiringandthemanner employees of ABS-CBN pursuant to Article 280 of the
Labor Code. This is mainly because they performed Lu v. Enopia2017
of designating the employee, but on the activities
performed by the employee in relationtotheemployer's functions necessary and desirable to ABS-CBN's overall e primary standard for determining regular
Th
business. business and trade. employment is thereasonable connectionbetween
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page21of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
1. theparticular activityperformed by theemployee welding activities to its business. xpeditionfortheservicesthattheyrenderedtothelatter.
E
The fact that respondents werepaidonapertripbasisis
2. i n relation to the usual trade or business of the irrelevant in determining the existence of an
employer. employer-employee relationship because this was merely
UST v. Samahang Manggagawa ng UST2017
espondents'jobsasfishermen-crewmembersofF/BMG
R themethodofcomputingthepropercompensationdueto
ON the CA correctly ruled that Pontesor, et al. are regular
W
28 were directly related and necessary to petitioner's respondents.
employees and, consequently, were illegally dismissed by
deep-sea fishing business and they hadbeenperforming ird, Expedition's power to dismiss was apparent when
Th
petitioner.
their job for more than one year. work was withheld from respondents as a result of the
YES. Petitioner repeatedly rehired respondents for
termination of the contracts with LGUs.
v arious positions in the nature of maintenance workers,
Parayday v. Shogun Shipping Co.2020 for various periods spanning the years 1990-1999. F inally, Expedition has the power of control over
Pontesor, et al. fall under the secondcategoryofregular respondents in the performance of their work.
eprovisionoflawdictatesthatpetitionerswereregular
Th
employees.Accordingly,theyshouldbedeemedasregular erefore, respondents should be accorded the
Th
employees of Shogun Ships.
employeesbutonlywithrespecttotheactivitiesforwhich presumption of regular employment.
1. I n the absence of a clear agreement or contract, they were hired and for as long as such activities exist.
whetherwrittenorotherwise,whichwouldclearly
ontesor, et al. werenotprojectemployeesofpetitioner.
P
show that petitioners were properly informed of Gerardo v. Bill Sender Corp2018
The specific undertakingsorprojectsforwhichtheywere
their employment status with Shogun Ships,
employedwerenotclearlydelineated.Thisisevidencedby WON Geraldo was a regular employee of respondent.
petitioners enjoy the presumption of regular
thevaguenessoftheprojectdescriptionssetforthintheir
employment in their favor.
respective CEAs, which states that they were tasked "to YES. Geraldo was performing activities necessary or
2. P etitioners were performing activities which are assist" in various carpentry, electrical, and masonry work. esirable in its usual business or trade for without his
d
usually necessary or desirable in the business or services, its fundamental purpose of delivering bills
trade of Shogun Ships. cannot be accomplished. He has been delivering mail
matters for the company for more than fourteen (14) years.
3. Th
e fact alone that petitioners were allowed to Expedition Construction Corp. v. Africa2017
work for it for a period of morethanone(1)year, I n Gamboa, Jr. v. Villegas, We held that the paymentona
F irst, respondents were engaged/hired by Expedition as
albeit intermittently since May 2006 until they piece-rate basis does not negate regular employment.
garbage truck drivers.
were dismissed from employment on May 2008, Payment by the piece is just a method of compensation
Second, respondents received compensation from and does not define the essence of the relations.
was indicative of the regularity and necessity of
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page22of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
eld that if it is apparent from the circumstances of the
h
stothefirstguideline,theServiceAgreementssignedby
A
Regala v. Manila Hotel2020 case that periods have been imposed to preclude Regalado not even prove that he knowingly agreed to be
acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, such hiredbyMHCforafixed-termwaybackinFebruary2000.
egala is a regular employee of MHC.Therecordsofthe
R fixedtermcontractsaredisregardedforbeingcontraryto As to thesecondguideline,Regalacanhardlybeonequal
casearebereftofevidencethatRegalawasdulyinformed law and public policy. terms with MHC insofar as negotiating the terms and
of the nature and status of his engagement with the hotel.
ere, the Service Agreements and fixed-term service
H conditions of his employment is concerned.
I n the absence of a clear agreementorcontract,whether contracts executed between MHC and Regala are invalid
I n all, Regala has been a regular employee of the hotel
written or otherwise, which would clearly show that and are not true fixed-term employment contracts. The
since February 2000.
Regala was properly informed of his employment status decisive determinant in term employment should not be
with MHC, Regala enjoys the presumption of regular theactivitiesthattheemployeeiscalledupontoperform,
employmentin his favor. but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the Engineering & Construction Corporation of Asia v. Palle2020
e circumstancesandevidenceonrecord,andprovision
Th commencement and termination of their employment
relationship. espondents were regular employees who were illegally
R
of law dictate that Regala is MHC's regular employee.
terminated.
1. R egala is performing activities which are usually ere, the Service Agreements do not unequivocally
H
necessary or desirable in the business or trade of specifytheperiodsoftheirexpiration.BrentSchool,Inc.v. ere,ECCAfailedtopresentsubstantialevidencetoshow
H
Zamora laid out parameters or criteria under which a thatitinformedrespondentsofthedurationandscopeof
MHC.
"termemployment"cannotbesaidtobeincircumvention their work atthetimeoftheirhiring.Itislikewisenoted
2. Th
e fact alonethatRegalawasallowedtoworkfor that the companydidnotsubmitareportwiththeDOLE
of the law on security of tenure, namely:
MHC on several occasions for severalyearsunder oftheterminationofrespondents'employmenteverytime
various Service Agreements is indicative of the 1. Th
e fixed period of employment was knowingly
a project is completed, which is an indication that the
regularity and necessity of his functions to its andvoluntarilyagreeduponbythepartieswithout
workers were not project employees but regular ones.
business. any force, duress, or improper pressure being
broughttobearupontheemployeeandabsentany
t. Theresa's School of Novaliches Foundation vs. NLRC held
S b. Casual
other circumstances vitiating his consent; or
thatitdoesnotnecessarilyfollowthatwherethedutiesof 1. An employee is consideredcasualif:
the employee consist of activities usually necessary or 2. I t satisfactorilyappearsthattheemployerandthe
a. E
mployed to performworkmerelyincidentalto
desirableintheusualbusinessoftheemployer,theparties employee dealt with each other on more or less
the trade or business of employer;
are forbidden from agreeing on a period of time for the equaltermswithnomoraldominanceexercisedby
performance of such activities. However, the Court also the former or the latter. b. Employment is for adefinite period;
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page23of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
c. E mploymentstatuswasmadeknownatthetime 1. for ajust causeor e mployee fails to meet the reasonable standards made
of engagement. known to the employee at the time of the engagement.
2. w
henhefailstoqualifyasaregularemployee
2. I femployedforacontinuousorbrokenperiodofat in accordance with reasonable standards 2) O
ne who is placed in a trial period whose
least 1 year, he is deemed regular but only with madeknownbytheemployertotheemployee performanceisassessedwhethersatisfactoryornot.
respecttotheactivityheisemployedandaslongas at the time of his engagement. Duration is generally6 monthsexcept
such activity exists. The status of being regular
n employee who is allowed to work after a
A a) C
overed by an apprenticeship agreement
casual is coterminous to the existence of the probationary period shall be considered a regular
activity. stipulating a longer period;
employee.
3. There isno security of tenurefor casual employees. b) M
anual of regulations of private schools which
Notes provide for a longer period.
Paragele v. GMA2020 1) A
probationary employee is one, who, for a given i) lementary and Secondary. Not more than 3
E
period of time, is being observed and evaluated to yearsof satisfactory service;
nly casual employees performing work that is neither
O determine whether or not he is qualified for a
necessarynordesirabletotheusualbusinessandtradeof permanent position (Pasamba v. NLRC) ii) ertiary. Not more than 6 semesters or 9
T
theemployerarerequiredtorenderatleastone(1)yearof trimestersof satisfactory service.
service to attain regular status. Employees who perform Arcilla v. San Sebastian College-Recoletos2022 3) I f the employeeisnotapprisedoftheSTANDARDS
functions which are necessary and desirable totheusual thathemustmeetinordertohurdleprobation,then
henafull-timeemployee'sprobationarystatusoverlaps
W
business and trade of the employer attain regular status he is deemed regular after 6 months.
with a fixed-term contract not specifically used for the
from the time of engagement.
fixedtermitoffers—aswhenthefixedtermismerelyfora
Cambil v. Kabalikat Para Sa Maunlad Na Buhay, Inc.2022
convenient arrangement to coincide with the school's
c. Probationary
academic year—the probationary nature of the I n Dusit Hotel Nikko v. Gatbonton, the Court clarified the
RT 296. Probationary Employment. —
A
employmentprevails.Theemployercannotsimplyinvoke requisites for a valid termination of a probationary
Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6)
the expiration of the fixed term. employee on the basis of failure to meet the employer's
monthsfromthedatetheemployeestartedworking,
reasonable standards:
unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement us, the employee may not be dismissed solely because
Th
stipulating a longer period. The services of an the fixed term expired. The employment may only be 1. t his power must be exercised in accordance with
employee who has been engaged on a probationary terminated for a just or authorized cause or when the the specific requirements of the contract;
basis may be terminated
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page24of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
2. t he dissatisfaction on the part of the employer b) N
O evaluation conducted a nd n
o basis for I n the case of Alcira v. NLRC, the Court ruled that an
mustberealandingoodfaith,notfeignedsoasto termination; presumed t o h ave been employerwouldhavesubstantiallycompliedwiththerule
circumvent the contract or the law; and satisfactorily complied; onnotificationofstandardsifitapprisesitsemployeethat
c) P
roby NOT informed of the standards required they will be subjected to a performance evaluation on a
3. t here must be no unlawful discrimination in the
to qualify as regular EE; particular date. At any rate, it is ludicrous to rule that
dismissal.
petitioner was deprived of due process considering that
ere, petitioner was negligent when she took three days
H d) EE successfully passes the period of probation.
there is onlyathree-daydifferencebetweenMay30,2016
ofsickleavewithoutnotifyinganyofhersuperiors.More, 5) Th
e adequate performance of such duties and and June 2, 2016.
itgoeswithoutsayingthatshoutingandhurlingthreatsat responsibilitiesconstitutetheinherentandimplied
one's superior is disrespectful. Petitioner cannot brush standard for regularization. (Abbott Laboratories v.
aside her misconduct by faulting KMBI for its one-page Alcaraz2014 En Banc) Simon v. The Results Company2022
Code of Ethics.
6) W
hen probationer informed of required standards. — aving admitted that petitioner was its probationary
H
I nAberdeenCourt,Inc.v.Agustin,Jr.,theCourtheldthatthe Ideally, employers should immediately inform a employee, it was incumbent upon Results to prove or at
rule on reasonable standards in probationary probationary employee of the standards for his
least allege that it communicated to petitioner the
employment should not be used to exculpate a regularization from day one. However strict
standards under which she would qualify as a regular
probationary employee who acts inamannercontraryto compliance is not required. The true test of
employee.
basic knowledge and common sense in regard to which compliance is one ofreasonableness.Aslongashe
there is no need to spell out a policy or standard to be met. is given a reasonable time and opportunity to be owever, Results neither presented any evidencesuchas
H
madefullyawareofwhatisexpectedofhimduring policy handbook, operations manual, performance
erily, the NLRC's ruling that petitioner's dismissal was
V
the early phases of the period, the law is met. appraisal document nor at least alleged that it informed
notduetoherfailuretoqualifyasaregularemployeewas
(Enchanted Kingdom v. Verzo2015) petitioner of the criteria for regularization. Indubitably,
not supported by substantial evidence.
the ruling of the NLRC that petitioner was a mere
4) When probationary EE considered regular? Cambil v. Kabalikat Para Sa Maunlad Na Buhay, Inc.2022 probationaryemployeewasnotsupportedbysubstantial
evidence.
a) A llowed to continue work beyond probationary I deally, employers should immediately inform
period; probationary employees of the standards for their
regularization from day one; however, strict compliance
Adstratworld Holdings v. Magallones2022
thereof is not required.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page25of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ven assuming that the engagement of respondents in
E heretheextensionofemployee’sprobationwasex
W b) J obStartTechnicalTraining.Upto3months
January2012wasmerelyprobationary,byJuly16,2013,or gratia,anactofliberalityonthepartofhisemployer and isoptional.
atthetimetheirprobationarycontractswereissued,they to afford the employee a second chance to make c) J obStart Internship. Up to 3 months or600
were already regular employees. Considering that good after having initially failed to provehisworth
hours.
respondents were intheserviceofAdstratworldformore as an employee. (Mariwasa v. Leogardo, Jr.)
than a year doing theusualtasksthattheywereengaged 9) R
A 10917 amending RA 9547, 7323 or SPES Act. —
to perform, then they are regular employees of the Umali v. Hobbywing Solutions Inc.2018 Period of employment shall be from twenty (20) to
company. seventy-eight (78) working days only, except that
e general rule remains that an employee who was
Th during Christmas vacation, employment shall be
eallegeddeclineintheperformanceofrespondentsand
Th suffered to work for more than the legal period of six (6) from ten (10) to fifteen (15) days which may be
the imputed violations against them while respondents months of probationary employment or less shall, by counted as part of the students’ probationary
were under the supposed probationary period wouldnot operation of law, become aregular employee. period should they apply in the same company or
justify their termination from work. However,
ON Umali was terminated without cause when she was
W agencyafter graduation.
respondents were already regular employees and there
informed that the period of her probationary employment had
was no reason for them to be placed underprobationary d. Project
already ended and her services were no longer needed.
status after already attainingregularemploymentstatus. 1. W
here employment has been fixed for a specific
In fine, there was no apparent and sufficient reason YES. Petitioner commenced working for the respondent
project or undertaking, the completion of whichhas
supportingpetitioners'viewthatrespondentswerevalidly o n June 19, 2012 until February 18, 2013. By that time,
been determined at the time ofengagementofEE.
dismissed for failure to abide by the requirements however, she has already become a regular employee. Elementsare as follows:
necessary to attain regular employment status.
8) R
A 10869 (JobStart Trainee). — A JobStart trainee a. e mployment has been fixed for a specific
7) W hen probation may exceed 6 months. — When the shall no longer be required to undergo a project or undertaking; AND
parties agree otherwise, such as when the same is probationary period at the end of the internship
b. t he completion or termination of whichhas
established by company policy or whenthesameis phase should the trainee be hired in the same been determinedatthetimeofengagement
required by the nature of work as where one must establishment upon completion of the program.
of EE.
learn a particular kind of work such as selling, or Three (3) Phases
2. S
pecific project or undertaking isanactivitywhichis
when the job requires certain qualifications, skills, a) J obStart Life Skills Training. 10 days with NOT commonly or habitually performed or such
experience or training. one life skill taught each day; type ofworkwhichisnotdoneonadailybasis,but
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page26of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
o nly for a specific duration of time until the i f the termination is brought about by the completionof
e fact that Ando was required to render services
Th
completion of the project. the contract or phase thereof for which the project necessary or desirable in the operation of EGI'sbusiness
3. When project EE deemed regular? employee was engaged.
for more than a year does not in any way impair the
a. W hen there is continuous rehiring even ON Ando was a regular employee and was thereby illegally
W validityofhisprojectemploymentcontracts.Therehiring
after cessation of a project; dismissed by EGI. of construction workers on a project-to-project basis
doesnotconferuponthemregularemploymentstatusas
b. W hen the tasks performed by the alleged NO.Theactivitiesofprojectemployeesmayormaynotbe
it is only dictated by the practical consideration that
project EE are vital, necessary and sually necessary or desirable in the usual business or
u
experienced construction workers are more preferred.
indispensable to the usual businessortrade trade of the employer. In ALU-TUCP v. NLRC, two (2)
of ER. categories of project employees were distinguished:
4. hile there was repeated re-hiring, the hiringwas
W irstly, a project could refer to a particular job or
F Herma Shipyard Inc. v. Oliveros2017
NOT, however, continuous, as in fact there was a undertaking that is within the regular or usual
lapse of 33 months after the next project, the business of the employer company, but which is e principal test in determining whether particular
Th
e mployee is a project andnotregular.(A
lcatelPHv. distinct and separate, and identifiable as such, from employees were engaged as project-based employees, as
Relos) the other undertakings of the company. Such job or distinguished from regular employees, is whether they
undertaking begins and ends at determined or were assigned to carry out a specific project or
5. H owever, if theemployeeissuccessivelyre-engaged undertaking, the duration and scope of which was
determinable times. The typical example of this first
to perform the same kind of work not
type of project is a particular construction job or specifiedat,andmadeknowntothem,atthetimeoftheir
intermittently, but continuously, contract after
project of a construction company. engagement.
contract, month after month involving the same
task indicates the necessity and desirability of the econdly, a particular job or undertaking that is not
S epeated rehiring of project employees to different
R
work in theusualbusinessofthecompany.(M
analo withintheregularbusinessofthecorporation.Sucha projects does NOT ipso facto make them regular
v. TNS Phil.2014) job or undertaking must also be identifiablyseparate employees.
and distinct from the ordinary or regular business ON respondents are regular employees of petitioner and not
W
E. Ganzon Inc. v. Ando, Jr.2017 Special En Banc operations of the employer. project employees.
e decisive determinant in project employment is the
Th I n this case, the three project employment contracts NO. Here, for each and every project respondents were
activitythattheemployeeiscalledupontoperform.Prior signed by Ando explicitly stipulated the agreement "to ired, they were adequately informed of their
h
noticeofterminationisnotpartofproceduraldueprocess engage his services as a Project Worker." employment statusasproject-basedemployeesatleastat
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page27of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t he time they signed their employment contract. While v alidly placed on floating status and, therefore, were validly rove that respondents were hired for the projects with
p
the tasks assigned to the respondents were indeed dismissed. PGI.
necessary and desirable in the usual business of Herma
NO. While IKSI was able to show the presence of a true project employee should be assigned to a project
A
Shipyard, the same were distinct, separate, and identifiable which begins and ends at determined or determinable
s pecific project, the ACT Project, in the contract and the
from the other projects or contract services. times, and be informed thereof at the time ofhiring.In
alleged duration of the same, it failed to prove,however,
e rule that employees initially hired on a temporary
Th that respondents were in reality made to work only for the instant case, the record is bereft of proof that the
basis may become permanent employees by reason of that specific project indicated in their employment respondents' engagement as project employees has been
their length of service is not applicable to project-based documents and that it adequately informed them of the predetermined, as required by law.
employees. duration and scope of said project at the time their ere was no other substantial evidence offered to prove
Th
I nMercadoSr.v.NLRC,thiscourtruledthattheprovisoin services were engaged. that respondents were informed at the time of their
the second paragraph of Article 280, providing that an e fact is IKSI actually hired respondents to work, not
Th hiring, that they were project employees. Moreover,
employee who has served for at least one year, shall be onlyontheACTProject,butonothersimilarprojectssuch petitioner's failure to file termination reportsattheend
considered a regular employee, relates only to casual as the Bloomberg. When respondents were required to of each project was anindicationthatrespondentswere
employeesand not to project employees. work on the Bloomberg project, without signing a new regular employees.
contract for that purpose, it was already outside of the
scope of the particular undertaking for which they were e. Seasonal
Innodata Knowledge Services v. Inting 2017 hired; it was beyond the scope of their employment 1. Employment is for the duration of a certain season.
contracts. This act by IKSI indubitably brought
I n order to safeguard the rights of workers against the a. Th
ey are considered regular EEs if called to
respondents outside the realm of the project employees
arbitrary use of the word "project" which prevents them work from time to time, during off-season
category.
from attaining regular status, employers claiming that and are merely considered as on leave of
their workers are project employees have the burden of absence without pay until they are
showing that: reemployed.
Jovero v. Cerio2021
a) t he duration and scope of the employment was b. I f EEhasworkedonlyfor1season,heisnot
espondents were regular employees of Sigma. Jovero
R
specified at the time they were engaged; and regular.
only presented Sigma's Service Contracts with PGI.
b) there was indeed a project. Nowhere in the contracts did it show that respondents c. E
njoyssecurityoftenurewithintheduration
werepartiestosuchcontract.Moreimportantly,itdidnot of the season.
WON respondent employees, as mere project employees, were
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page28of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
o nlyforasingleseasonremainasseasonalemployees.As uress or improperpressureandabsentany
d
d. Th
eir employment is never terminated but
merelysuspended. a consequence of regular seasonal employment, the other circumstances vitiating consent;
employees are not considered separated from service c. M
ust satisfactorily appear that the ER and
2. Requisites for SEASONAL undertaking
during the off-milling season, but are only temporarily EE dealt with each other on more or less
a. D ependent on climatic or natural causes. laid off or on leave until re-employed. Nonetheless, in equal terms with no moral dominance
Operations must be limited to a regular, both regular seasonal employment and seasonal exercised by the former to the latter.
annual, or recurring part/s ofeachyearand employment, the employee performs no workduringthe
regularly closes during theremainderofthe 4. W
hy allow fixed term employment? It is an essential
off-milling season.
year. and natural appurtenance recognized by SC. i.e.
ere, the concerned URSUMCO employees are
H
b. A a. Overseas workers;
ctivity is agricultural where the crops are performing work for URSUMCO even during the
available only at certain times of the year. off-milling season as they are repeatedly engaged to b. College Deans and Department Heads.
3. D eep sea fishing business is not a seasonal conduct repairs on the machineries and equipment. 5. W
hat determines term employment? The decisive
undertaking.Catchingfishisnotseasonalespecially determinant should not be the activities the EE is
where the boat crew, although employed on a per f. Fixed-Term called upon to perform, but the day certainagreed
trip basis, has been working for 12 years. (P
oseidon 1. E
E performing work that is usually necessary and uponforthecommencementandterminationofthe
Fishing v. NLRC) desirable in the business of ER wherein the employment relationship.
employment contract stipulates the duration or
niversal Robina Sugar Milling Corp v. Nagkahiusang
U termof employment. E. Ganzon Inc. v. Ando, Jr.2017 Special En Banc
Mamumuo sa Ursumco-NF2018
2. N
ot permanent, but EE still enjoys security of roject employment should not be confused and
P
otwithstanding the stipulations in an employment
N tenureduring the pre-determined term. interchanged with fixed-term employment: While the
contractoradulynegotiatedCBA,theemploymentstatusof former requires a project as restrictively defined above,
3. T
ermemploymentshouldnotcircumventsecurityof
an employee is ultimately determined by law. thedurationofafixed-termemploymentagreeduponby
tenure. This is shown by the criteria laid by the
ON URSUMCO's regular seasonal employees are regular
W thepartiesmaybeanydaycertain,whichisunderstoodto
BRENT DOCTRINE:
employees. be"thatwhichmustnecessarilycomealthoughitmaynot
a. M
ust not be entered merely to circumvent be known when."
YES. Seasonal employment becomes regular seasonal the EE’s right to security of tenure;
e mployment when theemployeesarecalledtoworkfrom
b. Th
e fixed period was knowingly and
timetotime.Ontheotherhand,thosewhoareemployed Palgan v. Holy Name University2021
voluntarily agreed upon without any force,
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page29of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
e evidence on record would show that petitioner was
Th this Manual for all academic personnel; ather, the intent of the parties was to enter into an
R
not illegally dismissed since no dismissaloccurredinthe 2. W employment contract for a fixed-term.
ho are paid monthly or hourly, based on the
first place.Her fixed-term contract merely expired.
regular teaching loads as provided for in the ere, the fixed-term contracts should be presumed as
H
e governing law for the employment status of
Th policies, rules and standards of the Department having been knowingly and voluntarily entered into by
teachers/professors/instructors are the manuals of and the school; both parties and petitioner was more or less on equal
regulationsforprivateschools.Lacuestav.AteneodeManila footing with HNU.
3. W
hose total working day of not more than eight
University held that the ManualofRegulationsforPrivate
hours a day is devoted to the school; No dismissal, whether illegal or not, ever happened.
Schools and NOT the Labor Code determineswhetheror
not a faculty member inaprivateeducationalinstitution 4. W
ho have no other remunerative occupation
has attained a permanent or regular status. elsewhererequiringregularhoursofworkthatwill
conflict with the working hours in the school; and Related Concepts
L acuestalaiddownthefollowingrequisitesbeforeaprivate
5. W
ho are not teaching full-time in any other Floating Status
school teacher acquires permanent status, namely: 3
educational institution.
1. The teacher serves full-time; mployment Subject to a Suspensive
E
ethree-yearorone-yearclinicalpracticeexperienceisa
Th Condition
2. h e/shemusthaverenderedthreeconsecutiveyears minimum academic requirement to qualify as a faculty
of service; and memberinacollegeofnursing,andistherefore,required a. Floating Status
3. such service must have been satisfactory. for one to be considered as a full-time faculty of such. Labor Code, Art. 301; DOLE D.O. No. 215-20
Here,Arlenefailedtomeettherequiredminimumclinical rt 301. When Employment not Deemed Terminated.
A
ere, while petitioner has rendered three consecutive
H
practice experience under the law and the relevant — The bona fide suspension of the operation of a
years of satisfactory service, she was, however, NOT a
full-timeteacherattheCollegeofNursingofHNU.Onlya regulations. business or undertaking for a period not exceeding
full-time teaching personnel can acquire regular or eing unqualified as a nursing faculty from the start,
B six(6)months,orthefulfillmentbytheemployeeofa
permanent status. petitioner cannot possibly be considered a full-time military or civic duty shall not terminate
faculty and thus, could not, even after rendering employment. In all such cases, the employer shall
ull-time academic personnel are those meeting all the
F
satisfactory service for three years, be entitled to reinstatetheemployeetohisformerpositionwithout
following requirements:
permanency. loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to
1. W
ho possess at least the minimum academic resume his work not later than one (1) month from
qualificationsprescribedbytheDepartmentunder ere was no intention for petitioner to be placed under
Th
probation, as she cannot acquire permanency anyway.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page30of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t heresumptionofoperationsofhisemployerorfrom e mployees' separation pay. (asamendedbyDOLED.O.
rovided, however, that the employees shall not lose
P
his relief from the military or civic duty. No. 215-20)
employment if they find alternative employment
12 Rule I Book VI Omnibus Rules.Suspension
§ during the extended suspension of employment
Ibon v. Genghis Khan Security Services Inc.2017
of relationship. — The employer-employee exceptincasesofwritten,unequivocalandvoluntary
relationship shall be deemed suspended in case of resignation; n employer must assign the security guard to another
A
suspension of operation of the business or posting within six (6) months from his last deployment,
rovided further, that should retrenchment be
P
undertaking of the employer for a period not necessary before or after the expiration of the otherwise, he would be considered constructively
exceedingsix(6)months,unlessthesuspensionisfor extensionofsuspensionofemployment,theaffected dismissed; and the security guard must be assigned to a
the purpose ofdefeatingtherightsoftheemployees employee shall be entitled to separation pay as specific or particular client. A general return-to-work
undertheCode,andincaseofmandatoryfulfillment prescribed by the labor code, company policies or order does not suffice.
by the employee of a military or civic duty. The collective bargaining agreement, whichever is higher;
payment of wages of the employee as well as the
grant of other benefits and privileges while he ison rovided, finally, that the retrenched employees shall
P
Superior Maintenance Services v. Bermeo2018
suspended employment or on a military or civic duty have priority in the re-hiring if they indicate their
shallbesubjecttospeciallawsanddecreesandtothe desire to resume their work not later than one (1) rticle 301 oftheLaborCodewasappliedonlybyanalogy
A
applicable individual or collective bargaining month from the resumption of operations. to prevent the floating status of employees hired by
agreement and voluntary employer practice or policy. is notwithstanding, by mutual agreement of the
Th agencies from becoming indefinite. This temporary
employer and the employees, through the union, if off-detail of employees is not a result of suspension of
I n case of declaration ofwar,pandemicandsimilar
any,orwiththeassistanceofthedepartmentoflabor businessoperationsbutismerelyaconsequenceoflackof
national emergencies, the employer and the
andemployment,employeesmayberecalledtowork available posts with the agency's subsisting clients.
employees, through the union, if any, or with the
assistance of the DOLE, shall meet ingoodfaithfor or retrenched subject to the requirement of notice WON Bermeo was constructively dismissed from work.
the purpose of extending the suspension of and separationpay,anytimebeforetheexpirationof
NO.InSalvalozav.NLRC,temporaryoff-detailorfloating
employment for a periodnot exceeding six (6) months: the extension of suspension of employment.
s tatus was defined as that "period of time whensecurity
rovided, that the employer shall report to the
P eextensionofsuspensionofemploymentshallnot
Th guardsareinbetweenassignmentsorwhentheyaremade
department of labor and employment, through the affect the right of the employees to separation pay. towaitafterbeingrelievedfromapreviouspostuntilthey
regional offices, the extension of suspension of Thefirstsix(6)monthsofsuspensionofemployment are transferred to a new one."
employment ten (10) days prior to the effectivity shall be included in the computation of the
Here, when Bermeo filed his complaint for constructive
thereof subject to inspection;
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page31of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ismissal on September 5, 2008, itwasonlyaweekafter
d e may be deemed an employee of ANZ. Among those
h a) d oes nothavesubstantialcapital orinvestmentin
his unsuccessful assignment in French Baker on August conditions for employment was the "satisfactory theformoftools,equipment,machineries,work
28, 2008. Even if the reckoning date would be his last completion of any checks, e.g. background, bankruptcy, premises, among others, and
assignment at Trinoma Mall, which ended on March 30, sanctions and reference checks, that may be required by
b) t heworkersrecruitedandplacedbysuchperson
2008, it is still less thanthesix-monthperiodallowedby ANZ.
are performingactivitieswhicharedirectlyrelated
Article 301 for employees to be placed on floating status.
ccordingly,petitioner'semploymentwithANZdepended
A to the principal business of such employer.
Thus,thefilingofhiscomplaintforconstructivedismissal on the outcome ofhisbackgroundcheck,whichpartakes
ispremature.Besides,itisunrebuttedthatthepetitioners 2) L
abor-onlycontracting,whichistotallyprohibited,
of the nature of a suspensive condition, and hence,
contacted Bermeo for a new assignment even after the refers to:
renderstheobligationofthewould-beemployer,i.e.,ANZ
latter has filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. a) an arrangement where
in this case, conditional. Until and unless petitioner
complied with the satisfactory background check, there i) e contractor or subcontractor does not
Th
b. Employment Subject to a Suspensive exists no obligation on the part of ANZ torecognizeand have substantial capital, OR
Condition
fully accord him the rights under the employment
ii) e contractor or subcontractor does not
Th
Sagun v. ANZ Global Services and Operations2016 contract.
have investments in the form of tools,
n employment contract, like any other contract, is
A onsequently, no employer-employee relationship was
C equipment, machineries, supervision, work
perfected at the moment the parties cometoagreeupon said to have been created between petitioner and ANZ premises, among others,AND
its terms and conditions, and thereafter, concur in the under the circumstances.
iii) e contractor's or subcontractor's
Th
essential elements thereof. The contracting parties may employees recruited and placed are
establishsuchstipulations,clauses,terms,andconditions performing activities which are directly
as they may deem convenient, provided they are not egitimate Contractingvs.
L related to the main business operation of
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or Labor-Only Contracting the principal;OR
B
public policy. aborCode,Arts.106-109;DOLEDONo.174s.2017;
L
b) Th
e contractor or subcontractor does n ot
DOLE D.C. No. 01-17; E.O. No. 51, Series of 2018
ere, there was already a perfected contract of
H exercise the right to control over the
employment when petitioner signed ANZ's employment performance of the work of the employee.
Elements
offer and agreed to the terms and conditions that were
embodied therein. Nonetheless, the offer ofemployment ere is "labor-only" contracting where the
1) Th
onqueror Industrial Peace Management Cooperative v.
C
extendedtopetitionercontainedseveralconditionsbefore person supplying workers to an employer Balingbing2022
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page32of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
To be considered as a labor-only contractor, the lack of e mployment between the contractor or subcontractor
4) C
ontracting or subcontracting shall only be
anditsworkers.Hence,therearethreepartiesinvolved
s ubstantial capital of the contractor must concur with ALLOWEDifall the following circumstances concur:
in these arrangements,
the fact that the employees' work directly relates to the a) Th
e contractor or subcontractor isengagedina
main business of the principal. 1) t he principalwhichdecidestofarmoutajobor
distinct and independent business and
undertakes to perform the job or work on its service to a contractor or subcontractor,
ere, Conqueror is presumed to have complied with all
H
the requirements of a legitimate job contractor ownresponsibility,accordingtoitsownmanner 2) t he contractor or subcontractor which has the
consideringtheCertificatesofRegistrationissuedtoitby and method; capacity to independently undertake the
theDOLE.Atanyrate,Conquerorhasasubstantialcapital b) Th performance of the job, work or service, and
e contractor or subcontractor hassubstantial
of more than P3M. Having substantial capital and work capital to carry out the job farmed out by the 3) t he contractual workers engaged by the
premisesofitsown,Conquerorcannotbeconsideredasa principal on his account, manner and method, contractor or subcontractor to accomplish the
labor-only contractorbytheallegedfactthatrespondents investment in the form of tools, equipment, job work or service.
performed activities directlyrelatedtothemainbusiness machinery and supervision;
of Sagara. Solidary Liability
c) I n performing the work farmed out, the
hile it may be argued that Conqueror did not have
W Effects of Labor-only Contracting
contractor or subcontractor is free from the
investment in the form of tools, equipment, and control and/or direction of the principal in all 1) P
rincipal is deemed direct employer of
machineries,itissufficientthatithasasubstantialcapital matters connected with the performance ofthe contractor’s employees;
of more than P3M. The lawdoesnotrequireacontractor work except as to the result thereto; and 2) Contractor will be treated asagentof principal;
to have both substantial capital and investment in the
form of tools, equipment, machineries, etc. This can be d) Th
e Service Agreement ensures compliance 3) P
rincipal’s liability is comprehensive — all
with all the rights and benefits for all the liabilities under labor laws, not only to unpaid
gleanedfromtheuseoftheconjunction"or"inArticle106
employees of the contractor or subcontractor wages.
of the Labor Code and Section 5(i) of DO 18-02.
under the labor laws.
3) "Substantial capital" — refers to paid-up capital The Red Systems Company v. Macalino2022
Trilateral Relationship
s tock/shares at least P5M in the case of
aving been declared as a labor-only contractor,
H
corporations, partnerships and cooperatives; inthe I n legitimate contracting, there exists a trilateral
petitioner is solidarily liable with Coca-Cola for the
caseofsingleproprietorship,anetworthofatleast relationship under which there is a contract for a
monetary benefits awarded by the LA to respondents. It
P5M. specific job, work or service between the principaland
doesnotmatterthattheLAdidnotspecificallyruletothis
the contractor or subcontractor, and a contract of
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page33of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
e ffect, since the solidary liability between the principal i s necessary, which wasaptlyundertakenbytheNLRCin
2. existence of substantial capital or investment;
and the labor-only contractor is mandated by the law this case.
itself. The practical consequence of this solidary liability, 3. s erviceagreementthatensurescompliancewithall
to note, is that respondentsmaydemandthepaymentof the rights and benefits under labor laws;
the monetary awards granted to them by the LA from 4. n
ature of the activities performed by the Añonuevo v. CBK Power Company2023
either Coca-Cola or petitioner. employees, i.e., if they are usually necessary or
BKfailedtopresentRolpson'sCertificateofRegistration
C
desirable to the operation of the principal's
with the DOLE. There being no Certificate of
companyordirectlyrelatedtothemainbusinessof
Registration, a presumption arises that Rolpson is
Paje v. Spic N' Span Service2022 the principal within a definite predetermined
engagedinlabor-onlycontracting.Thispresumptionwill
period; and
quitclaim executed in favor of the employer does not
A prevail unless the contractor overcomes the burden of
operate to discharge the labor-only contractor from 5. t heexerciseoftherighttocontroltheperformance proving that it has substantial capital, investment, tools
liability for the remaining balance oftheworkers'money of the employees' work. and the like. Here, CBK failed to adduce any proof that
claims. e CA gravely erred when it determined CBMI's
Th Rolpson had any substantialcapital,investmentorassets
characterasalegitimatejobcontractorsolelyonthebasis toperformtheworkcontractorfor.Thus,thepresumption
oftheCourt'spronouncementsinAsprecandCayetano.The that Rolpson is a labor-only contractor stands.
Conjusta v. PPI Holdings2022Lopez, M., J. principleofstaredecisiscannotbeappliedindetermining finding that a contractor is a labor-only contractor is
A
revious declarations that a company is an independent
P whether one is engaged in the permissible job equivalent to a declaration that there is an
jobcontractorcannotvalidlybethebasisinconcludingits contracting or otherwise since such characterization employer-employee relationship between the principal
status as such in another case involving a different shouldbebasedonthedistinctfeaturesoftherelationship and the workers of the labor-only contractor; the
employee. The totality of the facts and surrounding between the parties, and the totality of the facts and labor-only contractor is deemed only as the agent of the
circumstances,distinctineverycase,mustbeassessedin attendant circumstances of each case, measured against principal.
determining whether an entity is a legitimate job the terms of and criteria set by the statute. Specifically,
ith the finding that Rolpson is a labor-only contractor,
W
contractor or a labor-only contractor. whileAsprecandCayetanoalsoinvolvedPPIandCBMI,the
Añonuevoisthereforeconsideredasaregularemployeeof
nature of work and treatment of employment of the
efollowingmustbeconsideredindeterminingwhether
Th CBK.
employeesinthosecasesmaybedifferentfromConjusta's.
CBMI is a legitimate job contractor or is engaged in
Hence, an independent determination of Conjusta's case
labor-only contracting:
Caballero v. Vikings Commissary2022
1. registration with the proper government agencies;
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page34of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
certificate of registration issued by the Department of
A
ourth, Hardworkers failed to show that it, and not
F I nthesecondinstance,theprincipal,notthecontractoror
Labor and Employment is not conclusive proof of the Vikings, established petitioner's working procedure and subcontractor, exercises the power of control over the
status of the contractor as an independent contractor or methods and supervised her work. manner and method of the employees' work.
thelegitimacyofitsoperations.Todeterminewhetherthe
contractual relationship between the principal and inally, with regard to the power of dismissal, it is
F ere,InterserveandHotwiredareengagedinlabor-only
H
contractor is one of permissible job contracting or the undisputed that Vikings had the power to dismiss the contracting under the first instance. They do not have
petitioner. Both parties in their respective pleadings investment or capitalization in tools, equipment,
prohibited labor-only contracting, the totality of
admit that Vikings recommends the dismissal of machineries,supervisionandworkpremises.Petitioners
circumstances must be considered, and all features of
employees. worked in the premises owned by CCBPI. The tools,
t he relationship evaluated accordingtothecriteriasetby
machineriesandequipmenttheyuseallbelongtoCCBPI.
law. An employee repeatedly and continuously hired for e totality of circumstances leads us to conclude that
Th
notwithstanding Hardworkers' registration as an These facts belie the claim that Interserve or Hotwired
thesameworkundershort-termcontractsforatleastone
independent contractor, it has engaged in prohibited has substantial capitalization in tools, machineries,
year is considered a regular employee of the principal.
labor-only contracting with Vikings. equipment, supervision and work premises.
ere, Hardworkers was engaged
H in labor-only
finding that a company has substantial capitalization
A
contracting.
does not automatically result to a finding that it is an
irst, while ithadapaid-upcapitalofP3M,Hardworkers
F Luces v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils.2020 independent job contractor as was in the case of San
did not present any other proof showing its equipment, MiguelCorp.v.MAERCIntegratedServicesInc.,andinDOLE
assets,andtoolsfortheconductofitsbusiness.Petitioner ere are two instances w
Th hen a contractor or
Philippines Inc. v. Esteva.
herself worked on the premises of Vikings, using subcontractor is deemed to be engaged in labor-only
contracting. oreover, the fact that the petitioners are performing
M
equipment provided and owned by Vikings; and
activities directly related and indispensable to the main
performed activities according to the instructions of In thefirst instance, there are two indicators:
business of CCBPI is well-established. According to
Vikings, first as a packer and then as a dim sum maker.
1) t he contractor or subcontractor does not have CCBPI, it is engaged in the business of manufacturing,
econd,therewasnoproofofwhatparticularjob,work,or
S substantial capitalization or it does not have distributing and marketing of soft drinks and beverage
service Hardworkers was supposed to perform for investment in tools, equipment, machineries, products. Meanwhile, the petitioners, as route helpers,
Vikings. supervision and work premises and delivery truck drivers and forklift operators are doing
ird, petitioner’s job as a dim sum maker is directly
Th 2) i ts employees are performing activities or jobs tasks necessary, pertinent and vital to the operations of
related to Vikings' food business. whicharedirectlyrelatedandindispensabletothe CCBPI.
main business of the principal.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page35of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t enure. As therealemployerofprivaterespondents,itis e xistence of such element insofar as Classique Vinyl is
I n all, CCBPI is the direct employer of the petitioners,
thus it is liable for their claims. liable for violation of labor laws. concerned.
ere, Classique Vinyl presented the CMS’s Certificate of
H
Registration with the DTI and license as a private
Nestle Philippines Inc. v. Puedan, Jr 2017 recruitment and placement agency from the DOLE.
Monsanto Philippines v. NLRC2020
ONODSIisalabor-onlycontractorofNPI,andconsequently,
W Indeed, these documents are not conclusive evidence of
I f indeed East Star is the real employer of private
NPI is respondents'trueemployerand,thus,deemedjointlyand the status of CMS as a contractor. However, such factof
respondents,itshouldbeexercisingthepowerofcontrol
severally liable with ODSI for respondents' monetary claims. registrationofCMSpreventedthelegalpresumptionofit
over them andnotMonsanto.Theevidencepointstothe
being a mere labor-only contractor from arising.
conclusion that East Star is not a legitimate job NO. A closer examination of the Distributorship
contractor, but a labor-only contractor. East Star is not greement reveals thattherelationshipofNPIandODSI
A e facts failed to establish that there is any
Th
the employer of private respondents. is not that of a principal and a contractor, but that of a circumvention of labor laws as to call for the creationby
seller and a buyer/re-seller. the statute of an EER between Classique Vinyl and
lthough East Star has a subscribed capital of P10M as
A
Valencia.
stated in its Articles of Incorporation, it does not have e stipulations intheDistributorshipAgreementdonot
Th
substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, operate to control or fix the methodology on how ODSI
equipment, implements and machines to use in the should do its business as a distributor of NPI products,
Mago et al. v. Sunpower Manufacturing Ltd.2018
performance of the private respondents' work. Clearly, butmerelyproviderulesofconductorguidelinestowards
one of the elementsoflabor-onlycontractingispresent. the achievement of a mutually desiredresult—whichin contractor is presumed to be a labor-only contractor,
A
It has also been established that East Star did not this case is the sale of NPI products to the end consumer. unless the contractor is able to discharge the burden of
exercise the right to control the performance of private overcoming this presumption.
us, the foregoing circumstances show that ODSI was
Th
respondents'work.Hence,anotherelementoflabor-only
not a laboronly contractor of NPI. WON Jobcrest is a legitimate and independent contractor.
contracting exists.
YES. Since the petitioners do not dispute that Jobcrest
I n all, Monsanto is the employer of the private
as a duly-registered contractor under Section 11 of
w
respondents. It hired private respondents way before it Valencia v. Classique Vinyl Products Corp2017
DOLE DO No. 18-02, there is no operative presumption that
entered into a service agreement with East Star. After
WON Valencia is an employee of CMS and not Classique Vinyl. Jobcrest is a labor-only contractor.
reorganizing, Monsanto transferredprivaterespondents
to East Star in violation of their right to security of YES. Valencia's selection and engagement was onversely, the fact of registration with DOLE does not
C
undertaken by CMS and conversely, this negates the necessarily create a presumption that Jobcrest is a
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page36of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
l egitimate and independent contractor. The petitioners l abor-only contractor provides only manpower. The
YES. San Mateo and petitioner Del Remedios were not
mustovercomethepresumptionofregularityaccordedto legitimatejobcontractorundertakestoperformaspecific
i ndependent contractors but labor-only contractorssince
the official act of DOLE. job for the principal employer, while the labor-only
they did not have substantial investment in the form of
contractor merely provides thepersonneltoworkforthe
Jobcrest has substantial capital. tools, equipment, or work premises. As labor-only
principal employer.
J obcrest had substantial capital to perform the business contractors, they were considered to be agents of L.
process services it provided Sunpower. It has its own Natividad. WON STEP is engaged in labor-only contracting.
office, to which the petitioners admittedly reported to, YES.STEPmerelyactedasaplacementagencyproviding
possessednumerousassetsfortheconductofitsbusiness, anpower to Lingnam Restaurant. The service rendered
m
and even continuously earned profit as a result. Phil. Pizza Inc. v. Porras2018 by STEP in favor of Lingnam Restaurant was not the
unpower does not control the manner by which the
S lthough not a conclusive proof of legitimacy, the
A performance of a specific job, but the supply of personnel.
petitioners accomplished their work. certificationbytheDOLEnonethelesspreventsthepresumptionof
labor-only contracting from arising. It gives rise to a
e fact that the petitioners were working within the
Th
disputable presumption that the contractor's operations Lingat v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils, Inc2018
premisesofSunpower,byitself,doesnotnegateJobcrest's
are legitimate. o determine whetheroneisanindependentcontractor,
T
control over the means, method, and result of the
petitioners' work. The petitioners, despite working in BMI is a legitimate job contractor, and consequently,
C the possession of substantial capital isonlyoneelement.
Sunpower's plant for most of the time, admit that the employer of respondents. CBMI retained control over It is necessary to prove not only substantial capital or
whenever they file their leave application, or whenever respondents,asshownbythedeploymentofatleastone(1) investment in tools, equipment, work premises, among
required by their supervisors in Jobcrest, they report to CBMI supervisor in each Pizza Hut branch to regularly others,butALSOthattheworkoftheemployeeisdirectly
the Jobcrest office. Designated on-site supervisors from oversee, monitor, and supervise the employees' related to the work that contractor is required to performfor
Jobcrest were the ones who oversaw the performance of attendance and performance. Respondents applied for the principal.
the employees' work within the premises of Sunpower. work with CBMI and were consequently selected and
WON petitioners were regular employees of CCBPI.
hired by the latter.
ES.Petitioners'dutieswerereasonablyconnectedtothe
Y
very business of CCBPI. They wereindispensabletosuch
Abuda et al. v. L. Natividad Poultry Farms2018
business because without them the products of CCBPI
Lingnam Restaurant v. Skills & Talent Employment2018
ONthemaintenancepersonnelinL.NatividadPoultryFarms
W would not reach its customers.
can be considered as its regular employees. The legitimate jobcontractorprovidesservices,whilethe
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page37of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t hey are employed or of a department or
I n Pacquing v. Coca-Cola Philippines, Inc., the Court ruled Hours of Work subdivision thereof.
that the sales route helpers of CCBPI were its regular
Rest Periods b) Th
eycustomarilyandregularlydirectthework
employees. In this case, petitioners had similarly
undertook to bring CCBPI's products to its customersat Holidays oftwo or moreemployees therein.
their delivery points. c) Th
ey have the authority to hire or fire
Service Charges
ON MDTC is an independent contractor and employers of
W employeesoflowerrank;ortheirsuggestions
ccupational Safety and Health Standards
O andrecommendationsastohiringandfiring
petitioners.
Law andastothepromotionoranyotherchange
O.CCBPI'scontentionthatMDTCwasalegitimatelabor
N
of status of other employees, are given
contractorandwastheactualemployerofpetitionersdoes Covered Employees
particular weight.
not hold water. 1 LaborCode,Art.82;OmnibusRules,BookIII,Rule
3) O
fficers or members of a managerial staff if they
I, §1-2
perform the following duties and responsibilities:
EmployeesNOTcovered
IV Labor Standards a) Th
e primary duty consists of the
1) Government employees performance of work directly related to
Conditions of Employment management policiesof their employer;
2) Managerial EEs —Meet the following conditions:
Wages b) C
ustomarily and regularly exercise
a) Formulate policies;
discretionandindependent judgment; and
Leaves b) Execute management policies;
c)
Special Groups of Employees c) Impose disciplinary actions
i) egularly and directly assist a
R
exual Harassment in the Work
S easonforexclusionNotusuallyemployedbythehour,
R proprietor or a managerialemployee
Environment but by their special training, experience or whose primary duty consists of the
knowledge. management of theestablishmentin
Discriminatory Practices
From Omnibus Rules: which he is employed or subdivision
A Conditions of Employment thereof; or
a) Th
eir primary duty consists of the
management of the establishment in which ii) e xecute under general supervision
Covered Employees work along specialized or technical
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page38of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
l ines requiring special training, i f the workwaswiththeknowledgeofhisemployeror
Hours of Work
experience, or knowledge; or immediate supervisor.
Normal hours of work
iii) e xecute, under general supervision, 4. Th
e time during which an employee is inactive by
special assignments and tasks; and Meal periods reason of interruptions in his work beyond his
d) W control shall be considered working time either
ho do not devote morethan20percentof Night-shift
their hours worked in a work week to 2 a. i f the imminenceoftheresumptionofwork
activities which are not directly and closely
Overtime work requirestheemployee'spresenceattheplace
related to the performance of the work ompressed work week, flexible work
C of work or
described in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) above. arrangement, alternative work i f the interval is too brief to be utilized effectively
arrangements, telecommuting program
4) Field personnel —If they: and gainfully in the employee's own interest.
a) R egularly perform duties away from the Non-compensable hours
a. Normal hours of work
principalorbranchofficeorplaceofbusinessof 1. A
ll hours are hours worked which the employee is abor Code, Arts. 83-84; Omnibus Rules, Book III,
L
employer;and required to givehisemployer,regardlessofwhether Rule I, Secs. 3-4
b) W hose actual hours of work in the field cannot or not such hours are spent in productive labor or
enormalhoursofworkofanyemployeeshallnotexceed
Th
be determined with reasonable certainty. involve physical or mental exertion.
eight (8) hours a day.Itincludes
5) M embers of the family of employer who are 2. A
n employee need not leave the premises of the
1) Hours worked under Art 84
dependent upon him for support — Employer has workplace in order that his restperiodshallnotbe
already taken care of the employee’s sustenance. counted, it being enough that he stops working, a. A
ll time during which EE is required to be on
mayrestcompletelyandmayleavehisworkplace,to duty or to be at a prescribed workplace;
6) Domestic helpers —covered in Kasambahay Law;
go elsewhere, whether within or outside the b. A
ll the time during which an EE is suffered or
7) P ersons in the personal service of another — premises of his work place. permittedto work;
Already provided with living quarters; nature of
3. I f the work performed was necessary, or it 2) Rest periodsof short interval (5-20 minutes)
work; plus they are not employed in a business
benefited the employer, or the employeecouldnot
undertaking. 3) Meal period of less than 20 minutes;
abandonhisworkattheendofhisnormalworking
8) W orkers paidbyresultswhosetimeandperformance hoursbecausehehadnoreplacement,alltimespent 4) R
easonable time to withdraw wages from bank or
are NOT supervised —Piece rate or job or task based. for such work shall beconsideredashoursworked, ATM, or by check.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page39of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Other hours of work 2) E
stablishment regularly operates not less than 16 t he30-minuteandtwo15-minuterestbreaksastheirmeal
hours a day; time in accordance with the CBA, must be compensated
1) C hildren. — below 15: 20H/W, 4H/D, not allowed
for four hours of overtime pay.
between 8pm to 6am of next day; 3) I n cases of actual o r impending e mergencies or
there is urgent work to be p erformed on
1 5-18: 40H/W, 8H/D, not allowed between 10pm to c. Night-shift
6am the next day. machineries; and
abor Code, Article 86; Omnibus Rules, Book III,
L
4) W
ork is necessary to prevent serious loss of
2) D omestic worker. — entitled daily to at least 8 Rule II, Secs. 1-6
hours aggregate rest per day. perishable goods.
1) §2. Night shift differential. — An employee shall be
3) Health personnel. —in onpack Corporation v. Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa
B paid night shift differential of nolessthan tenper
a) C ities and municipalities with at least 1M Bonpack2022 cent(10%) ofhisregularwageforeachhourofwork
population;or e normal eight-hour work period does not include the
Th performed between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
b) Hospitals with at least 100 bed capacity, statutory and non-compensable one-hour meal break. 2) §
3.Additional compensation.—Whereanemployee
evertheless, the hours of work of the employeesmaybe
N is permitted or suffered to work on the period
egularofficehoursfor8hoursaday,5daysaweek,
R
modified or regulated in a duly signed CBA between the covered after his work schedule, he shall be entitled
except where exigencies of service require such
personneltoworkonthe6thday,inwhichcaseheis employer and its employees. a) t o his regular wage plus atleasttwenty-five
entitledtothe30%premiumpay.seeDOLED.O.No. e short rest periods of meal time, or those periods
Th per cent (25%)and
182 s. 2017. shorterthanone-hour,havebeenpurposelyintegratedby b) a nadditionalamountofnolessthantenper
the partiesinthenormaleight-hourworkday.Theintent cent (10%) of such overtime rate for each
b. Meal periods
ofthepartiesisreadilyascertainable.TheCBAdividedthe hourorworkperformedbetween10p.m.to6
abor Code,Art.85;OmnibusRules,BookIII,Rule
L meal time of the employees into three parts, i.e., the a.m.
I, Sec. 7 30-minute lunch break and two 15-minute coffee breaks.
3) §
4. Additional compensation on scheduled rest
At least one-hourof non-compensable meal period. Evidently, the meal time was divided into shorter rest
day/special holiday.—Anemployeewhoisrequired
periods so that these periods can be considered as
ay be shortened (Book III Rule 1 Sec 7) to at most, 20
M or permitted to work on the period coveredduring
compensable.
minutesprovided: rest days and/or special holidays not falling on
1) Work is non-manual; e CA correctly ruled that petitioner's employees who
Th regular holidays, shall be paid a compensation
worked for 12 hours in an eight-hour workday, and took equivalent
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page40of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
otlessthanthirtypercent(30%)ofhisregularwage.
n
a) t o his regular wageplusatleastthirty(30%) nder Art88andjurisprudence,undertimeisstrictly
U
per centand For work performed in excess of eight (8) hours on not offset by overtime.
special holidays and rest days not falling on regular
b) a n additional amount of not less than ten holidays, an employee shall be paid an additional Robina Farms Cebu v. Villa2016
(10%) per centofsuchpremiumpayratefor compensationfortheovertimeworkequivalenttohis
each hour of work performed. rate for the first eight hours on a special holiday or F irstly, entitlement to overtime pay must first be
4) § 5. Additional compensation on regular holidays. — rest day plus at least thirty percent (30%) thereof. established by proof that the overtime work was actually
For work on the period covered during regular performed before the employee may properly claim the
GR: o employee may be compelled to render OT
N
holidays, an employee shall be entitled benefit. The burden of proving entitlement to overtime
against his will;
pay rests on the employee because the benefit is not
a) t ohisregularwageduringthesedaysplusan EXC: Art 89,§10 incurred in the normal course of business.
additional compensation of no lessthanten
(10%)percentofsuchpremiumrateforeach a) C
ountry is at war or there is a declared nd, secondly, the DTRs did not substantially prove the
A
hour of work performed. national or local emergency; actualperformanceofovertimework.Anyemployeecould
b) O
T is necessary to prevent loss of life or render overtime work only when there was a prior
d. Overtime work property or in case of imminent danger to authorization therefor by the management. Without the
abor Code, Arts. 87-90; Omnibus Rules, Book III,
L public safety due to calamities; prior authorization, therefore, Villa could not validly claim
Rule I, Secs. 8-10 having performed work beyond the normal hours of work.
c) Th
ere is urgent work to be performed on
8. Overtime pay. — Any employee covered by this
§ machineries in order to avoid serious loss or e. C
ompressed work week, flexible work
Rule who is permitted or required to work beyond damage to the employer; arrangement, alternative work
eight (8) hours on ordinary working days shall be arrangements, telecommuting program
d) W
orkisnecessarytopreventlossordamageof
paid an additional compensation for the overtime
perishable goods; 1. N
ormalworkweek—6consecutivedays,48hoursper
work in the amount equivalent to his regular wage
e) C week;
plus at least twenty-five percent (25%) thereof. ompletion or continuation of work started
before the 8th hour necessary to prevent 2. C
ompressed — less than 6days,butmaynotexceed
9.Premiumandovertimepayforholidayandrestday
§
serious obstruction or prejudice to the 12 hours per day. It is an alternative arrangement
work. —Anemployeewhoispermittedorsufferedto
business; and whereby the normal workweek is reduced to less
work on special holidays or on his designated rest
than 6 days but the total number of normal work
days not falling on regular holidays, shall be paid f) N
ecessary to avail of favorable weather
with an additionalcompensationaspremiumpayof conditions.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page41of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ours per week remains at 48. Thus,theworkweek
h ork-hours of 48 hours per week shall
w iminutionofexistingbenefitsasaresultof
d
may be compressed only up to4 days. remain. The normal workdayisincreasedto such arrangement.
3. C more than eight hours but not to exceed
WW results fromanexpressvoluntaryagreement SeeDOLE DA No. 2 s. 2009
of majority of the covered employees or their duly twelve hours, without corresponding
overtime premium. The concept can be 7. T
elecommuting referstoworkfromanalternative
authorized representatives.
adjusted accordingly depending on the workplace with the use of telecommunications
4. A three-day work week is illegal. — Illegal normal workweek of the company pursuant and/or computer technologies. See DOLE DO No.
compressed workweek when work days were to the provisions of Department Advisory 202 s. 2019 or the IRR of RA 11165, andRA11165or
reduced from 6to3daysaweek,resultingtoillegal No. 02, series of 2004, dated 2 December the Telecommuting Act.
reduction of work hours, as there wasnoadequate 2004.
proof of losses. Financial losses must be shown f. Non-compensable hours
b. R
eductionofWorkdaysreferstoonewherethe
beforeacompanycanvalidlyopttoreducethework Power interruptions or brownouts
normal work days per weekarereducedbut
hoursof its employees. (Linton Commercial v. Hellera) a. If not exceeding 20 minutes,compensable;
should not last for more than six months.
5. W aiving of OT in CWW is valid. D.O. No. 21 b. If more than 20 minutes,not compensableif:
sanctions the waiver of overtime pay in c. R
otation of Workers refers to one where the
employees are rotated or alternately i. Employees can leave; or
considerationofthebenefitsthattheemployeeswill
derivefromtheadoptionofacompressedworkweek provided work within the workweek. ii. mployeescanusetimeeffectivelyfortheirown
E
scheme. (Bisig ng Manggagawa sa Tryco v. NLRC) d. F
orced Leave refers to one where the interest.
employees are required to go on leave for c. I n each case,employermayextendnormalworking
SeeDOLE DA No. 2 s. 2004
several days or weeks utilizing their leave hours to make up for lost time.
6. F lexible work arrangements refer to alternative credits if there are any.
arrangements or schedules other than the Travel time
e. B
roken-time schedule refers toonewherethe
traditional or standard work hours, workdays and a) H
ome-to-work-work-to-home travel —notconsidered
work schedule is not continuous but the
workweek. The following are the flexible work as hours worked because it is a normal incident of
work-hours within the day or week remain.
arrangements which may be considered, among employment.
others: f. F
lexi-holidays schedule refers to one where
b) C
onsidered as hours worked — if required todeviate
the employees agree to avail the holidays at
a. C
ompressed Workweek refers to one where from his normal home-to-work-work-to-home
some other days provided there is no
thenormalworkweekisreducedtolessthan travel.
six (6) days but the total number of
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page42of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
s cheduletherestdayofemployee’schoiceat a nd holiday. (N
ational Sugar Refineries v.
Waiting time
least 2 days in a month. NLRC)
aitingTimespentbyanemployeeshallbeconsidered
W
as working time if GR: mployer cannot compel employee to work
E b. S
hift engineer, no right to overtime and
on a rest day. premiumpayasheisanofficerormemberof
a. it is integral to his work and managerial staff (Peñaranda v. Baganga
EXC: Under Art 92 and Book III Rule III Sec 6:
b. t hattheemployeeisrequiredbytheemployerto Plywood)
wait. a. I n case of actual or impendingemergencies
duetocalamities,orincaseofforcemajeure Holidays
n on-call employee is considered working if, while
A or imminent danger to public safety;
required to be in the employer’s premises or so close 4 Labor Code,Art.94;OmnibusRules,BookIII,Rule
thereto, he cannot use the time effectively or gainfully b. U
rgent work needs to be performed on IV, §1-11
for his own purpose. machineries to avoid serious loss;
1. C
overage. — This rule shall apply to all employees
c. A
bnormal pressure of work due to special
except:
Rest Periods circumstance;
3 Labor Code, Arts. 91-93; Omnibus Rules, Book III, a. Th
oseofthegovernmentandanyofthepolitical
d. Prevent serious loss of perishable goods;
Rule III, §1-9 subdivision, including GOCC;
e. N
ature of work requires 7 days continuous
b. Th
ose of retail and service establishments
mployees working for 6 consecutive days are entitled
E work, i.e. crew members in vessels;
regularly employingless than ten (10)workers;
to a rest day ofat least24 consecutive hours. f. W
ork is necessary to avail of favorable
c. D
omestic helpers and persons in the personal
GR: Employer schedules employee’s rest day. weatherconditions.
service of another;
EXC: E mployee preference based on religious NO rest day for
d. Managerial employees;
ground; a. E
mployees excluded from labor standards
e. F
ield personnel and other employees whose
E must make known his preference 7 days
E (Art. 82)
time and performance is unsupervised by the
before initial rest day. nion members who are supervisory
U employer including those who are engaged on
EXC to the EXC: employees considered as officers and task or contractbasis,purelycommissionbasis,
membersofthemanagerialstaffareexempt or those who are paid a fixed amount for
hen it will cause serious obstruction or
W
from the coverage of Article 82. Perforce, performing work irrespective of the time
prejudice to the employer, employer shall
they are not entitled to overtime, rest day consumed in the performance thereof.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page43of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
azard involved in the business, as determined by the
h
2. R egularholidayshallexclusivelyreferto:NewYear's 1) S
ervicechargereferstotheamountthatisaddedto
SOLE, require compliance with the provisions of RA
Day, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, the 9th of the bill for work or service rendered.
11058.
April, the 1st of May, the 12th of June, the last 2) A
ll service charges actually collected by covered
Monday of August, the 30th of November, the 25th establishments shall be distributed COMPLETELY
Including
and 30th of December. and EQUALLY, based on actual hours or days of a) E
stablishments located inside special economic
3. National holidays includeEidul FitrandEidul Adha. work or service rendered among the covered zones and other investment promotion agencies;
employees, including those already receiving the
4. N ationwide special days shall include the Chinese b) U
tilities engaged in air, sea, and land
New Year, 25th of February, Black Saturday, 21stof benefit of sharing in the service charges. transportation;
August,1stand2ndofNovember,8th,24thand31st 3) C
overed employees refer to all employees, except c) I ndustries such as mining, fishing, construction,
of December, and 8th of December. managerialemployees,underthedirectemployofthe agriculture, and maritime;
covered establishment.
Regular Holiday Special Day d) C
ontractors and subcontractors, including those
4) Relevant laws and rules:
engaged in projects of the public sector.
A covered employee who doesNOTreport for work a) a s amended byRA No. 11360, effective on
Excluding
I s paid 100% of his regular Not paid September 4, 2019 perDOLE Labor Advisory No.
10 s. 2020; a) P
ublic sector such as the NGAs, GOCCs with
wage original charters, GFIs, SUCs and LGUs.
b) seeDOLE DO No. 206 s. 2019;
A covered employee who reports for work uties of Employers, Workers and Other
D
c) seeDOLE Labor Advisory No. 14, S. 2019.
Persons
I s paid 200% of his regular I s paid 130% of his regular
wage wage ccupational Safety and Health
O 1) E
veryemployer,contractororsubcontractor,ifany,
and any person who manages, controls or
Standards Law
6
supervisesthe work being undertaken shall
R.A. No. 11058,§4- 6, 8 and 12
Service Charges a) F
urnish the workers a place of employment
abor Code, Article 96; Omnibus Rules, Book III,
L Covered Workplaces free from hazardous conditions that are
5 causingorarelikelytocausedeath,illnessor
RuleVI,§1-7;R.A.No.11360;DOLED.O.No.206-19; efer to establishments, projects, sites and all other
R
DOLE L.A. No. 14-19 places where work is being undertaken wherein the physical harm to workers;
numberofemployees,natureofoperations,andriskor
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page44of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
y the employer about all types of hazards in the
b
b) G ive complete job safety instructions or 2) E
very worker shall participate in ensuring
workplace,providedaccesstotrainingandeducationon
orientation to all the workers especially to compliance with OSH standards in the workplace.
those entering the job for the first time, The worker shall chemical safety,andtoorientationonthedatasheetof
including those relating to familiarization chemicalsafety,electricalsafety,mechanicalsafety,and
a) m
akeproperuseofallsafeguardsandsafety ergonomic safety.
with their work environment; devicesfurnishedfortheworker'sprotection
c) I nform the workers of the hazards and that of others; Workers' Right to Refuse Unsafe Work
associated with their work, health risks e worker has the right of refusal to work without
Th
b) o bserve instructions to prevent accidents or
involved or to which they are exposed to, imminent danger situations in the threat or reprisal from the employer if, as determined
preventive measures to eliminate or workplace; by the DOLE, an imminent danger situation exists in
minimize the risks, andstepstobetakenin theworkplacethatmayresultinillness,injuryordeath,
cases of emergency; c) o bserve the prescribed steps to be taken in
and corrective actionstoeliminatethedangerhavenot
cases of emergency; and
d) U se only approved devices and equipment been undertaken by the employer.
for the workplace; d) r eport to the supervisor any work hazard
that may be discovered in the workplace. orkers' Right to Personal Protective
W
e) C omply with OSH standards including Equipment (PPE)
training, medical examination and, where 3) I t shall be the duty of any person, including the
very employer, contractor, or subcontractor, if any,
E
necessary, provision ofprotectiveandsafety builderorcontractorwhovisits,builds,renovatesor
shall provide his workers, free of charge, protective
devices such as personal protective installs devices or conducts business in any
equipment for their eyes, face, hands and feet, and
equipment (PPE) and machine guards; establishment or workplace, to comply with the
lifeline,safetybeltorharness,gasordustrespiratorsor
provisions of this Act and all other regulations
f) A llow workers and their safety and health masks, and protective shields whenever necessary by
issued by the SOLE.
representative to participate actively in the reason of the hazardous work processorenvironment,
process of organizing, planning, 4) W
hether two (2)ormoreundertakingsareengaged chemical, radiological, mechanical and other irritants
implementing and evaluatingthesafetyand in activities simultaneously in one (1) workplace, it or hazards capable of causing injury or impairment in
healthprogramtoimprovesafetyandhealth shall bethedutyofallengagedtocollaborateinthe thefunctionofanypartofthebodythroughabsorption,
in the workplace; and application of OSH standards and regulations. inhalationorphysicalcontact.ThecostofthePPEshall
be part of the safety and health program which is a
g) P rovide, where necessary, for measures to Workers’ Right to Know
separate pay item pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
deal with emergencies and accidents e right to safety and health at work shall be
Th
including first-aid arrangements. guaranteed.Allworkersshallbeappropriatelyinformed
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page45of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
B Wages 2. c apable of being expressed in terms of money, 4. 13th month pay; or
whether fixed or ascertained on a 5. Other monetary benefits.
Components and Exclusions a. time,
b. Facilities
Principles b. task,
Requisites for Deductibility:
Payment of Wages c. piece, or
i. Must becustomarily furnishedby the employer;
Prohibitions Regarding Wages d. commission basis, or
ii. ust be chargedatafairandreasonablevalue;
M
Wage Distortion e. other method of calculating the same, and
Minimum Wage 3. w
hichispayablebyanemployertoanemployee iii. ustbevoluntarilyacceptedbytheemployeein
M
under a written or unwritten contract of writing.
Components and Exclusions employment
c. Supplements
Wages a. for work done or to be done, or
onstitute extra remuneration or special privileges or
C
b. for services rendered or to be rendered benefits given to or received by the laborers over and
Facilities
4. a nd includes the fair and reasonable value of abovetheir ordinary earnings or wages.
1 Supplements
board, lodging, or other facilities customarily
eals and lodging provided to employees in order to
M
Bonus furnished by the employer to the employee.
maintain their efficiency and health while working at
13th Month Pay " F
airandreasonablevalue"shallnotincludeanyprofitto their respectiveprojectsites,aresupplements,andnot
the employer, or to any person affiliated with the facilities (SLL International Cable Specialists v.NLRC2011)
Holiday Pay employer.
a. Wages asicWage.—Alltheremunerationorearningspaidby
B Facilities Supplements
Labor Code, Art. 97(f) an employer to a worker for services rendered on
ecessary expenses of
N xtra benefit or special
E
normal working days and hoursbut does not include:
Wagepaid to an employee shall mean laborer and his family privilege
1. COLA;
1. t he remuneration or earnings, however ( Purpose Test)
2. Profit sharing payments;
designated, For the benefit of Employee For the benefit of Employer
3. Premium pay;
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page46of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Facilities Supplements 2. Non-payment shall be treated asmoney claims. t he commissions which petitionerreceivedwerenotpart
of his salarystructurebutwereprofit-sharingpayments
Part of Wage Independent of Wage 3. E
mployees paid a fixed or guaranteed wage plus
and had no clear, direct or necessary relation to the
commission are entitled based on their total
amount of work he actually performed. The collection
Deductible from wage Not deductible from wage earnings for the calendar year.
made by the salesmenfromthesaletransactionswasthe
4. B
asicsalarymeansnottheamountactuallyreceived profit of private respondent from which petitionerhada
d. Bonus
by an employee, but 1/12 of theirstandardmonthly share in the form of a commission.
Bonus is a gratuityoractofliberalityofthegiver,and wage multiplied by their length of service within a
c annotbeconsideredpartofanemployee’swagesifitis given calendar year.
paidonlywhenprofitsarerealizedoracertainamount
Letran Calamba Faculty & Employees Association v. NLRC
of productivity is achieved. If the desired goal of R&E Transport v. Latag
production or actual work is not accomplished, the N OVERLOAD PAY. Overload pay should be excluded
O
incePedrowaspaidaccordingtothe"b
S oundary"system,
bonus does not accrue. from the computation of the 13th-month pay.
he is not entitled to the 13th month and the service
incentive pay; hence, his retirement pay should be I n the samemannerthatpaymentforovertimeworkand
e grant of a bonus or special incentive, being a
Th
management prerogative, is not a demandable and computed on the sole basis of his salary. work performed during special holidays is considered as
enforceableobligation,exceptwhenthebonusorspecial additional compensation apart and distinct from an
employee's regular wage or basic salary, an overloadpay,
incentive
Reyes v. NLRC owing to its very nature and definition, may not be
1. i smadepartofthewage,salaryorcompensation consideredaspartofateacher'sregularorbasicsalary,because
of the employee, or N COMMISSIONS. The Court thus clarified that in
O itisbeingpaidforadditionalworkperformedinexcessof
Philippine Duplicators, the salesmen’s commissions, the regular teaching load.
2. i s promised by the employer and e xpressly
agreed upon by the parties. (M
ega Magazine comprising a predetermined percentage of the selling
price of the goods sold by each salesman, were properly erily, overload pay may not be included as basis for
V
Publications v. Defensor2014) determining a teacher's 13th-month pay.
included in the term basic salary for purposes of
e. 13th Month Pay computing the 13th month pay.
f. Holiday Pay
.D. No. 851; Revised Guidelines on the
P ales commissions which are effectively an integral
S
Implementation of the 13th Month Pay Law abor Code,Art.94;OmnibusRules,BookIII,Rule
L
portionofthebasicsalarystructureofanemployee,shall
IV, §1-7
1. Resigned or separated employees to be paid pro rata; be included in determining the retirement pay. In fine,
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page47of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
oliday pay. — refers to the payment of the regular daily
H c) S
easonal workers: during off-season — not t heworkerisforcedtotakearest,heearnswhatheshould
wage for any unworked regular holiday. entitled. earn,thatis,hisholidaypay."Itisalsointendedtoenable
the worker toparticipateinthenationalcelebrationsheld
1) Effect ofabsences: d) W
orkers with no regular working days —
during the days identified as with great historical and
a) On leave with pay —entitled; entitled.
cultural significance.
b) O 4) S
uccessive Holiday Rule. — Not entitled for both
n leave without pay on the day immediately ince a worker is entitled to the enjoyment of ten paid
S
preceding — not entitled, unless worked on holidaypayifabsentonthedayprecedingthefirst
regular holidays, the fact that two holidays fall on the
holiday, unless working on the first holiday, in
regular holiday; same date should not operate to reduce to nine the ten
which case, he isentitledholiday pay for the 2nd.
c) On leave while on SSS or EC benefits —entitled. holiday pay benefits a worker is entitled to receive.
5) Double Holiday Rule
d) I f day preceding holiday is nonworking day —
a) If unworked =200%;
entitled if worked the day immediately
preceding the nonworking day. b) If worked =300%; Principles
2) Effect ofbusiness closure c) If falls on a rest day =390% No Work, No Pay
a) In case of temporary shutdown —entitled; 6) F
lexi-holidaySchedule—employeeagreestoavail 2 Equal Pay for Equal Work
of holidays at someotherdaysprovidedthereisno
b) I f cessation due to business reverses as Fair Wage for Fair Work
diminution of existing benefits resulting
authorized by SOLE —not entitled.
therefrom. Non-Diminution of Benefits
3) Holiday pay of certain employees
7) S
upervised workerspaidbyresultsareentitledto
a) P rivate school teachers: during semestral a. No Work, No Pay
holiday pay.
vacations — not entitled; Christmasbreaks— GR: If the worker does not work, he earns no pay.
entitled. Asian Transmission Corp v. CA EXC: Worker is still entitled to be paid if:
b) P aid by results or output=entitledtonotless oliday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the
H a. E
mployer unduly prevented him from working
thantheaverageofdailyearningsoflast7days Constitutional imperative that the State shall afford despite his ableness, willingness and readiness;
actuallyworkedprecedingtheholiday,provided protection to labor. Its purpose is not merely "to prevent b. H
e islegallylockedoutorillegallysuspendedor
it is not less than the statutory minimum wage. diminution of the monthly income of the workers on dismissed;
account of work interruptions. In other words, although
c. He is illegally prevented from working.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page48of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
I n Odango v. NLRC, SC held that no work no pay also b. Equal Pay for Equal Work a nd position, may receive different salaries based on
applies to monthly-paid workers, if absent without pay. reasonable factors or criteria.
indanao International Container Terminal Services
M I n Prubankers, the reasonable justification for the
Carpio v. Modair Manila2021 (MICTSI) v. MICTSI Labor Union2022
imposition of unequal salaries to employees in the same
s discussed in Maraguinot v. NLRC, idle construction
A e concept of "e qual pay for equal work" means that
Th position was thedistinction in regions.
workers, even if regularized, are still subject to the "n
o personswhoworkwithsubstantiallyequalqualifications,
I n Manila Mandarin Employees Union v. NLRC, the
work,nopay"principle.Incasethecontractorisfacedwith skill, effort, and responsibility, under similarconditions,
intentionalquantitativedifferencesinwageorsalaryrates
anoversupplyofregularizedconstructionworkers,thenit should be paid similar salaries. Discrimination,
between and among employees with the same position,
can exercise its management prerogative in deciding particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon by the
due to the fact that the employees had been hired on
whom to engage for the limited projects and whom to LaborCode.Art.135,forexample,prohibitsandpenalizes
different dates andwerethusreceivingdifferentsalaries,
consider as still "on leave." thepaymentoflessercompensationtoafemaleemployee
were considered a valid differentiation.
as against a male employee for work of equal value.
I ndeed, under such principle, the employer has the I n Philippine Geothermal, Inc. Employees Union v. Chevron
inherentrighttoregulate,accordingtohisowndiscretion heneveranemployergivesemployeesthesameposition
W
Geothermal Phils. Holdings, Inc., it was held that the
and judgment, all aspects of employment, including and rank, the presumption is that these employees
apparent increase in the new employees' salaries
hiring, work assignments, working methods, the time, perform equal work. Such presumption is bornebylogic
occupying the same position as compared with those of
place and manner of work, work supervision,transferof and human experience.
the employees who have been with the corporation for a
employees, lay-off of workers, and discipline, dismissal, I nPhilexGoldPhils.,Inc.v.PhilexBulawanSupervisorsUnion, period of time, wasaresultofthemanagement'sofferof
and recall of employees. Still,theemployermustusefair the Court found that the employer failedtodischargeits different hiring rates for different periods to lure more
and reasonable standards in deciding, e.g., experience, burdentoexplainthedifferenceinthesalariesreceivedby applicants for the position.
skills-match, availability. an absorbed supervisor and a locally hired supervisor
e doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" should not
Th
araguinot pointed to the "no work, no pay" principle as
M despite their having similar rank and classification and
remove management prerogative to institutedifferences
relief for such down-turns, whereby employers need not doing parallel duties and functions.
in salaryonthebasisofseniority,skill,andexperiencein
pay idle workers and the latter, even if regularized, may owever,therulethatemployeeswiththesamerankand
H the same class of workers doing the same kind of work.
seek gainful employment elsewhere in the meantime. position shall receive the samepayisnotabsolute.Asan
ere,petitionerwasabletoadduceevidencetoshowthat
H
exception, jurisprudence provides that the employer may
the difference in the salaries of its employees occupying
satisfactorily justify, based on its management
the same position was the result of several factors
prerogative, that its employees, who have the same rank
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page49of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i ncluding, but not limited to seniority, length of service, suffer work. i ntention to report back to work, the latter exception
performance, and implementation of wage orders. cannot apply in this case. In Philippine Marine Officers'
eage-oldrulegoverningtherelationbetweenlaborand
Th
capital,ormanagementandemployee,ofa"f airday'swage Guild v. Compañia Maritima, as affirmed in Philippine
for a fair day's labor" remains the basic factor in DiamondHotelandResortv.ManilaDiamondHotelEmployees
International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing determining employees' wages.
Union, the Court stressedthatforthisexceptiontoapply,
itisrequiredthatthestrikebelegal,asituationthatdoes
ersons whoworkwithsubstantiallyequalqualifications,
P 1. I f there is no work performed by the employee, not obtain in the case at bar.
skill, effort and responsibility, under similar conditions, there can be no wage.
should be paid similar salaries. This rule applies to the nder the circumstances, respondents' reinstatement
U
2. I n cases where the employee'sfailuretoworkwas without backwages suffices for the appropriate relief.
School, its "international character" notwithstanding.
occasioned neither by his abandonment nor by
e Schoolcannotinvoketheneedtoenticeforeign-hires
Th termination, the burden of economic loss is not
to leave their domicile to rationalize the distinction in rightfullyshiftedtotheemployer;eachpartymust
Bigg's Inc. v. Boncacas2019
salary rates without violating the principleofequalwork bear his own loss.
for equal pay. InEscario v. NLRC, the Court held:
3. I n otherwords,wheretheemployeeiswillingand
eceiving salaries less than their counterparts hired
R able to work and is not illegally prevented from onformably with the long honored principle of a fair
C
abroad, the local-hires of private respondent School, doing so, no wage is due to him. day's wage for a fair day's labor, employees dismissed for
mostly Filipinos, suffered discrimination. That the joininganillegalstrikeareNOTentitledtobackwagesfor
local-hires are paid more than their colleagues in other theperiodofthestrikeeveniftheyarereinstatedbyvirtue
schools is, of course, beside the point. The point is that &STransportv.InfanteasreiteratedinErgonomicSystems
G of their beingmerelymembersofthestrikingunionwho
employees should be given equal pay for work of equal v. Enaje2017;VCMC v. Yballe2014 did not commit any illegal act during the strike.
value.
ith respect to backwages, the principle of a "fair day's
W I nPhilippineDiamondHotel&Resort,Inc.v.ManilaDiamond
wage for a fair day's labor" remains as the basic factor in HotelEmployeesUnion,theCourtlaiddowntheexceptions
c. Fair Wage for Fair Work
determining the award thereof. If there is no work to this rule:
Coca-Cola Bottlers v. ICCPELU2018 performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay 1. w
hen the employees were illegally locked to thus
unless, of course, the laborer was able,willingandready compel them to stage a strike;
ince the affected employees are daily-paid employees,
S to work but was illegally locked out, suspended or
they should be given their wages and corresponding 2. w
hentheemployerisguiltyofthegrossestformof
dismissed or otherwise illegallypreventedfromworking.
premiumsforSaturdayworkonlyiftheyarepermittedto ULP;
While it was found that respondents expressed their
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page50of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
3) C
ompanypracticeisacustomorhabitshownbyan ollette never questioned this. She willingly paid for the
R
3. w hen the employer committed discrimination in
the rehiring of strikers refusing to readmit those employer’s repeated, habitual customary or equity in excess of said limit. Thus, the elements of
succession of acts of similar kind by reason of consistency and deliberateness are NOT present.
against whom there were pending criminal cases
while admitting non-strikers who were also which, it gains the status of a company policy that
criminally charged in court; or can no longer be disturbed or withdrawn.
4) Th
eruleoncompanypracticeisgenerallyusedwith Philippine National Construction Corp. v. NLRC2021
4. w hen the workers who staged a voluntary ULP
strike offered to return to work unconditionally respecttograntofadditionalbenefitstoemployees, NCC did NOT violate the non-diminution rule when it
P
but the employer refused to reinstate them. not to issues involving diminution of benefits. desisted from granting mid-year bonus to its employees
starting 2013. True, between 1992 and 2011, PNCC
Home Credit Mutual Building v. Prudente2020 invariably grantedthisbenefittoitsemployeesandnever
d. Non-Diminution of Benefits
Labor Code, Art. 100 e non-diminution rule applies only if the benefit is
Th before revoked this grant in strict adherence to the
based on an express policy, a written contract, or has non-diminution rule under Article 100 of the Labor Code.
1) B enefitsgiventoemployeescannotbetakenbackor
ripened into a practice. onetheless, with the subsequent enactmentofRA10149
N
reduced unilaterally by the employer because the
benefit has become part of the employment ere, Rollette's claim that the car plan was part of her
H in 2011, PNCC may no longer grant this benefit without
hiring package was unsubstantiated. Admittedly, Home first securing the requisite authority from thePresident.
contract.
Credit has no existing car plan at the time Rollette was As borne by the records, PNCC failed to obtain this
2) Applicable if the following conditions are met: authority in viewofthepositiontakenbytheGCGnotto
hired. Rollette's employment contract does not even
a) Th
e grant of the benefit is based on an express contain any express provision on her entitlement to a forward the request to the President.
policy or has ripen into practice over a long service vehicle at full company cost.
period of time;
omeCredit'sactofgivingservicevehiclestoRollettehas
H
b) Practice isconsistentanddeliberate; illafuerte v. Disc Contractors2022
V
been a company practice - but not as to the applying PNCC v. NLRC
c) I t is not due to error in the construction or non-participation aspect. There was no substantial
evidence to prove that the car plan at full company cost isc Contractors did not violate Article 100 of the Labor
D
application ofadoubtfulordifficultquestionof
had ripened into company practice. Notably, the only Code when it did not. grant Villafuerte et al.'s midyear
law or provision in the CBA;
time Rollette was given a service vehicle fully paidforby bonus for the years 2013to2015asthesamedidnotbear
d) Th
e diminution is done unilaterally by the the approval of the President, a requisite imposed by
the company was forherfirstcar.Forthesecondvehicle,
employer. Section5ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1597aswellasSection
the company already imposed a maximum limit but
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page51of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
1 0 of Republic Act No. 10149.Itmustbeemphasizedthat s ingle. The continuity in the grant of the funeral and f orthepurposeofatenderofpaymentofdebts,
as a government-owned andcontrolledcorporation,Disc bereavement aid to regular employees for the death of i.e. coins and notes issued by BSP.
Contractorsfundsareconsideredpublicfunds;henceitis their legal dependents has undoubtedly ripened into a trictly not allowed — other objects other than legal
S
not at liberty to disburse such as it saw fit, especially so company policy. tender, even when expressly requested by EE.
when there are laws imposing specific requirements for
Exceptions
its lawful spending.
a) Bank Check
Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod v. Montaño2022
b) Money Order
espondent is entitled to salary differentialasaresultof
R
Philippine Journalists Inc. v. Journal Employees Union2013
diminution of benefits during her reappointment as c) Postal Checks,provided
e argument of petitioner that the grant of the funeral
Th school registrar. Here, respondent claims that there has i. I t is customary practice on the date of
and bereavement benefit was not voluntary but resulted been a reduction of her basic pay. effectivity; or
fromitsmistakeninterpretationastowhowasconsidered
1. C
SA-Bacolodexplainsthattheschooljustoptedto ii. o stipulated in CBA; and the following are
S
a legal dependent of a regular employee deserves scant
separate the reporting of the basic pay from the met:
consideration. To be sure, NO doubtful or difficult
honorarium in the computation slip.
question of law was involved in as much as the several iii. There is a bank within 1 KM radius;
cogent statutes existing at the timetheCBAwasentered 2. H
owever, there was no showing in these
iv. mployeroragentsdonotreceivepecuniary
E
into already defined who were qualified as the legal proceedings thatrespondentreceivedhonorarium
benefits from such arrangement;
dependents of another. prior to her reappointment as school registrar.
v. mployeegivenreasonabletimetowithdraw
E
I tisfurtherworthytonotethatpetitionergrantedclaims e Court therefore awards salary differential due to
Th
and shall constitute compensable hours if
for funeral and bereavement aid as early as 1999, then diminution of benefits.
done within working hours; and
issued a memorandum in 2000 to correct its erroneous
interpretation of legal dependent under the CBA. This vi. ith written consent of the employee if
W
notwithstanding, the 2001-2004 CBA still contained the Payment of Wages without CBA.
same provision granting funeral or bereavement aid in 3 LaborCode,Arts.102-105;OmnibusRules,BookIII, Place and Medium of Payment
case of the death of a legal dependent of a regular Rule VIII, §1-7, 10-14
GR: At or near place of undertaking;
employee without differentiating the legal dependents
according to the employee’s civil status as married or GR: LegalTender (Art102,LC;Art1705NCC)isthat EXC: (B
ook III Rule VIII Sec 4)
currency which has been made suitable by law
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page52of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
a. Deterioration of peace and order; d. There is a bank or ATM within 1KM radius; 1) From the Civil Code
b. A ctual or impending emergencies due to e. Payslip be provided, upon request; a) A
rt 1705. The laborer's wages shall be paid in
calamities; f. N legal currency.
o additional expenses and diminution of
c. E mployer provides freetransportationbackand benefits resulting from the scheme; b) A
rt1706.Withholdingofthewages,exceptfora
forth; and g. E debt due, shall not be made by the employer.
mployershallassumeresponsibilityincasethe
d. Other analogous circumstance,provided wage protection provisions of law and c) A
rt 1707. The laborer's wages shall be a lien on
regulations are not complied with under the the goods manufactured or the work done.
ime spent collecting wages is considered
T
compensable hours worked. arrangement. d) A
rt 1708. The laborer's wages shall NOT be
e. P Payee subject to execution or attachment, except for
rohibited places: bar, club, drinking
establishment, similar places where games are debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing and
GR: Direct to Employee;
played with stakes of money, except if employee medical attendance.
EXC:
employed in such establishment. e) A
rt 1709. The employer shall neither seize nor
a. F
orcemajeure,inwhichcaseworkermaybepaid retainanytoolorotherarticlesbelongingtothe
Payment thruBanksallowed (RA 6727)provided
throughanotherpersonunderwrittenauthority laborer.
a. W ith written permission of majority of for such purpose; or
employees; 2) Other prohibitions
b. W
orker has died, in which case, paid to heirs
b. In all private establishments ofat least 25 EEs; without need of intestate proceedings, only a) K
ickbacks—induceaworkertogiveupanypart
affidavit of heirship. of his wages by force, stealth, intimidation,
c. Located within 1KM radius to a bank;
threat;
d. W ithin the period ofpaymentofwagesfixedby Time and Frequency
b) Deduction to ensure employment (Art 117);
the LC. GR: t least every 2 weeks or twice a month at
A
c) Retaliate against an employee who has
Payment thruATMallowedprovided: intervals not exceeding 16 days.
i) Filed any complaint, or
a. With written consent of employees concerned; EXC: Force majeure.
ii) Instituted proceedings, or
b. G iven reasonable time to withdraw during
Prohibitions Regarding Wages iii) as testified or is about to testify in said
H
working hours and is considered compensable; 4
Labor Code, Arts. 112-119; DOLE L.A. No. 11-14 proceedings;
c. Within period of payment of wages fixed by LC;
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page53of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
by: c) F
or union dues, where the right of EE or his Jardin v. NLRC
1. Refusing to pay the wages; or uniontocheckoffhasbeenrecognizedbytheER
ith regard to the amount deducted daily by private
W
or authorized in writing by the EE concerned;
2. Reducing such wages; or respondentfrompetitionersforwashingofthetaxiunits,
d) W
here ER is authorized by law or regulations we view the same as not illegal in the context of the law.
3. Discharging him from employment; or issued by SOLE;
4. D iscriminateagainsthiminanymanner. e) F
or loss or damage under Art 114 LC;DOLELA
(Art 118) 11-14,Private Security Agencies: Niña Jewelry Manufacturing of Metal Arts v. Montecillo2011
d) False reporting (Art 119) i) Following must be observed: mployers should first establish that the making of
E
3) N on-interference in the disposal of wages. — Art 112. deductions from the salaries is authorized by law, or
1) E
E is clearly responsible for the loss or
No employer is allowed to limit or otherwise regulations. Further, thepostingofcashbondsshouldbe
damage;
interfere with how an employee should dispose or proven as a recognized practice in the jewelry
2) H
e is given reasonable opportunity to manufacturing business, or alternatively, the employer
make use of the latter’s wages.
show cause why deductions should not should seek for the determination by the SOLE that the
e shall notinanymannerforce,compel,oroblige
H be made; policy the former seeks to implement is necessary or
his employees to purchase merchandise,
3) D
eduction is fair and reasonable and desirable in the conduct of business.
commodities or any other property.
should not exceed the actual loss or
f) F
or AgencyFeesfromnon-unionmemberswho
Wage Deduction damage; and
acceptthebenefitsundertheCBAnegotiatedby
GR: o employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of
N 4) D
oes not exceed 20% of EE’s wages ina the bargaining union. Does not need
any person, shall make any deduction from the week. authorization from concerned member;
wages of his employees.
ii) ash Deposit — must not exceed one
C g) P
remiums for SSS, PhilHealth, employee’s
EXC: month'sbasicsalaryofEE.Maybededucted compensation and Pag-IBIG;
a) Facilities; from wagesinanamountnottoexceed20%
h) Withholding tax;
of EE’s wages in a week.
b) A mount paid by ER aspremiumsoninsurance, i) W
hereEEisindebtedtoERthathasbecomedue
consentedto by EE; iii) efund — within 10 days from separation
R
and demandable(Art 1706 CC);
from service.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page54of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
j) P ursuanttoacourtjudgmentwherewagesmay Wage Distortion d) Passage of RA 6727.
be the subject of attachment or execution but 5
Labor Code, Art. 124 4) Wage Distortion Resolution
only for debts incurred for
1) A
situation where an increase in prescribed wage
i) food,
ratesresultsintheeliminationorseverecontraction
ii) clothing, of intentional quantitative differences in wage or
iii) shelter and salaryratesbetweenandamongemployeegroupsin
an establishment as to effectively obliterate the
iv) medical attendance;
distinctionsembodiedinsuchwagestructurebased
k) Ordered by the court. on skills, length of service, orotherlogicalbasesof
l) U nderthePHCooperativeActof2008.RA9520 differentiation.(Art 124 LC)
- A member of a cooperative may execute an 2) Elements
instrument in favor of the cooperative
a) A
n existing hierarchy of positions with
authorizing his employer to deduct from his
corresponding salary rates;
wages and remit such to the cooperative to
satisfy any incurred debt or other demands. b) A
significant change in the salary rate of a
lower pay class w/o concomitantincreasein
m) DO No.195,S.2018,amendingSec.10,RuleVIII,
the salary rate of a higher one; 5) I n Bankard Employees Union v. NLRC, the unilateral
Book III, IRR.
adoptionbyanemployerofanupgradedsalaryscale
c) E
limination of the distinction between the
10. Wages deduction. — Deductions from t he
§ that increased the hiring rates of new employees
two levels;
wages of the employees may be made by the withoutincreasingthesalaryratesofoldemployees
employer in any of the following cases: d) E
xistence of the distortion in the same DOES NOT RESULT in wage distortion within the
region. contemplation of Article 124 of the Labor Code, as
b) W
hen the deductions are with the written
authorization of the employees for payment to the increase in the wages and salaries of the
3) Possible causes
the EMPLOYER or a third person and the newly-hired was not due to a prescribed law or
a) Government decreed increase through WOs; wage order.
employeragreestodoso;Provided,Thatthelatter
does not receive any pecuniary benefit, directly b) Merger of establishments;
indanao International Container Terminal Services
M
or indirectly, from the transaction. c) Increase granted by employers; (MICTSI) v. MICTSI Labor Union2022
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page55of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
e"wagedistortion"specifiedunderArt.124oftheLabor
Th e limination or the severe diminution of the distinction showing that it was exercised in bad faith.
Codeonlycoverswageadjustmentsandincreasesduetoa between the two groups.
prescribed law or wage order. It should not apply to
uch distortion does not arise when a wage order gives
S
voluntaryandunilateralwageincreasesundertakenbythe employees in one branch of a bank highercompensation Minimum Wage
employer. than that given to their counterparts in other regions 6 Labor Code,Art.99;OmnibusRules,BookIII,Rule
ere,thereisnoprescribedlaworwageorderthatcreated
H occupyingthesamepayscale,whoarenotcoveredbysaid VII, §7, 9 and 15
the purported wage adjustments and increases. Instead, wage order. In short, theimplementationofwageorders
respondents merely claim that petitioner cannot impose in one region but not in others does not in itself eminimumwageratesprescribedbylawshallbethe
Th
different wages on employees occupying the same necessarily result in wage distortion. basic cash wages without deduction therefrom of
position. The different wage increases imposed by whateverbenefits,supplementsorallowanceswhichthe
employees enjoy free of charge aside from the basic pay.
petitioner to its employees occupying the same position
were voluntarily and unilaterally made. Accordingly, the hilippine Geothermal, Inc. Employees Union v. Chevron
P egionalMinimumWageRates.—Thelowestbasicwage
R
differentwageincreasesimposedbypetitionerinthiscase Geothermal Phils. Holdings2018 rates that an employer canpayhisworkers,asfixedby
donotcontemplate"wagedistortion"underArt.124ofthe eapparentincreaseinLanaoandCordovales'salariesas
Th theRegionalTripartiteWagesandProductivityBoards
Labor Code. comparedtotheothercompanyworkerswhoalsohavethe (RTWPB) and which shall not be lower than the
same salary/pay grade with them should not be applicable statutory minimum wage rates.
ankard Employees Union-Workers Alliance Trade Unions v.
B
NLRC clarified that mere factual existence of wage interpreted to mean that they were given a premature a) IncludesCOLAas fixed by RTWPB.
distortion does not, ipso facto, result in an obligation to increase for November 1, 2008, thus resulting to a wage
b) Excludesother wage-related benefits.
rectifyit,absentalaworothersourceofobligationwhich distortion.Theallegedincreaseintheirsalarieswasnota
requires its rectification. result of the erroneous application of Article VII and 1) P
ayment by hours worked. — O nce an agreed
Annex D of the CBA, rather, it was because when they period of work is completed, compensation is
were hired by respondent in 2009, when thehiringrates earned regardless of result.
Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank were relatively higher as compared to those of the a) D
aily-paid employees are paid on the days
previous years. Verily, the settingandimplementationof actually worked except unworked regular
age distortion presupposes an increase in the
W
suchvariousengagementrateswerepurelyanexerciseof holidays when they are paid their basic wage if
compensation of the lower ranks in an office hierarchy
the respondent's business prerogative in order to attract they are present or a leave with pay on the
withoutacorrespondingraiseforhigher-tieredemployees
or lure the best possible applicants in the market and working day preceding the regular holiday.
in the same region of the country, resulting in the
which the Court will not interfere with, absent any
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page56of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
b) M onthly-paid employees are paid every day of a. O
f apprentices or learners shall be 75% of the Service Incentive Leaves
the month, including unworked days. statutory minimum wage.
Leaves under Special Laws
Estimated Equivalent Monthly Rate (EEMR) b. Of PWDs,100%of the applicable minimum wage.
1. ForMonthlypaid: (365) Service Incentive Leaves
Pablico et al. v. Cerro2019
𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦𝑅 𝑎𝑡𝑒(𝐴𝐷𝑅)𝑥
3
65 1 Labor Code,Art.95;OmnibusRules,BookIII,Rule
𝐸𝐸𝑀𝑅 = I n order to be exempted under theWageRationalization
12𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠 V, Secs. 1-6
Act, two elements must concur —
2. ForDailypaid:
Everyemployeewhohasrenderedatleastone(1)yearof
rst, it must be shown that the establishment is
fi
i) Required to work everyday (393.5) s ervice is entitled to Service Incentive Leave (SIL)of
regularly employing not more than ten (10) workers,
𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦𝑅 𝑎𝑡𝑒(𝐴𝐷𝑅)𝑥
3
93.5 five (5) days with pay.
𝐸𝐸𝑀𝑅 = and
12𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠
e phrase “one year of service” of the employee means
Th
ii) onotworkandnotconsideredpaidon
D
s econd,thattheestablishmenthadappliedforandwas
service within twelve (12) months,whethercontinuous
Sundays or rest days (313) granted exemption by the appropriate Regional
orbroken,reckonedfromthedatetheemployeestarted
Board..
𝐸𝐸𝑀𝑅 =
𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦𝑅 𝑎𝑡𝑒(𝐴𝐷𝑅)𝑥
3
13 working. The period includes authorized absences,
12𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠 WON petitioner is exempt from the Minimum Wage Law. unworked weekly rest days, and paid regular holidays.
iii) onotworkandnotconsideredpaidon
D NO. As the petitioner failed to apply for an exemption,
weekends or rest days (261)
a nd it is undisputed that the respondents are MPRB's Tan v. Lagrama
𝐸𝐸𝑀𝑅 =
𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦𝑅 𝑎𝑡𝑒(𝐴𝐷𝑅)𝑥
2
61 employeesandarepaidlessthantheprescribedminimum I f a piece worker is supervised, there is an
12𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠
wage,thepetitioner'sliabilityforwagedifferentialcannot employer-employee relationship. However, such an
2) P ayment by results. — All workers paid by result, be denied. employee is not entitled to service incentive leave pay
including those who are paid on piecework, takay, since, as pointedoutinMakatiHaberdasheryv.NLRCand
etitioner is employing more than ten (10) employees in
P
pakyaw or task basis, shallreceivenotlessthanthe Mark Roche International v. NLRC, he is paid a fixed
his establishment. To be sure, employment status is
prescribed wage rates per eight (8)hoursofworka amountforworkdone,regardlessofthetimehespentin
determined by the four-fold test, and the attendant
day, or a proportion thereof for working less than accomplishing such work.
circumstances of each case.
eight (8) hours.
Other Wage Rates
C Leaves
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page57of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Leaves under Special Laws 6. Allocation of maternity leave credits; 1. G
ranted to all m
arried male employees in the
a. a llocate up to seven (7) days ofsaidbenefits private sector, regardless of their employment
Expanded Maternity Leave
status.
tothechild'sfather,whetherornotthesame
Paternity Leave is married to the female worker. 2. G
overnment employees are also entitled to the
2
Solo Parent Leave b. a lternate caregiver who may be a relative paternity leave benefit.
Gynecological Leave withinthefourthdegreeofconsanguinityor 3. E
ntitledtofullpay,consistingofbasicsalary,forthe
the current partner of the female worker 7 days of paternity leave, for uptothefirstfour(4)
Battered Woman Leave sharing the same household. deliveries.
a. Expanded Maternity Leave c. I n the event the beneficiary female worker a. Amarried maleemployee;
dies or is permanently incapacitated, the b. Cohabiting with spouse;
105-Day Expanded Maternity Leave Law balance of her maternity leavebenefitsshall
1. Increased maternity leave with full pay; accrue to the father of the child or to a c. Has applied for PL;
a. 105 daysfor natural or cesarean delivery; qualified caregiver. d. L
egitimate spouse gave birth or had a
7. Maternity leaveafter termination of service; miscarriage.
b. 6 0 days for miscarriage or emergency
termination of pregnancy. a. o ccurs not more than fifteen (15) calendar 4. I ntheeventthatthepaternityleaveisnotavailedof,
days after the termination of an employee's it shall not be convertible to cash and shall not be
2. O ption to extend maternity leave for additional
service, as her right thereto has already cumulative.
thirty (30) days without pay;
accrued. c. Solo Parent Leave
otify ER at least 45 days before end of maternity
N
leave to avail of extension. b. s uch period is not applicable when the R.A. No. 8972, as amended by R.A. No. 11861
employment of thepregnantwomanworker
3. A dditional fifteen (15) days with full pay for solo 1. I nadditiontoleaveprivilegesunderexistinglaws,a
has been terminated without just cause.
parents; forfeitable and noncumulative parental leaveofnot
8. V
oluntary working arrangement during the more than seven (7) working days with pay every
4. Combinations of prenatal and postnatal leave;
maternity leave period. year shall be granted to any solo parent employee,
Compulsory postnatalat least 60 days. regardless ofemploymentstatus,whohasrendered
b. Paternity Leave
5. Maternity leaveregardless of frequency; service ofat least six (6) months:
R.A. No. 8187, as amended by R.A. No. 11210
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page58of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
l aws, rules and regulations due to surgery caused by umane interpretation of the provision on special leave
h
2. Th
e parental leave benefit may be availed of by the
gynecological disorders under such terms and benefit.
solo parent employees in the government and the
private sector. conditions:
a) S
he has rendered at least six (6) months e. Battered Woman Leave
3. Th
e seven-day parental leave shall be
continuous aggregate employment service for R.A. No. 9262
non-cumulative.
the last twelve (12) monthspriorto surgery;
4. I ntheeventthattheparentalleaveisnotavailedof, equalifiedvictim-employeeshallbeentitledtoaleave
Th
said leave shall not be convertible to cash unless b) I ntheeventthatanextendedleaveisnecessary, of up to ten (10) days with full pay, consisting of basic
the female employee may use her earned leave salary and mandatory allowances fixed by RTWPB.
specifically agreed upon previously.
credits; and
equirement. — To be entitled to the leave benefit, the
R
5. A solo parent shall be entitled to parental leave
c) Th
is special leave shall be non-cumulative and only requirement is forthevictim-employeetopresent
provided that:
non- convertibleto cash. to her employer a certification from the
a. H e/She has rendered at least 6 months of
a) barangay chairman or
service whether continuousorbrokenatthe HRET v. Panga-Vega2021Lopez, M., J.
time of the effectivity of the Act; b) barangay councilor or
hethertherulesonmaternityleaveunderSec.14,RuleXVIof
W
theOmnibusRulesImplementingBookVofExecutiveOrderNo. c) prosecutor or
b. H e/She has notified his/her employer ofthe
292, which provides that the commuted money value of the d) the Clerk of Court, as the case may be,
availment thereof within a reasonable time
unexpired portionofthespecialleaveneednotberefunded,and
period; and that an action relative to the matter ispending.
that when the employeereturnstoworkbeforetheexpirationof
c. H e/She has presented a Solo Parent herspecialleave,shemayreceiveboththebenefitsgrantedunder
Identification Card to his/her employer. the maternity leave law and the salary for actual services
D Special Groups of Employees
rendered effective the day she reports for work, may have a
d. Gynecological Leave Women
suppletory application.
R.A. No. 9710 Minors
eCourtfindsitjustandmoreinaccordwiththespirit
Th
ny female employee in the public and private sector
A and intent of RA No. 9710 to suppletorily applytherule Kasambahay
regardless of age and civil status shall be entitled to a onmaternityleavetothespecialleavebenefit.Nothingin
s pecial leave of two (2) months withfullpaybasedon Homeworkers
RA No. 9710 and the CSC Guidelines bar this more
her gross monthly compensation subject to existing Night Workers
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page59of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Apprentices and Learners 3) t o actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or 1) that the employment qualification is reasonably
otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by
related to the essential operation of the job
Persons with Disabilities reason of her marriage.
involved; and
Women Cadiz v. Brent Hospital and Colleges2016 2) t hatthereisafactualbasisforbelievingthatallor
1
Labor Code, Arts. 130, 132-136 substantiallyallpersonsmeetingthequalification
rent imposed on Cadiz the condition that she
B
wouldbeunabletoproperlyperformthedutiesof
subsequently contract marriage with her thenboyfriend
Discrimination the job.
for her to be reinstated. According to Brent, this is "in
The following are acts of discrimination: rent has not shown the presence of neither of these
B
consonance with the policyagainstencouragingillicitor
1) P ayment of a lesser compensation to a female common-law relationsthatwouldsubvertthesacrament factors.
employee as against a male employee, for work of of marriage."
equal value; and
e Magna Carta of Women protects women against
Th
PT&T v. NLRC
2) F avoring a male employee over a female employee discrimination in all matters relating to marriage and
with respect to promotion, training opportunities, family relations, including the right to choose freely a etitioner’s policy of not accepting or considering as
P
study and scholarship grants solely on account of spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free disqualifiedfromworkanywomanworkerwhocontracts
their sexes. and full consent. marriage runs afoul ofthetestof,andtherightagainst,
discrimination,affordedallwomenworkersbyourlabor
Stipulation Against Marriage rent's condition is coercive, oppressive and
B
laws and by no less than the Constitution. Contrary to
discriminatory. There is no rhyme or reason for it. It
It shall beunlawfulfor an employer petitioner’s assertion that it dismissed private
forcesCadiztomarryforeconomicreasonsanddeprives
respondent from employment on account of her
1) t o require as a condition of employment or her of the freedom to choose her status, which is a
dishonesty, therecorddisclosesclearlythathertieswith
continuation of employment that a woman privilege that inheres in her as an intangible and
the company were dissolved principally because of the
employee shall not get married, or inalienable right. While a marriage or no-marriage
company’s policy that married women are not qualified
qualification may be justifiedasa"b onafideoccupational
2) t o stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting for employment in PT&T,andnotmerelybecauseofher
qualification,"Brentmustprovetwofactorsnecessitating
married, a woman employee shall be deemed supposed acts of dishonesty.
its imposition,viz:
resigned or separated, or
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page60of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
rivate respondent was practically forced by that very
P a) w
hen the child is below eighteen (18) years of viii. Security and Investigation;
same illegal company policy into misrepresenting her age, in work or economic activity that is not ix. Manufacturing
civil status for fear of being disqualified from work. child labor; and
b) Occupational Classification
b) when the child isbelow fifteen (15)years of age,
Prohibited Acts i. Farmers
i) i n work where he/she is directly under the
It shall be unlawful for any employer: responsibility of his/her parents or legal ii. Animal Producers;
1) T odenyanywomanemployeethebenefitsprovided guardian and where only members of the iii. hysical, Life Sciences and Health
P
for in this Chapter or to discharge any woman child ‘s family are employed; or Associate Professionals;
employed by him for thepurposeofpreventingher ii) in public entertainment or information. iv. ales
S and Services Elementary
from enjoying any of the benefits; Occupations;
3) 15 and above, but below 18 years of age
2) T o discharge such woman on account of her v. ersonal
P and Protective Services
GR: May be employed
pregnancy, or while onleaveorinconfinementdue Workers;
to her pregnancy; EXC: I n an undertaking which is deleterious or
hazardous in nature. vi. Customer Services Clerks;
3) T odischargeorrefusetheadmissionofsuchwoman
upon returning to her work for fear that she may ★
DOLE DO 149-16.Based on Two Classifications: vii. Other Craft and Related Trade Workers.
again be pregnant. a) Industrial Classification ★
Hours of Work. up to 8H/D, 40H/W; 6am to
10pm only.
i. Mining and Quarrying;
Minors 4) Below 15 years of age
2 ii. Construction;
R.A. No. 7610, as amended by R.A. No. 9231
GR: Shall not be employed
iii. Transportation and Storage;
1) C hild labor refers to any workoreconomicactivity EXC: When a child works
iv. ater Supply, Sewerage, Waste
W
performed by a child that subjects him/her to any a. D
irectly under the sole responsibility of his
management and remediation activities;
form of exploitation or is harmful to his/her health parents/ legal guardian and where only
and safety or physical, mental or psychosocial v. Forestry and Logging;
members of his family are employed.
development. vi. Fishing and Agriculture;
2) W orking child refers to any child engaged as vii. Hunting, Trapping;
follows:
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page61of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
rovidedhisemploymentneitherendangers
P 5) P
rohibition on the Employment of Children in Worst romoting alcoholic beverages, intoxicatingdrinks,
p
FormsofChildLabor. —Nochildshallbeengagedin tobaccoanditsbyproducts,gamblingoranyformof
his life, safety, health, and morals nor
impairs his normal development. the worst forms of child labor. The phrase “worst violence or pornography.
forms of child labor” shall refer to any of the
rovided further that said child is provided
P following: Kasambahay
with the prescribed education; 3
a) A
ll forms of slavery, as defined under the RA No. 10361
b. O r participates in public entertainment or “Anti-trafficking in Persons Act of 2003”, or
information 1) C
overage. — Apply to all parties to an employment
practices similar to slavery such as sale and
contract for the services of the following
rovided that the employment contract is
P trafficking of children, debt bondage and
Kasambahay, whether on a live-in or live-out
concluded by child’s parent with express serfdom and forced or compulsory labor,
arrangement, such as but not limited to:
agreement of said child including recruitment of children for use in
armed conflict. a) General househelp;
Providedfurtherthat the following are met:
b) Th
e use, procuring, offering or exposing of a b) Yaya;
i) rotection,health,safety,moralsand
P
child for prostitution, for the production of c) Cook;
normal development of child is
pornography or for pornographic performances;
ensured; d) Gardener;
c) Th
e use, procuring or offering of a child for
ii) easures are instituted to prevent
M e) Laundry person; or
illegal or illicit activities, including the
child’sexploitationordiscrimination;
production or traffickingofdangerousdrugsor f) A
nypersonwhoregularlyperformsdomestic
and
volatile substances prohibited under existing work in one household on an occupational
iii) continuing program for training
A laws; or basis.
and skills acquisition of the child is
d) W
ork which, by its natureorthecircumstances 2) The following arenot covered:
formulated and implemented.
in which it is carried out,ishazardousorlikely a) Service providers;
work permit shallbesecuredfromDOLEinboth
A to be harmful to the health, safety ormoralsof
instances. b) Family drivers;
children, xxxx.
★
Hours of Work. up to 4H/D, 20H/W; 6am to 6) P
rohibition on the Employment of Children inCertain
c) C
hildren under foster family arrangement;
8pm only. and
Advertisements. — No child shall be employed as a
model in any advertisement directly or indirectly
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page62of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
aterials may or may not be furnished by the
M
d) A ny other person who performs work c) C
overage under the SSS, PhilHealth and
employer or contractor. It differs from regular
occasionally or sporadically and not on an Pag-IBIG laws;
occupational basis. factory production principally in that, it is a
d) Board, lodging and medical attendance; decentralized form of production where there is
3) E mployment contract and renewal. — Before the e) Right to privacy; ordinarily very little supervision or regulation of
commencement of the service, a written methods of work.
employmentcontractbetweentheKasambahayand f) Access to outside communication;
the employer shall be accomplished in three (3) 2) E
xemption from minimum Wage if engaged in
g) Access to education and training;
copies.Thecontractshallbeinalanguageordialect needlework. The title on Wages shall not apply to
h) R
ight to form, join, or assist labor farm tenancy or leasehold, domestic service and
understood by both the Kasambahay and the
organization; personsworkingintheirrespectivehomesinneedle
employer.
i) R
ight to be provided a copy of the work or in any cottage industry duly registered.
4) R enewal of Contract. — Should the partiesmutually
employment contract; 3) No homeworkshall be performed on the following:
agree to continue their employment relationship
uponexpirationofthecontract,theyshallexecutea j) Right to certificate of employment; and a) e xplosives, fireworks and articles of like
new contract to be registered with the concerned k) R
ight to exercise their own religious beliefs character;
barangay. However, if the parties fail to execute a and cultural practices. b) drugs and poisons; and
new contract, the terms and conditions of the
original contract and other improvements granted Atienza v. Saluta2019 c) o ther articles, the processing of which requires
during the effectivity of said contract are deemed exposure to toxic substances.
WON the Labor Code governs the rights of family drivers.
renewed.
NO.The Civil Code shall govern the rights of familydrivers. Night Workers
5) Th
e rights and privileges of the Kasambahay are as
5 Labor Code, Arts. 154-161; DOLE DO No. 119-12 s.
follows:
2012
a) Minimum wage; Homeworkers
4 1) C
overageandExclusion.—Shallapplytoallpersons,
Labor Code, Arts. 151-153;DOLE DO No. 5 s. 1992
b) O ther mandatory benefits, such asthedaily
who shall be employed or permitted or suffered to
and weekly rest periods, service incentive 1) “ Industrial Homework” is a system of production workatnight,exceptthoseemployedinagriculture,stock
leave, and 13th month pay; under which work for an employer or contractoris raising, fishing, maritime transport and inland
carried out by a homework at his/her home. navigation,duringaperiodofnotlessthanseven(7)
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page63of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
c onsecutive hours, including the interval from
iii) here the workplace is located in an area
W a) A
ny enterprise duly registered with TESDA
midnight to five o'clock in the morning.
that is accessible twenty four (24) hours to with 10 or more regular workers. The
2) R ight to Health Assessment. — At their request, public transportation; number of apprentices shall not be more
workers shall have the right to undergo a health than 20%of its total regular workforce.
iv) here the number of employees does not
W
assessmentwithoutchargeandtoreceiveadviceon exceed a specified number as may be b) A
ny unemployed person 15 years old and
how to reduce or avoid health problems associated
provided for by the SOLE. above may apply.
with their work.
4) R
ight toTransfer.—Nightworkerswhoarecertified 3) Q
ualifications. — To qualify as apprentice, an
3) R ight to MandatoryFacilities.—Mandatoryfacilities by competent physician, as unfit to render night applicant shall:
shall be made available for workers performing work,duetohealthreasons,shallbetransferredtoa
night work which include the following: a) Beat least fifteenyears of age;
job for which they are fit to work whenever
a) Suitable first-aid and emergency facilities; practicable. p rovidedthosewhoareatleastfifteenyearsof
agebutlessthaneighteenmaybeeligiblefor
b) Lactation station in required companies; 5) W
omenNightWorkers.—Measuresshallbetakento apprenticeship only in non-hazardous
ensure that analternativetonightworkisavailable
c) Separate toilet facilities for men and women; occupations;
to women workers who would otherwise be called
d) F acility for eating with potable drinking water; upon to perform such work. b) Be physically fit;
and c) P
6) C
riminalliabilityofEmployer.—Anyviolationofthis ossess vocational aptitude and capacity;
e) F acilities for transportation and/or properly Rule shall be punishable withafineof30K-50Kor and
ventilated temporary sleeping or resting imprisonment of not less than six (6) months or d) P
ossesstheabilitytocomprehendandfollow
quarters, except where any of the following both, at the discretion of the court. oral and written instructions.
circumstances is present:
4) Compulsory apprenticeship
i) here there is an existing agreement
W Apprentices and Learners
between management and workers
6 a) W
hen grave national emergencies,
Labor Code, Arts. 58-60, 73-74
providing for an equivalent or superior particularly those involving the security of
benefit; or 1) A
pprenticeship means any training on the job thestate,ariseorparticularrequirementsof
supplemented by related theoretical instructions economic development so demand.
ii) here the start or end of the night work
W
involving apprenticeable occupations and trades.
does not fall within 12 midnight to 5o'clock
in the morning; or 2) Coverage. —
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page64of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
b) W here services of foreign technicians a re 8) A
pprenticeship period. — The period of c) t he employment does not create unfair
utilized by private companies i n apprenticeship shallnot exceed six (6) months. competitionintermsoflaborcostsorimpair
apprenticeable trades. 9) W or lower working standards.
ages.—Thewagerateoftheapprenticeshallstart
5) Q ualified Employers. — Only employers in highly at 75% ofthestatutoryminimumwageforthefirst 13) Thewagesorsalaryratesofthelearnerswhichshall
technicalindustries mayemployapprenticesandonly six (6) months; thereafter, he shall be paid the full begin at not less than75%of the applicable MW.
in apprenticeable occupations approved by the minimum wage, including the full cost of living Learner Apprentice
SOLE. allowance.
6) D earnable
L
eductibility of Training Costs. — An additional 10) Hoursofwork.—Anapprenticenototherwisebarred ny trade, form of
A
occupations
deduction from taxable income of one-half (1/2) of by law from working eight hours a day may be employment or
consisting of
the value of labor training expenses incurred for requested by his employer to work overtime and Occupation occupation approved
semi-skilled and
developing the productivity and efficiency of paid accordingly,provided for apprenticeship
other industrial
apprentices.Provided a) t here are no available regular workers to do by SOLE
occupations
a) s uch program is duly recognized by the the job, and
DOLE; eoretical
Th
b) t he overtime work thus rendered is duly Not required Required
instruction
b) s uch deduction shall not exceed ten (10%) credited toward his training time.
percent of direct labor wage: and ompetency-
C
11) Learners are persons hired as trainees in ✔ ✘
c) apprentices are paid theminimum wage. s emi-skilledandotherindustrialoccupationswhich based system
7) A pprenticeswithoutCompensation. —TheSOLEmay are non-apprenticeable and which may be learned
ot exceeding 3
N
authorize the hiring of apprentices without through practical training on the job in a relatively Duration 3-6 months
months
compensation whose training on the job is shortperiodoftimewhichshallnotexceedthree(3)
months. 2 0% of total regular
a) r equired by the school or training program Limitation NONE
12) Learners may be employed workforce
curriculum or
b) a s requisite for graduation or board a) when no experienced workers are available, ption to
O R Obliged to hire
E
Optional
examination. employ learner
b) t he employment of learners is necessary to
prevent curtailment of employment Dispute Labor Arbiter DOLE Regional
opportunities, and
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page65of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Learner Apprentice e mployees, employee compensation, job training, t axable income, equivalent to fifty percent (50%)
and other terms, conditions, and privileges of of the direct costs of the improvements or
Resolution Director employment. modifications.
(b) Mental Health Act (RA 11036)
exual Harassment in the Work
S
Persons with Disabilities iscrimination refers to any distinction, exclusion
D Environment
E
7 R.A. No. 7277, as amended by R.A. No. 9422 and or restriction which has the purpose or effect of
R.A. No. 7877;Safe Spaces Act, R.A. No. 11313
R.A. No. 10070 nullifyingtherecognition,enjoymentorexercise,on
an equal basis with others, ofallhumanrightsand Sexual harassment is committed when:
Handicapped workersmay be employed
fundamental freedoms in the political, economic,
1) Thesexual favoris made as a condition
1) w hen their employment is necessary to prevent socialcultural,civiloranyotherfield.Itincludesall
curtailment of employment opportunitiesand forms of discrimination, including denial of a) i n the hiring or in the employment,
reasonable accommodation. Special measure solely re-employment or continued employment of
2) w henitdoesnotcreateunfaircompetitioninlabor
to protect the rights or secure the advancement of said individual, or
costs or impair or lower working standards.
personswithdecision-makingimpairmentcapacity b) i n granting said individual favorable
qual opportunity. — No disabled persons shall be
E shall not be deemed to be discriminatory. compensation,termsofconditions,promotions,
deniedaccesstoopportunitiesforsuitableemployment.
or privileges; or
A qualified disabled employee shall be subject to the Incentives for Employers
same terms and conditions of employment and the the refusal to grant the sexual favor results
1) rivate entities that employ disabled persons who
P
same compensation, privileges, benefits, fringe meet the required skills or qualifications, either as c) i n limiting, segregating or classifying the
benefits, incentives or allowances as a qualified regular employee, apprentice or learner, shall be employee which inanywaywoulddiscriminate,
able-bodied person. entitledtoanadditionaldeduction,fromtheirgross deprive or diminish employment opportunities
i ncome, equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) or otherwise adversely affect said employee;
Discrimination
of the total amount paid as salaries and wages to 2) Th
e above acts would impair the employee's rights
(a) Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (RA 7277)
disabled persons. or privilegesunder existing labor laws; or
o entity, whether public or private, shall
N
2) rivate entities that improve or modify their
P 3) Th
e above acts would result in an intimidating,
discriminate against a qualified disabled personby
physical facilities in order to provide reasonable hostile, or offensive environmentfor the employee.
reason of disability in regard to job application
accommodation for disabled persons shall also be
procedures, the hiring, promotion, or discharge of
entitled to an additional deduction from their net
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page66of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
e crime of gender-based sexual harassment in the
Th led by private respondentGamalloagainstpetitioner,a
fi ower emanates from how the superior can remove or
p
workplace includes the following: public officer who committed acts of sexualharassment disadvantagethesubordinateshouldthelatterrefusethe
1) An act or series of acts involving amounting to grave misconduct. superior's sexual advances. Thus, sexual harassment is
committed when thesexualfavorismadeasacondition
a) a ny unwelcome sexual advances, requests or rivate respondent was practically forced by that very
P
same illegal company policy into misrepresenting her inthehiringofthevictimorthegrantofbenefitsthereto;
demand for sexual favors or
orwhenthesexualactresultsinanintimidating,hostile,
civil status for fear of being disqualified from work.
b) a ny act of sexualnature,whetherdoneverbally, or offensive environment for the employee.
physically or through the use of technology, n the first requisite, Escandor had authority over
O
Gamallo. He was the Regional Director of the NEDA
t hat has or could have a detrimental effect on the
Region 7, while Gamallo was a contractual employee in PAL v. Yañez2022Lopez, M., J.
conditions of an individual's employment or
that office. Escandor's authority also existed in a
education, job performance or opportunities;
work-related environment; thereby satisfying the second omingov.Rayalaemphasizedthattheemployee'sliability
D
2) A conductofsexualnatureandotherconduct-based requisite for sexual harassment. for an administrative offense of sexual harassment
on sex affecting the dignity of a person, which is shouldnotbedeterminedsolelybasedonSection3ofRA
hile the third requisite callsfora"demand,request,or
W
unwelcome, unreasonable, and offensive to the No. 7877. Substantial evidence to support the
requirement of a sexual favor," the Court has held in
recipient, whether done verbally, physically or administrative charge is sufficient. Thus, the "demand,
Domingo v. Rayala that it is not necessary that these be
through the use of technology; request,orrequirementofasexualfavor"requirementin
articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It
Section3isnotessentialbeforeanactcanbequalifiedas
3) A conduct that is unwelcome and pervasive and may be discerned from the acts of the offender.
sexual harassment in an administrative charge. It is
creates an intimidating, hostile or humiliating
us, the Court found that the accused'sactsofholding
Th enough that the respondent's actions created an
environment for the recipient.
and squeezingDomingo'sshoulders,runninghisfingers intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the
is may also be committed between peers and those
Th acrossherneckandticklingherear,havinginappropriate employee.
committedtoasuperiorofficerbyasubordinate,ortoa conversations with her, giving her money allegedly for
teacher by a student, or to a trainer by a trainee. I t is enough that Yañez'sinappropriateconducttowards
school expenses with apromiseoffutureprivileges,and
Sarte on May 6, 2008, and in other instances, created a
making statements with unmistakable sexual overtones
scandor v. Carpio Morales2022
E hostileworkenvironmentanduneasyfeelinguponSarte,
satisfy thethirdrequisite.
Related case ofEscandor v. People2020 which affected her job. It came to a point where Sarte
t the core of sexual harassment in the workplace is
A would get anxious everytimesheattendedaCebuflight
ereisnogainsayingthattheOfficeoftheOmbudsman
Th
power exercised by a superior over a subordinate. The and often requested other flight attendants toexchange
hasjurisdictionaswellovertheadministrativecomplaint
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page67of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ith her supposed schedule or post just to avoid
w r elating to employment suggesting
ii) xcludefromitsmembershipanyindividual
E
interacting with Yañez. preferences, limitations, specifications, and because of such individual's age; or
discrimination based on age;
AL substantially complied with the rules provided by
P iii) ause or attempt to cause an employer to
C
Section 4 of RA No. 7877 concerning the resolution, ii) equire the declaration of age or birth date
R discriminate against an individual in
settlement, or prosecution of acts of sexual harassment. during the application process; violation of this Act.
iii) eclineanyemploymentapplicationbecause
D d) I t shall be unlawful for a publisher to print or
of the individual's age; publish any notice of advertisement relating to
F Discriminatory Practices iv) iscriminate against an individual interms
D employment suggesting preferences, limitations,
of compensation, terms and conditions or specifications, and discrimination based on age.
Age privilegesofemploymentonaccountofsuch
xceptions. — It shall not be unlawful foranemployer
E
Gender and Marital Status individual's age; to set age limitations in employment if:
Pregnancy v) eny any employee's or worker's promotion
D a) A
ge is a bona fide occupational qualification
or opportunity for training because of age; reasonably necessary in the normal operation of a
Illness
vi) orcibly lay off an employee or worker
F particular business or where the differentiation is
Solo Parents because of old age; or based on reasonable factors other than age;
Persons with Disability vii) I mposeearlyretirementonthebasisofsuch b) Th
e intent is to observe the terms of a bona fide
employee's or worker's age. seniority system that is not intended to evade the
Age purpose of this Act;
1 b) I t shall be unlawful for a labor contractor or
R.A. No. 10911 subcontractor, if any, to refuse to refer for c) Th
e intent is to observe the terms of a bona fide
employment or otherwise discriminate against any employee retirement or a voluntary early retirement
rohibitionofDiscriminationinEmploymentonAccountof
P
individual because of such person's age. plan consistent with the purpose of this Act; or
Age.—
c) It shall be unlawful for alabor organizationto: d) Th
e action is duly certified by the SOLE in
a) It shall be unlawful for anemployerto:
i) accordance with the purpose of this Act.
eny membershiptoanyindividualbecause
D
i) rint or publish, or cause to be printed or
P
of such individual's age;
published, in any form of media, including alagueña v. PAL2023 En Banc
H
the internet, any notice of advertisement Concurring opinion of Lazaro-Javier, J.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page68of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
nother ground to find the subject provision on
A Halagueña v. PAL2023 En Banc e mployment as they were retired at an age not young
compulsoryretirementagevoidisRepublicActNo.10911 enough to seek for a new job but not old enough to be
iscrimination against women has been definedasany
D
or the Anti-Age Discrimination in Employment Act. consideredretired.Theywerefurtherdeniedthebenefits
gender-baseddistinction,exclusion,orrestrictionwhich
attached to employment, such as income and medical
ere, respondent merely claims, without more, that
H has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the
female flight attendants belong to a special class of benefits, five years earlier than their male counterpart,
recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by women,
without any factual basis. Thus, this discrimination
occupation requiring special standards for retirement. irrespective oftheirmaritalstatus,onabasisofequality
heaped upon them on the mere basis of their being
is clearly falls short of the requirement of proving
Th of men and women, of human rights and fundamental
women which is patently contrary to the Constitution,
reasonable business necessity. freedomsinthepolitical,economic,social,cultural,civil,
laws, international conventions, and even their CBA
or any other field.
hile it is true that aging generally entails the slowing
W itself.
down of all bodily functions, there is no reasonable I t includes anyactoromission,includingbylaw,policy,
connection to one's age and his or her sex vis-à-vis administrative measure, or practice, that directly or
capacity toperformhisorherdutiesasflightattendant. indirectly excludesorrestrictswomenintherecognition Dela Cruz-Cagampan v. One Network Bank2022
To be sure, both female and male cabin attendants are and promotion of their rights and their access to and
nemployer'sblanketpolicyofno-spouseemploymentis
A
exposed to the same tasks, work demands, stress, and enjoyment of opportunities, benefits, or privileges.
discriminatory. To justify its enforcement, theemployer
dangers. measure or practice of general application is
A must clearly establish areasonable business necessity.
us, applying the doctrine in Star Paper Corporation, if
Th discrimination against women if it fails to provide for
mechanisms to offset or address sex or gender-based espondents implemented a policy stating that "when
R
the questioned provision here is upheld without valid
disadvantages or limitations of women, as a result of two employees working for One Network Bank are
justification, then PAL can just create policies based on
subsequently married through Church or Civil Court
an unproven presumption of a perceived danger at the which womenaredeniedorrestrictedintherecognition
and protection of their rights and in their accesstoand rites,onemustterminateemploymentimmediatelyafter
expense of petitioners' and PAL's future female flight
enjoyment of opportunities, benefits, or privileges; or marriage."
attendants' right to security of tenure.
women, more than men, are showntohavesufferedthe hile respondents maintain that petitioner and her
W
greater adverse effects of those measures or practices. husband both knowingly transgressed the rule, nothing
in the records show why respondents dismissed
Gender and Marital Status etitioners substantiated that they were discriminated
P
2 uponwhentheywereforcedtoretireat55yearsoldwhile
petitionerinparticular.Tostress,theyoptedtoterminate
R.A. No. 9710
petitioner's employment sans any reason why she must
their male counterparts were compulsory retired at 60
leave,inlieuofherhusband.Anemployer'sdismissalofa
years old. They were denied of the opportunity for
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page69of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
f emale employee solely because of her marriage is e mployeesisreasonableunderthecircumstancesbecause 111). Workers shall not be discriminated against,
C
precisely the discrimination that the Labor Code relationships of that nature might compromise the from pre to post-employment, including hiring,
expresslyprohibits. interests of the company. In laying down the assailed promotionorassignment,becauseoftheirHepatitis
company policy, Glaxo only aims to protect its interests B status.
F irst,theno-spousequalificationisnotreasonablyrelated
tothebank'sessentialoperationofitsbusiness.Itunduly against the possibility that a competitor company will 2. I ndividualsfoundtobeHepatitisBpositiveshallnot
discouragesallemployeesfrommarryingafellowworker gain access to its secrets and procedures. be declared unfit to work without appropriate
at the pain of termination. medical evaluation and counseling.
econd, there is no factual basis to conclude that all of
S 3. W
orkers shall not beterminatedonthebasisofthe
Pregnancy actual, perceived or suspected Hepatitis B status.
theiremployeeswhomarryeachotherwouldbeunableto 3
R.A. No. 10354, Sec. 23(c)
perform their duties, entailing one's dismissal. 4. W
orkplace managementofsickemployeesshallnot
23(c). Any employer who shall suggest, require,
§ differ from that of any other illness. Persons with
unduly influence or cause any applicant for Hepatitis B-related illnesses shouldbeabletowork
uncan Assoc. of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo Wellcome
D employment or an employee to submit for as long as medically fit.
Phils.
himself/herself to sterilization, use any modern 5. W
orkers who have or had TB shall not be
o reversible error can be ascribed to the Court of
N methodsoffamilyplanning,ornotusesuchmethods discriminated against. Instead, he shall be
Appeals when it ruled that Glaxo’s policy prohibiting an as a condition for employment, continued supported with adequate diagnosis and treatment,
employeefromhavingarelationshipwithanemployeeof employment, promotion or the provision of and shall be entitled toworkforaslongastheyare
acompetitorcompanyisavalidexerciseofmanagement employment benefits. Further, pregnancy or the certified by the company's accredited health
prerogative. number of children shall not be a ground for provider as medically fit and shall be restored to
laxo has a right to guard its trade secrets,
G non-hiring or termination from employment. work as soon as their illness is controlled.
manufacturingformulas,marketingstrategiesandother
Illness Solo Parents
confidential programs and information from 4 5
competitors, especially so that it and Astra are rival DOLE D.A. No. 05-10;DOLE D.O. No. 73-05 R.A. No. 8972, as amended by R.A. No. 11861, Sec. 7
companies in the highly competitive pharmaceutical
1. Th
ereshallbenodiscriminationofanyformagainst 7. Work Discrimination. — No employer shall
§
industry. workers on the basis of their Hepatitis B status discriminate against any solo parent employee with
eprohibitionagainstpersonalormaritalrelationships
Th consistent with international agreements on respect to terms and conditions of employment on
with employees of competitor companies upon Glaxo’s nondiscrimination ratified by the Philippines (ILO account of his or her status, Employers may enter
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page70of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i ntoagreementswiththeirsoloparentemployeesfor t he skills, aptitude or other factor of the disabled
i) avetheeffectofdiscriminationonthebasis
h
a telecommuting program, as provided in RA 11165, of disability; or applicant or employee that such tests purports to
otherwise known as the ‘Telecommuting Act': measure, ratherthantheimpairedsensory,manual
Provided, That said solo parent employees shall be ii) erpetuatethediscriminationofotherswho
p or speaking skills of such applicant or employee, if
given priorityby their employer. are subject to common administrative any; and
control.
i) E
xcludingpersonswithdisabilityfrommembership
Persons with Disability d) P
rovidinglesscompensation,suchassalary,wageor
6 in labor unions or similar organizations.
R.A. No. 7277, as amended otherformsofremunerationandfringebenefits,to
a qualified disabled employee, by reason of his
o entity, whether public or private, shall discriminate
N V Social Welfare Benefits
disability,thantheamounttowhichanon-disabled
againstaqualifieddisabledpersonbyreasonofdisabilityin
person performing the same work is entitled; SSS Law
regard to job application procedures, the hiring,
promotion, or discharge of employees, employee e) F
avoring a non-disabled employee over a qualified
GSIS Law
compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, disabled employee with respect to promotion,
and privileges of employment. The following constitute training opportunities, study and scholarship Limited Portability Law
acts of discrimination: grants, solely on account of the latter's disability;
Disability and Death Benefits
a) L imiting, segregating or classifying a disabled job f) R
e-assigningortransferringadisabledemployeeto
Claims of Seafarers
applicantinsuchamannerthatadverselyaffectshis ajoborpositionhecannotperformbyreasonofhis
disability;
work opportunities; SSS Law
g) D
ismissingorterminatingtheservicesofadisabled A
b) U sing qualification standards, employmenttestsor R.A. No. 8282, as amended by R.A. No. 11199
other selection criteria that screen out or tend to employee by reason of his disability unless the
screenoutadisabledpersonunlesssuchstandards, employer can provethatheimpairsthesatisfactory Benefits
tests or other selection criteria are shown to be performanceoftheworkinvolvedtotheprejudiceof
the business entity: Provided, however, That the Dependents and Beneficiaries
job-related for the position in question and are
consistent with business necessity; employer first sought to provide reasonable
accommodations for persons with disability; 1) C
overage.—TheSSLawmandatesthatallemployees
c) U tilizing standards, criteria, or methods of including kasambahays or domestic workers not
administration that: h) F
ailing to select or administer inthemosteffective
over sixty (60) years of ageshallbemembersofthe
manner employment tests which accurately reflect
SSS (Sec 9). The law also mandates compulsory
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page71of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
c overage of the Self-Employed as stated in Sec 9-A hich provides the rights and obligations oftheforeign
w t heir joint and solidary liability in favor of seafarers,
whichprovidesthatself-employedincludes,butnot shipowner,theseafarerandthemanningagencies.Thus, simply acknowledged the existing law and regulations.
limited to, the following: whether a seafarer is a chef on a cruise ship, or an
a) All self-employed professionals; engineer on a cargo ship, they are covered by a unified
b) Partners and single proprietors of businesses;
POEA-SEC. The rights and responsibilities of the Benefits
seafarer, manning agency, and foreign ship owner are 1
Coverage and Exclusions
c) A ctors and actresses, directors, scriptwriters consistent and uniform in every POEA-SEC.
andnewscorrespondentswhodonotfallwithin 1) M
aternity Leave Benefit. — see also 105-Day
ontrary thereto, land-based OFWs do not have a
C
thedefinitionoftheterm“employee”inSec8(d) Expanded Maternity Leave LawRA 11210
singular oruniformemploymentcontractbecauseofthe
of this Act;
variety of work they perform.Theircontractsdependon 2) R
etirement Benefit. — underSection12-B,isgiven
d) P rofessional athletes, coaches, trainers and the nature of their employment and their place of work. to a member who:
jockeys; and
us,thesetwo(2)classificationsofOFWscanbetreated
Th a) h
asreachedtheageofsixty(60)yearsold,andis
e) Individual farmers and fishermen. differently. alreadyseparatedfromworkorhasceasedtobe
2) O FWs, sea-based or land-based, are compulsory self-employed; or
e2016POEARulesprovidesthatmanningagenciesare
Th
members as provided for underSec 9-B. jointlyandseverallyliablewiththeprincipalemployerfor b) h
as reached the age of sixty five (65) years
any and all claims arising out of the implementation of provided he/shehascompliedwiththerequired
J oint Ship Manning Group v. SSS2020 En Banc
the SEC involving seafarers. Necessarily, this includes monthly contributions.
re Constitutionality of Sec 9-B
claims arisingoutoftheSSScoverageandcontributions
3) D
eath Benefit. — under Section 13, allows the
ON Sec. 9-B Of R.A. No. 11199 is unconstitutional as it
W in favor of seafarers. If the principalforeignshipowner
primarybeneficiariesofthedeceasedmembertobe
violates substantive due process and equal protection of rights. fails to pay the SSS contributions, then the joint and entitled to monthly pension provided thelatterhas
O. Sec. 9-B of R.A. No.11199doesnotviolatetheequal
N several liability of the manning agencies can be invoked. paid the required monthly contributions to be
protection of laws because there is a substantial us, the solidary liability of manning agencies with
Th qualified thereof.
distinction between sea-based OFWs and land-based respect to principal foreign ship owners has been
4) P
ermanent Disability Benefit. — under Section
OFWs. established by law, particularly, R.A. No. 8049, as 13-A, provides that those who have permanent
eafarers constitute a unique classification of OFWs.
S amended, and duly implemented by the 2016 POEA disabilities shall be entitled to a monthly pension.
Their essential difference against land-based OFWs is Rules.Sec.9-B(b)ofR.A.No.11199,whichtreatsmanning
The sum equivalent to the monthly pension is still
that all seafarers have only one (1) standard contract, agenciesasemployersforthesolepurposeofrecognizing
subjecttotheconditionsandqualificationsprovided
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page72of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ythesaidlaw.Further,thelawprovidesadifferent
b otatypeofmoneyclaimwhichneedstobefiledagainst
n
a) Th
e legal spouse entitled by law to receive
monthly pension for permanent total disability, support from the member; the estate proceedings.
whichisdefinedbySection13-A(d),andpermanent
partial disability. b) Th
e legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, ON the term "employer"undertheSocialSecurityActof1954
W
and illegitimate child who is unmarried, not may beappliedtoFarAlba,theadministrator-sonoftheowner,
5) F uneralBenefit.—underSection13-B,providesfor gainfully employed, and has not reached Arturo Alba, Sr., who is directly and actively involved in the
afuneralgrantequivalenttoP12Ktohelpdefraythe twenty-one (21) years of age, or if over operation of the agricultural undertaking.
costoffuneralexpenseuponthedeathofamember, twenty-one(21)yearsofage,heiscongenitallyor
includingapermanentlytotallydisabledmemberor ES. Plainly, Far Alba, as the hacienda administrator,
Y
while still a minor has been permanently acts as the legal representative of the employer and is
retiree.
incapacitated and incapable of self-support, thusanemployerwithinthemeaningofthelawliableto
6) SicknessBenefit.—underSection14,providesdaily physically or mentally; and pay the SS contributions.
s icknessbenefitsequivalenttoninetypercent(90%) c) Th
eparentwhoisreceivingregularsupportfrom e Court sustains the jurisdiction of the Commission
Th
of his average daily salary credit, to members who the member. over disputes undertheSocialSecurityAct"withrespect
are confined for more than three (3) days in a
2) Primary Beneficiaries tocoverage,benefits,contributionsandpenaltiesthereon
hospital or elsewhere with the approval oftheSSS.
or any other matterrelatedthereto.Moreover,theCourt
However, to avail of this benefit,themembermust a) The dependent spouse until he or she remarries;
agreeswiththeCommission'sassertionthatanactionfor
have complied with the conditions and b) t he dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally remittance of SS monthly contributions isnotatypeof
qualifications provided by the said law. adopted, and illegitimate children, In their money claim which needs to be filed against the estate
⭐
7) Unemployment Insurance or Involuntary absence, proceedings.
Separation Benefits. — underSection14-B,provides 3) Secondary Beneficiaries
that an employee who is involuntarily unemployed
or separated from work can avail of this benefit. a) the dependent parents;
SSS v. Delos Santos
However, this benefit shall only be availed once b) I n the absence of all the foregoing, any other
N ESTRANGED wife whowasnotdependentuponher
A
every three (3) years. person designated by the member as his/her
deceased husband for support is not qualified to be his
secondary beneficiary.
beneficiary.
2 Dependents and Beneficiaries
SSS v. Alba eathbenefitsshouldnotbedeniedtothewifewhowas
D
1) Thedependentsshall be the following: married to the deceased retiree only after the latter's
An action for remittance of SS monthly contributionsis
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page73of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
retirement. l abor organization, cannot be considered an employer
etitioner hadnobasistodenytheclaimforfuneraland
P
underthelaw.Asagovernmentemployee,Haveriawould
e reckoning point in determining the beneficiaries of
Th bereavement aid of Alfante for the death of his parent
thedeceasedshouldbethetimeofhisdeath.Thereisno havebeenqualifiedforvoluntarycoverageunderSection whose death and fact of legal dependency on himcould
9 (b) of R.A. No. 1161, had he registered as a voluntary
need to look into the time of retirement. be substantially proved.
member. Consequently, his compulsory coverage while
I n Aguas, the Court ruled that although a husband and supposedly employed with the SSSEA was erroneous. ursuant to Article 100 of the Labor Code, petitioner as
P
wife are obliged to support each other, whether one is the employer couldnotreduce,diminish,discontinueor
actuallydependentforsupportupontheothercannotbe eliminateanybenefitandsupplementbeingenjoyedbyor
presumedfromthefactofmarriagealone.Awifewhois Philippine Journalist Inc. v. Journal Employees Union2013 granted to its employees.
already separated de facto from her husband cannot be
s aid to be "d
ependent forsupport"uponthehusband, e coverage of the term legal dependent as used in a
Th
absent any showing to the contrary. stipulation in a CBA granting funeral or bereavement GSIS Law
benefit to a regular employee for the death of a legal B
RA 8291
dependent,iftheCBAissilentaboutit,istobeconstrued
Bartolome v. SSS 2014 as similar to the meaning that contemporaneous social Benefits
legislationshaveset.Thisisbecausethetermsofsuchsocial
lainly, "d
P ependent parents" are parents, whether legislations are deemed incorporated in or adopted by the Dependents and Beneficiaries
legitimate or illegitimate,biologicalorbyadoption,who CBA.
are in need of support or assistance. Benefits
ON petitioner’s denial of respondents’ claimsforfuneraland
W 1
Coverage and Exclusions
bereavement aid granted under their CBA constituted a
diminution of benefits in violation of Article 100 of the Labor 1) M
embershipintheGSISshallbecompulsoryforall
Haveria v. SSS2018
Code. employees receiving compensation who have not
ON Haveria's inclusion as a compulsory member of theSSS
W reachedthecompulsoryretirementage,irrespective
ES.Thecivilstatusoftheemployeeaseithermarriedor
Y
was valid and consequently, whether he is entitled to receive
singleisnotthecontrollingconsiderationinorderthata of employment status,except
monthly pensions.
person may qualify as the employee’s legal dependent. a) m
embersoftheArmedForcesofthePhilippines
O. HaveriawasreportedbytheSSSEAasanemployee,
N What is rather decidedly controlling is thefactthatthe andthePhilippineNationalPolice,subjecttothe
and he claims coverage as a compulsory member of the spouse, child, or parent is actually dependent forsupport condition that they must settle first their
SSS. As correctly held by the SSC and CA,theSSSEA,a upon the employee. financial obligation with the GSIS, and
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page74of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ection20ofsaidlawprovidedthequalificationsset
S
b) c ontractualwhohavenoemployerandemployee b) w
hile there ispermanent partial disability whena
relationship with the agencies they serve. by law are met.
GSIS member is incapacitated to work for a
2) E limited periodoftimebecauseofcomplete,and 8) F
uneral benefit is given to the beneficiaries of the
xcept for the members of the judiciary and
constitutional commissions who shall have life permanent loss of any of the following body deceased member to help them defray the cost of
insurance only, all members oftheGSISshallhave parts. xxx burial, and funeral expenses.
life insurance, retirement, and all other social c) F
urther, there is temporary totaldisabilitywhena 9) L
ife insurance benefits are given to all GSIS
security protection such as disability, survivorship, GSIS member is momentarily incapacitated to members, except for Members of the AFP and the
separation, and unemployment benefits. work or engage in any gainful occupation as a PNP.
result of impairment of physical or mental 10) It must be noted that theclaimsforbenefitsunder
3) Th
eseparationbenefitsaregiventoGSISmembers
faculties which can be rehabilitated or restored to
who are separated from service or who resigned this law shallbefiledwithin 4yearsfromthetimeof
their normal functions.
therefromprovidedthatthequalificationssetbylaw the contingency except claims for life and
are met by the member claiming for separation 6) R
etirementbenefitsarethosereceivedbyemployees retirement benefits.
benefits. upon reaching the age of retirement which issixty
11) H
ence, after the contingency such as separation
(60) years of age. To be entitledthereon,according
4) O n the other hand, the Unemployment or from work, occurrence of disability, or death
to Section 13-A of R.A. No. 8291, the following
Involuntary Separation Benefits are given to an happens, then the member ought to file a claim
qualifications shall be met:
employee who, at the time of separation from work, immediately, in order to avail of the benefits
a) h
e has rendered at least fifteen (15) years of provided under this law.
a) was holding a permanent employment, and
service;
b) w as separated involuntarily duetotheabolition 2 Dependents and Beneficiaries
b) h
eisatleastsixty(60)yearsofageatthetimeof
of his/her office or position resulting from
retirement; and
reorganization. 1) Dependentsshall be the following:
c) h
e is not receiving a monthly pension benefit
5) With respect todisability benefits, a) t he legitimate spouse dependent for support
from permanent total disability.
upon the member or pensioner;
a) p ermanent total disability meansdisabilitycaused
7) L
ikewise, Survivorship benefits are given when a
by injury or disease resulting in complete, b) t he legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted
member or pensioner dies, his/her beneficiaries
irreversible, and permanent incapacity to work child, including the illegitimate child, who is
shallbeentitledtosurvivorshipbenefitsprovidedin
or to engage in any gainful occupation, unmarried,notgainfullyemployed,notoverthe
Sections 21 and 22 of R.A. No. 8291 as stated in
ageofmajority,orisovertheageofmajoritybut
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page75of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i s incapacitated and incapable of self-support a ccustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a
2. Th
e employee must have been performing his
duetoamentalorphysicaldefectacquiredprior person of his mentality and attainment could do. Itdoes
official functions; and
to age of majority; and not mean absolute helplessness but rather an incapacity to
c) t he parents dependent upon the member for 3. I f the injury was sustained elsewhere, the perform gainful work which is expected to be permanent.
employee must have been executing an order of
support;
the employer.
2) P rimary beneficiaries. — The legal dependent
GSIS v. De Castro
spouse until he/she remarries and the dependent
children; GSIS v. Casco Whatthelawrequiresisareasonableworkconnectionand
3) S econdary beneficiaries. — Thedependentparents ot direct causal relation. Probability, nottheultimate
n
henanemployeeisconstrainedtoretireatanearlyage
W
and, subject to the restrictions on dependent degree of certainty, is the test of proofincompensation
due to his illness and the illness persists even after
children, the legitimate descendants. proceedings.
retirement,resultinginhiscontinuedunemployment,as
i nthiscase,suchaconditionamountstototaldisability ONDeCastroprovedthathisheartailmentsarework-related
W
Rodrin v. GSIS and/or have been precipitated by his duties with the AFP.
which should entitle him to the maximum benefits
embersofthenationalpolice,unlesstheyareonofficial
M allowed by law. ES.Inanydeterminationofcompensability,thenature
Y
leave,are,bythenatureoftheirfunctions,technicallyon and characteristics of the job are as important as raw
ON respondent's claim for conversion of his PPD benefits to
W
duty24hoursaday,becausepolicemenaresubjecttocall medical findings and a claimant's personal and social
PTD benefits should be granted.
atanytimeandmaybeaskedbytheirsuperiorsorbyany history.
distressed citizen to assistinmaintainingthepeaceand ES.Adisabilityisconsideredtotalandpermanentifas
Y
a result of the injuryorsickness,theemployeeisunable I ntoxication which does not incapacitate the employee
security of the community.
to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous from following his occupation is not sufficient todefeat
WON the death of SPO1 Rodrin is compensable under PD 626. therecoveryofcompensation,althoughintoxicationmay
periodexceeding 120 days.
ES. For thecompensabilityofaninjurytoanemployee
Y beacontributorycausetohisinjury.Whilesmokingmay
isability should be understood not singly through its
D contribute to the development of a heart ailment, heart
whichresultsinhisdisabilityordeath,Section1(a),Rule
medicalsignificancebut,moreimportantly,intermsofa ailment may be caused by otherfactorssuchasworking
III of the Amended Rules onEmployees'Compensation
person's loss of earning capacity. and living under stressful conditions.
imposes the following conditions:
ermanent total disability means disablement of an
P ased on the totality of the circumstances surrounding
B
1. Th
eemployeemusthavebeeninjuredattheplace
employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or De Castro's case, we are convincedthathislongyearsof
where his work required him to be;
work of a similar nature that he was trained for or
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page76of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ilitary service, with its attendant stresses and
m eencreditedwiththeSSSorGSIS,asthecasemay
b
ence, if an employee is entitled to some benefits
H
pressures, contributed in no small measure to the be,tosatisfytherequirednumberofyearsofservice
either from GSIS or SSS, as the case may be, then
ailments that led to his disability retirement. for entitlement to the benefitsundertheapplicable theruleontotalizationwillnotapply.(Gamogamov.
laws. PNOC Shipping and Transport Corp.)
5) " Totalization"shallrefertotheprocessofaddingup
Limited Portability Law the periods of creditable services or contributions Disability and Death Benefits
C undereachoftheSystems,forpurposesofeligibility D
R.A. No. 7699 Title II Book IV of the Labor Code
and computation of benefits.
1) " Portability" shall refer to the transfer of funds for 6) A
pplying the totalization rule can increase the Labor Code
the account and benefit of a worker who transfers chances of a worker to avail of benefits under the CHAPTER VI Disability Benefits
from one system to the other. subject law. This may be availed of only ONCE.
RTICLE 197.TemporaryTotalDisability.—Anyemployee
A
2) I treferstoinstanceswhereaworkertransfersfrom 7) S
ection 3, Rule V provides instances where who sustains an injuryorcontractssicknessresultingin
private employment to government employment, totalization applies, to wit: temporary total disability shall, for each day of such a
andviceversa,therebytransferringfrombeingSSS
a) I faworkerisnotqualifiedforanybenefitsfrom disability or fraction thereof, be paid by the System an
member to GSIS member, and vice versa. The
both Systems; income benefit equivalent to ninety (90%)percentofhis
transfer of funds is to ensure that his/her years of
average daily salary credit.
service are duly credited. b) I f a worker in the public sector is not qualified
for any benefits in the GSIS; or ARTICLE 198.Permanent Total Disability. —
3) C overage.—Section1,RuleIprovidesthattherules
and regulations shall apply to all worker‐members c) I f a worker in the privatesectorisnotqualified a) A
ny employee who contracts sickness or sustains an
oftheGSISand/orSSSwhotransferfromonesector for any benefits from the SSS. injuryresultinginhispermanenttotaldisabilityshall,
to another, and who wish to retain their foreachmonthuntilhisdeath,bepaidbytheSystem
d) I f a work qualifies forbenefitsinbothSystems,
membership in both Systems. during such a disability,
totalization shall not apply.
4) L
imited Portability Scheme. — R.A. No. 7699 was 8) T
otalization of service credits is only resorted to i) a n amount equivalent to the monthly income
enactedtoenablethosefromtheprivatesectorwho when the retiree does not qualify for benefits in benefit,
transfer to the government service or from the either or both of the Systems. Here, petitioner is
government sector to the privatesectortocombine qualifiedtoreceivebenefitsgrantedbyGSIS,ifsuch
their years of service and contributionswhichhave right has not yet been exercised.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page77of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r esulting in permanent partial disability shall, for each ermanent total disability under this Title, eighty
p
ii) lusten(10%)percentthereofforeachdependent
p
child, but not exceeding five, beginning with the month not exceeding the period designated herein, be (80%) percent of themonthlyincomebenefitandhis
youngest and without substitution. paid by the System during such a disability an income dependents to the dependents' pension:
benefit for permanent total disability. xxxx
b) Th
e monthly income benefit shall be guaranteed for rovided, That the marriage must have been validly
P
five years, and shall be suspended if the employee CHAPTER VII Death Benefits subsisting at the time of disability:
ARTICLE 200.Death. — rovided,further,Thatifhehasnoprimarybeneficiary,
P
i) is gainfully employed, or
theSystemshallpaytohissecondarybeneficiariesthe
a) Th
e System shall pay to the primary beneficiaries
ii) recovers from his permanent total disability, or monthly pension excludingthedependents'pension,
upon the death of the covered employee,
iii) f ails to present himself for examination at least of the remaining balance ofthefive-yearguaranteed
once a year upon notice by the System. i) a n amount equivalent to his monthly income period:
benefit,
rovided,finally,Thattheminimumdeathbenefitshall
P
c) Th
e following disabilities shall be deemed total and
ii) lus ten percent thereof for each dependent
p not be less than fifteen thousand pesos.
permanent:
child, but not exceeding five, beginning with the
youngest and without substitution, except as c) Th
e monthly income benefitprovidedhereinshallbe
i) emporarytotaldisabilitylastingcontinuouslyfor
T
the new amount of the monthly income benefit for
more than one hundred twenty days, except as provided for in paragraph (j) of Article 167 hereof:
the surviving beneficiaries upon the approval ofthis
otherwise provided for in the Rules; rovided, however, That the monthly income benefit
P decree.
ii) Complete loss of sight of both eyes; shall be guaranteed for five years:
d) F
uneralbenefit.—AfuneralbenefitofThreeThousand
iii) Loss of two limbs at or above the ankle or wrist; rovided,further,Thatifhehasnoprimarybeneficiary,
P Pesos (P3,000.00) shall be paid upon the death of a
theSystemshallpaytohissecondarybeneficiariesthe covered employee or permanently totally disabled
iv) Permanent complete paralysis of two limbs;
monthly income benefit but not to exceed sixty pensioner.
v) rain injury resulting in incurable imbecility or
B months:
insanity; and Civil Code
rovided, finally, That the minimum death benefit
P
vi) uchcasesasdeterminedbytheMedicalDirector
S shall not be less than fifteen thousand pesos. RT 1711. Owners of enterprises and other
A
of the System and approved by the Commission. employers are obliged to pay compensation
b) Th
e System shall pay to the primary beneficiaries
RTICLE 199. Permanent Partial Disability. — Any
A 1. f or the death of or injuries to theirlaborers,
upon the death of a covered employee who is under
employee who contracts sickness or sustains an injury workmen, mechanics or other employees,
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page78of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
2. e ven though the event may havebeenpurely o r her heirs, are no longer free to opt for the other dministrativeCode,RA1161,asamended,RA610,as
A
accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous remedy. Both remedies cannot also be pursued amended, RA 4864, as amended, and other laws
cause, simultaneously. whosebenefitsareadministeredbytheSystemorby
other agencies of the government.
3. i f the death or personal injury arose out of eintentinFlorescawastoallowthechoiceofrecoveryof
Th
and in the course of the employment. damages under the Civil Code based on negligence or rticle179operatestoBARsimultaneouspursuitofboth
A
breach of contract despite the exclusivity provision in compensation and damages. A claim for compensation
e employer is also liable for compensation if the
Th
Article 179 of the Labor Code. under the Labor Code triggers the application of the
employee contracts any illness or disease causedby
exclusivity principle in Article 179—the liability of the
suchemploymentorastheresultofthenatureofthe iven the irreconcilable inconsistency between the
G
aforesaidlawsandtheirnatureasspeciallawandgeneral State Insurance Fund shall be "e xclusive", and
employment.Ifthemishapwasduetotheemployee's
law,theCourtdeclaresthatTitleII,BookIVoftheLabor compensationundertheStateInsuranceFundshallbe"in
own notorious negligence, or voluntary act, or
place of all other liabilities of the employer."
drunkenness, the employer shall not be liable for ode has impliedly repealed Article 1711 of the Civil
C
compensation.Whentheemployee'slackofduecare Code. imilarly,onewhohasavailedoftheremedyofdamages
S
contributed tohisdeathorinjury,thecompensation under the Civil Code may no longer recover
e choice of action ofemployeesandtheirheirsshould
Th
shall beequitably reduced. compensation under the Labor Code.
beselective,notcumulativeorexclusive.Theremediesof
compensation and damages could not be cumulative ll considered, the conclusion reached in Floresca is still
A
Oceanmarine Resources v. Nedic2022 En Banc
becauseofArticle179oftheLaborCode,inrelationtothe good law.
L imquiaco, Jr. v. Judge Ramolete reaffirmed the rule now rule on inconsistent remedies and the doctrine of 1. Th
e remedies of compensation and damages are
obtaininginworkmen'scompensationcases,whichisfor election of remedies. selective.
theemployeeorhisorherheirs,incaseofdeath,tohave
RT 179. Extent of Liability. — Unless otherwise
A 2. E
mployees or their heirs may choosebetweenan
the option to
provided, the liability of the State Insurance Fund action for damages under the Civil Code or a
1. c laimcompensationfromtheemployerunderthe under this Title shall be exclusive and inplaceofall claim for compensation under the Labor Code.
Labor Code or other liabilities of the employertotheemployee,his
3. U
pon electing a remedy, the employees or their
2. p roceedagainsttheemployerasatortfeasorinan dependents or anyone otherwise entitled to receive
heirs shall be deemed to have waived the other
ordinary action for damages before the regular damages on behalf of the employee or his
remedy, save for recognized exceptions, such as
courts. dependents. The payment of compensation under
this Title shall not bar the recovery of benefits as a. w
hen the choice of the first remedy was
Onceanelectionhasbeenexercised,theemployee,orhis based on ignorance or mistake of fact,
provided for in Section 699 of the Revised
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page79of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
hich nullifies the choiceasitwasnotan
w t he work-relatedness of hisillness.Recordsdonotshow
2. t he work-related injury or i llness must have
intelligent choice, or howhisworkinthevesselcausedthedevelopmentofhis
existed during the term of the seafarer's
b. w illness. On the other hand, the company-designated
hen there are supervening facts or employment contract.
developmentsoccurringaftertheclaimant physician issued a medical report which clearly stated
e2010POEA-SECdefinesawork-relatedillnessasany
Th thatpetitioner'sillnessisnotwork-related.Thereportof
opted for the first remedy. sickness as a result of an occupational disease listed a company-designated physician is binding when not
under Section 32-A of this Contract with the conditions refuted by the seafarer's physician of own choice and a
RT 1712. If the death or injury is due to the
A
set therein satisfied. third doctor.
negligence of a fellow worker, the latter and the
employer shallbesolidarilyliableforcompensation. ection20(A)furtherprovidesthatillnessesnotlistedin
S claim for total and permanent disability benefits may
A
Ifafellowworker'sintentionalormaliciousactisthe Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as be considered prematurely filed if there is no contrary
only cause of the death or injury,theemployershall work-related. opinion fromtheseafarer'sphysicianofownchoice,and
notbeanswerable,unlessitshouldbeshownthatthe ection 32-A provides for the conditions
S of a third doctor as required depending on the applicable
latter did not exercise due diligence in theselection compensability for listed occupational diseases: scenario.
or supervision of the plaintiff's fellow worker.
1. t he seafarer's work must involve risks described ere, petitioner did not have the required contrary
H
therein; opinion as he only availed of a second opinion after he
Claims of Seafarers filed the complaint. Thus, petitioner's claim is premature.
2. t he disease was contracted as a result of the
E 2010 Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the seafarer's exposure to the described risks; I nsum,petitionerisnotentitledtodisabilitybenefitsfor
verseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers
O
On-board Ocean-going Ships (Secs. 20, 32, 32-A) hisfailuretotimelyprocureasecondphysician'sopinion,
3. t he disease was contracted within a period of
and for failing toshowthathisillnessiswork-relatedor
exposure and under such otherfactorsnecessary
work-aggravated.
to contract it; and
Paglinawan v. Dohle Philman Agency, Inc.2022
4. t here was no notorious negligence on thepartof
Petitioner is not entitled to permanent disability benefits. the seafarer. Singson v. Arktis Maritime2021
ection20(A)ofthe2010POEA-SECprovidesthatforan
S e seafarer must prove by substantial evidence that
Th .F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Taok, asreiteratedin
C
illness to be compensable, two elements must concur: there is a reasonable causal connection between his
Daraug v. KGJS Fleet Management Manila, distilled the
1. the injury or illness must be work-related; and illness and the work for which he has been contracted. principles laid down in Vergara and clearly set out the
Here, petitioner failed to prove by substantial evidence conditionswhenanactionfortotalandpermanentdisability
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page80of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
may prosper: octor-of-choice and the third doctor selected
d mobile vessels or fixed structures from this definition.
1. under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found
ecompany-designatedphysicianfailedtoissue
Th gga v. NLRC ruled that employees that have nothing to
A
otherwise and declared him unfit to work;
adeclarationastohisfitnesstoengageinseaduty do with manning vessels or with sea navigation are
or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day 7. e company-designated physician declared him
Th land-based workers.
period and there is no indication that further totallyandpermanentlydisabledbuttheemployer
ere, it is evident that Dominador, despite allegedly
H
medical treatment would address his temporary refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; being a seafarer for 22 years, was not engaged as a
total disability, hence, justify an extension ofthe and seafarer but as a land-based worker in his latest
period to 240 days; 8. e company-designated physician declared him
Th employment contract with petitioners.
2. 2 40 days had lapsed without any certification partially and permanently disabled within the
us,heisnotentitledtoanyofthebenefitsreservedfor
Th
issued by the company designated physician; 120-day or 240-day period but he remains seafarersunderthelaw,suchasthepermanentandtotal
3. incapacitatedtoperformhisusualseadutiesafter
e company-designated physician declared that
Th disability benefits found in the POEA-SEC.
heisfitforseadutywithinthe120-dayor240-day the lapse of said periods.
period, as the case may be, but his physician of
choice and the doctor chosen under Section 20 Great Southern Maritime Service Corp., et al., v. Surigao
B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion; V People Manpower v. Buquid2021
e general rule is that the employer isliabletopaythe
Th
4. ecompany-designatedphysicianacknowledged
Th onsideringthedefinitionprovidedbylawandprevailing
C heirsofthedeceasedseafarerfordeathbenefitsonceitis
thatheispartiallypermanentlydisabledbutother jurisprudence, Dominador cannot be considered as a
established that he died during the effectivity of his
doctors who heconsulted,onhisownandjointly seafarer. employment contract.
with his employer, believed that his disability is e capability of a vessel to engage in maritime
Th owever, the employer may be exemptedfromliabilityif
H
not only permanent but total as well; navigation is crucial in determining whetheronecanbe he can successfully prove that the seafarer's death was
5. e company-designated physician recognized
Th considered as a "seaman." caused byaninjurydirectlyattributabletohisdeliberate
that he is totally and permanently disabled but art I, Rule II (38) of the 2003 POEA Seafarer Rules
P or willful act.
there is a dispute on the disability grading; defines "seafarer" by expressly including fishermen,
6. e company-designated physician determined
Th cruise ship personnel and those serving on foreign
that his medical condition isnotcompensableor maritime mobile offshore anddrillingunits.Clearly,the Kestrel Shipping Co. et al., v. Munar2013
work-related under the POEA-SEC but his intent was to exclude those employees working in non
If after the lapse of the 120 or 240 day periods, the
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page81of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
s eafarer is still incapacitated to perform his usual sea Sy v. Phil Transmarine Carriers Inc.2013 a nyactincidentalthereto.Consequently,hisdeathcould
duties and the company- designated physician had not not be considered work-related to be compensable.
e qualification that death must be work-related has
Th
yet declared him fit to work or permanently disabled,
madeitnecessarytoshowacausalconnectionbetweena
whether total or permanent, the conclusive presumption
seafarer’s work and his death to be compensable.
that the latter is totally and permanently disabled arises. Nazareno v. Maersk Filipinas Crewing Inc.2013 EnBanc
Disability or death must arise
ON Munar is entitledtothemaximumcompensationbenefit
W I f serious doubt exists on the company-designated
1) out of employment, AND
as provided under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. physician's declarationofthenatureofaseaman'sinjury
2) in the course of employment. and its corresponding impediment grade, resort to
ES. Under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, only those
Y
injuries or disabilities that are classified as Grade1may ONSyisentitledtodeathbenefitsunderthePOEAStandard
W prognosis of other competent medical professionals
be considered astotalandpermanent.However,ifthose Contract. should be made.
injuriesordisabilitieswithadisabilitygradingfrom2to O. Under the Amended POEA Contract,
N ONunderSection20ofthesaidPOEA-SEC,thedisabilityofa
W
14, hence, partial and permanent, would incapacitate a work-relatedness is now an important requirement. seafarer can only be assessed by the company-designated
seafarer from performing his usual sea duties for a Work-related injury is defined as an injury resulting in physician and not by the seafarer’s own doctor.
period of more than 120 or 240 days, depending on the disability or death arising out of and in the course of O. While it is the company-designated physician who
N
need for further medical treatment, then he is, under employment. must declare that the seaman suffered a permanent
legal contemplation,totally and permanently disabled.
n injury or accident is said to arise "in the course of
A disability during employment, it does not deprive the
I n addition, that it wasbyoperationoflawthatbrought employment" seafarer of his right to seek a second opinion.
forth the conclusive presumption that Munar is totally
1. w
hen it takes place within the period of the e certification of the company-designated physician
Th
and permanently disabled, there is no legalcompulsion
employment, would defeat petitioner’s claim while the opinion of the
for him to observe the procedure prescribed under
independent physicians would uphold such claim. In
Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC. A seafarer’s 2. a taplacewheretheemployeereasonablymaybe,
such a situation,theCourtadoptsthefindingsfavorable
compliance with such procedure presupposes that the and
to petitioner. The law looks tenderly on the laborer.
company-designated physician came up with an 3. w
hile he is fulfilling his duties or is engaged in
assessment before the expiration of the 120-day or ON petitioner is entitled to disability benefits based on the
W
doing something incidental thereto.
240-day periods. findings and conclusions, not only of his personal doctors, but
tthetimeoftheaccident,ABSywasonshoreleaveand
A also on the findings of the doctors whom he consulted abroad.
therewasnoshowingthathewasdoinganactinrelation
tohisdutyasaseamanorengagedintheperformanceof
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page82of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ES. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Campana
Y 2. Th
e company-designated physician should, Austria v. Crystal Shipping2016
cannot be given much weight and considerationagainst however, make the declaration or determination re-existence of an illness does not irrevocably bar
P
the overwhelming findings and diagnoses of different within 120 days, otherwise, the law considers the compensability because disability laws still grant the
doctors, here and abroad, that petitioner was notfitfor seafarer’s disability as total and permanent. sameprovidedseafarer'sworkingconditionsbearcausal
work and can no longer perform his duties as a seafarer. 3. S connection with his illness.
houldtheseafarerstillrequiremedicaltreatmentfor
more than 120 days, the period may be extended, ON Austria was entitled to permanent disability benefits
W
but not to exceed 240 days. despite his pre-existing condition.
Philman Marine Agency Inc. et al., v. Cabanban2013
4. A
t anytime during this latter period, t he ES. For an occupational disease and the resulting
Y
e doctor who has had a personal knowledge of the
Th company-designated physician may make the disabilityordeathtobecompensable,allofthefollowing
actual medical condition, having closely, meticulously declaration or determination. conditions must be satisfied:
and regularly monitored and actually treated the
5. I n case of disagreement betweenthefindingsofthe 1. Th
e seafarer's work must involve the risks
seafarer’sillness,ismorequalifiedtoassesstheseafarer’s
company-designated physician and theseafarer’s described herein;
disability.
appointedphysician,thepartiesshalljointlyagree
ON Armando is entitled to total and permanent disability
W 2. Th
e disease was contracted as a result of the
to refer the matter to a third doctor whose
benefits. seafarer's exposure to the described risks;
findings shall be final and binding on both.
O.Section20-BofthePOEA-SECevidentlyshowsthat
N 3. Th
e disease was contracted within a period of
ere, Armando, in fact, had no ground for a disability
H
it is the company-designated physician who primarily exposure and under such otherfactorsnecessary
claim at the time he filed his complaint, as he did not
assesses the degree of the seafarer’s disability. to contract it; and
have any sufficient evidentiary basis to support his claim.
1. U pon the seafarer’s repatriation for medical 4. Th
erewasnonotoriousnegligenceonthepartof
orethanthis,thedisagreementbetweenthefindingsof
M
treatment, and during the course of such the seafarer.
the company-designated physician and Armando’s
treatment, the seafarer is under totaltemporary chosen physicians was never referred to a third doctor. etitioner's working environment as chef constantly
P
disabilityandreceivesmedicalallowanceuntilthe Consideringtheabsenceoffindingscomingfromathird exposed him to factors that could aggravate his heart
company-designated physician declares his doctor,wesustainthefindingsoftheNLRCandholdthat condition.
fitness to work resumption or determines the the certification of the company-designated physician ompensability of an ailment does not depend on
C
degree of the seafarer’s permanent disability — should prevail. whethertheinjuryordiseasewaspre-existingatthetime
either total or partial.
of the employment but rather if the disease or injury is
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page83of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ork-related or aggravated his condition. It is not
w EMEisNOTexploratoryinnature.Itwasnotintended
P either of these words refers to a medical procedure
N
necessary, in order for an employee to recover to be a totally in-depth andthoroughexaminationofan undergonebyaseafarerinconnectionwithan"illnessor
compensation, that he must have been in perfect applicant’s medical condition. The PEME merely condition" already known to the employer.
condition or health atthetimehereceivedtheinjury,or determines whether one is "fit to work" at seaor"fitfor
us, the employer cannot validly decry his supposed
Th
that he be free from disease. seaservice,"itdoesnotstatetherealstateofhealthofan concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation of
applicant. In short, the "fit to work" declaration in the Leoncio's illness on account of the non-disclosureofthe
respondent’sPEMEcannotbeaconclusiveprooftoshow
stenting procedure.
Dizon v. Naess Shipping Phils2016 that he was free from any ailment prior to his
deployment.
e three-day period from return of the seafarer or
Th
sign-off from the vessel, whether to undergo a J ebsens Maritime v. Alcibar2019
re Theory of Aggravation
post-employment medical examination or report the
oroteo v. Philimare, Inc2017
D
seafarer's physicalincapacity,shouldalwaysbecomplied re Clear Nexus Rule I n Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v.Villamater,thisCourtheld
with to determine whether the injury or illness is that under Section 32-A of the POEA Standard
work-related. ere,thereisnoclearnexusbetweenthediseaseDoroteo
H
Employment Contract, colon cancer is considered a
acquired and the working conditions he encountered. work-related disease. This Court explained that the
WON Dizon is entitled to disability benefits.
Therefore, the disputable presumption of work-relation seaman is entitled to disability benefits if the seaman
O.Thelawspecificallydeclaresthatfailuretocomplywith
N cannotbeapplied,sincebasedontheevidencepresented
provesthattheconditionsinsidethevesselincreasedor
the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in the theCourtcannotreasonablyconcludethathisworkasan
aggravated the riskof the seaman of colon cancer.
seafarer's forfeiture of his right to claim benefitsthereunder. engineer in the engine room led to Dorotea's throat
izon’scoronaryarterydiseasewhichrenderedhimunfit
D cancer.
for sea duty was diagnosed during a pre-employment Mutia v. C.F. Sharp Crew2022
medical examination and not in a post-employment
eoncio v. MST Marine Services2017
L onsistent with the constitutional policy guaranteeing
C
medical examination as provided by law.
re Medical Procedure the full protection of labor, the 2010 POEA-SEC
othing can be plainer than the meaning of the word
N provisions must be construed fairly, reasonably, and
uizora v. Denholm Crew Management2011
Q "illness" as referring to a disease or injury afflicting a liberally in favor of the seafarer.
re Pre-Employment Medical Examination person's body. By the doctrine of noscitor a sociis, e Court laid down the following conditions that must
Th
"condition" likewise refers to the state of one's health. be complied with before an employer can be freed from
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page84of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
l iability for a seafarer’s disability arising from a aragraph 3, which requires the seafarer must submit
p
I n sum, the late Antonio's pancreatic cancer is not
pre-concealed illness or injury: himself to a post-employment medical examination work-related andtherefore,notcompensablebecausehe
1. Th within three daysupon his return.
e seafarer is suffering from a pre-existing or his heirs failed to prove, by substantial evidence, its
illnessorinjuryasdefinedunderItem11(b)ofthe hen he was asked to report back for a follow-up
W work-relatedness and his compliance with the
2010 POEA-SEC; check-up,notonlydidAntoniofailtodoso,healsofailed parametersthatthelawhassetoutwithregardtoclaims
to notify in writing Marlow or Dr. Hosaka that he had for disability and death benefits.
2. Th
eseafarerintentionallyconcealedtheillnessor
alreadygonehometoAklan.AllthatAntonioorhisfamily
injury; and
had to do was make a written notification of his
3. Th
e concealed pre-existing illness or injury hasa hospitalization, or his physical incapacitytoreportback Cabatan v. Southeast Asia Shipping Corp.2022
causalorreasonableconnectionwiththeillnessor to the company-designated physician.
injury suffered during the seafarer’s contract. abatan's claim for disability benefits and other
C
aragraph4ofthesamesectionfurtherstatesthatifthe
P monetary awards prayed for by him must be denied.
I ntheabsenceoftheseconditions,theemployersremain doctor selected by the seafarer disagrees with the
liable for work-related injury or illness consistent with I n order to claim compensability under the forgoing
assessment of the company-designated physician, the
their duties to provide a seaworthy ship and to take section, it is required that the seafarer must have:
partiesmayjointlyappointathirddoctorwhosedecision
precautions to avoid the seafarer’s accident. shall be final and binding on both parties. 1. s uffered a work-related illness or injury during
the term of his contract; and
Also,pancreatic cancer is not an occupational disease.
2. s ubmitted himself to a mandatory
Marlow Navigation Phils. v. Heirs of Beato2022 ntonio failedtoprovethathisillnessiscompensableas
A
post-employment medical examination within
he failed to satisfy all the conditions under Section 32-A.
e late Antonio's pancreatic cancer is not work-related
Th three (3) working days upon his arrival.
and therefore, not compensable. 1. ntonio or his heirs did not enumerate his
A
J ebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Undagexplainedthatthepurpose
specific duties as an Able Seaman;
inceAntoniowasemployedin2012,Section20-Aofthe
S of the three-day mandatory reporting requirement is to
2010POEA-SECappliesindeterminingthefactualissues 2. eydidnotshowthathisdutiesortaskscaused,
Th enable the company-designated physician toascertainif
of compensability of his pancreatic cancer, and contributed to thedevelopmentof,oraggravated the seafarer's injury or illness is work-related.
compliancewiththePOEA-SECprescribedprocedurefor his pancreatic cancer;
owever, the three-day reporting requirement is not
H
disability determination. 3. ere was no mention of the specific substances
Th absolute. Paragraph 3, Section 20 (B) of the POEA-SEC
ntonio failed to complywiththeproceduresprescribed
A orchemicalswhichheclaimedhewasexposedto also provides that a seafarer who is physically
under the POEA-SEC, particularly Section 20-A (3), during his employment contract. incapacitated to report for a post-employment
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page85of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
e xamination may send a written notice to its agency
I tisthedutyoftheseafarertonotifyhisemployerthathe 2. orthedurationofthetreatmentbutinnocaseto
F
within the same period.
orsheintendstorefertheconflicttoathirddoctor.Once exceed120days,theseamanisontemporarytotal
ere, Cabatan was repatriated due to the expiration of
H notified, the burden shifts to the employer to complete disability.
his contract. Regardless of the cause ofhisrepatriation, the process of referral to a third doctor. When the
3. I f the 120 days initial period is exceeded and no
hewasrequiredtosubmithimselftoapost-employment employer fails to act on the seafarer’s valid request for such declaration is made because the seafarer
medical examination by the company-designated referral to a third doctor, the tribunals and courts are requires further medical attention, then the
physician within three working days upon his return in empoweredtoconductitsownassessmenttoresolvethe temporarytotaldisabilityperiodmaybeextended
order to ascertain if he was really suffering from a conflicting medical opinions. uptoamaximumof240days,subjecttotheright
work-related injury or illness.
of theemployertodeclarewithinthisperiodthat
a permanent partial or total disability already
Rodriguez v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers2021 exists.
Benhur Shipping v. Riego2022
Doctrinal Rule us,aspointedoutinKestrelShippingCo.,Inc.v.Munar,a
Th
or a company-designated physician to avail of the
F seafarer's inability to work and the failure of the
The referral to athird doctoris mandatory when:
extended 240-day period, he or she must performsome company-designated physician to determine fitness or
completeordefinitemedicalassessmenttoshowthatthe 1) t here is a valid and timely assessment by the
unfitness to work despite the lapseof120dayswillNOT
illness still requires medical attendance beyond the 120 company-designated physician and
automatically bring about a shift in the seafarer's state
days, but not to exceed 240 days. In such case, the 2) t he appointed doctor of the seafarer refuted such from total and temporary to total and permanent.
temporary total disability period is extended to a assessment.
claim for permanent and total disability benefits may
A
maximum of 240 days. Without sufficient justification
Held prosper after the lapse of the 120-day period, but less
for the extension of the treatment period, a seafarer’s
odriguez is NOT entitled to permanent and total
R than 240 days, from the time the seafarer reported for
disabilityshallbeconclusivelypresumedtobepermanent
disability compensation. medical treatment if the company-designated physician
and total.
failed to declare within the 120-day period that the
I fthecompany-designatedphysicianstillfailstogivehis Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc. ruled:
seafarer requires further medical attention.
assessmentwithintheextendedperiodof240days,then 1. e seafarer, upon sign-off fromhisvessel,must
Th
or a medical treatment that lasts more than 120 days,
F
the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total, report to the company-designated physician
butlessthan240days,anawardforpermanentandtotal
regardless of any justification. within three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis
disability benefit is unavailing if:
and treatment.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page86of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
s uch right may be availed of on the presumption that the r emained in need of medical attention, a sufficient
1. t he failure to issue a timely medical assessment
was attended by the seafarer's fault; or company-designated doctor had already issued a definite justificationfortheextensionofthe120-dayperiodtothe
declaration on the medical condition of the seafarer, and the maximum period of 240 days in order for the
2. t he company-designatedphysicianopinedwithin seafarer finds it disagreeable. company-designated physician to make a complete
the 120-day period that the seafarer required assessmentofhisinjuryandrecommendtheappropriate
further medical treatment. Held
disability rating, if any. Insteadofheedingtheadviceof
ere, Rodriguez was stillundergoingmedicaltreatment
H abalot is not entitled to permanent total disability
M Dr. Alegre, Mabalot opted to consult Dr. Jacinto.
and evaluation by Dr. Lim after the lapse ofthe120-day benefits.
n even date, or 142 days after his medical repatriation
O
period. He agreed toafurthermedicalevaluation.Since I f a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees withthe but within 240 days therefrom, Mabalot filed the
Dr. Lim's final medicalassessmentwasjustifiablyissued assessment,athirddoctormaybeagreedjointlybetween Complaint.Mabalot'sComplaintwasprematurelyfiledas
beyond the 120-day period butwithin240daysfromthe theEmployerandtheseafarer.Thethirddoctor'sdecision his cause of action had yet to accrue. The
time Rodriguez first reported to him, this Court finds shall be final and binding on both parties. company-designated doctor stillhadaremainingperiod
Rodriguez not entitled to his claim for permanent and within which to give his definitive assessment.
s case law holds, a final and definite disability
A
total disability benefits. assessment is necessary in ordertotrulyreflectthetrue e rule is thatwhileaseafarerhastherighttoseekthe
Th
oreover, since Dr. Lim and Dr. Garcia had conflicting
M extentofthesicknessorinjuriesoftheseafarerandhisor opinionofotherdoctors,suchrightmaybeavailedofon
medicalassessments,Rodriguezfailedtoreferthematter hercapacitytoresumeworkassuch.Thelawstepsinand the presumption that the company-designated doctor
to a third doctor, jointly agreed upon the parties, as considerstheseafarer'sdisabilityastotalandpermanent had already issued a definite declaration onthemedical
mandated by Section 20(A) ofthe2010POEA-SEC.Also, whenthecompany-designatedphysicianfailstoarriveat condition of the seafarer, and the seafarer finds it
Dr. Lim's diagnosis is given more credence than Dr. a definite assessment of theseafarer'sfitnesstoworkor disagreeable. Given the lack of certification from the
Garcia's since the former was able to assesstheseafarer permanentdisabilitywithintheprescribedperiodsandif company-designated doctor, Mabalot cannot rely on the
afteranextensivemedicaltreatment,whereasDr.Garcia the seafarer's medical condition remains unresolved. assessment made by his own doctor.
only assessed him once.
ere,theGrade11disabilityratinggivenbyDr.Alegreon
H ence, the appellate court wascorrectinreinstatingthe
H
February2,2012,or110daysfromMabalot'srepatriation, ruling of the LA which awarded Mabalot compensation
wasmerelyaninterimdiagnosis.ThefailureofDr.Alegre corresponding only to Grade 11 disability rating.
Mabalot v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing2021 to issue a complete and definite medical assessment
Doctrinal Rule within the 120-day period did not automatically render
Mabalot's disability as total and permanent. Mabalot Idul v. Alster Int'l Shipping Services2021
Whileaseafarerhastherighttoseektheopinionofotherdoctors,
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page87of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
e CA correctly concluded that a temporary total
Th examinations, and treatments, prevails. EMS Crew Management Philippines v. Bauzon2021
disability only becomes permanentwhen
auzon's ailmentiswork-relatedandcompensable;heis
B
1. t he company-designated physician declares it to thus entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.
De Jesus v. Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises2021
be so within the 240-day period; or
auzon, as an Able Seaman on board the vessel, was
B
2. hen after the lapse of the 240-day period, the
w etitioner forfeited his right to claim any disability
P exposed to harsh sea weather, chemical irritants, dusts,
company-designatedphysicianfailstomakesuch benefit. heat,stressbroughtaboutbybeingawayfromhisfamily,
declaration. e Medical Report issued by Dr. Urlanda of YGEIA
Th long hoursofwork,andlimitedanduncleanair/oxygen,
ere, the medical reports issued by Dr. Lim and Dr.
H Medical Clinic declared petitioner's illness as not all of which invariably contributed to his illness. There
Chuasuan reveal that Idul was examined, treated, and work-related.Althoughpetitionerallegedthathedidnot wasatleastareasonableconnectionbetweenhisjoband
rehabilitated for about seven(7)months.Dr.Chuasuan's receive a copy of the said report, the same was his contracting the throat ailment during his
assessment ofIdul'sdisabilitygradingwasissuedonthe unsubstantiated by evidence. He never questioned the employment, which eventually developed into papillary
207thday,andtherefore,wellwithinthe240-dayperiod. findingsofDr.Urlandaandherrecommendation.Atthat cancer.
Idul's condition did not become a permanent total point, petitioner clearly forfeited his right to claim any
oreover, petitioners assumed the risk of liabilitywhen
M
disability just by the mere lapse of the 120-day period, disability benefit. Bauzon was re-hired and issued a fit-to-work
especially since the extension was necessary for his hilepetitionerallegedlyconsultedhispersonaldoctors,
W certification despite knowledge of his existing medical
rehabilitation. the Medical Certificate issued byhisowndoctor,stating condition. Bauzon's employment had contributed to the
nder Sec 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, if a doctor
U that his illness was work-related, was only issued about development of his illness, even if it waspre-existingat
appointedbytheseafarerdisagreeswiththeassessment, 30 months after his examination by the the time of his employment.
a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the company-designated physician.
allem Maritime Services, Inc. v. NLRC has held that it is
W
employer and the seafarer, whose decision shall befinal us,DeJesusisnotentitledtodisabilitybenefitsforhis
Th notrequiredthattheemploymentbethesolefactorinthe
andbindingonbothparties.Failuretocomplytherewith failure to validly and timely question thefindingsofthe growth, development or acceleration of the illness to
isconsideredabreachofthePOEA-SEC,andrendersthe company-designated physician declaring his disability entitletheclaimanttothebenefitsprovidedtherefor.Itis
assessment by the company-designated physician not work-related or aggravated, and in viewofthevalid enough that the employment had contributed,evenina
binding on the parties. quitclaimwhichhehimselfexecutedrelinquishingallhis small degree, to the development of the disease. If the
us,Dr.Chuasuan'sassessmentofaGrade10disability,
Th rights against the respondents. disease is the proximate cause, the previous physical
which was a result of months of consultations, condition of the employee is unimportant and recovery
may be had therefor independent of any pre- existing
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page88of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
disease. resort to a third-doctor opinion proved fatal to his cause. dditionally,hedidnotsecurethemedicalopinionofthe
A
ere, Bauzon's duties and responsibilities as an Able
H company-designatedphysicianbeforeconsultinghisown
Seaman, coupled with the constricted diet among doctor in accordance with Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010
Ville v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing2021
seafarers, contributed to the aggravation and POEA-SEC. Without these assessments, his suit for
development of his ailment. ille is not entitled to total and permanent disability
V disability benefits was filed prematurely.
benefits.
contract between an employer and a seafarer ceases
A
Destriza v. Fair Shipping Corporation2021 C.F. Sharp Crew Management v. Jaicten2021
uponitscompletion,whentheseafarersignsofffromthe
Destriza is not entitled to the award of US$20K. vessel and arrives at the point of hire.Thus,uponVille's J aicten is not entitled to permanent total disability
signing off from the vessel and repatriation due to the benefits.
ection 20 ofMemorandumCircularNo.9providesthat
S
for an illness or injury to be compensable, it must be completion of his contract,hisemploymentrelationship
s between the findings of the company-designated
A
work-relatedandmustbeincurredduringthetermofthe with the respondents correspondingly ceased. physicians who conducted extensive examination on
Consequently, no liability should attach to the
seafarer's contract. respondent, on one hand, and Dr.Vicaldo,ontheother,
respondents for any illness or incident that may have who saw him on only one occasion and did not even
elistunderSec32-AdoesnotincludeChronicCalculus
Th beenacquiredortranspireaftersigningofforexpiration perform any medical test tosupporthisassessment,the
Cholecystitis. However, Section 20ofMCNo.9provides of his contract, as in this case.
that "those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this former's should prevail.
Contract are disputably presumed as work-related." venontheassumptionthatVille'sillnessiswork-related
E oreover,Jaicten'ssigningoftheCertificateofFitnessto
M
andthatthesamewasacquiredon-boardandduringthe
Work effectively released petitioners from any liability
ince Chronic Calculus Cholecystitis and even
S term of his employment contract, his suit for disability arising from his repatriation due to medical reasons.
contractingofgallstonesarenotincludedinSection32-A benefits would still fail due to his non-compliance with
ofMCNo.9,Destrizahadtheburdenofestablishing,by Also, Dr. Vicaldo himself did not declare respondent
the three-day reportorial requirement upon repatriation. entitled to permanent and total disability benefits or
substantial evidence,thathisillnesswaswork-relatedor
wasatleastaggravatedbywork.However,Destrizafailed ere, Ville never reported to his employer that he was
H GradeIbutonlytodisabilitybenefitsequivalenttoGrade
sufferingfromanailmentwhileonboardAdrianMaersk. VII.
to establish work-relatedness relative to his illness.
Hedidnotsubmithimselfforpost-employmentmedical
stheCAcorrectlyfound,thePVAhaserredinawarding
A urther, respondent failed to comply with the
F
examination within three working days after
US$20K on top of the medical expenses already third-doctor referral procedure before filing his
disembarkation. complaintwhichprovedprejudicialtohiscase.Lastly,the
shouldered by FSC. In addition, Destriza's failure to
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page89of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
f act that Jaicten was not employed immediatelyafterhe i n flagrant disregard of established rules on permanent
2. " permanently and totally disabled," which then
wasdeclaredfittoresumeseadutiesshouldnotbetaken entitles him to permanent total disability benefits. disability compensation.
against petitioners.
recommendation to undergo surgery does not
A ere, the company-designated physicians issued San
H
I nsum,respondentisnotentitledtototalandpermanent necessarily prove that petitioner was not fit to work. Juan’sfit-to-workcertifications89daysafterrepatriation,
disability benefits. Rather,suchrecommendationmerelyprovesthatfurther which is well within the 120-day period provided under
Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. As he was
medical treatment is needed.
declaredfittoresumeseaduties,therewas,therefore,no
Singson v. Arktis Maritime2021 ere,therecordsshowthattherewasnodeclarationasto
H basisforSanJuantoclaimtotalandpermanentdisability
petitioner's fitness to work or as to the permanent and benefits from PTCI.
onnie is not entitled to the award of total and
R total status of his disability within the 120-day period.
permanent disability benefits. However, since petitioner's sickness required medical otably,thecomplaintwasalsoprematurelyfiledsinceat
N
treatmentbeyondthe120-dayperiod,thetemporarytotal that time, San Juan was not yet armed with a medical
e mere lapse of the 120-day period under Article
Th
disability period was extended up to amaximumof240 certificate from his physician of choice.
198(c)(l)oftheLaborCodedoesnotautomaticallygiverise
to a cause of action for a claim of permanent total days.Theevidenceonrecordwouldrevealthatpetitioner ettled is the rule that when a seafarer sustains a
S
disability benefits. was declared as asymptomatic and fit to work 134 days work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel,
after the onset of the disability, well within the 240-day his fitness or unfitness for work shall be determined by
henacertainsicknessorinjurycausesatemporaryand
W
period. the company-designated physician, and that in case of
totaldisabilitywhichlastscontinuouslyformorethan120
conflictingmedicalassessments,referraltoathirddoctor
days, then such total disability is considered to be erefore, petitioner cannot claim permanent total
Th
is mandatory; and thatintheabsenceofathirddoctor's
permanent. disability benefits andisonlyentitledtotemporarytotal
opinion, it is the medical assessment of the
disabilitybenefitsuntilthetimewhenhewasdeclaredto
owever,asanexceptiontothisrule,ifthesaidsickness
H company-designated physician that should prevail.
be fit to work.
or injury that caused the temporary total disability
t any rate, the certification issued by San Juan's
A
requires medical treatment beyond the 120-day period
physician cannot prevail over the conclusions of PTCI's
but not to exceed 240 days, then the employee is only
Philippine Transmarine Carriers v. San Juan2020 company-designated physicians.
entitled to temporary total disability benefits until he is
declared as either: an Juan is not entitled to his claim for permanent and
S e company-designated physicians were in a better
Th
total disability benefits. position to assess the illness or disability of San Juan
1. " fit to work," which stops his entitlement to
considering that their findings were based onanumber
disability benefits; or TherulingoftheCAisseriouslyflawedasitwasrendered
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page90of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
o f tests i.e., stress test and Cranial MRI, and medical 2) E
mployment may not be limited to persons of a laxo Welcome Philippines, Inc. heldthatGlaxohasaright
G
evaluation done on San Juan. particularsex,religion,ornationaloriginunlessthe to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas,
employer cas show that such qualifications are marketing strategies and other confidential programs
necessary in the performance of the job involved. and information from competitors. The prohibition
VI Management Prerogative Exceptionsto BFOQ: againstpersonalormaritalrelationshipswithemployees
of competitor companies upon Glaxo's employees is
a) E
mployment qualification is reasonably
Occupational Qualifications reasonableunderthecircumstancesbecauserelationships
related to the essential operation of the job
of that nature might compromise the interests of Glaxo.
Productivity Standards involved; and
I nPhilippineTelegraphandTelephoneCompanyv.NLRC,the
b) Th
ere is a factual basis for believingthatall
Change of Working Hours employeewasdismissedinviolationofpetitioner'spolicy
or substantially all persons meeting the
Transfer of Employees of disqualifying from work any woman worker who
qualification would be unable to properly
contracts marriage. The Court held that the company
Discipline of Employees perform the duties of the job.
policy violates the right against discrimination afforded
Grant of Bonuses and Other Benefits Dela Cruz-Cagampan v. One Network Bank2022 all women workers under Article 136 of the Labor Code.
Clearance Process ere, respondents failed todemonstratethereasonable
H
tar Paper Corp. v. Simbol discussed the bona fide
S
business necessityfor its no-spouse employment policy.
occupational qualification that may possibly justify an
Post-Employment Restrictions
employer's policy prohibiting spouses from working in F irst,theno-spousequalificationisnotreasonablyrelated
the same company or a "no-spouse employment policy." to the bank's essential operation of its business.
A Occupational Qualifications
nless the employer can prove that the reasonable
U econd, there is no factual basis to conclude that all of
S
1) T o be considered a bona fide occupational
demands of the business require a distinction based on theiremployeeswhomarryeachotherwouldbeunableto
qualification, the policy must
marital status and there is no better available or perform their duties, entailing one's dismissal.
a) Serve a legitimate business purpose; acceptable policy which would better accomplish the
b) Be specific to the occupation at issue; and business purpose, an employer may not discriminate
against an employee based on the identity of the Halagueña v. PAL2023 En Banc
c) R eflect an inherent quality that would
employee's spouse. ere, respondent merely claims, without more, that
H
reasonably guarantee work efficiency.
DuncanAssociationofDetailman-PTGWOandPedroTecsonv. female flight attendants belong to a special class of
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page91of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
o ccupation requiring special standards for retirement. Aliling v. Feliciano2012 on-diminution rule refers to monetary benefits or
n
This falls short of the requirement ofprovingreasonable privileges given to the employee with monetary
nemployerisentitledtoimposeproductivitystandards
A
business necessity. equivalents. Stated otherwise, the employee benefits
for its workers, and in fact, non-compliance may be
contemplated by Article 100 arethosewhicharecapable
hile it is true that aging generally entails the slowing
W visited with a penalty even more severe than demotion.
down of all bodily functions, there is no reasonable of being measured in terms of money.
ailure to observe prescribed standards of work, or to
F
connection to one's age and his or her sex vis-à-vis CBPI withdrew the Saturday work itself, pursuant, as
C
fulfill reasonable work assignments due to inefficiency
capacity toperformhisorherdutiesasflightattendant. alreadyheld,toitsmanagementprerogative.Infact,this
mayconstitutejustcausefordismissal.Suchinefficiency
To be sure, both female and male cabin attendants are management prerogative highlights the fact that the
is understood to mean failure to attain work goals or
exposed to same tasks, work demands, stress, and scheduling of the Saturday work was actually made
work quotas, either by failing to complete the same
dangers. subjecttoacondition,i.e.,theprerogativetoprovidethe
within the allotted reasonable period, or by producing
company's employees with Saturday work based on the
unsatisfactory results. This management prerogative of
existence of operational necessity.
requiringstandardsmaybeavailedofsolongastheyare
Yrasuegui v. PAL
exercised in good faith for the advancement of the I n the case at bar, CCBPI's employees were not illegally
nboardanaircraft,thebodyweightandsizeofacabin
O employer's interest. preventedfromworkingonSaturdays.Thecompanywas
attendant are important factors to consider in case of simply exercising its option not to schedule work
emergency. Aircrafts have constricted cabin space, and pursuant to the CBA provision which gave it the
narrow aisles and exit doors. Given the cramped cabin C Change of Working Hours prerogative to do so. It therefore follows that the
space andnarrowaislesandemergencyexitdoorsofthe principle of "no work, no pay" finds application in the
airplane,anyoverweightcabinattendantwouldcertainly instant case.
have difficulty navigating the cramped cabin area. CCBPI v. Iloilo Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union2018
us,thedismissalofpetitionercanbepredicatedonthe
Th ON scheduling Saturday work has ripened into a company
W
bona fide occupational qualification defense. D Transfer of Employees
practice, the removal of which constituted a diminution of
benefits. 1) Th
e lateral movement from onepositiontoanother
of equivalent rank, level or salary. Could be a
O. In Royal Plant Workers Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers
N
B Productivity Standards movement:
Philippines, Inc.-Cebu Plant, theCourthadtheoccasionto
rule that the term "b enefits" mentioned in the a) From onepositionto another; or
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page92of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
b) F rom one office to another withinthesame 6) Refusalto be transferred isVALIDin the following cases c) a transferbecomesunlawfulwhereitismotivated
business establishment. a) Overseas assignment; by discrimination or bad faith or is effected as a
2) Th
isisaninherentrighttocontrolormanagebythe form of punishment or is a demotion without
b) Consequent topromotion;
ER. Consent of EENOT required. sufficient cause;
isisascalartransfer. TheEEmayrefuseas
Th
3) Th
isisexercisedbytheERinthebestinterestofthe d) t he employer must be able to show that the
this entails additional responsibilities.
company to see where a particular EE can be best transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or
maximized. For atransfertobevalid,thefollowing c) To avoid conflict of interest; prejudicial to the employee.
REQUISITESmust be observed: d) Occasioned by the abolition of the position.
a) M ust be reasonable or have a sound 7) RefusalisINVALID
purpose; Teletech Customer Care v. Gerona, Jr.2021
a) Due to parental obligations;
b) Mustnotinconvenientthe welfare of the EE; e Court cannot subscribe to such assertion when the
Th
b) Additional expenses;
transfer is actually prejudicial to the Gerona. A careful
c) Notprejudicialto the EE;
c) Inconvenience; review of the Transfer Agreement shows that an
d) Notinvolve ademotionof rank or status; employee who falls to pass the trainings will be
d) Hardship and anguish.
e) Not be motivated bydiscrimination; dismissed.
Peckson v. Robinsons Supermarket2013 eronawasaregularemployee,hence,hewasentitledto
G
f) Not made inbad faith;
oncerning the transfer of employees, these are the
C security of tenure. By requiring him to pass additional
g) N ot be effected as a form of punishment
trainings and examination as a condition to retain his
without sufficient cause. following jurisprudential guidelines:
employment under the pain of dismissal, Teletech
4) F ailure to observe these requisites, the transfer is a) a transfer is a movement from one position to disregarded his right to security of tenure. Teletech's
deemedCONSTRUCTIVEDISMISSAL.Samereliefs anotherofequivalentrank,levelorsalarywithout failuretoproveredundancy,coupledwiththeimposition
as that of illegal demotion. break in the service or a lateral movement from of a prejudicial condition to retain employment,
one position to another of equivalent rank or rendered the offer of transfer invalid.
5) A n EE who refuses to be transferred when such is
salary;
valid, is guilty of insubordination or willful
disobedience of a lawful order of an ER under Art b) t heemployerhastheinherentrighttotransferor
297[282]of the LC. reassign an employee for legitimate business Asian Marine Transport v. Caseres2021
purposes;
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page93of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
e transfer orassignmentofemployeesingoodfaithis
Th a nemployee;failinginwhich,theemployerwillbefound
ere, no similar evidence was presented to support the
H
one of the acknowledged validexercisesofmanagement claim of a prevailing company practice of transferring
liable for constructive dismissal.
prerogativeandwillnot,inandofitself,sustainacharge employees. ere, the top management of both AMSFC and DFC,
H
of constructive dismissal.
whichweresistercompaniesatthetime,werewell-aware
enerally, an objection to a transfer groundedsolelyon
G
analov.AteneodeNagaUniversityinstructsthatinacase
M personal inconvenience or hardship cannot be seen as a of the lack of supervisory positions in AMSFC. This
for constructive dismissal brought about by thetransfer "valid reason to disobey" a transfer order, however, the notwithstanding, they still proceeded to order Baya's
ofemployees,thisCourtmustdecideif,giventhefactsof assailed transfer here was arbitrary, as well as return therein, thus, forcinghimtoacceptrank-and-file
the case, the employer acted fairly in making use of its discriminatory and marked with bad faith. Thus, positions. Thus, AMSFC and DFC are guilty of
right of management prerogative. constructively dismissing Baya.
respondents' transfercannotbesaidtohavebeenavalid
ere, petitioner attached several different Special
H exercise of petitioner's management prerogative.
Permits to Navigate from the Maritime Industry
Authority to support its assertion that it was its Chateau Royale Sports & Country Club v. Balba2017
customary practice to reshuffle itsemployeestoaddress Telus International Philippines v. De Guzman2019 Theburdenofproofliesintheemployertoprovethatthe
theexigenciesofitsmaritimetravelbusiness.Contraryto transfer of the employee from one area of operationto
elus did notprovideanyvalidjustificationorpresented
T
what petitioner claimed, it cannot be deduced from the a nother was for a valid and legitimate ground, like
proofthattherewasindeedadeficitofaccountthatbars
permitsthattherewasarealneedtotransferorreshuffle genuine business necessity.
the immediate transfer of De Guzman or that the
employees, or that these had long been established as a
companywassustaininglossesthatwouldjustifyplacing e right of the employee to security of tenuredoesnot
Th
company practice.
De Guzman on floatingstatus!.Hence,theunwarranted give her a vested right to her position as to deprive
afra v. CA held that while PLDT Co.'s management
Z actsofTelusevidentlyconstituteproofoftheconstructive management of itsauthoritytotransferorre-assignher
prerogative includes the right to transfer employees to dismissal of De Guzman. where she will be most useful.
anybranch,whichtheiremployeesalsoagreedtointheir
ON the transfer of respondents to petitioner's Manila office
W
application for employment, the employer's right to
was a valid exercise of management prerogative.
transfer should not be taken in isolation, but rather, in Sumifru Philippines Corporation v. Baya2017
conjunction with the established company practice of ES. The transfer could notbevalidlyassailedasaform
Y
ecksonv.RobinsonsSupermarketCorp.heldthattheburden
P of constructive dismissal, for, as held inBenguetElectric
notifying the employees of the transfer first before
isontheemployertoprovethatthetransferordemotion Cooperativev.Fianza,managementhadtheprerogativeto
sending them abroad for training.
of an employee was a valid exercise of management determinetheplacewheretheemployeeisbestqualified
prerogative and was not a mere subterfuge to getridof
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page94of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t o serve the interests of the business given the 2) Th
eproportionalityrule meansthatthepenaltytobe aidonlywhenprofitsarerealizedoracertainamountof
p
qualifications, training and performance of the affected imposed must be commensurate with the offense productivityisachieved.Ifthedesiredgoalofproduction
employee. committed. or actual work is not accomplished, the bonus does not
accrue.
ccording to AbbotLaboratories(Phils.),Inc.v.NLRC,the
A
Leus v. St. Scholastica's College2015
employee who has consented to the company's policyof
hiring sales staff willing to be assigned anywhere inthe SCW,asemployer,undeniablyhastherighttodiscipline
S
Philippines as demanded bytheemployer'sbusinesshas imcoma Labor Organization-PLAC v. Limcoma
L
its employees and, if need be, dismiss themifthereisa
Multi-Purpose Cooperative2021
no reason to disobey thetransferorderofmanagement. validcausetodoso.However,thereisnocausetodismiss
Verily,therightoftheemployeetosecurityoftenuredoes the petitioner. Her conduct is not considered by law as ere was nowhere in the CBA that prohibits the
Th
not give her a vested right to her position as to deprive disgraceful or immoral. respondent to give the same benefit to other employees
management of itsauthoritytotransferorre-assignher notcoveredbytheCBA.Thegrantofabonusisbasically
where she will be most useful. amanagementprerogative andthereisnothingtoprevent
F Grant of Bonuses and Other Benefits the employer from granting benefits to managerial
employees equal to or higher than those afforded to
E Discipline of Employees union members. There can be no conflict of interest
Mega Magazine Publications v. Defensor2014 where the employer himself voluntarily agrees to grant
1) Th
e right or prerogative to discipline covers the such benefits to managerial employees. As such,
following rights to: e grant of a bonus or special incentive, being a
Th
respondent can enter into an agreement with the other
management prerogative, is not a demandable and employees, managerial and supervisory employees, and
a) Discipline;
enforceable obligation, except when the bonus orspecial
givethesamebenefitasthatwhichwasgivenintheCBA.
b) Dismiss; incentive This is in fact what they did when they enteredintothe
c) Determine who to punish; 1. i s madepartofthewage,salaryorcompensation K-VRR Program which was signed by their supervisors,
d) Promulgate rules and regulations; of the employee, or technicalandconfidentialemployees,andmanagers.Itis
within respondent's prerogative to grant benefits or
e) Impose penalty (proportionality rule) 2. i spromisedbytheemployerandexpresslyagreed
bonusestoemployeesastheydeemfit.But,toclarify,the
upon by the parties.
f) Choose which penalty to impose; AND benefits given is not by virtue of the CBA but in
Bonus is a gratuity or act of liberality of the giver, and accordance with a separate agreement or those which
g) I mpose heavier penalties than what the
cannot be considered partofanemployee’swagesifitis have been ripened into practice.
company rules prescribe.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page95of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
1) A
n EE is prohibited afterseparationfromjoininga as no geographical limits; respondent is barred from
h
owever, it must be noted that jurisprudence provides
H
thatevenifabenefitorgranthasripenedintopractice,it competitor. VALID, subject to limitations as to accepting any kind of employment in any competitive
can still be removed or corrected. duration and place. bank within the proscribed period.
non-compete clause is not necessarily void for
2) A espondent, asemployer,isburdenedtoestablishthata
R
being in restraint of trade as long as there are restrictive covenant barringanemployeefromaccepting
G Clearance Process reasonable limitations as to three (3) things: time, a competitive employment after retirement or
placeandtrade. resignation is not an unreasonable or oppressive, or in
undue or unreasonable restraint of trade, thus,
3) R
estrictive covenant clauses. — In determining unenforceable for being repugnant to public policy.
Milan v. NLRC2015
whether the contract is reasonable or not, the
equiringclearancebeforethereleaseoflastpaymentsto
R following factors should be considered: F errazzini v. Gsell stated that cases involving contractsin
the employee isastandardprocedureamongemployers, restraint of trade are to be judged according to their
a) w
hether the covenant protects a legitimate circumstances.Therearetwoprincipalgroundsonwhich
whether public or private. Clearance procedures are
business interest of the employer; the doctrine is founded that a contract in restraint of
institutedtoensurethattheproperties,realorpersonal,
belongingtotheemployerbutareinthepossessionofthe b) w
hether the covenant creates an undue trade is void as against public policy.
separated employee,arereturnedtotheemployerbefore burdenon the employee; 1. Th
e injury to the public by being deprived of the
the employee’s departure. c) w
hether the covenant is injurious to the restricted party's industry; and
ur law supports the employers’institutionofclearance
O public welfare;
2. Th
einjurytothepartyhimselfbybeingprecluded
procedures before the release of wages. As long as the d) w
hether the time and territorial limitations from pursuing his occupation, and thus being
debt or obligation was incurred by virtue of the contained in the covenant are reasonable; prevented from supporting himself and his
employer-employee relationship, generally, it shall be and family.
included in the employee’s accountabilities that are
e) w
hether the restraintisreasonablefromthe post-retirement competitive employment restriction
A
subject to clearance procedures.
standpoint ofpublic policy. is designed to protect the employer againstcompetition
by former employees who may retire and obtain
Rivera v. Solidbank retirement or pension benefits and, at the same time,
H Post-Employment Restrictions engage in competitive employment.
n the face of the Undertaking, the post-retirement
O
competitive employment ban is unreasonable because it
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page96of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
VII Post-Employment o rders of his employer or representative in d) There must be showing that the employee
connection with his work; becomes unfit to continue working forthe
ermination of Employment by
T b) G
rossandhabitualneglectbytheemployee employer.
Employer
of his duties; 2) Willful Disobedience or Insubordination.—
ermination of Employment by
T c) F
raud or willful breach by theemployeeof a) Th
ere must be disobedience or
Employee
the trust reposed in him by his employer or insubordination;
Preventive Suspension duly authorized representative;
b) Th
edisobedienceorinsubordinationmustbe
Reliefs from Illegal Dismissal d) C
ommission of a crime or offense by the willful or intentional characterized by a
employee against the person of his employer wrongful and perverse attitude;
Retirement
oranyimmediatememberofhisfamilyorhis c) Th
e order violated must be reasonable,
duly authorized representatives; and
ermination of Employment by
T lawful, and made known to the employee;
A and
Employer e) Other causesanalogousto the foregoing.
d) Th
e order must pertain to the duties which
Just Causes he has been engaged to discharge.
1) S
erious Misconduct. — Misconduct is improper
Authorized Causes or wrong conduct. It is a transgression of some 3) Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duty. —
Due Process Requirements established and definite rule of action, aforbidden a) G
ross Neglect refers to the absence of that
act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character and diligence that an ordinary prudent man
1 Just Causes implies wrongful intent and not merely error in would use in his/her own affairs.
judgment.ItmustbeinconnectionwiththeEE’swork
b) H
abitual Neglect refers torepeatedfailureto
RT 297.Termination by Employer. — An employer
A to constitute just cause for his separation.
perform one's duties over a period of time,
may terminate an employment for any of the
a) There must bemisconduct; depending upon the circumstances.
following causes:
b) The misconduct must be of such graveand GR: eglect of duty must be BOTHGross
N
a) Serious isconduct
m or willful aggravatedcharacter; and Habitual.
disobedience by the employee of the lawful
c) I t must relate to the performance of the
employee's duties; AND
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page97of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
EXC: E ven if NOT habitual, but there is i) e employee holds a position of trust
Th 5) C
ommissionofaCrime. —Bytheemployeeagainst
SUBSTANTIALDAMAGEorinjuryto and confidence; the person of his employer or his immediate family or
the ER. ii) authorized representatives.
ere exists an act justifying the loss of
Th
4) Fraud or Willful Breach of Trust.— trust and confidence; a) Th
ere must be an act or omission
iii) The employee’s breach must bewillful; punishable/prohibited by law; and
a) There are two (2) classes of positions of
trust. iv) e act must be in relation to his work
Th b) Th
e act or omission was committed by the
which would render him unfit to employee against the person of
i) e first class consists of managerial
Th
employees,orthosevestedwiththepower continue. i) employer,
to lay down management policies; and d) Requisites of Loss of Confidence ii) a ny immediate member of his/her
ii) e second class consists of cashiers,
Th i) ere must be an act, omission or
Th family, or
auditors, property custodians or those concealment; iii) his/her duly authorized representative.
who, in the normal and routine exercise
ii) e act, omission or concealment
Th 6) A
nalogous Causes. — No actoromissionshallbe
of their functions, regularly handle
justifies the loss of trust andconfidence considered as analogous cause unless expressly
significant amounts of money or property.
of the employer to the employee; specified in the company rules and regulations or
b) Requisites of Fraud policies.
iii) eemployeeconcernedmustbeholding
Th
i) ere must be an act, omission, or
Th a position of trust and confidence; a) A
bandonment is the deliberate and
concealment; unjustifiedrefusalofanemployeetoresume
iv) e loss of trust and confidence should
Th
ii) e act, omission or concealment
Th not be simulated; his employment. Two factors should be
involves a breach of legal duty, trust, or present:
v) I tshouldnotbeusedasasubterfugefor
confidence justly reposed; i) t he failure to reportforworkorabsence
causes which are improper, illegal, or
iii) I t must be committed against the unjustified; and without valid or justifiable reason; and
employeror his/her representative; and ii) a clear intention to sever EER —
vi) I t must be genuine and not a mere
iv) I t must be in connection with the afterthought to justify an earlier action manifested by overt acts from which it
employees' work. taken in bad faith. may bededucedthattheemployeeshave
no more intention to work.
c) Requisites of Breach of Trust
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page98of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
b) S exual Harassment. —Thegravamenofthe i) The union security clause is applicable; ere, the dismissal was predicated on "s erious
H
offense is not the mere violation of one’s misconduct" and "f raud againstthecompany,"asstated
ii) e bargaining union is requesting for
Th
sexuality, but the abuse of power by the in the Notice to Explain sent to respondent.
the termination of employment due to
employer who has a duty to protect his enforcement of the clause in the CBA; e alleged serious misconduct must have been done
Th
employee against over-sex. AND with wrongful intent.Here,however,petitionerfailedto
c) Gross Inefficiency or poor performance. — convincingly prove that the credit adjustment made by
iii) ere is sufficient evidence to support
Th
respondent was done with wrongful intent. Inall,what
i) mployer has
E set standards of the union’s decision to expel the
isonlyfirmlyestablishedbytheproceedingsbelowisthat
performance; employee from the union. (Slord
respondent made a credit adjustment on her father's
ii) Development v. Noya2019)
tandards are reasonable and in
S account in the amount of P998.99. By no stretch of
connection with employee’s work; AND g) C
ommission of prohibited acts during imagination can this be considered serious misconduct.
strike. —
iii) roof that EE failed to meet the
P
standards despite given reasonable i) worker merely participating in an
A
opportunity to meet the same. illegalstrikemaynotbeterminatedfrom Philippine Pizza v. Oraa2023
employment.Itisonlywhenhecommits
d) D rug use or abuse. —thelawspecifiesthat at CBMI is a legitimate job contractor had long been
Th
the procedure shall employ two testing illegalactsduringastrikethathemaybe
settled in the case laws of Consolidated Building
declaredtohavelostemploymentstatus.
methods, i.e., the screening test and the Maintenance,Inc.v.Asprec,PhilippinePizza,Inc.v.Cayetano,
confirmatory test. (Nacague v. Sulpicio Lines (S
olidbank v. Gamier2010)
andBorce v. PPI Holdings, Inc..
2010) ii) union officer who knowingly
A
BMI argues that respondents' unauthorized absences
C
participatesinanillegalstrikeisdeemed
e) A
ttitude Problem. — An employee who from December 21 to December 27, 2014 were
cannot get along with his co-employees is tohavelosthisemploymentstatus,buta
tantamount to abandonment of work which is a just
union member who is merely instigated
detrimentaltothecompanyforhecanupset cause to terminate their employment. However, CBMI
and strain the working environment. It is a or induced to participate in the illegal
failed to prove that respondents clearly, voluntarily, and
strikeismorebenignlytreated.(E
scariov.
s ituation analogous to loss of trust and intentionally abandoned their work withnointentionof
NLRC2010)
confidence that must be duly proved by the returning.Otherthanrespondents'allegedabsencefrom
employer. (Heavylift Manila v. CA) workforafewdays,CBMIfailedtoproveanyovertacton
Globe Telecom v. Ebitner2023
f) Enforcement of union security clause.—
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page99of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t he part of respondents to show their deliberate and t he implementation of CSI'sMIFTPolicywithrespectto e mployment. In an attempt to relieve themselves from
actual intent to abandon their employment. the transactionsinquestion,evenifshecouldhavebeen liability,respondentsraisedthedefensethattherewasno
merely motivated by thedesiretobuildcustomerloyalty employer-employee relationship between the Consignee
or having been illegally dismissed from employment,
F
respondentsareentitledtoreinstatementwithoutlossof anddidnotcauselossordamagetoanyparty.Infact,she and petitioner. Thus, petitioner, who was a regular
seniority rights and other privileges, as well as full acknowledged committing lapses and even offered to employee of respondents, had been illegally dismissed
backwages,inclusiveofallowancesandotherbenefits,or resign. While Rogan's lapses with respect to the subject from his employment considering: first, the latter's
their monetary equivalent computed from the time the transactions do not, by themselves,constitutegrossand deemedadmissionofthefactofdismissal;andsecond,the
compensationwasnotpaiduptothetimeoftheiractual habitual neglect, they were enough tofinallybreachthe absence of any clear showing of a just orvalidcausefor
reinstatement. trust and confidencereposed in her by CSI. such dismissal.
iven the extraordinary level of diligence demanded by
G ith respect to petitioner's prayer for the award of13th
W
law from banks and the sensitive nature of Rogan's month pay, under Section 3(e) of the Rules and
Citibank Savings v. Rogan2023 duties, her accumulated violations of company policies, Regulations Implementing PD 851, employers of those
which all relate to the proper management and who are paid on purely commission, boundary, or task
ogan'slapseswithrespecttothesubjecttransactionsdo
R
dispositionofcash,wereenoughforCSItolosetrustand basis, among others, are exempted from the paymentof
not rise to the level of gross and habitual neglect. The
confidenceinher.Thus,herdismissalonthebasisofloss 13thmonthpaytoitsemployees.Petitionerisnotentitled
Show Cause Order identifies three distinct incidents of
of trust and confidence is justified. thereto as he was paid on a commission basis.
transaction mishandling on Rogan's part.
s to breach of trust and confidence,Rogan’s functions
A
relatetotheimplementationofCSI'spoliciesontellering Guinto v. Sto. Niño Long-Zeny Consignee2022 Celis v. Bank of Makati2022
and transaction management. As her job involves
ensuringthepromptnessandaccuracyofthebank'scash I n illegal dismissal cases, it follows that when the ccording to respondent, petitioner did not state inher
A
employer fails to specifically deny the complainant jobapplicationthatshewasonceemployedwiththeBank
transfers, Rogan is essentially a custodian of the bank's
property; she therefore occupies a position of trust and employee'smaterialavermentsastothecircumstancesof ofPlacertoconcealherimplicationintheembezzlement
his dismissal, the employer is deemed to have admitted case thereat. Respondent further explained that itcould
confidencewithinCSI,assheischargedwithoverseeing
thefactofdismissalandmustthendischargehisburden not have hired petitioner had it known about her
the proper flow of cash transfers within her branch.
of proving that the dismissal of the employee was valid. involvement in such case.
ere is substantial evidence of several noncompliant
Th
transactions thatwereprocessedinCSI'sLegaspiVillage ere, respondents did not specifically deny and rebut
H obeliableunderthesubjectinfraction,i.e.,"knowingly
T
petitioner'sallegationsastothefactofhisdismissalfrom givingfalseormisleadinginformationinapplicationsfor
BranchunderRogan'swatch.Verily,Roganwasremissin
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page100of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
e mploymentasaresultofwhichemploymentissecured," Sterling Paper Products Enterprises v. KMM-Katipunan2017 is employer or superior can be a groundfordismissal
h
the employee must have performed an overt or positive or termination.
e utterance of obscene, insulting or offensive words
Th
act, i.e., giving false information in the application for
againstasuperiorisnotonlydestructiveofthemoraleof
employment.Consideringthatpetitionerdidnotactually
his co-employees and a violation of the company rules
state any false information in her job application but Transglobal Maritime Agency v. Chua2017
and regulations, butalso constitutes gross misconduct.
merely omitted to reflect her past employment withthe
eremustbereasonableproportionalitybetween,onthe
Th
BankofPlacer,shecouldnothavecommittedthealleged WON Esponga was validly dismissed forserious misconduct.
one hand, the willful disobediencebytheemployeeand,
infraction. YES. In de La Cruz v. NLRC, the dismissed employee on the other hand, the penalty imposed therefor.
I napplicability of the Principle of s houted, "Sayang ang pagka-professional mo!" and
WON Chua was validly dismissed forinsubordination.
Totality of Infractions "Putanginamo"atthecompanyphysicianwhenthelatter
refused to give him a referral slip. O.ByvirtueofthePOEA-SEC,Chuaisindeedboundto
N
hile petitioner had committed two previous offenses,
W
obeythelawfulcommandsofthecaptainoftheship,but
the Principle of TotalityofInfractionscannotbeutilized ikewise, in Autobus Workers' Union (AWU) v. NLRC, the
L
only as long as these pertain to his duties.There is no
against herasshecommittednosubsequentviolationof dismissed employee told his supervisor "Gago ka" and
relevance to the order to sign the documents in Chua's
respondent's Code of Conduct. Simply put, there is no tauntedthelatterbysaying,"Bakitanonggustomo,tang
performance of his duty as a seaman.
subsequent offense which petitioner's previous ina mo."
infractions could aggravate. o amount to a valid dismissal, an erring seafarermust
T
oreover,inAsianDesignandManufacturingCorporation
M
behandedawrittennoticeofthechargeagainsthimand
ut even assuming that petitioner had committed the
B v.DeputyMinisterofLabor,thedismissedemployeemade
must be given the opportunity to explain himself —
subjectinfraction,thePrincipleofTotalityofInfractions false and malicious statements against the foreman(his
unless, of course, there is a clear and existing danger
is inapplicable considering that petitioner's previous superior).
against the safetyofthecreworthevesselinwhichcase
infractions and the subject offense upon which her I n Reynolds Philippines Corporation v. Eslava, the notice may be dispensed with.
termination was decreed were innowayrelatedtoeach dismissed employee circulated several letters to the
other.Syv.Neat,Inc.ruledthatthePrincipleofTotalityof members ofthecompany'sboardofdirectorscallingthe
Infractionscannotbeusedagainsttheemployeebecause executivevice-presidentandgeneralmanagera"bigfool," Mamaril v. Red System Company2018
his transgression for wearing an improper uniform was "anti-Filipino".
not related to his latest infractions of insubordination ON Mamaril was illegally dismissed by Red System, and is
W
and purported poor performance evaluation. ence, it is well-settled that accusatory and
H
consequently entitled to reinstatement and full backwages; and
inflammatory language used by an employee towards
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page101of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
c lass of employees who occupy a position of trust and PANALIGAN, et al.'s, employment by PHYVITA.
O. Mamaril was validly dismissed on account of his
N
confidence.
willful disobedienceof the lawful orders of Red System. NO. No direct evidence was presented to link
edSystemwasnotremissinremindingitsdriversofthe
R e Court rules that his dismissal from employment is
Th ANALIGAN, et al., to the theft that they allegedly
P
importance of abiding by their safety regulations. justified. First, The opening sentence of Ponce's R/A committed.
Notably, Mamaril violated Red System's safety rules e-mail readily exposes the attendant willfulness in his
aking into consideration the fact that the DOLE-NCR
T
twice, and caused damage amounting to over Php act. Second, the act of soliciting receiptsfromcolleagues
conductedaninspectionoftherespondent'spremiseson
40,000.00. To make matters worse, heevendeliberately constitutes dishonesty, inimical to AMC's interests, for
asaresultofthelaborcomplaintfiledbyPANALIGAN,et
the simple reason that Ponce would be collecting
and willfully concealed his transgressions. al.,andtheywereimplicatedintheallegedtheftincident
receipted allowance from expenses he did not actually
only thereafter, a reasonable inference canbemadethat
incur. Third, the R/A e-mail betrays a truly sinister
PANALIGAN, et al.'s, termination of employment may
purpose which AMC had a right to guard against.
Alaska Milk v. Ponce2017 have been indeed a retaliatory measure designed to
coerce them into withdrawing their complaint for
WON Ponce was guilty ofgross and habitual neglectof duties.
underpayment of wages and nonpayment of otherlabor
O. Fault cannot rest upon Ponce's shoulders alone,
N Bravo v. Urios College2017
standardbenefits.SuchanactisproscribedbyArticle118
inasmuch as satisfactory completion of the assigned WON Bravo was properly dismissed for a just cause. of the Labor Code.
tasks was subject to an interplay of factors beyond his
solecontrol.ThefactthatPonceadmittedtohavingbeen YES. Petitioner's act in assigning to himself a higher
delayed in some of the tasks assigned to him does not s alaryratewithoutproperauthorizationisaclearbreach
Aluag v. BIR Multi-Purpose Cooperative2017
establish gross and habitual neglect of duties. of the trustandconfidencereposedinhim.Inaddition,
there was no reason for the Comptroller's Office to ON BIRMPC had just cause to terminate Aluag's
W
WON Ponce can be terminated forloss of trust andconfidence.
undertake the preparation of its own summary table employment.
ES. As regards a managerial employee, the mere
Y because this was a functionthatexclusivelypertainedto
ES. One of the infractions that BIRMPC cited in
Y
existence of a basisforbelievingthatsuchemployeehas the Human Resources Department. justifying Aluag's dismissal is her failure to deposit
breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his
checks on due dates, pursuant to a member/debtor's
dismissal.
request. The task of depositing checks on due dates
once held the position of Director for Engineering
P Panaligan v. Phyvita Enterprises 2017
definitely falls within Aluag's scope of responsibilities.
Services and that he was in charge of managing AMC's WON there exists just and valid cause for the termination of
Engineering Department. Hence, he belongs tothefirst
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page102of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
l egality of the act of dismissal, which constitutes revious acts of misconduct were n
p ot established in
IRMPC had ample reason to lose the trust and
B
confidence it reposed upon her and thereby, terminate substantive due process; and, second, the legality of the accordance with the requirements of procedural due
her employment. manner of dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process.
process.
ON SERIOUS MISCONDUCT
Gaite v. Filipino Society of Composers2018 Evic Human Resource Mgmt v. Panahon2017
hile this Court held in past decisions that accusatory
W
ON Gaite was validly dismissed due to loss of trust and
W and inflammatory language used by an employee to the WON there was just cause in dismissing Panahon.
confidence. employer or superior can be a ground for dismissal or O. The Court finds the Crew Behavior Report sorely
N
termination, thecircumstancespeculiartothiscasefind inadequate inmeetingtherequiredquantumofproofto
ES. Gaite's actuations constitute serious misconduct.
Y
the previous rulings inapplicable. The admittedly discharge petitioners' burden. For one, the statements
First,notonlyistheamountinvolvedhereinastaggering
insultingandunbecominglanguageutteredbypetitioner containedthereinwereuncorroboratedandself-serving.
amount of P17.7M, the alleged reallocation violated an
to the HR Manager should be viewed with reasonable No other evidence was presented to support the
express provision of the company's Distribution Rules.
leniencyinlightofthefactthatitwascommittedunderan statementsoftheCaptain.InSkippersUnitedPacific,Inc.
Second,Gaitecommittedsaidtransferintheperformance
emotionally chargedstate.Indeed,therewasonlylapsein v. NLRC, the Court did not give weight and credence to
of her duties as General Manager of FILSCAP. Third,
judgment rather than a premeditated defiance of the uncorroborated Chief Engineer's Report which
because of this grave infraction causingthedepletionof
authority. purportedly specified the causes for the seafarer's
the company's Special Accounts held in trust for the
rightful copyrightowners,Gaite'sabilitytodulyperform ON TOTALITY OF INFRACTIONS dismissal. In Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. v. Avestruz,
the Court likewise disregarded the uncorroborated and
andaccomplishherdutiesandresponsibilitiesasGeneral I n Merin v.NLRC, thisCourtexpoundedontheprinciple
self-serving electronic mails of theshipcaptainasproof
Manager has been seriously put into question. of totality of infractions as follows:
of the seafarer's supposed neglect of duty and perverse
n the second ground for termination, the Court finds
O etotalityofinfractionsorthenumberofviolations
Th and wrongful attitude.
that FILSCAP validly terminated Gaite's employment on committedduringtheperiodofemploymentshallbe
the ground ofloss of trust and confidence. ere, while the report was signed by four (4) crew
H
consideredindeterminingthepenaltytobeimposed
members, the statements contained therein were, as
upon anerringemployee.Theoffensescommittedby
correctly observed by the CA, based on acts witnessed
petitioner should not be taken singly and separately.
Maula v. Ximex Delivery Express 2017 only by Captain Buton.
ere, respondent cannot invoke the principle of totality
H
I ncompetenceorinefficiency,asagroundfordismissal,
Dismissal from employment has two facets: first, the of infractions considering that petitioner's alleged
isunderstoodtomeanthefailuretoattainworkgoalsor
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page103of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ork quotas, either by failing to complete the same
w s imply doesnotwanttoworkanymore.Mereabsenceor
ebreachoftrustmustlikewisebewillful.Nepomuceno
Th
within the allotted reasonable period, or by producing alleges that he was illegally dismissed merely for his failuretoreportforwork,evenafteranoticetoreturnto
unsatisfactory results. work has been served, is not enough to amount to an
failure to inform his superiors of the actual datesofhis
abandonment of employment.
etitioners failed to show that respondent willfully or
P vacation leave.
deliberately caused the alleged accident during the ere, there was no abandonment on the part of
H
epomuceno turned over all of his pending work to a
N
mooring operations or that respondent repeatedly reliever before he left forMalaysia.Hewasabletoreach respondent. Records are bereft of any indication that
committed mistakes or repeatedly failed to perform his his sales quota and surpass his sales target even before Tanguin's failure to report for work was with a clear
duties. As regards the charge of intoxication, Section takinghisvacationleave.Respondentsdidnotsufferany intent to sever her employment relationship with the
33(6) of the POEA SECprovidesthatdrunkennessmustbe financialdamageasaresultofhisabsence.Thiswasalso petitioners.Moreover,Tanguin'sactoffilingacomplaint
committed while on duty to merit dismissal from petitioner Nepomuceno's first infraction in his nine (9) forillegaldismissalwithprayerforreinstatementnegates
employment. Here, respondent was admittedly off duty years of service with respondents. None of these
any intention to abandon her employment.
when he was allegedlycaughtbythemasterdrinkingon circumstancesconstitutesawillfulbreachoftrustonhis
board. part. The penalty of dismissal, thus, was too severe for
this kind of infraction. Mehitabel Inc v. Alcuizar2017
alit-Ang's failure to immediately give the money to
P efilingofacomplaintforillegaldismissaldoesnotipso
Th
Malcaba et al. v. Prohealth Pharma Phils.2018
Gamboa was nottheresultofaperversementalattitude facto foreclose the possibility of abandonment. It is not
hile this Court recognizes the inherent right of
W butwasmerelybecauseshewasbusyatthetime.Neither the sole indicator in determining whether or not there
employers to discipline their employees, the penalties did she profit from her failure to immediately give the wasdesertion.Othercircumstancessurroundingthecase
imposed must be commensurate with the infractions cash advance for the car tune-up nor did respondents must be taken into account in resolving the issue of
committed. Dismissal of employees for minor and suffer financial damage by her failure to comply. The whether or not there was abandonment.
negligible offenses may be considered as illegal dismissal. severepenaltyofdismissalwasnotcommensuratetoher WON Alcuizar was dismissed by Mehitabel.
WON Nepomuceno and Palit-Ang were illegally dismissed. infraction.
NO. The publications were made through sheer
ES. For an act to be considered a loss of trust and
Y i nadvertence, and that the vacancy is actually for the
confidence, it must be first, work-related, and second, position of Purchasing Officer, rather than Purchasing
Claudia’s Kitchen Inc. v. Tanguin2017
founded on clearly established facts. Manager.
I n abandonment, absence must be accompanied by overt
Alcuizarwasinformedoftheerrorcommitted,andthatit
acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page104of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
asmadecleartohimthathewasneverterminatedfrom
w
O. Macuray was not dismissed from work and he did
N rossnegligencehasbeendefinedasthewantorabsence
G
service at that time in spite of his poor performance. not abandon his employment. ofevenslightcareordiligenceastoamounttoareckless
WON Alcuizar abandoned his employment. disregard of the safety of the person or property. Only
ven assuming that respondent was indeed told by
E
habitual absenteeism without leave constitutes gross
ES. Respondent's non-compliance withthedirectivein
Y respondent's bus dispatcher Roger Pasion that he was
theReturntoWorktoOurmind,signifieshisintentionto AWOL, this was not tantamount to dismissal, actual or negligence.
sever theemploymentrelationwithpetitioner,andgives constructive. An ordinary bus dispatcher has no power to e rudimentary requirements of due process require
Th
credence tothelatter'sclaimthatitwasrespondentwho dismiss an employee. that an employer dismissing an employee must furnish
abandoned his job. thelatterwithtwowrittennoticesbeforethetermination
of employment can be effected:
I t can be gathered that respondent's departure was
ystems and Plan Integrator and Development Corp. v.
S
merelyaprecursortohisschemetoturnthetableagainst 1. t he first notice apprises the employee of t he
Ballesteros2022
petitioner. Realizing thathisemploymentwasatserious particular acts or omissions for which the
risk due tohishabitualneglectofhisduties,respondent ere, the company dismissedBallesterosbasedonthree
H dismissal is sought; and
jumped the gun on petitioner by lodging a baseless just causes:
2. t he second notice informs the employee of the
complaintforillegaldismissaleventhoughitwashewho 1. abitual leaves of absence or gross habitual
h employer's decision to dismiss him or her.
abandoned his employment. neglect of duty;
abitual tardiness alone is ajustcausefortermination.
H
2. open and willful disobedience; and Punctuality is a reasonable standard imposed on every
3. oney shortage, thus, loss of trust and
m employee, whether in government or private sector,
Maria De Leon Transportation Inc., et al. v. Macuray2018
confidence. whereas habitual tardiness is a seriousoffensethatmay
n employee can not be said to have abandoned his
A very well constitute gross or habitual neglect of duty, a
employment when he merely availed of a company stoherhabitualleavesofabsence,theCAruledthatthe
A
just cause to dismiss a regular employee.
practiceoftakingsabbaticalsinordertoaffordthemthe company failed to present substantial evidence to prove
that Ballesteros, indeed, was habitually absent, thus, owever, the company failed again to substantiate
H
opportunity to recover from the stresses of driving the
neglectedherduty.Ballesterosonlyincurred1.5vacation Ballesteros' habitual tardiness and undertime, as the
same longandmonotonousbusroutesbyacceptingjobs
leavesand11sickleavesduringtheperiodcoveredbythe generated print-outs presented to the NLRC were mere
elsewhere.
noticeoftermination,whichwerealsodeductedfromher photocopies and unauthenticated.
ON there was just cause for dismissing Macuray due to
W
earned leave credits. orwillfuldisobediencetobeavalidcausefordismissal,
F
abandonment.
these two elements must concur:
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page105of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r eturned to the company. To dismiss Ballesteros over ot, respondent nonetheless committed a
n
1. t he employee's assailed conduct must have been
willful or intentional, the willfulness being such an insignificant amount which she duly returned violation of a school rule.
would amount to a clear injustice.
characterized by "a wrongful and perverse 3. F urther, the letters signed by the students and
attitude"; and their parents and indorsed by the deans do not
2. absolve respondent from misconduct.
t he order violated must have been reasonable, Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod v. Montaño2022
lawful, made known to the employee, and must espondent's act constitutes a breach of trust and
R
pertain to the duties whichhehadbeenengaged Respondent was validly dismissed from employment. confidence.
to discharge. SA-Bacolod alleges that respondent committed serious
C ere is loss of trust and confidence when an employee
Th
ere, records show no proof that the company made
H misconduct and breach of trust and confidence in fraudulently and willfullycommittedactsoromissionin
known to Ballesteros instructions on preparation of undisputedly allowing students with incomplete breach of the trust reposed by the employer.
depositslips.Neitherdidthecompanypresentproofthat requirements to march in the graduation rites of the
1. F irst, the employee must be holdingapositionof
Ballesteros' transgression was coupled with a wrongful school.
trust; and
intent, or a wrongful and perverse attitude. ase law provides that misconduct is a transgressionof
C
2. S
econd, the employer shall sufficiently establish
oss of trust and confidence may be a just case for
L someestablishedanddefiniteruleofaction,aforbidden
the employee's act that would justifylossoftrust
termination of employment only upon proof that: act,aderelictionofduty,willfulincharacter,andimplies
and confidence.
wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. To
1. t he dismissed employee occupied a position of
constitute a valid cause for dismissal, the employee's ere, respondent's willful transgressionofaruleindeed
H
trust and confidence; and results to the loss of the trust and confidence
conductmustbeserious—ofsuchgraveandaggravated
2. t he dismissed employee committed an act character and not merely trivial or unimportant. CSA-Bacolod has reposed on her.
justifying the loss of trust and confidence.
I ndeed, respondent committed serious misconduct in
allesteros, an administrative officer at the time of her
B allowing ineligible students to march.
termination, held a position of trust and confidence. Reyes v. Rural Bank of San Rafael (Bulacan), Inc.2022
e excuse that she merely followed the practice of
Th
However, the second element, pertaining to the actthat eyes was illegally dismissed by RBSR. Reyes was being
R
allowing some ineligible students to march as observed
breached the company'strustandconfidence,wasnever charged with either willful disobedience or
by previous registrars is unacceptable.
established. Not only did Ballesteros admitthatshewas insubordination, or gross and habitual neglect of duty.
negligentinnotcountingthemoneybeforereturningthe 1. First, the existence of that practice is not proven. Later, based onashowcauseorder,itwouldappearthat
same,theamountwasevendeductedfromhersalaryand 2. Second, whether following a previous practice or the charges against Reyes changed from either
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page106of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
isobedience or neglect, to commission of a crime or
d " Offer of Employment" states that the rules and
1. t heemployeesuffersfromadiseasewhichcannot
offense. regulations found in UAE's labor laws should apply, becuredwithinsixmonthsandhis/hercontinued
which is contrary to our country's policies concerning
hile it is true that Reyes was given sufficient
W employmentisprohibitedbylaworprejudicialto
labor contracts and security of tenure.
opportunity to explain his sideduringtheinvestigation, his/her health or to the health of his/her
theCourtcannothelpbutnoticethemuddledandvague otwithstanding the invalidity of the "Offer of
N co-employees, and
charges against him. Neither is there any mention of Employment,"anemployer-employeerelationshipexists.
2. a certification to that effect must be issued by a
which specific rule or policy Reyes allegedly violated. Akkila selected and engaged the services of Yarza,
competent public health authority.
precisely because he was deployed through a visit visa
lso, there was no valid cause to dismiss Reyes. Reyes'
A ere, Akkila did not present any certification from a
H
refusal to certify the Report on Crimes and Losses was under Akkila's instruction. Akkila paid Yarza's wages.
AkkilahasthepowertodismissYarzaasitdidsowhenit competent public health authority citing that Yarza's
intentional. This is clearly disobedience. However, the disease cannot be cured within six months, or that his
same is not attendedbyawrongfulandperversemental issued the termination letter. Akkila had control over
Yarza's work conduct, which included the means and employment is prejudicial to his health or that of his
attitude which warrants the ultimate penalty of
methodshewouldemploytoproducetheresultsrequired co-employees.Thus,Yarza'sdismissalwasnotbasedona
dismissal.
by the company. just cause.
epenaltyofdismissalimposeduponReyeswasterribly
Th
ince an employer-employee relationship exists, the
S lso,AkkiladidnotaccordYarzaproceduraldueprocess.
A
disproportionate to his alleged infraction. Here, Akkila did not give Yarza any form of notice or
petitioners should accord Yarza due process, both
substantial and procedural, before terminating his opportunity to explain his side.
SRL International Manpower Agency v. Yarza, Jr.2022 employment. e petitioners aresolidarilyliabletoYarza.Corpuz,Jr.v.
Th
nderArt299[284]oftheLaborCode,anemployerwould
U Gerwil Crewing Phils., Inc. instructs that Sec 10 RA 8042
arza was illegally dismissed. First, the "Offer of
Y provides for the solidary and continuing liability of
be authorized to terminate the services of an employee
Employment" is invalid since it was notapprovedbythe recruitmentagenciesagainstmonetaryclaimsofmigrant
found to be suffering from anydiseaseiftheemployee's
POEA. workers. These pecuniary claims may arise from
continued employment is prohibited by law or is
nless theemploymentcontractofanOFWisprocessed
U prejudicial to his health or to the health of his fellow employer-employee relationship or by virtue of law or
throughthePOEA,thesamedoesnotbindtheconcerned employees. contract,andmayincludeclaimsofoverseasworkersfor
OFWbecauseifthecontractisnotreviewedbythePOEA, damages.
o be considered valid, the dismissal on the ground of
T
certainly the State has no means of determining the arza isentitledtohissalariesfortheunexpiredportion
Y
diseasemust satisfy two requisites:
suitability of foreign laws to our overseas workers. The of his contract. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page107of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
abiles again declared unconstitutional the cap of
C v iolation of the companyruleprohibitingthestealingor e mployee is inapplicable to herein respondents.
three-month pay for every yearofservice.Italsoupheld attemptingtostealcompanyproperty.Recordsshowthat Respondents'positionsascoconutparersareessentialin
the imposition of interest rate of 12% perannumonthe Belarso had a propensity to violate company rules and PRBFI's business of coconut products, butinnocasedo
placement fee specifically set by law, nay, unaffected by regulations. She had committed a total of 19infractions they fit thejobdescriptionofmanagerialemployeesand
BSPCircularNo.799settingtherateofinterestat6%per from 1986 to 2005. fiduciary rank-and-file employees.
annum. Thus, Yarza should receive his unpaid salaries
engthofserviceisnotabargainingchipthatcansimply
L RFBI also failed to comply with the guidelines for
P
corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract. be stacked against the employer. Under the present procedural due process that must be accorded to
arzaisalsoentitledtomoralandexemplarydamagesas
Y circumstances,lengthofserviceonlyaggravatesBelarso's employees who are due for dismissal. It failed to prove
wellasattorney'sfees.Heisentitledtoattorney'sfeesat offense. She held a position of trust and confidence, withsubstantialevidencethathearingsandinterviewsof
therateof10%underArticle2208oftheCivilCodeforthe overseeing the custody of the raw materials she triedto respondents were actually conducted.
following reasons: steal. As asupervisor,greatertrustwasplacedonherby
espondentsareentitledtoalltheconsequentbackwages
R
QHI. Her infraction affected the very essence of loyalty
1. exemplary damages are also granted; and attorney's fees that they have duly proved.
andhonestywhichallemployeesowetotheiremployers.
2. kkila and SRLactedinbadfaithindealingwith
A It was serious, grave, and reflected adversely on her
Yarza; character.
University of the Cordilleras v. Lacanaria2021
3. this involves recovery of wages and
e University maintained that it dismissed Lacanaria
Th
4. arza was compelled to litigate and to incur
Y
Pacific Royal Basic Foods v. Noche2021 based on a just cause pursuant toArticle297[282](a)of
expenses to protect his rights.
the Labor Code since he committed a serious
e silence of an employee against the allegations of an
Th
misconduct.
employer,byitslonesome,shouldnotdisadvantagetothe
Belarso v. Quality House2021 former. It remains incumbent upon theemployerasthe I ndisputably, the incident was associated with
partymakingtheallegationstodemonstratethetruthof Lacanaria's work as a professor.
Lossorbreachoftrustandconfidence,asajustcause
the same by presenting substantial evidence. 1. is actuations clearly showed him unfit to
H
f orterminationbyanemployer,isbasedonArticle297of
the Labor Code. RBFI had never reallyprovedwithsubstantialevidence
P continue working for the University, considering
the alleged involvement of respondents in the his daily interaction with the students.
elarso never denied in her Petition that she held a
B
contamination of its products. 2. eactedwithwrongfulintentandnotmereerror
H
position of trust and confidence. QHI was able to
establish the basis of its loss of trust on Belarso: her Loss of trust and confidence as a ground to dismiss an of judgment since his statements were tainted
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page108of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
with mockery and insult. " flared up with his usual hot temper and told that he is l abor tribunals with haste. Where the employee fails to
terminated from work on that very day." Mere acts of prove the fact of his or her illegal dismissal, and the
ven if the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers
E
would notapplybecauseLacanariataughtinthetertiary hostility, however grave, committed by the employer employer has also not demonstrated that the employee
level, the fact remains that his actions were towards the employee cannot on their lonesome be abandonedhisorherwork,thecaseusuallyendswiththe
inappropriate. construed as an overt directive of dismissal from work. employee's reinstatement without the payment of
backwages.
octorv.NiiEnterprisesdefinedconstructivedismissalasa
D
e totality of infractions or the number ofviolations
Th
"dismissal indisguise"or"anactamountingtodismissal ightowl Watchman & Security Agency, Inc. v. Lumahan
N
committed during the period of employment shall be
but made to appear as if it were not." teaches that if a considerablelengthoftimehadalready
considered in determining the penalty to be imposed
passed, and reinstatement of the dismissed employeeis
upon an erring employee. ere, Yu's rebuke of petitioner, while overbearing and
H
intimidating, was reasonably incited by the latter's rendered impossible, an award of separation pay is
onsidering that Lacanaria committed a serious
C proper in lieu of reinstatement.
violations of respondent Leyte Lumber's company
misconduct, there is no impediment which bars the
practices. The Court finds no working basis to declare
Courtfromtakingintoaccounthispreviousoffenses.Itis
that petitioner had been dismissed, whether legally,
undisputed that Lacanaria has been warned inthepast, Rustan Commercial v. Raysag2021
illegally, or constructively.
verbally and in writing, as regards hisdeliveryof"green
jokes" in class. The totality of his offenses revealed that Abandonmentrequires the concurrence of the following: e petitioner dismissed respondents on the ground of
Th
Lacanariahasapenchantforimpertinentbehaviorwhich gross neglect of duty in the performance of their
1. t he employee must have failedtoreportforwork
rendershimunsuitableforemploymentintheUniversity functions as Inventory Specialists, whichresultedtothe
or must have been absent without valid or
whichisresponsiblefortheeducationandrearingofthe lossofhigh-endcosmeticmerchandise,LaPrairie,worth
justifiable reason; and
youth. P509,004.00.
2. t heremusthavebeenaclearintentiontoseverthe
hiletheruleisthatasingleorisolatedactofnegligence
W
employer-employee relationship manifested by
is not sufficient to constitute a just cause for the
some overt acts.
Gososo v. Leyte Lumber Yard and Hardware2021 dismissal of the employee, the same, however, is not
ere, respondents just surmised that petitioner had no
H absolute.Aninfraction,evenifnothabitual,maywarrant
Petitioner is not guilty ofabandonment.
intent to return to work when he allegedly went on an a dismissal under appropriate circumstances.
irstly, petitioner never proved thathewasdismissedin
F unapproved leave of absence. Mere absence or simple
thefirstplace.Hesimplyallegedthatuponhisrefusalto nder the circumstances pertaining herein, it was just
U
failuretoreportforworkisnotabandonment,moresoif
sign a document prepared by respondent Yu, the latter and reasonable for petitioner to dismiss respondents
the employee was able to lodge hiscomplaintbeforethe
even assuming that it was the first time that they
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page109of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
c ommitted the infraction. The Court takes into account i salreadyterminatedfromherwork.Thus,sheisentitled
2. s econd, the "overt acts showing the employee's
two important factors. First is the quantity and the to an award ofnominal damagesin the amount of P30K.
clear intention to sever their ties with their
substantial amount or value of the merchandise lost, employer."
amounting to P509,044.00. Second, respondents'
position is necessarily one of trust and confidence. Santos, Jr. v. King Chef2020 ere was no showing here that petitioners' absences
Th
were due to unjustifiable reason, or that petitioners
ere is no substantial evidence to establish that
Th clearlyintendedtoterminatetheiremployment.Incases
petitioners were in fact dismissed from employment. wherethereisbothanabsenceofillegaldismissalonthe
Sps Maynes v. Oreiro2020
I n cases of illegal dismissal, the employer bears the partoftheemployerandanabsenceofabandonmenton
onte was validly dismissed on the ground of loss of
M burden to prove that the termination was for a valid or the part of the employees, the remedy is reinstatement
trust and confidence. Monte's position isclearlyimbued authorizedcause.Butbeforetheemployermustbearthe but without backwages.
with trust and confidence. She did not even offer any burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, it is
justification for the uncovered anomalies. well-settled that the employees must first establish by
Thus, Oreiro dismissed Monte with just cause. substantial evidence that indeed they were dismissed. JR Hauling Services v. Solamo2020
owever,Montewasdeniedproceduraldueprocess.The
H nthecontrary,theevidenceonrecordpointstothefact
O eunauthorizedsaleofexcessbroilersandbroilercrates
Th
employermustfurnishtheemployeewithtwo(2)written that after petitioners failed to report on December 25, is supported by substantial evidence.
notices before the termination of employment can be andaftertheywentbacktotheirworkplacemerelytoget
The quantum of proof required is merely substantial
effected: their share in the tips the following day, theyrefusedto
evidence — which only entails evidence to support a
return toworkandcontinuedtobeonAWOLthereafter.
1. t he first apprises the employee of the particular c onclusion, "even if other minds, equally reasonable,
acts or omissions for which his dismissal is Beforerespondentscouldevenimposedisciplinaryaction
might conceivably opine otherwise."
upon the petitioners, the latter already filed the
sought; and
complaintforillegaldismissal.However,respondentsare stoshortagesinbroilerdeliveries,petitionersfurnished
A
2. t he second informs the employee of the not correct in arguing that there was abandonment on acopyofanunsignedandunilaterallypreparedsummary
employer's decision to dismiss him. the part of the petitioners. ofshortbroilersdeliverysupposedlyissuedbySMFI.The
ere, Monte was not given any notice to explain or the
H summary afford no assurance of their authenticity as
The employer must prove that
opportunity to be heard before her dismissal. She only they were unsigned. It is uncertain as to its origin and
learned about her dismissal from service when notices 1. rst,theemployee"failedtoreportforworkforan
fi authenticity and therefore inadmissible to prove
werepostedinthepremisesoftheoutletstatingthatshe unjustifiable reason," and respondents' involvement in the deficiencies indicated
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page110of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t herein. Thus, there is no cogent basis to impute such ritten notice to explain and written notice of
w omez'sanomaliescausedandtremendouslosses
G
transgression on respondents. termination were served upon respondents.Therebeing to SMC.
just cause for the dismissal but considering petitioners'
stotheunauthorizedsaleofexcessbroilersandbroiler
A us,Gomezwasvalidlyterminatedonthegroundofloss
Th
crates, petitioners presented the affidavits of Mapue, non-compliance with the procedural requisites in
of trust and confidence.
Pedro, and respondents' co-employees. The Court has terminating respondents' employment, the latter are
held that in labor cases, affidavits may be sufficient to entitled to nominal damages in the amount of P30K.
establish substantial evidence. The Court finds that the Lufthansa Technik Philippines v. Cuizon2020
affidavits executed by various co-employees constitute
San Miguel Corporation v. Gomez2020 Cuizon was illegally terminated.
substantial evidence to prove respondents' involvement
in the unauthorized sale of excess broilers and broiler e Court reinstates the Labor Arbiter's findings that
Th ithrespecttorank-and-filepersonnel,lossoftrustand
W
crates. Gomez was validly terminated on the ground of loss of confidence,asgroundforvaliddismissal,requiresproof
trust and confidence. ofinvolvementintheallegedeventsinquestion,andthat
unongbayan and Araullo (P&A) v. Lepon held that the
P
mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the
affidavits of co-employees are sufficient basis for the irstly,Gomezwasaccordedwithproceduraldueprocess
F employer will not be sufficient. As regardsamanagerial
employer's loss oftrustandconfidenceonthedismissed since she was given both notice and hearing where she employee,themereexistenceofabasisforbelievingthat
employee. was able to present her evidence and witnesses to such employee has breached the trust of his employer
The facts of the case reasonably establish with certainty: disprove the charges against her. would suffice for his dismissal.
1. t hatexcessbroilersandcrateswerebeingillegally ere,Gomezoccupiedapositionoftrustandconfidence
H ere, petitionersfailedtosubstantiallyprovethesecond
H
sold in Tarlac; and since she was entrusted with SMC's property, in
requisite — there must be an act that would justify the
particular its mail matter which included weighing and loss of trust and confidence. Cuizon has substantially
2. t hat respondents wereinvolvedintheanomalous
determining volumes of documents to be shipped. refuted petitioners' claim on the alleged concealment of
transaction.
1. omez willfully, intentionally, knowingly,
G the accidental lightup and the towing incident.
lso, the unauthorized sale of excess broiler and broiler
A
purposely, and without justifiable excuse
crates constitutes an act of dishonesty, abreachoftrust eeffortsofCuizonshowedthathefollowedtherulesof
Th
disregarded SMC's rules and regulations in the procedureofLTPandthattherewasnoactofdeliberately
and confidence reposed by JR Hauling upon them. In
workplace. giving false, inaccurate, and misleading information to
fine, there is just cause for respondents' dismissal from
the service on the ground ofserious misconduct. 2. e affidavit of Figuracion was corroborated by
Th petitioners. Cuizon did not willfully, purposely, and
SMC'sauditfindingswhereitwasdiscoveredthat without justifiable excuse disregard the towing
As to procedural due process, petitioners admit that no
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page111of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
recautions during the towing incident. Towing is a
p v iew of the passage of a long period of time or
3. retrenchment to prevent losses or
shared responsibility of the towing crew. Cuizon could because of the realities of the situation;
not be faulted ifunknowntohim,somemembersofthe 4. t he closing or cessation of operation of
2. r einstatement is inimical to the employer's
towing crew, specifically the tail and wing guides, the establishment or undertaking
interest;
decided to leave their posts.
3. reinstatement is no longer feasible; nlesstheclosingisforthepurposeofcircumventing
u
rossnegligenceimpliesawantorabsenceoforafailure
G the provisions of this Title, by serving a written
to exercise slight care or diligence,ortheentireabsence 4. r einstatementdoesnotservethebestinterestsof
notice on the workers and the DOLE at leastone(1)
of care. Here, petitioners miserably failed to show that the parties involved;
monthbefore the intended date thereof.
Cuizon did not exercise even a slight care or diligence 5. t he employer is prejudiced by the workers'
I n case of termination due to the installation of
which caused the grounding of and damage to the continued employment;
labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker
aircraft during the towing operation.
6. f acts that make execution unjust or inequitable affected thereby shall be entitledtoaseparationpay
have supervened; or equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at
7. s trained relations between the employer and least one (1) month pay for every year of service,
PNB v. Bulatao2019
employee. whichever is higher.
ulatao was illegally dismissed. Bulatao could not be
B
aking into account the lapse of time as well as the age
T I ncaseofretrenchmenttopreventlossesandincases
considered as havingabandonedhis employment.
and capacity to work of Bulatao, reinstatement is no of closures or cessation of operations of establishment
e totality of Bulatao's acts, coupled with PNB's
Th longer feasible. orundertakingnotduetoseriousbusinesslossesor
inaction, led to the conclusion that he did notintendto financial reverses, the separation pay shall be
summarily cut his ties with PNB. Itisalsoimportantto equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half
note that filing an illegal dismissal case is inconsistent (1/2)monthpayforeveryyearofservice,whicheveris
2 Authorized Causes
with abandonment, as in fact, inhiscomplaintwiththe higher.
RTC, Bulatao prayed for reinstatement.
RT 298. Closure of Establishment and Reduction of
A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be
A
lthoughreinstatementisamatterofright,theawardof
A Personnel. — The employer may also terminate the considered one (1) whole year.
separationpayisanexceptiontosuchrule,asitisawarded employment of any employee due to
in lieu of reinstatement in the following circumstances Common Requisites
1. the installation of labor-saving devices,
1. when reinstatement can no longer be effected in a) Good faith;
2. redundancy,
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page112of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
b) Termination is matter oflast resort; c) Th
e purpose for such introduction must be d) f air and reasonable criteria in ascertaining
c) T valid such as to save on cost, enhance what positions aretobedeclaredredundant
wo (2) Separate notices served on the affected
EE and DOLE ONE MONTH prior to intended efficiency and other justifiable economic and accordingly abolished.
reasons;
date of termination; 3) Retrenchment.
d) Separation pay; d) Th
ere is no other option available to the
— or downsizing is a mode of terminating
employer than the introduction of
i) I nstallation of labor saving Device or e mployment initiated by the employer through no
machinery, equipment or device and the
Redundancy — 1 month pay or at least 1 fault of the employee and without prejudice to the
consequent termination of employment of
month pay for every year of service latter,resortedtobymanagementduringperiodsof
those affected thereby; and
whichever is higher; business recession, industrial depression or
e) Th
eremustbefairandreasonablecriteriain seasonalfluctuationsorduringlullsovershortageof
ii) etrenchment or closure not due to serious
R selecting employees to be terminated. materials.
losses — 1 month pay or at least 1/2 month
pay for every year of service whichever is 2) Redundancy. a) Th
e retrenchment must be reasonably
higher; exists when "the services of an employee are in
— necessary and likely to prevent business
excessofwhatisreasonablydemandedbytheactual losses;
iii) Closure due to serious losses — NONE.
requirements of the enterprise." b) Th
e losses, if already incurred, are not
iv) CBA provision shall prevail.
a) w
rittennoticeservedonboththeemployees merelydeminimis,butsubstantial,serious,
e) Fair and reasonable criteria. actual and real, or, if only expected, are
andtheDOLEatleastonemonthpriortothe
intended date of retrenchment; reasonably imminent;
1) Installation of labor-saving devices.
referstothereductionofthenumberofworkers
— b) p
ayment of separation pay equivalent to at c) Th
eexpectedoractuallossesmustbeproved
in any workplace made necessary by the least one month pay or at least one month by sufficient and convincing evidence;
introduction of labor-saving machinery or devices. pay for every year of service, whichever is d) Th
e retrenchment must be in goodfaithfor
higher; the advancement of its interest and not to
a) Th
ere must be introduction of machinery,
equipment or other devices; c) g
ood faith in abolishing the redundant defeat or circumventtheemployees'rightto
positions; and security of tenure; and
b) The introduction must be done in good faith;
e) Th
eremustbefairandreasonablecriteriain
ascertaining who would be dismissed and
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page113of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ho would be retained among the
w i ncurable within a period of six (6) months
espondents' employment was thus terminated by
R
employees, such as status, efficiency, even with proper medical treatment.
seniority, physical fitness,age,andfinancial operationoflawbecausetheirworksuspensionextended
d) A
s to procedural due process. — Theemployer beyond the statutorysix-month period.
hardship for certain workers.
must furnish the employee two written
notices in terminations due to disease, I n termination cases either by retrenchment or closure,
4) Closing or cessation of operation.
the burden ofprovingthattheterminationofservicesis
namely:
Refers tothecompleteorpartialcessationofthe
— for a valid or authorized cause rests upon the employer.
operations and/or shut-down of the establishment i) t henoticetoapprisetheemployeeofthe
groundforwhichhisdismissalissought; etitioners failed to show proof of compliance with the
P
of the employer.
and procedural requirements for a valid termination of
a) Th
ere must be a decision to close or cease employment.
operation of the enterprise by the ii) t henoticeinformingtheemployeeofhis
dismissal,tobeissuedaftertheemployee F irst, Keng Hua failed to show any proof of such
management;
written notice to any of the respondents or to the
hasbeengivenreasonableopportunityto
b) The decision was made in good faith; and DOLE.
answer and to be heard on his defense.
c) Th
ere is no other option available to the econd, Keng Hua failedtoshowproofofpaymentof
S
employer except to close or cease operations. Keng Hua Paper Products v. Ainza2023 termination pay to respondents.
5) Disease. rticle301oftheLaborCodedecreedthatasuspensionof
A
— To be a valid ground for termination,thefollowing operations willnotleadtoterminationofemploymentif
the suspension does not exceed six months. I-People Manpower Resources v. CA2023
must be present:
ere, there is more than six months between the
H I PMR et al. argue that Monton's dismissal was due to
a) Th
e employee must be suffering from any
onslaught of typhoon Ondoy inSeptember2009andthe retrenchmentbecauseofthelowactivityinthecompany
disease;
resumption of Keng Hua's operations in May 2010. and the lack of projects. Such alone would not validate
b) Th
e continued employment of the employee Respondentsfiledtheircomplaintforillegaldismissalon retrenchment.
isprohibitedbylaworprejudicialtohis/her 31 March 2011. Petitioners never showed proof that they
health as well as to the health of his/her actually called respondents back to work on May 2010.
co-employees; and They merely asserted that respondents were not Morales v. Central Azucarera de la Carlota2022
c) Th
ere must be certification by a competent prevented from coming to work in May 2010. Thisjurisdictionrecognizesredundancyasanauthorized
public health authority that the disease is
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page114of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
c ause for termination when it is determined that a McConnell Dowell Phils. v. Bernal2021 ll the requisites for a valid redundancy program are
A
position is no longer necessary for the operation of a present in this case.
ON Bernal's separation from MacDow was due to a valid
W
business.
redundancy program. F irst, HCL sent an Establishment TerminationReportto
I n proving the validity of its redundancy program, theDOLEonOctober11,2016.ItnotifiedGuarin,Jr.ofhis
O. Bernal was illegally dismissed because MacDow
N
respondent presented its audited financial statements terminationeffectiveNovember15,2016throughaLetter
failed to prove, by substantial evidence, that it
prepared by an independent auditor. The continued dated October 15, 2016.
implemented a valid redundancy program.
business losses and volatile sugar market prompted the
Second, Guarin, Jr. received his separation pay.
company to implement a restructuring of itslaborforce ejila v. Wrigley Philippines, Inc. explained that
M
to prevent further financial losses. This entailed the redundancyexistswheretheservicesofanemployeeare ird, HCL exercised good faith and employed fair and
Th
determinationofnon-essentialworkersandtheabolition in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual reasonable criteria in abolishing Guarin, Jr.'s position.
of their departments due to redundancy. requirements of the enterprise. To establish a valid Guarin,Jr.washiredbyHCLspecificallyforitsSalesforce
redundancy program, the following evidence may be account. However, Salesforce's account was terminated
e guest houses in thecompanycompoundareusedas
Th effective October 15, 2016. This rendered Guarin, Jr.'s
proffered: the new staffing pattern, feasibility
residence of theresidentmanagerofthecompanyanda position in HCL redundant. The very reason for his
studies/proposal on the viability of the newly-created
temporary home for transient workers. Its operation is
positions, job description and the approval by the position has ceased to exist.
notnecessarytothecorebusinessofthecompanybutisa
management of the restructuring. onsideringthatHCLcompliedwithalltherequisitesfor
C
mere convenience afforded to several employees. The
existence of the guest houses does not affect the ere, MacDow failed to prove with substantial evidence
H terminating Guarin, Jr.'s employment on the ground of
production or distribution of sugar, which is the main that a valid redundancy program was implemented. redundancy,hisdismissalwasvalid.Inaddition,Guarin,
business of the company. Consequently, petitioners' While financial losses may be a reason to terminate Jr. executed a valid release, waiver and quitclaim.
positions were deemed redundant as the task of employees, that alone cannot justify termination due to Consequently, Guarin, Jr. is not entitled to backwages,
maintaining the guest house was in no way essential to redundancy, nor show that fair and reasonable criteria much more moral damages and attorney's fees.
the business of respondent and such function has since were used to determine which positions or who among
been delegated to those residing in the guest house. the employees should be redundated. Neither do the
Organizational Charts presented by MacDow prove that Dusol v. Lazo2021Lopez, M., J.
ccordingly, respondent was able to comply with the
A
there was a valid redundancy program. rticle 298 of the Labor Code considers closure of
A
substantialrequirementsforavalidexerciseofdismissal
due to redundancy. business as an authorized cause for the dismissal of
employees, whether or not the closure is due to serious
HCL Technologies Philippines v. Guarin, Jr.2021
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page115of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
business losses. achinery, or of automation. It is an exercise of
m t o its employees, Shin Heung consistently informed its
management prerogative which the Court upholds if stakeholders of the complete cessation of operations.
ere,theclosureofthebusinessisnotdisputedbyPedro
H
and Maricel. While closure of the business is an compliant with certain substantive and procedural
ccording to petitioners, the supposed closure of Shin
A
requirements.
authorized cause, there is no proof that it was due to Heung'sbusinesswasapretextforthecompanytomerely
serious business losses. In effect, Pedro and Maricelare eanwhile, closure or cessation of business is the
M reduceitsmanpowerwithoutconsideringtheemployees'
entitled to separation pay. In addition, since Emmarck complete or partial cessation of the operations and/or tenurial rights. However, there is noindicationthatShin
clearly failed to comply with the requirednotices,Pedro shut-down of the establishment of the employer. It is Heungwasimpelledbyanyunlawfulordishonestmotive
and Maricelareeachentitledtonominaldamagesinthe carried out to either stave off the financial ruin or aimed to circumvent the rights of its workers. With the
amount of P30,000. promote the business interest of the employer. It may declining demand for its manufacturedproductandthe
either be due to pullout of its sole client, Shin Heung was left with no
1. serious business losses or financial reverses or other option but to close shop.
Unera v. Shin Heung Electrodigital2020 eralde v. Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corp. did
B
2. any other underlying reason or motivation.
company's decision to resume part of its previous
A not accord bad faith on the subsequent acts of the
nder the first kind, the employer mustsufficientlyand
U employer to rehire itsretrenchedworkersortohirenew
operationdoesnotautomaticallynegategoodfaithinits
convincingly prove its allegation of substantial losses, employees since the employer had already sufficiently
prior action to close shop. The circumstances leadingto
while under the second kind, the employer can lawfully proven economic or business losses. Similarly, Shin
the company's closure should properly be evaluated to
close shop anytimeaslongascessationoforwithdrawal Heung had already sufficiently proven substantial
determinewhetheritwasdoneingoodfaithorotherwise
from business operations was business losses on its part thereby necessitating the
resulting in the circumvention of the rights of its
workers. 1. b ona fide in character and not impelled by a closureofthecompany.Itsdecisiontocontinueapartof
motivetodefeatorcircumventthetenurialrights its previous operations did not negate good faith in its
etrenchment or lay-off is the termination of
R
of employees, and decision to close shop, but is seen as an exercise of its
employment initiated by the employer, through no fault
right to continue its business. Aslongasnoarbitraryor
of the employees and without prejudice to the latter, 2. a slongashepayshisemployeestheirtermination
malicious action on the part of the employer is shown,
during periods of business recession, industrial pay in the amount corresponding to theirlength
the wisdom of a businessjudgmenttoimplementacost
depression, or seasonal fluctuations, or during lulls of service.
saving device is beyond the court's determination.After
occasioned · by lack of orders, shortage of materials, ere, Shin Heung's intention was to totally close the
H all, the free will of management to conduct its own
conversionoftheplantforanewproductionprogramor business. Notwithstanding its use of the word business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied.
the introduction of new methods or more efficient "retrenchment" in its communications to the DOLE and
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page116of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
rivate respondents were dismissed from the service
P
c) t he employerwasfairandreasonableinselecting
the employees who will be retrenched. after Monsanto reorganized its company to streamline
Luces v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils.2020
operations. Monsanto claimed that their positions and
etitioners were dismissed from their respective
P I ndependently audited financial statements are of high functions were redundant. However, there is neither
positions upon the alleged termination of the evidentiary value in terms of proving the employer's allegation nor evidence thatMonsantosufferedlossesor
Warehousing Management Agreement and Service serious business losses. It has likewise been ruled that would suffer losses that justifies the reduction of
Agreement with Hotwired and Interserve, respectively. presentingtheauditedfinancialstatementfortheyearof workforce. Without evidence to substantiate
They were refused entrytotheworkpremisesofCCBPI. retrenchment may not be sufficient. The employermust redundancy, the dismissal cannot be characterized as
CCBPIarguesthatitwasbecauseoftheexpirationofthe prove that the losses increased or have been increasing just or authorized.
contract with Interserve and Hotwired that petitioners foraperiodoftimeandthecompany'sconditionwillnot
nolongerreportedtowork.However,thisisnotajustor improve in the near future.
authorized cause to dismisspetitioners' services. ere, the Labor Arbiter did not consider any audited
H Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. PLDT 2017
owhere in these just or authorized causes mention
N financialstatementoranyotherevidenceindetermining
n order of reinstatement is different from a
A
expiration of contract. Thus, it was illegal for CCBPI to whether there were business losses. He only referred to
return-to-work order.
terminatethepetitioners.Atthesametime,therewasno the Termination Letter, as if its bare allegations are
enough to be given full faith and credence. He merely 1. Th
e awardofreinstatement,includingbackwages,
clearshowingthatpetitionerswereaffordeddueprocess
assumed that the global economic crisis affected is awarded by a Labor Arbiter to an illegally
when they were terminated.
petitioners, and thus concluded that respondent was dismissed employee pursuant to Article 294.
rightfully dismissed. 2. O
ntheotherhand,areturn-to-workorderisissued
Team Pacific Corporation v. Parente2020 dditionally, petitioners failed to prove that it used fair
A by theSOLEwhenheorsheassumesjurisdiction
and reasonablecriteriaincarryingouttheretrenchment over a labor dispute in an industry that is
L aConsolacionCollegeofManilav.Pascuaenumeratedthree
program. They likewise failed to explainwhyitincluded considered indispensable to the national interest.
substantive requisites for a validretrenchment:
respondent,whohadalreadybeenemployedfor10years. WON the 2002 redundancy program of PLDT was valid.
a) r etrenchmentwasanecessarymeasuretoprevent Clearly,petitionersdidnotcomplywiththerequirements
substantial and serious business losses; YES. To establishgoodfaith,thecompanymustprovide
of retrenchment under law and jurisprudence.
s ubstantialproofthattheservicesoftheemployeesarein
b) i t was done in good faith and not to defeat
excess of what is required of the company,andthatfair
employees' rights; and
and reasonable criteria were used to determine the
Monsanto Philippines v. NLRC2020
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page117of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
redundant positions. ON Acosta was validly dismissed from employment on the
W
f romservicecannotbevoluntaryandinvoluntaryatthe
same time.
LDT's declaration of redundancy was backed by
P ground ofredundancy.
substantial evidence showing a consistent decline for
O. Respondents' only basis for declaring petitioner's
N
operator-assisted calls for both local and international position redundant was that his function, which was to
calls because of cheaper alternatives. light Attendants and Stewards Association v. PAL
F
monitor the delivery of supplies, became unnecessary 2018 En Banc
quino v. NLRC differentiated between separation pay
A upon completion of the shipments. However, there was
I n determining the validity of a retrenchment, judicial
and retirement benefits: no mention of monitoring shipments as part of
petitioner's tasks. If his work pertains mainly to the noticemaybetakenofthefinanciallossesincurredbyan
1. S eparation pay is required in the cases employer undergoing corporate rehabilitation.Insucha
enumeratedinArticles283and284.Wehaveheld delivery of supplies, it should have been specifically
stated in his job description. There was, hence no basis case, the presentation of audited financial statements
thatitisastatutoryrightdesignedtoprovidethe may not be necessary to establish that the employer is
employeewiththewherewithalduringtheperiod for respondents to consider hispositionirrelevantwhen
suffering from severe financial losses.
that he is looking for another employment. the shipments had been completed.
2. R etirementbenefits,wherenotmandatedbylaw, ikewise, respondents failed to show thattheyusedfair
L
may be granted by agreement of the employees and reasonable criteria in determining what positions La Consolacion College of Manila, et al. v. Pascua2018
and their employer or as a voluntary act on the should be declared redundant.
hen termination of employment is occasioned by
W
part of the employer. Retirement benefits are I n Panlilio v. NLRC, this Court held that fair and
retrenchment to prevent losses, an employer must
intended to help the employee enjoy the reasonable criteria may take into account the preferred
declareareasonablecauseorcriterionforretrenchingan
remaining years of his life. status, efficiency, and seniority of employees to be
employee. Retrenchment that disregards an employee's
dismissed due to redundancy.
record and length of service isanillegalterminationof
employment.
Acosta v. Matiere SAS2019
Read-Rite Phils v. Francisco, et al.2017 ONPascua'sretrenchmentwasvalidbasedonthecriteriathat
W
I n redundancy, an employer must show thatitapplied she had the highest rate of pay.
fair and reasonable criteria in determining what iven the diametrical nature of an involuntary and a
G
O. Jurisprudence requires that the necessity of
N
positions have to be declared redundant. Otherwise, it voluntary separation from service, one necessarily
retrenchment to stave off genuine and significant
will be held liable for illegally dismissing the employee excludes the other. For sure, an employee'stermination
business losses or reverses be demonstrated by an
affected by the redundancy.
employer's independently audited financial
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page118of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
statements. Documents that have not been the subject s he was entitled to sick leaves.Worse,itdidnotpresent a lleged low volume of calls or h
ow the officers of
of an independent audit may very well be self-serving. any certificatefromacompetentpublichealthauthority. Accenture and Teletech came to a conclusion that its
What Fujididwastoinformherthathercontractwould business was slowing down.
erecordsindicatethatLaConsolacionsufferedserious
Th
no longer be renewed, and when she did not agree, her
business reverses or anaberrantdropinitsrevenueand eletech should have presented any document proving
T
salarywaswithheld.Thus,theCourtofAppealscorrectly the decline in Accenture's volume of calls for the past
income, thus, compelling it to retrench employees.
upheld thefindingoftheNLRCthatforfailureofFujito months, or affidavits of the Accenture and Teletech
a Consolacion's failure was non-compliance with using
L comply with due process, Arlene was illegally dismissed. officerswhodeterminedthatbusinesswasslowingdown
fair and reasonable criteria that considered the status
and their basis thereof.
and seniority of the retrenched employee.
a Consolacion's disregard of respondent'sseniorityand
L Teletech Customer Care Management v. Gerona, Jr.2021
preferred status relative to a part-time employee To successfully invoke a valid dismissal due to mafil International Manpower Development v. Mesina
O
indicates its resort to an unfair and unreasonable 2020
redundancy, there must be:
criterion for retrenchment.
1. a writtennoticeservedonboththeemployeesand AZCO repatriated Mesina to the Philippines without
M
mployeeswhohaveearnedtheirkeepbydemonstrating
E any showing that he had a prolonged and permanent
theDOLEatleastonemonthpriortotheintended
exemplary performance and securing roles in their disease. When Mesina was repatriated, none of his
date of termination of employment;
respective organizations cannot be summarily medical records showedthathisailmentwaspermanent
disregarded by nakedly pecuniary considerations. 2. ayment of separation pay equivalent to at least
p
or that he suffered from a disease which could not be
one month pay for every year of service;
cured within six months and that his continued
3. ood faith inabolishingtheredundantpositions;
g employment was prohibited by law or prejudicial to his
Fuji Television v. Espiritu2014 and health or to the health of his co-employees. This is
4. f air and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what validated by the absence of the required Certification
ere is no evidence showing that Arlene was accorded
Th
positions are to be declared redundant and from a competent public authority certifying to such a
due process. After informing her employer of her lung
accordingly abolished. health condition on his part.
cancer, she was not given the chancetopresentmedical
certificates.FujiimmediatelyconcludedthatArlenecould e company must provide substantial proof that the
Th e very nature ofpetitioner'sworkasanExpediterhad
Th
nolongerperformherdutiesbecauseofchemotherapy.It services of the employees are in excess of what is contributedtotheaggravationofhisillness-ifindeedit
didnotaskherhowherconditionwouldaffectherwork. required of the company. Here, redundancy was not was pre-existing at the time of his employment.
Neitherdiditsuggestforhertotakealeave,eventhough proven. No other evidence was offered to prove the De Leon v. Maunlad Trans, Inc. have held that it is not
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page119of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r equired that the employment be the sole factor in the " R
easonable period" should be construedasaperiod a) w
hen requested by the employee in writing
growth, development or acceleration of the illness to of at least five (5)calendardaysfromreceiptofthe or
entitletheclaimanttothebenefitsprovidedtherefor.Itis notice. b) s ubstantial evidentiary disputes exist or a
enough that the employment had contributed,eventoa
2) A
fter determining that termination ofemployment company rule or
small degree, to the development of the disease.
is justified, theemployershallservetheemployeea
c) practice requires it, or
esina's immediate filing of a case of illegal dismissal
M written notice of terminationindicating that:
negates petitioners' claim that he voluntarily agreed to d) when similar circumstances justify it.
a) a ll circumstances involving the charge
his repatriation to seek medical treatment in his home
against the employee have been considered; Dela Torre v. Twinstar Professional Protective Services2021
country.
and
Doctrinal Rule
b) t he grounds have been establishedtojustify
eawardofnominaldamages,whichbyitsnature,arisesfrom
Th
the severance of their employment.
3 Due Process Requirements thedeterminationofwhethertheemployee'srightswereviolated
eforegoingnoticesshallbe servedpersonallytothe
Th ornotinanillegaldismissalcasecannotbedeemedtobecovered
Twin Notice Requirement employee or to the employee's last known address. by a Quitclaim.
1) Thefirstwritten notice should contain:
Hearing Jose's right to procedural due process was violated.
a) Th
e specific causes or grounds for
3) After serving the first notice, the employer should ere, Twinstar found the petitioner guilty of
H
termination;
afford the employee ample opportunity to be insubordinationorwillfuldisobedience.Thereisnothing
b) Detailed narration of the facts and heardandtodefendhimselfwiththeassistanceof in the records that would show that Twinstar gave
c ircumstancesthatwillserveasbasisforthe his representative if he so desires. petitioner ample chance to explain and be heard on the
charge against the employee. A general allegations against him.
" A mple opportunity to be heard" means any
description of the charge will not suffice; and
meaningful opportunity given to the employee to us, Twinstar's patent violation of petitioner's right to
Th
c) A directive that the employee is given answer the charges against him and submit proceduraldueprocessnecessitatestheawardofnominal
opportunity to submitawrittenexplanation evidence in support of his defense, whether in a damages to the latter. While an employee may indeed
within a reasonable period. hearing, conference or some other fair, just and accepthisdismissalandagreetowaivehisclaimsorright
reasonable way. A formal hearing or conference to initiate or continue any action against his employer,
becomes mandatoryonly both parties do not have the jurisdiction or authorityto
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page120of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
determine whether such termination is legal or not. Abandonment
I tfollowsthenthattheawardofnominaldamages,which Del Pilar v. BATELEC II2020
by its nature, arises from the determination of whether 1 Resignationvs. Constructive Dismissal
There was no actual notice of termination.
the employee's rights were violated or not in an illegal
1) R
esignation is the VOLUNTARY act of an employee
dismissal case cannot be deemed to be covered by the e purpose of a written notice under Article 283 ofthe
Th
dissociating from hisemploymentinthebeliefthat
Quitclaim. Labor Code is to give employees time to prepareforthe
personal reason cannot be sacrificedinfavorofthe
eventuallossoftheirjobsaswellastogivetheDOLEthe
exigencyoftheservice.Personalreasonsmaybedue
opportunity toascertaintheveracityoftheallegedcause
to health concerns.
Bance v. University of St. Anthony2021 of termination.
2) Th
elawrequirestheEEtosubmitanadvancenotice
ance's dismissal was valid, but procedural due process
B ATELEC II merely assumed that complainants knew
B
to the ER known as aRESIGNATION NOTICE.
was not observed, entitling her to nominal damages. about the retrenchment when they actively participated
in the proceedings before the LA. The offer to pay a) I tistobegivenatleast1monthbeforeeffectivity
he willfully breached the trust that the University has
S separation pay is not sufficient to replace the formal date of resignation.
reposed on her. Her act of accommodating into the
requirement of written notice. b) The notice is for the benefit of the ER.
University's group enrollment incentive program
unqualified beneficiaries, including the children and ursuant to Serrano, complainants were entitled to
P c) ER has discretion to shorten the period.
relatives of the petitioners, constitute willful breach of separation payandbackwagesuptoSeptember13,2001.
d) F
ailure to file notice will hold EE liable for
trust. Bance's position as Senior Accounts Officer,being However, in the subsequentcasesofAgabonv.NLRCand
damagesfor losses.
supervisory innature,canbeconsideredasapositionof Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot, the Court now
trust. orders paymentofnominaldamagesforvaliddismissals 3) A
cceptance of resignation is not necessary.
due to just or authorized cause but not compliant to Resignation may however be withdrawn even if EE
owever, to comply with the requirement of procedural
H statutory due process. called it irrevocable. If the ER has accepted and
due process, two written notices must be issued. Here, approved the tendered resignation, withdrawal
therecordsshowthatnofirstwrittennoticewasgivento thereafter requires the ER’s consent.
Bance. Conferences and verbal announcements do not
ermination of Employment by
T 4) G
enerally, an EE who voluntarily resigns is NOT
sufficeassubstitutefortherequisitefirstwrittennotice. B
Bance is therefore entitled to nominal damages in the
Employee entitled to separation pay. There are however two
exceptions:
amount of P30K.
Resignationvs. Constructive Dismissal
a) When stipulated in CBA;
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page121of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
b) Sanctioned by established ER practice or policy. 9) Th
e unilateral and arbitrary reduction of the work e rule is when an employer raises the defense of
Th
day scheme that significantly reduced employees’ resignation, the burden toestablishthevoluntarinessof
5) C onstructive dismissal occurs when an employee
salaries is a form of constructive dismissal. (I ntec such resignation rests on theemployer.
quits because continued employment is rendered Cebu v. CA2016)
impossible, unreasonable orunlikelyasinthecase ere,petitionersassertthatwhiletheywroteandsigned
H
ofanofferofdemotioninrankandadiminutionin 10) A college professor that was later appointed as a the supposed resignation letters and Release and
pay. laboratory custodian, divesting him ofhisteaching Quitclaim forms, before they couldreceivetheirlastpay
load, was constructively dismissed. (D ivine Word and benefits from MCUtheydidnotfreely,intelligently,
6) There is constructive dismissal in the following: College of Laoag v. Mina2016) and voluntarily do so.
a) I NVOLUNTARYRESIGNATIONwhencontinued
employment is rendered impossible, Jacob v. Villaseran Maintenance Service2021 arolina's Lace Shoppe v.Maquilanelucidatesthatinorder
C
unreasonable or unlikely; to prevent disputes on the validity and enforceability of
oluntary Resignation
V quitclaims and waivers of employees under Philippine
b) D EMOTION in rank and/or DIMINUTION of vis-à-vis Illegal Dismissal laws, said agreementsshould contain the following:
pay;
esignationisthevoluntaryactofanemployeewhoisin
R 1. A
fixed amount as full and final compromise
c) C lear DISCRIMINATION, INSENSIBILITY or asituationwhereheorshebelievesthatpersonalreasons settlement;
DISDAIN by an ER to his EE. cannotbesacrificedinfavoroftheexigencyoftheservice
2. Th
e benefits oftheemployeesifpossiblewiththe
7) Th
e TEST of constructive dismissal is whether a and has no other choice or is otherwise compelled to
correspondingamounts,whichtheemployeesare
reasonable person in the position of the EE would dissociate himself or herself from employment.
giving up in consideration of the fixed
havefeltcompelledtogiveuphispositionunderthe 1. I t is a formal pronouncement of relinquishment compromise amount;
circumstances. It is an act amounting to dismissal of an officeandmustbemadewiththeintention
but made to appear it is not. It is therefore a 3. A
statement that the employer has clearly
ofrelinquishingtheoffice,accompaniedbytheact
explained to theemployeeinEnglish,Filipino,or
dismissal in disguise. of relinquishment or abandonment.
in the dialect known to the employees — thatby
8) C onstructive dismissal is distinguishedfromillegal 2. I t must be unconditional and with the intent to signing the waiver or quitclaim, they are
dismissal in that in the latter, intent to dismiss is operate as such. forfeiting or relinquishing their right to receive
clearly expressed by the ER. In the former however, the benefits which are due them under the law;
3. Th
e act of the employee before and after the
ER NEVER indicates that he is terminating the EE. and
alleged resignation must be considered.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page122of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
I nstead,theevidenceonrecordwouldshowthatLugawe
4. A statement that the employees signed and obileProtective&DetectiveAgencyv.OMPADnotedthatthe
M
voluntarilyabandonedher employment.
executed the document voluntarily, andhadfully resignation letters involved therein were pro forma and
understood the contents of the document and entirely copied by theemployeeinhisownhandwriting, I n constructive dismissal cases, before the legality or
that their consent was freely given without any hinting the absence of voluntariness. ICT Marketing illegality of the dismissal can be determined, the
threat, violence, duress, intimidation, or undue Services Inc. v. Sales emphasized that resignation is employee must first discharge the burden to prove the
influence exerted on their person. inconsistent with the filing of a complaint. fact of dismissal by substantial evidence. Here, Lugawe
The above requirements are absent here. failed to prove the fact of her dismissal.
ince petitioners' resignations were shown to havebeen
S
forced upon them through respondents' deceptive ugawe's primary evidence to support her claim for
L
1. Th
e amounts stated in petitioners' respective
Release and Quitclaims pertained to their salary scheme, petitioners are deemed to have been illegally constructivedismissalisthetransferofcertainfunctions
adjustments which they were entitled to receive dismissed.ThisholdstrueevenforpetitionersSitjarand from her office to other departments. According to her,
without any need for them to terminate their Talamante who had admittedlybeenabsorbedbyMCU's the removal of these functions was tantamount to a
new manpower agency. FVR Skills and Services Exponents, demotion in rank, thus proving the existence of
employment.
Inc.(Skillex)v.Sevaruledthatabsorptionofemployeesby constructive dismissal.
2. Th
erewasnotradeoffofbenefitandcompromise the new agency hired by a principaldoesnotnegatethe
amount. n the other hand, PCRI has consistently maintained
O
fact of illegal dismissal. thatthetransferoffunctionsfromtheHRDepartmentto
3. Th
ere was no statement that respondents clearly otherdepartmentswasdoneingoodfaithandtocorrect
explainedtherepercussionsandeffectsofsigning and streamline the previous management's previous
the form to petitioners. Lugawe v. Pacific Cebu Resort International2023 organizational deficiencies. Having discovered that
4. Th
ere was no statement that petitioners signed WON Lugawe was constructively dismissed from employment. Lugawe's office handled several overlapping functions,
and executedthedocumentsvoluntarilyandfully such as preparation of payroll and payment of salaries,
O. PCRI's act of removing basic HR functions from
N
understood the contents thereof and that their PCRI transferred these duties to more appropriate
Lugawe was a valid exercise of its management
consent was freely given. departments with the goal of improving performance,
prerogative in the pursuit of its legitimate business
introducinganinternalchecksandbalancessystem,and
lso, the six (6) resignation letters handwritten by
A interest. The circumstances alleged by Lugawe to
increasing transparency in business operations. This
petitioners here were almost identical in form and demonstrate the discriminatory, insensible, and
explanation, coupled with the fact that Lugaweretained
substance, as if copied from a template or dictated on disdainful treatment of PCRI are self-serving and
her rank as HR Officer/Manager and did not suffer any
them. uncorroboratedbydocumentaryortestimonialevidence.
diminution in salaries, privileges, and other benefits,
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page123of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ouldshowthatthetransferoffunctionswasnotdonein
w c ircumstances sufficiently demonstrate that respondent let alone illegal dismissal.
bad faith, but in the pursuit of legitimate business was constructively dismissed.
O. Respondent was excluded from important HR
N
objectives. Accordingly, the transfer wasavalidexercise decisionswhichshewasexpectednotonlytobeprivyto,
of management prerogative.
but also to have a say in,byvirtueofherpositioninthe
ABS-CBN v. Magno2022 company.
I t iswell-settledthatanemployee'sclaimofconstructive ere is constructive dismissal when an employee's
Th
Traveloka Philippines v. Ceballos, Jr.2022
dismissal should be established with clear and functions, which were originally supervisory in nature,
raveloka claims that respondentwasvalidlyterminated
T convincing evidence. were reduced; and such reduction is not grounded on
on the grounds of serious misconduct and loss of trust valid grounds such as genuine business necessity.
agnoclaimedshewasconstructivelydismissedbecause
M
and confidence. As evidence, it submitted four (4) her superiors forced her to resign and she was denied ereductioninrespondent'sdutiesandresponsibilities
Th
affidavits executed by its employees to attest to access to the work premises despite her active work as HR Manager amounted to a demotion that was
respondent'spoorworkbehaviorandmanagementstyle. assignments. However, upon closer scrutiny, Magno's tantamount to constructive dismissal.
However, all affidavits submitted by Traveloka were not
claim of constructive dismissal was utterly
personally executed by the named affiants, but merely e above-cited circumstances indubitably present a
Th
unsubstantiated. She did not name anyofhersuperiors
pre-drafted by the company's lawyers. hostile and unbearable working environment that
who allegedly forced her to resignorprovideanydetails
reasonably compelled respondent to leave her
ore significantly, it has not been denied that
M on how this incident transpired. She likewise did not
employment. Respondent, therefore, was constructively
respondentwasalreadyrelievedofhisdutiespriortothe present any evidence that she attempted toworkonher
dismissed.
disciplinary hearings by the immediate hiring of his other active assignments but was denied access to the
replacement. He was promised an alternative but work premises. In the absence of such evidence, her
unguaranteed position in Indonesia, and was, without claim of constructive dismissal was bare, self-serving,
Del Rio v. DPO Phils.2018
prior warning, demanded to return his assigned and unworthy of credence.
company paraphernalia in full view of his subordinates. ONtheCAiscorrectindeletingtheawardofseparationpayin
W
Constructive dismissal exists if an act of clear favor of petitioner.
discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer Diwa Asia Publishing et al. v. De Leon2018 ES. There was no employment contract, much less a
Y
becomessounbearableonthepartoftheemployeethatit
ON the issuance of communications to reprimand and/or
W CBA, which contained the stipulation that would grant
could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his
correct an erring employee forms part of the employer's separationpaytoresigningemployees.Neitherwasthere
continued employment. The foregoing unrebutted
managementprerogativesandisnottantamounttoharassment,
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page124of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
a company practice or policy that was proventoexistin
WON AMSFC and DFC constructively dismissed Baya. ince there wasneitherdismissalnorabandonment,the
S
the instant case.
CAcorrectlysustainedtheLAandtheNLRC'sdecisionto
YES. The top management of both AMSFC and DFC,
orderpetitioner'sreinstatementbutwithoutbackwages,
hichweresistercompaniesatthetime,werewell-aware
w
consistent with the following pronouncement in Danilo
Doble, Jr. v. ABB Inc.2017 of the lack of supervisory positions in AMSFC. This
Leonardo v. NLRC and Reynaldo's Marketing Corporation, et al.
notwithstanding, they still proceeded to order Baya's
Constructive dismissal is defined as quitting or return therein, thus, forcinghimtoacceptrank-and-file
c essation of work because continued employment is positions. Thus, AMSFC and DFC are guilty of
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely. There is Philippine Pan Asia Carriers Corp v. Pelayo2018
constructively dismissing Baya.
involuntary resignation due to the harsh, hostile, and ON Pelayo's involvement in the investigation conducted by
W
unfavorable conditions set by the employer. petitioner amounted to constructive dismissal.
ntheotherhand,resignationisthevoluntaryactofan
O Cosue v. Ferritz Integrated Development Corp2017 O. An employer who conductsinvestigationsfollowing
N
employee who is in a situation where one believes that ONCosuewasconstructivelydismissedbecausehereportedto
W the discovery of misdeeds by its employees is not being
personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the abusive when it seeks information from an employee
work immediately after his suspension but was not anymore
exigency of the service, and one hasnootherchoicebut involved in theworkflowwhichoccasionedthemisdeed.
allowed to work.
to dissociate oneself from employment. It is a formal An employee's involvement in such an investigation will
pronouncement or relinquishment of an office,withthe O. Bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when
N
naturally entail difficulty. This difficulty does not mean
intention of relinquishing theofficeaccompaniedbythe uncorroboratedbytheevidenceonrecord,asinthiscase,
thattheemployeriscreatinganinhospitableemployment
act of relinquishment. cannot be given credence.
atmospheresoastoeaseouttheemployeeinvolvedinthe
ecords do not show any demotion in rank or a
R investigation.
diminution in pay made against petitioner. Neitherwas
us, subject to the limitsofethicalandlawfulconduct,
Th
Sumifru Corp v. Baya2017 there any act of clear discrimination, insensibility or
an employer is free to adopt any means for conducting
disdain committed by respondents against petitioner.
e burden isontheemployertoprovethatthetransfer
Th these investigations. They can, for example, obtain
or demotion of an employee was a valid exercise of espondents'decisiontogivepetitioneragracefulexitis
R informationfromtheentirerosterofemployeesinvolved
managementprerogativeandwasnotameresubterfuge perfectlywithintheirdiscretion.Itissettledthatthereis in a given workflow.
to get rid ofanemployee;failinginwhich,theemployer nothing reprehensible or illegal when the employer
is Court fails to see how the petitioner'sinvestigation
Th
will be found liable for constructive dismissal. grants the employee a chance to resign and save face
amounted to respondent's constructive dismissal.Other
rather than smear the latter's employment record.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page125of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t han respondent's bare allegation, there is nothing to t hreatening her with possible revocationofherteaching uards generally depends on their employers' contracts
g
support the claim that her interviewers were hostile, license. with clients who are third parties to the employment
distrusting, and censorious, or that the interview was a relationship, and the requirements of the latter for
I n the case of Capin-Cadiz v. Brent Hospital andColleges,
mere pretext to pin herdown.Respondent'srecollection security services and what will be beneficial to them
Inc. it is held that:
is riddled with impressions, unsupported by dictate the posting of the security guards.
independently verifiable facts. J urisprudence has already set the standard of
morality with which anactshouldbegauged—itis I notherwords,theirsecurityoftenure,thoughitshields
themfromdemotionsinrankordiminutionsofsalaries,
public and secular, not religious.
benefitsandotherprivileges,doesnotvestthemwiththe
Union School International et al. v. Dagdag2018 e totality of evidence in this case does not justify the
Th right to their positions or assignments that willprevent
dismissal of Dagdag from her employment considering their transfers or re-assignments. Onlywhentheperiod
e standard of morality with which an act should be
Th
that there was no legal impediment to marry between of their reserved or off-detail status exceeds the
gauged is public and secular, not religious.
Dagdag and the father of her child at the time of the reasonable period of six months without re-assignment
regnancyofaschoolteacheroutofwedlockisnotajust
P conception. should the affected security guards be regarded as
cause for termination of an employment absent any
dismissed.Indeed,thereshouldbenoindefinitelay-offs.
showing that the pre-marital sexual relations and,
After the period of six months, the employers should
consequently, pregnancy out of wedlock, are indeed pectrum Security Services Inc v. Grave et al.2017
S either recall the affected security guards to work or
considered disgraceful or immoral. re Suspension of Business Operations
consider them permanently retrenched pursuant to the
WON Dagdag was constructively dismissed by Union School. securityguardplacedonreservedoroff-detailstatusis
A requirementsofthelaw;otherwise,theemployerswould
ES. Mandapat's act of suggesting that Dagdag should
Y deemedconstructivelydismissedonlyifthestatusshould be held to have dismissed them, and wouldbeliablefor
simply tenderherresignation,astheschoolmayimpose l ast more than six months. Any claim of constructive such dismissals.
harsher penalties, left Dagdag with no choice but to dismissal must be established by clear and positive nderDOLEDepartmentOrderNo.014-01,thetenureof
U
discontinue working for Union School. Although there evidence. security guards in their employment is ensured by
was a conduct of grievance meeting, its outcome was WON Spectrum Security constructively dismissed its employees. guaranteeingthattheirservicesaretobeterminatedonly
already predetermined as petitioners were already for just or authorized causes.
O. Security guards, like otheremployeesintheprivate
N
resolute in their decision to terminate Dagdag's
sector, are entitled to security of tenure. However, their
employment. ThisisevidentbythefactthatDagdagwas
situation should be differentiated from that of other
left with two choices—resignation or dismissal and Esico v. Alphaland Corporation2021
employees or workers. The employment of security
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page126of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
sico failed to establish his constructive dismissal by
E constructive dismissal. hen uncorroborated by the evidence onrecord,cannot
w
substantial evidence. be given credence.
esignationisthevoluntaryactofanemployeewhoisin
R
etestofconstructivedismissaliswhetherareasonable
Th a situation where he believes that personal reasons
person in the employee's position would have felt cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the
compelled to give up his position under the service, and he has then no other choice but to Dela Torre v. Twinstar Professional Protective Services2021
circumstances. What is fairly apparent is that Esico disassociate himself from employment. There was no constructive dismissal in this case.
resigned because he was dissatisfied and unhappy with
ere, the acts of petitioners before and after the
H etitioner utterly failed that he was constructively
P
respondents Alphaland for the cited reasons in his resignation do not show that undue force was exerted dismissed by Twinstar. Here, petitioner neverpresented
resignation letter. There is nothing on the record that upon them. They relinquished theirpositionswhenthey anyevidence,asidefromhisself-servingallegations,that
points to respondents Alphaland's overt and positiveact submitted their individual letters of resignation. They hewasforcedtobeonfloatingstatusformorethansix(6)
todismisshimorthattheyintendedhisseparationfrom utterly failed to substantiate for lack of substantial months without being given new assignment.
them. Considering that Esico was not constructively documentary or testimonial evidence the alleged
dismissed,heisnotentitledtobackwagesandseparation ontrarily, Twinstar was able to establishthatJosewent
C
deceitfulmachination.Moreimportantly,theresignation
pay in lieu of reinstatement. on absence without leave and that it had subsequently
letters contained words of gratitude which can hardly
sent several notices to petitioner. As correctly found by
e employment contract between the parties is
Th come from an employee forced to resign. They accepted
the NLRC and affirmed by the CA, petitioner himself
ambiguous and should be construed strictly against the the retirement payandmonetarybenefitsgiventhemby
admitted decliningtheassignmentofferedtohimbythe
party that caused the ambiguity, Alphaland. Esico had the Company and executed a Quitclaim, Release and
Twinstar within six (6) months from the time he was
rendered services forhisconcurrentdesignationaspilot Waivertherefor.Theircontentionthattheywereinduced
placed on floating status.
and RSMO which he understood would be separately toresignonaccountoftheireventualtransfertoSoliman
compensated by either of the two corporations that are Security was unsubstantiated. No agreement to this
part of respondents' group ofcompanies.Esico'sunpaid effect was presented.
Bance v. University of St. Anthony2021
salariesarethusrecomputedunderthevariouscontracts
ettledistherulethatbeforetheemployermustbearthe
S
he signed with respondents' group of companies. e voluntary resignation of Lobetania, Dimaiwat,
Th
burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the
Velasco,andAguirrerenderedtheircomplaintsforillegal
employeemustfirstestablishbysubstantialevidencethe
dismissal without any basis.
factofhisdismissalfromservice.Logically,ifthereisno
Tacis v. Shields Security Services2021 dismissal,thentherecanbenoquestionastoitslegality o comply with the requirements of substantial due
T
Petitioners' resignation was voluntary; there was no or illegality. Bare allegations of constructive dismissal, process,thecauseofthedismissalmusthavebasisunder
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page127of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t he law. Failure to observe substantial due process i mpossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer r etrenched. These uncorroborated and self-serving
renders thedismissalillegalandentitlestheemployeeto involving ademotioninrankoradiminutioninpayand allegations, especially considering the existence of a
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other other benefits. resignation letter and a quitclaim both bearing
privileges, full backwages inclusive of allowances, and Juraldine's signature, fall short of the evidence required
ere, Regala's change in his work schedule resulting to
H
other benefits or their monetary equivalent. the diminution of his take home salary is, therefore, under the law to discharge Juraldine's burden to prove
that he was dismissed by the Company.
I n illegal dismissal cases, it is a fundamental rule that tantamount to constructive dismissal.
whenanemployerinterposesthedefenseofresignation, J uraldine failed to prove that his resignation was
on him necessarily rests the burden to prove that the involuntary and that he was constructively dismissed.
employee indeed voluntarily resigned. For resignation Italkarat 18 v. Gerasmio2020
an v. Galderma Philippinesheldthatwheretheemployee
G
from employmenttobevalid,theremustbeanintentto alleges that he involuntarily resigned due to
Doctrinal Rule
relinquish the position together with the overt act of circumstancesinhisemploymentthataretantamountto
relinquishment.Here,thefactofpetitioners'resignation I f the fact of dismissal is disputed, it is the complainant who
constructive dismissal, the employee must prove his
is undisputed. shouldsubstantiatehisclaimfordismissalandtheoneburdened
allegations with particularity.
with the responsibility of proving that he was dismissed from
employment, whether actually or constructively. lso, the evidence on record show that Juraldine had
A
Regala v. Manila Hotel2020 already intended to resign in 2008, even earlier than
bsent any evidence that Juraldine was dismissed, the
A
October.Juraldineinfactrequestedformultipleleaveson
Regala was constructively dismissed from employment. complaint for illegal dismissal should not have prospered.
variousoccasions,usuallyforprocessingofhispapersfor
hat is clear to the Court is that MHC failed to deny
W e fact of dismissal must first be proven by Juraldine,
Th work abroad.
Regala's allegation of constructive dismissal. especiallyconsideringtheexistenceofaresignationletter
signed by him.
or did it present any controverting evidence to prove
N
I n illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is on the Telus International Philippines v. De Guzman2019
otherwise.Section11,Rule8oftheRulesofCourt,which
supplementstheNLRCRulesofProcedure,providesthat employer in proving the validity of dismissal. However, e Guzman was constructively dismissed. The series of
D
allegations which are notspecificallydeniedaredeemed thefactofdismissal,ifdisputed,mustbedulyprovenby actions done by Telus manifests that De Guzman was
admitted. the complainant. terminated in disguise and such actions amount to
ere, Juraldine failed to prove the fact of dismissal. He
H constructive dismissal.
ereisconstructivedismissalwherethereiscessationof
Th
work because continued employment is rendered relied primarily on his allegations thathewasmisledby 1. afterfindingDeGuzmannotliablefortheoffense
the Company into resigning and that he was actually
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page128of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
c harged,Telusdidnotimmediatelyreinstatehim
e Court has held that placing employees in a valid
Th I n illegal dismissal cases, fundamental is the rule that
to his former position;
"floating status" presupposes that there are more whenanemployerinterposesthedefenseofresignation,
2. hile waiting for the promised new account, De
w employees than work. Here, Telus did not provide any on him necessarily rests the burden to prove that the
Guzman was compelled to utilize his leave credits; valid justification or presented proof that there was employee indeed voluntarily resigned.
indeed a deficit of account that bars the immediate
3. a fter his leave credits were consumed, he was I n as much as Villola has the burden of proving that he
transfer of De Guzman or that the company was
placed on a floating status; was, in the first place, dismissed from employment by
sustaining losses that would justify placing De Guzman UPL, it is the concomitant burden of respondents to
4. e Guzman was required to undergo a profile
D on floating status. provethatVillolavoluntarilyresignedfromservice.While
interview.
In all, De Guzman was constructively dismissed. Villola's resignation letter serves as proof of the latter's
elus fostered a working environment that was hostile,
T formal relinquishment ofhisemploymentwithUPL,the
discriminatory, unreasonable, and inequitable that absence thereof is not enoughtoruleouttheconclusion
naturally compelled De Guzman to give up his Villola v. United Philippine Lines, Inc.2019 that no resignation ever took place.
employment thereat to avoid the difficulties he had to
face just to keep his employment. illola was not dismissed by UPL as he voluntarily
V illolaresignedfromhisemploymentandthathewasnot
V
resigned. dismissed by UPL based on the following factual
e floatingstatusprincipledoesnotfindapplicationin
Th circumstances:
the instant case. While there is no specific provision in achicav.RooseveltServicesCenter,Inc.declaredthatwhen
M
the Labor Code which governs the "floating status" or the employer denies dismissing the employee, thelatter 1. illola did not raise any concerns whatsoever to
V
must prove the fact of his dismissal with clear, positive Consunji or inquired on the reasons for the
temporary"offdetail"ofworkersemployedbyagencies,it
is implicitly recognized in Article 301 of the Labor Code and convincing evidence. latter's request to submit a resignation letter.
whichspeaksofsituationsoftemporaryretrenchmentor esignation is defined as a formal pronouncement or
R 2. PLceasedpayinghissalariesafterMay31,2013,
U
lay-off due to valid operation issues. relinquishment of an office, with the intention of as in fact, Villola himself already stopped
relinquishing the office accompanied by the act of reporting for work starting June 1, 2013.
I t has been held that in all cases, the temporary lay-off
wherein the employees cease to work should not exceed relinquishment. The fact of resignation is therefore 3. n June 27, 2013, Villola submitted to UPL his
O
six months. After six months, the employees should supported by the concurrence of the following: proposal for the scanning project under a
either be recalled to work or permanently retrenched 1. the intent to relinquish one's office; and different company.
following the requirements of the law. Otherwise, the
2. the overt act of relinquishment. e doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of
Th
employees are considered as constructively dismissed. public policy, fairdealing,goodfaithandjustice,andits
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page129of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
urpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act,
p a cts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee ledhercomplaintforconstructivedismissal.PCRIsent
fi
representations, or commitments to theinjuryofoneto simply doesnotwanttoworkanymore.Mereabsenceor Lugawe a letter dated January 7, 2014 directing her to
whom they were directed and who reasonably relied failuretoreportforwork,evenafteranoticetoreturnto submitawrittenexplanationregardingherunauthorized
thereon. work has been served, is not enough to amount to an absences.Lugawe'sfailuretorespondtoPCRI'sdirective,
abandonment of employment. takentogetherwithherabsencefromworkandnoticesto
ere, Villola is estopped from asserting that he did not
H
resign from employmentonaccountofhisownactsand her co-workers that shewouldnolongerreporttowork,
ere, there was no abandonment on the part of
H
all point to the conclusion that Lugawe abandoned her
representations, particularly respondent. Records are bereft of any indication that
Tanguin's failure to report for work was with a clear employment.
4. is email response to Consunji's email did not
H
raise any concerns on the fact that he was being intent to sever her employment relationship with the
made to submit a resignation letter. petitioners.Moreover,Tanguin'sactoffilingacomplaint
forillegaldismissalwithprayerforreinstatementnegates ABS-CBN v. Magno2022
5. espite having rendered part-time work for a
D any intention to abandon her employment. lthough Magno was not constructively dismissed, she
A
UPLaffiliateforatrainingwhichwereconducted
cannot beconsideredtohaveabandonedorforfeitedher
withinUPLcompanypremise,Villolaneverraised
employment with ABS-CBN.
to Consunji or any responsible officer of UPLhis
Lugawe v. Pacific Cebu Resort International2023
complainants on or objections to his supposed saresult,itwasexplainedinRodriguezthattheremedy
A
dismissal from employment. lthough the filing of a complaint for illegal or
A of "reinstatement" cannot be granted similar to illegal
constructive dismissal has repeatedly been held to be dismissal cases. This is simply because there can be no
6. illola even submitted his proposal for the
V
inconsistent with a charge of abandonment—especially reinstatementtoapositiononeisstillholding.TheCourt
scanningprojecttoMr.Consunjiunderanameof
when such complaint is accompanied with a prayer for will therefore merely declare that the employee may go
another company.
reinstatement—the act of filing does not foreclose the backtohisworkandtheemployermustthenaccepthim
possibility of abandonment, as this is not the sole because the employmentrelationshipbetweenthemwas
indicator in determining the employee's intent. All never actually severed.
2 Abandonment circumstances surrounding the termination of
employment should be taken into account.
ugawe'ssickleaveexpiredonDecember12,2013andthat
L Mehitabel Inc v. Alcuizar2017
Claudia’s Kitchen Inc. v. Tanguin2017
she stopped reporting to work withoutpriorrequestfor efilingofacomplaintforillegaldismissaldoesnotipso
Th
In abandonment, absence must be accompanied by overt
leave of absence fromDecember13,whichisthedayshe facto foreclose the possibility of abandonment. It is not
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page130of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t he sole indicator in determining whether or not there Maria De Leon Transportation Inc., et al. v. Macuray2018 2) Th
is may be imposed while an investigation is
wasdesertion.Othercircumstancessurroundingthecase ongoing.
n employee can not be said to have abandoned his
A
must be taken into account in resolving the issue of
employment when he merely availed of a company 3) Th
e notice of preventive suspension cannot be
whether or not there was abandonment.
practiceoftakingsabbaticalsinordertoaffordthemthe consideredasadequatenoticetoexplain.(Tanalav.
WON Alcuizar was dismissed by Mehitabel. opportunity to recover from the stresses of driving the NLRC)
NO. The publications were made through sheer same longandmonotonousbusroutesbyacceptingjobs 4) R
eassignment or transfer as remedial measure.—
i nadvertence, and that the vacancy is actually for the elsewhere. The purpose of reassignments is no different from
position of Purchasing Officer, rather than Purchasing ON there was just cause for dismissing Macuray due to
W that of preventive suspension which management
Manager. abandonment. could validly impose as a disciplinary measure for
the protection of the company's property pending
lcuizarwasinformedoftheerrorcommitted,andthatit
A O. Macuray was not dismissed from work and he did
N
investigation of any alleged malfeasance or
wasmadecleartohimthathewasneverterminatedfrom not abandon his employment.
misfeasance committed by the employee. (Ruiz v.
service at that time in spite of his poor performance.
ven assuming that respondent was indeed told by
E Wendel Osaka Realty2012)
WON Alcuizar abandoned his employment. respondent's bus dispatcher Roger Pasion that he was
ES. Respondent's non-compliance withthedirectivein
Y AWOL, this was not tantamount to dismissal, actual or Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod v. Montaño2022
theReturntoWorktoOurmind,signifieshisintentionto constructive. An ordinary bus dispatcher has no power to
SA-Bacolod acted well within its right to preventively
C
sever theemploymentrelationwithpetitioner,andgives dismiss an employee.
suspend respondent. The implementing rules of the
credence tothelatter'sclaimthatitwasrespondentwho Labor Code allows an employer to preventively suspend
abandoned his job. an employee if continued employment poses a serious
I t can be gathered that respondent's departure was
C Preventive Suspension and imminent threat to the life or property of the
merelyaprecursortohisschemetoturnthetableagainst Omnibus Rules, Book V, Rule XIV, Secs. 3-4 employer or co-workers.
petitioner. Realizing thathisemploymentwasatserious ere, the threat raisedbytheschoolwasnotunfounded
H
1) M
ay be defined as the temporary removal ofanEE
risk due tohishabitualneglectofhisduties,respondent as respondent was school registrar, whose functions
charged for violation of company rules from his
jumped the gun on petitioner by lodging a baseless include evaluation of subjects and credits earned by
present status or position. It is not a disciplinary
complaintforillegaldismissaleventhoughitwashewho students and enforcement of graduation requirements.
measure and should not be confused with
abandoned his employment. With her continuedpresenceduringtheinvestigation,it
suspension imposed as a penalty. It shall not last
longer thanthirty (30) days. is not impossible that the school records under her
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page131of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
c ustody may be tampered; it is also not impossible that enalty; neither may his dismissal be regarded as harsh
p
ere, Bundoc was not notified of the charges leveled
H
theinvestigationmaybeinfluencedgiventhenatureand and excessive.
againstherorofhertermination.Bundocisthusentitled
ascendancy of her position.
amaril'sinitialsuspensionwasapreventivesuspension
M to nominal damages of P30,000.
that was necessary to protect Red System's equipment
henthedismissalisbasedonajustcauseunderArticle
W
and personnel. Mamaril was placed under preventive 282 of the Labor Code, such as loss of trust and
Maula v. Ximex Delivery Express2017 suspension considering that during the pendencyofthe confidence,buttheterminationwasprocedurallyinfirm,
reventivesuspensionmaybelegallyimposedagainstan
P administrative hearings, he was noticed to have several the sanction against the employer forsuchaviolationis
employee whose alleged violation is the subject of an near-accident misses and he had exhibited a lack of tempered; hence, the award of P30K instead of P50K as
investigation. Preventive suspension is justified where concernforhiswork.Hisinattentivenessposedaserious nominal damages. When the employer extended the
the employee's continued employment poses a serious threat to the safety of the company equipment and period of preventive suspension beyond 30 days, he is
and imminent threat to the life or property of the personnel.
obliged to pay the wages and other benefits due to the
employer or of the employee's co-workers. Without this employee.
kind of threat, preventive suspension is not proper.
Philam Homeowners v. De Luna2021 ection 4, Rule XIV, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
S
ere,itcannotbesaidthatpetitionerposedadangeron
H provides that no preventive suspension shall lastlonger
the lives of the officers or employees of respondent or eCAactedwellwithinitsprerogativesinmodifyingthe
Th than thirty (30) days. The employer must pay the
theirproperties.BeingoneoftheOperationStaff,which award of nominal damages andorderingpaymentofDe corresponding wage of his employee if the preventive
was a rankandfileposition,hecouldnotandwouldnot Luna's 10-day salary, allowances and other benefits. suspensionhadbeenextendedbeyondthe30-dayperiod.
be able to sabotage the operations of respondent. n employee cannot be terminated without just or
A Here, De Luna's preventive suspension lasted for 40 days.
authorizedcause.Thetwin-noticerulemustbeobserved, I n fine, the CA acted within itsjurisdictioninaffirming
andtheerringemployeemustbegiventheopportunityto the NLRC's judgment with modification as totheaward
Mamaril v. Red System Company2018 present his/her side of the controversy. of nominal damages in Bundoc's favor, and payment of
ON Red System was guilty of imposing a double penalty
W 1. t he first apprises the employee of the particular DeLuna's10-daysalaryinexcessofthemandated30days
against Mamaril. acts or omissions for which his dismissal is of preventive suspension.
O. Mamaril's preventive suspension and subsequent
N sought; and
dismissal from the service do not partake of a double 2. t he second informs the employee of the
employer's decision to dismiss him.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page132of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Reliefs from Illegal Dismissal a. w
henreinstatementcannolongerbeeffectedin 4. B
ackwagesingeneralaregrantedongroundsofequity
D view of the passage of a long period of time or forearningswhichaworkeroremployeehaslostdueto
Labor Code, Art. 294
because of the realities of the situation; his illegal dismissal. It is not private compensation or
1. E ffect or Consequences of Dismissal. —Anemployeewho damagesbutisawardedinfurtheranceandeffectuation
b. r einstatement is inimical to the employer’s
is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to interest; of the public objective of the Labor Code.
a. r einstatement without loss of seniority rights c. reinstatement is no longer feasible; 5. Th
eruleinBustamante iscontrollingthatthedismissed
and other privileges and to his employee is to be paid backwages fortheentireperiod
d. r einstatement does not serve the best interests that he was without work, without deduction and
b. f ull backwages, inclusiveofallowances,andto of the parties involved; without qualification
his
e. t he employer is prejudiced by the workers’ 6. Th
e base figure is the wage rate at time of dismissal
c. other benefits or their monetary equivalent continued employment; inclusive of “allowances”, excluding salary increases.
c omputed from the time h is compensation was f. f acts that make execution unjust or inequitable Salaryincreasesarenotakintoallowancesorbenefits,
withheld from him up to the time of his actual have supervened; or andcannotbeconfusedwitheither.(E quitableBankingv.
reinstatement. Sadac)
g. s trained relations between the employer and
GR: hen an EE is validly dismissed, NO
W employee
Agapito v. Aeroplus Multi-Services2022
separation pay is given.
3. Award When Reinstatement not Viable
EXC: S uch cause does not constitute serious eroplus is liable for petitioner's
A
a. B
ackwages from date of dismissal until finality money claims and moral and
misconduct nor reflect on the EE’s moral
of decision; exemplary damages.
character, separation pay MAY be validly
b. S
eparation pay from date of employment until imalay v. CA, citing Noblado v. Alfonso, aptly discussed
G
awarded. This is the DISCERNING
finality of decision (not date of dismissal); the consequences of illegal dismissal, viz.:
COMPASSIONdoctrine.
c. 1 0% attorney’s fees based on the awards An illegally dismissed employee is ordinarily entitled to:
2. R einstatement.—Separationpayismadeanalternative
relief inlieuofreinstatementincertaincircumstances, computed; and
a) r einstatementwithoutlossofseniorityrightsand
like: d. I nterest on the awards computed from date of other privileges, or in lieu thereof, separation pay
finality of decision until they are paid, these equivalent to one (1) month pay for every yearof
monetary claims being equivalent to a service, with a fraction of at least six (6) months
forbearance of credit (Javellana, Jr v. Belen2010)
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page133of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
c onsideredasone(1)wholeyear,fromthetimeof c ase law, petitioner should be paid attorney's fees ould be for the best interest of the parties
w
the employee's illegal dismissal up to the finality equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary involved.
of the judgment; and award.Thisisbecausehewasforcedtolitigateandincur
I n fine, as a general rule, separation pay in lieu of
expenses to protect his rights and interest.
b) f ull backwages inclusive of allowances and other reinstatement could not be awarded to an employee
benefits or their monetary equivalent computed whose employment was not terminated by his employer.
from the time compensation was not paid tothe ere were cases, however, wherein the Court awarded
Th
Claudia’s Kitchen Inc. v. Tanguin2017
time of his actual reinstatement. separation pay in lieu of reinstatement to the employee
As to separation pay even after a findingthattherewasneitherdismissalnor
ithregardtothemonthlydeductionofP200.00ascash
W
bond, we remind Aeroplus of Articles 112 and 113 of the I n sum, separation pay is only awarded to a dismissed abandonment. In Nightowl Watchman & Security Agency,
Labor Code. Aeroplus cannot interferewiththefreedom employee in the following instances: Inc. v. Lumahan, the Court awarded separation pay in
of any employee to dispose of hisorherwages.More,it viewofthefindingsoftheNLRCthatrespondentstopped
1. i n case of closure of establishment under Article
cannot unilaterally make any deductions except in the reportingforworkformorethanten(10)yearsandnever
298;
three (3) instances provided by law. Here, Aeroplus returned.
illegally deducted P200.00 as monthly cash bond from 2. i n case of termination due to diseaseorsickness
petitioner's wages. Thus, petitioner is entitled to a under Article 299;
reimbursement of the total of this monthly deduction. 3. a s a measure of social justice in those instances Angono Medics Hospital v. Agabin2020
wheretheemployeeisvalidlydismissedforcauses There is no conflict between the two CA rulings.
s to damages, Leus v. St. Scholastica's College Westgrove
A
otherthanseriousmisconductorthosereflecting
teaches that a dismissed employee is entitled to moral hat is being assailed in the case at bench is the
W
damages when the dismissal is attended bybadfaithor on his moral character;
computation of Agabin's separation pay and backwages
fraudorconstitutesanactoppressivetolabor,orisdone 4. w
here the dismissed employee's position is no and no longer the finding of illegal dismissal.
in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs,or longer available;
ecomputationofAgabin'sbackwagesmustbefromthe
Th
publicpolicy.Exemplarydamagesmaybeawardedifthe
5. w
hen the continued relationship between the time of her illegal dismissal from employment until the
dismissal is effected in a wanton, oppressive, or employerandtheemployeeisnolongerviabledue finality of the decisionorderingthepaymentthereof.As
malevolent manner. to the strained relations between them; or for her separation pay, it should be computed at one
ere, the spiteful and wanton manner by which
H 6. w
hen the dismissed employee opted not to be month pay for every year of service reckoned from
petitioner was illegally dismissed entitles him to moral reinstated, or the paymentofseparationbenefits September 2, 2002 (as found by the Arbiter) until the
and exemplary damages. Following both statutory and
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page134of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
finality of the decision in her favor. e mployee, backwages is computed fromthetime EXC: W
here just cause termination p
roscribes t he
of dismissal until the finality of the decision claim of retirement pay as c ited in the
e twin reliefs that should b
Th e given to an illegally
ordering separation pay. retirement plan.
dismissed employee are f ull backwages and
reinstatement. 3. w
hen separation pay is ordered after the finality 1) R
etirement has been defined as a withdrawal from
of the decision ordering the reinstatement by office, public station, business, occupation, or
1. B ackwagesrestorethelostincomeofanemployee
andiscomputedfromthetimecompensationwas reason of a supervening event that makes the public duty. It is the result of a bilateral act of the
award of reinstatement no longer possible, parties, a voluntary agreement between the
withheld up to actual reinstatement.
backwages is computed from the time of employerandtheemployeewherebythelatter,after
2. A nent reinstatement,onlywhenitisnotviableis dismissal until the finality of the decision reaching a certain age, agrees and/or consents to
separation pay given. ordering separation pay. sever his employment with the former.
ession Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. CA held that a
S e second scenario applies herein since the order of
Th 2) U
nder the Labor Code, only unjustly dismissed
decision in a case involving illegal dismissal consists separation pay was decreed in lieu of reinstatement. employees are entitled to retirement benefits and
essentially of two components: Hence,theemployer-employeerelationshipofAMHIand other privileges including reinstatement and
1. Th
e first is the finding of the illegality of the Agabin will only be completely terminated upon the backwages. Since petitioner’s dismissal was for a
dismissalandtheawardsofseparationpayinlieu finality of the decision which ordered the payment of just cause, he is not entitled to any retirement
of reinstatement, backwages. separation pay and backwages. benefit. (Sy v. Metrobank)
2. Th
esecondpartisthecomputationoftheawards erulingoftheCAwhichreinstatedtheDecisionofthe
Th ⭐
3) An employee in the private sector who did not
made. Arbiter is thus correct. expressly agree to the terms of an early retirement
plancannotbeseparatedfromtheservicebeforehe
e computation of backwages depends on the final
Th
reaches the age of 65 years. The employer who
awards adjudged as a consequence of illegal dismissal:
Retirement retirestheemployeeprematurelyisguiltyofillegal
1. w hen reinstatement is ordered, the general E dismissal,andisliabletopayhisbackwagesandto
concept under Article 279 of the Labor Code, as Labor Code, Art. 302
reinstate him without loss of seniority and other
amended,computesthebackwagesfromthetime benefits,unlesstheemployeehasmeanwhilereached
GR: mployeesdismissedforjustcausearegenerally
E
of dismissal until reinstatement. the mandatory retirement age, in which case he is
entitled due to vested rights
2. w
hen separation pay is ordered in lieu of entitled to separation pay pursuanttothetermsof
reinstatement or reinstatement is waived by the the plan, with legal interest on the backwages and
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page135of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
s eparation pay reckoned from the finality of the r etirement plan was expressly made known and mployees Association in its CBA. Despite the
E
decision. (Laya, Jr v. CA2018 En Banc) accepted by them. proper dissemination of information, no one
4) H questioned the retirement plan. Hence, the Court
owever, where the employee has been informed 8) I ncontrast,thecaseofJaculbev.SillimanUniversity
and had consented, as when in accepting the did not allow the application of a lower retirement deemed it valid and effective as due notice of the
employment offer, he has assented to all existing age. The petitioner in the said case was employed employer's decision to retire an employee was
rules, regulations and policy of theemployerinthe sometime in 1958 while the retirement plan, which adequately provided.
employment contract, and furthermore, he didnot automatically retired its members upon reaching ⭐
11) Retirement of Part-timeFaculty.Undertheruleof
object to the compulsory age of retirement in the the age of 65 or after 35 years of uninterrupted statutory construction of expressio unius est exclusio
Retirement Plan, he is deemed bound thereto. service to the university, came into being in 1970. alterius, Bernardo's claim for retirement benefits
(Banco de Oro Unibank v. Sagaysay2015) The said retirement plan was not applied to the cannot be denied on the ground that he was a
5) J urisprudence is replete with cases discussing the petitionerbecausetherewasnoagreementtowhich part-timeemployeeaspart-timeemployeesarenot
employer's prerogative to lower the compulsory the latter assented. among those specifically exempted under RA No.
retirement age subject to the consent of its 7641oritsImplementingRules.(DelaSalleAranetaU
9) S
imilarly, the case of Cercado v. UNIPROM Inc.,
employees. involved a non-contributory retirement plan which v. Bernardo2017)
providedthatanyemployeewithtwenty(20)yearsof
6) I n Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. NLRC, the Court Catotocan v. Lourdes School of Quezon City2017
service, regardless of age, may be retired at his
upheld the retirement of the private respondent
therein pursuanttoaCBAallowingtheemployerto optionorattheoptionofthecompany.Thesaidplan ETIREMENTPLAN.Acceptancebytheemployeesofan
R
was adopted while the petitioner therein was early retirement age option must be explicit, voluntary,
compulsorily retire employees upon completing 25
employed earlier. There was no voluntary free, and uncompelled.
years of service to the company.
acquiescence to UNIPROM's early retirement age
7) I n Progressive DevelopmentCorporationv.NLRC,the ONCatotocan'sreceiptofherretirementbenefitswillnotstop
W
option on her part.
retirement plan, which allowed the employer to her from pursuing an illegal dismissal complaint against LSQC.
retire employees who had rendered more than 20 10) Ontheotherhand,inObusanv.PNB,thepetitioner,
O. LSQC did not illegally dismiss Catotocan from
N
whowashiredbyPNBin1979,wasdeemedcovered
years of service, was declaredvalidandenforceable service.WhileitmaybetruethatCatotocanwasinitially
even though it was not embodiedinaCBA.Inthat byitsretirementplanadoptedin2000.Considering
opposedtotheideaofherretirementatanagebelow60
that on February 21, 2001, PNBhadinformedallof
case, the Court concluded that the employees, who years, it must be stressed that Catotocan's subsequent
itsofficersandemployeesaboutthesaidretirement
were hired before the execution of the employer's actions after her"retirement"areactuallytantamountto
plan,thesaidplanwasthenregisteredwiththeBIR
retirement plan, were bound by it because the her consent to the addendum to the LSQC's retirement
and was later recognized by the Philnabank
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page136of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
olicy of retiring her from service upon serving the
p d ismissed by respondents, but rather, retired from his egistration of Unions, Chartering,
R
schoolforatleastthirty(30)continuousyears.Catotocan employment with the latter. Cancellation of Registration
performed all the acts to ratify her retirement in
ES. TheCourtisinclinedtoholdthatpetitionerretired
Y
accordance with LSQC's retirement policy. Sole and Exclusive Bargaining Agent
from service, but nonetheless, pursued the filing of the
atotocan's repeated application and availment of the
C instant illegal dismissal case in order to recover the Employer as a Mere Bystander Rule
re-hiring program of LSQC for qualified retirees for 3 proper benefits due to him. In fact, it is telling that he
overage and Eligibility for
C
consecutive years is a supervening event that would never asked to be reinstated as he only sought the 1
revealthatshehasalreadyvoluntarilyandfreelysignified payment of his retirement benefits. In view of the
Membership
her consent to the retirement policy despite her initial foregoing,respondentsmustdulypaypetitionernotonly
RT 253. Coverage and Employees' Right to
A
opposition to it. his retirement benefits, but also his other monetary
Self-Organization. — All persons employed in
claims.
commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises
and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational
PAL v. Hassaram2017
institutions,whetheroperatingforprofitornot,shall
e determining factor in choosing which retirement
Th
VIII Labor Relations havetherighttoself-organizationandtoform,join,
scheme to apply is still superiority in terms of benefits or assist labor organizations of their own choosing
Right to Self-Organization
provided. for purposes of collective bargaining.
ights of Legitimate Labor
R
mbulant, intermittent and itinerant workers,
A
Organizations
self-employed people, rural workers and those
Barroga v. Quezon Colleges of the North2018 Unfair Labor Practices without any definite employers may form labor
hile retirement from service is similar to termination
W organizationsfor their mutual aid and protection.
Peaceful Concerted Activities
of employment insofar as they are common modes of
RT 254.Right of EmployeesinthePublicService.—
A
ending employment, they are mutually exclusive, with A Right to Self-Organization
varyingjuridicalbasesandresultingbenefits.Retirement Employees of government corporations established
under the Corporation Code shall have the right to
from service is contractual, while termination of Coverage and Eligibility for Membership
organize and to bargain collectively with their
employment is statutory.
Doctrine of Necessary Implication respectiveemployers.Allotheremployeesinthecivil
WON the CA correctly ruled that petitioner was not illegally
Bargaining Unit
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page137of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
s ervice shall have the right to form associationsfor Qualified Disqualified e mployment that are not fixed by law. Social Security
purposes not contrary to law. SystemEmployeesAssociationv.CourtofAppealsexplainsthat
4. C
ountry of origin has wners cannot bargain
O instead of a collective bargaining agreement or
ratified ILO 87 and 98 with themselves. negotiation, government employees must course their
Qualified Disqualified
as certified by DFA. embers of International
M petitionsforachangeinthetermsandconditionsoftheir
ose employed in
Th Es of GOCCs under
E ll other workers FOR
A Orgs; employment through the Congress for the issuance of
commercial, industrial and Special charters; mutual aid and protection new laws, rules, or regulations to that effect.
ydoctrine of
B
agricultural enterprises; Managerial EEs; and NOT for collective incorporation, they are
EEs of GOCCs WITHOUT They are those who are bargaining; immune from suit.
original charters (Corpo vested with powers or Security guards; imcoma Labor Organization-PLAC v. Limcoma
L
Code); Multi-Purpose Cooperative2021
prerogatives to lay Workers in EPZs.
Es of religious, charitable,
E own and execute
d s correctly observed by the Voluntary Arbitrator (VA),
A
medical or educational management policies Section 2 of ArticleIIoftheCBAgavethedescriptionas
institutions, for profit or and/or hire, transfer, GSIS Family Bank Employees Union v. Villanueva2019 to who are covered by the said agreement. There is no
not; suspend, lay-off, recall, othermeaningorinterpretationofthephrase"allregular
fficers and employees of government-owned or
O
Alien EEs discharge, assign or employee" as mentioned under the CBA but all regular
controlled corporations (GOCCs) without original
discipline employees. rank-and-file employee only of respondent. Corollarily,
1. Working in the country; charters are covered by the Labor Code, not the Civil
upervisory EEs are
S thismeansthatsupervisory,confidentialandmanagerial
2. W
ith valid working ServiceLaw.However,non-charteredGOCCsarelimited
RELATIVELY employees or those who will fall as non-rank-and-file
permits issued by by law in negotiating economic terms with their
prohibited in that they employee are excluded.
DOLE; employees. This is because the law has provided the
are not allowed to join CompensationandPositionClassificationSystem,which ointerpretitotherwisewouldindirectlyviolatetherule
T
3. N
ationals of countries unions of rank and file applies to all government-owned or controlled provided under Article 245 of the Labor Code that bars
granting same rights to by virtue of separation corporations, chartered or non-chartered. managerial employees from joining the collective
Filipinoworkers of unionsdoctrine. bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees. Managerial
(RECIPROCITY rule); I n contrast with the private sector, the terms and
onfidential EEs
C employees cannot beallowedtoshareintheconcessions
and conditions of employment of government workers are
Members of a Cooperative; obtained by the labor union through collective
fixed by the legislature; thus, the negotiable matters in
negotiation. Otherwise, they would be exposed to the
the public sector are limited to terms and conditions of
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page138of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t emptation of colluding with the union during the ociete Internationale De Telecommunications v. Huliganga
S t he collective interest of all the employees,
negotiations to the detriment of the employer. 2018 consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to
be the best suitedtoservethereciprocalrightsand
anagerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or
M
dutiesofthepartiesunderthecollectivebargaining
form any labor organization. An exception to this
provisions of the law. (UP v. Ferrer-Calleja)
2 Doctrine of Necessary Implication prohibition is when the employer extends the CBA
benefitstothemanagerialemployeeasamatterofpolicy 2. Th
efactorsindeterminingtheappropriatecollective
1) C onfidential employees, by Doctrine o f Necessary
or established practice. bargaining unit are
Implication, are also disqualified f or union
membership. They are those who ON Huliganga, as a managerial employee, is entitled to the
W a. the will of the employees (GlobeDoctrine);
same retirement benefits as those of rank-and-file employees. b. a ffinity andunityoftheemployees'interest,
a) assist or act in a confidential capacity in regard
O.Complainantfailedtopresentevidencetojustifyhis
N such as substantial similarity of work and
b) t o persons who formulate, determine, and
claim. He failed to sufficiently establish that there is an duties, or similarity of compensation and
effectuate management policies, specifically in
established company practice of extending the CBA working conditions (Substantial Mutual
thefield of labor relations.
concessions to managerial employees. To be considered Interests Rule);
2) For the disqualification to apply asacompanypractice,theactofextendingthebenefitsof c. prior collective bargaining history; and
a) H e must be in a fiduciary relationship with the CBA to managerial employees must have been
d. similarity of employment status.
another to whom he reports or whom he assists; practicedforalongperiodoftimeandmustbeshownto
be consistent and deliberate. 3. Th
e basic test of an asserted bargaining unit's
b) Th
elatterpossesseslabor-managementrelations
acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally
information; and
the combination which will best assure to all
c) H e has access to that information by reason of Bargaining Unit employeestheexerciseoftheircollectivebargaining
his position. rights. (ISAE v. Quisumbing)
Commingling or Mixed Membership
3) The disqualification will NOT apply if 3 a. Commingling or Mixed Membership
I nclusion as Members of Employees
a) The information is business information; and ixed-membership is NOT a ground for the
M
Outside the Bargaining Unit
cancellation of a union’s certificate of registration. The
b) Th
e information may be labor-management
1. A "bargaining unit" has been defined as agroup grounds are limited to the following:
relations in nature but the employee’s access
thereto is accidental only. o femployeesofagivenemployer,comprisedofallor a) F
raud in the ratification of Constitution and
less than all of theentirebodyofemployees,which Bylaws;
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page139of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
a utomatically deemed removed from the list of e mployeesinthebargainingunit;(Sec2-ARuleIII
b) Fraud in election of officers;
membership of said union. Book 5)
c) Voluntary dissolution
egistration of Unions, Chartering,
R b) f ederations and national unions. — the
i) By⅔of members; resolution of affiliation of at least ten (10)
4 Cancellation of Registration
ii) In a meeting called for the purpose; legitimate labor organizations, whether
Labor Code, Arts. 240, 241, 245 and 247
independent unions or charteredlocals,eachof
iii) n application to cancel submitted by the
A
which must be a duly certified or recognized
board attested to by the president; Registration with the DOLE
bargaining agent in the establishment where it
iv) iled in the RO which issued theCertificate
F 1) Where to file. —
seeks to operate. (Sec 2-B Rule III Book 5)
of Registration. a) R
egional Officewheretheapplicantprincipally
3) D
enial of Application. — Where the documents
operates.
Holy Child Catholic School v. Sto. Tomas2013 En Banc supporting the application for registration are
i) independent labor unions, incomplete or do not contain the required
I ncaseofallegedinclusionofdisqualifiedemployeesina certification and attestation, the Regional Officeor
ii) chartered locals,
union, the proper procedure for an employer like the Bureau shall, within one (1) dayfromreceiptof
petitioner is todirectlyfileapetitionforcancellationof iii) workers' associations. the application, notify the applicant concerned in
the union’s certificate of registration due to b) B
ureau or the Regional Offices, but shall be writing of the necessary requirements and to
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the processed by the Bureau complete the same within thirty (30) days from
circumstances enumerated in Article 239 of the Labor receipt of notice.
i) federations,
Code, as amended.
ii) national unions or heretheapplicantconcernedfailstocompletethe
W
b. Inclusion as Members of Employees requirements within the time prescribed, the
iii) workers' associations applicationforregistrationshallbedenied,without
Outside the Bargaining Unit
o peratinginmorethanoneregion.(Sec1RuleIII prejudice to filing a new application. (Sec 5 Rule IV
RT 256. Effect of Inclusion as Members of Employees
A Book 5)
Book 5)
Outside the Bargaining Unit. — The inclusion as union
members of employees outside the bargaining unit 2) Requirements for Application. — 4) Appeal. —Thedenialmay be appealed to
shall not be a ground for the cancellation of the a) independent labor union. — the nameofallits a) t he Bureau if denial is made by the Regional
registration of the union. Said employees are members comprising at least 20% of the Office or
b) the Secretary if denial is made by the Bureau,
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page140of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ithin ten (10) days from receiptofsuchnotice,on
w 2. Th
e chapter shall be entitled to all other rightsand 4) Grounds for Cancellation.—
the ground ofgraveabuseofdiscretionorviolation privileges of a legitimate labor organization only a) m
isrepresentation, false statement or fraud in
of these Rules. upon thesubmissionofthefollowingdocumentsin connection with the adoption or ratification of
addition to its charter certificate:
e memorandum of appeal shall be filed with the
Th the constitution and by-laws or amendments
Regional Office or the Bureau that issued the denial. a. Th
e names of the chapter's officers, their thereto, the minutes of ratification, the list of
addresses, and the principal office of the members who took part in the ratification;
eBureauortheOfficeoftheSecretaryshalldecide
Th
the appeal within twenty (20) days from receipt of chapter; and b) m
isrepresentation, false statements or fraud in
the records of the case. (Sec 6-7 Rule IV Book 5) b. The chapter's constitution and by-laws connectionwiththeelectionofofficers,minutes
5) E of the election of officers, andthelistofvoters;
ffect of Registration. —Thelaborunionorworkers' Cancellation of registration or
association shall be deemed registered and vested
1) W
here to file. — The petition for cancellation or
with legal personality on thedate of issuanceofits c) v oluntarydissolutionbythemembers.(Sec3Rule
application for voluntary dissolution shall be filed in
XIV Book 5)
a) certificate of registration or the regional office which issued its certificate of
registration or creation. 5) Voluntary Cancellation. —
b) certificate of creation of chartered local.
I n the case of federations, national or industry a) a t least two thirds (2/3) of its general
uch legal personality may be questioned ONLY
S
throughanindependentpetitionforcancellationof unionsandtradeunioncenters,thebureaudirector membership votes to dissolve the organization
union registration, and NOT by way of collateral may cancel the registration. (Sec 1 Rule XIV Book5) b) in a meeting duly called for that purpose and
attack in petition for certification election 2) W
ho May File. — Any party-in-interest may c) a n application to cancel its registration is
proceedings. (Sec 8 Rule IV Book 5) commenceapetitionforcancellationofregistration, thereafter submitted by the board of the
except in actions involving violations ofArticle241, organization to the regional/bureau director,as
Chartering and Creation of a Local Chapter
which can only be commenced by members of the the case may be.
1. A duly registered federation or national unionmay labor organization concerned. (Sec 2 Rule XIV Book5)
directly create a local chapter by issuing a charter d) Th
e application shall be attested to by the
certificate indicating the establishment of the local 3) E
ffectofaPetitionforCancellationofRegistration.—A president of the organization. (S
ec 4 Rule XIV
chapter. The chapter shall acquire legal personality petition for cancellation of union registration shall Book 5)
not suspend the proceedings for certification
onlyforpurposesoffilingapetitionforcertification 6) P
rohibitedGroundsforCancellationofRegistration.—
election from the date it was issued a charter election nor shall it prevent the filing of a petition
The inclusion as union members of employeeswho
for certification election. (ART 246.)
certificate.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page141of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
a re outside the bargaining unit shall NOT be a the certification, provided that said
ground to cancel the union registration. The ars to the Holding of Certification
B e mployeescomprise atleastmajorityofthe
ineligible employees are automatically deemed Election covered BU; and
removedfrom the list of membership of the union. ailure of Election, Run-off Election,
F b. c ertification under oath by the president of
e affiliation of the rank-and-file and supervisory
Th Re-run Election the requesting union or local that all
unions operating within the sameestablishmentto documents submitted are true and correct.
xclusivebargainingagent.—Referstoanylegitimate
E
the samefederationornationalunionshallNOTbe
labor organization duly recognized or certified as the I f the requesting union or local, without valid
a ground to cancel the registrationofeitherunion.
soleandexclusivebargainingagentofalltheemployees reason,failstocompletetherequirementsforSEBA
(Sec 6 Rule XIV Book 5)
in a bargaining unit. (DOLE D.O. No. 40-03, Rule I, Sec. certification during the validation conference, the
1(u)) request for SEBAcertificationshallbereferredtothe
sian Institute of Management Faculty Association v. Asian
A
Institute of Management2022 election officer for the conduct of election.
Modes to acquire status as SEBA
aculty members are not managerialemployeeswhoare
F requesting union or local who justifiably fails to
A
Four (4) ways of determining a bargaining agent:
complete the requirements shall have ten (10)
disqualified from forming or joining a labor
1. Request for SEBA certification; working days from notice to comply thesame.The
organization. Moreover, the legitimacy of labor
2. Certification election; validation proceedings shall not exceed a total of
organizationscannotbecollaterallyattackedinapetition
fifteen (15) working days from the date of the first
for certification election. 3. Run-off election; OR
validation conference.
eanwhile, the grounds to cancel the registration of a
M 4. Consent election. (DOLE D.O. No. 40-I-15)
labororganizationareexclusive.Ifnoneofthesegrounds ction On The Submission. — RD shall issue within
A
are proven to exist, its registration shall be sustained, a. SEBA Certification three (3) working days to the requesting union or
owing to the State policy accordingprimacytotheright local a certification as SEBA.
OLE D.O. No. 40-03, Rule I, Sec. 1, as amended by
D
to self-organization. DOLE D.O. No. 40-J-22 ffect Of Certification. — Upon the issuance of the
E
certification as SEBA, the certified union or local
1. I nanunorganizedestablishmentwith1LLO.—the
RD shall call a conference within five (5) working shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of an
Sole and Exclusive Bargaining Agent days for the submission of the following:
exclusive bargaining agent of all the employees in
the covered bargaining unit
5 SEBA Certification a. t he names of employees in the covered
bargainingunitwhosignifytheirsupportfor
Certification and Consent Election
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page142of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
2. I n an unorganized establishment with > 1 LLO. — e petition shall be heard and resolved by the
Th b. f ailure to submit a duly issued charter
RDshallreferthesametotheelectionofficerforthe Mediator-Arbiter. certificate;
conduct ofcertification election. 3. WhentoFile?Apetitionforcertificationelectionmay c. fi
ling the petition before or after the
3. I nanorganizedestablishment.—RDshallreferthe be filedanytime,except: freedom period;
sametothemediator-arbiterforthedetermination
a. w
henavalidcertification,consentorrun-off d. fi
ling of a petition within one (1) year from
of the propriety of conducting a certification
election has been conducted within the the date of a valid election;
election.
bargaining unit within one (1) year prior to e. w
hereadulycertifiedunionhascommenced
b. Certification and Consent Election the filing of the petition for certification and sustained negotiations with the
election; employer within the one-year period, or
OLE D.O. No. 40-03, Rules VII and VIII, as
D
amended b. w
hen the duly certified union has where there exists abargaining deadlock;
commenced and sustained negotiations in
1. Who may file? f. i n an organized establishment,thefailureto
good faith with the employer in accordance
a. LLO. — submit the25% signature requirement;
with the said one year period;
i. Independent union; g. n
on-appearanceofthepetitionerfortwo(2)
c. w
hen a bargaining deadlock had been
consecutive scheduled conferences; and
ii. National union or federation; submitted to conciliation or arbitration or
had become the subject of a valid notice of h. a bsence of EER betweenallthemembersof
iii. Local chapter.
strike or lockout; the petitioning unionandtheestablishment
b. E mployer, when requested to bargain where the proposed bargaining unit is
d. w
hen a CBA has been registered. The
collectively, and the majority status of the sought to be represented.
petition may be filed only within sixty (60)
requesting party is in doubt.
days prior to its expiry (FREEDOM 5. Order of Election
c. I f in an organized establishment, the PERIOD).
signature of at least 25% of allemployeesin Granted Denied
4. Grounds to Deny Petition.
the bargaining unit is required.
a. t he petitioner is not listed in the Unorganized
2. V enue and Jurisdiction. — With the Regional Office
department's registry of legitimate labor
which issued the petitioning union's certificate of s hall not be subject to A
ppeal to SOLE
unionsorthatitsregistrationcertificatehas
registration or certificate of creation of chartered appeal. within ten (10) days
beencancelled with finality;
local.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page143of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Granted Denied 7. P
roclamation and Certification of the Result of the I n caseofalleged inclusion ofdisqualifiedemployeesin
Election. — Within 24 hours from final canvass of a union, the proper procedure for an employer is to
le protestontheconduct from receipt
fi votes,therebeingavalidelection,theSEBA,shallbe directly file a petition for cancellation of the union's
and results of the proclaimed by the Med-Arbiter under any of the certificateofregistrationduetomisrepresentation,false
certification election. following conditions: statement or fraud.
Organized a. n
oprotestwasfiledor,evenifonewasfiled, ON the BLR was correct in holding that being composed of
W
the same was not perfected within the managerial employees is not a ground for canceling the
Appeal to SOLEwithin ten (10) daysfrom receipt
five-day periodfor perfection of the protest; certificate of registration of a labor organization.
a. Th
e filing of the memorandum of appeal b. n
o challenge or eligibility issue was raised O. Petitioner was correct in filing a petition for
N
from the order or decision of the or, even if one was raised, the resolution of cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration.
Med-Arbiter stays the holding of any the same will not materially change the Petitioner's sole ground for seeking cancellation of
certification election. results of the elections. respondent's certificate of registration — that its
b. Th
e decision of the Secretary shall become e winning union shall have the rights,
Th members are managerial employees andforthisreason,
final and executory after ten (10)daysfrom privileges and obligations of a duly certified its registration is thus a patent nullity for being an
receipt thereof by the parties. No motion for collective bargaining agent from the time the absolute violation ofArticle245oftheLaborCodewhich
reconsideration of the decision shall be certification is issued. declares that managerial employeesareineligibletojoin
entertained. any labor organization — is, in a sense, an accusation
8. A
ppeal. — The decision of the Med-Arbiter may be that respondent is guilty of misrepresentation for
6. Inclusion-exclusion proceeding appealed to the Secretary withinten(10)daysfrom registering under the claim that its members are not
a. A ll employees who are members of t he receipt. managerial employees.
appropriate bargaining unit three ( 3) 9. C
onsentElection.—Referstotheelectionvoluntarily
months prior to the filing of the agreed upon by the parties, with or without the c. B
ars to the Holding of Certification
petition/request shall be eligible to vote. interventionoftheDOLE,todeterminetheissueof Election
b. A n employee who has been dismissed from majority representation of all the workers in the OLE D.O. No. 40- 03, Rule VIII, Sec. 14, andRule
D
work but has contested the legality of the appropriate collective bargaining unit. XVII, Sec. 7, as amended; Omnibus Rules, BookV,
dismissal in a forum of appropriate Rule III, Sec. 14 (e)
sian Institute of Management v. Asian Institute of
A
jurisdiction.
Management Faculty Association2017
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page144of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
nionhascommencednegotiationswiththe
u
1. C ontract Bar rule. — BLR shall not entertain any 2. R
un-offElection.—Referstoanelectionbetweenthe
employer within the one-year period; or
petitionforcertificationelectionoranyotheraction laborunionsreceivingthetwo(2)highestnumberof
which may disturb the administration of duly b. a bargainingdeadlockhadbeensubmittedto votes when a certification election which provides
registeredexistingcollectivebargainingagreements conciliationorarbitrationorhadbecomethe for three (3) or more choices results in no choice
affecting the parties. Theexceptionsare as follows: subject of valid notice of strike or lockout. receiving amajorityofthevalidvotescast;provided,
that the total number of votes for all contending
a. during the60-day freedom period; 3. C
ertification Year Bar rule.—Acertificationelection
unions is at least fifty percent(50%)ofthenumber
b. w petitionmay not be filedwithin one (1) year:
hentheCBAisnotregisteredwiththeBLR of votes cast.
or DOLE Regional Offices; a. f romthedateofavalidcertification,consent
or run-off election; or 3. Re-run election.— Refers to an election conducted
c. w hentheCBA,althoughregistered,contains
a. t o break a tie between contending unions,
provisions lowerthanthestandardsfixedby b. from the date of SEBA certification.
law; includingbetween"nounion"andoneofthe
d. Failure of Election, Run-off Election, unions.
d. w hen the documents supporting i ts Re-run Election
registration are falsified, fraudulent or b. a fter a failure of election has been declared
OLE D.O. No. 40-03, Rule IX, Secs. 17-19, as
D bytheelectionofficerand/oraffirmedbythe
tainted with misrepresentation;
amended mediator-arbiter.
e. when the CBA is not complete;
1. Failure of Election.— c. When the certification election is nullified.
f. w hen the CBA was entered into priortothe
a. W
here the number of votes castislessthan
60-day freedom period; Employer as a Mere Bystander Rule
themajorityofthenumberofeligiblevoters
g. w henthereisaschismintheunionresulting
6
and there are no material challenged votes. DOLE D.O. No. 40-03, Rule IX, Sec. 1, as amended
inanindustrialdisputewhereintheCBAcan
b. I t shallnotbarthefilingofamotionforthe
no longer foster industrial peace. ole of Employer. — Merely a bystander and may only
R
immediate holding of another certification
participate:
2. D eadlock Bar rule. — neither may a representation or consent election within six (6) months
question be entertained if: from date of declaration of failure of a) By being furnished a copy of the petition; and
a. b
eforethefilingofapetitionforcertification election. b) B
yprovidingthelistofemployeesintheunitfor
election, the duly recognized or certified c. Are-run electionis then called. pre-election.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page145of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
sian Institute of Management Faculty Association v. Asian
A nemployerhasnostandingorparticipationwhatsoever
A 3) T
o be furnished by the employer, upon written
Institute of Management2022 in a certification election proceeding, except when the request, with its annual audited financial
e proceedings involved in a petition for certification
Th law requires it to participate. This rule is enshrined in statements, including the balance sheet and the
election are non-adversarial and merely investigative. Article 271 of the Labor Code profit and loss statement,
Thus, in these proceedings, the employer is a mere oly Child Catholic School v. Hon. Sto. Tomas categorically
H a) w
ithinthirty(30)calendardaysfromthedate
bystander, withoutanylegalpersonalitytoparticipatein held that the determination of whether union of receiptoftherequest,aftertheunionhas
the proceedings. membership comprises managerial and/or supervisory been duly recognized by the employer or
I ndeed, while employers maybenotifiedofpetitionsfor employeesisafactualissuethatisbestleftforresolution certifiedasthesoleandexclusivebargaining
certification election, they have no inalienable right to in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings. representative of the employees in the
oppose it. This concept has long beenentrenchedinour bargaining unit, or
jurisdiction, coined as the "bystander rule." b) w
ithin sixty (60) calendar days before the
ights of Legitimate Labor
R expiration of the existing collective
certificationelectionisthesoleconcernoftheworkers,
A B
except when the employer itself has to file the petition
Organizations bargaining agreement, or during the
pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, collective bargaining negotiation;
Check Off, Assessment, and Agency Fees
but even after such filing its role in the certification 4) T
o own property, real or personal, for the use and
process ceases and becomes merely a bystander. The Collective Bargaining benefit of the labor organization and its members;
employer clearly lacks the personality to dispute the
5) Tosue and be suedin its registered name; and
electionandhasnorighttointerfereatalltherein.Thisis " L egitimate Labor Organization" refers to any labor
so since any uncalled-for concern on the part of the organizationintheprivatesectorregisteredorreported 6) T
oundertakeallotheractivitiesdesignedtobenefit
employer may giverisetothesuspicionthatitisbatting with the Department in accordance with Rules III and the organization and its members, including
for a company union. IV of the Omnibus Rules. cooperative,housing,welfareandotherprojectsnot
contrary to law.
ere, AIM had no right to oppose AFA 's Petition for
H 1) T
o act as the representative of itsmembersforthe
Certification Election. purpose of collective bargaining; 7) Th
e income and the properties of legitimate labor
organizations,includinggrants,endowments,gifts,
2) T
o becertifiedastheexclusiverepresentativeofall
donations and contributions theymayreceivefrom
theemployeesinanappropriatebargainingunitfor
oca-Cola FEMSA Philippines v. CCFP-MMUCSU-AWATU
C fraternalandsimilarorganizations,localorforeign,
purposes of collective bargaining;
2021 which are actually, directly andexclusivelyusedfor
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page146of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t heir lawful purposes, shall be free from taxes,
3) The union’s right to agency fees is neither f) Viacourt order;
duties and other assessments. (ART 251)
contractual nor statutory butquasi-contractual. g) A
uthorized by law such as premiums for SSS,
heck Off, Assessment, and Agency
C 4) R
equisites for validity of union dues and special PhilHealth, Pag-ibig.
Fees assessments
1 Collective Bargaining
aborCode,Arts.250(n)(o)and259(e);DOLED.O.
L a) A
uthorization by a written resolution of the
No. 40-03, Rule XIII, Sec. 1 majority of all the members at a general Procedure in Bargaining
membership meeting duly called for the
Duty to bargain collectively
RT113.WageDeduction.—Noemployer,inhisown
A purpose;
behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any b) S
ecretary’s record of the minutes of said
Economic Provisions and Conditions
deduction from the wages of his employees,except: meeting; on-Economic Provisions and
N
2
xxxx c) I ndividual written authorization ( IWA) for Conditions
( b) For union dues, in cases where the right of the check-off duly signed by the employees andatory provisions in a Collective
M
workerorhisuniontocheck-offhasbeenrecognized concerned. Bargaining Agreement
by the employer or authorized in writing by the 5) When not to require IWA Freedom period
individual worker concerned;
a) A
ssessment from non-members of SEBA of Union security clause
agency fees;
1) There may be someSPECIAL ASSESSMENTS:
collective bargaining agreement or CBA is the
A
b) D
eductions for fees from mandatory activities
a) A uthorizedbyawrittenresolutionofmajorityof negotiated contract between a legitimate labor
such as labor relations seminars;
all members; AND organizationandtheemployerconcerningwages,hours
c) Withholding tax; of work and all other terms and conditions of
b) Purpose is stated.
d) E
E’s debt to ER which is already due and employment in a bargaining unit.
2) U nion Dues vs.AgencyFees.—Assessmentofagency
demandable; us, where the CBA is clear and unambiguous, it
Th
fees from non-union employees and deduction
thereof from the employees’ salaries (Art 248[e]) e) J udgment against the worker where wagesmay becomes the law between the parties and compliance
even in the absence of individual written be subject of attachment or execution but only therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law.
authorizationifthenon-unionemployeesacceptthe for debts incurred for food, clothing, shelter,
benefits under the CBA. and medical attendance. PBCom Employees Association v. PBCom2022
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page147of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ON the latest policy of PBCom on its loan program violates
W r easonable and imposed pursuant to a valid exercise of a. Procedure in Bargaining
PBCEA's right to collective bargaining. management prerogative. The Court disagrees.
RT 261. Procedure in Collective Bargaining. — The
A
ES. No less than the 1987 Constitution guarantees the
Y lthough jurisprudence recognizes the validity of the
A
following procedures shall be observed in collective
rights of the workers to collective bargaining and employer's exercise of its management prerogative and
bargaining:
negotiations and to participate in policy and that courts will not ordinarily interfere with such
decision-making processes affecting their rights and exercise, this prerogative is not absolute. The valid 1. W
hen a party desires to negotiate an
benefits as may be provided by law. exercise of management prerogative is subject to agreement, it shall serve a written notice
limitations imposed by law, the collective bargaining upon the other party with a statement of its
CBAisaproductofaconstitutionally-guaranteedright
A
agreement, and the general principles of fair play and proposals.
to participate and is therefore the law between the
justice.
parties.Hence,thepartiesareobligedtocomplywithits eotherpartyshallmakeareplytheretonot
Th
provisions. Section 2, Article XVI of the CBAstatesthat erefore, the provisions of the CBA bind alltheparties
Th later than ten (10)calendardaysfromreceipt
PBCom"shallmaintainitsexistingloanprogram,i.e.,the and must be respected during its lifetime because its of such notice;
Multi-Purpose Loan Program for employees." The term terms and conditions constitute the law between them.
"existing" couldnotrefertoanyloanprogramotherthan Unless and until a new CBA is executed between the 2. S
hould differences arise, either party may
that which had already been in force at the time of the parties, "they areduty-boundtokeepthestatusquoand requestforaconferencewhichshallbeginnot
effectivity of the CBA where employees could avail to continue in full force and effect the terms and laterthanten(10)calendardaysfromthedate
themselvesofseveralloanssimultaneouslybypledgingor conditions of the existing one." of request.
utilizingtheirmid-yearandyear-endbonusesregardless 3. I f the dispute is not settled, the Board shall
ll told, PBCom's implementation of thelatestpolicyon
A
of whethertheirmonthlysalarycouldstillaccommodate its loan program is ablatantdisregardorcircumvention intervene and immediately call thepartiesto
their loan amortizations; provided, that the overall debt conciliation meetings;
ofArticle264oftheLaborCode.Also,toupholdPBCom's
servicing for all types of loans would not exceed the defense that the new policy is a valid exercise of its 4. xxx and
allowable debt service ratio. managementprerogativemightsetaprecedentingiving
5. Th
e Board shall exert all efforts to settle
owever, with PBCom's new policy, the employees can
H thebanksalicensetoundulyadd,modify,orrestrictthe
disputes amicably and encourage the parties
use their mid-year/year-end bonuses to pay for theloan grant of loans beyond the terms of the CBA under the
to submit their case to avoluntary arbitrator.
amortizations provided that their net take home pay is defense that such act is nothing more than imposing
insufficient to cover the value of their loan amortizations. reasonable conditions affecting only the mode of
payment of loans.
PBCom asserts that the conditions it introduced are
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page148of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
argaincollectivelyshallalsomeanthatneitherparty
b
b. Duty to bargain collectively shall terminate nor modify such agreement during
c. Economic Provisions and Conditions
RT262.DutytoBargainCollectivelyintheAbsenceof
A its lifetime. Economic provisions include monetary value of
CollectiveBargainingAgreements. —Intheabsenceof 1. wage increases,
an agreement or other voluntary arrangement RT265.TermsofaCollectiveBargainingAgreement.
A
providingforamoreexpeditiousmannerofcollective — Any CBA that the parties may enter into shall, 2. loan benefits,
bargaining,itshallbethedutyofemployerANDthe insofarastherepresentationaspectisconcerned,be 3. bonuses,
representatives of the employees to bargain for a term offive (5) years.
No petition questioning the majority status of the 4. allowances,
collectively in accordance with theprovisionsofthis
Code. incumbentbargainingagentshallbeentertainedand 5. retirement plan, and
no certification election shall be conducted by the 6. other fringe benefits.
RT 263.MeaningofDutytoBargainCollectively.—
A DOLEoutsideofthesixty(60)dayperiodimmediately
The duty to bargain collectively means before the date of expiry of such five-yeartermofthe d. Non-Economic Provisions and Conditions
CBA. On the other hand, non-economic clauses include
1. t he performance of a mutual obligation to
meetandconvenepromptlyandexpeditiously AllotherprovisionsoftheCBAshallberenegotiated 1. union security clauses,
in good faith not later thanthree (3) yearsafter its execution.
2. grievance procedures,
2. f or the purpose of negotiating an agreement ny agreement on such other provisions oftheCBA
A
3. l abor-management cooperation schemes,
with respect to wages, hours of work andall entered into within six (6) months from the date of
and
other terms and conditions of employment expiryofthetermofsuchotherprovisionsasfixedin
including proposals for adjusting any such CBA, shall retroact to the day immediately 4. other provisions without monetary value.
grievances or questions arising under such following such date.
e. M
andatory provisions in a Collective
agreement and
I f any such agreement is entered into beyond six Bargaining Agreement
3. e xecuting a contract incorporating such months, the parties shall agree on the duration of 1. G
rievance Procedure. — They shall establish a
agreements if requested by either party but retroactivity thereof. In case of a deadlock in the machinery for the adjustment and resolution of
suchdutydoesnotcompelanypartytoagree renegotiation of the CBA, the parties may exercise grievances arising from
to a proposal or to make any concession. their rights under this Code.
a. t he interpretation or implementation of
RT 264. Duty to Bargain Collectively When There
A
their CBA and
Exists a CBA. — When there is a CBA, the duty to
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page149of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
b. t he interpretation or enforcement of f. Freedom period Alabang Country Club v. NLRC
company personnel policies. reedom period. — However, either party canservea
F
e Club and the Union entered into a CBA, which
Th
writtennoticetoterminateormodifytheagreement
2. V oluntary Arbitration. — All grievances submitted provided for a Union shop and maintenance of
atleastsixty(60)dayspriortoitsexpirationdate.It
to the grievance machinery which are not settled membership shop.
shallbethedutyofbothpartiestokeepthestatusquo
within seven (7) calendar days from the date of its
andtocontinueinfullforceandeffectthetermsand fter an audit of Union funds, the Union notified
A
submission shall automatically be referred to
conditions of the existing agreement during the respondents Pizarro, Braza, and Castueras of the audit
voluntary arbitrationprescribed in the CBA.
60-day period and/or until a new agreement is results and asked them to explain the discrepancies in
3. “ No Strike, No Lockout” Clause. — No strike or reached by the parties. writing.
lockoutshalloccurduringtheeffectivityoftheCBA.
espite their explanations they were expelled from the
D
However,thisonlyappliesifthegroundrelieduponis g. Union security clause Union for malversation of Union funds. The Union,
economic in nature. The “No Strike, No Lockout” “union security clause” is a stipulation in the CBA
A invoking the SecurityClauseoftheCBA,demandedthat
clause is inapplicable to prevent a strikeorlockout whereby the management recognizes that the the Club dismiss them.
which is grounded onULP. membership of employees in the union which
erminationofemploymentbyvirtueofaunionsecurity
T
4. Provision on wage increases. negotiated said agreement should be maintained and
clause embodied in aCBAisrecognizedandacceptedin
continuedasaconditionforemploymentorretentionof
5. W hataretheremediesincaseofCBAdeadlock?Incase ourjurisdiction.Thispracticestrengthenstheunionand
employment. The obvious purpose is to safeguard and
of a deadlock inthenegotiationorrenegotiationof prevents disunity in the bargaining unit within the
ensure the continued existence of the union.
thecollectivebargainingagreement,thepartiesmay duration of the CBA.
exercise the following rights under the Labor Code: Enforcement of union security clause; Requisites
a. C onciliation and mediation by the NCMB, a. The union security clause is applicable;
DOLE. Hongkong Bank Independent Labor Union v. HSBC2018
b. Th
e bargaining union is requesting for the
b. D eclarationofastrikeorlockout,asthecase terminationofemploymentduetoenforcement ON HSBC could validly enforce the credit-checking
W
may be. of the clause in the CBA; and requirement under its BSP-approved Plan in processing the
salaryloanapplicationsofcoveredemployeesevenwhenthesaid
c. R eferral of case to compulsory or voluntary c. Th
ere is sufficient evidence to support the
requirement is not recognized under the CBA.
arbitration. union’sdecisiontoexpeltheemployeefromthe
union. O.ThePlanwasnevermadepartoftheCBA.Tolerating
N
HSBC's conduct would be tantamount to allowing a
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page150of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
latantcircumventionofArticle253.Itwouldcontravene
b ependents but only up to the extent of the expenses
d a nd 264 of this Code, the civil aspects of all cases
the express prohibition against the unilateral actually incurred. Thisisconsistentwiththeprincipleof involving unfair labor practices,whichmayinclude
modification of a CBA during its subsistence and even indemnity whichproscribestheinsuredfromrecovering claimsforactual,moral,exemplaryandotherforms
thereafter until a new agreement is reached. greater than the loss. of damages, attorney's fees and other affirmative
relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the Labor
SBC's enforcement of credit checking on salary loans
H Arbiters.
under the CBA invalidly modified the latter's provisions
thereon throughtheimpositionofadditionalrequirements C Unfair Labor Practices e Labor Arbiters shall resolve such cases within
Th
which cannot be found anywhere in the CBA. thirty (30) calendar days from the time they are
By Employers submitted for decision.
By Labor Organizations ecovery of civil liability in the administrative
R
itsubishi Motors Phils Salaried Employees Union v.
M proceedings shall bar recovery under the Civil Code.
Mitsubishi Motors Phils Corp.2013 RT 258. Concept of Unfair Labor Practice and
A
ocriminalprosecutionmaybeinstitutedwithouta
N
ON member-employees are entitled to full reimbursement of
W Procedure for Prosecution Thereof. — Unfair labor
final judgment finding that an unfair labor practice
medicalexpensesincurredbytheirdependentsregardlessofany practices violate the constitutionalrightofworkers wascommitted,havingbeenfirstobtained.Thefinal
amounts paid by the latter’s health insurance provider. and employees to self-organization, are inimicalto
judgmentintheadministrativeproceedingsshallnot
the legitimate interests of both labor and
O. The conditions set forth in the CBA provision
N be binding inthecriminalcasenorbeconsideredas
management, including their right to bargain evidence of guilt but merely asproofofcompliance
indicate an intention to limit MMPC’s liability only to
collectively and otherwisedealwitheachotherinan
actual expenses incurred by the employees’ dependents, of the requirementstherein set forth.
atmosphere of freedom and mutualrespect,disrupt
thatis,excludingtheamountspaidbydependents’other
industrialpeaceandhinderthepromotionofhealthy By Employers
health insurance providers.
and stable labor-management relations. 1
Labor Code, Art. 259
incethesubjectCBAprovisionisaninsurancecontract,
S
onsequently, unfair labor practices are not only
C
the rights and obligations of the parties must be 1) T
o interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in
violations of the civil rights of both labor and
determined in accordance with the generalprinciplesof the exercise of their right to self-organization;
management but are also criminal offenses against
insurancelaw.Beinginthenatureofanon-lifeinsurance 2) Y
ellow Dog Contract. To require as a condition of
the State.
contractandessentiallyacontractofindemnity,theCBA employment that a personoranemployeeshallnot
provision obligates MMPC to indemnify the covered ubject to the exercise by the President or by the
S
joinalabororganizationorshallwithdrawfromone
employees’ medical expenses incurred by their SOLE of the powers vested in them by Articles 263
to which he belongs;
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page151of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
a nd that the violation is gross and flagrant; t he employer at the time of negotiations must be taken
3) T o contract out services or functions being
otherwise, it is not ULP. into account.
performed by union members when such will
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the b) As to jurisdiction
exercise of their right to self-organization;
i) A → NLRC → CA. — gross and flagrant
L
damson Univ Faculty and Employees Union v. Adamson
A
4) T o initiate, dominate, assistorotherwiseinterfere violation of an economic provision, aULP;
Univ2020
with the formation or administration of any labor
ii) rievanceMachinery→VA→CA.—violation
G
organization, including the giving of financial or etitioner's dismissal, which was brought about by his
P
of
other support to it or its organizers or supporters; personalacts,doesnotconstituteunfairlaborpracticeas
1. a political provision; or providedundertheLaborCode.Dismissinghimwasnot
5) T o discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work
2. a neconomicprovisionthatisNOTgross meant to violate the rightoftheuniversityemployeesto
and other terms and conditions of employment in
and flagrant. self-organize. Neither was itmeanttointerferewiththe
ordertoencourageordiscouragemembershipinanylabor
Union'sactivities.Likewise,petitionerfailedtoprovethat
organization. c) T
otality of Conduct Doctrine. — Expressions of
the proceedings were done with haste and bias. Finally,
6) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or opinionbyanemployerwhich,thoughinnocent
petitioner cannot raise the defense that he was the
in themselves, frequently were held to be
discriminateagainstanemployeefor havinggiven Union'spresident;thisdoesnotmakehimimmunefrom
culpable because of the circumstances under
r being about to give testimony under this
o liability for his acts of misconduct.
which they were uttered, the history of the
Code;
particular employer's labor relations or
7) To violate theduty to bargain collectively; anti-union bias or because of their connection
By Labor Organizations
8) T opaynegotiationorattorney'sfeestotheunionor withanestablishedcollateralplanofcoercionor 2
interference. Labor Code, Art. 260
itsofficersoragentsaspartofthesettlementofany
issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; 1) T
o restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
SONEDCO v. Universal Robina2016
or their right to self-organization. However, a labor
9) To violate acollective bargaining agreement. n employer who refuses to bargain withtheunionand
A organizationshallhavetherighttoprescribeitsown
tries to restrict its bargaining power is guilty of unfair rules with respect to theacquisitionorretentionof
10) NOTES labor practice. In determining whether anemployerhas membership;
a) A
s to violation of CBA. — It is ULP if what is not bargained in goodfaith,thetotalityofalltheactsof
2) T
o cause or a ttempt t o cause an employer to
violated is an ECONOMICprovisionoftheCBA discriminate a gainst a n employee, including
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page152of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
iscrimination against an employeewithrespectto
d a dministration ofanylabororganization,including
I t involves the question of whether an employer’s
whom membership in such organization has been the giving of financial or other support to it or its
conduct demonstrates an unwillingness to bargain
denied or to terminate an employeeonanyground in good faith or is merely hard bargaining. organizers or supporters.
other than the usual terms and conditions under 8) B
2) B
lue sky bargaining. — Making exaggerated or oulwarism. — the tactic of making a
which membership or continuationofmembership "take-it-or-leave-it" offer in a negotiation, with no
is made available to other members; unreasonable proposals.
further concessions or discussion.
3) T o violatetheduty,orrefusetobargaincollectively 3) Featherbedding. —see above.
withtheemployer,provideditistherepresentativeof 4) Y
ellow dog contract. — An agreement which exacts United Polyresins, Inc. v. Pinuela2017
the employees; from workers as a condition of employment, that ON Pinuela was illegally dismissed as the charges of
W
4) F eatherbedding. To cause or attempt to cause an theyshallnotjoinorbelongtoalabororganization, misappropriation against him were unsubstantiated.
employertopayordeliveroragreetopayordeliver or attempt to organize one, during their period of
employment orthattheyshallwithdrawtherefrom, ES. Respondent's expulsion from PORFA is grounded
Y
anymoneyorotherthingsofvalue,inthenatureof
in case they are already members of a labor on the union's Constitution. However, these provisions
anexaction,forserviceswhicharenotperformedor
organization. refer to impeachment and recall of union officers, and
not to be performed, including the demand forfee
not expulsion from union membership. In short, any
for union negotiations; 5) R
unawayshop.—Isanindustrialplantthatismoved officer found guilty of violating these provisions shall
5) T o ask for or accept negotiation or attorney's fees byitsownersfromonelocationtoanothertoescape simply be removed, impeached or recalled, from office,
from employers as part of the settlement of any unionlaborregulationsorstatelaws.Itmayalsobe
but not expelled or stripped of union membership.
issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; a relocation motivated by anti-union animus rather
than for business reasons. I t was therefore an error on the part of PORFA and
or
petitionerstoterminaterespondent'semploymentbased
6) To violate a collective bargaining agreement. 6) C
ontracting out. — It is only when the contracting on said provision of the union's Constitution. Such a
out of a job, work or service being performed by
ground does not constitute just cause for termination.
Examples of ULPs union members will interfere with, restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their right to reviewofthePORFAConstitutionitselfrevealsthatthe
A
1) S urfacebargaining.—Definedas“goingthroughthe only provision authorizing removal from the union is
motions of negotiating” without any legal intent to self-organization that it shall be unlawfulandshall
constitute ULP. found in Article X, Section 6, that is, on the ground of
reach an agreement. failuretopayuniondues,specialassessments,fines,and
7) C
ompany Union. — To initiate, dominate, assist or other mandatory charges.
otherwise interfere with the formation or
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page153of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
e matter of respondent's alleged failure to return
Th a) Collective bargaining deadlock; AND c) Based on non-strikeable grounds;
petitioners' P300K which was lent to PORFA is b) ULP. d) Didn’t bargain collectively first;
immaterial as well. It may not be used as a ground to
Mandatory procedural requirements e) Violated the no strike no lockout clause;
terminate respondent's employment; under the Labor
Code, such a contributionbypetitionerstoPORFAisillegal 1) Based on a valid and factual ground; f) F
ailure tosubmitissuestogrievanceprocedureand
and constitutesunfair labor practice. exhaust the steps therein;
2) Anotice of strikefiled with the NCMB;
g) While C-M is ongoing at NCMB;
3) N
oticeofstrikevotetotheNCMB,atleast24hours
before such vote; h) Based on issues already brought to arbitration;
D Peaceful Concerted Activities
4) S
trike vote wherein at least a majority of the i) P
endingcaseinvolvingsamegroundinthenoticeof
Strikes, Picketing, and Lockouts membersoftheunionapprovetheholdingofstrike strike;
through secret balloting in a meeting calledforthe j) I n defiance of an assumption or certification or
Assumption of Jurisdiction by SOLE purpose; return-to-work order;
Strikes, Picketing, and Lockouts 5) S
trike vote report submitted at least 7 days before k) In violation of a TRO or an injunction order;
intended date of strike;
1 Labor Code, Art.278;OmnibusRules,BookV,Rule l) A
fter notice of strike converted to preventive
XIII 6) Cooling off period. mediation case;
a) Union busting= NONE; m) Against prohibition by law;
Strikes
b) ULP = 15 days; n) By a minority union;
" Strike"referstoanytemporarystoppageofworkbythe
concerted action of employees as a result of a labor or c) CBD = 30 days; o) By an illegitimate union;
industrial dispute.Elements: From date of notice of strike is filed. p) By dismissed EEs;
a) Temporary stoppage of work; 7) 7 daywaitingperiodorstrikebanaftersubmission q) In violation of company code of conduct;
b) Concerted activity; of strike vote report.
r) As protest rallies in front of government offices;
c) Labor dispute. When a strike is ILLEGAL
s) As welga ng bayan.
There are only TWO strikeable grounds: a) Doesn’t comply with procedural requirements;
b) For an unlawful purpose;
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page154of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Prohibited acts during strike eaceful picketing by employees during any labor
p ages,hoursorconditionsofworkorintheexerciseof
w
ART 279.Prohibited Activities. — controversy or in the exercise of the right to the right of self-organization or collective bargaining.
self-organizationorcollectivebargaining,orshallaidor
a. N olabororganizationoremployershalldeclareastrike Liability of union officers and members
abet such obstruction or interference.
or lockout without first having bargained collectively or nowingly
K Committed Illegal
withoutfirsthavingfiledthenoticerequiredorwithout c. N
oemployershalluseoremployanystrike-breaker,nor Participated Acts
the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been shall any person be employed as a strike-breaker.
Union Officer DISMISSED DISMISSED
obtained and reported to the DOLE. d. N
o public official or employee, including officers and
personnel of the AFP or PNP, or armed person, shall Union Member - DISMISSED
o strike or lockout shallbedeclaredafterassumption
N
bring in, introduce or escort in any manner, any
of jurisdiction by the President or the SOLE or after Picketing
individual who seeks to replace strikers in entering or
certificationorsubmissionofthedisputetocompulsory
leavingthepremisesofastrikearea,orworkinplaceof arching to-and-fro with placards that make known
M
orvoluntaryarbitrationorduringthependencyofcases
the strikers. the issues between the establishment and the workers.
involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout.
e. Th
e policeforceshallkeepoutofthepicketlinesunless icketingislimitedtoharmlessmarchingbyemployees
P
ny workerwhoseemploymenthasbeenterminatedas
A
actual violence or other criminal acts occur therein. whocarryplacardsorusespeechtoattractthepublicto
a consequence of anyunlawfullockoutshallbeentitled
their cause.
to reinstatement with full backwages. f. N
opersonengagedinpicketingshallcommitanyactof
ny union officer who knowingly participates in an
A
violence, coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free Lockouts
ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for
illegal strike and any worker or union officer who efers to the temporary refusal of an employer to
R
lawful purposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares.
knowingly participates in the commission of illegal furnish work as a result of a labor or industrial dispute.
acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his “ Strike area" means the establishment, warehouses,
Same grounds for strike
employment status. depots,plantsoroffices,includingthesitesorpremises
used asrunawayshops,oftheemployerstruckagainst, a) Collective bargaining deadlock; AND
ere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall
M
not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his as well as the immediate vicinity actually used by b) ULP.
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by picketingstrikersinmovingtoandfrobeforeallpoints
of entrance to and exit from said establishment. Mandatory procedural requirements
the employer during such lawful strike.
1) Based on a valid and factual ground;
" Strike-breaker" means any person who obstructs,
b. N
o person shall obstruct, impede, or interfere with by
impedes,orinterfereswithbyforce,violence,coercion, 2) Anotice of lockoutfiled with the NCMB;
force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation, any
threats,orintimidationanypeacefulpicketingaffecting
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page155of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
3) N otice of lockout vote to the NCMB, at least 24 2. c ertify the same totheNLRCforcompulsory v. s uch other industries as m ay be
hours before such vote; arbitration. recommended by the National Tripartite
4) L Industrial Peace Council (TIPC).
ockout vote wherein at least a majority of the
I n labor disputes adversely affecting the continued
members of the board of directors approve the b. Effects of assumption of jurisdiction.
operation of such hospitals, clinics or medical
holding of lockout through secret balloting in a
institutions, itshallbethedutyofthestrikingunionor i. n intended or impending strike or lockout —
O
meeting called for the purpose; automatically enjoined even if a Motion for
locking-out employer to provide and maintain an effective
5) L ockoutvotereportsubmittedatleast7daysbefore skeletal workforce for the duration of the strike or Reconsideration is filed.
intended date of lockout; lockout. ii. nactualstrikeorlockout—strikersorlocked
O
6) Cooling off period. e President of the Philippines shall not be
Th outemployeesshouldimmediatelyreturnto
a) ULP = 15 days; precluded from determining the industries that, in work and employer should readmit them
his opinion, are indispensable tothenationalinterest, back.
b) CBD = 30 days;
and from intervening at any time and assuming iii. n cases filed or may be filed — All shall be
O
From date of notice of lockout is filed. jurisdiction over any such labor dispute in order to subsumed/absorbed by the assumed or
7) 7 day waiting period or lockout ban after settle or terminate the same. certified case except when the order
submission of lockout vote report. specified otherwise. The parties to the case
a. I ndustry indispensable to the national interest. — should inform the DOLE Secretary of
Assumption of Jurisdiction by SOLE Sec16,RuleXXII,BookV,ascreatedbyDOLEDepartment pendency thereof.
2 Order No. 040-H-13
Labor Code, Art. 278 (g); DOLE D.O. No. 40-H-13
i. hospital sector; Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. PLDT2017
hen, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute
W ii. electric power industry; ON the return-to-work orderoftheSOLEwasrenderedmoot
W
causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an when the NLRC upheld the validity of the redundancy program.
iii. atersupplyservices,toexcludesmallwater
w
industry indispensable to the national interest, the supply servicessuchasbottlingandrefilling ES. When petitioner filed its Motion for Execution on
Y
SOLE may stations; pursuant to this Court's ruling there was no longer any
1. a ssume jurisdiction over the dispute and existing basis for the return-to-work order. This was
iv. air traffic control; and
decide it or because the SOLE's return-to-work order had been
superseded by the NLRC's Resolution. Hence, the SOLE
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page156of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
idnoterrindismissingthemotionforexecutiononthe
d Voluntary Arbitrator c) U
nder Art 128(b) of LC. — Where the ER contests
ground of mootness. the findings of the labor employment and
Prescription of Actions enforcement officer and raises issues supported by
arcia v. Philippine Airlines upholds the prevailing
G
doctrine that even if a Labor Arbiter's order of documentary proofs which were not considered in
A Labor Arbiter the course of inspection.
reinstatement is reversed on appeal, the employer is
obligated"toreinstateandpaythewagesofthedismissed Jurisdiction d) U
nder Art 233[227] of LC. — Enforcement o f
employeeduringtheperiodofappealuntilreversalbythe compromise agreements when there is
higher court." Mode of Appeal to the NLRC non-complianceby any of the parties thereto.
ereisnoorderofreinstatementfromaLaborArbiterin
Th einstatement and/or Execution Pending
R e) U
nder Art 276[262-A] of LC. — Issuance of writ of
the case at bar, instead, what is at issue is the Appeal execution toenforcedecisionsofVAorpanelofVAs,
return-to-work order from the SOLE. in case of their absence or incapacity.
Jurisdiction
f) U
nder Sec10ofRA8042.—MoneyclaimsofOFWs
abor Code, Arts. 124 and 224; R.A. No. 8042, as
L
1 arising out of EER by virtueofanylaworcontract,
amended by R.A. No. 10022, Sec. 10; 2011 NLRC
IX Jurisdiction and Remedies includingclaimsofdeathanddisabilitybenefitsand
Rules of Procedure, as amended, Rule V, Sec. 1
for damages.
Labor Arbiter a) Under Art 224[217] of LC g) Other casesas may be provided by law.
National Labor Relations Commission i. Unfair labor practice cases;
Pepsi-Cola v. Gal-lang
Court of Appeals ii. Illegal dismissal;
e case involves a complaint for damages for malicious
Th
Supreme Court iii. Money claims> P5K; prosecutionwhichwasfiledwiththeRTCbytheemployees
iv. laims for damages arising from ER-EE
C ofthedefendantcompany.Itdoesnotappearthatthereisa
Bureau of Labor Relations
relations; and "reasonablecausalconnection"betweenthecomplaintand
ational Conciliation and Mediation
N therelationsofthepartiesasemployerandemployees.The
Board v. Legality of strikes and lockouts.
complaint did not arise from such relations and in fact
b) U
nder Art 124 of LC. — Disputes involving could have arisen independently of an employment
DOLE Regional Directors
legislated wage increases and wage distortion in relationshipbetweentheparties.Thisisamatterwhichthe
DOLE Secretary unorganizedestablishments not voluntarily settled. labor arbiter has no competence to resolve as the
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page157of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
a pplicablelawisnottheLaborCodebuttheRevisedPenal s tipulated, the parties wanted to apply said clause during a lone, it is palpable that the reason for petitioner's
Code. the pendency of Babiano's employment, and CPIcorrectly dismissal from the service is not religious in nature.
San Miguel v. Etcuban invoked the same before the labor tribunals.
eSDAcannothidebehindthemantleofprotectionofthe
Th
PAL v. ALPAP2018 doctrine of separation of church and state to avoid its
I n the present case, while respondents insist that their
action is for the declaration of nullity of their "contract of responsibilities as an employer under the Labor Code.
AL's cause of action is not grounded on mere acts of
P
termination," what is inescapable is the fact that it is, in quasi-delict. The claimed damages arose from the illegal Silva v. NLRC
reality, an action for damages emanating from strike and acts committed during the same which werein
or a ULP case to be cognizable by theLaborArbiter,and
F
employer-employee relations. turn closely related and intertwined with therespondents' the NLRC to exercise its appellate jurisdiction, the
allegations of unfair labor practices against PAL.
espondents' claim for damages is intertwined with their
R allegations in the complaint should show prima facie the
havingbeenseparatedfromtheiremploymentwithoutjust e question ofdamagesbecomesalaborcontroversyand
Th concurrence of two things, namely:
cause and, consequently, has a reasonable causal is therefore an employment relationship dispute. 1) gross violation of the CBA; AND
connection with their employer-employee relations with
Perpetual Help Credit Coop v. Faburada
SMC. Accordingly, it cannot be denied that respondents' 2) t heviolationpertainstotheeconomicprovisionsof
claim falls under the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter as ereisnoevidencethatprivaterespondentsaremembers
Th the CBA.
provided in paragraph 4 of Article 217. of petitioner PHCCI and even if they are, the dispute is
Sim v. NLRC
about payment of wages, overtime pay, rest day and
Indophil Textile Mills v. Adviento2014 termination of employment. Under Art. 217 of the Labor ection 62 of the OmnibusRulesandRegulationsprovides
S
I tisobviousfromthecomplaintthattheplaintiffshavenot Code, these disputes arewithintheoriginalandexclusive thattheLaborArbitersoftheNLRCshallhavetheoriginal
alleged any unfair labor practice. Theirs is asimpleaction jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all claims
for damages for tortious acts allegedly committed by the arising out of EER or by virtue of any law or contract
Austria v. NLRC involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment
defendants. Such being the case, the governing statute is
the Civil Code andnot the Labor Code. e grounds invoked for petitioner's dismissal, namely:
Th including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
misappropriationofdenominationalfunds,willfulbreach forms of damages, subject to the rules and procedures of
Century Properties v. Babiano2016 oftrust,seriousmisconduct,grossandhabitualneglectof the NLRC.
eCAerredinlimitingthe"C
Th onfidentialityofDocumentsand dutiesandcommissionofanoffenseagainstthepersonof
International Management Services v. Logarta2012
Non-CompeteClause"onlytoactsdoneafterthecessationof his employer's duly authorized representative, are all
the employer-employee relationship or to the based on Article 282 oftheLaborCodewhichenumerates I n the case at bar, despite the fact that respondent was
"post-employment" relations of the parties. As clearly the just causes for termination of employment. By this employedbyPetroconasanOFWinSaudiArabia,stillboth
he and his employer are subject to the provisions of the
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page158of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
abor Code when applicable. The basic policy in this
L e nforced through a separate civil action in the regular o f the corporation who also determines the compensation
jurisdiction is that all Filipino workers, whether employed courts andnot before the Labor Arbiter." to be paid to such employee.
locallyoroverseas,enjoytheprotectivemantleofPhilippine
ction for declaratory relief filed by female flight attendants to
A ere, petitioner was a director and officer of Slimmers
H
labor and social legislations.
questiontheconstitutionalityoftheircompulsoryageofretirement World. The charges of illegal suspension, illegal dismissal,
ction for damages by employer against employee who resigned
A at 55 compared to male workers.Halaguena v. PAL unpaid commissions, reinstatement and back wages
short of 30 day prior notice.Eviota v. CA imputed by petitioner against respondents fall squarely
ere, the petitioners' primary relief is the annulment of
H
within the ambit of intra-corporate disputes.
etitioner doesnotaskforanyreliefundertheLaborCode
P Section 144, PartAofthePAL-FASAPCBA,whichallegedly
ofthePhilippines.Itseekstorecoverdamagesagreedupon discriminates against them for being female flight orporate Officers. Matling IndustrialandCommercialCorpv.
C
inthecontractasredressforprivaterespondent’sbreachof attendants. The subject of litigation is incapable of Coros2010
his contractual obligation to its "damage and prejudice". pecuniary estimation, exclusively cognizable by the RTC.
onformably with Section 25 of the Corporation Code, a
C
Such cause of action is within the realm of Civil Law,and Being an ordinary civil action, the same is beyond the position must be expressly mentioned in the By-Laws in
jurisdiction over the controversy belongs to the regular jurisdiction of labor tribunals. order to be considered as a corporate office. Thus, the
courts. More so when we consider that the stipulation
The said issue cannotberesolvedsolelybyapplyingthe creation of an office pursuant to or under a By-Law enabling
refers to thepost-employment relationsof the parties.
Labor Code. Rather, it requires the application of the provisionis not enough to make a position a corporateoffice.
Replevin case by ER against EE inSmart v. Astorga onstitution, labor statutes, law on contracts and the
C hoever are the corporate officers enumerated in the
W
MART’s demand for payment of the market value of the
S CEDAW, and the power to apply and interpret the by-lawsaretheexclusiveOfficersofthecorporationandthe
car or, in the alternative, the surrender of the car,isnota constitution and CEDAW is within thejurisdictionoftrial Board has no power to create other Offices without
labor, but a civil dispute. It involves the relationship of courts, a court of general jurisdiction. amending first the corporate By-laws.
debtor and creditor rather than employee-employer Intracorporate vs Labor Dispute.Okol v. SlimmersWorld Real v. Sangu Phil2011
relations. As such, the dispute falls withinthejurisdiction
ection 25 of the Corporation Code enumerates corporate
S ebetterpolicytobefollowedindeterminingjurisdiction
Th
of theregular courts.
officersasthepresident,secretary,treasurerandsuchother overacaseshouldbetoconsiderconcurrentfactorssuchas
ction by employertorecoverunpaidloansofemployeeswhowere
A officers as may be providedforintheby-laws.InTabangv. thestatusorrelationshipofthepartiesorthenatureofthe
dismissed. HSBC Ltd. Staff Retirement Plan v. Sps Broqueza NLRC, we held that an "o
ffice" is created by thecharterof questionthatissubjectoftheircontroversy.Intheabsence
2010 thecorporationandtheofficeriselectedbythedirectorsor of any one of these factors, the SEC (RTC) will not have
e enforcement of a loan agreement involves
Th stockholders. On the other hand, an "e mployee" usually jurisdiction.
"debtor-creditorrelationsfoundedoncontractanddoesnot occupies no office and generally is employed notbyaction
inanywayconcernemployeerelations.Assuchitshouldbe ofthedirectorsorstockholdersbutbythemanagingofficer
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page159of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
hen petitioner sought for reinstatement, he wanted to
W hichbetweentheLaborArbiterandtheDOLEhasjurisdiction
W andated by the Labor Code or other labor
m
recoverhispositionasManager,apositionwhichhasbeen overthelaborstandardsclaimsofrespondentspublicutilitybus legislation regardless of the amount prayed for
declared to be not a corporate position. Thecaseisthusa drivers and conductors. and there is no existing employer-employee
termination dispute and, consequently, falls under the relationship or theclaimiscoupledwithaprayer
e DOLE. Section 1 of DO 118-12 categorically provides
Th
jurisdictionoftheLaborArbiterpursuanttoSection217of that issues concerning compliance with the minimum for reinstatement, jurisdiction is with the
the Labor Code. wages and wage-related benefits of public utility bus LA/NLRC.
Cacho v. Balagtas2018 driversandconductorsisconferredwithDOLE-Regional ere, the issues surrounding the money claims of
H
Officerhavingjurisdictionovertheprincipalofficeofthe respondentspublicutilitybusdriversandconductors,as
nder the nature of the controversy test, the disagreement
U
bus owner/operator. wellasquestionspertainingtotheLSCCs,arewithinthe
must not only be rooted in the existence of an
purview of the jurisdiction of the DOLE pursuant to
intra-corporaterelationship,butmustaswellpertaintothe ere, the RD of DOLE-NCR issued several Labor
H
Article 128 and the provisions of DO 118-12.
enforcement of the parties' correlative rights and Standard Compliance Certificates,certifyingpetitioner's
obligations under the Corporation Code and the internal compliancewiththelaborstandardsrequirementsofthe e CA therefore erred inaffirmingtheLA'sassumption
Th
and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the corporation. law. This fact should have prompted the LA to refer the of jurisdiction.
case to the DOLEasitwasevidentthattherespondents'
I t is clear that theterminationcomplainedofisintimately
money claims are beyond his jurisdiction.
andinevitablylinkedtoBalagtas'sroleasNorthStar'sEVP.
Balagtas'sdismissalisanintra-corporatecontroversy,nota e rules governing jurisdiction on labor standards
Th Mode of Appeal to the NLRC
2
mere labor dispute. claims, as set in People's Broadcasting Service v.Secretaryof 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended, Rule VI
DOLEmay be summed up as follows:
Ellao v. BATELEC2018 1) D
ecisions,awardsororderofLAshallbeF&Eunless
1. I f the claim involves labor standards benefits appealed to NLRC within 10 cal days from receipt
ere,thepositionofGeneralManagerisexpresslyprovided
H
mandated by the Labor Code or other labor thereof.
forunderArticleVI,Section10ofBATELECI'sBy-laws.Itis
legislation regardless of the amount prayed for
therefore beyond cavil that Ellao's position as General 2) I ncaseofdecisionsorresolutionsofRDpursuantto
and provided that there is an existing employer
Manager is acooperativeoffice.Accordingly,hiscomplaint Art 129, within5 cal days.
employee relationship, jurisdiction is with the
for illegal dismissal partakes of the nature of an
DOLE regardless of whether the action was 3) I flastdayfallsonaweekendorholiday,movetothe
intra-cooperative controversy.
brought about by the filing of a complaint or not. next working day.
Del Monte Land Transport Bus v. Armenta2021 2. If the claim involves labor standards benefits 4) No motion or request for extension shall be allowed.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page160of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
s hall be effective until final disposition of the
5) Grounds for appeal: iv) ith a statement of the date the appellant
W
case;
received the appealed decision, award or
a) P rimafacieevidenceofabuseofdiscretiononthe
order; b) a n indemnity agreement between the
part of LA or RD;
employer-appellant and bonding company;
d) I n 3 legibly typewritten or printed copies; and
b) D ecision,awardorordersecuredthroughfraud
accompanied by: c) p
roof of security deposit or collateral securing
or coercion,includinggraft and corruption;
the bond: provided, that a check shall not be
i) roof of paymentoftherequiredappealfee
P
c) If made purely onquestions of law;and/or considered as an acceptable security; and,
and legal research fee;
d) I f serious errors in the findings of facts are d) n
otarized board resolution or secretary’s
ii) ostingofacashorsuretybondasprovided
P
raised which may cause grave and irreparable certificate from the bonding company showing
inSec 6; and
damage or injury to appellant. its authorized signatories and their specimen
iii) Proof of serviceupon the other parties signatures.
6) T o be filed with the Regional Arbitration Branchof
the Regional Office where the case was heard and 9) A
ppeal from Decision involving monetary award
O motion to reduce bond shall be entertained
N
decided. may be perfected only upon the posting of a bond
except on meritorious grounds, and only upon the
(Sec 6) which shall either be in the form of
7) N o appeal from interlocutory order shall be posting of a bond in a reasonable amountinrelationto
entertained. (Sec 10 Rule VI,supra). a) Cash deposit; or the monetary award.
8) REQUISITES(Sec 4): b) Surety bond e mere filingofamotiontoreducebondwithout
Th
quivalent in amount to the monetary award
E complying with the requisites in the preceding
a) Filedwithin the reglementary period;
exclusiveof damages and attorney’s fees. paragraphs shall notstoptherunningoftheperiod
b) V erified by the appellant in accordancetoSec4 to perfect an appeal.
Rule 7 of RoC; I n case ofsuretybond,thesameshallbeissuedbya
reputable bonding company dulyaccreditedbythe 10) Prohibited appeals:
c) I n the form of amemorandumofappealwhich
Commission, andshallbeaccompaniedbyoriginal a) A
ppeal from any interlocutory order of the LA
shall
or certified true copiesof the following: denying a motion:
i) State the grounds relied upon and
a) a joint declaration under oathbytheemployer, i) To dismiss;
ii) The arguments in support thereof, his/her counsel, and the bonding company,
ii) To inhibit;
iii) The relief prayed for, and attesting that the bond posted is genuine, and
iii) For issuance of writ or execution, or
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page161of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
iv) To quash writ of execution; einstatement and/or Execution
R 4) S
ec 19(2) Rule V. In case the decision of the Labor
b) A ppeal from the issuance of a certificate of Pending Appeal Arbiter includes an order of reinstatement,itshall
3 likewise contain:
finality of decision by LA; abor Code, Art. 229; 2011 NLRC Rules of
L
Procedure, as amended, Rule IX, Sec. 12 a) a statement that the reinstatement aspect is
c) A ppealfromordersissuedbyLAinthecourseof
execution proceedings. immediately executory; and
1) S
ec 12 Rule XI, supra. — In case the decision
includes an order of reinstatement, and the b) a directivefortheemployertosubmitareportof
De Jesus v. Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises2021 employer disobeys the directive under the second compliance within ten (10) calendar days from
e outright dismissal of the case based on procedural
Th paragraph of Section 19 of Rule V or refuses to receipt of the said decision.
defects alone was not proper. Substantial compliance to reinstatethedismissedemployee,theLaborArbiter
shallimmediatelyissuewritofexecution,evenpending Malcaba et al. v. Prohealth Pharma Phils.2018
formal requisites allowed; procedural rules are
mandatory but must not frustrate theadministrationof appeal, directing the employer eforeanylabortribunaltakescognizanceoftermination
B
justice. a) t o immediately reinstate the dismissed disputes, it must first have jurisdiction over the action.
second perusal of the MR with Manifestation filed by
A employee either physically or in the payroll, and TheLaborArbiterandtheNLRConlyexercisejurisdiction
thepetitionerbeforetheCAwouldshowthattherewasa over termination disputes between an employer and an
b) t o pay the accrued salaries as a consequence of
genuine attempt to rectify the procedural infirmities in employee. They do not exercise jurisdiction over
suchnon-reinstatementintheamountspecified
the petition. Petitioner subsequently submitted several termination disputes between a corporation and a
in the decision.
supporting documents together with the motion. corporate officer.
2) Th
e Labor Arbiter shall motu proprio issue a
ltimately, the Court finds it proper to decide the case
U corresponding writ to satisfy the reinstatement
based on the merits and brush aside the technicalities wages as they accrue until actual reinstatement or
considering the substantial compliance of thepetitioner
ational Labor Relations
N
reversal of the order of reinstatement. (En Banc
with the formal requirements. Commission
B
Resolution No. 11-12, Series of 2012)
2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure
3) Th
eSheriffshallservethewritofexecutionuponthe
employer or any other person required by law to Jurisdiction
obey the same. If he/she disobeys the writ, such
Mode of Appeal and Requisites
employer or person may be cited for contempt in
accordance with Rule IX.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page162of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Jurisdiction 2 Mode of Appeal and Requisites c. Temporary restraining order.
1 Original 1. Th
eNLRCisaquasi-judicial bodytaskedtopromote CICM Mission Seminaries School of Theology v. Perez2017
andmaintainindustrialpeacebyresolvinglaborand
Appellate I n the event the aspect of reinstatement is disputed,
management disputes involving both local and
overseas workers through compulsory arbitration backwages, including separation pay, shall becomputed
a. Original
and alternative modes of dispute resolution. from the time of dismissal until the finality of the
aborCode,Arts.225(d)and(e),278(g);2011NLRC
L decisionordering the separation pay.
Rules of Procedure, as amended, Rule XII, Sec. 1 2. Extraordinary Remedies. —
eruleis,iftheLA'sdecision,whichgrantedseparation
Th
1. P etition for Injunction in ordinary labor a. P
etition to annul or modify order or
payinlieuofreinstatement,isappealedbyanyparty,the
disputes resolution, with the following grounds:
employer-employee relationship subsists and until such
2. P etition for Injunction on strikes or lockouts i. rima facie evidence of abuse of
P time when decision becomes final and executory, the
(Art 279) discretion; employee is entitledtoallthemonetaryawardsawarded
ii. Serious errors in the findings of facts; by the LA.
3. C ertified cases which refer to labor disputes
causingorlikelytocauseastrikeorlockoutinan iii. party, by fraud, accident, mistake
A I t hasbeensettledthatnoessentialchangeismadebya
industry indispensable to thenationalinterest, or excusable negligence has been recomputation as this step is a necessary consequence
certified to it by the SOLE for compulsory prevented from taking an appeal; that flows from the nature of the illegality of dismissal
arbitration pursuant toArt 278(g). declared in that decision. By the nature of an illegal
iv. Purely on Questions of law; or
dismissal case, the reliefs continue to add on until full
4. P etition to annul or modify the order or
v. rder or resolution will cause
O satisfaction thereof.
resolution of the LA.
injustice if not rectified.
b. Appellate otlaterthan10caldaysfromreceiptoforderof
N
aborCode,Art.129;2011NLRCRulesofProcedure,
L LA, aggrieved party may file thepetitionbefore urks Shawarma Company v. Pajaron, et al.2017
T
re Reduction of Appeal Bond
as amended, Rule VI, Sec. 1 the NLRC, furnishing a copy to the adverse
1. All cases decided by the LA; party. e liberal interpretation of the rules applies only to
Th
justifiable causes and meritorious circumstances.
2. C ases decided by DOLE RD or hearing officers b. I njunctive relief — writ of preliminary
involving small money claims under Art 129. injunction;
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page163of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
( exclusive of damages and attorney's fees) as reasonable efore the NLRC may be allowed to post a bond in a
b
e posting of cash or surety bond is mandatory and
Th
jurisdictional; failure to comply with this requirement amount of bond that an appellant should post pending reduced amount:
renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and resolution by the NLRC of a motion for a bond's 1. Th
e employer-appellant files a motion to reduce
reduction. Only after the posting of this required
executory. bond;
percentage shall an appellant's period to perfect an
ONCAerredinaffirmingtheNLRC'sdismissalofpetitioners'
W appeal be suspended. 2. Th
e motion to reduce bond shall be based on
appeal. meritorious grounds;
O. It is clear from both the Labor CodeandtheNLRC
N 3. Th
e employer-appellant posts the provisional
Rules of Procedure that there is legislative and Pacific Royal Basic Foods v. Noche2021 percentageofatleast10%ofthemonetaryaward,
administrative intent to strictly apply the appeal bond excluding therefrom the award of damages and
Doctrinal Rule
requirement,andtheCourtshouldgiveutmostregardto attorney's fees;
thisintention.However,theCourt,inspecialandjustified hether the NLRC accepts or rejects the appellant's motion to
W
4. Th
e provisional bond must be posted within the
circumstances, has relaxed the requirementofpostinga reduce bond, the ruling must be unequivocal, and such ruling
reglementary period for appeal; and
supersedeasbond. mustbeissuedbeforeoratthetimetheNLRCresolvestheappeal
by final judgment. 5. I f the NLRC eventually determinesthatagreater
e reductionoftheappealbondisallowed,subjectto
Th orthefullamountofthebondshallbeposted,the
the following conditions: F ailure to do so shall rendertheNLRCliableforgraveabuseof
employer-appellant shall comply accordingly
discretion for having ruled on an appeal without acquiring
1. t he motion to reduce the bond shall be basedon withinten(10)daysfromnoticeoftheNLRCorder
jurisdiction.
meritorious grounds; and directingthesuchpostingoftheincreasedorfull
ppeals of decisions rendered by a labor arbiter that
A amount of the bond.
2. a reasonable amount in relation to themonetary grant a monetary award in favorofanemployeerequire
award is posted by the appellant. e requisites laid out by Mcburnie also presupposes a
Th
the aggrieved employer to file a bond.
sixthrequirement:theNLRCissuesanexpressrulingon
ere, petitioners' motion to reduce bond was not
H cburnie v. Ganzon has already set the "reasonable
M the appellant's motion to reduce bond.
predicated on meritorious and reasonable grounds and the amount"oftheprovisionalreducedbondatapercentage
amount tendered is not reasonable in relation to the ere, PRBFI's Motion to Reduce Bond was never acted
H
of 10% of the monetary award, excluding theamountof
award. upon by the NLRC. For the perfection of appeals filed by an
damages and attorney's fees, if any.
employer must the NLRC expressly rule on motions to reduce
In the case of McBurnie v. Ganzon, the Court has set a cburnie requires t he c oncurrence of the f ollowing
M bond, orwouldanimpliedapprovalofamotiontoreducebond,
provisional percentage of 10% of the monetary award conditions before an aggrieved employer appealing i.e.,theNLRC'sdisposaloftheappealbyfinaldecision,order,or
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page164of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r esolution, sufficeasagrantoftheappellant-employer'smotion o f the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure do not limit the o nce a judgment has become final and executory, the
to reduce bond? appealbondrequirementonlytocertainkindsofrulings samecannolongerbealteredormodifiedandthecourt's
of the LA. Absent any qualifying terms, so long as the dutyisonlytoorderitsexecution,isnotabsolute.Oneof
O.WhethertheNLRCacceptsorrejectstheappellant's
N
motion to reduce bond, therulingmustbeunequivocal, decision of the LA involves a monetaryaward,asinthis itsexceptionsiswhenthereisasuperveningeventoccurring
and such rulingmustbeissuedbeforeoratthetimethe case, thatrulingcanonlybeappealedaftertheemployer after the judgment becomes final and executory, which
NLRCresolvestheappealbyfinaljudgment.Failuretodo posts a bond. renders the decision unenforceable.
so shall render the NLRC liable for grave abuse of owever, this procedural rule may be relaxed in the
H
discretion for having ruled on an appeal without interest ofsubstantialjustice.Thecasewasalreadyinits
Doble, Jr. v. ABB Inc. 2017
acquiringjurisdictionoverthesame,andthejudgmentit execution stage. BATELEC II had already posted an
had issued shall be vacated as null and void. appeal bond whenitappealedthecaseforthefirsttime. e provision states that either a legible duplicate
Th
At the time when an appeal was made from the NLRC originalorcertifiedtruecopythereofshallbesubmitted.
Resolution,thefinalaward,uponwhichthebondshould Ifwhatissubmittedisacopy,thenitisrequiredthatthe
Del Pilar v. BATELEC II2020 be based, has not yet been settled. same is certified by the proper officer of the court,
ara Lee Philippines, Inc. v. Macatlang decreed that the
S tribunal,agencyorofficeinvolvedorhisduly-authorized
scertaining the scope of backwages involves a
A
NLRC may dispense with the posting of the bond when representative. The purpose for this requirement is not
recomputation thereof.
the judgment award is: difficult to see. Itistoassurethatsuchcopyisafaithful
e recomputation of the awards stemming from an
Th reproductionofthejudgment,order,resolutionorruling
illegal dismissalcasedoesnotconstituteanalterationor 1. not stated or
subject of the petition.
amendmentofthefinaldecisionbeingimplemented.The 2. based on a patently erroneous computation.
illegal dismissal ruling stands; only the computation of
the monetary consequences of the dismissal is affected Genpact Services Inc. v. Santos-Falceso2017
andthisisnotaviolationoftheprincipleofimmutability Dutch Movers Inc. v. Lequin, et al.2017
of final judgments. e2011NLRCRulesofProcedure,asamended,provides,
Th
ON petitioners are personally liable to pay the judgment
W among others, that the remedy of filing a motion for
I n the interest of substantial justice, BATELEC II was
awards in favor of respondents. reconsideration may be availed of once byEACHparty.
excused from filing an appeal bond.
ES. Valderrama v. NLRC, and David v. Court of Appeals
Y
oyota Alabang, Inc. v. Games was emphatic in declaring
T
areapplicablehere.Insaidcases,theCourtheldthatthe
that Article 223oftheLaborCodeandSection6,RuleVI Malcaba et al. v. Prohealth Pharma Phils.2018
principle of immutability of judgment, or the rule that
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page165of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
I nappealsofillegaldismissalcases,employersarestrictly l iability to Rogel for backwages and separation pay
osewood Processing v. NLRC likewise enumerated other
R
mandatedtofileanappealbondtoperfecttheirappeals. instances where there would be a liberal application of computeduntilthefinalityofthisDecisionwhichaffirms
Substantial compliance, however, maymeritliberalityin the procedural rules. the order granting separation pay.
its application.
orOlympia Housing v. Lapastora to apply, theemployer
F
espite their failure to collect on the appeal bond,
D
ON CA should have dismissed outright the Petition for
W petitioners do notdenythattheywereeventuallyableto must prove the closure of its business in full and
Certiorarisincerespondentsfailedtopostagenuineappealbond garnish the amount from respondents' bank deposits. complete compliance with all statutory requirements
before the NLRC. Respondents are considered to have substantially priortothedateofthefinalityoftheawardofbackwages
and separation pay.
NO.Inlaborcases,anappealbyanemployerisperfected complied with the requirements on the posting of an
only by filing abondequivalent to the monetary award. appeal bond.
rocedural rules require that the appeal bond filed be
P Pacios et al., v. Tahanang Walang Hagdanan2018
"genuine."AnappealbonddeterminedbytheNLRCtobe
Consolidated Distillers of Far East v. Zaragoza2018 I n authorizing execution pending appeal of the
"irregular or not genuine" shall cause the immediate
dismissal of the appeal. hen there is a supervening event that renders
W reinstatement aspect of a decision of the Labor Arbiter
reinstatement impossible, backwages is computed from reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, the law
I nQuiambaov.NLRC, thisCourtheldthatthemandatory
the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision itself has laid down a compassionate policy.
and jurisdictional requirement of the filingofanappeal
bond could be relaxed if there was substantial ordering separation pay. ON the Court ofAppealserredinaffirmingthesuspensionof
W
compliance. Quiambao proceeded to outline situations the execution proceedings.
ON Court of Appeals committedreversibleerrorinreckoning
W
that couldbeconsideredassubstantialcompliance,such theperiodofbackwagesandseparationpayuntilfinalityofthe ES. The more relevant rule in this case is Rule XI,
Y
as decisionofthiscaseandnotuntilthetime,thesuperveningevent Section 3 of the NLRCRules, which provides:
1. late payment, and legal impossibility to reinstate arose in this case.
ection 3. Effect of Perfection of AppealonExecution.
S
2. f ailure of the LA to state the exact amount of O.TheCourtagreeswiththeCAthatCondisisliablefor
N — The perfection of an appeal shall stay the
money judgment due, and backwages and separation pay until the finality of the executionofthedecisionoftheLaborArbiterexcept
decision awarding separation pay as ruled inBani. execution for reinstatement pending appeal.
3. r eliance on a notice of judgment that failed to
state that a bond must first be filed in order to ere,theawardofseparationpayinlieuofreinstatement
H xecution maybeauthorizedevenpendingappeal.This
E
appeal. wasmadesubsequenttothefinalityoftheDecisioninthe Court finds that the principles allowing execution
Illegal DismissalCase.Condiscannotthereforeevadeits pendingappealinvokedinArisareequallyapplicablehere
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page166of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
a s petitioners arepooremployees,deprivedoftheironly of justice and not to the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. a t any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is
source of livelihood for yearsandreducedtobeggingon not lost by waiver or by estoppel. The rule in Tijam v.
ere, the bone of contention between the partiesliesin
H
the streets. In view of their dire straits and since the the interpretation of the employment contract, Sibonghanoy is an exceptiontothegeneralrulewhichis
NLRC has already ruled twice on the case in a way that specifically the clause on the minimum service
not applicable herein.
supports the release of the supersedeas bond,itisproper requirement in consideration of expenses (advances)for tacked against Tijam, the factual circumstances herein
S
to continue with execution proceedings in this case flight trainings. Alphaland's cause of action, the do not equate to laches.
despite a pending motion for reconsideration. supposed violation of the right-dutycorrelativebetween
the parties, hinges on the enforceability of the
C Court of Appeals
contentious clause in the employment contract. Clearly,
Esico v. Alphaland Corporation2021
Alphaland'srecourseagainstEsicoisbasedonourlawon Rule 65
Doctrinal Rule contracts.
I n determining which tribunal has jurisdiction over a case, we I n determining which tribunal has jurisdiction over a
Bugaoisan v. Owi Group et al. 2018
consider not only the status or relationship of the parties, but case, we consider not only the status or relationship of
more so the nature of the question that is the subject of theparties,butmoresothenatureofthequestionthatis e CA is only tasked to determine whether or not the
Th
controversy. the subject of controversy. There is noreasonablecausal NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in its
connection betweenEsico'smoneyclaimshingingonhis appreciation of factual issues presented before it byany
heretheclaimtotheprincipalreliefsoughtistoberesolvednot
W
supposed constructive dismissal and Alphaland's parties. The CA is not given unbridled discretion to
by reference to the Labor Code but by the general civil law,the
separate claim before the NLRC grounded on Esico's modify factual findings of the NLRC and LA, especially
jurisdiction over the dispute belongs to the regular courts of
alleged "wrongful resignation," which obviously when such matters havenotbeenassignedaserrorsnor
justice and not to the LA and the NLRC.
terminated the employment contract. raised in the pleadings.
e LA and the NLRC do not have jurisdiction over the
Th
J urisdiction being set by law and not by the parties,the ON the CA was correct whenitwentbeyondtheissuesofthe
W
wrongful resignation and damages complaint. The
LA and the NLRC cannot exercise jurisdiction over case and the assignederrorsraisedbyrespondentswhenitfiled
important principle that runs through Article 217 of the
respondents Alphaland's complaint just by the mere the certiorari petition under Rule 65.
LaborCodeisthatwheretheclaimtotheprincipalrelief
expedientofthedesignationthereofasonefor"wrongful
sought is to be resolved not by reference to the Labor O.InaRule65,petitionforcertiorarifiledwiththeCA,
N
resignation with claims of damages" and the
Code or other labor relations statute or a collective the latter must limit itself to the determination of
employer-employeerelationshipbetweentheparties.The
bargaining agreement but by the general civil law, the whether or not the inferior court, tribunal, board or
generalruleisthattheissueofjurisdictionmayberaised officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
jurisdictionoverthedisputebelongstotheregularcourts
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page167of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
a cted without, in excess of or with grave abuse of l aw. In ruling for legal correctness, the Court views the r affecting labor-management relations in all
o
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. CA Decision in the same context that the petition for workplaces, whether agricultural or
certiorariwaspresentedtotheCA.Hence,theCourthas non-agricultural,
ere,theappellatecourtmodifiedtheaforesaiddecision
H
by reducing the award of unpaid salaries due the toexaminetheCADecisionfromtheprismofwhetherthe e xcept those arising from the implementation or
petitioneronthegroundthatthebasisshouldbethefirst CAcorrectlydeterminedthepresenceorabsenceofgraveabuseof interpretation of collective bargaining agreements which
contractofemploymentwhichhadadurationofonlyone discretion in the NLRC Decision. shall be the subject of grievance procedure and/or
(1) year. I n labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be voluntary arbitration.
attributedtotheNLRCwhenitsfindingsandconclusions 2) Th
e Bureau shall have fifteen (15) working days to
esupervisoryjurisdictionoftheCAunderRule65was
Th
confinedonlytothedeterminationofwhetherornotthe arenotsupportedbysubstantialevidence,whichrefersto act on labor cases before it, subjecttoextensionby
NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in deciding that amountofrelevantevidencethatareasonablemind agreement of the parties.
the issues brought before it on appeal. To recapitulate, mightacceptasadequatetojustifyaconclusion.Thus,if
3) A
RT 245. Cancellation of Registration. — The
the CA is allowed to consider the factual issues only the NLRC ruling has basis in the evidence and the
certificate of registration of any legitimate labor
applicablelawandjurisprudence,thennograveabuseof
insofar as they serve as the basis of the jurisdictional organization, whether national or local, may be
error imputed to the lower court or in this case, the discretion exists and the CA should so declare and,
cancelled by theBureau.
accordingly, dismiss the petition.
NLRC.
4) Th
e BLR and the labor relations divisions in the
regionalofficeshaveoriginalandexclusiveauthority
Bureau of Labor Relations to actmotu proprioor upon request on:
Supreme Court
D E Jurisdiction and Procedure (DOLE D.O. No. 40-03, a) I nter-uniondisputesorrepresentationdisputes
Rule 45
Rule XI) —refertocasesinvolvingpetitionforcertification
electionfiledbyadulyregisteredlabororgwhich
Philippine Pizza v. Cayetano2018 1) A
RT 232. The Bureau of Labor Relations and the seeks to be the sole and exclusive bargaining
Labor Relations Divisions in the regional offices of agent in an establishment.
e Court stresses the distinct approach in reviewing a
Th
the Department of Labor shall have original and
CA ruling in a labor case. In a Rule45review,theCourt b) I ntra-uniondisputesorinternaluniondisputes
exclusive authority to act,attheirowninitiativeor
examines the correctness of the CA Decisionincontrast — disputes or grievances arising from any
upon request of either or both parties, on all
with the review of jurisdictional errors under Rule 65. violation of or disagreement over anyprovision
i nter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all of the constitution and by-laws of the union,
Furthermore, Rule 45 limits the review to questions of
disputes, grievances or problems arising from
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page168of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i ncluding violations on conditions of union
GR: All issues arising from labor and employment shall 4) C
omplaints against an agency whose license is
membership as per LC.
be subject to the30-day mandatory revoked, cancelled, expired or otherwise
c) A lldisputes,grievancesarisingfromoraffecting conciliation-mediation. delisted; and
labor-management relations; except those
EXC: 5) C
omplaints categorized under the POEA Rules
arising from interpretation or implementation
and Regulations as not subject to SEnA.
ofCBAwhicharesubjecttogrievanceprocedure a) N
otices of strike/lockout or preventive mediation
and/orvoluntary arbitration. cases with theNationalConciliationandMediation o-conciliation-mediation.—CoordinatedC-Mbytwoor
C
Board (NCMB); more SEADs shall be observed if the RFA is filed with
the SEAD most convenient to the requesting partybut
ational Conciliation and Mediation
N b) I ssues arising from the interpretation or
outside the region where the employer principally
Board
F implementation of the collective bargaining
operates, the SEADO shall entertain the same and
Executive Order No. 126, as amended by E.O. No. 251 agreementandthosearisingfrominterpretationor
co-conciliate-mediate with the SEAD of the region
enforcement of company personnel policieswhich
where the employer principally operates.
e agency attached to DOLE principally in-charge of
Th should be processed through thegrievance machinery.
the settlement of labor disputes through conciliation, onsolidation of RFA. — Where two or more RFAs
C
c) A
pplicationsforexemptionfromWageOrderswith
mediation, and promotion of voluntary approaches to involving the same responding party and issues are
the National Wages and Productivity Commission
labor dispute prevention and settlement. filed before different SEADs within the same
(NWPC)
region/office/unit,theRFAsshallbeconsolidatedbefore
Salient Points of RA 10396 d) Violations ofPOEA Rules and Regulationsinvolving: the first SEAD taking cognizance of the RFAs, when
1) L A or the appropriate DOLE Agency t hat has 1) S
erious offenses and offenses penalized with practicable.
jurisdiction over the dispute shall only entertain cancellation of license;
only endorsed or referred cases by the duly Schedule of Conferences
authorized officer. 2) D
isciplinary actions against overseas a. I nitial — within 5 working days from date of
workers/seafarers which are considered serious
2) A assignment of RFA;
ny or both parties to the dispute may offenses or which carry the penalty of delisting
pre-terminate the C-M and request referral to the from the POEA registry at first offense; b. S
ucceeding—asmanywithinthe30daymandatory
appropriateDOLEAgency,orifbothagree,referthe C-M period;
unresolved issue for VA. 3) Complaints initiated by the POEA;
c. Resetting —GR: not allowed;
DOLE DO No 151-16or theSEnA IRR
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page169of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
XC: reasonable ground,concurredbyotherparty.
E 3. E
ncouragepartiestogenerateoptionsandenter 5. Non-compliance with agreement.
In such case, the conference shall be held notlater into stipulations;
No referral where the requesting party withdrew
than 3 calendar daysfrom original schedule; 4. O
ffer proposals and options toward mutually RFA.
d. Extension—GR: not extendible; acceptable solutions and voluntary settlement; e. C
ognizance over referred RFAs — LA or
XC: mutual agreement and possibility of
E 5. P
repare the settlement agreement in appropriate DOLE agency.
settlement.15 calendar days. consultation with the parties; and
In case of settlement agreements
Conduct of C-M 6. M
onitorthevoluntaryandfaithfulcomplianceof
a. R
educed in writing using the SEnA Settlement
the settlement agreement.
a. Appearance—GR: Personal; Agreement Form, signed by both parties and
c. Pre-termination attestedby the SEADO.
XC:Lawyers,agentsmayappear,withSPAsinthe
E
following circumstances: 1. Written withdrawal by the requesting party; b. A
greement on monetary claims arising from
2. N
on-appearance of either parties in two (2) violations of labor standards shall be fair and
i. Party is outside of country;
consecutive scheduled conferences despite due reasonable, and not contrary to law, public morals
ii. Party is a minor or incapacitated; or and public policy.
notices; or
iii. arty died, with which the heir may appear
P c. Types
3. R
equest for referral to the appropriate DOLE
presenting:
office or agency by therequestingpartyorboth i. Full;
1. Death Certificate; parties prior to the expiration of the 30-day
ii. artial - installment, or reinstatement is on a
P
2. N SO Marriage or Birth Certificate to period.
future agreed date.
prove relationship. d. Issuance of Referral— within 1 day after:
d. Th
eSEADOshallattachadulyaccomplishedwaiver
b. C-M Process— TheSEADOshall: 1. Expiration; and quitclaimdocument as proof of full compliance.
1. C larify the issues, validate positions and 2. Failure to timely reach agreement; e. I n case of non-compliance — The requestingparty
determine the underlying issues; may file an action for enforcement with the
3. N
on-appearance of responding party in 2
2. N arrow down the disagreements and broaden consecutive scheduled conferences despite due NLRC/POEA/DOLE Regional Office.
areas for settlement; notice;
4. Non-settlement of one or more issues;
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page170of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
onciliator-Mediator handling the case and
C
f. F or enforcement through DOLE RO the requesting 2) W
here tofile.—Arequestforpreventivemediation,
approved by the Branch Director;
party may request for the issuance of a writ of notice of strike or lockout shall be filed through
execution or the conduct of compliance visit. personal service or by registered mail/private f) Th
enoticeshallbedroppedfromthedockets
couriers with the Regional Branch having and to be renumbered as a preventive
Preventive Mediation jurisdiction over the workplace of the union mediation case; and
Preventive Mediation Cases refer to labor disputes members. g) A
conferenceshallbeimmediatelysetbythe
hicharethesubjectofaformalorinformalrequestfor
w
3) C
onversion of Notice Strike/Lockout to Preventive concerned Conciliator-Mediator.
conciliation and mediation assistance sought by either Mediation — in converting a notice of strike or
or both parties or upon the initiative of the Board.
lockouttoapreventivemediationcasethefollowing Conciliation v. Mediation
1) W homayfilearequestforPreventiveMediation,Notice guidelines shall be observed: a) C
onciliation — is a mild form of intervention by a
of Strike or Lockout. — the following may file a neutral third party, the Conciliator-Mediator, who
a) C
learlydeterminewhethertheissue/sraised
requestforpreventivemediation,noticeofstrikeor relying on his persuasive expertise, takes an active
is/are valid ground/s for NS/L;
lockout: roleinassistingpartiesbytryingtokeepdisputants
b) I f conversion is warranted, a written talking, facilitating other procedural niceties,
a) Th
e president or any authorized recommendation from the carrying messages back and forth between the
representative of a certified or duly Conciliator-Mediator handling the case is parties, andgenerallybeingagoodfellowwhotries
recognized bargaining representative in
required, after due consultation with the to keep things calm andforward-lookinginatense
cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair
Branch Director; situation.
labor practices.
c) Th
e written recommendation must be b) M
ediation—isamildinterventionbyaneutralthird
b) I n the absence of a certified or duly formallyendorsedtotheBranchDirectorfor party, the Conciliator-Mediator, who advises the
recognized bargaining representative, the
approval; parties or offers solutions or alternatives to the
presidentoranyauthorizedrepresentativeof
d) Th
e conversion shall be done before the problems with the end in view of assisting them
a legitimate labor organization in the
cooling-off period expires; towards voluntarily reaching their own mutually
establishment on grounds of unfair labor
acceptable settlement of the dispute.
practice. e) P
arties concerned must be formallynotified
c) Th
e employer or any authorized of the action taken by the Regional Branch
representative in cases of bargaining through a letter signed by the
deadlocks and unfair labor practices.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page171of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
DOLE Regional Directors 1) A
RT 129. The RD or any of the duly authorized b) D
ecision,orderorawardsecuredthroughfraud
G LaborCode,Arts.128-129;OmnibusRules,BookIII, hearing officers of DOLE have jurisdiction over or coercion,includinggraft and corruption;
claims for recovery of wages, simplemoneyclaimsand c) Made purely onquestions of law;
Rule X, Secs. 2 and 3(a)
other benefits,providedthat:
d) Serious errors in the findings of facts.
Jurisdiction a) Claim arises from ER-EE Relationship;
b) Claimant does not seek reinstatement; Recovery and adjudicatory power
Office Basis Jurisdiction
c) Aggregate money claim of each <=P5K. Visitorial and Enforcement
OLE
D rt
A ecovery of wages, simple money claims
R Simple Money Claim
Power
RD 129 and other benefits 2) A
RT 268. Representation Issue in Organized
Establishments. — In organized establishments, Art 128 Art 129
VA rt
A ll unresolved grievances arising from
A when a verified petition questioning the majority
261 the interpretation and implementation status of the incumbent bargaining agent isfiled, the olice power - Inspection
P uasi-judicial -
Q
of the CBAexceptthosegrossin and issuance of orders to Adjudication through
Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election
character; compel compliance summary proceedings
by secret ballot.
Cases arising from interpretation or
3) A
RT 269. Petitions in Unorganized Establishments. nforcement of labor
E onetary claims which
M
enforcement of company personnel
— In any establishment where there is nocertified legislation in general only involve labor
policies
bargaining agent, a CERTIFICATION ELECTION standards law
rt
A ll other labor disputes including ULP
A shall automatically be conducted by the
ffshoots of inspections
O worn complaints by
S
262 and bargaining deadlocks,upon agreement Med-Arbiter.
done by labor officers or interested party
of the parties 4) A
ppeal to NLRC within 5 cal days from receipt of safety engineers
copy of decision.
SOLE rt W
A ithin 24 hours from knowledge of an
I nvolves employees still in resent or past employees
P
263(g) occurrence of a labor dispute causing or 5) N
LRCtoresolvewithin10caldaysfromsubmission
service at the time of complaint
likely to cause a strike or lockout in an of last pleading.
provided there is no
industryindispensable to the national 6) Grounds for appeal(A
rt 229) demand for reinstatement
interest, SOLE may assume jurisdiction,
a) Prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion;
decide on the disputeorcertify the same No maximum monetary Claim per claimant not to
to NLRC forcompulsory arbitration.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page172of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Visitorial and Enforcement 7. R
D decides within 30 calendar days from date of b. Suspension should not exceed6 months.
Simple Money Claim
Power filing of the complaint; 5. s ee RA 11058, Strengthening Compliance with
amount exceed P5K 8. E
R may appeal with the NLRC within 5 calendar Occupational Safety & Health Standards;
days from receipt of decision. Appealmustbewith
xercised by SOLE or any
E D or any duly authorized
R 6. S
EC.23.PaymentofWorkersDuringWorkStoppageDue
cash or security bond. to Imminent Danger. — If stoppage of work due to
of his duly authorized hearing officer of DOLE
representatives, i.e. the RD 9. E
R maythefileMRfromanadversedecisionofthe imminent danger occurs as a result of the
NLRC; employer'sviolationorfault,theemployershallpay
ppealable to SOLE, then
A Appealable to NLRC the workers concerned their wages during the
10. Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 to the CA not
to CA period of such stoppage of work or suspension of
later than60 daysfrom notice;
operations.
Recovery of Wages and Simple Money Claims 11. A
ppeal by certiorari under Rule 45totheSCwithin
7. I nNationalMinesandAlliedWorkersUnionv.Marcopper
15 daysfrom notice onpure questions of law.
1. Requisites: Mining,ifthesuspensionofoperationswasordered
a. Claimant is an employee or domestic worker; nforcement Power on Health and Safety of
E by a government agency other than the DOLE, the
Workers general "no work, no pay" rule should prevailwith
b. Claim does not exceed P5K;
1. An inspection is made via Art 128; respect to employees' wages during the suspension
c. No claim of reinstatement; period, subject to existing CBA terms on leave
2. N
on-compliance was discovered that poses grave
d. Claim arose from ER-EE relationship. credits and similar benefits of employees.
and imminent danger to the health and safety of
2. Employee files apro-forma complaintwith theRD; workers in the workplace. 8. D
OLED.O.No.198,S.2018,distinguishedfromBona
fide suspension of operations(Art 301).
3. RD dockets the complaint assimple money claim; 3. S
OLE mayorderstoppageofworkorsuspensionof
4. R D issues summons served upon employer as operations of unit or department concerned; Closure of Business under RA 9231
respondent, together with the copy of complaint; 4. W
ithin 24 hours, a hearing shall be conducted to DOLE DC 03-09
5. ER is given5 calendar daysto answer; determine whether said stoppage order shall be
OLEorRDmayorderclosureofbusinessfoundtohave
S
lifted or not.
6. A fter receiving the answer, RDcallsforasummary violated any provisions of RA 9231more than 3 times.
a. I fviolationisattributabletoER,heshallpay
hearing; GR: rior notice and hearing is required before
P
the wages of EEs during the period of
issuance of suchClosure Order,unless:
stoppage or suspension of operations.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page173of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
EXC: 4) I nspector will make an INSPECTION REPORT 10) Failure to file MR within reglementary period will
a. V should there be violation or non-compliance. make orderFINAL AND EXECUTORY.
iolation resulted to death, insanity, or serious
physical injury to a child employed; a) E
mbodied in a NOTICE OF INSPECTION 11) S
hould employer be able tovalidlycontestNIR,the
b. Prostitution or obscene or lewd shows; or RESULTS; proceeding becomes adversarial:
c. Th b) All violations will be enumerated therein. a) RD will endorse the case to RAB of NLRC;
ereisimminentdangerinthelifeandlimbof
a child. 5) E
mployer is then informed of the results of the b) Endorsed to LA;
inspection;
nderanysuchcircumstance,SOLEorRDmust,within
U c) M
ay be appealed to NLRC within 10 days from
5 working days from receipt of complaint, order 6) E
mployerisgiventheopportunitytocomplywithin receipt of Decision; MR allowed within 10 days;
immediate closure. 7 days; OR d) P
etition for Certiorari under Rule 65 to the CA
close-now-hear-later process is to be adhered to,
A 7) E
mployer may contest the NIR and raise issues not later than60 daysfrom notice;
which shall besummaryin nature. which cannot be resolved without considering
e) A
ppeal by certiorari under Rule 45 to the SC
DOCUMENTARY PROOFSthatarenotverifiablein
within 15daysfromnoticeonpurequestionsof
H DOLE Secretary the normal course of the inspection; law.
8) S
houldtheemployerfailtocontest,aswellasfailsto 12) seeDOLE D.O. No. 183, S. 2017
Visitorial and Enforcement Powers
complytotheNIR,RDwillthenissueanORDEROF
13) InPeople’sBroadcastingServicev.SOLE2012EnBanc,
Power to Suspend Effects of Termination COMPLIANCE;
theissuewasWONtheSOLE,inexercisinghisvisitorial
9) E
mployer has the following remedies from said power, can determine the existenceofER-EErelationship.
Visitorial and Enforcement Powers
1 order: YES.
Labor Code, Arts. 128 and 289
a) A
ppeal to SOLE within 10 calendar days, with 14) In Balladares v. Peak Ventures, the worker need not
1) There is areport on non-complianceof employer; bond; litigate to get what legally belongs to him, for the
2) U pon receipt by SOLE or RD, there will be an b) M
otionforreconsiderationwiththeRDwithin7 wholeenforcementmachineryoftheDOLEexiststo
ORDER OF INSPECTION; calendar days; insure its expeditious delivery to him free of charge.
3) Th
e inspection will be implemented byaLaborand c) I f beyond 7 but not beyond 10 days, considered 15) Exception clause of Art 128. — In Meteoro v. Creative
Employment Officer who will then visit the an appeal from RD to SOLE. Creatures, respondent contested thefindingsofthe
employer’s premises and conduct inspection. labor inspector duringandaftertheinspectionand
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page174of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r aised issues the resolution of which necessitated argaining agreement or interpretation or
b artiesintheirCBAwithvoluntaryarbitrationasthe
p
the examination of evidentiary matters not enforcement of company personnel policies. terminalstep,whichareintendedtoresolveallissues
verifiableinthenormalcourseofinspection.Hence, 2) Grievance handling arisingfromtheimplementationandinterpretation
the Regional Director was divested of jurisdiction of their collective agreement and the company
and should have endorsed the case to the a) An employee shall present this grievance or personnel policies or company rules and
appropriate Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. complaint orally or in writing to the shop regulations.
steward.
5) C
ompanyPersonnelPolicies.—areguidingprinciples
ower to Suspend Effects of
P b) I f the grievance is valid, the shop steward shall stated in broad, long-range terms that express the
2 Termination immediately bring the complaint to the philosophy or beliefs of an organization’s top
Labor Code, Art. 292 (b) employee's immediate supervisor. authority regarding personnel matters. They deal
c) I f no settlement is reached, the grievance shall with matters
e Secretary of the Department of Labor and
Th
Employment may suspend the effects of the termination bereferredtothegrievancecommitteewhichshall a) A
ffectingefficiencyandwell-beingofemployees
pendingresolutionofthedisputeintheeventofaprima have ten (10) days to decide the case.(Sec2Rule and
facie finding by the appropriate official of the DOLE XIX Book 5)
b) Include the procedures in the administration of
before whom such dispute is pending that the 3) G
rievance; Concept and Scope. — Refers to any
i) Wages,
termination question by either the employer or the union
regarding ii) Benefits,
1. may cause a serious labor disputeor
a) t he interpretation or i mplementation of any iii) Promotions,
2. is in implementation of amass lay-off.
provision of the c ollective bargaining iv) ransfer and other personnel movement.
T
agreementor Which are not spelled out in the CBA.
Voluntary Arbitrator
b) i nterpretation or enforcement of company
abor Code, Arts. 274-277; Revised Procedural
L
I personnel policiesor Compulsory Voluntary
GuidelinesintheConductofVoluntaryArbitration
Proceedings c) a ny claim by either party thattheotherpartyis Definition Th
elawdeclares ontractual proceeding
C
violating any provision of the CBA or company the dispute wherein the parties, to
1) G
rievance refers to any question by either the personnel policies. subject to obtain a speedy and
employer or the union regardingtheinterpretation arbitration, inexpensive final
4) G
rievancemachinery;Unresolvedgrievances.—Refers
orimplementationofanyprovisionofthecollective
totheinternalrulesofproceduresestablishedbythe
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page175of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Compulsory Voluntary Compulsory Voluntary e Commission, its Regional Offices and the
Th
r egardless of isposition of the matter,
d c lause; Regional Directors of the DOLE shall not entertain
consent of the select a judgeof their c) Or both disputes, grievances or matters under the exclusive
parties. own choice and by and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator
Appeal to LRC, who merely reviews for errors of fact
N or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall
consent, submit their
or law. immediately dispose and refer the same to the
controversy to him.
Grievance Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration
Done by abor Arbiter,
L oluntary Arbitrator, an
V Jurisdiction provided in the CBA.
clothed with impartial 3rd person RT274.JurisdictionofVoluntaryArbitratorsandPanel
A
original and named by both parties ofVoluntaryArbitrators.—TheVoluntaryArbitratoror RT275.JurisdictionoverOtherLaborDisputes.—The
A
exclusive panelofVoluntaryArbitratorsshallhaveoriginaland Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
jurisdiction (Art exclusive jurisdictionto hear and decide Arbitrators,uponagreementoftheparties,shallalso
217) hear and decide all other labor disputes including
1. a ll unresolved grievances arising from the unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks.
Nature dversarial;
A ay be done prior to or
M interpretationorimplementationoftheCBA
initiated by a during compulsory and 1) Exclusive and original. —
complaint. arbitration; (B5-R19-S5)
2. t hose arising from the interpretation or a) a ll unresolved grievances arising from t he
enforcement of company personnel policies. implementation or interpretation of the
ettlement of
S rivate judicial system;
P
collective bargaining agreementsand
labor disputes by ccordingly, violations of aCBA,exceptthosewhich
A
agovernment Non-litigious, not are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as b) t hose arising from the interpretation or
agency. governed by technical unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as enforcement of company personnel policies
ROC, but still observes grievancesunder the CBA. c) w
age distortion issues arising from the
due process. or purposes of this article, gross violations of CBA
F application of any wage orders in organized
shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to establishments,
I nitiated omplaint; to be
C a) S ubmission
comply with the economic provisions of such d) u
nresolved grievances arising from t he
by answered by agreement;
agreement. interpretation and implementation of the
other party. b) Demand or Notice,
invoking a CBA
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page176of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based on Bar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
roductivity incentive programs under R.A.
p Guagua National Colleges v. CA 2018 En Banc resolution of the rights and obligations of the parties.
6971
e 10-day period stated in Article 276 should be
Th
2) C oncurrent. — All other labor disputes including
understood as the period within which the party
ULPandbargainingdeadlocks,uponagreementofthe
adversely affected by the ruling of the Voluntary J Prescription of Actions
parties. Before or at any stage of compulsory
Arbitrators or Panel of Arbitrators mayfileamotionfor
arbitration, parties may opt to submit to VA instead.
reconsideration. Only aftertheresolutionofthemotion
Money Claims
3) V oluntary arbitration. — a mode of settling labor forreconsiderationmaytheaggrievedpartyappealtothe Illegal Dismissal
management disputes by which the partiesselecta CA by filing the petition for review under Rule43ofthe
competent, trained and impartial person whoshall
Unfair Labor Practices
Rules of Court within 15 days from notice pursuant to
decideonthemeritsofthecaseandwhosedecision Section 4 of Rule 43. Illegal Recruitment
is final, executory and binding.
Money Claims
4) Nature of proceedings. — The proceedings before a 1
imcoma Labor Organization-PLAC v. Limcoma
L Labor Code, Art. 306
v oluntary arbitrator are non-litigious in nature.
Multi-Purpose Cooperative2021
They are not governed by technical rules applicable
THREE (3) YEARSfrom the time the action accrued.
tocourtorjudicialproceedings,buttheymust,atall eproperremedytoreverseormodifyaVA'sorapanel
Th
times, comply with the requirements of due process. of VA's decision or award is to appeal the award or Illegal Dismissal
decision before the CA via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. 2
5) D ecision of voluntary arbitrator, and prohibited Civil Code, Art. 1146
motion. —THEdecisionofTHEvoluntaryarbitrator us, certiorari is not a proper remedy in the present
Th
SHALLBEfinalandexecutoryafterten(10)calendar case. However, it must be noted that this court has at a) I f with prayer ofreinstatement—theEEisgivena
days from receipt ofthecopyofthedecisionbythe times permitted the resort to certiorari despite the period of FOUR (4) YEARS from the time of his
parties. availabilityofappeal,orofanyplainspeedyandadequate illegal dismissal within which to institute the
remedy in the ordinary course of law in exceptional complaint (Art 1146, NCC);
Remedies situations. Our jurisprudence allows the relaxation of b) If WITHOUT reinstatement —THREE (3) YEARS.
epetitionforreviewshallbefiledwithin15days
1) Th laborrulesfromtimetotimeifsuchwouldservetheends
pursuant to Section 4,Rules 43of the Rules of Court; of justice. Punctilious adherence to stringent technical Unfair Labor Practices
rules may berelaxedintheinterestoftheworkingman, 3
2) Rule 45, procedure before the SC. Labor Code, Art. 305
and should not defeat the complete and equitable
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page177of178
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1.1 Syllabus-basedReviewerfor the2024Bar based onBar Bulletin No. 1by Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ONE (1) YEARfrom accrual.
Illegal Recruitment
4
R.A. No. 8042, Sec. 12
FIVE (5) years.
If involving economic sabotage, shall prescribe in
twenty (20) years.
eCodal+Pro This material is available only to eCodal+Pro subscribers for theirPERSONALuse; and must not be reproducedand/or distributed either for profit or otherwise. Page178of178
You might also like
- Estate Planning Pt. 2Document91 pagesEstate Planning Pt. 2Jorrel BautistaNo ratings yet
- 2024 ALF Pre-Week - Civil LawDocument97 pages2024 ALF Pre-Week - Civil Lawjudgeadvocate98No ratings yet
- 2025 Bar Syllabus - Civil LawDocument57 pages2025 Bar Syllabus - Civil LawEd Torralba100% (1)
- BPS ReportDocument9 pagesBPS ReportcolleenNo ratings yet
- Taxation Law Ii Case DigestDocument37 pagesTaxation Law Ii Case DigestAhmed-Adhiem Bahjin KamlianNo ratings yet
- Trust Fund DoctrineDocument10 pagesTrust Fund DoctrineKhimie PadillaNo ratings yet
- Contract Review Checklist An Easy 7 Step Process - InfographicDocument1 pageContract Review Checklist An Easy 7 Step Process - Infographicshankarjmc7407No ratings yet
- RA 11232 Codal LawPhilDocument54 pagesRA 11232 Codal LawPhilArvin RobertNo ratings yet
- Adr Exam June 2021Document3 pagesAdr Exam June 2021CHIMONo ratings yet
- Corpo QuizDocument4 pagesCorpo QuizMotu PropioNo ratings yet
- Assignment 5Document1 pageAssignment 5Mimi KasukaNo ratings yet
- Civil Law Review I Rabuya Lecture TranscDocument2 pagesCivil Law Review I Rabuya Lecture TranscMarkNo ratings yet
- Revised Aug 14 - Retainer Agreement - DR JuanezaDocument7 pagesRevised Aug 14 - Retainer Agreement - DR JuanezaAlice M. GarinNo ratings yet
- Cases Classification of PropertyDocument54 pagesCases Classification of PropertySusie VanguardiaNo ratings yet
- Contract of LeaseDocument6 pagesContract of LeaseDales BatoctoyNo ratings yet
- Philippine Bank of Communications v. Basic PolyprintersDocument16 pagesPhilippine Bank of Communications v. Basic PolyprintersLizzy WayNo ratings yet
- Final Exam Labor Standards Set BDocument3 pagesFinal Exam Labor Standards Set BKenn Rhyan MisolesNo ratings yet
- Result - 7 - 18 - 2023, 5 - 02 - 39 PMDocument1 pageResult - 7 - 18 - 2023, 5 - 02 - 39 PMEfemie DuhinogNo ratings yet
- PPPC PUB Guidebook JV Lgu 201907Document48 pagesPPPC PUB Guidebook JV Lgu 201907liboaninoNo ratings yet
- UP Solid Civil Law ReviewerDocument761 pagesUP Solid Civil Law ReviewerLyra Cecille Vertudes AllasNo ratings yet
- Memorandum of UnderstandingDocument1 pageMemorandum of Understandingharish ragavNo ratings yet
- Civ - de Los Angeles - LTD 5Document8 pagesCiv - de Los Angeles - LTD 5Lirio IringanNo ratings yet
- Value Added TaxDocument14 pagesValue Added TaxWyndell AlajenoNo ratings yet
- Revised Rules On Criminal Procedure (TOC)Document7 pagesRevised Rules On Criminal Procedure (TOC)jes lagdamenNo ratings yet
- Intellectual PropertyDocument26 pagesIntellectual PropertyANKIT ARORANo ratings yet
- J.C. Espinas, B. C. Pineda, J. J. de La Rosa & Associates For Petitioner. Siguion Reyna, Montecillo, Belo & Ongsiako For Respondent CompanyDocument9 pagesJ.C. Espinas, B. C. Pineda, J. J. de La Rosa & Associates For Petitioner. Siguion Reyna, Montecillo, Belo & Ongsiako For Respondent CompanyLegaspiCabatchaNo ratings yet
- LAW 3 MergedDocument212 pagesLAW 3 MergedGaza Jemi GadeNo ratings yet
- Civpro SCDocument88 pagesCivpro SCFrancis DobleNo ratings yet
- Sales BedaDocument37 pagesSales BedaAnthony Rupac EscasinasNo ratings yet
- LABORLAW (MockBarQ&A)Document30 pagesLABORLAW (MockBarQ&A)Michelle FelloneNo ratings yet
- Position Paper NLRCDocument10 pagesPosition Paper NLRCivybpazNo ratings yet
- IPC Trademarks PresentationDocument72 pagesIPC Trademarks PresentationR.u. Ben Ecleo IIINo ratings yet
- Swedish Royal Wedding Clothes From 1766 at Livrustkammaren in StockholmDocument6 pagesSwedish Royal Wedding Clothes From 1766 at Livrustkammaren in StockholmGirlie ShinNo ratings yet
- Investments and ForeignIncentives ReviewerDocument20 pagesInvestments and ForeignIncentives ReviewerCarlo AgdamagNo ratings yet
- Support (Navarro V Navarro)Document8 pagesSupport (Navarro V Navarro)DarkSlumberNo ratings yet
- Vivas CaseDocument3 pagesVivas CaseSur ReyNo ratings yet
- Civil Law Cases ReviewerDocument144 pagesCivil Law Cases ReviewerRomeo Glenn BongultoNo ratings yet
- Civ - de Los Angeles - LTD 6Document7 pagesCiv - de Los Angeles - LTD 6Lirio IringanNo ratings yet
- KAKANIN: Alright Thank You For That Super Long Intro Mr. Bobo Gadot. Now, You MentionedDocument7 pagesKAKANIN: Alright Thank You For That Super Long Intro Mr. Bobo Gadot. Now, You MentionedClarice RegalaNo ratings yet
- Minor in International BusinessDocument1 pageMinor in International BusinessMatthew Bentley SyNo ratings yet
- CIArb Training and Education Brochure 2019Document60 pagesCIArb Training and Education Brochure 2019Petroniu100% (1)
- My Own Legal Dictionary 2Document1,252 pagesMy Own Legal Dictionary 2kymposcheNo ratings yet
- Ebook Law Firm 2021 (English)Document34 pagesEbook Law Firm 2021 (English)Fararoni IsaíNo ratings yet
- Commercial Law - Intellectual Property LawDocument22 pagesCommercial Law - Intellectual Property LawAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- Labor - ManuelDocument32 pagesLabor - Manueljaenaanne100% (1)
- Sbu Legal and Judicial Ethics 2021 XVDocument306 pagesSbu Legal and Judicial Ethics 2021 XVMica Mndz100% (1)
- Insurance Course OutlineDocument55 pagesInsurance Course OutlineAdel BermejoNo ratings yet
- Activity Log For January 2017Document3 pagesActivity Log For January 2017Lowell MadrilenoNo ratings yet
- Mercantile Law PDFDocument148 pagesMercantile Law PDFThirdy DemonteverdeNo ratings yet
- Century Iron Vs BanasDocument2 pagesCentury Iron Vs BanasPaula GasparNo ratings yet
- Family Code by AlbanoDocument60 pagesFamily Code by AlbanoViar R J BolesaNo ratings yet
- Gayappanao v. IAC, 199 SCRA 309 (1991)Document1 pageGayappanao v. IAC, 199 SCRA 309 (1991)Lovely Grace HechanovaNo ratings yet
- The Civil Code of The PhilippinesDocument268 pagesThe Civil Code of The PhilippinesJose Kenn Pueyo BilbaoNo ratings yet
- OUTLINE - Thus - PALE 2023Document2 pagesOUTLINE - Thus - PALE 2023leizandra.pugongNo ratings yet
- DIVORCE-by-FASKHDocument6 pagesDIVORCE-by-FASKHesem548No ratings yet
- QandA POLIDocument470 pagesQandA POLISugar CanibanNo ratings yet
- PH. V ChinaDocument397 pagesPH. V ChinaAnnie MendesNo ratings yet
- 04 Labor Law Syllabus-Based eREVIEWER 2024 v2Document201 pages04 Labor Law Syllabus-Based eREVIEWER 2024 v2Princess Faith100% (1)
- (Batch 1) Labor Law Syllabus-Based eREVIEWER 2024Document6 pages(Batch 1) Labor Law Syllabus-Based eREVIEWER 2024vjggutierrezNo ratings yet
- Acfrogdprovkknpmiymoxfmxhym9qwlmqtch247odtchpanrgjjpszg2ohf5ydtabykg91 r9pgqgnnr y 9pfokiank BGK Unux17sgrjytzk47bf2ujabh5njeov0mkhjvvp2svrdrgi52b7nDocument261 pagesAcfrogdprovkknpmiymoxfmxhym9qwlmqtch247odtchpanrgjjpszg2ohf5ydtabykg91 r9pgqgnnr y 9pfokiank BGK Unux17sgrjytzk47bf2ujabh5njeov0mkhjvvp2svrdrgi52b7nrexshalynlagarto100% (1)
- The Delegate Handbook - OOWMUNDocument20 pagesThe Delegate Handbook - OOWMUNSanjay PanickerNo ratings yet
- Edward Sethaphanich - Assessment Task 1 Notification & SubmissionDocument9 pagesEdward Sethaphanich - Assessment Task 1 Notification & SubmissionlilianaahkeeNo ratings yet
- Re: Letter of InvitationDocument2 pagesRe: Letter of InvitationsaharaReporters headlinesNo ratings yet
- The History of Legal AidDocument33 pagesThe History of Legal Aidtraq TaNo ratings yet
- 6 Social Justice Society Vs Atienza GR 156052Document1 page6 Social Justice Society Vs Atienza GR 156052visagasrbNo ratings yet
- 11 - KMU v. Director General of NEDA - NietoDocument2 pages11 - KMU v. Director General of NEDA - NietoMalcolm CruzNo ratings yet
- APPSC Departmental Online Test 22nd Nov 2020 S1: Section: 08 Paper CodeDocument25 pagesAPPSC Departmental Online Test 22nd Nov 2020 S1: Section: 08 Paper CodenavyaNo ratings yet
- MESSAGE - Children of War BasilanDocument2 pagesMESSAGE - Children of War BasilanFrancisco Ashley Acedillo100% (1)
- Sohio Petroleum Company v. Federal Power Commission, 298 F.2d 465, 10th Cir. (1961)Document5 pagesSohio Petroleum Company v. Federal Power Commission, 298 F.2d 465, 10th Cir. (1961)Scribd Government DocsNo ratings yet
- Betoy V Board of DirectorsDocument1 pageBetoy V Board of DirectorsPauline CarilloNo ratings yet
- Application For Residence Permit For Persons Who ... - MigrationsverketDocument2 pagesApplication For Residence Permit For Persons Who ... - MigrationsverketSober KhanNo ratings yet
- A Constitutional Equation For Sustainable Development Constitutionalising Economic, Social and Natural Resource Rights, With The Public Trust Doctrine, in IrelandDocument16 pagesA Constitutional Equation For Sustainable Development Constitutionalising Economic, Social and Natural Resource Rights, With The Public Trust Doctrine, in IrelandRita CahillNo ratings yet
- Political Concepts: Committee On Concepts and Methods Working Paper SeriesDocument57 pagesPolitical Concepts: Committee On Concepts and Methods Working Paper SeriesCecilia AversaNo ratings yet
- Bradburn Et Al v. North Central Regional Library District - Document No. 38Document3 pagesBradburn Et Al v. North Central Regional Library District - Document No. 38Justia.comNo ratings yet
- Mpa 04 Unit II Public Policy Making Role of International Agencies in Public PolicyDocument16 pagesMpa 04 Unit II Public Policy Making Role of International Agencies in Public Policykumarsamir70875% (4)
- 2.3. Military OrganizationDocument54 pages2.3. Military OrganizationMechelle IntiaNo ratings yet
- Extension Worksheet: Student Name: - Grade: - DateDocument2 pagesExtension Worksheet: Student Name: - Grade: - Datewoof1800No ratings yet
- 1 Perubatan Dan Paediatrik (1) (c1)Document1 page1 Perubatan Dan Paediatrik (1) (c1)Khai RyNo ratings yet
- Edward Snowden Timeline of Events PDFDocument4 pagesEdward Snowden Timeline of Events PDFAnonymous yw9SbMq2NgNo ratings yet
- Final ResponseDocument39 pagesFinal ResponseJudicial Watch, Inc.No ratings yet
- Adams - Radical Integration PDFDocument53 pagesAdams - Radical Integration PDFtisafk100% (1)
- UNIT-5 Religion and Politics:: Debates On SecularismDocument12 pagesUNIT-5 Religion and Politics:: Debates On SecularismNimrat kaurNo ratings yet
- City Council Members Jason Burnett, Mayor Victoria Beach Ken Talmage Carrie Theis Steve DallasDocument4 pagesCity Council Members Jason Burnett, Mayor Victoria Beach Ken Talmage Carrie Theis Steve DallasL. A. PatersonNo ratings yet
- Annotated BibliographyDocument6 pagesAnnotated Bibliographyolivia268No ratings yet
- Ibuos Application For GraduationDocument2 pagesIbuos Application For GraduationChester Ian Abrera MislangNo ratings yet
- Tanada V AngaraDocument2 pagesTanada V Angaragherold benitezNo ratings yet
- Proposed SESET ConstitutionDocument19 pagesProposed SESET Constitutionmichaelchimuanya659No ratings yet
- ADR Operations Manual - AC No 20-2002Document3 pagesADR Operations Manual - AC No 20-2002Anonymous 03JIPKRkNo ratings yet
- LEGRES Case DigestsDocument8 pagesLEGRES Case DigestsRem SerranoNo ratings yet
- Total Landholdings With Improvement and Non Tenancy - Florante SerranoDocument3 pagesTotal Landholdings With Improvement and Non Tenancy - Florante SerranoHarold EstacioNo ratings yet