Labor Relations DIGESTS

Labor Relations Cases
villadolid
digests
BROTHERHOOD LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT vs
HON. ZAMORA (1991)
FACTS:
Petitioners-members of Brotherhood Labor
Unit Movement of the Philippines (BLUM), worked
as caradores or pahinante since !"#! at the
$M% Plant& $ometime in 'an(ar) !"#", the
petitioner workers * n(mberin !+, orani-ed
themselves and enaed in (nion activities&
Believin that the) are entitled to overtime and
holida) pa), the petitioners aired their ripes and
rievances b(t it was not heeded b) the
respondents& .ne of the (nion member was
dismissed from work& /ence, the petitioners filed a
complaint of unfair labor practice aainst
respondent $M% on the ro(nd of illeal dismissal&
.n the other hand, $M% ar(ed that the
complainant are not or have never been their
emplo)ees b(t the) are the emplo)ees of the
0(aranteed Labor %ontractor, an independent
labor contractin firm
Labor 1rbiter 2estor Lim rendered a decision
i !"v#$ #! %&' (#)*+"i"%s which was affirmed
b) the 2L3%
.n appeal, the $ecretar) set aside the 2L3%
r(lin stressin the absence of an emplo)er-
emplo)ee relationship
Iss,': Whether an employer-employee relationship
exists between petitioners and respondent San Miguel
Corporation
HELD: YES
In determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, the elements that are generally
considered are the following: (a) the selection and
enaement of the emplo)ee4 (b) the pa)ment of
waes4 (c) the power of dismissal4 and (d) the
emplo)er5s power to control the emplo)ee with respect
to the means and methods b) which the work is to be
accomplished& 6t is the called 7control test7 that is the
most important element
6n the %1B, petitioners worked contin(o(sl) and
e8cl(sivel) for an averae of 9 )ears for the compan)&
%onsiderin the lenth of time that the petitioners
have worked, there is :(stification to concl(de that
the) were enaed to perform activities necessar) or
desirable in the (s(al b(siness of trade of the
respondent& /ence, petitioners are considered re(lar
emplo)ees&
;ven ass(min that there is a contract of emplo)ment
e8ec(ted between $M% and the said labor contractor,
the co(rt r(led that Guaranteed and eliable !abor
contractors have neither s(bstantial capital nor
investment to <(alif) as an independent contractor
(nder the law& =he premises, tools and e<(ipments
(sed b) the petitioners in their :obs are all s(pplied b)
the respondent $M%& 6t is onl) the manpower or labor
force which the alleed contractors s(ppl), s(estin
the e8istence of a 7labor onl)7 contractin scheme
prohibited b) law
6t is important to emphasi-e that that in a tr(l)
independent contractor-contractee relationship, the
fees are paid directl) to the manpower aenc) in l(mp
s(m witho(t indicatin or impl)in that the basis of
s(ch l(mp s(m is the salar) per worker m(ltiplied b)
the n(mber of workers assined to the compan)&
6n the %1B, the alleed independent
contractors were paid a l(mp s(m representin onl)
the salaries the workers were entitled to, arrived at b)
addin the salaries of each worker which depend on
the vol(me of work the) had accomplished individ(all)&
T&'$'!#$'- %&'$' is # i.'*'.'% (#%$"(%#$/
(#%$"(%'' $'+"%i#s&i*.
0HEREFORE- 1ETITION IS 2RANTED.
HA0AIIAN/1HILI11INE COM1ANY vs
2ULMATICO (1993)
FACTS:
3espondent-Union, the 2ational >ederation of
$(ar ?orkers->ood and 0eneral =rades, filed an
action aainst petitioner /awaiian Phil %o& for
claims (nder 31 @," (=he $(ar 1ct of !"AB)&
3espondent Union alleed that the) have never
availed of the benefits d(e them (nder the law&
Under the said actC the proceeds of an)
increase in participation ranted to planters (nder
this 1ct and above their present share shall be
di"ided between the planter and his laborers in the
following proportions# #,D of the increase
participation for the laborers and +,D for the
planters&
Petitioner ar(ed that respondent Labor 1rbiter
0(lmatico has no :(risdiction over the case
considerin their case does not fall (nder those
en(merated in 1rticle B!9 of the Labor %ode which
provides the :(risdiction of Labor 1rbiters and the
%ommission& >(rther, petitioner contends that it
has no ;3-;; relationship with the respondent
s(ar workers and that respondent (nion has no
ca(se of action beca(se it is the planters-
emplo)ers who is liable to pa) the workerEs share
(nder L.6 2o& @A+&
Iss,'1: Whether public respondent !abor $rbiter has
%urisdiction to hear and decide the case against
petitioner
HELD: NO
?hile :(risdiction over controversies involvin
aric(lt(ral workers has been transferred from the
%o(rt of 1rarian 3elations to the Labor 1rbiters (nder
the Labor %ode, said transferred :(risdiction is
however, not witho(t limitations& =he controvers) m(st
fall (nder one of the cases en(merated (nder the
Labor %ode which arise o(t of or are in connection with
an ;3-;; relationship
1
villadolid
digests
6n the %1B, there is no ;3-;; relationship between
petitioner compan) and respondent (nion& /ence,
respondent Labor 1rbiter has no :(risdiction to hear
and decide the case aainst petitioner&
Iss,'1: Whether respondent union has a cause of
action
HELD: NO
=o have a cause of action, the claimant m(st show that
he has a leal riht and the respondent a correlative
d(t) in respect thereof, which the latter violated b)
some wronf(l act or omission&
6n the instant case, it wo(ld show that the pa)ment of
the workerEs share is liabilit) of the planters-
emplo)ers, and not of the petitioner millin compan)&
6t is disp(ted that petitioner millin compan) has
alread) distrib(ted to its planters their respective
shares& /ence, it has f(lfilled its part and has nothin
more to do with the s(bse<(ent contrib(tion b) the
planters of the workerEs share&
DAYA2 vs HON. CENIZARES- 4R. (1995)
FACTS:
Petitioners were hired to work as tower crane
operators b) one 1lfredo Fo(n, a b(ildin
contractor doin b(siness in the name of Fo(nEs
constr(ction& 6n !""!, the) were transferred to
%eb( %it) to work for Fo(nEs $hoemart %eb(
Pro:ect& Petitioner ?illiam Ga)a asked permission
to o to Manila to attend famil) matters and was
allowed to do so b(t was not paid for 'an(ar) BH-
H, d(e to his acco(ntabilit) for the loss of certain
constr(ction tools& =he other petitioners left d(e to
harassment b) Fo(n& =hereafter, petitioners
banded toether and filed a complaint aainst
Fo(n before the 2%3 1rbitration Branch 2L3%
which was assined to Labor 1rbiter %eni-ares&
Fo(n filed a Motion to transfer the case to
the 3eional 1rbitration Branch, 3eion I66 of the
2L3%& /e contended that the case sho(ld be filed
in %eb( %it) beca(se there is where the workplace
of the petitioners&
Petitioners opposed the same, ar(in that all
of them are from Metro Manila and that the) co(ld
not afford trips to %eb(& Besides, the) claimed that
respondentEs main office is in %orinthian 0arden in
J%&
Labor 1rbiter %eni-ares 0312=;G Fo(nEs
motion to transfer the case in %eb(&
Petitioners appealed to 2L3% b(t it was
dismissed& /ence, the) filed a M>3 and this time
the %ommission $;= 1$6G; itEs previo(s decision
and $')".'. the case to the oriinal arbitration
branch of the 2%3 for f(rther proceedins&
Fo(n filed his own M>3 and the 2L3%
reinstated itEs first decision directin the transfer of
the case to %eb( %it)&
Iss,': Whether the !abor $rbiter acted with gra"e
abuse of discretion when it entertained &oung's motion
to transfer
HELD: NO
=he $% r(led that litiations sho(ld, as m(ch as
possible, be decided on the merits and not
technicalities& Petitioners were able to file an
opposition on the motion to transfer case which was
considered b) Labor 1rbiter %eni-ares& /ence, there is
no showin that the) have been (nd(l) pre:(diced b)
the motionEs fail(re to ive notice and hearin&
/owever, Fo(n cannot derive comfort from this
petition& =he $% held that the <(estion of ven(e relates
more to the convenience of the parties rather than
(pon the s(bstance and merits of the case& =his is to
ass(re convenience for the plaintiff and his witness and
to promote the ends of :(stice (nder the principle that
%&' S%"%' s&"++ "!!#$. *$#%'(%i# %# +"6#$. =he
reason for this is that the worker, bein the
economicall)-disadvantaed part), the nearest
overnmental machiner) to settle the disp(te m(st be
placed at his immediate disposal, and the other part)
is not to be iven the choice of another competent
aenc) sittin in another place as this will (nd(l)
b(rden the former
6n the instant case, the r(lin specif)in the 2%3
1rbitration Branch as the ven(e of the present action
cannot be considered oppressive to Fo(n beca(se his
residence in %orinthian 0ardens also serves as his
correspondent office& /earin the case in Manila wo(ld
clearl) e8pedite the proceedins and brin speed)
resol(tion to the instant case&
NATIONAL UNION OF BAN7 EM1LOYEES vs
LAZARO (1955)
FACTS:
=he %ommercial Bank and =r(st %ompan)
entered into a collecti"e bargaining agreement with
%ommercial Bank and =r(st %ompan) Union,
representin the file and rank of the bank with a
membership of over !,,,, emplo)ees
6n !"@,, the (nion, toether with the 2ational
Union of Bank ;;s s(bmitted to bank manaement
proposals for the neotiation of a new collecti"e
bargaining agreement# =he followin da), however,
the bank s(spended neotiations with the (nion&
=he bank entered into a merer with BP6 which
ass(med all assets and liabilities&
=he Union went to the %>6 Manila, presided
over b) respondent '(de La-aro, and filed a
complaint for specific performance, damaes, and
preliminar) in:(nction aainst private respondents&
Private 3espondent filed a Motion to Gismiss
2
villadolid
digests
on the ro(nd of lack of :(risdiction of the co(rt&
3espondent '(de dismissed the case on the
ro(nd that the complaint partook of (nfair labor
practice disp(te and :(risdiction over which is
vested in the labor arbiter&
Iss,': Whether courts may ta(e cogni)ance of claims
for damages arising from labor contro"ersy
HELD: NO
=he $% s,s%"i'. %&' .is)iss"+ #! %&' ("s' and
held that the act complained of involves collectin
barainin which is cateori-ed to be an (nfair labor
practice& Under the Labor %ode, all cases involvin
(nfair labor practices shall be (nder the :(risdiction of
the labor arbiters&
1s correctl) held b) the respondent co(rt, an (nfair
labor practice controvers) is within the oriinal and
e8cl(sive :(risdiction of the Labor 1rbiters and the
e8cl(sive appellate :(risdiction of the 2L3%&
4,$is.i(%i# is (#!'$$'. 68 +"9 ". #%
'('ss"$i+8 68 %&' "%,$' #! "(%i#. 6n the %1B, PG
2o& ++B, as amended b) Batas Bl& 9,, has vested
:(risdiction (pon the Labor 1rbiters, a :(risdiction the
co(rts ma) not ass(me&
0HEREFORE- 1ETITION DENIED
DY vs NLRC (195:)
FACTS:
Private 3espondent %arlito /& Iailoces was the
manaer of the 3(ral Bank of 1)(non (2eros
.riental)& /e was also a director and stockholder of
the bank&
6n !"@H, a special stockholderEs meetin was
called for the p(rpose of electin the members of
the bankEs Board of Girectors& Petitioner Loren-o
G) was elected president& Iailoces was not re-
elected as bank manaer&
Iailoces filed a complaint for illeal dismissal
and damaes with the Ministr) of Labor and
;mplo)ment aainst Loren-o G) assertin that G),
after obtainin control of the ma:orit) stock of the
bank, called an illeal stockholderEs meetin and
elected a Board of Girectors controlled b) him4 and
that he was illeall) dismissed as manaer, witho(t
ivin him the opport(nit) to be heard first&
G) denied the chare of illeal dismissal and
pointed o(t that IailocesE position was an elective
one, and he was not re-elected as bank manaer
beca(se of the BoardEs loss of confidence in him
bro(ht abo(t b) his absenteeism and nelience
in the performance of his d(ties
=he E;'(,%iv' L"6#$ A$6i%'$ r(led that
Iailoces was illeall) dismissed beca(se he was not
afforded d(e process of law& NLRC affirmed the
decision of the Labor 1rbiter beca(se of the appeal
of the petitioners was filed late&
Iss,': Whether the election of the *irectors were
"alidly held
HELD: YES
Under PG 2o& ",B-1, %ontroversies in the election or
appointments of directors, tr(stees, officers or
manaers of s(ch corporations, partnerships or
associations, are e8plicitl) declared to be within the
oriinal and e8cl(sive :(risdiction of the $ec(rities and
;8chane %ommission&
6n the %1B, it shows that the controvers) between the
parties is intra-corporate in nat(re beca(se it revolves
aro(nd the election of directors, officers or manaers
of the 3(ral Bank of 1)(non, the relation between
and amon its stockholders, and between them and
the corporation& 6t is well settled that the decision of a
trib(nal not vested with appropriate :(risdiction is n(ll
and void&
=herefore, the :(dment of the Labor 1rbiter and the
2L3% are void for lack of :(risdiction&
0HEREFORE- 1ETITION IS 2RANTED
ES1INO vs NLRC ". 1AL (199<)
FACTS:

Petitioner Leslie ?& ;spino was the ;8ec& Iice
President-%hief .peratin .fficer of respondent
Phil 1irlines (P1L) when his service was terminated
in !"", as a res(lt of the findins of the panels
created b) then President %ora-on %& 1<(ino to
investiate the administrative chares filed aainst
him& 6t appears that petitioner and other several
senior officers of P1L were chared for their
involvement in + cases, labeled as 0oldair,
3obelle, KabashLPrimavera, and Middle ;ast&
=he P1L Board of Girectors iss(ed separate
resol(tions wherein ;spino was considered resin
from the service effective immediatel) for loss of
confidence
;spino filed a complaint for illeal dismissal
aainst P1L with the 2L3%, 1rbitration Branch,
2%3&
P1L ar(ed that board resol(tions cannot be
reviewed b) the 2L3% and that the reco(rse of the
petitioner ;spino sho(ld have been addressed b)
wa) of appeal, to the .P&
Labor 1rbiter %resencio '& 3amos rendered a
decision in favor of petitioner ;spino
P1L asserted that the Labor 1rbiterEs decision
is n(ll and void for lack of :(risdiction over the
s(b:ect matter as it is the $;%, and not the 2L3%
which has :(risdiction over involvin dismissal or
removal of corporate officers&
2L3% prom(lated a resol(tion and this time
r(led in favor of P1L on the ro(nd of lack of
:(risdiction
Petitioner ;spino contended that it is the 2L3%
3
villadolid
digests
that has :(risdiction over the case as it involves the
termination of a re(lar emplo)ee and involves
claim for backwaes and other benefits and
damaes
Iss,': Whether the +!C has %urisdiction o"er the
complaint filed by the petitioner for illegal dismissal
HELD: NO
Under P&G& 2o& ",B-1, it is the $ec(rities and ;8chane
%ommission and not the 2L3% that has oriinal and
e8cl(sive :(risdiction over cases involvin the removal
from emplo)ment of corporate officers& Under the said
decree, the $;% has the e8cl(sive and oriinal
:(risdiction to hear and decide cases involvin
Contro"ersies in the election or appointments of
directors, trustees, officers or managers of such
corporations, partnerships or associations&
6t has been r(led that a corporate officerEs dismissal is
alwa)s a corporate act andLor an intra-corporate
controvers) and that nat(re is not altered b) the
reason or wisdom which the Board of Girectors ma)
have in takin s(ch action& ;videntl), this intra-
corporate controvers) m(st be place (nder the
speciali-ed competence and e8pertise of the $;%&
=he fact that petitioner so(ht pa)ment of his
backwaes, other benefits, as well as damaes and
attorne)5s fees in his complaint for illeal dismissal will
not operate to prevent the $;% from e8ercisin its
:(risdiction (nder PG ",B-1& 1s to the contention of
;spino that P1L is estopped from <(estionin the
:(risdiction of the 2L3%, it is well-settled that
:(risdiction over the s(b:ect matter is conferred b) law
and the <(estion of lack of :(risdiction ma) be raised
an)time even on appeal&
0HERFORE- 1ETITION IS DENIED
MAINLAND CONSTRUCTION CO.- INC. vs
MOVILLA (199<)
FACTS:
;rnest Movilla, who was a %P1 d(rin his
lifetime, was hired b) Mainland in !"99& =hereafter,
he was promoted to the position of 1dministrative
.fficer& /e has a monthl) salar) of
P+,9,,&,,Lmonth and he was reistered with $$$
as an emplo)ee of petitioner corporation
6n !""!, =he G.L; cond(cted a ro(tine
inspection on petitioner corporation and fo(nd that
it committed some irre(larities in the cond(ct of
its b(siness& .n the basis of its findins, G.L;
ordered petitioner corporation to pa) its !H
emplo)ees, which incl(ded Movilla, an amo(nt
representin their salaries, holida) pa),
service incentive leave pa) differentials, (npaid
waes and !H
th
month pa)& A++ %&' ')*+#8''s
+is%'. i %&' DOLE=s #$.'$ 9'$' *"i. 68
*'%i%i#'$ ';('*% M#vi++".
Movilla filed a case aainst petitioner with the
G.L; in Gavao %it)& /owever, in !""B, Movilla died
while the case was bein tried& /ence, he was
s(bstit(ted b) his heirs, private respondents
herein&
=he L"6#$ A$6i%'$ dismissed the complaint on
the ro(nd that the controvers) is intra-corporate
in nat(re hence it is the $;% who has :(risdiction
over and not the Labor 1rbiter&
.n appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor
1rbiter and r(led that the case was one which
involved a labor disp(te, th(s the 2L3% has
:(risdiction to resolve the case
Iss,': Whether the +!C has %urisdiction o"er the
contro"ersy and not the S,C
HELD: YES
=he 2L3% has :(risdiction over the case& =he fact that
the parties involved in the controvers) are all
stockholders and the corporation does not necessaril)
place the disp(te within the :(risdiction of $;%& 6n
order that the $;% can take coni-ance of a case, the
controvers) m(st pertain to factors s(ch as the stat(s
or relationship of the parties or the nat(re of the
<(estion that is the s(b:ect of their controvers)&
>(rthermore, it does not necessaril) follow that ever)
conflict between corporation and its stockholders can
onl) be resolve b) the $;%&
6n the %1B, the claim for (npaid waes and separation
pa) involves a labor disp(te& 6t does not involve an
intra-corporate matter, even when it is between a
stockholder and a corporation& 6t relates to an ;3-;;
relationship which is distinct from the corporate
relationship of one with the other& =herefore, since the
complaint of Movilla involves a labor disp(te, it is the
2L3% which has :(risdiction over the %1B&
0HEREFORE- 1ETITION IS DENIED
1E1SI/COLA BOTTLIN2 COM1ANY vs HON.
MARTINEZ (195>)
FACTS:
3espondent 1braham =(mala, 'r& was salesman
petitioner compan) in Gavao %it)& 6n the ann(al
$(makwel contest cond(cted b) the compan), he
was declared the winner of the Lap(-Lap( 1ward
for his performance as top salesman of the )ear,
an award which entitled him to a pri-e of a ho(se
and lot& Petitioner compan), despite demands,
have (n:(stl) ref(sed to deliver said pri-e&
6t was alleed that in !"@,, petitioner
compan), in a manner oppressive to labor and
witho(t prior clearance from the Ministr) of Labor,
arbitraril) and illeall) terminated his emplo)ment&
/ence, =(mala filed a complaint in the CFI D"v"#
and pra)ed that petitioner be ordered to deliver his
4
villadolid
digests
pri-e of ho(se and lot or its cash e<(ivalent, and to
pa) his back salaries and separation benefits&
Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on
ro(nds of lack of :(risdiction& 3espondent =(mala
maintains that the controvers) is triable e8cl(sivel)
b) the co(rt of eneral :(risdiction
Iss,': Whether it is the court of general %urisdiction
and not the !abor $rbiter that has exclusi"e
%urisdiction o"er the reco"ery of unpaid salaries,
separation and damages
HELD: NO
$% r(led that the Labor 1rbiter has e8cl(sive
:(risdiction over the case& '(risdiction over the s(b:ect
matter is conferred b) the soverein a(thorit) which
orani-es the co(rt4 and it is iven b) law&
4,$is.i(%i# is 'v'$ *$'s,)'.? i% ),s% 6'
(#!'$$'. 68 +"9 i 9#$.s %&"% .# #% ".)i% #!
.#,6%.
Under the Labor %ode, the 2L3% has the e8cl(sive
:(risdiction over claims, mone) or otherwise, arisin
from ;3-;; relations, e8cept those e8pressl) e8cl(ded
therefrom& =he claim for the said pri-e (n<(estionable
arose from an ;3-;; relation and, therefore, falls
within the coverae of P&G& !#"!, which speaks of all
claims arisin from ;3-;; relations, (nless e8pressl)
e8cl(ded b) this %ode& =o hold that =(malaEs claim for
the pri-e sho(ld be passed (pon b) the re(lar co(rts
of :(stice wo(ld be to sanction split :(risdiction and
m(ltiplicit) of s(its which are pre:(dicial to the orderl)
of administration of :(stice&
SAN MI2UEL COR1. vs NLRC (1955)
FACTS:
Petitioner $an Mi(el %orporation ($M%)
sponsored an 6nnovation Proram which rant cash
rewards to all $M% emplo)ees who s(bmit to the
corporation ideas and s(estions fo(nd to
beneficial to the corporation&
Private 3espondent 3(stico Iea, who is a
mechanic in the Bottlin Gepartment of the $M%
s(bmitted an innovation proposal which s(pposed
to eliminate certain defects in the <(alit) and taste
of the prod(ct $an Mi(el Beer 0rande&
Petitioner %orporation did not accept the said
proposal and ref(sed Mr& IeaEs s(bse<(ent
demands for cash award (nder the innovation
proram& /ence, Iea filed a complaint with the
then Ministr) of Labor and ;mplo)ment in %eb(&
/e ar(ed that his proposal had been accepted b)
the methods anal)st and was implemented b) the
$M% and it finall) solved the problem of the
%orporation in the prod(ction of Beer 0rande&
Petitioner denied of havin approved IeaEs
proposal& 6t stated that said proposal was t(rned
down for lack of oriinalit) and the same, even if
implemented, co(ld not achieve the desire res(lt&
>(rther, petitioner %orporation alleed that the
Labor 1rbiter had no :(risdiction&
=he L"6#$ A$6i%'$ dismissed the complaint for
lack of :(risdiction beca(se the claim of Iea is
not a necessar) incident of his emplo)ment and
does not fall (nder 1rticle B!9 of the Labor %ode&
/owever, in a est(re of compassion and to show
the overnmentEs concern for the workin man,
the Labor 1rbiter ordered petitioner to pa) Iea
PB,,,, as financial assistance& Both parties
assailed said decision of the Labor 1rbiter& =he
NLRC set aside the decision of the Labor 1rbiter
and ordered $M% to pa) complainant the amo(nt
of P#,,,,,
Iss,': Whether the !abor $rbiter and the Commission
has %urisdiction o"er the money claim filed by pri"ate
respondent
HELD: NO
=he Labor 1rbiter and the %ommission has no
:(risdiction over the mone) claim of Iea&
=he co(rt r(led that the mone) claim of private
respondent Iea arose o(t of or in connection with his
emplo)ment with petitioner& /owever, it is not eno(h
to brin IeaEs mone) claim within the oriinal and
e8cl(sive :(risdiction of Labor 1rbiters&
6n the %1B, the (ndertakin of petitioner $M% to rant
cash awards to emplo)ees co(ld ripen into an
enforceable contract(al obliation on the part of
petitioner $M% (nder certain circ(mstances& /ence,
the iss(e whether an enforceable contract had arisen
between $M% and Iea, and whether it has been
breached, are leal <(estions that labor leislations
cannot resolved beca(se itEs reco(rse is the law on
contracts&
?here the claim is to be resolved not b) reference to
the Labor %ode or other labor relations stat(te or a
collective barainin areement BU= b) the eneral
civil law, the :(risdiction over the disp(te belons to
the re(lar co(rts of :(stice and not to the Labor
1rbiter and 2L3%&
SUARIO vs B1I (1959)
FACTS:
Petitioner Leonardo G& $(ario was the head of
the loan section of respondent BP6 in !"9#& G(rin
his emplo)ment he p(rs(ed his st(dies of law with
the consent of the BP6
$ometime in March !"9#, $(ario verball)
re<(ested the then IP and Branch Manaer, Mr&
1rmando 2& 0(ilatico, for a #-month leave of
absence witho(t pa) in order for him to take the
pre-bar review in Manila& Mr& 0(ilatico informed
5
villadolid
digests
$(ario that there wo(ld be no problem as to the
re<(ested leave of absence& $ometime in Ma)
!"9#, $(ario received a verbal notice from the new
Branch Manaer, Mr& Iicente %asino, that he was
approved onl) a H, da) L.1& /owever, Mr
0(ilatico, then assined in /ead .ffice as IP
advised Mr& %asino to inform $(ario to avail the H,-
da) L.1 and proceed to Manila since the re<(est
wo(ld be (ltimatel) ranted& $(ario availed the H,-
da) L.1 and proceeded to Manila& G(rin the !
st
week of 1((st, he received a letter orderin him
to report back for work since his re<(est was
disapproved& /e decided not to report back
beca(se of the considerable e8penses alread)
inc(rred in Manila& /ence, he received a
application for a clearance to terminate on the
ro(nd of resinationLor abandonment& $(ario
failed to file his opposition beca(se he was b(s)
takin (p the review
G(rin the !
st
week of Gecember !"9#, $(ario
went to respondent BP6 b(t was verball) informed
that he was alread) dismissed& /e wrote a letter to
the respondent bank re<(estin for a written and
formal advise as to his real stat(s& =he law)ers of
BP6 replied that his services is terminated&
=herefore, $(ario filed a complaint for separation
pa), damaes and attorne)Es fees aainst the BP6
on the ro(nd that he was illeall) dismissed&
=he Labor 1rbiter ordered BP6 to pa) $(arioEs
claim for separation pa)& /is claim for damaes
and attorne)Es fee were dismissed for lack of merit
.n appeal, 2L3% affirmed the decision of the
Labor 1rbiter
Iss,'1: Whether +!C has no authority to entertain
claims for moral and other forms of damages
HELD:NO
P&G& !#"!, a decree which s(bstantiall) reenacted
1rticle B!9 of the Labor %ode in its oriinal form,
n(llified P&G& !H#9 and restored to the Labor 1rbiters
and the 2L3% their :(risdiction to award all kinds of
damaes in cases arisin from ;3-;; relationship&
Iss,'>: Whether petitioner Suario is entitled to his
claim for moral damages
HELD: NO
1ltho(h it is alread) settled that Labor 1rbiters are
allowed to award moral and other forms of damaes
arisin from ;3-;; relations, it is consistentl) r(led
that in the absence of a wronf(l act or omission or of
fra(d or bad faith, moral damaes cannot be awarded
=he $% did not find an) bad faith or fra(d on the part
of the bank officials who denied the petitionerEs
re<(est for # monthsE leave of absence witho(t pa)& /e
was merel) iven personal ass(rances which co(ld be
reconsidered in later developments& =here is no
evidence that the) meant to deceive the petitioner&
=herefore, the fact that petitionerEs re<(est was
denied, does not entitle him to damaes&
0HEREFORE- 1ETITION DENIED.
SOCO vs MERCANTILE COR1. OF DAVAO (195@)
FACTS:
3espondent Mercantile %orp is enaed in the
sale and distrib(tion of 6ce %ream in Gavao&
Petitioner, who was emplo)ed as driver of
respondentEs deliver) van, was the President
M;3%. ;mplo)ees Labor Union, an affiliate of the
>ederation of >ree ?orkers (>>?)&
1n investiation was cond(cted d(e to reports
that $oco was carr)in on his (nion activities
d(rin workin ho(rs& 6t appears that on 'an(ar)
!"9", $oco was ordered to deliver ice cream at
6mperial /otel and Fo(r 0ood) Mart, b(t he
deviated from his (s(al ro(te and went to his co-
emplo)ee, who was then off d(t)& =he personnel
officer advised $oco to report to his office to
e8plain his (na(thori-ed deviation b(t $oco did not
compl)& M;3%. wrote to >>? askin for a
rievance conference b(t $oco ref(sed to attend in
his belief that s(ch in (nnecessar)& /ence, M;3%.
s(spended $oco for A da)s for violation of
%ompan) 3(le 2o& !"(a)&
.n >ebr(ar) !H, !"9", $oco, after makin
deliveries of ice cream, went to the .ffice of the
$P>L Union& =he Manaer of M;3%. saw the
compan) vehicle parked alon the street& /e called
two of his co-emplo)ees and took o(t the rotor of
the van& ?hen $oco came o(t of the b(ildin, he
was (nable to start the enine and called for
compan) assistance& 1ain, he was advised to
report to the office to e8plain b(t ref(sed to do so&
/e also ref(sed to attend in the rievance
conference&
$oco filed a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice
aainst M;3%. allein that the A da)s s(spension
imposed on him was on acco(nt of his (nion
activities& .n the other hand, M;3%. filed an
application for clearance to terminate the services
of $oco& =hese B cases were consolidated and
tried :ointl) as areed b) the contendin parties
=he 3eional Girector ranted M;3%.Es
application to terminate emplo)ment of petitioner
and dismissed the $ocoEs complaint for (nfair labor
practice
.n appeal, the Gep(t) Minister of Labor
affirmed
Petitioner $oco ar(ed that (nder Polic) 2o& #
of the Ministr) of Labor and ;mplo)ment (M.L;),
the 3eional Girector has no :(risdiction to hear
and decide (nfair labor practice cases beca(se
s(ch belons to the %onciliation $ection of the
3eional .ffice of the M.L;& 6n short, s(ch cases
sho(ld be first resolved b) the Labor 1rbiter and
not the 3eional Girector& >(rthermore, $oco
asserts that the Gep(t) Minister of Labor violated
the constit(tional provision of sec(rit) of ten(re of
emplo)ees and that ass(min that he violated the
compan) r(le, he cannot be dismissed beca(se his
6
villadolid
digests
violation onl) minimal and did not hamper the
operations of M;3%.&
Iss,'1: Whether the egional *irector has no
authority to decide the unfair labor practice cases
HELD1: NO
1fter vol(ntaril) s(bmittin a ca(se and enco(nterin
an adverse decision on the merits, itEs too late for the
loser to <(estion the :(risdiction or the power of the
co(rt&
6n the %1B, in the initial hearin cond(cted b) the
3eional Girector, it was areed b) the parties to
consolidate the B cases considerin that both cases
concern the same parties and the iss(es involved are
interrelated& Petitioner $oco obvio(sl) accepted the
:(risdiction of the 3eional Girector b) presentin his
evidence& B) havin asked for affirmative relief,
witho(t challenin the 3eional Girector5s power to
hear and tr) his complaint for (nfair labor practice, he
cannot rihtf(ll) now challene the resol(tion made in
said cases b) the same Girector, based on the latter5s
alleed lack of :(risdiction&
Iss,'>: Whether petitioner can a"ail the security of
tenure
HELD>:
6t is the preroative of an emplo)er compan) to
prescribe reasonable r(les and re(lations necessar)
or proper for the cond(ct of its b(siness and to provide
certain disciplinar) meas(res in order to implement
said r(les and to ass(re that the same wo(ld be
complied with& 1 r(le prohibitin emplo)ees from
(sin compan) vehicles for private p(rpose witho(t
a(thorit) from manaement is, from o(r viewpoint, a
reasonable one&
=he %o(rt is not (nmindf(l of the fact that petitioner
has, as he sa)s, been emplo)ed with petitioner
%ompan) for eihteen (!@) )ears& .n this sin(lar
consideration, the C#,$% .'')s i% *$#*'$ %# "!!#$.
s#)' 'A,i%"6+' $'+i'! %# *'%i%i#'$ .,' %# %&'
*"s% s'$vi('s $'.'$'. 68 &i) %# MERCO& -hus, it
is but appropriate that petitioner should be gi"en by
respondent M,C., separation pay, e/ui"alent to one
month salary for e"ery year of his ser"ice to said
Company#
0HEREFORE- 1ETITION IS DENIED 6,% MERCO is
'v'$%&'+'ss- #$.'$'. %# B$"% S#(# &is
s'*"$"%i# *"8.
DE1ARTMENT OF A2RICULTURE vs NLRC (199C)
FACTS:
Petitioner G.1 and $(ltan $ec(rit) 1enc)
entered into a contract for sec(rit) services to be
provided b) the latter to the said overnment
entit)& 6n $eptember !H, !"",, several (ards of
the $(ltan $ec(rit) 1enc) filed a complaint for
(nderpa)ment of waes, non-pa)ment of !H
th
month pa), (niform allowances, niht shift
differential pa), holida) pa) and overtime pa), as
well as for damaes aainst the G.1 and the
$(ltan $ec(rit) 1enc) before the 3eional
1rbitration Branch in %aa)an Ge .ro %it)
=he Labor 1rbiter fo(nd G.1 :ointl) and
severall) liable with $(ltan 1enc) for the pa)ment
of mone) claim of the (ards
=he Labor 1rbiter iss(ed a ?rit of ;8ec(tion
commandin the %it) $heriff to enforce and
e8ec(te the :(dment aainst the G.1 and $(ltan&
=he %it) $heriff levied on e8ec(tion H motor
vehicles of the G.1
Petitioner G.1 filed a petition for in:(nction,
prohibition and mandam(s, with pra)er for
preliminar) in:(nction with the 2L3% %aa)an Ge
.ro& 6t ar(ed that the writ of e8ec(tion was
effected witho(t the Labor 1rbiter havin d(l)
ac<(ired :(risdiction over the G.1& /ence, its
decision was n(ll and void& 6t also pointed o(t that
the attachment of its propert) wo(ld :eopardi-e its
overnmental f(nctions to the pre:(dice of the
p(blic ood
2L3% --- dismissed the petition for in:(nction
for lack of basis and a -emporary Stay of
,xecution is iss(ed for a period of B months b(t
not e8tendible&
G.1 chares 2L3% for rave ab(se of
discretion for ref(sin to <(ash the writ of
e8ec(tion& 6t ar(ed that mone) claims aainst the
Gepartment falls (nder the e8cl(sive :(risdiction of
the %ommission on 1(dit& >(rther, the G.1 asserts
that the 2L3% has disrearded the cardinal r(le on
the non-s(abilit) of the $tate&
2L3%, on the other hand, ar(e that petitioner has
impliedl) waived its imm(nit) from s(it b) concl(din
a service contract with $(ltan $ec(rit) 1enc)
Iss,': Whether the *.$ can be sued
HELD:
Under the %onstit(tion, it sa)s that the $tate cannot
be s(ed witho(t its consent& =his simpl) means that a
soverein is e8empt from s(it on the ro(nd that there
can be no leal riht as aainst the a(thorit) that
makes the law on which the riht depends& =his
doctrine is also called the ro)al preroative of
dishonest) beca(se it rants the $tate the preroative
to defeat an) leitimate claim aainst it b) simpl)
invokin its non-s(abilit)
=his r(le is not reall) absol(te for it does not sa) that
state ma) not be s(ed (nder an) circ(mstances& =he
$tateEs consent ma) be iven e8pressl) or impliedl)&
;8press consent ma) be made thro(h a eneral law
or special law& .n the other hand, 6mplied consent is
when the $tate itself commences litiation, th(s
openin itself to a co(nterclaim, or when it enters into
a contract
6n the %1B, the claims of the sec(rit) (ards arisin
from the %ontract for $ervice, clearl) constit(te mone)
claims& Under 1ct 2o& H,@H, a eneral law, the $tate
7
villadolid
digests
consents and s(bmits to be s(ed (pon an) mone)ed
claim involvin liabilit) arisin from contract, e8press
or implied& /owever, the mone) claim m(st first be
bro(ht to the %ommission on 1(dit
HA2ONOY 0ATER DISTRICT vs NLRC (1955)
FACTS:
Private 3espondent Gante Iillan(eva was
emplo)ed as service foreman b) petitioner
/aono) when he was indefinitel) s(spended and
thereafter dismissed for abandonment of work and
conflict of interest
Iillan(eva filed a complaint for illeal
dismissal, illeal s(spension and (nderpa)ment of
waes and emerenc) cost of livin allowance
aainst /aono) with the Ministr) of Labor and
;mplo)ment in $an >ernando, Pampana
Petitioner /aono) moved for dismissal on the
ro(nd of lack of :(risdiction& Bein overnment
entit), its personnel are overned b) the provisions
of the %ivil $ervice Law and not b) the Labor %ode&
1nd the protests concernin the lawlessness of
dismissal from service fall within the :(risdiction of
the %ivil $ervice %ommission and not the Ministr)
of Labor and ;mplo)ment&
=he Labor 1rbiter rendered a decision on favor
of Iillan(eva
2L3% affirmed the decision of the Labor
1rbiter& 1 ?rit of ;8ec(tion was iss(ed b) the
Labor 1rbiter to arnish petitioner /aono)Es
deposits with the planters Gevelopment Bank&
/aono) filed a Motion to J(ash the ?rit of
;8ec(tion with 1pplication for ?rit of Preliminar)
6n:(nction& 2L3% denied the application&
Iss,': Whether local water districts are G.CC whose
employees are sub%ect to the pro"isions of the Ci"il
Ser"ice !aw
HELD: YES
=he Labor 1rbiter, in assertin that it has :(risdiction
over the emplo)ees of /aono), relied on P&G& 2o& !"@,
known as Provincial ?ater Utilities 1ct of !"9H which
e8empts emplo)ees of water districts from the
application of the %ivil $ervice Law& /owever, the Labor
1rbiter failed to take into acco(nt that P&G& !+9" wiped
awa) the said e8emption
Moreover, the 2L3% relied (pon 1rticle ", $ection B, of
the !"@9 %onstit(tion which provides thatC M=Nhe %ivil
$ervice embraces &&& overnment owned or controlled
corporations with original charters#0
1t the time the disp(te in the %1B arose, and at the
time the Labor 1rbiter rendered its decision (which is
on March !9, !"@#), the applicable law is that the
Labor 1rbiter has no :(risdiction to render a decision
that he in fact rendered& B) the time the 2L3%
rendered its decision (1((st B,, !"@9), the !"@9
%onstit(tion has alread) come into effect& =he $%
believes that the !"@9 %onstit(tion does not operate
retroactivel) as to confer :(risdiction (pon the Labor
1rbiter to render a decision, which was before o(tside
the scope of its competence&
=herefore, a decision rendered b) the Labor 1rbiter
witho(t :(risdiction over the case is a complete n(llit),
vestin no rihts and imposin no liabilities&
Iillan(eva, if he so wishes, ma) refile this complaint in
an appropriate
S".#+ vs. 1i+i*i"s 7"#- I(.- '% "+ (199D)
8
villadolid
digests
F"(%s:
Petitioner was dismissed from work b) private
respondents who are owners of Iea O %o&, private
recr(itment aenc), with assinment at respondent PK6&
/e filed a complaint for reinstatement and backwaes
with the G.L; in %aa)an de .ro %it)& =he Labor 1rbiter
r(led in favor of $adol and ordered respondents to pa)
petitionerEs separation pa) at one month for ever) )ear
of service& Both parties appealed b(t respondentEs
appeal was filed o(t of time& =he appeal of respondent
was dismissed for havin been filed o(t of time&
Iss,': Whether the respondent has lost the right to
appeal
HELD: YES
1 part), who failed to appeal on time from a decision of
the Labor 1biter to the 2L3%, ma) still participate in a
separate appeal timel) filed b) the adverse part) b) a
Motion for econsideration of the 2L3% decision& 6n the
%1B, there is no <(estion that respondents failed to file a
timel) appeal from the decision of the Labor 1rbiter&
/ence, havin lost the riht to appeal, the respondent
ma) choose to file a Motion for econsideration instead&
S%. M"$%i F,'$"+ H#)'s vs. NLRC ". B. A$i("8#s
(1995)
F"(%s:
P& respondent was dismissed from work b) petitioner for
alleedl) misappropriatin PH@,,,,&,,& /ence, a
complaint was filed for illeal dismissal before the 2L3%&
Petitioner ar(ed that respondent was not its emplo)ee&
=he Labor 1rbiter r(led in favor of petitioner declarin
that no emplo)er-emplo)ee relationship between the
parties and therefore his office had no :(risdiction over
the case& .n appeal, the 2L3% set aside the <(estioned
decision and remandin the case to the labor arbiter for
immediate appropriate proceedins&
Iss,': Whether or not the decision of the +!C are
appealable to the Court of $ppeals#
H'+.: YES
=he $(preme %o(rt clarified and stressed that ever since
appeals from the 2L3% to the $(preme %o(rt were
eliminated, the leislative intendment is that the special
civil action of certiorari was and still the proper vehicle
for :(dicial review of decisions of the 2L3%& =he
conc(rrent oriinal :(risdiction of the $(preme %o(rt can
be availed of onl) (nder compellin and e8ceptional
circ(mstances&
=o f(rther e8plain, (!) the wa) to review 2L3% decision
is thro(h the special civil action of certiorari (nder 3(le
#A4 (B) the :(risdiction of s(ch action belons both to the
$% and %14 6,% (H) in line with the doctrine of hierarch),
of co(rts, the petition sho(ld be initiall) presented to the
lower co(rt of the two co(rts, that is the %o(rt of
1ppeals&
S,s&i' T$"s*#$%"%i# I(. vs NLRC ". R.
S"%#s (199:)
F"(%s:
P& respondent $antos was dismissed from work as a b(s
driver b) Petitioner for failin to s(bmit a written
e8planation wh) he failed to report for his sched(led trip&
3espondent filed a complaint with the Labor 1rbiter for
illeal dismissal& =he Labor 1rbiter r(led in favor of the
petitioner and dismissed the complaint& =his was
affirmed b) the 2L3% b(t ranted $antps mone) claims&
Unsatisfied with the decision, petitioner elevated the
case to the $% charin the 2L3% with rave ab(se of
discretion&
Iss,': Whether the petitioner may a"ail the special ci"il
action for certiorari1
H'+.: NO
1 petition for certiorari sho(ld be preceded b) e8ha(stion
of administrative remedies& Under said doctrine, a motion
for reconsideration m(st first be filed before the special
action for certiorari ma) be availed of& 6n the case at
bench, the petitioner make a claim that it filed a motion
for the reconsideration of the challened decision before it
came to (s thro(h this action&
Mi."s T#,(& F##. C#$*. vs NLRC ". I$is F' Is""(
(199:)
F"(%s:
3espondent 6ris >e 6saac was dismissed as operations
manaer b) petitioner for alleed lack of self confidence&
3espondent filed a complaint for illeal dismissal before
the Labor 1rbiter which rendered a decision in favor of
petitioner findin the said dismissal to be valid& /owever,
petitioner was ordered to pa) the complainants there
separation pa), etc& Both parties appealed to the 2L3%
and the decision of the Labor 1rbiter was reversed, this
time r(lin in favor of 6saac& /ence, petitioner elevated
the case to the $% assailin the decision of the 2L3%&
action for certiorari1
H'+.: YES
=he r(le re<(irin motion for reconsideration before filin
a petition for certiorari admits of certain e8ceptions,
amon which is the findin that (nder the circ(mstances
of the case, a motion for reconsideration wo(ld be
(seless&
6n this case, the $(preme %o(rt fo(nd it <(ite impossible
for the 2L3% to reverse itself (nder the foreoin facts
and so, a motion for reconsideration will be deemed
(seless&
A+i."# vs H#. H#s# (199:)
F"(%s:
Petitioner applied for emplo)ment for $a(di 1rabia thro(h
private respondent /isham 0eneral $ervices %ontractor&
$he paid a placement fee of P!A,,,,&,, witho(t receipt&
?hen she arrived in $a(di arrived in $a(di 1rabia, she
was made to work as a domestic helper& Beca(se of (nfair
workin conditions, she worked at several residences (ntil
she saved eno(h mone) to ret(rn home& ?hen she
arrived in the Philippines, she filed with P.;1 a complaint
aainst /isham for breach of contract& =he P.;1 rendered
a decision s(spendin /isham and to pa) petitioner her
mone) claims& /isham appealed to the 2L3% and filed a
M>3 with the P.;1& =he 2L3% affirmed the decision of the
P.;1& /isham now ar(es that the order cannot be
enforced beca(se the M>3 was still pendin with the P.;1&
3espondent P.;1 administrator 'oson find the M>3 of
/isham to be meritorio(s& /ence, petitioner elevated this
case to the $%
action for certiorari without first filing a motion for
reconsideration1
H'+.: YES
6t has been held that the re<(irement of a motion for
reconsideration ma) be dispensed with in the followin
instancesC (!) when the iss(e raised is one p(rel) of law4
(B) where p(blic interest is involved4 (H) in cases of
9
villadolid
digests
(renc)4 and (+) where special circ(mstances warrant
immediate or more direct action&
.n the other hand, amon the accepted e8ceptions to
the r(le on e8ha(stion of administrative remedies areC
(!) where the <(estion in disp(te is p(rel) a leal one4
and (B) where the controverted act is patentl) illeal or
was performed witho(t :(risdiction or in e8cess of
:(risdiction&
=he petition involves a p(re <(estion of law and the
challened order is void for want of :(risdiction on the
part of respondent 'oson&
M'%$# T$"si% O$B"iE"%i# vs. CA- '% "+. (>DD>)
F"(%s:
3espondent 3(perto ;vanelista, a cash assistant in the
treas(r) division of the petitioner, was dismissed from
work for bein alleed to be responsible for the loss of
tokens& /e was terminated for lack of tr(st and
confidence& ;vanelista filed a case for illeal dismissal&
=he Labor 1rbiter r(led in his favor and ordered his
reinstatement with pa)ment of f(ll backwaes& =his was
affirmed b) the 2L3%& /ence, petitioner directl) filed
with the %o(rt of 1ppeals a petition for certiorari (nder
3(le #A& =he %1, on the other hand, affirmed the r(lin
of both the labor arbiter and 2L3%, holdin that a motion
for reconsideration is necessar) before resortin to a
petition for certioarari#
Iss,': Whether the petitioner may ele"ate the case
before the C$ without first filing a motion for
reconsideration with the +!C1
H'+.: NO
0enerall), certiorari as a special civil action will not lie
(nless a motion for reconsideration is filed before the
respondent trib(nal to allow it an opport(nit) to correct
its imp(ted errors& /owever, the followin have been
reconi-ed as e8ceptions to the r(leC
(!) when the iss(e raised is one p(rel) of law4 (B) where
p(blic interest is involved4 (H) in cases of (renc)4 and
(+) where special circ(mstances warrant immediate or
more direct action&
.n the other hand, amon the accepted e8ceptions to
the r(le on e8ha(stion of administrative remedies areC
(!) where the <(estion in disp(te is p(rel) a leal one4
and (B) where the controverted act is patentl) illeal or
was performed witho(t :(risdiction or in e8cess of
:(risdiction&
=o dispense with a motion for reconsideration, there
m(st a be concrete, compellin and valid reason for the
fail(re to compl) with the re<(irement&
MAI 1&i+i**i's- I(. vs. NLRC- '% "+ (195@)
F"(%s:
=he 3eional Girector declared that petitioner illeall)
dismissed its %(stomer ;nineerin Manaer 3odolfo
2olasco& 6t ordered petitioner to reinstate 2olasco and to
pa) him his f(ll backwaes& =he petitioner complied to
pa) 2olasco b(t declined to reinstate him& 2olasco filed
a complaint with the Labor 1rbiter to recover damaes&
=he Labor 1rbiter dismissed the complaint for bein a
d(plication of the earlier labor case involvin the same
parties& 2olasco received the notice of the Labor 1rbiterEs
decision !B da)s after& /e filed an appeal before the
2L3%& Petitioner opposed the appeal and contended that
it sho(ld be dismissed beca(se it was filed o(t of time&
2L3% r(led that since the order of the 3eional Girector
re<(irin reinstatement of 2olasco with f(ll back waes
had alread) become final and e8ec(tor), attacks aainst
that order 7on the merits or in s(bstance can no loner be
entertained
Iss,': Whether the +!C committed gra"e abuse of
discretion
H'+.: YES
=he 2L3% committed rave ab(se of discretion in ref(sin
to take acco(nt of the fact, as shown in the record, that
the appeal of 2olasco was late beca(se it was not filed
within the relementar) period
2o acceptable reason has been advanced b) 2olasco, and
none appears (pon the record, to e8c(se his tardiness in
the takin of the appeal& Petitioner5s opposition to the
appeal sho(ld have been s(stained, and the 2L3% sho(ld
never have taken coni-ance of the appeal&
1AL vs. NLRC (1959)
F"(%s:
Private respondent Golina completed his trainin co(rse
with P1L as pilot& /e was iven temporar) appointment for
# months as Limited >irst .fficer& /e applied for
re(lari-ation as >irst .fficer and (nderoes the re<(ired
ps)choloical e8amination wherein his 71daptabilit)
3atin7 was fo(nd to be 7(nacceptable7 and the 2ilot
$cceptance 3ualifications 4oard finds him not <(alified for
re(lar emplo)ment in the %ompan)& Golina was placed
(nder preventive s(spension4 hence he filed a complaint
for illeal dismissal&
=he Labor 1rbiter fo(nd the dismissal of Golina :(stified,
hence, P1L discontin(ed the pa)ment of GolinaEs salar)&
Golina ob:ected on the ro(nd that the discontin(ance an
earlier areement that he wo(ld be kept in the pa)roll
(ntil the case was finall) resolved b) arbitration& .n
appeal, the 2L3% affirmed the decision of the Labor
1rbiter b(t ordered the compan) to contin(e pa)in
GolinaEs salar) since the arbitration case was not )et over&
Iss,': Whether the +!C committed gra"e abuse of
discretion in holding that *olina was entitled to his
salaries 5until this case is finally resol"ed#5
H'+.: YES
=he order of the 2L3% to contin(e pa)in Golina his salar)
was an ab(se of discretion& =he cla(se 7pendin final
resol(tion of the case b) arbitration7 sho(ld be (nderstood
to be limited onl) to the proceedins before the Labor
1rbiter, s(ch that when the latter rendered his decision,
the case was finall) resolved b) arbitration&
1"(i!i( Mi++s- I(. vs. NLRC (199D)
F"(%s:
6n the case of 2acific Mills, Inc& "s& 2L3% (!"@@), the $%
dismissed the petition on the ro(nd that petitioner failed
to show that the 2L3% committed rave ab(se of
discretion& =he entr) of :(dment havin been effected,
the 2L3%, in the process of e8ec(tion, made a
comp(tation of the award to the private respondents&
Petitioner filed a motion to sta) e8ec(tionLreconsideration
citin s(pervenin events that affect the comp(tation of
the award as followsC
(!) =he comp(tation on separation pa) did not consider
the lenth of service of each complainant as borne o(t
from the records4 (B) =he comp(tation did not consider
the wae e8emptions ranted the petitioner-respondent
compan)4 (H) =he comp(tation incl(ded pa)ment of
awards to a respondent who had alread) been recalled to
active d(t), one who was alread) paid in a case separatel)
filed, and another who was alread) paid4 (+) 1ll the capital
10
villadolid
digests
assets of the petitioner have alread) been attached
andLor otherwise foreclosed&
=he 2L3% denied the motion and ordered immediate
implementation of the partial writ of e8ec(tion
Iss,': Whether the execution of a final %udgment of the
+!C may be stayed in "iew of super"ening e"ents#
H'+.: YES
0enerall), one a :(dment becomes final and e8ec(tor),
it canno loner be dist(rbed, altered or modified& =he
principle, however, admits of e8ceptions as in cases
where, beca(se of s(pervenin events, it becomes
imperative, in the hiher interest of :(stice, to direct its
modification in order to harmoni-e the disposition with
the prevailin circ(mstances or whenever it is necessar)
to accomplish the aims of :(stice&
=here can be no <(estion that the s(pervenin events
cited b) petitioner wo(ld certainl) affect the comp(tation
of the award in the decision of the 2L3%& 6t is the d(t) of
the 2L3% to consider the same and in<(ire into the
correctness of the e8ec(tion, as s(ch s(pervenin events
ma) affect s(ch e8ec(tion&
Y,*"B(# C#%%# Mi++s- I(. vs. CA (>DD>)
F"(%s:
Petitioner contended that a sheriff of the 2L3%
erroneo(sl) and (nlawf(ll) levied certain properties
which it claims as its own& 6t filed a H
rd
part) claim with
the Labor 1rbiter and recover) of propert) and damaes
with the 3=%& =he 3=% dismissed the case& 6n the %1, the
co(rt dismissed the petition on the ro(nd of for(m
shoppin and that the proper remed) was appeal in d(e
co(rse, not certiorari or mandam(s& Petitioner filed a
M>3 and ar(ed that the filin of a complaint for accion
rein"indicatoria with the 3=% was proper beca(se it is a
remed) specificall) ranted to an owner (whose
properties were s(b:ected to a writ of e8ec(tion to
enforce a decision rendered in a labor disp(te in which it
was not a part))& =he M>3 was denied& /ence, petitioner
filed this appeal&
Iss,': Whether the C$ has %urisdiction o"er the case
H'+.: YES
1 third part) whose propert) has been levied (pon b) a
sheriff to enforce a decision aainst a :(dment debtor is
afforded with several alternative remedies to protect its
interests& =he third part) ma) avail himself of alternative
remedies c(m(lativel), and one will not precl(de the
third part) from availin himself of the other alternative
remedies in the event he failed in the remed) first
availed of&
=h(s, a third part) ma) avail himself of the followin
alternative remediesC
a) >ile a third part) claim with the sheriff of the
Labor 1rbiter, and
b) 6f the third part) claim is denied, the third part)
ma) appeal the denial to the 2L3%&
;ven if a third part) claim was denied, a third part)
ma) still file a proper action with a competent co(rt
to recover ownership of the propert) illeall) sei-ed
b) the sheriff&
=he filin of a third part) claim with the Labor 1rbiter
and the 2L3% did not precl(de the petitioner from filin a
s(bse<(ent action for recover) of propert) and damaes
with the 3eional =rial %o(rt& 1nd, the instit(tion of s(ch
complaint will not make petitioner (ilt) of for(m
shoppin&
N#v" vs. 4,.B' S"(&# D")'s II (>DD1)
F"(%s:
%omplainant 0reoorio $& 2ova filed with the 2L3%
complaint for illeal dismissal aainst 3&1& Broadcastin
%orporation represented b) its Iice President for
.perations Iilma '& Barcelona and $tation Manaer Geo
=rinidad& =he Labor 1rbiter rendered :(dment in favor of
2ova and ordered 3&1& Broadcastin to pa) his separation
pa) and f(ll backwaes& 2L3% affirmed s(ch decision and
denied the M>3 filed b) 3&1& %onstr(ction on the ro(nd
that it was filed o(t of time& =he 2L3% iss(ed an alias writ
of execution and the propert) of $ps& Barcelona was
sched(led in an a(ction sale& =he said spo(ses filed with
the 3=% %amarines 2orte action for damaes with pra)er
of =3. to restrain the 2L3% from cond(ctin the
sched(led p(blic a(ction& =he 3=% ranted the =3.& 2ova
ar(ed that (nder the Labor %ode, iss(ance of the =3. or
preliminar) in:(nction in a case arisin from labor disp(te
is prohibited&
Iss,': Whether the -C cannot issue in%unction against
+!C1
H'+.: YES
3e(lar co(rts have no :(risdiction to hear and decide
<(estions which arise and are incidental to the
enforcement of decisions, orders or awards rendered in
labor cases b) appropriate officers and trib(nals of the
G.L;& %orollaril), an) controvers) in the e8ec(tion of the
:(dment shall be referred to the trib(nal which iss(ed the
writ of e8ec(tion since it has the inherent power to control
its own processes in order to enforce its :(dments and
orders&
=r(e, an action for damaes lies within the :(risdiction of a
reional trial co(rt& /owever, the 3=% has no :(risdiction to
iss(e a =3. in labor cases& =he $% finds respondent '(de
(ilt) of ross inorance of the law&
11
villadolid
digests
TOYOTA MOTOR 1HIL. COR1 vs. TOYOTA MOTOR
1HIL. COR1 LABOR UNION (199@)
FACTS:
=o)ota Motor Phil %orp& Labor Union filed a petition for
certification election with Gept& of Labor, for all rank-and-
file emplo)ees of the petitioner =o)ota Motor %orp&
Petitioner seek the denial of the holdin of the
certification election on B ro(ndsC (!) the (nion, bein
process of reistration had no leal personalit) to file
the same as it was not a leitimate labor orani-ation at
the time the petition was file4 and (B) that the (nion was
composed of both rank-and-file and s(pervisor)
emplo)ees in violation of the law& =he Med-1rbiter
dismissed the petition for certification election in favor
with the ro(nds stated b) petitioner& /owever, on
appeal, the $ecretar) of Labor set aside the decision of
the Me-1rbiter and ordered the holdin of the
certification election contendin that the (nion was
alread) a leitimate labor orani-ation at the time of the
filin of the petition evidenced b) a certificate of
reistration&
Iss,': Whether the Secretary of !abor committed gra"e
abuse of discretion in directing the certification election
H'+.: YES. 1'%i%i# 2$"%'..
1 labor orani-ation composed of both rank-and-file and
s(pervisor) emplo)ees is no labor orani-ation at all& 6t
cannot, for an) (ise or p(rpose, be a leitimate labor
orani-ation& 2ot bein one, an orani-ation which
carries a mi8t(re of rank-and-file and s(pervisor)
emplo)ees cannot possess an) of the rihts of a
leitimate labor orani-ation, incl(din the $iB&% %# !i+' "
*'%i%i# !#$ ('$%i!i("%i# '+'(%i# for the p(rpose of
collective barainin&
6n the iven case, as respondent (nion5s membership list
contains the names of at least B9 s(pervisor) emplo)ees
in Level >ive positions, the (nion co(ld not, prior to
p(rin itself of its s(pervisor) emplo)ee members, attain
the stat(s of a leitimate labor orani-ation& 2ot bein
one, it cannot possess the re<(isite personalit) to file a
petition for certification election& =he (nion5s composition
bein in violation of the Labor %ode5s Prohibition of (nions
composed of s(pervisor) and rank-and-file emplo)ees, it
co(ld not possess the re<(isite personalit) to file for
reconition as a leitimate labor orani-ation&
ATLAS LITHO2RA1HIC SERVICE vs. LA2UESMA
(199>)
FACTS:
1 petition for certification election was filed b) private
respondents Kampil-Katip(nan on behalf of the
s(pervisors (nion, a (nion where the s(pervisor),
administrative personnel, prod(ction, acco(ntin and
confidential emplo)ees of the petitioner were affiliated&
Petitioner opposed the petition on the ro(nd that Kampil
Katip(nan cannot represent the s(pervisor) emplo)ees for
the p(rpose of collective barainin beca(se said Kampil
Katip(nan also represents the rank-and-file emplo)ees
(nion& =he Med-1rbiter rendered a decision in favor of the
private respondent& .n appeal, the $ecretar) of Labor
affirmed the decision of the Med-1rbiter& Petitioner now
ar(e that to allow the s(pervisor) emplo)ees to affiliate
with the Kampil Katip(nan is tantamo(nt to allowin the
circ(mvention of the principle of the separation of (nions
(nder 1rt& B+A of the Labor %ode&
Iss,': Whether a local union of super"isory employees
may be allowed to affiliate with a national federation of
labor organi)ations of ran(-and-file employees for purpose
of C4$1
H'+.: NO. 1'%i%i# 2$"%'.
?e aree with the petitioner5s contention that a conflict of
interest ma) arise in the areas of discipline, collective
barainin and strikes& Members of the s(pervisor) (nion
miht ref(se to carr) o(t disciplinar) meas(res aainst
their co-member rank-and-file emplo)ees&
Under Article 245 of the Labor Code as amended b)
3ep& 1ct 2o& #9!A providesC
$rt# 678# Ineligibility of managerial employees to %oin
any labor organi)ation: right of super"isory employees#
9 Managerial employees are not eligible to %oin, assist
or form any labor organi)ation# Super"isory employees
shall not be eligible for membership in a labor
organi)ation of the ran(-and-file employees but may
%oin, assist or form separate labor organi)ations of their
own#
=he %o(rt constr(es 1rticle B+A to mean that s(pervisors
shall not be iven an occasion to barain toether with the
rank-and-file aainst the interests of the emplo)er
reardin terms and conditions of work& =h(s, if the intent
of the law is to avoid a sit(ation where s(pervisors wo(ld
mere with the rank and-file or where the s(pervisors5
labor orani-ation wo(ld represent conflictin interests,
then a local s(pervisors5 (nion sho(ld not be allowed to
affiliate with the national federation of (nion of rank-and-
file emplo)ees where that federation activel) participates
in (nion activit) in the compan)&
SOUTHERN 1HILI11INES FEDERATION OF LABOR vs.
HON. FERRER/CALLE4A (1959)
12
villadolid
digests
FACTS:
Petitioner $P> filed with the G.L; a petition for
certification election amon the rank-and-file emplo)ees
of private respondent 1pe8 Minon %o& =he Med-1rbiter
ranted the petition and directed the holdin of the
certification election& G(rin the pre-election conference,
petitioner (nion ob:ected to the incl(sion in the list of
workers prepared b) 1pe8 the followinC (!) emplo)ees
occ(p)in the positions of $(pervisor 6, 66 and 6664 (B)
emplo)ees (nder confidentialLspecial pa)rolls4 and (H)
emplo)ees who were not pa)in d(es& 1ccordin to
petitioner, the mentioned emplo)ees were dis<(alified
from participatin in the certification election since the
$(pervisors were manaerial emplo)ees while the last
two were dis<(alified b) virt(e of their non-membership
in the Union and their e8cl(sion from the benefits of the
collective barainin areement& 1fter the certification of
election was cond(cted, respondent Union filed an
(rent motion to open the challened ballots& =he Med-
1rbiter ranted the motion and directed the challened
ballots be opened and inventoried& Petitioner appealed to
the BL3 wherein respondent Girector >errer-%alle:a
dismissed said appeal and affirmed the decision of the
Med-1rbiter and ordered that the !"9 ballots sho(ld be
opened and canvassed& 1s a conse<(ence of the openin
and canvass of the challened ballots, the Med-1rbiter
Iss,': Whether respondent *irector committed gra"e
abuse of discretion in not excluding the :;< employees
from "oting in the certification election
H'+.: NO
=he f(nctions of the <(estioned positions are #%
)""B'$i"+ i "%,$' beca(se the) onl) e8ec(te
approved and established policies leavin little or no
discretion at all whether to implement the said policies or
not& =he respondent Girector, therefore, did not commit
rave ab(se of discretion in dismissin the petitioner5s
appeal from the Med-1rbiter5s .rder to open and co(nt
the challened ballots in den)in the petitioner5s motion
for reconsideration and in certif)in the respondent
Union as the sole and e8cl(sive barainin
representative of the rank-and-file emplo)ees of
respondent 1pe8 &
1s reards the emplo)ees in the confidential pa)roll, the
petitioner has not shown that the nat(re of their :obs is
classified as manaerial e8cept for its alleation that
the) are considered b) manaement as occ(p)in
manaerial positions and hihl) confidential& 2either can
pa)ment or non-pa)ment of (nion d(es be the
determinin factor of whether the challened emplo)ees
sho(ld be e8cl(ded from the barainin (nit since the
(nion shop provision in the %B1 applies onl) to newl)
hired emplo)ees b(t not to members of the barainin
(nit who were not members of the (nion at the time of
the sinin of the %B1& 6t is, therefore, not impossible for
emplo)ees to be members of the barainin (nit even
tho(h the) are non-(nion members or not pa)in (nion
d(es&
2OLDEN FARMS INC. vs. HON. FERRER/CALLE4A
(1959)
FACTS:
=he 2ational >ederation of Labor (2>L) filed a petition for
certification election in behalf of certain emplo)ees and
foreman of petitioner before the G.L;& Petitioner
opposed said petition ar(in that
=he 2>L appealed b(t it was dismissed& /ence, it re-filed
the petition for certification which was also dismissed&
Iss,':
H'+.:
1HILI11INE 1HOS1HATE FERTILIZER COR1. vs.
HON. TORRES (19@3)
FACTS:
Iss,':
H'+.:
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS vs.
HON. TORRES (1993)
FACTS:
Petitioner 21=U filed a petition for certification election to
determine the e8cl(sive barainin representative of
respondentEs bank emplo)ees occ(p)in s(pervisor)
positions& =he Bank moved to dismiss on the ro(nd that
said s(pervisor) emplo)ees were act(all)
manaerialLconfidential emplo)ees, th(s, the) are
ineliible to :oin, assist or form a (nion& =he Med-1rbiter
ranted the petition and directed the holdin of the
certification election& =he Bank appealed to the $ecretar)
of Labor& $aid co(rt partiall) ranted the appeal r(lin that
the Gepartment Manaers, 1ssistant Manaers, Branch
Manaers, %ashiers and %ontrollers are declared
manaerial emplo)ees and cannot :oin the (nion of the
s(pervisors&
Iss,': Whether
H'+.:
Petitioner concl(des that s(b:ect emplo)ees are not
manaerial emplo)ees b(t s(pervisors& ;ven ass(min
that the) are confidential emplo)ees, there is no leal
prohibition aainst confidential emplo)ees who are not
performin manaerial f(nctions to form and :oin a (nion&
1 confidential emplo)ee is one entr(sted with confidence
on delicate matters, or with the c(stod), handlin, or care
and protection of the emplo)er5s propert)& ?hile 1rt& B+A
of the Labor %ode sinles o(t manaerial emplo)ees as
ineliible to :oin, assist or form an) labor orani-ation,
(nder the doctrine of necessary implication, confidential
emplo)ees are similarl) dis<(alified&
MERALCO vs. HON. FUISUMBIN2 (1999)
FACTS:
1 petition for certification election was filed b) the labor
orani-ation of staff and technical emplo)ees of M;31L%.
seekin to represent re(lar emplo)ees of M;31L%.&
M;31L%. contended that those in the Patrol Givision and
=reas(r) $ec(rit) $ervice $ection, since these emplo)ees
are tasked with providin sec(rit) to the compan), the)
are not eliible to :oin the rank and file barainin (nit&
=he Med-1rbiter r(led that havin been e8cl(ded from the
e8istin %ollective Barainin 1reement for rank and file
emplo)ees, these emplo)ees have the riht to form a
(nion of their own, e8cept those emplo)ees performin
manaerial f(nctions& =he $ecretar) of Labor affirmed said
order&
Iss,': Whether security guards may %oin ran(-and-file or
super"isors union
H'+.:
Under the old r(les, sec(rit) (ards were barred from
:oinin a labor orani-ation of the rank and file, (nder 31
#9!A, the) ma) now freel) :oin a labor orani-ation of the
rank and file or that of the s(pervisor) (nion, dependin
on their rank& B) accommodatin s(pervisor) emplo)ees,
13
villadolid
digests
the $ecretar) of Labor m(st likewise appl) the provisions
of 31 #9!A to sec(rit) (ards b) favorabl) allowin them
free access to a labor orani-ation, whether rank and file
or s(pervisor), in reconition of their constit(tional riht
to self-orani-ation&
MARIANO vs. ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES (19:1)
FACTS
Petitioner ;rmidia 1& Mariano was a
stenorapher-t)pist and filin clerk of respondent
when she was dismissed from work& $he sent a letter
to the manain directors of the compan) in /K
thro(h its manaer in the Philippines, respondent
'&I& Kamerlin& 6n the letter, she complained abo(t
KamerlinEs inconsiderate and (ntactf(l attit(de
towards the emplo)ees (nder him and the clients of
the compan)& Kamerlin adviced petitioner that her
letter had been forwarded to the manain directors
in /K and that said directors believed that it was
impossible to maintain her in the compan)&
Petitioner so(ht reconsideration of her dismissal
from the manain directors in /K b(t received no
answer to an) of her A letters&
=he %ompan) finall) offered a compromise
settlement with the petitioner whereb) she wo(ld
be paid a s(m e<(ivalent to # months salar),
provided that she wo(ld sin a <(itclaim embod)in
a provision that she wo(ld release the compan) from
an) liabilit) arisin from her emplo)ment& 2ot
satisfied with the compromise, the petitioner filed a
complaint for ,!"i$ +"6#$ *$"(%i(' aainst the
compan)& =he %63 rendered :(dment holdin the
compan) (ilt) of (nfair labor practice and ordered
them to reinstate petitioner to her former position&
=he compan) filed with the $% a petition to
review the decision of the %63& =he $% r(led in favor
of the compan)& /ence, this appeal&
Iss,': Whether the petitioner was guilty of unfair labor
practice in dismissing the respondent
H'+.: NO. 1'%i%i# D'i'..
1s the respondent5s dismissal has no relation to (nion
activities and the chares filed b) her aainst the
petitioner had nothin to do with or did not arise from
her (nion activities, the dismissal did not constit(te
Unfair Labor Practice& Gespite the emplo)ees riht to self
orani-ation, the emplo)er still retains his inherent riht
to discipline his emplo)ees, his normal prerorative to
hire or dismiss them& 6n this case, the co(rt r(led that
the dismissal of the emplo)ee was (n:(stified, b(t the
emplo)er did not commit Unfair Labor Practice beca(se
the act has no (nion connection&
0ISE AND CO. INC. vs. 0ISE AND CO. INC.
EM1LOYEES UNION (1959)
FACTS:
=he manaement iss(ed a Memorand(m %irc(lar
introd(cin a profit-sharin scheme for its manaers
and s(pervisors&
3espondent Union wrote to petitioner to ask that
the (nion members be allowed to participate in the
profit-sharin proram& =he manaement denied the
re<(est on the ro(nd that s(ch participation was
not provided in the %B1
?hen reneotiation of the %B1 was approachin,
the manaement wrote to the Union that it was willin
to consider incl(din the (nion members in the profit-
sharin scheme provided that the neotiations wo(ld
be concl(ded prior to Gecember !"@9
$ometime later, the compan) distrib(ted the
profit-sharin benefit not onl) to the manaers and
s(pervisors b(t also to all rank-and-file emplo)ees not
covered b) the %B1 beca(se the) were e8cl(ded from
the definition of barainin (nit&
=his ca(sed the respondent Union to file a notice
of strike allein that petitioner was (ilt) of (nfair
labor practice beca(se the (nion were discriminated
aainst in the rant of the profit sharin benefits
Iss,': Whether the grant by management of profit
sharing benefits to its non-union member employees is
discriminatory against its wor(ers who are union members
and amounts to =!21
H'+.: NO. 1'%i%i# 2$"%'.
=here can be no discrimination committed b) petitioner as
the sit(ation of the (nion emplo)ees are different and
distinct from the non-(nion emplo)ees& Giscrimination per
se is not (nlawf(l& =here can be no discrimination where
the emplo)ees concerned are not similarl) sit(ated&
=he rant b) petitioner of profit sharin benefits to the
emplo)ees o(tside the 7barainin (nit7 falls (nder the
ambit of its manaerial preroative& 6t appears to have
been done in ood faith and witho(t (lterior motive& More
so when as in this case there is a cla(se in the %B1 where
the emplo)ees are classified into those who are members
of the (nion and those who are not& 6n the case of the
(nion members, the) derive their benefits from the terms
and conditions of the %B1 contract which constit(te the
law between the contractin parties&

Both the emplo)er
and the (nion members are bo(nd b) s(ch areement&
1HIL. 2RA1HIC ARTS INC. vs. NLRC (1955)
FACTS:
6n .ctober !"@+, petitioner corporation was forced
b) economic circ(mstances to re<(ire its workers to
o on mandator) vacation leave in batches of seven or
nine for periods ranin from !A, H,, to +A da)s& =he
workers were paid while on leave b(t the pa) was
chared aainst their respective earned leaves&
1s a res(lt, the private respondents filed
complaints for (nfair labor practice and discrimination&
Iss,': Whether the forced "acation lea"e without pay
constitutes unfair labor practice
H'+.: NO. 1'%i%i# 2$"%'.
=here was no (nfair labor practice in this case& Private
respondents never <(estioned the e8istence of an
economic crisis b(t, in fact, admitted its e8istence& =here
is basis for the petitioner5s contentions that the red(ction
of work sched(le was temporar), that it was taken onl)
after notice and cons(ltations with the workers and
s(pervisors, that a consens(s was reached on how to deal
with deterioratin economic conditions and red(ced sales
and that the temporar) red(ction of workin da)s was a
more h(mane sol(tion instead of a retrenchment and
red(ction of personnel& =he petitioner f(rther points o(t
that this is in consonance with the %B1 between the
emplo)er and its emplo)ees&
Likewise, the forced leave was enforced neither in a
malicio(s, harsh, oppressive, vindictive nor wanton
manner, or o(t of malice or spite& /ence, ULP is not
committed&
14
villadolid
digests
DABUET vs. ROCHE 1HARMACEUTICALS (195@)
FACTS:
=he petitioners, all officers of the 3oche Prod(cts
Labor Union, wrote the respondent compan)
e8pressin their rievances and seekin formal
conference with manaement reardin the previo(s
dismissal of the (nionEs president and vice-president&
1t the meetin, instead of disc(ssin the
problems affectin the labor (nion and manaement,
the compan)Es eneral manaer alleedl) berated
the petitioners for writin the said letter and called
the letter and the person who prepared it st(pid&
>eelin that he was the one all(ded to, since he
had prepared the letter, the co(nsel for the labor
(nion filed a case for 0rave $lander aainst the
eneral manaer& =he chare was based on the
affidavit e8ec(ted b) the petitioners&
6n t(rn, the compan) and the manaer filed a
complaint for Per:(r) aainst petitioners allein
that their affidavit contained false statements
=he compan) constr(ed the e8ec(tion b)
petitioners of the affidavit as an act of breach of
tr(st and confidence& /ence, the) were s(spended
and later on dismissed&
Iss,': Whether respondent company, in terminating the
employment of the petitioners without %ust and lawful
cause, committed an unfair labor practice#
H'+.: YES. 1'%i%i# 2$"%'.
3espondent compan) had committed (nfair labor
practice in dismissin the petitioners witho(t :(st and
valid ca(se& =heir dismissal, (nder the circ(mstances,
amo(nted to interference with, and restraint or coercion
of, the petitioners in the e8ercise of their riht to enae
in concerted activities for their m(t(al aid and protection
Breach of tr(st and confidence, the ro(nds alleed for
petitioners5 dismissal, 7m(st not be indiscriminatel) (sed
as a shield to dismiss an emplo)ee arbitraril)&
MADRI2AL G CO. vs. HON. ZAMORA (195@)
FACTS:
6n Gecember !"9H, respondent Madrial %entral
.ffice ;mplo)ees Union so(ht for the renewal of its
%B1 with the petitioner compan)& 6t proposed a wae
increase of PB,,&,, a month, an allowance of
P!,,&,, a month, and other economic benefits&
B) an alleed resol(tion of its stockholders, the
petitioner $'.,('. i%s ("*i%"+ s%#(H from 9#A,,,,
shares to B#9,H## shares& Petitioner alleed that
beca(se of the desire of the stockholders to phase
o(t the operations of the Madrial O %o& d(e to lack
of b(siness incentives and prospect, it had to red(ce
its capital stock and effected a retrenchment polic)
(downsi-in) of its emplo)ees and operations
Petitioner applied for clearance to terminate the
services of a n(mber of emplo)ees p(rs(ant to its
retrenchment proram& 3espondent (nion filed a
complaint of illeal locko(t aainst the petitioner&
3espondent Union filed a complaint for ULP&
Iss,': Whether the >mass-lay off0 of petitioner due to
alleged income loss constitutes =!2
H'+.: YES. 1'%i%i# D'i'.
=he petitionerEs capital red(ction efforts, to camo(flae
the fact that it has been makin profits, and to :(stif) the
mass la)-off of its emplo)ees, especiall) (nion members,
were an ULP which can neither be co(ntenanced nor
condoned&
Petitioner, confronted with the demand of the (nion for
wae increases, decided to evade its responsibilit) towards
the emplo)ees b) a devised capital red(ction& ?hile the
red(ction in capital stock created a need for retrenchment,
it was :(st a mask for the p(re of (nion members, who,
b) then, had aitated for wae increases& 6n the face of
the petitioner compan)5s pilin profits, the (nionists had
the riht to demand for s(ch salar) ad:(stments&
3etrenchment can onl) be availed of if the compan) is
losin or meetin financial reverses in its operation& =h(s
the mass la)-off or dismissal of the emplo)ees (nder the
(ise of retrenchment polic) is a lame e8c(se and a
veritable smoke-screen of its scheme to b(st the Union
and th(s (nd(l) dist(rb the emplo)ment ten(re of the
emplo)ees concerned, which act is certainl) an ULP&
COM1LEI ELECTRONICS UNION. vs. NLRC (1999)
FACTS:
%omple8 ;lectronics %orporation was a
s(bcontractor of electronic prod(cts& 6ts c(stomers
were forein-based companies with different prod(ct
lines& .ne of its c(stomers is the Lite-.n Philippines
;lectronics %o&
%omple8 received a messae from Lite-.n
Philippines re<(irin it to lower its price b) !,D&
%omple8 informed Lite-.n that s(ch re<(est was not
feasible as the) were alread) inc(rrin losses at the
present prices of their prod(cts& %omple8 informed the
emplo)ees that it was left with no alternative b(t to
close down the operations of the Lite-.n Line& =he
compan) promised that it wo(ld follow the law b)
ivin ! month notice and retrenchment pa)&
$ometime later, the machiner), e<(ipment and
materials bein (sed for prod(ction at %omple8 were
p(lled-o(t from the compan) premises and transferred
to the premises of 6onics %irc(it, 6nc& in La(na& =he
followin da), %omple8 totall) closed its operation&
=he %omple8 ;mplo)ees Union filed a complaint
for ULP, illeal clos(reLilleal locko(t and mone)
claims& 6t claims that b(siness has not ceased at
%omple8 b(t was merel) transferred to 6onics, a
r(nawa) shop, which is an act constit(tin ULP& =o
prove that 6onics was :(st a r(nawa) shop, petitioner
asserts that %omple8 owns the ma:orit) of the shares
comprisin the increased capital stock of 6onics& =he
Union alleed that the reason for the clos(re of the
establishment was d(e to the (nion activities of the
emplo)ees&
Iss,': Whether Complex ,lectronics Corp# committed =!2
HELD: NO
3esortin to a r(nawa) shop is ULP& 1 r(nawa) shop is
defined as an ind(strial plant moved b) its owners from
one location to another to escape (nion labor re(lations
or state laws, b(t the term is also (sed to describe a plant
removed to a new location in order to discriminate aainst
emplo)ees at the old plant beca(se of their (nion
15
villadolid
digests
activities& 6t is one wherein the emplo)er moves its
b(siness to another location or it temporaril) closes its
b(siness for anti-(nion p(rposes&
6n this case, 6onics was not set (p for the p(rpose of
transferrin the b(siness of %omple8& 1t the time the
labor disp(te arose, 6onics was alread) e8istin as an
independent compan)& 6t cannot, therefore, be said that
the temporar) clos(re in %omple8 and its s(bse<(ent
transfer of b(siness to 6onics was for anti-(nion
p(rposes&
?e, likewise, disaree with the Union that there was in
this case an illeal locko(tLilleal dismissal& Locko(t is
the temporar) ref(sal of emplo)er to f(rnish work as a
res(lt of an ind(strial or labor disp(te& 6t ma) be
manifested b) the emplo)er5s act of e8cl(din emplo)ees
who are (nion members&
1RO2RESSIVE DEV1=T CO. vs. CIR (19@@)
FACTS:
=he 1raneta %olise(m ;mplo)ees 1ssociation
(1%;1) in behalf of +@ members, filed for ULP
aainst petitioner Proressive Gevpt %orp&, its
officers, and the Proressive ;mplo)ees Union (P;U)&
=he complainants alleed that the) were
dismissed beca(se the) ref(sed to resin from the
1%;1 and to affiliate with the P;U&
=here is evidence that the Proressive
;mplo)ees Union became inactive after the death of
1tt)& 3eonista the former co(nsel of the Proressive
Gevelopment %orporation& =his shows that the
Proressive ;mplo)ees Union was orani-ed to
camo(flae the petitioner corporation5s dislike for the
1raneta %olise(m ;mplo)ees 1ssociation and to
stave off the latter5s reconition& >(rther, the P;U did
not concl(de and enter into a %B1 with the
manaement&
Iss,': Whether the dismissal of the employees
constitutes =!2
H'+.: YES
=he dismissal of emplo)ees beca(se of their ref(sal to
resin from their (nion and to :oin the (nion favorable to
the emplo)er constit(tes ULP& Under the circ(mstances
and e<(it) of the case, and considerin the lenth of
time and the (nion-b(stin activities of petitioner, the
individ(al complainants are ranted back waes for five
(A) )ears witho(t <(alification or ded(ction&
BATAAN SHI1YARD vs. NLRC (1955)
FACTS:
=he 2ational >ederation of Labor Unions (21>LU)
is a labor orani-ation in petitioner Bataan $hip)ard
O ;nineerin %o&, 6nc& =he %ompan) has tho(sand
emplo)ees in its pa)roll and more than a h(ndred of
them belon to the said labor orani-ation&
$ometime before !"@+, the %ompan) filed with
the 2L3% an application for the retrenchment of
B@A of its emplo)ees on the ro(nd that the firm had
been inc(rrin heav) losses& 6n the meantime, some
emplo)ees who had been on sick leave earlier were
considered retrenched& 1ll of those so retrenched
happen to be officers and members of the 21>LU&
Iss,': Whether the Company is guilty of discriminatory
acts in the selection of employees to be retrenched
H'+.: YES.
=he retrenchment (ndertaken b) the %ompan) is valid&
/owever, the manner in which this is e8ercised sho(ld not
be tainted with ab(se of discretion& Labor is a person5s
means of livelihood& /e cannot be deprived of his labor or
work witho(t d(e process of law& =he retrenchment of
emplo)ees who belon to a partic(lar (nion, with no
satisfactor) :(stification wh) said emplo)ees were sinled
o(t, constit(tes ULP&

6n this case, the %ompan) had indeed been discriminator)
in selectin the emplo)ees who were to be retrenched& 1ll
of the retrenched emplo)ees are officers and members of
the 21>LU& 6t leads Us to concl(de that the firm had been
discriminatin aainst membership in the 21>LU, an act
which amo(nts to interference in the emplo)ees5 e8ercise
of their riht of self-orani-ation& =his interference is
considered an act of ULP
TANDUAY DISTILLERY LABOR UNION vs. NLRC
(195@)
FACTS:
=and(a) Gistiller), 6nc& (=G6) and =and(a)
Gistiller) Labor Union (=GLU) entered into a %B1 which
contained a (nion sec(rit) cla(se, which providedC
1ll workers who are or ma) d(rin the effectivit) of
this %ontract, become members of the Union in
accordance with its %onstit(tion and B)-Laws shall, as
a condition of their contin(ed emplo)ment, maintain
membership in ood standin in the Union for the
d(ration of the areement&
?hile the %B1 was still in effect, a n(mber of the
=GLU, :oined another (nion, the ?aisahan +g
Manggagawang 2ilipino @?$M2I!A and orani-ed its
local chapter in =G6&
=he =GLU re<(ired those who disaffiliated to
e8plain wh) the) sho(ld not be p(nished for
dislo)alt)& =GLU created a committee to investiate
its errin members& =he committee recommended that
the disaffiliatin members be e8pelled and that the)
sho(ld be terminated from service in p(rs(ant to the
(nion sec(rit) cla(se& 1ctin on said re<(est, the
compan) terminated the emplo)ment of the
disaffiliatin (nion members&
Iss,': Whether the dismissal of the disaffiliating
members pursuant to a security clause constitutes =!2
H'+.: NO
=he private respondents cannot escape the effects of the
sec(rit) cla(se of their own applicable %B1& Union $ec(rit)
%la(ses in %B1, if freel) and vol(ntaril) entered into, are
valid and bindin& =h(s, the dismissal of an emplo)ee b)
the compan) p(rs(ant to a labor (nionEs demand in
accordance with a (nion sec(rit) areement does not
constit(te ULP&
=he respondent emplo)er did nothin b(t to p(t in force
their areement when it separated the herein
complainants (pon the recommendation of said (nion&
$(ch a stip(lation is not onl) necessar) to maintain lo)alt)
and preserve the interit) of the (nion b(t is allowed b)
the Mana %harta of Labor when it provided that while it is
reconi-ed that an emplo)ee shall have the riht to self-
orani-ation, it is at the same time post(lated that s(ch
riht shall not in:(re the riht of the labor orani-ation to
prescribe its own r(les with respect to the ac<(isition or
retention of membership therein
6n Billar "# Inciong, we held that 7petitioners, altho(h
entitled to disaffiliation from their (nion and to form a new
orani-ation of their own m(st however, s(ffer the
16
villadolid
digests
conse<(ences of their separation from the (nion (nder
the sec(rit) cla(se of the %B17

MABEZA vs. NLRC (199@)
FACTS:
Petitioner 2orma Mabe-a contends that she and
her co-emplo)ees at the /otel $(preme in Ba(io
%it) were asked b) the hotel5s manaement to sin
an instr(ment wherein it states that the) are in
compliance with minim(m wae and other labor
standard provisions of law&
Petitioner sined the affidavit b(t ref(sed to o
to the %it) Prosec(tor5s .ffice to swear to the tr(th
of her statement& /er ref(sal displeased the
emplo)er&
=hereafter, she was ordered to t(rn over the
ke)s to her livin <(arters and to remove her
belonins from the hotel& $(bse<(entl), she as
chared with of abandonment of :ob and stealin of
compan) propert)4 finall) she was dismissed for loss
of confidence&
Iss,': Whether the dismissal constitutes =!21
H'+.: YES
=he act of compellin emplo)ees to sin an instr(ment
indicatin that the emplo)er observed labor standards
provisions of law when he miht have not, toether with
the act of terminatin or coercin those who ref(se to
cooperate with the emplo)er5s scheme constit(tes (nfair
labor practice& =he first act clearl) preempts the riht of
the hotel5s workers to seek better terms and conditions
of emplo)ment thro(h concerted action& 6n not ivin
positive testimon) in favor of her emplo)er, petitioner
had reserved not onl) her riht to disp(te the claim and
proffer evidence in s(pport thereof b(t also to work for
better terms and conditions of emplo)ment&
RANCE vs. NLRC (1955)
FACTS:
Pol)ba Man(fact(rin %orporation and Pol)ba
?orkers Union entered into a %B1 which provides a
(nion sec(rit) cla(se which states that a (nion
member who loses his membership in the (nion shall
be dismissed from service b) the compan)&
Petitioners, who were members of the Pol)ba
?orkers Union, were e8pelled b) said (nion for
dislo)alt) for alleedl) :oinin the 2ational
>ederation of Labor Union (21>LU)& Beca(se of the
e8p(lsion, petitioners were dismissed b) the
%orporation (pon the (nionEs demand&
Both the Labor 1rbiter and the 2L3% fo(nd the
%B1 and the(nion sec(rit) cla(se valid and considered
the termination of petitioners :(stified&
Petitioners ar(e that their dismissal is not valid
beca(se the) did not affiliate with the 21>LU& =he)
claim that there is a connivance between respondents
%ompan) and Union in their illeal dismissal in order
to avoid the pa)ment of separation pa) b) respondent
compan)&
Iss,': Whether the act of as(ing help from another union
constitutes >disloyalty0
H'+.: NO
=he mere act of seekin help from the 21>LU cannot
constit(te dislo)alt) as contemplated in the %ollective
Barainin 1reement& 1t most it was an act of self-
preservation of workers who, driven to desperation fo(nd
shelter in the 21>LU who took the c(dels for them&
17
villadolid
digests
7IO7 LOY vs. NLRC (195:)
FACTS:
6n a certification election held, the Pambansan
Kil(san Paawa, a leitimate late labor federation,
won and was s(bse<(entl) certified as the sole and
e8cl(sive barainin aent of the rank-and-file
emplo)ees of $weden 6ce %ream Plant&
=he Union f(rnished the %ompan) with two
copies of its proposed collective barainin
areement& 1t the same time, it re<(ested the
%ompan) for its co(nter proposals b(t the re<(ests
were inored and remained (nacted (pon b) the
%ompan)&
1s a res(lt, the Union filed a 72otice of $trike7,
with the BL3 on the ro(nd of (nresolved economic
iss(es in collective barainin&
I %&' +"6#$ "$6i%'$: d(e to series of
postponements, and non-appearance at the hearin
cond(cted it r(led that the %ompan) has waived its
riht to present f(rther evidence and, therefore,
considered the case s(bmitted for resol(tion&
NLRC: r(led that respondent $weden 6ce %ream
is (ilt) of (n:(stified ref(sal to barain, in violation
of $ection () 1rticle B+@ (now 1rticle B+")

Iss,': W.+ respondent is guilty of un%ustified refusal to
bargain1
H'+.: YES
=he %o(rt affirmed the 2L3%, and r(led that, petitioner
%ompan) is 0U6L=F of (nfair labor practice, beca(se the
:(risdictional preconditions of %ollective Barainin
establish s(ch asC
!& possession of the ma:orit) representation4
B& proof of ma:orit) representation4
H& a demand to barain (nder 1rticle BA!, par& (a)
%ollective barainin which is defined as neotiations
towards a collective areement,

is one of the democratic
frameworks (nder the 2ew Labor %ode, desined to
stabili-e the relation between labor and manaement
and to create a climate of so(nd and stable ind(strial
peace& 6t is a m(t(al responsibilit) of the emplo)er and
the Union and is characteri-ed as a leal obliation&
6n the case at bar, (!) respondent Union was a d(l)
certified barainin aent4 (B) it made a definite re<(est
to barain, accompanied with a cop) of the proposed
%ollective Barainin 1reement, to the %ompan) not
onl) once b(t twice which were left (nanswered and
(nacted (pon4 and (H) the %ompan) made no co(nter
proposal whatsoever all of which concl(sivel) indicate lack
of a sincere desire to neotiate&
>rom the overall cond(ct of the compan), it is ind(bitabl)
shown that it disrearded its obliation to barain in ood
faith&
MERALCO vs. FUISUMBIN2- ME0A (1999)
FACTS:
M;?1 informed M;31L%. of its intention to re-
neotiate the termsOconditions of their e8istin %B1
M;?1 s(bmitted its proposal

to M;31L%. and the
collective barainin neotiations proceeded& /owever,
despite the series of meetins between the neotiatin
panels of M;31L%. and M;?1, the parties failed to
arrive at 7terms and conditions acceptable to both of
them&7
1s a res(lt, M;?1 filed a 2otice of $trike, on the
ro(nds of barainin deadlock and ULP
S'($'%"$8 #! L"6#$C ranted the economic as
well as the political demand of the M;?1, and ordered
to rant the wae increase and to incorporation into
the %B1 of all e8istin emplo)ee benefits&
M;31L%. filed a M3

allein that the $ecretar) of
Labor did not properl) appreciate the effect of the
awarded waes and benefits on M;31L%.5s financial
viabilit)&
M;?1 likewise filed a motion askin the $ecretar)
of Labor to reconsider its .rder on the wae increase
and other benefits&
Iss,': Whether the SecretaryCs actions ha"e been
reasonable in light of the parties positions and the
e"idence they presented#
H'+.:
=he %o(rt r(led that a collective barainin disp(te s(ch
as this one re<(ires d(e consideration and proper
balancin of the interest of the parties to the disp(te and
those who miht be affected b) the disp(te&
1s a r(le, affordabilit) and capacit) to pa) sho(ld be take
into acco(nt BU= cannot be the sole )ardstick in
determinin the wae award, especiall) in a PUBL6%
U=6L6=F like M;31L%.& 6n considerin a p(blic (tilit), it
m(st alwa)s take into acco(nt the PUBL6% interest aspect&
=he M;31L%.Es income and the amo(nt of mone)
available for operatin e8penses incl(din labor costs are
s(b:ect to state re(lations& ?e m(st also keep in mind
that hih operatin costs will certainl) and event(all) be
passed on the cons(min p(blic&
SMC UNION vs. HON. CONFESOR (199:)
FACTS:
Petitioner $an Mi(el %orporation ;mplo)ees
Union entered into a %B1 with private respondent $an
Mi(el %orporation ($M%)
6t provides that the areement $/1LL 3;M162 62
>.3%; 12G ;>>;%=6I; (ntil !""B, and the terms of
the areement shall be for A )ears& from !"@" to
!""B&
>or p(rposes of b(siness e8pansion, the $M%
wo(ld (ndero with reconstr(ctin, the manolia and
the >eeds and livestock Givision were sp(n-off and
become two separate and distinct corporation& B(t the
%B1 remain in forced and effective&
18
villadolid
digests
G(rin the neotiation the petitioner (nion
insisted that the barainin (nit of $M% sho(ld still
incl(de the emplo)ees of the sp(n-off corporations,
which is the M102.L61 and $M>6 and that the
reneotiation terms of the %B1 shall be effective
.2LF for the remainin period of B )ears&
.n the other hand the $M% contended that the
members or emplo)ees ?/. /1G M.I;G =.
M102.L61 12G $M>6, $/1LL 1U=/.M1=6%1LLF
%;1$;G =. B; P13= .> =/; B130162620 U26= at
the $M%, and that the %B1 shall be effective for
H)ears in accordance with 13=&BAH-1
Unable to aree with these iss(es of barainin
(nit and d(ration of the %B1, petitioner (nion
declared a deadlock and filed a notice of strike&
H'+.:
$pin-off of Manolia and $an Mi(el >oods %ompanies
from the $an Mi(el %orporation as separate corporate
entities& ;8istin %B1 incl(ded all fo(r divisions& G(rin
the renewal or reneotiation for two )ears on the
economic provisions, spin-off corporations were alread)
in e8istence& =he Union insisted that the emplo)ees of
the sp(n-off corporations were still to be considered as
part of the appropriate barainin (nit&
%onsiderin the spin-off, the companies wo(ld
conse<(entl) have their respective and distinctive
concerns in terms of the nat(re of work, waes, ho(rs of
work and other conditions of emplo)ment& =he interests
of the emplo)ees in different companies wo(ld perforce
differ& $M% is enaed in beer man(fact(rin4 Manolia
with man(fact(rin and processin of dair) prod(cts4 $M
>oods with prod(ction of feeds and processin of
chicken& =he nat(re of the prod(cts and sales of
b(siness ma) re<(ire diff& $kills which m(st necessaril)
be commens(rated b) different compensation packaes4
different vol(mes of work and workin conditions& It
would then be best to ha"e separate bargaining units for
different companies where the employees can bargain
separately accdg# to their needs and wor(ing conditions#
SAMAHAN2 MAN22A2A0A SA TO1 FORM
MANUFACTURIN2 UNITED 0OR7ERS OF THE
1HILS. (SMTFM/U01) vs. NLRC (1995)
FACTS:
Petitioner $amahan Manaawa sa =op >orm
was the certified collective barainin representative
of all re(lar rank and file emplo)ees of private
respondent =op >orm Man(fact(rin Philippines, 6nc&
1t the s(bse<(ent collective barainin
neotiations, the (nion insisted on the incorporation
in the (%B1) of the (nion proposal on 7a(tomatic
across-the-board wae increase&7
=here was a ?ae .rder rantin an increase of
P!9&,, per da) in the salar) of workers& =his was
followed b) another ?ae .rder providin for a
P!B&,, dail) increase in salar)&
=he (nion re<(ested the implementation of said
wae orders& /owever, the) demanded that the
increase be on an across-the-board basis&
Private respondent ref(sed to accede to that
demand& 6nstead, it implemented a scheme of
increases p(rportedl) to avoid wae distortion&
=he (nion, wrote private respondent a letter
reiterated that it had areed to 7retain the old
provision of %B17 on the strenth of private
respondent5s 7promise and ass(rance7 of an across-
the-board salar) increase sho(ld the overnment
mandate salar) increases&
=he (nion filed a complaint with the 2L3%
allein that private respondent5s act of promise
clearl) constit(tes act of (nfair labor practice thro(h
barainin in bad faith&7
L"6#$ A$6i%'$C denied the complaint for lack of merit&
NLRCC affirmed the L1
Iss,': W.+ the act of the pri"ate respondent constitute
unfair labor practice through bargaining in 4$* D$I-E#
H'+.: NO
=he %o(rt r(led that (nder 1rticle BAB it states that the
d(t) to barain 7does not compel an) part) to aree to a
proposal or make an) concession&7 =h(s, petitioner (nion
ma) not validl) claim that the proposal embodied in the
Min(tes of the neotiation forms part of the %B1 that it
finall) entered into with private respondent&
1nd b) makin s(ch promise, private respondent ma) not
be considered in bad faith or at the ver) least, petitioner
(nion had, (nder the law, the riht and the opport(nit) to
insist on the f(lfillment of the private respondent5s
promise b) demandin its incorporation in the %B1&
7Beca(se the proposal was never embodied in the %B1,
the promise has remained :(st that, a promise, the
implementation of which cannot be validl) demanded
(nder the law&7
NE0 1ACIFIC TIMBER vs. NLRC (1955)
FACTS:
=he 2ational >ederation of Labor (2>L) was
certified as the sole and e8cl(sive barainin
representative of all the re(lar rank-and-file
emplo)ees of 2ew Pacific =imber O $(ppl) %o&, 6nc&
2>L started to neotiate for the emplo)ees in the
barainin (nit& /owever, the same was alleedl) met
with stiff resistance b) petitioner %ompan), so that the
former was prompted to file a complaint for ULP on the
ro(nd of ref(sal to barain collectivel)&
L"6#$ A$6i%'$C iss(ed an order declarin (a)
herein petitioner %ompan) (ilt) of ULP4 and (b) the
%B1 proposals s(bmitted b) the 2>L as the %B1
between the re(lar rank-and-file emplo)ees in the
barainin (nit and petitioner %ompan)&
NLRCC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit&
1 7Petition for 3elief7 was filed in behalf of !@# of
the private respondents 7Mariano '& 1kilit and HA,
others7& 6n their petition, the) claimed that the) were
7wronf(ll) e8cl(ded from en:o)in the benefits (nder
the %B1 since the areement with 2>L and petitioner
%ompan) limited the %B15s implementation to onl) the
!+B rank-and-file emplo)ees en(merated&7
2L3% declared that the !@# e8cl(ded emplo)ees
7form part and parcel of the then e8istin rank-and-file
barainin (nit7 and were, therefore, entitled to the
benefits (nder the %B1&
Petitioners ar(es that the private respondents are
not entitled to the benefits (nder the %B1 beca(se
emplo)ees hired after the term of a %B1 are not
parties to the areement, and therefore, ma) not
claim benefits there(nder, even if the) s(bse<(entl)
become members of the barainin (nit&
1s for the term of the %B1, petitioner maintains
that 1rticle BAH of the Labor %ode refers to the
contin(ation in f(ll force and effect of the previo(s
%B15s terms and conditions& B) necessit), it co(ld not
possibl) refers to terms and conditions which, as
e8pressl) stip(lated, ceased to have force and effect&
Iss,': W.+ the pri"ate respondent are entitled to the
benefits under the C4$#
19
villadolid
digests
H'+.:
6t is clear from the above provision of law that (ntil a
new %ollective Barainin 1reement has been e8ec(ted
b) and between the parties, the) are d(t)-bo(nd to keep
the stat(s <(o and to contin(e in f(ll force and effect the
terms and conditions of the e8istin areement& =he law
does not provide for an) e8ception nor <(alification as to
which of the economic provisions of the e8istin
areement are to retain force and effect, therefore, it
m(st be (nderstood as encompassin all the terms and
conditions in the said areement&
6n the case at bar, no new areement was entered into
b) and between petitioner %ompan) and 2>L pendin
appeal of the decision in 2L3% %ase 2o& 31B-6P-,HH+-
@B4 nor were an) of the economic provisions andLor
terms and conditions pertainin to monetar) benefits in
the e8istin areement modified or altered& =herefore,
the e8istin %B1 in its entiret) contin(es to have leal
effect&
%o(rt has held that when a collective barainin contract
is entered into b) the (nion representin the emplo)ees
and the emplo)er, even the non-member emplo)ees are
entitled to the benefits of the contract& =o accord its
benefits onl) to members of the (nion witho(t an) valid
reason wo(ld constit(te (nd(e discrimination aainst
nonmembers& BB 6t is even conceded, that a laborer can
claim benefits from the %B1 entered into between the
compan) and the (nion of which he is a member at the
time of the concl(sion of the areement, after he has
resined from the said (nion&
1AL vs. NLRC (199C)
FACTS:
=he Philippine 1irlines, 6nc& (P1L) completel)
revised its :;FF Code of *iscipline# $(bse<(entl),
some of the emplo)ees were s(b:ected to
disciplinar) meas(res for alleed violation of revised
code&
Philippine 1irlines ;mplo)ees 1ssociation (P1L;1)
filed a complaint before the (2L3%) for 7ULP with
arbitrar) implementation of P1L5s %ode of Giscipline
witho(t notice and prior disc(ssion with Union b)
Manaement&7 P1L;1 contended that P1L was (ilt)
of ULP beca(se the copies of the %ode had been
circ(lated in limited n(mbers4 that bein penal in
nat(re the %ode m(st conform with the re<(irements
of s(fficient p(blication, and that the %ode was
arbitrar), oppressive, and pre:(dicial to the rihts of
the emplo)ees&
P1L filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
assertin its preroative as an emplo)er to prescribe
r(les and re(lations reardin emplo)ees5 cond(ct
in carr)in o(t their d(ties and f(nctions&
L"6#$ A$6i%'$: dismissed the complaint and
r(led that no ULP had been committed and no bad
faith in adoptin the %ode&
NLRCC fo(nd no evidence of ULP and affirmed
the dismissal of the complaint&
Iss,': Whether or not the formulation of a Code of
*iscipline among employees is a shared responsibility of
the employer and the employees#
H'+.: YES
=he %o(rt (pheld the (nionEs riht, and r(led that, the
manaement sho(ld see to it that its emplo)ees are at
least properl) informed of its decisions or modes of
action, beca(se the implementation of the provisions
ma) res(lt in the deprivation of an emplo)ees means of
livelihood which is a propert) riht&
1nd the %B1 ma) not be interpreted as cession of
emplo)ees riht to participate in the deliberation of
matters which ma) affects their rihts and the form(lation
of a code of discipline&
ALHAMBRA CI2AR CO vs. ALHAMBRA UNION
FACTS:
3espondent 1lhambra ;mplo)ees5 1ssociation ,a
leitimate labor orani-ation, filed a petition in which
it is pra)ed that said (nion be certified as the sole and
e8cl(sive barainin aent for all the emplo)ees in the
administrative, sales, enineerin and dispensar)
departments of the 1lhambra %iar and %iarette
Man(fact(rin %ompan)&
=he petition is opposed b) the %ompan) and
another leitimate labor orani-ation, the >ederacion
.brera de la 6nd(stria =aba<(era de >ilipinas
(>.6=1>)&
=he) alleed that there is an e8istin %B1 between
the compan) and the >.6=1> which constit(tes a bar
to the instant certification proceedin&
Petitioner contends that all the emplo)ees paid in
the administrative, sales, enineerin, and dispensar)
departments constit(te an appropriate (nit which is an
emplo)er (nit
Iss,': W.+ the lower court erred in holding that all the
employees in the administrati"e, sales, and dispensary
departments of petitioner company, with the exception of
the super"isors, security guards, and confidential
employees therein, constitute an appropriate separate
collecti"e bargaining unit#
H'+.:
=he %o(rt r(led that, no reason to dist(rb said findin of
the lower co(rt that, said emplo)ees in the
administrative, sales, and dispensar) departments perform
work which have nothin to do with prod(ction and
maintenance, (nlike those in the raw leaf (manlalasi),
ciar, ciarette, packin (precinteria), and enineerin and
arae departments whose f(nctions involve prod(ction
and maintenance, the) have a comm(nit) of interest
which :(stifies their formation or e8istence as a separate
appropriate collective barainin (nit&
1A27A7AISA N2 M2A MAN22A2A0A SA TRIUM1H
INTERNATIONAL/UNITED LUMBER AND 2ENERAL
0OR7ERS OF THE 1HILS. vs. FERRER/CALLE4A
FACTS:
=he petitioner is the reconi-ed collective
barainin aent of the rank-and-file emplo)ees of
=ri(mph 6nternational with which the latter has a valid
and e8istin collective barainin areement effective
(p to $eptember B+, !"@"&
6n !"@9, a petition for certification election was
filed b) the respondent (nion with the Gepartment of
Labor and ;mplo)ment&
a motion to dismiss the petition for certification
election was filed b) =ri(mph 6nternational on the
ro(nds that the respondent (nion cannot lawf(ll)
represent manaerial emplo)ees and that the petition
cannot prosper b) virt(e of the contract-bar r(le&
B(t the Labor 1rbiter iss(ed an order rantin the
petition for certification election and directin the
holdin of a certification election to determine the sole
and e8cl(sive barainin representative of all monthl)-
paid administrative, technical, confidential and
s(pervisor) emplo)ees of =ri(mph 6nternational&
20
villadolid
digests
Iss,': Whether or not the public respondent gra"ely
abused its discretion in ordering the immediate holding
of a certification election among the wor(ers sought to
be represented by the respondent union#
H'+.:
?here the s(pervisor) emplo)ees so(ht to be
represetned b) the (nion are act(all) NOT INVOLVED
in polic) makin, and their recommendator) powers are
not even instantl) effective since the) are s(b:ect to
review b) at least three (H) manaers (dept& mr&,
personnel mr& 1nd eneral manaer), then it is evident
that these emplo)ees doe not possess manaerial
stat(s&
The fact that their work designations are either
managerial or supervisory is of no moment,
considering that it is the nature of their functions
and !T "A#$ !%&CLAT'(&" which determines
their respective status)
1 caref(l e8amination of the records of this case reveals
no evidence that r(les o(t the commonalit) or
comm(nit) of interest amon the rank-and-file members
of the petitioners, and the herein declared rank-and-file
members of the respondent (nion& 6nstead of formin
another barainin (nit, the law re<(ires them to be
members of the e8istin one& The ends of unionism
are better served if all the rank*and*file members
with substantially the same interests and who
invoke their right to self*organi+ation are part of a
single unit so they can deal with their &( with
,'"T !& A$ -&T .!T&T /!#C&) The &es
bargaining power with management is
strengthened thereby)
6n the case at bar, there is no disp(te that the petitioner
is the e8cl(sive barainin representative of the rank-
and-file emplo)ees of =ri(mph 6nternational&
BARBIZON 1HILS INC. vs. NA27A7AISAN2
SU1ERVISOR N2 BARBIZON 1HILS (199:)
FACTS:
Petitioner Phil& Linerie %orp& (now Barbi-on
Philippines 6nc&) filed a petition for certification
election amon its rank-and-file emplo)ees& 1s a
conse<(ence thereof, B (nions so(ht reconitionC
(!) P/6L6PP62; L620;36; ?.3K;3$ U26.2-1L1B
and
(B) BUKL.G 20 M1200101?1 20 P/6L6PP62;
L620;36; %.3P.31=6.2
PL? Union moved for the e8cl(sion of a n(mber
of emplo)ees who were alleedl) holdin
s(pervisor) positions&
M'./A$6i%'$C denied the said motion&
BLRC affirmed the Med-1rbiter and ordered the election
to be cond(cted&
1 certification election was cond(cted with the
votes of 7s(pervisors and confidential7 emplo)ees
bein challened&
PL? U26.2 filed an '+'(%i# *$#%'s%. 6n the
meantime, BUKL.G moved for the openin of the
challened ballots&
BLR: denied the protest and r(led that the alleed
s(pervisors are not manaerial emplo)ees& =he
petitioner was certified as the sole and e8cl(sive
barainin representative of all the re(lar rank-and-file
emplo)ees of Barbi-on Philippines, 6nc& (formerl)
Philippine Linerie %orporation)&
BUKL.G was certified as the sole and e8cl(sive
barainin representative of all the rank-and-file
emplo)ees of Barbi-on Phils (former PL%)
?hile the %B1 was still in force, several
emplo)ees orani-ed themselves into the
2akakaisan $(pervisors 2 Barbi-on Philippines,
6nc& (2$BP6) and the 2akakaisan ;8cl(ded
Monthl) Paid ;mplo)ees 2 Barbi-on, Philippines, 6nc&
(2;MP;BP6) alleedl) beca(se the) were e8cl(ded
from the coverae of the e8istin %B1 between
petitioner Barbi-on and BUKL.G&
Petitioner Barbi-on alleed that the petitions for
certification election filed b) the 2akakaisan
$(pervisor n Barbi-on Philippines, 6nc& Q 21>LU
(2$BP6) m(st necessaril) fail beca(se the emplo)ees
desinated as 7s(pervisors7 cannot leall) form a
s(pervisors5 (nion& Bein part of the rank and file,
petitioner avers that said emplo)ees belon to the
7emplo)er wide (nit,7 which is the appropriate
barainin (nit of all its rank and file emplo)ees and
which is represented b) the BUKL.G&
=he $ecretar) of Labor ranted the petition for
certification election filed b) 2$BP6
ISSUE: Whether the =ndersecretary of !abor committed
gra"e abuse of discretion in granting +S42ICs petition for
certification election
HELD: YES
6t has been the polic) of the BL3 to enco(rae the
formation of an emplo)er (nit (nless circ(mstances
otherwise re<(ire& 6n other words, one emplo)er
enterprise constit(tes onl) one barainin (nit& =he more
solid the emplo)ees are, the stroner is their barainin
capacit)&
/owever, the 7one (nion Q one compan)7 r(le is not
witho(t e8ception& =he e8cl(sion of the s(b:ect emplo)ees
from the rank-and-file barainin (nit and the %B1 is
indefinitel) a 7compellin reason7 for it completel)
deprived them of the chance to barain collectivel) with
petitioner and are th(s left with no reco(rse b(t to ro(p
themselves into a separate and distinct barainin (nit
and form their own orani-ation&
=he (s(al e8ception, of co(rse, is where the emplo)er (nit
has to ive wa) to the other (nits like the craft (nit, plant
(nit, or a s(bdivision thereof4 the reconition of these
e8ceptions takes into acco(ntant the polic) to ass(re
emplo)ees of the f(llest freedom in e8ercisin their rihts&
.therwise stated, the one company-one union policy must
yield to the right of the employees to form unions or
associations for purposes not contrary to law, to self-
organi)ation and to enter into collecti"e bargaining
negotiations, among others, which the Constitution
guarantees&
INDO1HIL TEITILE MILL 0OR7ERS UNION vs.
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR CALICA (199>)
FACTS:
Petitioner 6ndophil =e8tile Mills Union and
respondent 6ndophil =e8tile Mills, 6nc& e8ec(ted a %B1
6ndophil 1cr)lic Man(fact(rin %orp& was formed
and reistered with the $;%& 6t became operational
and hired workers accordin to its criteria and
standards&
=he petitioner (nion contends the plant facilities
b(ilt and set (p b) 1cr)lic sho(ld be considered as an
e8tension or e8pansion of the facilities of respondent
21
villadolid
digests
%ompan)& 6n other words, it is the petitioner5s
contention that 1cr)lic is part of the 6ndophil
barainin (nit4 that the creation of the 6ndophil
1cr)lic is a device of respondent 6ndophil =e8tile to
evade the application of the %B1 between the (nion
and the compan) to 1cr)lic people&
.n the other hand, respondent 6ndophil =e8tile
s(bmits that it is a :(ridical entit) s'*"$"%' ".
.is%i(% from 1cr)lic and cited the case of *iatagon
!abor Dederations "s# .ple, which r(led that B
corporations cannot be treated as sinle barainin
(nit even if their b(siness are related&
V#+,%"$8 A$6i%$"%#$C r(led in favor of the respondent
and fo(nd that the provision in the %B1 between 6ndophil
=e8tile 6nc& and 6ndophil =e8tile Union does not e8tend to
the emplo)ees of 6ndophil 1cr)lic %orp
Iss,': Whether the "oluntary arbitrator committed
gra"e abuse of discretion in failing to disregard the
corporate entity of Indophil $crylic
H'+.: NO
1cr)lic 6ndophil %orporation cannot be considered an
e8tension of 6ndophil %orporation, as to cover in one
barainin (nit all emplo)ees thereof& 2ote separate
corporate entitiesC doctrine of piercin the veil of
corporate entit) not applied&
=he fact that the b(sinesses of private respondent and
1cr)lic are related, that some of the emplo)ees of the
private respondent are the same persons mannin and
providin for a(8illiar) services to the (nits of 1cr)lic,
and that the ph)sical plants, offices and facilities are
sit(ated in the same compo(nd, it is o(r considered
opinion that these facts are not s(fficient to :(stif) the
piercin of the corporate veil of 1cr)lic&
/ence, the 1cr)lic not bein an e8tension or e8pansion
of private respondent, the rank-and-file emplo)ees
workin at 1cr)lic sho(ld not be reconi-ed as part of,
andLor within the scope of the petitioner, as the
barainin representative of private respondent&
NATIONAL CON2RESS OF UNIONS IN THE SU2AR
INDUSTRY OF THE 1HILS (NACUSI1) vs.
HON. FERRER/CALLE4A (199>)
FACTS:
Gaconcoon $(ar and 3ice Millin %o& entered
into a %B1 with respondent 2ational >ederation of
$(ar ?orkers (2>$?)
?hen the %B1 e8pired, it was e8tended for
another H )ears with reservation to neotiate for its
amendment, partic(larl) on wae increases, ho(rs of
work, and other terms and conditions of
emplo)ment&
/owever, a .'".+#(H in neotiation ens(ed on
the matter of wae increases and optional
retirement& 6n order to obviate friction and tension,
the parties areed on a s(spension to provide a
coolin-off period to ive them time to eval(ate and
f(rther st(d) their positions& /ence, a Labor
Manaement %o(ncil was set (p and convened, with
a representative of the Gepartment of Labor and
;mplo)ment, actin as chairman, to resolve the
iss(es&
Petitioner filed filed a petition for direct
certification or certification election amon the rank
and file workers of Gaconcoon&
3espondent 2$>? moved to dismiss the petition
on the ro(nds that the petition was filed o(t of time
and that there is a deadlocked of %B1 neotiation
M'./A$6i%'$C denied the Motion to Gismiss and direct the
cond(ct of a certification election amon rank-and-file
emplo)ees
BLRC set aside the order of the Med-1rbiter and r(led in
favor of respondent
Iss,': Whether the 4! committed gra"e abuse of
discretion1
H'+.: NO. 1'%i%i# D'i'..
=he Geadlock Bar 3(le simpl) provides that a petition for
certification election can onl) be entertained if there is no
pendin barainin deadlock s(bmitted to conciliation or
arbitration or had become the s(b:ect of a valid notice of
strike or locko(t& =he principal p(rpose is to ens(re
stabilit) in the relationship of the workers and the
manaement&
6t is a r(le in this :(risdiction that onl) a certified %B1 Q
i&e&, an areement d(l) certified b) the BL3 ma) serve as
a bar to certification elections&
=his r(le simpl) provides that a petition for certification
election or a motion for inter"ention can onl) be
entertained within si8t) da)s prior to the e8pir) date of an
e8istin collective barainin areement& .therwise p(t,
the r(le prohibits the filin of a petition for certification
election d(rin the e8istence of a %B1 e8cept within the
freedom period, as it is called, when the said areement is
abo(t to e8pire& =he p(rpose, obvio(sl), is to ens(re
stabilit) in the relationships of the workers and the
manaement b) preventin fre<(ent modifications of an)
%B1 earlier entered into b) them in ood faith and for the
stip(lated oriinal period&
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU) vs.
HON. FERRER/CALLE4A (1959)
FACTS:
01? =radin, 6nc& reconi-ed 1LU as the sole and
e8cl(sive barainin aent for the ma:orit) of its
emplo)ees& 1 %B1 was e8ec(ted&
6n the meantime, $o(thern Philippines >ederation
of Labor ($P>L) toether with 2akaisan Mam(m(o
sa 01? (21M01?) (ndertook a $trike after it failed to
et 01? =radin 6nc& to sit for a conference respectin
its demands in an effort to press(re 01? =radin 6nc&
to make a t(rnabo(t of its standin reconition of 1LU
as the sole and e8cl(sive barainin representative of
its emplo)ees
01? =radin 6nc& filed a =3.
L"6#$ A$6i%'$: held the strike as illeal
01? L(mad Labor Union (01LLU-P$$LU)
>ederation &&& filed a %ertification ;lection petition
M'./A$6i%'$C r(led for the holdin of a certification
election in all branches of 01? =radin 6nc&
BLRC ranted 1LUEs appeal (M3) and reversed the Med-
1rbiter on the ro(nd that the %B1 has been effective and
valid and the contract bar r(le applicable
$P>L filed a M3 to the B3
BLR: reversed its previo(s decision and ordered the
holdin of a certification election amon the rank-and-file
workers of 01? =radin, 6nc& and r(led that the contract-
bar r(le does not appl) in this case beca(se the %B1
involved is defective as it was not d(l) s(bmitted in
accordance with the 6mplementin 3(les& 888 =here is no
22
villadolid
digests
proof tendin to show that the %B1 has been posted in
at least B conspic(o(s places in the establishment at
least A da)s before its ratification and that it has been
ratified b) the ma:orit) of the emplo)ees in the
barainin (nit&
Iss,': Whether the contract-bar rule is applicable in this
case1
HELD: NO
?ind no reversible error in the challened decision of
respondent director& 1 caref(l consideration of the facts
c(lled from the records of this case, )ields the concl(sion
that the collective barainin areement in <(estion is
indeed defective hence (nprod(ctive of the leal effects
attrib(ted to it b) the former director in his decision
which was s(bse<(entl) and properl) reversed&
=o be a bar to a certification election, the %B1 m(st be
ade<(ate in that it comprise s(bstantial terms and
conditions of emplo)ment
CA1ITOL MEDICAL CENTER OF CONCERNED
EM1LOYEES/UNIFIED FILI1INO SERVICE
0OR7ERS vs. HON. LA2UESMA (199@)
FACTS:
3espondent %M% ;mplo)ees 1ssoc&-1lliance of
>ilipino ?orkers filed a petition for certification
election amon the rank-and-file emplo)ees of the
%apitol Medical %enter (%M%)& 1fter the election,
respondent (nion was held as the sole and e8cl(sive
barainin representative of the rank and file
emplo)ees at %M%&
3espondent Union invited the %M% to the
barainin table b) s(bmittin its economic proposal
for a %B1& /owever, %M% ref(sed to neotiate and
instead challened the (nionEs leal personalit)
thro(h a petition for cancellation of the certificate
of reistration& 3espondent (nion was left with no
other reco(rse b(t to file a notice of strike aainst
%M% for ULP& =his event(all) led to a strike&
6n the meantime, petitioner %apitol Medical
%enter ;mplo)ees-Unified >ilipino $ervice ?orkers
filed a petition for certification election amon the
rank-and-file emplo)ees of the %M%& 6t alleed in its
petition that a certification election can now be
cond(cted as more that !B months have lapsed since
the last certification election was held and that no
%B1 was e8ec(ted before&
3espondent (nion opposed the petition and
moved for its dismissal& 6t contended that it is the
certified barainin aent of the rank-and-file
emplo)ees of the %M% /ospital&
Petitioner claims that since there is no evidence
on record that there e8ists a CBA .'".+#(H- the law
allowin the cond(ct of a certification election after
twelve months m(st be iven effect in the interest of
the riht of the workers to freel) choose their sole
and e8cl(sive barainin aent
T&' S'($'%"$8 #! L"6#$: dismissed the petition for
certification election and directed %M% to neotiate a
%B1 with respondent (nion
Iss,': Whether there is a bargaining deadloc( between
CMC and respondent union, before the filing of petitioner
of a petition for certification election
HELD: NONE
=here is a deadlock when there is a complete blockin or
stoppae res(ltin from the action of e<(al and opposed
forces & & & & =he word is s)non)mo(s with the word
impasse, which & & 7pres(pposes reasonable effort at ood
faith barainin which, despite noble intentions, does not
concl(de in areement between the parties&7
?hile it is tr(e that, in the case at bench, one )ear had
lapsed since the time of declaration of a final certification
res(lt, and that there is no collective barainin deadlock,
p(blic respondent did not commit rave ab(se of
discretion when it r(led in respondent (nion5s favor since
the dela) in the forin of the %B1 co(ld not be attrib(ted
to the fa(lt of the latter&
6f the law proscribes the cond(ct of a certification election
when there is a barainin deadlock s(bmitted to
conciliation or arbitration, with more reason sho(ld it not
be cond(cted if, despite attempts to brin an emplo)er to
the neotiation table b) the 7no reasonable effort in ood
faith7 on the emplo)er certified barainin aent, there
was to barain collectivel)& 6t is onl) :(st and e<(itable
that the circ(mstances in this case sho(ld be considered
as similar in nat(re to a 7barainin deadlock7 when no
certification election co(ld be held&
7AISAHAN N2 MAN22A2A0AN2 1ILI1INO
(7AM1IL/7ATI1UNAN) vs. HON. TRA4AND (1991)
FACTS:
2ational >ederation of Labor Union (21>LU) was
declared b) the BL3 the e8cl(sive barainin aent of
all rank-and-file emplo)ees of Iiron 0arments
More than + )ears after, another (nion, K1MP6L-
Katip(nan, filed with the BL3 a petition for
certification election with the s(pport of more than
H,D of the workers I63.2&
Gespite 21>LUEs opposition, the Med-1rbiter
ordered the holdin of a certification election, citin
the fact that since the certification of 21>LU in !"@!
as the sole barainin aent, no %B1 has been
concl(ded&
21>LU appealed, contendin that at the time the
petition for certification election was filed, it was in the
process of collective barainin with I63.24 that in
fact a .'".+#(H i 'B#%i"%i#s prompted it to file a
notice of strike4 that these circ(mstances barred a
petition for certification election, p(rs(ant to the 3(les
6mplementin the Labor %ode&
BLR: (pheld 21>LUEs contentions and dismissed the
petition for certification election&
Iss,': Whether ?$M2I!'s petition for certification election
is barred by the alleged bargaining deadloc( between
+$D!= and BI.+
HELD: NO
>or a barainin deadlock to bar a petition for certification
election, s(ch deadlock m(st have been s(bmitted to
conciliation or arbitration, or m(st have been the s(b:ect
of a valid strike or locko(t notice before * not after * the
filin of the petition for certification election&
=he records do not show that there was a barainin
deadlock prior to the filin of the petition for certification
election& ?hen 21>LU was proclaimed the e8cl(sive
barainin representative of all I63.2 emplo)ees (p to
when K1MP6L filed its petition for certification election or a
period of more than fo(r (+) )ears, no collective
barainin areement was ever e8ec(ted, and no deadlock
ever arose from neotiations between 21>LU and I63.2
res(ltin in conciliation proceedins or the filin of a valid
strike notice& 6n the case, the strikes and s(bmission to
comp(lsor) arbitration took place after the filin of the
petition for certification election
23
villadolid
digests
LA SUERTE CI2AR G CI2ARETTE FACTORY vs.
DIRECTOR OF THE BLR (195C)
FACTS:
=he La $(erte %iar and %iarette >actor)
Provincial and Metro Manila $ales >orce 1ssociation
applied for and was ranted chapter stat(s b) the
2ational 1ssociation of =rade Unions (21=U)
$ometime later, H! local (nion members sined a
:oint letter withdrawin their membership in 21=U&
=he local (nion and 21=U filed a petition for
certification election&
=he compan) opposed on the ro(nd that it was
not s(pported b) at least H,D (now BAD) of the
proposed barainin (nit beca(se (a) of the alleed
+@ members of the local (nion, H! had withdrawn
prior to the filin of the petition, and (b) !+ of the
alleed members of the (nion were not emplo)ees of
the compan) b(t were independent contractors& =he
BL3 director denied the compan)Es ob:ection
Iss,': Whether the withdrawal of G: unions from +$-=
affected the petition for certification election insofar as
the GHI re/uirement is concerned
HELD: YES
=he $% reversed the BL3, it appearin that the H! (nion
members has withdrawn their s(pport to the petition
B;>.3; the filin of said petition& 6t wo(ld be otherwise
if the withdrawal was made 1>=;3 the filin of the
petition for it wo(ld then be pres(med that the
withdrawal was not free and vol(ntar)& =he pres(mption
wo(ld arise that the withdrawal was proc(red thro(h
d(ress, coercion or for val(able consideration& 6n other
words, the distinction m(st be that withdrawals made
before the filin of the petition are pres(med vol(ntar)
(nless there is convincin proof to the contrar), whereas
withdrawals made after the filin of the petition are
deemed invol(ntar)&
=he reason for s(ch distinction is that if the withdrawal
or retraction is made before the filin of the petition, the
names of emplo)ees s(pportin the petition are
s(pposed to be held secret to the opposite part)&
Loicall), an) s(ch withdrawal or retraction shows
vol(ntariness in the absence of proof to the contrar)&
Moreover, it becomes apparent that s(ch emplo)ees had
not iven consent to the filin of the petition, hence the
s(bscription re<(irement has not been met&
?e hold and r(le that the !+ members of respondent
local (nion are dealers or independent contractors& =he)
are not emplo)ees of petitioner compan)& ?ith the
withdrawal b) H! members of their s(pport to the
petition prior to or before the filin thereof, makin a
total of +A, the remainder of H o(t of the +@ alleed to
have s(pported the petition can hardl) be said to
represent the (nion&
REYES vs. TRA4ANO (199>)
FACTS:
=he BL3 a(thori-ed the cond(ct of certification
election amon the emplo)ees of =ri-Union 6nd(stries
%orporation& =he competin (nions were the =U;U-
.L1L61 and =UP1$&
.f the H@+ workers initiall) deemed to be
<(alified voters, onl) B+, act(all) took part in the
election& 1mon the B+, who cast their votes, !+!
were members of the 6lesia ni Kristo (62K)
=he ballots provided for B choicesC (a) =UP1$4
(b) =U;U-.L1L614 and (c) 2. U26.2&
=he challened votes were those cast b) the !+!
62K members& =he) were sereated and e8cl(ded
from the final co(nt beca(se the competin (nions
areed earlier that the 62K members sho(ld not be
allowed to vote beca(se the) are not members of an)
(nion and ref(sed to participate in the previo(s
=he 62K emplo)ees protested the e8cl(sion of
their votes& =he) filed a petition to cancel the election
allein that it was not fair and the res(lt thereof did
not reflect the tr(e sentiments of the ma:orit) of the
emplo)ees&
=U;U-.L1L61 opposed the petition& 6t contended
that petitioners do not have leal personalit) to
protest the res(lts of the election beca(se the) are not
members of either the contendin (nions, b(t of the
62K which prohibits its followers to, on reliio(s
ro(nds, from :oinin or formin an) labor
orani-ation&
M'./A$6i%'$: seein no merit in the 62K emplo)eesE
petition, certified the =U;U-.L1L61 as the sole and
e8cl(sive barainin aent of the rank-and-file emplo)ees&
BLR: denied the appeal of the petitioner
Iss,': Whether the I+? members may "ote in the
certification election
HELD: YES
Loicall), the riht +.- to :oin, affiliate with, or assist an)
(nion, and to disaffiliate or resign from a labor
orani-ation, is s(bs(med in the riht to :oin, affiliate
with, or assist an) (nion, and to maintain membership
therein& =he riht to form or :oin a labor orani-ation
necessaril) incl(des the riht to ref(se or refrain from
e8ercisin said riht& 6t is self-evident that :(st as no one
sho(ld be denied the e8ercise of a riht ranted b) law, so
also, no one sho(ld be compelled to e8ercise s(ch a
conferred riht& =he fact that a person has opted to
ac<(ire membership in a labor (nion does not precl(de his
s(bse<(entl) optin to reno(nce s(ch membership&
6n the %ertification ;lection, all members of the (nit,
whether (nion members or not, have the riht to vote&
Union membership is not prere<(isite& 6f ma:orit) of the
(nit members do not want a (nion, as e8pressed in the
certification election, s(ch ma:orit) decision m(st be
respected& /ence, the 62K members ma) vote&
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR vs.
SECRETARY OF LABOR (1995)
FACTS:
1 certification election was cond(cted amon the
rank-and-file emplo)ees of the /i:o Plantation, 6nc&
(/P6)&
Petitioner 2>L (2ational >ederation of Labor) was
chosen as the barainin aent of its rank-and-file
emplo)ees
Protests filed b) the compan) and three other
(nions aainst the res(lts of the election on the
ro(nd that the certification election was marred b)
massive fra(d and irre(larities beca(se n(mber of
24
villadolid
digests
emplo)ees were not able to cast their votes beca(se
the) were not properl) notified of the date
L"6#$ S'($'%"$8C denied the petition to ann(l the
election and instead certified petitioner 2>L as the sole
and e8cl(sive barainin representative of the rank-and-
file emplo)ees of private respondent /P6&
/owever, on motion of /P6, the $ecretar) of
Labor, reversed his resol(tion& 2>LEs M3 was denied&
/ence, this petition
Iss,': Whether the *.!, should not ha"e gi"en due
course to pri"ate respondentCs petition for annulment of
the results of the certification election#
HELD:
=he $% r(led in favor of the 2>L& =he workers in this
case were denied this opport(nit)& 2ot onl) were a
s(bstantial n(mber of them disfranchised, there were, in
addition, alleations of fra(d and other irre(larities
which p(t in <(estion the interit) of the election&
?orkers wrote letters and made complaints protestin
the cond(ct of the election& =he 3eport of Med-1rbiter
P(ra who investiated these alleations fo(nd the
alleations of fra(d and irre(larities to be tr(e&
=he $% invalidated the certification election (pon a
showin of disfranchisement, lack of secrec) in the
votin and briber)& =he workers5 riht to self-
orani-ation as enshrined in both the %onstit(tion and
Labor %ode wo(ld be rendered n(ator) if their riht to
choose their collective barainin representative were
denied& 6ndeed, the polic) of the Labor %ode favors the
holdin of a certification election as the most concl(sive
wa) of choosin the labor orani-ation to represent
workers in a collective barainin (nit& 6n case of do(bt,
the do(bt sho(ld be resolved in favor of the holdin of a
DE LEON vs. NATIONAL LABOR UNION (1959)
FACTS:
Ge Leon was emplo)ed b) La =ondeRa, 6nc& at
the Maintenance $ection of its ;nineerin
Gepartment where his work consisted mainl) of
paintin O other odd :obs related to maintenance& /e
was paid on a dail) basis thro(h pett) cash
vo(chers&
1fter more than ! )ear of service, Ge Leon
re<(ested to be incl(ded in the pa)roll of re(lar
workers& %ompan)Es response was to dismiss him from
his emplo)ment& Ge Leon demanded reinstatement
b(t compan) ref(sed repeatedl)&
Ge Leon filed a complaint for illeal dismissal,
reinstatement O pa)ment of backwaes
LA: fo(nd for Ge Leon O declared the dismissal as
illeal& /e r(led that Ge Leon was not a mere cas(al
emplo)ee b(t a re(lar emplo)ee&
NLRCC reversed L1& M3 denied& /ence, this
appeal&
ISSUEC W.+ *e !eon was mere casual employee
H'+.: NO- reversal of the decision was erroneo(s
Under 1rt& B@! of the L%, the primar) standard of
determinin a re(lar emplo)ment is the reasonable
connection bet& the partic(lar activit) performed b) the
emplo)ee in relation to the (s(al b(siness or trade of the
emplo)er& 1lso, if the emplo)ee has been performin the
:ob for at least ! )ear, even if the performance is not
contin(o(s or merel) intermittent, the law deems the
repeated O contin(in need for its performance as
s(fficient evidence for the necessit) if not indispensabilit)
of that activit) to the b(siness&
6n this case, the records reveal that Ge LeonEs tasks
assined to him incl(ded not onl) the paintin of b(ildin
as claimed b) the respondent b(t also cleanin O oilin
machines, even operatin a drillin machine O other odd
:obs&
- 1 re(lar emplo)ee, =an<(e, attested in his
affidavit that Ge Leon worked wL him as
maintenance man when there was no paintin :ob&
- 6n its comment, compan) confirmed the veracit)
of Ge LeonEs claim when it admitted that he was
occasionall) instr(cted to do other odd thins in
connection wL the maintenance while he was
waitin for materials he wo(ld need in his :ob or
when he had finished earl) the one assined to
him
=he law demands that the nat(re O entiret) of the
activities performed b) the emplo)ee be considered&
>(rthermore, the petitioner performed his work of
paintin O maintenance activities d(rin his
emplo)ment which lasted for more than ! )ear, (ntil
earl) 'an&, !"@H when he demanded to be re(lari-ed
b(t was dismissed&
=he fact that he was rehired weeks after shows that
it can not be denied that his activities as re(lar
painter O maintenance man still e8ist&
0&"% .'%'$)i's 9&'%&'$ " ('$%"i
')*+#8)'% is $'B,+"$ #$ ("s,"+ is #% %&' 9i++ G
9#$. #! ')*+#8'$ %# 9&i(& %&' .'s*'$"%' 9#$H'$
#!%' "(('.'s #$ %&' *$#('.,$' #! &i$iB #$
)"'$ #! *"8)'% #! s"+"$8. I% is %&' "%,$' #!
%&' "(%ivi%i's *'$!#$)'. i $'+"%i# %# %&'
*"$%i(,+"$ 6,si'ss #$ %$".' (#si.'$iB "++
(i$(,)s%"('s- G i s#)' ("s's %&' +'B%& #! %i)'
#! i%s *'$!#$)"(' G i%s (#%i,'. ';is%'('.
=here was an obvio(s devio(s dismissal of Ge Leon to
evade the obliations of petitioner to the worker&

.etition granted)
25
villadolid
digests
P6%K;=620 12G
.=/;3 %.2%;3=;G 1%=6I6=6;$
DE LEON vs. NATIONAL LABOR UNION (19<@)
FACTS:
Petitioner 2arcisa B& de Leon is the owner of a parcel
of land in Manila& $he leased said land to the >ilipino
=heatrical ;nterprises, 6nc&, =he lease contract
provided that the Ge Leon wo(ld become the owner of
the b(ildin, toether with all the e<(ipment and
accessories, at the e8piration of the lease
Before the e8piration of the lease, the >ilipino
theatrical notified its ;;s of their termination& 1fter the
e8piration of the lease, the theater b(ildin was t(rned
over to Ge Leon who immediatel) demolished the
b(ildin, and on the same site she constr(cted the
new Galisa) =heater B(ildin4
=he theatre was opened, with a new set of personnel,
retainin onl) the services of !#,$ #+. EEs? $aid
theater was operated :ointl) b) the motion pict(re
firms LI2 Pict(res, 6nc&, Premier Prod(ctions and the
$ampa(ita Pict(res, 6nc&, as lessees thereof&
H, persons, all members of the 2LU, picketed at the
said theater b) walkin to and from on the sidewalk
frontin the lobb) of the theater and displa)in
placards
Gefendants d(rin the picketin tried to pers(ade
patrons or c(stomers of the Galisa) =heater to refrain
from b()in tickets or seein the show& Plaintiffs
so(ht to recover damaes and an in:(nctive relief in
the co(rt&
Iss,': Whether the pic(eting of the ,,s are illegal
HELD: NO
=he %o(rt finds that the acts of the defendants were not
s(ch as to dist(rb the p(blic peace at the place& =here was
no clear and present daner of destr(ction to life or
propert) or of other forms of breach of the peace&
=here was no e8istence of a relationship of emplo)ers and
emplo)ees between plaintiffs and defendants, altho(h
defendants5 p(rpose in picketin plaintiffs was for the
defendants5 reinstatement of their services in the new
Galisa) =heater (nder the new Manaement&
Picketin peacef(ll) carried o(t is not illeal even in the
absence of emplo)er-emplo)ee relationship, for peacef(l
picketin is a part of the freedom of speech (aranteed b)
the %onstit(tion&
LI0AY0AY 1UBLICATIONS- INC. vs. 1ERMANENT
CONCRETE 0OR7ERS UNION (1951)
FACTS:
Liwa)wa) P(blications, 6nc& was the B
nd
s(b-lessee of
the premises of the respondent Permanent %oncrete
Prod(cts, 6nc, in Manila
=he ;;s of Permanent %oncrete declared a strike& >or
(nknown reason, the) picketed, stopped and
prohibited Liwa)wa)Es tr(ck from enterin the
compo(nd to load newsprint from its bodea& =he
(nion members also intimidated the and threatened to
harm the Liwa)wa)Es ;;s who were in the tr(ck&
Liwa)wa) filed an action for damaes and in:(nction
aainst the (nion in the %>6 Manila
CFI: iss(ed preliminar) in:(nction and award damaes
to the ;3&
=he (nion contends that the %>6 has no :(risdiction
over the case beca(se the case arose o(t of labor
disp(te and that their picketin is an e8tension of
freedom of speech (aranteed b) the %onstit(tion
Iss,': Whether !iwayway is a third-party or an innocent
bystander whose right has been in"aded and, therefore
entitled to protection by regular courts
HELD: YES
?e find and hold that there is no connection between the
Liwa)wa) P(blications, 6nc& and the strikin Union
1ltho(h picketin is not prohibited , a picketin labor
26
villadolid
digests
(nion has no riht to prevent emplo)ees of another
compan) from ettin in and o(t of its rented premises,
otherwise it will be held liable for damaes for its act
aainst innocent b)standers&
1HIL BLOOMIN2 MILLS EM1LOYEES OR2. vs. 1HIL
BLOOMIN2 MILLS INC. (19@C)
FACTS:
=he workers of respondent Bloomin Mills 6nc&
planned a demonstration in Malacanan to protest
alleed ab(ses of the Pasi Police
Upon learnin of this plan, the %ompan)
manaement called a meetin with the (nion officers
=he %ompan) officers warned the (nion officers that
the planned demonstration wo(ld be in violation of
the no strike cla(se of the %B1&
=he (nion officers asserted that the demonstration
had nothin to do with the %ompan) with which the
Union had no disp(te
?hen the workers proceeded with the demonstration
despite the pleas of the %ompan), it filed an ULP
case aainst the Union and its officers for violation of
the no strike cla(se of the %B1
CIR: declared the Union and its officers (ilt) if
barainin in bad faith for violatin the %B1 and
ordered the dismissal of the (nion officers
Iss,': Whether the =nion and its officers were rightfully
dismissed the respondent company1
HELD: NO. CIR $'v'$s'..
=he demonstration held b) the ;;s before the Malacana
was aainst alleed ab(ses of some Pasi Policemen and
not aainst the ;3& $aid demonstration was p(rel) and
completel) an e8ercise of freedom of e8pression& =he)
are onl) in the e8ercise of their civil and political rihts
for their m(t(al aid and protection from what the)
believed are police e8cesses&
2REAT 1ACIFIC LIFE EM1LOYEES UNION vs. 2REAT
1ACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE COR1. (1999)
FACTS:
Petitioner 0reat Pacific Life ;mplo)ees Union and
3espondent 0reat Pacific Life 1ss(rance %orporation
entered into a %B1& Before the e8piration of the %B1,
the parties s(bmitted their respective proposals and
co(nter-proposals on its pro:ected renewal&
=he ens(in series of neotiations however res(lted
in a deadlock which later on res(lted into a $trike
=he %ompan) re<(ired all strikin emplo)ees to
e8plain in writin within +@ ho(rs wh) no disciplinar)
action, incl(din possible dismissal, sho(ld be taken
aainst them& %ompl)in with the order, U26.2
President 1lan Gomino and some strikers e8plained
that the) did not violate an) law as the) were merel)
e8ercisin their constit(tional riht to strike&
Petitioner 3odel P& de la 3osa and the rest of the
strikers however inored the manaement directive&
03;P1L6>; fo(nd the e8planation of Gomino totall)
(nsatisfactor) and considered de la 3osa as havin
waived his riht to be heard& =h(s, both U26.2
officers were terminated& 2otwithstandin their
dismissal from emplo)ment, Gomino and de la 3osa
contin(ed to lead the members of the strikin (nion
in their concerted action aainst manaement&
Gomino and de la 3osa s(ed 03;P1L6>; for illeal
dismissal, ULP and damaes&
L"6#$ A$6i%'$: r(led in favor of the ;;s and
ordered their reinstatement&
NLRC: reversed L1 and r(led in favor of ;3&
Iss,': Whether the dismissal of the union officers is
discriminatory constituting =!21
HELD: NO. 2L3% affirmed&
=he riht to strike, while constit(tionall) reconi-ed, is not
witho(t leal constrictions&
Under 1rt& B#+ of the L%, 55an) worker or (nion officer
who knowinl) participates in the commission of illeal
acts d(rin a strike ma) be declared to have lost his
emplo)ment stat(s&7
=he decision of respondent 03;P1L6>; to consider the
(nion officers as (nfit for reinstatement is not essentiall)
discriminator) and constit(tive of an ULP& Giscriminatin
involves either enco(rain membership in an) labor
orani-ation or is made on acco(nt of the emplo)ee5s
havin iven or bein abo(t to ive testimon) (nder the
Labor %ode& =hese have not been proved in this case
=o el(cidate f(rther, there can be no discrimination where
the emplo)ees concerned are not similarl) sit(ated& 1
(nion officer has larer and heavier responsibilities than a
(nion member& Union officers are d(t) bo(nd to respect
the law and to e8hort and (ide their members to do the
same4 their position mandates them to lead b) e8ample&
B) committin prohibited activities d(rin the strike, de la
3osa as Iice President of petitioner U26.2 demonstrated
a hih deree of impr(dence and irresponsibilit)& Ieril),
this :(stifies his dismissal from emplo)ment& $ince the
ob:ective of the Labor %ode is to ens(re a stable b(t
d)namic and :(st ind(strial peace, the dismissal of
(ndesirable labor leaders sho(ld be (pheld&
2OLD CITY 1ORT SERVICE vs. NLRC (199<)
FACTS:
;;s of petitioner 0old %it) declared a strike aainst
the latter& ;3 filed a complaint for 6lleal $trike with
pra)er for a restrainin orderLpreliminar) in:(nction&
LA: fo(nd the strike to be illeal& =he workers who
participated in the illeal strike did not, however, lose
their emplo)ment, since there was no evidence that
the) participated in illeal acts& 1s reards the si8
(nion officers, the Labor 1rbiter r(led that the) co(ld
not have possibl) been 7d(ped or tricked7 into sinin
the strike notice for the) were active participants in
the conciliation meetins and were th(s f(ll) aware of
what was oin on& /ence, said (nion officers sho(ld
be accepted back to work after seekin
reconsideration from herein petitioner&
NLRC: affirmed with modification the 1rbiter5s
decision& 6t held that the concerted action b) the
workers was more of a 7protest action7 than a strike&
Private respondents, incl(din the si8 (nion officers,
sho(ld also be allowed to work (nconditionall) to avoid
discrimination&
Iss,': Whether the union members and officers were
rightfully dismissed1
HELD:
Under $rticle 6F7 of the !abor Code, a worker merel)
participatin in an illeal strike ma) not be terminated
from his emplo)ment& 6t is #+8 9&' &' (#))i%s
i++'B"+ "(%s .,$iB " s%$iH' that he ma) be declared to
have lost his emplo)ment stat(s& $ince there appears no
proof that these (nion members committed illeal acts
d(rin the strike, the) cannot be dismissed& /ence, the)
are entitled to reinstatement&
/owever, considerin that a decade has alread) lapsed
from the time the disp(ted strike occ(rred, we find that to
27
villadolid
digests
award separation pa) in lie( of reinstatement wo(ld be
more practical and appropriate& 2o backwaes will be
awarded to (nion members as a penalt) for their
participation in the illeal strike&
=he fate of Union .fficers is different& T&'i$ isis%'('
# ,(#.i%i#"+ $'is%"%')'% #$ s'*"$"%i# *"8
". 6"(H9"B's is ,9"$$"%'. ". ,J,s%i!i'.& >or
knowinl) participatin in an illeal strike, the law
mandates that a (nion officer ma) be terminated from
emplo)ment& =he (nion officers are, therefore, not
entitled to an) relief,
0HO DECLARES LOSS OF EM1LOYMENT STATUSK L
=he ;mplo)er& =he law, (sin the word ma), rants the
;3 the option of declarin a (nion officer who
participated in an illeal strike as havin lost his
emplo)ment&
RELIANCE SURETY G INSURANCE INC. vs. NLRC
FACTS:
3eliance $(ret) 6ns(rance %o&, 6nc&, thr( its
manaer, effected a chane in the seatin
arranement of its personnel to avoid (nnecessar)
loss of prod(ctive workin time d(e to personal and
non-work-related conversations, personal telephone
calls and non-work-connected visits b) personnel to
other departments
+ ;;s protested the transfer of their tables and
seats, claimin that the chane was witho(t prior
notice and was done merel) to harass them as (nion
members& 1 heated disc(ssion ens(ed, d(rin which
said ;;s were alleed to have h(rled (nprintable
ins(lts to the manaer and s(pervisors& =he) were
placed (nder preventive s(spension and dismissed
after investiation
=he %ompan) Union filed in behalf of the dismissed
;;s a complaint for illeal dismissal&
?hile the complaint for illeal dismissal and ULP was
pendin, the (nion went on strike and picketed the
compan) premises b) formin h(man barricades,
which effectivel) obstr(cted the free inress to and
eress from its premises, preventin its officials and
emplo)ees from doin their (s(al d(ties&
=he %ompan) filed a petition to declare the stri(e
illeal for fail(re to observe leal strike
re<(irements&
LA: fo(nd the strike to be illeal&
NLRC: affirmed L1& /owever, it ordered that the
strikin (nion officers be reinstated witho(t
backwaes instead of bein dismissed&
Iss,': Whether stri(ers who ha"e staged an >illegal0
stri(e and not mar(ed with good faith may be reinstated
to wor(#
HELD: NO. NLRC REVERSED.
=here is no disp(te that the s%$iH' i A,'s%i# 9"s
i++'B"l, for fail(re of the strikin personnel to observe
leal strike re<(irements, to witC (!) as to the fifteen-
da) notice4 (B) as to the BLH re<(ired vote to strike done
b) secret ballot4 (H) as to s(bmission of the strike vote
to the Gepartment of Labor at least seven da)s prior to
the strike&
0ood faith is a valid defense aainst claims of illealit) of
a strike& ?e do find, however, not a semblance of ood
faith here, b(t rather, plain arroance, pride, and
c)nicism of certain workers&
CROM0ELL COMMERCIAL EM1LOYEES AND
LABORERS UNION vs. CIR (19:3)
FACTS:
%romwell %ommercial 6nc& and its %ompan) Union
entered into a %B1, amon those areed is a salar)
increase to the permanent ;;s and to restore all
salesmen to the stat(s of salar) basis&
/owever, the compan) ave no salar) increase to its
emplo)ees, e8cept to H who were not (nion members&
=he salaries of the salesmen were not reall) restored&
?hen B ;;s were dismissed, the Union str(ck and
picketed the premises of the compan)& =he compan)
warned the strikers that the) will be dismissed if the)
will not ret(rn to work beca(se the strike violates the
no strike cla(se in the %B1
=he Union filed with the %63 a ULP case aainst the
%ompan)&
CIRC ordered reinstatement to some of the ;;s ivin
them onl) half backwaes, other strikers was not
awarded an) backwaes at all, and there were H
strikers denied of reinstatement&
Iss,'C Whether the ,,s that were denied reinstatement
were discriminatorily dismissed, hence entitled to
bac(wages1
HELD: NO. CIR AFFIRMED
B t)pes of emplo)ees involved in ULP casesC
(!) those who were discriminatoril) dismissed for
(nion activities4 and
(B) those who vol(ntaril) went on strike&
Both are entitled to reinstatement& /.?;I;3, altho(h
discriminatoril) dischared, reinstatement can be denied
beca(se of (!) (nlawf(l cond(ct or (B) beca(se of
violence&
2R: 2o B1%K?10;$ on strike& 6n an economic strike, the
strikers are not entitled to backwaes on the principle that
a fair da)Es wae accr(es onl) for a fair da)Es labor
EI1N: Giscriminatoril) dismissed ;;s received backpa)
from the date of the act of discrimination
6n the %1B, the ;;s denied of reinstatement were fo(nd
(ilt) of acts of violence consistin of h(rlin stones which
smashed lass windows of the b(ildin of the compan)
and the headlihts of a car and the (tterance of
obscenities s(ch as 7p(tan ina&7
IF- DURIN2 THE STRI7E- A STRI7IN2 EE HAS FOUND
ANOTHER 4OB- IS HE ENTITLED FOR
REINSTATEMENTK
YES. =he mere fact that strikers or dismissed ;;s
have fo(nd s(ch emplo)ment elsewhere is not
necessaril) a bar to their reinstatement&
CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE
1HILS. vs. MARSMAN G CO.- INC.-(19:3)
FACTS:
=he Union Marsman O %ompan) ;mplo)ees and
Laborers 1ssociation (M13%;L1), entered into a %B1
with M13$M12 and %.MP12F&
Gespite several meetins, the parties failed to reach
an areement which is event(all) lead to a strike
6t appears that the strike was attended b) "(% #!
vi#+'(' on the part of certain strikers&
6n the $ec& of Labor, the strikers areed to ret(rn to
work on the promise that the %ompan) wo(ld disc(ss
their demands with them&
?hile the %ompan) admitted some of the strikers, it
3;>U$;G readmission to others (nless the) ceased to
28
villadolid
digests
be active as (nion members& 1s a res(lt, the strike
and picketin were res(med&
=he Union contends that the strikers were
discriminatel) dismissed which is an ULP4 hence the)
are entitled to back waes&
Iss,': Whether the stri(ers are entitled to bac(pay#
HELD: NO
=he $% r(led that in an economic strike, the strikers
13; 2.= ;2=6=L;G to backpa), since the emplo)er
$/.ULG 0;= =/; ;JU6I1L;2= G1FE$ ?.3K >.3 ?/1=
/; P1F$ /6$ ;MPL.F;;$& G(rin the time that the strike
was an economic one, complainant had no riht to
backpa)&
COURT=S DISCRETION ON BAC70A2ES
;ven after findin of ULP b) the ;3, award of backwaes
rests on the %o(rtEs discretion
NAT=L FEDERATION OF LABOR vs. NLRC (199@)
FACTS:
3espondent P;3M;P Prod(cer and ;8porter
%orporation is a Samboana %it)-based corporation
enaed in the b(siness of fish and t(na e8port&
=he ;3 dismissed some of its ;;s who happended to
be members of the 2ational >ederation of Labor
P;3M;P contended that the dismissed ;;s were
(sin their (nion activities to o on (ndertime or to
:(stif) their constant and fre<(ent absences which
evidentl) was a violation of compan) polic)
1s a res(lt, over B,, workers picketed o(tside
compan) premises& =he ates were barricaded, th(s
blockin inress and eress of compan) vehicles,
trappin A, workers inside and paral)-in compan)
operations& 1dditionall), 9,, non-strikin workers
were prevented from workin
P;3M;P filed a complaint to declare the strike as
illeal& Likewise, 2>L filed a case aainst P;3M;P for
ULP and damaes
LA: declared the strike illeal and awarded P;3M;P
A,,K for moral and e8emplar) damaes&
NLRCC affirmed L1 b(t deleted the moral and
e8emplar) damaes and instead award PH,,= as
compensator) damaes to P;3M;P&
Iss,': Whether the +!C committed G$*
HELD: NO
6n order that damaes ma) be recovered, the best
evidence obtainable b) the in:(red part) m(st be
represented& $ctual or compensatory damages cannot be
presumed, but must be duly pro"ed, and so pro"ed with
a reasonable degree of certainty#
6f the proof is flims) and ins(bstantial, no damaes will
be awarded&7 ?e consider the amo(nt of PH,,,,,,,&,,
:(st and reasonable (nder the circ(mstances
- K62G$ .> ;MPL.FM;2= -
SIN2ER SE0IN2 MACHINE CO. vs. DRILON (1991)
FACTS:
3espondent (nion filed a petition for direct
certification as the sole and e8cl(sive barainin
aent of Petitioner %ompan) in Ba(io&
=he %ompan) opposed on the ro(nd that the (nion
members are act(all) #% ')*+#8''s 6,% "$'
i.'*'.'% (#%$"(%#$s as evidenced b) the
collection aenc) areement which the) sined&
M'./A$6i%'$C findin that there e8ists an ;3-;;
relationship between the (nion members and the
%ompan), ranted the petition for certification election
=he Union contended that the) 7perform the most
desirable and necessar) activities for the contin(o(s
and effective operations of the b(siness of the
petitioner %ompan)7 @citing $rt# 6JH of the !CA
Iss,': Whether $rt# 6JH may be use as a yardstic( in
determining the existence of employment relationship#
HELD: NO
ARTICLE >5D applies where the e8istence of ;3-;;
relationship is 2.= =/; 6$$U; in the disp(te& 6t merel)
distin(ishes between B kinds of ;;s, i#e#, re(lar
emplo)ees and cas(al emplo)ees, for p(rpose of
determinin the riht of an ;; to certain benefits, to :oin
or form a (nion, or to sec(rit) of ten(re&
BA2UIO COUNTRY CLUB COR1 vs. NLRC (199>)
FACTS:
Private respondent 'imm) %alamba was emplo)ed b)
petitioner compan) on a da) to da) basis as laborer
and dishwasher for a period of !, months & /e was
also hired as a ardener for more than ! )ear when he
was dismissed b) the petitioner&
%alamba filed complaint for illeal dismissal
LAC declared %alamba as a re(lar ;; and ordered his
reinstatement&
NLRC: affirmed L1
Petitioner maintains that private respondent %alamba
was a contract(al emplo)ee whose emplo)ment was
for a fi8ed and specific period as set forth and
evidenced b) the private respondent5s contracts of
emplo)ment
Iss,': Whether Calamba has ac/uired the status of
regular ,,
HELD: YES. NLRC "!!i$)'.
=he nat(re of private respondent %olombo5s emplo)ment
as laborer, ardener, and dishwasher pertains to a re(lar
emplo)ee beca(se the) are necessar) or desirable in the
(s(al b(siness of petitioner as a recreational
establishment&
D"8/%#/D"8 C#%$"(%,"+ EE 6'(#)iB R'B,+"$
=he repeated re-hirin and contin(in need of service of
the ;; are s(fficient evidence of the necessit) and
indispensabilit) of his service to the ;3Es b(siness or trade&
BETA ELECTRIC COR1. vs. NLRC (199D)
FACTS:
Petitioner %ompan) hired the private respondent
L(-viminda Petilla as clerk t)pist effective Gecember
29
villadolid
digests
!A, !"@# (ntil 'an(ar) !#, !"@9& =he %o& ave her
an e8tension (p to '(ne H,, !"@9&
.n '(ne BB, !"@9 her services were terminated
witho(t notice or investiation& /ence, she filed a
complaint for illeal dismissal&
Petitioner %o& ar(es mainl) that the private
respondent5s appointment was =;MP.313F and
hence she ma) be terminated at will&
Iss,': Whether the dismissal is "alid1
HELD: NO
1n emplo)ment ma) onl) be said to be =;MP.313F
where it has been fi8ed for a specific (ndertakin the
completion and the nat(re of services to be performed is
$;$.21L and the emplo)ment is for the d(ration of the
season&
=emporar) ;; becomin 3e(lar --
1 t)pist-clerk cannot be said as a temporar) ;; beca(se
it is far from bein specific or seasonal4 she is a re(lar
;; beca(se he has been enaed to perform activities
necessar) and desirable in the (s(al b(siness&
SALAZAR vs. NLRC (199:)
FACTS:
Petitioner $ala-ar, was emplo)ed as
constr(ctionLpro:ect enineer b) /L %arlos
%onstr(ction for the constr(ction of the Monte de
Piedad b(ildin in %(bao, J(e-on %it)&
$ala-ar received a memorand(m iss(ed b) the
compan)Es pro:ect manaer, informin him of the
termination of his services&
$ala-ar filed a complaint for illeal dismissal, and for
non-pa)ment of benefits
LA: declared that $ala-ar is not entitled to
separation pa)& /e was hired as a P3.';%=
;MPL.F;; and his services were terminated d(e to
the completion of the pro:ect&
2L3% affirmed
Iss,': Whether Sala)ar is a pro%ect ,, and, therefore,
not entitled to separation pay
HELD: YES
2R: Pro:ect ;;s are entitled to separation pa)
EI1N: Pro:ect ;;s are not entitled to separation pa) if
the) are terminated as a res(lt of the completion of the
pro:ect, reardless of the pro:ects in which the) have
been emplo)ed&
$ala-arEs dismissal was d(e to the completion of the
constr(ction of the b(ildin&
DE 4ESUS vs. 1HILI11INE NATIONAL
CONSTRUCTION COR1. (1991)
FACTS:
Petitioner ;(enio Ge 'es(s, was a carpenter for the
respondent Philippine 2ational %onstr(ction
%orporation& ?hile on d(t), he vomited blood and
was treated at the %ompan) clinic& 1fter Hmonths,
he reported back, b(t he was no loner accepted&
Ge 'es(s filed a complaint for reinstatement with
backwaes and pa)ment leal benefits&
=he %ompan) contended that Ge 'es(s was hired as
a P3.';%= ;MPL.F;; and his separation was d(e to
the completion of the pro:ect&
$ala-ar contended that he was iven appointments for
specific pro:ect since !"9+ (p to !"@+& /ence, he has
become a 3;0UL13 ;; and not a P3.';%= ;; who
ma) be terminated onl) for a lawf(l ca(se&
Iss,': Whether Sala)ar is considered a regular ,,
HELD: YES
1 non-pro:ect ;; is entitled to re(lar emplo)ment if he
has rendered service for more than !, )ears& 1s s(ch he
can not be terminated (nless for :(st ca(se&
=here are H t)pes of non-pro:ect emplo)ees4
!& Probationar)4 B& 3e(lar4 and H& %as(al

Based on the action form filed b) the petitioner he is
considered as probationar) who after # months have
achieve a re(lar stat(s&
MERCADO- SR.- vs. NLRC (1991)
FACTS:
Petitioners were aric(lt(ral workers (tili-ed b) private
respondents in all the aric(lt(ral phases of work on
the 9 !LB hectares of rice land and !, hectares of
s(ar land owned b) the latter4
=he) contended that the) started to work in the farm
of private respondents between !"+" and !"9"& 6n
an) case, their individ(al emplo)ment e8ceeds ! )ear&
Petitioners were dismissed from work& /ence, the)
filed a complaint for illeal dismissal
Private respondent %r(- denied that the said
petitioners were her re(lar emplo)ees and contended
that she enaed their services thro(h spo(ses
Mercado who s(ppl) workers needed b) owners of
vario(s farms, b(t onl) to do a partic(lar phase of
aric(lt(ral work necessar) in rice and s(ar
prod(ction and after which the) wo(ld be free to
render their services to other farm owners who need
their services&
Iss,': Whether petitioners are considered regular ,,s
and, therefore, entitled to benefits#
HELD: NO
Pro:ect ;;s do not become 3e(lar ;;s altho(h service
e8ceeds ! )ear&
1ltho(h the workers rendered service for almost H,
)ears, the) cannot be considered as re(lar or permanent
emplo)ee, beca(se of the fact thatC
!& =he) were >3;; to work for other farm owners4
B& =he) >3;; to %.2=31%= their service with other
farm owner4
H& =he) were M;3; pro:ect emplo)ees, who co(ld
be hired b) other farm owners&
Petitioners bein pro:ect ;;s, or, to (se the correct term,
seasonal ;;s, their emplo)ment leall) ends (pon the
completion of each pro:ect the season
BRENT SCHOOL- INC vs. ZAMORA (199D)
FACTS:
3espondent Goroteo 3& 1lere was enaed as athletic
director b) Brent $chool, 6nc& for a fi8ed and specific
term of five (A) )ears,
$(bse<(ent s(bsidiar) areements reiterated the
same terms and conditions, incl(din the e8pir) date,
as those contained in the oriinal contract&
H months before the e8piration of the stip(lated
period, 1lere was terminated on the ro(nd of
30
villadolid
digests
completion of contract and e8piration of definite
period of emplo)ment
1lere protested that since his services were
necessar) and desirable in the (s(al b(siness of his
;3, and his emplo)ment had lasted for A )ears, he
had ac<(ired the stat(s of a re(lar emplo)ee and
co(ld not be removed e8cept for valid ca(se&
Iss,': Whether $legre was lawfully teminiated1
HELD: YES
A$%i(+' >5D does not proscribe or prohibit
emplo)ment contract with a fi8ed period, P3.I6G;G the
same is entered into b) the parties witho(t an) force,
d(ress or improper press(re (pon the ;; and in the
absence of vitiatin consent
R'"s#: %ontracts of emplo)ment overn the
relationship of the parties& 1n) stip(lation in the
contract, not contrar) to law, morals, ood c(stoms,
p(blic order and p(blic polic), is valid, bindin and m(st
be respected&
TTT=his practice is however leall) <(estionable if done
in a more or less contin(o(s basis with the ob:ective of
avoidin re(lari-ation as it in effect circ(mvents the law
on sec(rit) of ten(re of the workers&
6n the %1B, the emplo)ment contract is valid, bindin,
and m(st be respected&
1UREFOODS COR1. vs. NLRC (199@)
FACTS:
Private respondents (n(mberin ",#) were hired b)
petitioner P(re >oods %orporation to work for a !i;'.
*'$i#. of >6I; M.2=/$ at its t(na canner) plant in
0eneral $antos %it)&
1fter the e8piration of their respective contracts of
emplo)ment, their services were terminated& /ence,
the) filed a complaint for illeal dismissal
LA: dismissed the complaint on the ro(nd that the
private respondents were mere %.2=31%=U1L
?.3K;3$, and not re(lar emplo)ees4 hence, the)
co(ld not avail of the law on sec(rit) of ten(re&
NLRCC reversed L1 holdin that the private
respondents were re(lar emplo)ees& 6t declared
that the contract of emplo)ment for five months was
a s(&')' to prevent Mprivate respondents5N riht to
sec(rit) of ten(re7 and sho(ld therefore be str(ck
down and disrearded for bein contrar) to law,
p(blic polic), and morals&
Iss,': Whether pri"ate respondents are considered
regular ,,s1
HELD: YES. NLRC "!!i$)'..
$% str(ck down as invalid a </)#%& (#%$"(% involvin
workers who were performin activities (s(all)
necessar) or desirable to the b(siness Uof the compan)&
=he practice of hirin workers on (niforml) fi8ed contract
basis of A months, onl) to replace them (pon the
e8piration of their contracts with other workers on the
same emplo)ment d(ration, was to circ(mvent the
constit(tional (arantee on sec(rit) of ten(re and,
therefore, contrar) to p(blic polic)& =o (phold the
contract(al arranement between the emplo)er and the
workers wo(ld in effect permit the former to avoid hirin
permanent or re(lar emplo)ees b) simpl) hirin them
on a temporar) or cas(al basis, thereb) violatin the
emplo)eesE sec(rit) of ten(re in their :obs&
MANILA ELECTRIC CO. vs. NLRC (1959)
FACTS:
%omplainant 3amon L& Meris was hired b) respondent
M;31L%. as a P3.B1=6.213F ;MPL.F;; for A
months as messener& /is work amon others, was to
file pleadins in co(rt, serve s(mmons for e8ec(tion,
verif) or follow-(p cases in co(rt and other related
matters (nder the leal department&
/is s(pervisors were dissatisfied with his performance
for bein nelectf(l of his d(ties and he was also
(ncooperative toward co-emplo)ees and disrespectf(l
to his s(periors&
3amon received a Memorand(m, advisin him of the
termination of his probationar) emplo)ment&
LA: ordered the reinstatement of 3amon&
NLRCC s(stained the L1 and held that the dismissal
was illeal
Iss,': Whether the dismissal of the , before the F
months probationary was %ust and "alid1
HELD: YES. NLRC $'v'$s'..
=he ;3 has the riht to terminate probationar)
emplo)ment on :(stifiable ca(ses
1 probationar) emplo)ee ma) be dismissed for ca(se at
an) time before the e8piration of si8 (#) months after
hirin& 6f after workin for less than si8 (#) months, he is
fo(nd to be (nfit for the :ob, he can be dismissed& B(t if
he contin(es to be emplo)ed loner than si8 (#) months,
he ceases to be a probationar) emplo)ee and becomes a
re(lar or permanent emplo)ee&
A.M. ORETA G CO.- INC. vs. NLRC (1959)
FACTS:
Private respondent $i8to 0r(lla was enaed b)
;nineerin %onstr(ction and 6nd(strial Gevelopment
%ompan) (;2G;%.) thro(h 1&M& .reta and %o&, 6nc&,
as a carpenter in its pro:ects in 'eddah, $a(di 1rabia&
=he contract of emplo)ment, which was entered into
was for a period of !B months& 0r(lla left the
Philippines for 'eddah, $a(di 1rabia
0r(lla met an accident which fract(red his l(mbar
vertebra while workin at the :obsite& /e was r(shed
to the 2ew 'eddah %linic and was confined there for
!B da)s. 0r(lla was dischared from the hospital and
was told that he co(ld res(me his normal d(ties after
(nderoin ph)sical therap) for two weeks&
0r(lla reported back to his Pro:ect Manaer and
presented a med certificate declarin him alread) fit
for work& $ince then, he started workin aain (ntil he
received a notice of termination of his emplo)ment&
/ence, he filed a complaint for illeal dismissal
Iss,': Whether the ,, was lawfully terminated
HELD: NO
1 probationar) ;; cannot be removed e8cept for ca(se
d(rin the period of probation& 1ltho(h a probationar) or
temporar) ;; has limited ten(re, he still en:o)s sec(rit)
of ten(re& G(rin his ten(re, or before the contract
e8pires, he cannot be removed e8cept as provided for b)
the law&
31
villadolid
digests
=;3M621=6.2 .> ;MPL.FM;2=C
%onse<(ences of =ermination
MAN22A2A0A N2 7OMUNI7ASYON SA 1ILI1INAS
". ANTONIO L. CRUZ vs. NLRC ". 1LDT (199>)
FACTS:
Petitioner %r(- had been an ;3 of PLG= for !# )ears as
an installerLrepairman when he was terminated&
6t appears that sometime in 1((st !"@A, %r(- and
co-repairman Moldera was instr(cted to repair
installations located at HBA 1cacia Lane, Mandal()on&
1ccordin to PLG=, the telephone n(mbers installed on
the said address were act(all) reinstalled and
f(nctionin at HBH 1cacia Lane, Mandal()on& =his
o(t-move of the telephone was considered illeal b)
the compan) there bein no service order& /ence, %r(-
was dismissed on the ro(nd of fra(d and serio(s
miscond(ct&
Both L1 and 2L3% arrived at the concl(sion that said
;; sho(ld be dismissed altho(h with financial
assistance (!,K)& =his was <(estioned b) the PLG=
Iss,': Whether Cru) is entitled to financial assistance
HELD: YES
=he dismissal of %r(- was valid& PLG= complied with
proced(ral d(e process prior to termination of %r(- for
violation of compan) r(les involvin what can be
considered fra(d and dishonest)&
?hen there is do(bt that dishonest) was committed,
financial assistance ma) still be awarded to an ;; who has
rendered lon )ears of service& Gespite the nat(re of
offense, financial assistance on ro(nd of compassionate
:(stice ma) still be iven&
1INES CITY EDUCATIONAL CENTER ". EU2ENIO
BALTAO vs. NLRC (199C)
Mercury *rug 3(le 1bandoned& 3eiterated the doctrine laid
down in Derrer
FACTS:
Private respondents were all emplo)ed as teachers on
probationar) basis b) petitioner Pines %it)
;d(cational %enter&
$aid teachers sined contracts of emplo)ment with
petitioner for a fi8ed d(ration& G(e to the e8piration of
the contracts and their poor performance as teachers,
the) were notified of not to renew their contracts
an)more&
=he teachers filed a complaint for illeal dismissal
LA: r(led in favor of the teachers and ordered their
reinstatement and to pa) their f(ll backwaes and
other benefits and privilees witho(t <(alification and
ded(ction from the time the) were dismissed (p to
their act(al reinstatement&
NLRC: affirmed the L1
Iss,': Whether the !$ and +!C are correct in ordering
the reinstatement and payment of full bac(wages
HELD: NO. NLRC $'v'$s'..
6nterim earnin sho(ld not be ded(cted from the awarded
backwaes& =he law provides no <(alification nor does it
32
villadolid
digests
state that earned income b) the ;; d(rin the period of
his (n:(st dismissal to act(al reinstatement sho(ld be
ded(cted from s(ch backwaes& ?hen the law does not
provide, the co(rt shall not improvise&
=he order for their reinstatement and pa)ment of f(ll
backwaes and other benefits and privilees from the
time the) were dismissed (p to their act(al
reinstatement is proper, conformabl) with 1rticle B9" of
the Labor %ode, as amended b) 31 #9!A which took
effect on March B!, !"@"&
/.?;I;3, in ascertainin the total amo(nt of
backwaes pa)able to them, we o back to the r(le prior
to the Merc(r) Gr( r(le that the total amo(nt derived
from emplo)ment elsewhere b) the emplo)ee from the
date of dismissal (p to the date of reinstatement, i! "8-
s&#,+. 6' .'.,(%'. %&'$'!$#). ?e restate the
(nderl)in reason that emplo)ees sho(ld not be
permitted to enrich themselves at the e8pense of their
emplo)er& =o this e8tend, o(r r(lin in 1le8 >errer, et al&
vs& 2L3% is hereb) modified&
BUSTAMANTE vs. NLRC (199:)
2ines City 3(lin 1bandoned
FACTS:
;verreen >arms claimed that petitioners are not entitled
to recover backwaes beca(se the) were not act(all)
dismissed b(t their probationar) emplo)ment was not
converted to permanent emplo)ment4 and ass(min that
petitioners are entitled to backwaes, comp(tation
thereof sho(ld not start from cessation of work (p to
act(al reinstatement, and that salar) earned elsewhere
(d(rin the period of illeal dismissal) sho(ld be
ded(cted from the award of s(ch backwaes&
HELD:
=he f(ll backwaes amendment b) 31 #9!A has 2.
3;=3.1%=6I; ;>>;%=4 it applies onl) prospectivel)&
/ence, the r(le isC where the illeal dismissal happened
before the effectivit) of 31 #9!A (HLB!L@"), the award of
backwaes is limited to H )ears witho(t ded(ction or
<(alification& BU= if the illeal dismissal happened on or
after the effectivit) of 31 #9!A, the award of backwaes
sho(ld be comp(ted from the time of illeal dismissal (p
to act(al reinstatement witho(t an) ded(ctions&
0EN1HIL COR1. vs. NLRC (1959)
*ISMISS$! IS !,G$!: *ismissal is %ustified, but because
there was no due process, ,, is entitled to
indemnification
FACTS:
Private respondent 3oberto Mallare was hired b)
?ephil %orp& as a crew member at its %(bao Branch&
Mallare had an altercation with a co-emplo)ee, 'ob
Barrameda, as a res(lt of which he and Barrameda
were s(spended and later on served with notice of
dismissal&
Mallare filed a complaint for lleal dismissal&
LA: dismissed the complaint for lack of merit&
NLRC: reversed L1 and ordered the reinstatement of
Mallare
?enphil pra)ed for restrainin order allein that
2L3% committed a rave ab(se of discretion& =he
co(rt iss(ed a restrainin order&
Mallare contended that he was denied d(e process
beca(se there was no investiation prior his
dismissal&
1ccordin to ?enphil, (nder the Personnel Man(al of
the corp&, an investiation shall onl) be cond(cted if
the offense committed b) the emplo)ee is p(nishable
with the penalt) hiher than s(spension of fifteen (!A)
da)s and the errin emplo)ee re<(ests for an
investiation of the incident& ?enphil allees that
Mallare did not ask for investiation, hence waived his
riht to the investiation&
Iss,': Whether Mallare was denied due process, hence
entitled to indemnity
HELD: YES
=he contention of ?enphil is (ntenable&
6n the %1B, Mallare received an official notice of his
termination + da)s later after he was dismissed& /is
ref(sal to e8plain his side cannot be considered as a
waiver of his riht to an investiation& 1ltho(h in the
Personnel Man(al, it states that an errin emplo)ee m(st
re<(est for an investiation it does not thereb) mean that
the ;3 is thereb) relieved of the d(t) to cond(ct an
investiation before dismissin its ;;&
=he fail(re of petitioner to ive private respondent the
benefit of a hearin before he was dismissed constit(tes
an infrinement of his constit(tional riht to d(e process
of law and e<(al protection of the laws&
A .is)iss"+ !#$ " v"+i. $'"s# is +'B"+ ". v"+i.- 6,%
%&' ER 9&# .#'s #% #6s'$v' .,' *$#('ss ),s% *"8
s#)' INDEMNITY for its breach of leal proced(re4 the
meas(re of damaes will depend on the facts of the case,
and on the ravit) of the omission b) the emplo)er

HELLENIC 1HIL. SHI11IN2 INC. vs. E1IFANIO C.
SIETE ". NLRC (1991)
Wenphil Goctrine does not appl)&
I!!,G$! *ISMISS$!: *ismissal is +.- %ustifiedK *ue
2rocess not obser"ed#
FACTS:
%apt& ;pifanio $iete was emplo)ed as Master of MLI
/o(da 0 b) $(ltan $hippin %o&, Ltd&,
$ometime later, %apt& ?ilfredo Lim boarded the vessel
and advised $iete that he had instr(ctions from the
owners to take over its command for (ne8plained
reason
$iete filed a complaint for illeal dismissal&
Petitioner alleed in its answer that $iete had been
dismissed beca(se of his fail(re to compl) with the
instr(ction of $(ltan $hippin to erase the timber load
line on the vessel and for his nelience in the
dischare of the caro at =ripoli that endanered the
vessel and stevedores&
1OEA: dismissed the complaint, holdin that there
was valid ca(se for $ieteEs removal&
$iete appealed to the 2L3% contendin that he was
dismissed witho(t even bein informed of the chares
aainst him or iven an opport(nit) to ref(te them&
NLRC: reversed the P.;1 holdin that the dismissal
violated d(e process and that the doc(ments
s(bmitted b) the petitioner were hearsa), self-servin,
and not verified&
/ellenic ar(es that whatever defects miht have
tainted the ;;Es dismissal were s(bse<(entl) c(red
when the chares aainst him were specified and
s(fficientl) disc(ssed in the position papers s(bmitted
b) the parties to the P.;1&
Iss,': Whether due process was obser"ed by the ,
HELD: NO
=he law re<(ires that the investiation be cond(cted
before the dismissal, not after& =hat omission cannot be
33
villadolid
digests
corrected b) the investiation later cond(cted b) the
P.;1& 1s the $olicitor 0eneral correctl) maintained, the
d(e process re<(irement in the dismissal process is
different from the d(e process re<(irement in the P.;1
proceedin& Both re<(irements m(st be separatel)
observed&
?hile it is tr(e that in Wenphil Corp# "s# +!C and
ubberworld @2hils#A "s# +!C, the lack of d(e process
before the dismissal of the emplo)ee was deemed
corrected b) the s(bse<(ent administrative proceedins
where the dismissed emplo)ee was iven a chance to be
heard, those cases involved dismissals that were later
proved to be for a valid ca(se& =he doctrine in those
cases is not applicable to the case at bar beca(se o(r
findins here is that the dismissal was not :(stified&
VIERNES vs. NLRC (>DDC)
,, entitled to full bac(wages because he was illegally
dismissedK Ee is also entitled to indemnification because
due process was not obser"ed
FACTS:
%omplainants worked as meter readers with
Ben(et ;lectric %ooperative when the) were served
a notice of termination beca(se of retrenchment&
1ccordin to the compan), the) need to retrench its
personnel beca(se the) are alread) over staffed&
=he complainants filed for illeal dismissal
contendin that the) were not apprentices b(t
re(lar emplo)ees whose services were illeall) and
(n:(stl) terminated in a manner that was whimsical
and capricio(s&
.n the other hand, the respondent invokes 1rticle
B@H of the L% in defense of the <(estioned dismissal&
LA: dismissed the complaints for lack of merit b(t
ordered the ;3 to pa) the ;;s the amo(nt
representin (nderpa)ment of their waes, and to
pa) indemnit) and attorne)Es fees&
NLRC: modified L1 and ordered the reinstatement of
the complainants with pa)ment of backwaes limited
to one )ear and deletin the award of indemnit) and
attorne)Es fees&
Iss,': Whether +!C committed gra"e abuse of
discretion in deleting the award of indemnity
HELD: YES
1n ;3 becomes liable to pa) indemnit) to a dismissed ;;
if the ;3 fails to compl) with the re<(irements of d(e
process& =he indemnit) is in the form of nominal
damaes intended not to penali-e the emplo)er b(t to
vindicate or reconi-e the emplo)eeEs riht to proced(ral
d(e process which was violated b) the emplo)er&
?e do not aree with the r(lin of the 2L3% that
indemnit) is incompatible with the award of backwaes&
=hese two awards are based on different considerations&
Backwaes are ranted on ro(nds of e<(it) to workers
for earnins lost d(e to their illeal dismissal from work&
.n the other hand, the award of indemnit) is meant to
vindicate or reconi-e the riht of an emplo)ee to d(e
process which has been violated b) the emplo)er&
6n the %1B, the ;3 failed to compl) with the provisions of
1rticle B@H of the Labor %ode which re<(ires an
emplo)er to serve a notice of dismissal (pon the
emplo)ees so(ht to be terminated and to the
Gepartment of Labor, at least one month before the
intended date of termination& /ence, it is liable to pa)
indemnit) to petitioners& =h(s, we find that the 2L3%
committed rave ab(se of discretion in deletin the
award of indemnit)&
1HIL. TOBACCO FLUE/CURIN2 REDRYIN2 COR1 vs.
NLRC (1995)
FACTS:
Petitioner compan) transferred its tobacco processin
plant in Balintawak, J(e-on %it) to %andon, 6locos
$(r& =he compan) therein did not act(all) close its
entire b(siness b(t merel) relocated its tobacco
processin and redr)in operations to another place&
=wo ro(ps of seasonal workers claimed separation
benefits after the clos(re of the plant in Balintawak&
Petitioner ref(ses to rant separation pa) to the
workers belonin to the first batch (referred to as the
L(bat ro(p), beca(se the) had not been iven work
d(rin the precedin )ear and, hence, were no loner
in its emplo) at the time it closed its Balintanwak
plant& Likewise, it claims e8emption from awardin
separation pa) to the second batch (the L(ris ro(p),
beca(se the clos(re of its plant was d(e to serio(s
b(siness losses, as defined in 1rticle B@H of the Labor
%ode&
LA: ordered petitioner to pa) the complainants their
respective separation pa), e<(ivalent to one-half
month pa) for ever) )ear of service&
NLRC: affirmed L1
?hen the separation benefits were iven to the
complainants, the latter alleed that there is wron
comp(tation when manaement did not consider HL+
of their lenth of service as claimed
1ccordin to petitioner co&, the separation pa) of a
seasonal worker, who works onl) for a fraction of a
)ear, sho(ld not be e<(ated with that of a re(lar
worker& Petitioner s(bmits that the form(la for the
comp(tation of a seasonal workerEs separation pa) is
=otal 2o& .f Ga)s act(all) worked L =otal 2o& .f
?orkin Ga)s in .ne Feas 8 Gail) 3ate 8 !A da)s
=he complainants claimed that their separation pa)
sho(ld be based on the act(al n(mber of )ears the)
have been in petitionerEs compan)&
Iss,': Whether the computation adopted by petitioner
company in granting complainants' separation pay is
erroneous
HELD: YES
=he amo(nt of separation pa) is based on two factorsC the
amo(nt of monthl) salar) and the n(mber of )ears of
service& 1ltho(h the Labor %ode provides different
definitions as to what constit(tes one )ear of service,
Book $i8 does not specificall) define one )ear of service
for p(rposes of comp(tin separation pa)& /owever,
1rticles B@H and B@+ both state in connection with
separation pa) that a fraction of at least si8 months shall
be considered one whole )ear&
1ppl)in this to the case at bar, we hold that the amo(nt
of separation pa) which respondent members of the L(bat
and L(ris ro(ps sho(ld receive is one-half (V) their
respective averae
monthl) pa) d(rin the last season the) worked m(ltiplied
b) the n(mber of )ears the) act(all) rendered service,
provided that the) worked for at least si8 months d(rin a
iven )ear&
=he form(la that petitioner compan) proposes, wherein a
)ear of work is e<(ivalent to act(al rendered for H,H da)s,
is both (nfair and inapplicable, considerin that 1rticles
B@H and B@+ provide that in connection with separation
pa), a fraction of at least si8 months shall be considered
one whole )ear& Under these provisions, an emplo)ee who
worked for onl) si8 months in a iven )ear Q which is
certainl) less than H,H da)s Q is considered to have
worked for one whole )ear&
34
villadolid
digests
ASIONICS 1HIL. INC. ". FRAN7 YIH vs. NLRC
(1995)
FACTS:
1sionics Philippines, 6nc& (71P675) is a domestic
corporation enaed in the b(siness of assemblin
semi-cond(ctor chips and other electronic prod(cts
mainl) for e8port&
Folanda Boa<(ina and '(ana 0a)ola started workin
for 1P6 as material control clerk and as prod(ction
operator when the) were dismissed b) 1P6
1P6 entered into a %B1 with the >ederation >ree
?orkers (7>>?7)& /owever, a deadlock ens(ed and
the (nion decided to file a notice of strike& 1P6 was
forced to s(spend operations and Boa<(ina and
0a)ola were amon the emplo)ee asked to take a
leave from work&
Upon the resol(tion of the deadlock, Boa<(ina and
0a)ola was directed to report back to work&
6nasm(ch as its b(siness activit) remained critical,
1P6 was constrained to implement a compan)-wide
retrenchment & Boa<(ina was one of those affected
b) the retrenchment& 1nd was informed that her
services were to be dispensed with
Gissatisfied with their (nion (>>?), Boa<(ina and
0a)ola, toether with some of other co-emplo)ees,
:oined the Lakas n Manaawa sa Pilipinas Labor
Union (7Lakas Union75) where the) event(all)
became members of its Board of Girectors&
Lakas Union filed a notice of strike aainst 1P6 on the
ro(nd of ULP& 1P6 filed a complaint for illeal strike
LA: declared the strike staed b) Lakas Union to be
illeal and r(led that all the officers of the Unions at
the time of the strike are to have lost their
emplo)ment stat(s&
Boa<(ina and 0a)ola filed a complaint for illeal
dismissal aainst 1P6 and its manaer >rank Fih
LA: held that 1P6 is (ilt) of illeal dismissal and
ordered it to pa) private respondent Folanda
Boa<(ina separation pa) of one-half (!LB) month pa)
for ever) )ear of service, pl(s overtime pa), and to
reinstate private respondent '(ana 0a)ola with f(ll
backwaes from the time her salaries were withheld
from her (ntil her act(al reinstatement&
NLRC: reversed L1 in holdin that 1P6 is (ilt) of
illeal dismissal b(t r(led that the strike was illeal&
Petitioner 1P6 ar(ed that that respondents sho(ld
not be entitled to separation pa) beca(se of their
involvement in the strike which was declared illeal&
Iss,'1: Whether pri"ate respondents are entitled to
separation pay despite ha"ing participated in an illegal
stri(e1
HELD: F;$
=he termination of emplo)ment of private respondents
was d(e to the retrenchment polic) adopted b) 1P6 and
not beca(se of the former5s (nion activities&
Iss,'>: Whether a stoc(holderLdirectorLofficer of a
corporation can be held liable for the obligation of the
corporation absent of finding of bad faith
HELD: NO
1 corporation is a :(ridical entit) with leal personalit)
separate and distinct from those actin for and in its
behalf and, in eneral, from the people comprisin it&
=he r(le is that obliations inc(rred b) the corporation,
actin thro(h its directors, officers and emplo)ees, are
its sole liabilities& 2evertheless, bein a mere fiction of
law, pec(liar sit(ations or valid ro(nds can e8ist to
warrant, albeit done sparinl), the disreard of its
independent bein and the liftin of the corporate veil&
1s a r(le, this sit(ation miht arise when a corporation is
(sed to evade a :(st and d(e obliation or to :(stif) a
wron, to shield or perpetrate fra(d, to carr) o(t similar
(n:(stifiable aims or intentions, or as a s(bterf(e to
commit in:(stice and so circ(mvent the law&
2othin on record is shown to indicate that >rank Fih has
acted in bad faith or with malice in carr)in o(t the
retrenchment proram of the compan)& /is havin been
held b) the 2L3% to be solidaril) and personall) liable with
1P6 is th(s leall) (n:(stified&
?/;3;>.3;, the <(estioned decision of the 2L3% is
M.G6>6;G insofar as it holds herein petitioner >rank Fih
personall) liable with 1P6&

CUSTODIO vs. MINISTRY OF LABOR AND
EM1LOYMENT (199D)
FACTS:
Petitioner Iictor %(stodio worked for private resp&
>irst >armers Millin and Marketin 1ssoc& as 1sst&
0eneral Manaer for almost !9 )ears&
=he ;3, thro(h its board of directors, decided to
p(rchase a boiler, the cost of which wo(ld amo(nt to
several million pesos& 1n eval(ation committee was
constit(ted with petitioner as chairman& 1 disp(te
arose between %(stodio and the eneral manaer
reardin the committee5s recommendations,
partic(larl), the brand of boiler recommended, leadin
to chares and co(nterchares of kickbacks or
commissions iven to officers and directors b) the
s(ppliers& Beca(se of this, %(todio s(bmitted a letter
of resination
6n the board5s meetin, %(stodioEs letter of resination
was disc(ssed& =he min(tes statedCthat the letter of
resination s(bmitted b) Mr& Iictor %(stodio is
irrevocable and he is considered resined as soon as
the board takes coni-ance of his irrevocable letter of
resination&
%(stodio e8pressed his intention to withdraw his letter
of resination& =he president reported that no letter of
withdrawal has been received& 6n as m(ch as the
Board believed that it had no choice on the matter it
did not take an) action on the resination e8cept to
take coni-ance of it&
?hen petitioner went back to work, he was informed
that he was no loner connected with the compan)
and transaction made b) him shall be void&
%(stodio filed a complaint for illeal dismissal
=he %o& contends that since his resination letter (sed
the word& 7irrevocable,7 his resination need not be
accepted b) private respondent and co(ld no loner be
withdrawn b) petitioner&
Iss,': Whether the resignation of Custodio may be
withdrawn1
HELD: YES
=he (ndisp(ted facts and circ(mstances s(pport the
concl(sion that petitioner5s resination never became
effective& Gespite its bein termed 7irrevocable,7 neither
the petitioner nor the private respondent treated it as
s(ch&
R'siB"%i# is 9i%&.$"9"6+' 'v' i! %&' EE &"s
("++'. i% i$$'v#("6+'. B(t after it is accepted or approve
b) the ;3, its withdrawal needs the ;3Es consent&
?/;3;>.3;, the petition is 0312=;G& Private respondent
is .3G;3;G to reinstate petitioner& B(t, considerin the
time that has elapsed, sho(ld petitioner5s reinstatement to
35
villadolid
digests
his former or a s(bstantiall) e<(ivalent position be no
loner feasible, he shall be entitled to separation pa)
e<(ivalent to one (!) month5s salar) for ever) )ear of
service, in addition to the backwaes&
HYATT TAII SERVICES vs. CATINOY (>DD1)
FACTS:
B (nion officers, %atino) and $at(rnino, had a fiht
inside the (nion office, an act that violates compan)
r(les and (nion b)-laws& =he (nion e8ec(tive board
decided to place them on indefinite s(spension and
re<(ested the compan), /)att =a8i $ervices 6nc&, to
implement it& =he compan) place the B on preventive
s(spension for H, da)s
%atino), arieved b) the preventive s(spension
since he was not the aressor, filed a complaint for
illeal s(spension& 1fter the lapse of H, da)s, he
reported to work b(t was not allowed to res(me his
d(ties& /e amended his complaint to incl(de
constr(ctive dismissal
LA: fo(nd the /)att ta8i to be (ilt) of illeal
preventive s(spension and illeal constr(ctive
dismissal
/)att and the (nion appealed to the 2L3%
NLRC: affirmed L1&& /.?;I;3, (pon M>3, the 2L3%
deleted the award of backwaes beca(se there was
no concrete showin that the complainant was
constr(ctivel) dismissed
CA: reinstated the L1Es decision
Iss,': Whether the pri"ate respondent was
constructi"ely dismissed
HELD: YES. CA "!!i$)'..
Preventive s(spension be)ond H, da)s amo(nts to
constr(ctive dismissal& 6t shows that respondent was not
taken back b) petitioner /)att after the H,-da)
s(spension period& %learl), constr(ctive dismissal had
alread) set in when the s(spension went be)ond the
ma8im(m period allowed b) law&
BRION vs. SOUTH 1HIL UNION MISSION OF THE
@
TH
DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH (1999)
FACTS:
Petitioner Gelfin 1& Brion became a member of
respondent $o(th Philippine Union Mission of the
$eventh Ga) 1dventist %h(rch (hereafter $G1)& /e
became an ordained minister and president of the
2ortheastern Mindanao Mission of the $eventh Ga)
1dventist %h(rch in B(t(an %it)&
3espondent $G1 claims that d(e to corr(ption
chares, Brion was transferred to the Gavao Mission&
=hereafter, alleedl) d(e to an act of indiscretion
with a masse(se, petitioner was demoted to the
position of $abbath $chool Girector at the 2orthern
Mindanao Mission of the $G1 located at %aa)an de
.ro %it)& /ere, petitioner worked (ntil he retired in
!"@H& 1s was the practice of the $G1, petitioner was
provided a monthl) amo(nt as a retirement benefit&
$ometime thereafter, Brion ot into an ar(ment
with $am(el $anes, another pastor of the $G1& =his
disareement deenerated into a rift between Brion
and the $G1, c(lminatin in the establishment b)
Brion of a rival reliio(s ro(p which he called the
/ome %h(rch& /e s(cceeded in enticin a n(mber
of $G1 members to become part of his conreation
Beca(se of his actions, Brion was e8comm(nicated
b) the $G1 and his name was dropped from the
%h(rch 3ecord Book& 1s a conse<(ence of his
disfellowship, petitionerEs monthl) retirement
benefit was discontin(ed b) the $G1&
Brion filed an action for mandam(s with the 3=% of
%aa)an de .ro %it) askin that the $G1 restore his
monthl) retirement benefit&
RTC: finds in favor of Brion and ordered $G1 to pa)
the retirement benefits
CA: reversed 3=% and ordered the dismissal of BrionEs
complaint&
Iss,': Whether 4rion is entitled to retirement benefits
HELD: YES. ?e find for petitioner&
3etirement has been defined as a withdrawal from office,
p(blic station, b(siness, occ(pation, or p(blic d(t)& 6t is
the res(lt of a bilateral act of the parties, a vol(ntar)
areement between the emplo)er and the emplo)ee
whereb) the latter, after reachin a certain ae, arees
andLor consents to sever his emplo)ment with the former&
6n this connection, the modern socio-economic climate has
fostered the practice of settin (p pension and retirement
plans for private emplo)ees, initiall) thro(h their
vol(ntar) adoption b) emplo)ers, and latel), established
b) leislation& Pension schemes, while initiall)
h(manitarian in nat(re, now concomitantl) serve to sec(re
lo)alt) and efficienc) on the part of emplo)ees, and to
increase contin(it) of service and decrease the labor
t(rnover b) ivin to the emplo)ees some ass(rance of
sec(rit) as the) approach and reach the ae at which
earnin abilit) and earnins are materiall) impaired or at
an end&
1rt& B@9& 3etirement& * 1n) emplo)ee ma) be retired
(pon reachin the retirement ae established in the
collective barainin areement or other applicable
emplo)ment contract&
6n case of retirement, the emplo)ee shall be entitled to
receive s(ch retirement benefits as he ma) have earned
(nder e8istin laws and an) collective barainin
areement and other areementsW
>rom the above, it can be leaned that emplo)er and
emplo)ee are free to stip(late on retirement benefits, as
lon as these do not fall below the floor limits provided b)
law&
6n the present case, petitioner was ad:(ded b) the $G1
in !"@H, to be <(alified for retirement, s(ch that when it
bean pa)in petitioner retirement benefits in said )ear, it
m(st have been convinced that petitioner had devoted his
life to the work of the $eventh-da) 1dventist %h(rch&
/avin arrived at s(ch a concl(sion, it ma) not now
reverse this findin to the detriment of petitioner&
UE vs. MINISTRY OF LABOR AND UE FACULTY
ASSOCIATION (195@)
FACTS:
Labor and ;mplo)ment directin the Universit) of the
;ast to pa) the fac(lt) members concerned retirement
benefits in accordance with their collective barainin
areement, in addition to the pa)ment of separation
pa) accordin to the =ermination Pa) Law&
=he then president of the Universit) of the ;ast (U;)
anno(nced the phase-o(t of the %ollee of $ecretarial
;d(cation and the /ih $chool Gepartment
respectivel) on the ro(nds of lack of economic
viabilit) and financial losses&
=he respondent U; >ac(lt) 1ssociation opposed the
phaseo(t, contendin that s(ch action contravened the
law beca(se it constit(tes (nion b(stin& =he private
respondent filed a notice of strike with the B(rea( of
Labor 3elations (BL3)&
BL3 cond(cted several conciliation proceedins b(t
when no amicable settlement was reached, the
respondent Minister iss(ed an order ass(min
36
villadolid
digests
:(risdiction over the case and directin the BL3 to
receive evidence in connection with the disp(te&
3espondent Minister of Labor r(led that the phaseo(t
of the two departments was arbitrar) and ordered U;
to pa) all affected fac(lt) members of the %ollee
$ecretarial ;d(cation and the /ih $chool
Gepartment a separation pa)& 6n addition to the
termination pa), the Universit) is likewise directed to
pa) retirement benefits to all affected fac(lt)
members who, in accordance with the collective
barainin areement, are retireable prior to or at
the time of the phase-o(t&7
Petitioner ar(esns that the award of separation pa)
p(rs(ant to the =ermination Pa) Law necessaril)
e8cl(des retirement benefits&
Iss,': Whether the Minister of !abor and ,mployment
committed gra"e abuse of discretion in awarding both
retirement benefits and separation pay to the faculty
members affected by the phase-out#
HELD: NO. ?e r(le for the respondents&
$eparation pa) arisin from a forced termination of
emplo)ment and benefits iven as a contract(al riht
d(e to man) )ears of faithf(l service are not necessaril)
e8cl(de each other&
%learl), the onl) sit(ation contemplated in the %B1
wherein an emplo)ee shall be precl(ded from receivin
retirement benefits is when said emplo)ee is not
separated from service b(t transferred instead from one
collee or department to another& =here is no provision
to the effect that teachers who are forcibl) dismissed are
not entitled to retirement benefits if the M.L; awards
them separation pa)& >(rthermore, since the above
provision has become in effect part of the petitioner5s
polic), the same sho(ld be enforced separatel) from the
provisions of the =ermination Pa) Law&
BALI0A2 TRANSIT INC. vs. BLAS O1LE (1959)
FACTS:
3omeo /(hes, a b(s driver, met an accident when
the b(s he was drivin was hit b) a train& /is ;3
s(ed the railroad compan)& 3omeo was absolved of
contrib(tor) nelience b(t s(spended b) his ;3
$oon after the :(dment was rendered aainst the
railroad compan), he renewed his driverEs license and
asked for reinstatement& B(t he was asked to wait
(ntil the criminal case was decided&
?hen the criminal case was dismissed, he repeated
his re<(est for reinstatement b(t it was inored
3omeoEs law)er made a formal demand in writin b(t
it was denied b) the ;3& /ence, 3omeo filed a formal
complaint
R'Bi#"+ Di$'(%#$: dismissed the complaint on the
ro(nd that it was filed be)ond the prescriptive
period prescribe in 1rt& B"! co(nted from the date of
collision&
Iss,': Whether the complaint was filed beyond the
prescripti"e period
HELD: NO
$ince a 5ca(se of action5 re<(ires, as essential elements,
not onl) a leal riht of the plaintiff and a correlative
obliation of the defendant b(t also 5an act or omission
of the defendant in violation of said leal riht,5 the
ca(se of action does not accr(e (ntil the part) obliated
ref(ses, e8pressl) or impliedl), to compl) with its d(t)&
3omeoEs ca(se of action accr(ed on Ma) !,, !"@,, when
the ;3 denied his demand for reinstatement& =he earlier
re<(ests made b) 3omeo havin been warded off with
indefinite promises, and 3omeo not )et havin decided to
assert his riht, his ca(se of action co(ld not be said to
have then alread) accr(ed& 1s 3omeoEs complaint was
filed not later than H months onl) after s(ch re:ection,
there is no <(estion that his action has prescribed,
whatever prescriptive period is applied&
FULL BACKWAGES
- wages fro !"e !#e of #$$ega$ !er#%a!#o% &' !o !"e
a(!&a$ re#%s!a!ee%!
1) *er(&r+ ,r&g -s) .L/C
- 3 +ears 'a+ w#!"o&! 0&a$#1(a!#o% a%2
2e2&(!#o%
2) Ferrer -s) .L/C
- wages fro !#e of #$$ega$ 2#s#ssa$ !o
a(!&a$ re#%s!a!ee%! *3.US ear%#%gs
e$sew"ere 4ear%#%gs fro !"e %ew 5o6
w"#$e (ase #s 'e%2#%g7
3) 8sa$#9 B&s!aa%!e -s) .L/C
- wages fro !"e !#e of #$$ega$ 2#s#ssa$ &'
!o a(!&a$ re#%s!a!ee%! w#!"o&! a%+ 2e2&(!#o%s)
37

Labor Relations DIGESTS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Labor Relations DIGESTS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Relations DIGESTS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Relations Cases

You might also like