2.labor Suggested Answers (1994-2006), Word

ANSWERS TO BAR
EXAMINATION
QUESTIONS
IN
LABOR LAW
&

SOCIAL LEGISLATION
ARRANGED BY TOPIC
(1994 2006)
Edited and Arranged by:
Atty. Janette Laggui-Icao and
Atty. Alex Andrew P. Icao
(Silliman University College of Law
July 26, 2005
Udated by:
!omualdo L. Se"eris II# LL$.
(Silliman University College of Law
Aril 2!, 200!
From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION
QUESTIONSin POLITICAL LAW by theUP LAW
COMPLEX and
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW
SCHOOLS
F O R W A R
D
This work is not intended for sale or commerce. This work is freeware. It may be
freely copied and distributed. It is primarily intended for all those who desire to have
a deeper understanding of the issues touched by the Philippine Bar Examinations and
its trend. It is specially intended for law students from the provinces who, very often,
are recipients of deliberately distorted notes from other unscrupulous law schools and
students. hare to others this work and you will be richly rewarded by !od in heaven.
It is also very good karma.
"e would like to seek the indulgence of the reader for some Bar #uestions which
are improperly classified under a topic and for some topics which are improperly or
ignorantly phrased, for the authors are $ust Bar %eviewees who have prepared this
work while reviewing for the Bar Exams under time constraints and within their
limited knowledge of the law. "e would like to seek the reader&s indulgence for a lot
of typographical errors in this work.
The Authors
"able #$ %#ntent
&
%&'&!AL P!I'CIPL&S................................................................10
Constitutional Provisions on La(or ()**+..............................................................................'(
Inter,retation of La(or Laws ()**+.........................................................................................'(
Inter,retation of La(or Laws- Li(eral A,,roac. (/001 ........................................................'( La(or
Legislations- Pur,ose (/001.........................................................................................'' La(or
Standard vs. La(or !elation ()**2..............................................................................'' La(or
Standard vs. La(or !elation (/003..............................................................................'' La(or
Statutes- Classification ()**4 'o. )5...........................................................................'' La(or
Statutes- Princi,le of Solutio Inde(iti- 'ot A,,lica(le ()**6 ...................................') La(or vs.
Social Legislation ......................................................................................................') La(or- as
Pro,erty !ig.t (/001 ...............................................................................................') !ig.ts of
&m,loyer7&m,loyee ()**1......................................................................................') !ig.ts of t.e
&m,loyer- 8anagement Prerogative (/000...................................................') !ig.ts of t.e
&m,loyer- 8anagement Prerogative- $enefits- Unilaterally %iven (/004.'* !ig.ts of t.e
&m,loyer- 8anagement Prerogative- Contracting 9ut Services ()**6 ....'* !ig.ts of t.e
&m,loyer- 8anagement ,rerogatives ()**6 .................................................'+ !ule- In:unction in
La(or Cases (/000...................................................................................', Social Justice as %uiding
Princi,les in La(or (/003............................................................',
JU!IS;IC<I9'............................................................................15 C$A-
Im,lementation = Inter,retation ()**4 ........................................................................', ;amages-
A(sence of &-& !elations.i, ()**4 ....................................................................', ;amages- 'ot arising
from t.e &-& !elations ()***...........................................................'- ;ismissal- Int>l Agency ()**6
..................................................................................................'- Intra-cor,orate 8atters79fficers
()**1...................................................................................'. Intra-cor,orate 8atters79fficers
()**2...................................................................................'. La(or Ar(iter ()**4
...................................................................................................................'. La(or Ar(iter- A,,eals
(/00)...................................................................................................'. La(or ;is,ute ( /00)
................................................................................................................'. 8ed-ar(iter
()**1......................................................................................................................'/ 8oney Claims-
!einstatement ()**1 .....................................................................................'/ 'at>l La(or !elations
Commission ()**4 ..............................................................................'/ 'at>l La(or !elations Commission
(/00) ..............................................................................'/ 'at>l La(or !elations Commission (/00)
..............................................................................'0 'at>l La(or !elations Commissions (/00)
............................................................................'0 9verseas &m,loyment- Claim- <orts (/006
..........................................................................'0 9verseas &m,loyment- 8andatory !emittance- ?oreign
&xc.ange (/001.....................)( !ecovery of @ages
()**6........................................................................................................)( !emedies- illegal dismissal
()*** ..........................................................................................)( Secretary of La(or- Aut.ority
()**+........................................................................................)' Secretary of La(or- ;ismissal of
&m,loyees ()**+.............................................................)' Aoluntary Ar(itrator
()**2........................................................................................................)' Aoluntary Ar(itrator
(/003........................................................................................................)'
LA$9! !&LA<I9'S.....................................................................22
C$A- A,,ro,riate $argaining Unit ()**+...............................................................................))
C$A- Ar(itral Award- !etroactive &ffect (/00) .....................................................................))
C$A- Ar(itral Awards- &ffectivity ()**6..................................................................................))
C$A- Automatic !enewal Clause ()***
................................................................................)
*
C$A- Automatic !enewal Clause (/00)
................................................................................)
*
C$A- $argaining !e,resentative (/000
.................................................................................)
*
C$A- Certification &lection (/004
............................................................................................)
*
C$A- Certification &lection-
B
'o-UnionC @in (/001
..............................................................)
+
C$A- Certification &lection- Consent &lection- !un-9ff &lection (/000
...........................)
+
C$A- Certification &lection- ?reedom Period ()***
.............................................................)
+
C$A- Certification &lection- Pro(ationary &m,loyees ()***
..............................................)
+
C$A- Closed S.o, Provision- @.en not a,,lica(le ()***
.................................................)
,
C$A- Closed S.o, vs. Agency S.o, ()**2
..........................................................................)
,
C$A- Contract $ar !ule vs. ;eadlocD $ar !ule ()***
........................................................)
,
C$A- Coverage- 'on-Union 8em(ers- !eligious Sect (/004
............................................)
,
C$A- inter,retation (/006
.........................................................................................................)
-
C$A- Jurisdictional Pre-Conditions ()**1
.............................................................................)
-
C$A- LocD-out vs. Closed S.o, (/006
..................................................................................)
-
C$A- 8andatory Su(:ects of $argaining ()**1
....................................................................)
-
C$A- !egistration !eEuirement- Contract $ar-!ule (/000
................................................)
.
C$A- !un-9ff &lection (/001
...................................................................................................)
.
C$A- Sale of &sta(lis.ment- &ffect ()**6
.............................................................................)
.
C$A- Social Security vs. Union Security (/006
....................................................................)
.
C$A- Su(stitutionary ;octrine (/000
......................................................................................)
.
C$A- Union Security Clause (/006
........................................................................................)
/
C$A- Union Security Clause- Closed S.o, Provision ()**4
..............................................)
/
C$A- Union- !e,resentation Issue ()***
..............................................................................)
/
C$A- @age Increase Coverage- 'on-Union &m,loyees (/004
........................................)
0
C$U- Com,any Union vs. Union S.o, (/006
.......................................................................)
0
C$U- Confidential &m,loyees ()**6
......................................................................................)
0
C$U- Consent &lection vs. Certification &lection (/006
......................................................*
(
C$U- 8anagerial &m,loyees- Su,ervisory &m,loyees ()**4
...........................................*
(
C$U- 8anagerial &m,loyees- Su,ervisory &m,loyees ()***
...........................................*
(
C$U- 8odes- ;etermination of &xclusive $argaining Agreement (/001
.........................*
'
;ue Process- ;isci,linary Cases ()**4
................................................................................*
'
&m,loyees- grou,s of em,loyees ()**1
...............................................................................*
)
&m,loyees- 8anagerial &m,loyee vs. 8anagerial Staff ()**6
........................................*
)
&m,loyees- managerial em,loyees vs. su,ervisory em,loyees (/00/
............................*
)
&m,loyees- 8anagerial vs. Su,ervisory vs. !anD-and-?ile &m,loyees (/003
...............*
)
!ig.t to StriDe5 Sym,at.y vs. %eneral StriDe (/006
............................................................*
*
!ig.t to StriDe- Assum,tion Power
..........................................................................................*
*
!ig.t to StriDe- Com,ulsory Ar(itration- Certification to 'L!C ()**4
...............................*
+
!ig.t to StriDe- &ffects- Fired !e,lacements (/001
............................................................*
+
!ig.t to StriDe- &ffects- illegal striDe ()**4
............................................................................*
+
!ig.t to StriDe- &ffects- illegal striDe ()**4
............................................................................*
+
!ig.t to StriDe- &ffects- illegal striDe (/000
............................................................................*
+
!ig.t to StriDe- &ffects- StriDers
>
illegal Acts (/001
..............................................................*
+
!ig.t to StriDe- illegal dismissal (/003
...................................................................................*
+
!ig.t to StriDe- illegal locDout ()**4
......................................................................................*
,
!ig.t to StriDe- illegal striDe- Loss of &m,loyment ()**6
....................................................*
,
!ig.t to StriDe- Industries Aital to 'ational Interest (/006
..................................................*
-
!ig.t to StriDe- Industries Aital to 'ational Interest- !eturn to @orD 9rder ()**1
..........*
-
!ig.t to StriDe- Lawful StriDe- &ffect on Partici,ants ()**2
................................................*
.
Page of 108
!ig.t to StriDe- Lawful- !ig.t to !einstatement (/001
.........................................................*
.
!ig.t to StriDe- Limitations (/000
............................................................................................*
.
!ig.t to StriDe- 'ational Interest- ;9L& Sec. intervention (/006
......................................*
/
!ig.t to StriDe- PicDeting Activity (/000
.................................................................................*
/
!ig.t to StriDe- PicDeting Activity- illegal dismissal (/006
..................................................*
/
!ig.t to StriDe- !eturn to @orD 9rder ()**6
.........................................................................*
0
!ig.t to StriDe- !eturn to @orD 9rder ()**2
.........................................................................*
0
!ig.t to StriDe- !eturn to @orD 9rder ()**+
.........................................................................*
0
!ig.t to StriDe- !eturn to @orD 9rder- Assum,tion 9rder (/003
......................................+
(
!ig.t to StriDe- Statutory !eEuisites- Procedural !eEuirements (/006
............................+
(
!ig.t to StriDe- <em,orary Sto,,age (/00/
..........................................................................+
'
!ig.t to StriDe- @ildcat StriDe ()**2
.......................................................................................+
'
!ig.t to StriDe- @orD Slowdown ()**+
..................................................................................+
'
Self 9rganiGation- AcEuisition of Legal Personality (/003
..................................................+
)
Self 9rganiGation- A,,ro,riate $argaining Unit- Confidential &m,loyees (/00/
............+
)
Self 9rganiGation- $L! Certification- Certification &lection ()**+
.....................................+
)
Self 9rganiGation- Certification &lection (/00)
....................................................................+
*
Self 9rganiGation- Certification &lection- $ystander !ule ()**1
.......................................+
*
Self 9rganiGation- Certification &lection- UnorganiGed &sta(lis.ment (/003
..................+
+
Self 9rganiGation- &-& !elations.i,- Certification &lection ()**+
....................................+
+
Self 9rganiGation- %ov
>
t &m,loyees (/006
...........................................................................+
+
Self 9rganiGation- Im,ortance ()**1
......................................................................................+
,
Self 9rganiGation- 8em(ers.i, Policy ()**+
........................................................................+
,
Self 9rganiGation- !ig.t to ;isaffiliate from t.e Local Union- illegal dismissal ()**6
....+
,
Self 9rganiGation- !ig.t to Self-9rganiGation of Coo, &m,loyees (/00/
........................+
-
Self 9rganiGation- Union ;ues- Assessment (/00/
............................................................+
-
Self 9rganiGation- Union ;ues- Assessments ()**2
..........................................................+
-
Self 9rganiGation- Unions- Assessments (/00)
...................................................................+
.
Self 9rganiGation- Unions- ?inancial !ecords ()***
..........................................................+
.
Self 9rganiGation- Unions- ?inancial !ecords (/00)
..........................................................+
/
Self 9rganiGation- Unions- 8em(ers.i,- ;ismissal in $ad ?ait. (/00/
...........................+
/
Self-9rganiGation (/00/
............................................................................................................+
/
Self-9rganiGation- ;ismissal due to Union Activities (/006
................................................+
/
Self-9rganiGation- %ov
>
t vs. Private &m,loyees ()**1
.......................................................+
0
Self-9rganiGation- !ig.t to Join (/000
...................................................................................+
0
ULP- Awards of ;amages (/00)
............................................................................................+
0
ULP- Contracting 9ut La(or (/00)
.........................................................................................,
(
ULP- ;efinition = &xam,les of ULP ()**1
............................................................................,
(
ULP- Jurisdiction- La(or Ar(iter ()**2
...................................................................................,
(
ULP- !efusal to 'egotiate ()**2
............................................................................................,
'
ULP- !ig.ts = 9(ligations- @orDers
>
Association (/006
.....................................................,
'
ULP- Su(:ect to Criminal Prosecution (/004
.........................................................................,
)
LA$9! S<A';A!;S ...................................................................52
&-& !elations.i,- Cor,oration ()*** ....................................................................................,) &-&
!elations.i,- ;etermined (y ?acts = Laws (/000 .......................................................,* &-&
!elations.i,- &lements ()**1..........................................................................................,* &-&
!elations.i,- %!9>s = 'ig.t Clu(s ()***....................................................................,* &-&
!elations.i,- Security %uards- ?loating Status ()***...............................................,* &-&
!elations.i,- Self-&m,loyed (/003 ................................................................................,+
Page ! of 108
&-& !elations.i,- @orDers ,aid (y !esults (/006
..............................................................,
+
&-& !elations.i,- @orDing Student = Sc.ool ()**2
............................................................,
,
&m,loyment- Aliens- !eEuisites ()**4
..................................................................................,
,
&m,loyment- C.ildren- $elow )4 yrs old (/006
....................................................................,
-
&m,loyment- ;river as Fouse.el,er = in a Commercial &sta(lis.ment ()**+
..............,
-
&m,loyment- Fandica,,ed &m,loyee ()**+
.......................................................................,
-
&m,loyment- Fandica,,ed &m,loyee (/000
.......................................................................,
-
&m,loyment- Fandica,,ed @orDers- Contractual &m,loyees (/001
...............................,
.
&m,loyment- FomeworDers (/000
.........................................................................................,
.
&m,loyment- Fouse.el,ers (/000
.........................................................................................,
.
&m,loyment- 8inors (/001
......................................................................................................,
.
&m,loyment- 8inors- FaGardous @orD (/00/
......................................................................,
/
&m,loyment- !adio-<A S.ow Fost- &x,iration of <erm (/004
..........................................,
/
&m,loyment- @omen- Anti-Sexual Farassment Act (/000
................................................,
0
................................................,
0
................................................,
0
&m,loyment- @omen- Anti-Sexual Farassment vs. ;iscrimination against @omen (/003

.......................................................................................................................................................-(
&m,loyment- @omen- ;iscrimination (y reason of Age ()**+ .........................................-(
&m,loyment- @omen- ;iscrimination (y reason of 8arriage ()**4.................................-(
&m,loyment- @omen- discrimination- illegal dismissal ()**2............................................-(
&m,loyment- @omen- Sexual Farassment Act (/004 ........................................................-'
&m,loyment- @omen- Sexual Farassment Act (/001 ........................................................-'
Inde,endent Contractor (/00) ................................................................................................-)
Inde,endent Contractor (/00/ ................................................................................................-)
Inde,endent Contractor vs. La(or-9nly Contracting- ?our-?old <est (/000 ..................-*
Inde,endent Contractor- Lia(ilities (/006..............................................................................-*
La(or-9nly Contract vs. Jo( Contracting ()**2................................................................-*
La(or-9nly Contractor (/00/...................................................................................................-+
La(or-9nly Contractor vs. Inde,endent Contractor ()**6..................................................-+
!ecruitment = Placement- Cancellation- Certificate of !egistration- <ravel $an (/006 -,
!ecruitment = Placement- illegal recruitment to economic sa(otage (/004 ...................-,
!ecruitment = Placement- illegal recruitment- &conomic Sa(otage (/00/ .....................-,
!ecruitment = Placement- Large Scale Illegal !ecruitment (/004 ...................................--
!ecruitment = Placement- 'on-<ransfera(ility of License ()**+......................................--
!ecruitment = Placement- !ecruitment Agencies (/00/....................................................--
!ecruitment = Placement- <ravel Agency- Pro.i(ition (/001 ............................................--
@age ;istortion (/00/ ..............................................................................................................-.
@age- !eduction of 8inimum Pay = @ages (/001.............................................................-.
@age- @age ;istortion- ;efinition = &lements (/001.........................................................-.
@age- @age ;istortion- 8eans of Solving (/001 ................................................................-.
@age- @age ;istortion- 'ot a ground for StriDe7LocDout (/001........................................-.
@ages- )3t. mont. ,ay ()**6 ................................................................................................-/
@ages- )3t. mont. ,ay ()**+ ................................................................................................-/
@ages- $onus (/00/ ................................................................................................................-/
@ages- $onus (/003 ................................................................................................................-0
@ages- $onus- 'ature ()**4 ..................................................................................................-0
@ages- Com,utation of $asic Salary ()**2 .........................................................................-0
@ages- Com,utation- Foliday Pay (/00/..............................................................................-0
@ages- Com,utation- Foliday Pay- 9vertime Pay (/00/ ....................................................(
Page " of 108
@ages- Foliday Pay (/004
.......................................................................................................
(
@ages- 8oney Claims ()**+
...................................................................................................
(
@ages- 8oney Claims- Attorney
>
s ?ees- ;amages (/00)
..................................................
'
@ages- Paid (y !esults- Foliday Pay (/00/
.........................................................................
'
@ages- <eac.ers- &C9LA ()**2
............................................................................................
'
@ages- Un,aid @ages- Preference of Credit in favor of &m,loyees ()**4
.....................
)
@ages- Un,aid @ages- Preference of Credit in favor of &m,loyees (/003
.....................
)
@ages- Un,aid @ages- Preference of Credit in favor of &m,loyees ()**4
.....................
)
@ages- Un,aid @ages- Preference of Credit in favor of &m,loyees ()***
.....................
*
@ages- @age ;istortion ()**2
................................................................................................
*
@ages- @ages vs. Salary- Su(:ect to Attac.ment ()**6
....................................................
*
@ages- @aiver of Com,ensation ()**1
.................................................................................
+
@orDing Fours- C.arita(le Institution- 9vertime Pay (/00/
................................................
+
@orDing Fours- C.arita(le Institution- @eeDly !est Period- ()**+
....................................
+
@orDing Fours- Com,ressed @orD @eeD (/004
..................................................................
+
@orDing Fours- 'ig.t S.ift ;ifferential (/00/
........................................................................
+
@orDing Fours- Saturday @orD (/003
....................................................................................
,
@orDing Fours- SicD Leave- 9vertime Pay ()**2
.................................................................
,
@orDing Fours- @.en Com,ensa(le-
B
@.ile on Call
H
(/006
..............................................
,
@orDing Fours- @.en Com,ensa(le-
B
@.ile on Call
H
- @aiting <ime ()**2
.....................
-
<&!8I'A<I9' 9? &8PL9I8&'< .................................................76
$acDwages (/00/.......................................................................................................................-
$acDwages vs. Un,aid @ages ()**6 .....................................................................................-
$acDwages- $asis (/00)............................................................................................................
$acDwages- $asis (/00)............................................................................................................
$acDwages- $asis (/00)............................................................................................................
;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes (/00/ ....................................................................................../
;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes vs. Just Cause (/006.........................................................../
;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- Closure = Cessation (/00)................................................/
;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- Closure = Cessation of $usiness- 9ld Age (/001 ........./
;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- Closure = Cessation of $usiness- Se,aration Pay (/001
........................................................................................................................................................0
;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- ;ownsiGing &m,loyees (/00)...........................................0
;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- !edundancy ()***..............................................................0
;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- !edundancy (/000..............................................................0
;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- !etrenc.ment = !edundancy (/00).............................../(
;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- !etrenc.ment ()**+........................................................../(
;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- !etrenc.ment (/003........................................................../'
;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- Seniority !ule (/00) ........................................................../'
;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- SicDness (/006 .................................................................../'
;ismissal- Constructive ;ismissal- ?loating Status (/006................................................../)
;ismissal- Constructive ;ismissal- <ransfer ()**1............................................................../)
;ismissal- ;amages !ecovera(le (/00) ............................................................................./*
;ismissal- ;ue Process- !eEuirements ()**6 ...................................................................../*
;ismissal- ;ue Process- !eEuirements (/001 ...................................................................../*
;ismissal- Just Cause- Immoral Conduct ()**1 ................................................................./+
;ismissal- Just Cause- Inde,endent Contractor (/004......................................................./+
;ismissal- Just Cause- 8isconduct ()**1............................................................................./,
;ismissal- Just Cause- Pro(ationary &m,loyees- !ig.ts (/001......................................../,
Page # of 108
;ismissal- Just Cause- !eEuirements ()***
......................................................................../
,
;ismissal- Just Cause- Se,aration Pay ()**1
....................................................................../
-
;ismissal- Just Causes (/00)
................................................................................................./
-
;ismissal- Just Causes vs. Aut.oriGed Causes (/000
......................................................../
.
;ismissal- Just Causes- ;iso(edience ()**4
......................................................................./
.
;ismissal- Just Causes- ;iso(edience (/003
......................................................................./
/
;ismissal- Just Causes- Insu(ordination ()***
..................................................................../
/
;ismissal- Just Causes- 8isconduct ()**4
.........................................................................../
/
;ismissal- Just Causes- Juitclaims ()***
............................................................................/
0
;ismissal- Lia(ility- Cor,orate 9fficers ()**2
......................................................................./
0
;ismissal- Payroll !einstatement (/004
................................................................................/
0
;ismissal- Payroll !einstatement- !einstatement 9rder ()***
.........................................0
(
;ismissal- !einstatement ()**6
.............................................................................................0
(
;ismissal- !einstatement ()**4
.............................................................................................0
(
;ismissal- !eEuirements ()**+
..............................................................................................0
'
;ismissal- !eEuirements ()***
..............................................................................................0
'
;ismissal- !eEuirements- Sus,ension of <ermination ()**6
............................................0
)
;ismissal- !eEuisites- !einstatement
.....................................................................................0
*
;ismissal- Se,aration Pay- $acDwages (/00/
.....................................................................0
*
&m,loyee- Contractual &m,loyees- Seafarers (/00/
..........................................................0
+
&m,loyee- Contractual @orDer vs. Casual @orDer (/004
..................................................0
+
&m,loyee- Pro(ationary &m,loyees ()**+
...........................................................................0
,
&m,loyee- Pro(ationary &m,loyees (/00)
...........................................................................0
,
&m,loyee- Pro:ect &m,loyee vs. !egular &m,loyee ()**1
...............................................0
,
&m,loyee- Pro:ect &m,loyees vs. Casual &m,loyees (/004
............................................0
,
&m,loyee- !egular &m,loyee- Constructive ;ismissal (/004
...........................................0
-
&m,loyee- !egular &m,loyees ()**6
....................................................................................0
-
&m,loyee- !egular &m,loyees ()**4
....................................................................................0
.
&m,loyee- !egular &m,loyees vs. Pro:ect &m,loyee ()**+
.............................................0
.
&m,loyee- !egular vs. Pro:ect &m,loyees (/00/
................................................................0
/
Prescri,tive ,eriod- illegal dismissal ()**6
..........................................................................0
/
Prescri,tive ,eriod- illegal dismissal (/00/
..........................................................................0
0
Prescri,tive ,eriod- illegal dismissal ()**2
...........................................................................0
0
!esignation- Aoluntary- Juitclaim ()**6
.............................................................................'(
(
!esignation- Aoluntary- Juitclaims ()***
...........................................................................'(
(
!etirement- 9,tional !etirement (/004
...............................................................................'(
'
!etirement- !etirement $enefits ()**6
................................................................................'(
'
!etirement- !etirement Pay (/00)
.......................................................................................'(
'
S9CIAL L&%ISLA<I9'S .............................................................102
&m,loyees Com,ensation Act- @orD-Connected ;isa(ility ()**1..................................'()
%SIS- $enefits (/006 ..............................................................................................................'(*
%SIS- ;eat. $enefit ()*** ....................................................................................................'(*
%SIS- ;eat. $enefits- ;e,endent- /6-.our ;uty !ule (/004..........................................'(*
8aternity $enefits (/000 ........................................................................................................'(+
Paternity Leave (/00/.............................................................................................................'(+
Paternity Leave- 8aternity Leave (/004..............................................................................'(+
SSS- Com,ulsory Coverage ()**4 ......................................................................................'(,
SSS- Com,ulsory Coverage ()*** ......................................................................................'(,
SSS- Com,ulsory Coverage (/000 ......................................................................................'(,
Page $ of 108
SSS- Com,ulsory Coverage (/00/
......................................................................................'(
,
SSS- %SIS- $eneficiality- Porta(ility Provisions of !A 21** (/004
.................................'(
-
SSS- %SIS- Jurisdiction- $enefit Claims ()**4
.................................................................'(
-
SSS- Prescri,tive Period- $enefit Claims (/00)
.................................................................'(
-
SSS-%SIS- &m,loyees Com,ensation Act ()**2
..............................................................'(
.
State Insurance ?und ()**6
..................................................................................................'(
.
State Insurance ?und ()**4
..................................................................................................'(
.
Stray Juestions .........................................................................108
Stray Pro(lem- Political Law- Power of t.e President- ?<AA (/001................................'(/
'ENE(A) *(IN%I*)E+
%#n&tituti#nal *r#,i&i#n& #n )ab#r (199-)
@.at are t.e salient features of t.e ,rotection to
la(or ,rovision of t.e ConstitutionK L4MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e salient features of t.e Protection to La(or
,rovision of t.e Constitution (Article OIII. Section 3
are as follows5
). &xtent of Protection - ?ull ,rotection to
la(or- /. Coverage of Protection - Local and
overseas# organiGed and unorganiGed-
3. &m,loyment Policy - ?ull em,loyment and
eEuality of em,loyment o,,ortunities for all-
6.
%uarantees
6.). Unionism and 8et.od of ;etermination
Conditions of &m,loyment - !ig.t of all worDers to
self-organiGation# collective (argaining and
negotiations.
6./. Concerted Activities - !ig.t to engage in
,eaceful concerted activities# including t.e rig.t
to striDe in accordance wit. law.
6.3. @orDing Conditions - !ig.t to security of
tenure# .umane conditions of worD and a living
wage.
6.6. ;ecision 8aDing Processes - !ig.t to
,artici,ate .i ,olicy and decision maDing
,rocesses affecting t.eir rig.ts and (enefits as
way to ,rovided (y law.
4. S.are in ?ruits of ,roduction - !ecognition
of rig.t of la(or to its :ust s.are in fruits of
,roduction.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
1 o <.e Constitution (In Article OIII# Section 3
,rovides t.at t.e State s.all afford ,rotection to la(or# local
and overseas# organiGed and unorganiGed.
2 o <.e State s.all afford ,rotection to la(or (y
,romoting full em,loyment and eEuality of em,loyment
o,,ortunities for all.
3 o @orDers are entitled to security of tenure#
.umane conditions of worD and a living wage.
4 o <.e State s.all guarantee t.e rig.t of all
worDers to self organiGation# collective (argaining and
negotiations# and ,eaceful concerted activities# including
t.e rig.t to striDe# in accordance wit. law.
5 o @orDers s.all also ,artici,ate in ,olicy and
decision maDing ,rocesses affecting t.eir rig.ts and
(enefits as may (e ,rovided (y law.
6 o <.e State s.all ,romote t.e ,rinci,le of
s.ared res,onsi(ility (etween worDers and em,loyers and
t.e ,referential use of voluntary modes in settling la(or
dis,utes# including conciliation# and s.all enforce mutual
com,liance t.erewit. to foster industrial ,eace.
7 o <.e State s.all regulate t.e relations
(etween worDers and em,loyers# recogniGing t.e rig.t
of la(or to its :ust s.are in t.e fruits of ,roduction
and t.e rig.t of enter,rises to reasona(le returns
on investments# and to ex,ansion and growt..
Interretati#n #$ )ab#r )a2& (199-)
3. Article 6 of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at in case
of dou(t in t.e im,lementation and inter,retation of
t.e ,rovisions of t.e Code and its Im,lementing
!ules and !egulations# t.e dou(t s.all (e resolved
in favor of la(or. Article )20/ of t.e Civil Code also
,rovides t.at in case of dou(t# all la(or legislation
and all la(or contracts s.all (e construed in favor of
t.e safety and decent living for t.e la(orer.
8ica-8ara com,any assails t.e validity of t.ese
statutes on t.e ground t.at t.ey violate its
constitutional rig.t to eEual ,rotection of t.e laws. Is
t.e contention of 8ica 8ara Com,any tena(leK
;iscuss fully
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# t.e Constitution ,rovides t.at t.e state s.all
afford full ,rotection to la(or. ?urt.ermore# t.e State
affirms la(or as a ,rimary economic force. It s.all
,rotect t.e rig.ts of worDers and ,romote t.eir
welfare.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
a 'o# (ecause a law w.ic. ,romotes a
constitutional mandate does not violate t.e eEual
,rotection clause. <.e constitutional mandate is for
t.e State to afford full ,rotection to la(or suc. t.at#
w.en conflicting interests of la(or and ca,ital are to
(e weig.ed on t.e scales of :ustice# t.e .eavier
influence of t.e latter s.ould (e counter(alanced (y
t.e sym,at.y t.e law s.ould accord t.e
under,rivileged.
( <.e contention of 8ica-8ara Com,any is not
tena(le. <.e constitutional rig.t to eEual ,rotection of
t.e laws is not violated (y reasona(le classification.
<.us# it is constitutionally ,ossi(le to treat worDers
differently from em,loyers.
<.e social :ustice ,rinci,le em(odied in t.e
Constitution could (e t.e (asis for treating worDers
more favora(ly t.an em,loyers# in t.e im,lementation
and inter,retation of t.e ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code
and of its im,lementing rules and regulations.
Interretati#n #$ )ab#r )a2&4 )iberal
Ar#a56 (2006)
@.at is t.e conce,t of li(eral a,,roac. in
inter,reting t.e La(or Code and its Im,lementing
!ules and !egulations in favor of la(orK (/.4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e worDersP welfare s.ould (e t.e ,aramount
consideration in inter,reting t.e La(or Code and its
Im,lementing !ules and !egulations. <.is is
Page %& of 108
rooted in t.e Constitutional mandate to afford full
,rotection to la(or. Article 6 of t.e La(or Code
,rovides t.at Call dou(ts in t.e im,lementation and
inter,retation of t.e ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code
including its im,lementing rules and regulations
s.all (e resolved in favor of la(orC (PL9< v. 'L!C#
%.! 'o. )))*33# July /3#)**2. It underscores t.e
,olicy of social :ustice to accommodate t.e interests
of t.e worDing class on t.e .umane :ustification t.at
t.ose w.o .ave less in life s.all .ave more in law
(PAL v. Santos# %.!. 'o. 22+24# ?e(ruary 6# )**3.
)ab#r )egi&lati#n&4 *ur#&e (2006)
@.at is t.e ,ur,ose of la(or legislationK (/.4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
La(or legislation is an exercise of ,olice ,ower. <.e
,ur,ose of la(or legislation is to regulate t.e relations
(etween em,loyers and em,loyees res,ecting t.e
terms and conditions of em,loyment# eit.er (y
,roviding for certain standards or for a legal
frameworD wit.in w.ic. (etter terms and conditions of
worD could (e negotiated t.roug. collective
(argaining. It is intended to correct t.e in:ustices
in.erent in em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,.
)ab#r +tandard ,&7 )ab#r (elati#n (199!)
;ifferentiate la(or standards law from la(or relations
law. Are t.e two mutually exclusiveK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
LA$9! S<A';A!;S law is t.at la(or law w.ic.
,rescri(es terms and conditions of em,loyment liDe
$ooD in $ooD IA# <itle I and $ooD AI of t.e La(or
Code. <.ese $ooDs of t.e La(or Code deal wit.
worDing conditions# wages# worDing conditions for
women# minors# .ouse.el,ers and .ome-worDers#
medical and dental services# occu,ational .ealt.
and safety# termination and retirement.
9n t.e ot.er .and# LA$9! !&LA<I9'S law is t.at
la(or law w.ic. regulates t.e relations (etween
em,loyers and worDers liDe $ooD A of t.e La(or
Code w.ic. deals wit. la(or organiGations# collective
(argaining# unfair la(or ,ractices and striDes and
locDouts.
La(or standards laws and la(or relations laws are
not mutually exclusive- t.ey are com,lement to eac.
ot.er. <.us# t.e law on striDes and locDouts w.ic. is
an exam,le of la(or relations law includes some
,rovisions on t.e security of tenure of worDers w.o
go on striDe or w.o are locDed out. <.ese ,rovisions
are exam,les of la(or standards law.
)ab#r +tandard ,&7 )ab#r (elati#n (2008)
Fow do t.e ,rovisions of t.e law on la(or relations
interrelate# if at all# wit. t.e ,rovisions ,ertaining to
la(or standardsK 4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
LA$9! !&LA<I9'S law focuses its ,rovisions on t.e
collective as,ects of em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,.
Its legal ,rovisions deal wit. em,loyees organiGing
unions and .ow t.roug. t.ese unions# em,loyees are
a(le to .ave collective (argaining wit. t.eir em,loyer.
9n t.e ot.er .and# LA$9! S<A';A!;S law focuses
on t.e terms and conditions of em,loyment of
em,loyees as individual em,loyees or t.ose legal
,rovisions dealing wit. wages# .ours of worD and
ot.er terms and conditions of em,loyment.
<.ere may (e instances w.en t.e ,rovisions of
la(or relations law may interrelate wit. ,rovisions of
la(or standards law. <.us# a C$A w.ic. is dealt wit.
in la(or relations law may .ave ,rovisions t.at
im,roves u,on t.e minimum terms and conditions of
em,loyment ,rescri(ed in la(or standards law# liDe
a C$A ,roviding for a .ig.er minimum wage# or for
t.e com,utation of a .ig.er overtime ,ay or t.e
,ayment of .oliday ,ay not only for regular .olidays
(ut also for certain s,ecial .olidays.
)ab#r +tatute&4 %la&&i$i5ati#n (1995 N#7 1:)
). @.at are t.e t.ree (3 general classifications of
la(or statutesK ;escri(e and give an exam,le of
eac. classification.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e t.ree (3 general classifications of la(or statutes
are5 a La(or !elations Laws- ( La(or Standards
Laws- and c Social Security Laws.
LA$9! !&LA<I9'S Laws are t.ose la(or statutes
t.at deal wit. t.e relations of la(or and management#
liDe t.e laws on unions# collective (argaining# unfair
la(or ,ractices# striDes# locDouts and ,icDeting.
LA$9! S<A';A!;S are t.ose la(or statutes t.at
,rescri(e standards relating to terms and conditions
of em,loyment for com,liance (y em,loyers# liDe t.e
laws on .ours of worD# weeDly rest ,eriods# .oliday
,ay# wages# and laws dealing wit. women# minors#
.ouse-.el,ers# and industrial .ome-worDers.
S9CIAL S&CU!I<I Laws are t.ose la(or statutes
t.at ,rovide ,rotection not only to a worDer (ut also
to mem(ers of .is family in case of loss of income or
w.en t.ere is need for medical care (roug.t a(out (y
contingencies liDe sicDness# disa(ility# deat.# and old
age. &xam,les of social security laws are t.e Social
Security Law# !evised %overnment Service
Insurance Act# t.e Articles of t.e La(or Code on
&m,loyees Com,ensation# t.e
)ab#r +tatute&4 *rin5ile #$ +#luti# Indebiti4
N#t Ali5able (1994)
Conce,cion <extile Co. included t.e overtime ,ay#
nig.t-s.ift differential ,ay# and t.e liDe in t.e
com,utation of its em,loyeesP )3t.-mont. ,ay.
Su(seEuently# wit. t.e ,romulgation of t.e decision
of t.e Su,reme Court in t.e case of San 8iguel
Cor,oration vs. Inciong ()03 SC!A )3* .olding t.at
t.ese ot.er monetary claims s.ould not (e included
in t.e com,utation of t.e )3t.mont. ,ay# Conce,cion
<extile Co. soug.t to recover under t.e principle of
solutio indebiti its over,ayment of its em,loyeesP
)3t.-mont. ,ay# (y de(iting against future )3t.-
mont. ,ayments w.atever excess amounts it .ad
,reviously made. ) Is t.e Com,anyPs action
tena(leK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
) <.e Com,anyPs action is not tena(le. <.e
,rinci,le of salutio inde(iti w.ic. is a civil law
conce,t is not a,,lica(le in la(or law. <.us# solutio
inde(iti is not a,,lica(le to t.e instant case# (;avao
?ruits Cor,orations vs. 'ational La(or !elations
Commission# et at. //4 SC!A 41/
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(+:
a <.e Com,anyPs action would (e tena(le if
,ayment was done (y mistaDe# In w.ic. case
recovery can (e done under t.e ,rinci,le of solutio
inde(iti. $ut if t.ere was no mistaDe# t.e Com,anyPs
action would (e untena(le (ecause it would violate
Article )00 of t.e La(or Code w.ic. ,ro.i(its
elimination or diminution of (enefits.
)ab#r ,&7 +#5ial )egi&lati#n
/. Is t.ere any distinction (etween la(or legislation
and social legislationK &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
LA$9! L&%ISLA<I9' is sometimes distinguis.ed
from social legislation (y t.e former referring to la(or
statutes# liDe La(or !elations Law and La(or
Standards# and t.e latter to Social Security Laws.
La(or legislation focuses on t.e rig.ts of t.e worDer
in t.e worD,lace.
S9CIAL L&%ISLA<I9' is a (road term and may
include not only laws t.at give social security
,rotection# (ut also t.ose t.at .el, t.e worDer secure
.ousing and (asic necessities. <.e Com,re.ensive
Agrarian !eform law could also (e considered a
social legislation.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
Ies. La(or Legislation is limited in sco,e# and deals
(asically wit. t.e rig.ts and duties of em,loyees and
em,loyers. Social Legislation is more encom,assing
and includes suc. su(:ects as agrarian relations#
.ousing and .uman settlement# ,rotection of women
and c.ildren# etc. All la(or
laws are social legislation# (ut not all social
legislation is la(or law.
)ab#r4 a& *r#erty (ig6t (2006)
@.at ,ro,erty rig.t is conferred u,on an em,loyee
once t.ere is an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,K
;iscuss (riefly. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Fis em,loyment is not merely a contractual
relations.i,. 9nePs em,loyment is a ,ro,erty rig.t
wit.in t.e mantle of constitutional ,rotection
(Callanta v. Carnation P.il.# 'o. L-201)4# 9cto(er
/+# )*+1. Fence# t.e em,loyee en:oys security of
tenure and .e cannot (e dismissed exce,t for cause
and only after due ,rocess. <.e worDer is t.us
,rotected and insulated against any ar(itrary
de,rivation of .is :o( (P.ili,s Semi Conductors
LP.ils.N v. ?adriEuela# %.!. 'o. )6)2)2# A,ril )6#
/006.
(ig6t& #$ E9l#yer:E9l#yee (1996)
/ @.at are t.e rig.ts of an em,loyer and an
em,loyeeK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e Constitution in Art. OIII# Section 3 ,rovides for
t.e following rig.ts of em,loyers and em,loyees5
A. &m,loyers !ig.t to a reasona(le return on
investments# and to ex,ansion and growt..
1 <o a :ust s.are in t.e fruits of ,roduction-
2 !ig.t to self organiGation# collective
(argaining and negotiations and ,eaceful concerted
activities# including t.e rig.t to striDe in accordance
wit. law-
3 <o security of tenure# .umane conditions of
worD# and a living wage- and
4 <o ,artici,ate in ,olicy and decision-maDing
,rocesses affecting t.eir rig.ts and (enefits as may
(e ,rovided (y law#
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
In an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,# it is t.e rig.t
of t.e em,loyer to use t.e services of an em,loyee
w.o is under .is (em,loyerPs orders as regards t.e
em,loyment. 9n t.e ot.er .and# it is t.e rig.t of t.e
em,loyee to receive com,ensation for t.e services
.e renders for t.e em,loyer.
(ig6t& #$ t6e E9l#yer4 ;anage9ent
*rer#gati,e (2000)
a An exclusive sc.ool for girls# run (y a religious
order# .as a ,olicy of not em,loying unwed mot.ers#
women wit. live-in ,artners# and les(ians. Is t.e
,olicy violative of any ,rovision of t.e La(or Code on
em,loyment of womenK (3M
( <.e same sc.ool dismissed two female faculty
mem(ers on account of ,regnancy out of wedlocD.
;id t.e sc.ool violate any ,rovision of t.e La(or
Code on em,loyment of womenK (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
a 'o# t.e ,olicy does not violate t.e La(or Code.
<.e ,ractice is a valid exercise of management
function. Considering t.e nature and reason for
existence of t.e sc.ool# it may ado,t suc. ,olicy as
will advance its lauda(le o(:ectives. In fact# t.e ,olicy
accords wit. t.e constitutional ,rece,t of inculcating
et.ical and moral values in sc.ools. <.e sc.ool
,olicy does not discriminate against women solely on
account of sex (Art. )34# La(or Code nor are t.e
acts ,ro.i(ited under Art. )32 of t.e La(or Code.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e sc.ool violated Art. )32 (/ of t.e La(or Code
w.ic. states t.at5 CIt s.all (e unlawful for any
em,loyer to disc.arge suc. woman on account of
,regnancyC. <.e ,regnancy .ere could o(viously
.ave resulted from love and suc. only lends
su(stance to t.e saying t.at Ct.e .eart .as reasons
of its own w.ic. reason does not DnowC# a matter
t.at cannot C(e so casually eEuated wit. immoralityC.
LC.ua-Jua v. Clave# )+* SC!A ))2 ()**0N.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
( 'o# (ecause to tolerate ,regnancy out of wedlocD
will (e a (latant contradiction of t.e sc.oolPs
lauda(le mission w.ic.# as already stated# accords
wit. .ig. constitutional ,rece,ts.
<.is answer does not contradict t.e ruling in C.ua-
Jua w.ere t.e teac.er merely fell in love wit. a
(ac.elor student and t.e teac.er# also single# did
not get ,regnant out of wedlocD.
*rer#gati,e4 <ene$it&4 Unilaterally 'i,en
(2005)
Little Fands %arment Com,any# an unorganiGed
manufacturer of c.ildrenPs a,,arel wit. around )#000
worDers# suffered losses for t.e first time in .istory
w.en its US and &uro,ean customers s.ifted t.eir
.uge orders to C.ina and $anglades.. <.e
management informed its em,loyees t.at it could no
longer afford to ,rovide trans,ortation s.uttle
services. ConseEuently# it announced t.at a normal
fare would (e c.arged de,ending on t.e distance
traveled (y t.e worDers availing of t.e service.
@as t.e Little Fands %arments Com,any wit.in its
rig.ts to wit.draw t.is (enefit w.ic. it .ad unilaterally
(een ,roviding to its em,loyeesK Select t.e (est
answer(s and (riefly ex,lain your reason(s t.erefor.
(a Ies# (ecause it can wit.draw a (enefit t.at
is unilaterally given-
(( Ies# (ecause it is suffering losses for t.e
first time-
(c Ies# (ecause t.is is a management
,rerogative w.ic. is not due any legal or contractual
o(ligation-
(d 'o# (ecause t.is amounts to a diminution of
(enefits w.ic. is ,ro.i(ited (y t.e La(or Code-
(e 'o# (ecause it is a fringe (enefit t.at .as
already ri,ened into a demanda(le rig.t or
entitlement. ()0M
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
(( Ies# (ecause it is suffering losses for t.e first
time-
(c Ies# (ecause t.is is a management ,rerogative
w.ic. is not due any legal or contractual o(ligation-
An em,loyer cannot (e forced to continue giving a
(enefit# (eing given as a management ,rerogative#
w.en it can no longer afford to ,ay for it. <o .old
ot.erwise# would (e to ,enaliGe t.e em,loyer for .is
,ast generosity. (ProducerPs $anD of t.e P.ili,,ines
v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )0020)# 8arc. /+# /00)
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
(enefits w.ic. is ,ro.i(ited (y t.e La(or Code-
(e 'o# (ecause it is a fringe (enefit t.at .as already
ri,ened into a demanda(le rig.t or entitlement.
A com,any ,ractice favora(le to em,loyees .ad
indeed (een esta(lis.ed and t.e ,ayments made
,ursuant t.ereto# ri,ened into (enefits en:oyed (y
t.em. And any (enefit and su,,lement (eing
en:oyed (y t.e em,loyees cannot (e reduced#
diminis.ed# discontinued or eliminated (y t.e
em,loyer (y virtue of Article )00 of t.e La(or Code
of t.e P.ili,,ines w.ic. ,ro.i(its t.e diminution or
elimination of t.e em,loyer of t.e em,loyeesP
existing (enefits. (Sevilla <rading Co. v. Semana#
%.!. 'o. )4/641# A,ril /+# /006
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
(( Ies# (ecause it is suffering losses for t.e first
time-
(enefits w.ic. is ,ro.i(ited (y t.e La(or Code. Iou
cannot com,el an em,loyer to continue ,aying t.e
(enefits if it is suffering from serious (usiness
losses. Fowever# t.e (enefit .as already ri,ened into
an em,loyer ,ractice or ,olicy# and t.erefore it
cannot (e wit.drawn wit.out violating Article )00 of
t.e La(or Code on non-diminution of (enefits.
*rer#gati,e4 %#ntra5ting 0ut +er,i5e& (1994)
Far(or Aiew Fotel .as an existing Collective
$argaining Agreement (C$A wit. t.e union of
ranD-and-file em,loyees consisting# among
ot.ers# of (artenders# waiters# room(oys#
.ousemen and stewards. ;uring t.e lifetime of t.e
C$A# Far(or Aiew Fotel# for reasons of economy
and efficiency# decided to a(olis. t.e ,osition of
.ousemen and
stewards w.o do t.e cleaning of t.e .otelPs ,u(lic
areas. 9ver t.e ,rotest of t.e Union# t.e Fotel
contracted out t.e aforementioned :o( to t.e City
Service Janitorial Com,any# a (onafide inde,endent
contractor w.ic. .as a su(stantial ca,ital in t.e
form of Janitorial tools# eEui,ment# mac.ineries and
com,etent man,ower. Is t.e action of t.e Far(or
Aiew Fotel legal and validK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e action of Far(or Aiew Fotel is legal and valid. <.e
valid exercise of management ,rerogative# discretion
and :udgment encom,asses all as,ects of
em,loyment# including t.e .iring# worD assignments#
worDing met.ods# time# ,lace and manner of worD#
tools to (e used# ,rocesses to (e followed#
su,ervision of worDers# worDing regulations# transfer of
em,loyees# worD su,ervision# lay-off of worDers# and
t.e disci,line# dismissal and recall of worDers# exce,t
as ,rovided for# or limited (y s,ecial laws.
Com,any ,olicies and regulations are# unless s.own
to (e gross o,,ressive or contrary to law# generally
(inding and valid on t.e ,arties and must (e
com,lied wit. until finally revised or amended
unilaterally or ,refera(ly t.roug. negotiation or (y
com,etent aut.ority. (San 8iguel Cor,oration vs.
!eynaldo !. U(aldo and &mmanuel 'oel A. CruG#
C.airman and 8em(er res,ectively of t.e Aoluntary
Ar(itration Panel# et al %.! 'o. */+4*# ) ?e(ruary
)**3. J. Cam,os# Jr.# /)+ SC!A /*3
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
a <.e action of t.e Far(or Aiew Fotel is legal and
valid. C9'<!AC<I'% 9U< S&!AIC&S or functions
(eing ,erformed (y union mem(ers is not illegal ,er
se. In fact# it is t.e ,rerogative of management to
ado,t cost-saving measures to ensure economy and
efficiency. Contracting out services or functions (eing
,erformed (y Union mem(ers (ecomes illegal only
w.en it interferes wit.# restrains or coerces
em,loyees in t.e exercise of t.eir rig.t to self-
organiGation.
( <.e action of Far(or Aiew Fotel would# at first
glance# a,,ear to (e an unfair la(or ,ractice under
Article /6+(c# e.g.. Cto contract out services or
functions (eing ,erformed (y union mem(ers if suc.
will interfere wit.# restrain or coerce em,loyees in t.e
exercise of t.eir rig.t to self-organiGation.C
Considering# .owever# t.at in t.e case at (ar# t.ere
is no s.owing t.at t.e contracting out of services
would violate t.e em,loyees rig.t to self-
organiGation# it is su(mitted t.at t.e .otelPs action is
a valid exercise of its management ,rerogatives and
t.e rig.t to maDe (usiness :udgments in accordance
wit. law.
rer#gati,e& (1994)
$ulacan 8edical Fos,ital ($8F entered into a
Collective $argaining Agreement (C$A wit. its
Union# w.erein it is ex,ressly sti,ulated in t.e
8anagement Prerogative Clause t.at $8F s.all# in
t.e exercise of its management ,rerogatives# .ave
t.e sole and exclusive rig.t to ,romulgate# amend
and modify rules and regulations for t.e em,loyees
wit.in t.e (argaining unit. A year after t.e contract
was signed# $8F issued its !evised !ules and
!egulations and furnis.ed a co,y t.ereof to t.e
Union for dissemination to all em,loyees covered (y
t.e C$A. <.e Union wrote $8F demanding t.at t.e
!evised !ules and !egulations (e first discussed
wit. t.em (efore its im,lementation. $8F refused.
So# t.e Union filed an action for unfair la(or ,ractice
(ULP against $8F.
1 Is t.e Union correctK
2 Assuming t.at t.e C$A was signed Cor
executed (efore t.e )*+2 Constitution was ratified#
would your answer to t.e ,receding Euestion (e
differentK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
) <.e Union is correct. A ,rovision in t.e collective
(argaining agreement concerning management
,rerogatives# may not (e inter,reted as cession of t.e
em,loyees rig.t to ,artici,ate in t.e deli(eration of
matters w.ic. may affect t.eir rig.t and t.e
formulation of ,olicies relative t.ereto# suc. as t.e
formulation of a code of disci,line.
A line must (e drawn (etween management
,rerogatives regarding (usiness o,erations ,er se
and t.ose w.ic. affect t.e rig.ts of t.e em,loyees#
and in treating t.e latter# management s.ould see to
it t.at its em,loyees are at least ,ro,erly informed of
its decisions or modes of action.
<.e attainment of a .armonious la(or-management
relations.i, and t.e existing state ,olicy of
enlig.tening worDers concerning t.eir rig.ts as
em,loyees demand no less t.an t.e o(servance of
trans,arency in managerial moves affecting
em,loyeesP rig.ts. LP.ili,,ine Airlines# Inc. vs.
'ational La(or !elations Commission# et al# %.! 'o.
+4*+4# )3 August )**3. J. 8elo. //4 SC!A /4+#
30).
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
a <.e Union is correct. @orDers .ave t.e rig.t to
,artici,ate in ,olicy and decision-maDing ,rocesses
affecting t.eir rig.ts# (enefits and welfare. (Art. /44J.
( Ies. <.e Union is correct in asDing for
discussion of t.e revised rules ,rior to t.eir
effectivity. <.e reason is Art. OIII# Sec. 3 of t.e )*+2
Constitution# allowing worDers t.e rig.t to
<.e UnionPs remedy .owever s.ould not (e to file a
ULP case (ut to initiate a %!I&AA'C& ,roceeding#
and if unresolved# su(mit t.e matter to voluntary
ar(itration.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
/ <.e answer would (e t.e same even if t.e C$A
was signed or executed (efore t.e ratification of t.e
)*+2 Constitution (ecause it .as always (een t.e
,olicy of t.e State to ,romote t.e enlig.tenment of
worDers concerning t.eir rig.ts and o(ligations as
em,loyees. (Art. /))- PAL vs. 'L!C# %! +4*+4#
August )3# )**3
(ule4 In=un5ti#n in )ab#r %a&e& (2000)
Professor Juan dela CruG# an aut.or of t.e text(ooD
Commentaries on t.e La(or Code of t.e P.ili,,ines#
citing an American case# wrote5 It is said t.at t.e
,ro.i(ition against t.e issuance of a writ of In:unction
in la(or cases creates su(stantive and not ,urely
,rocedural law.C Is t.ere any statutory (asis for t.e
statement7comment under P.ili,,ine lawK (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies. <.e statutory (asis is Article /46 of t.e La(or
Code. It ,ro.i(its issuance of in:unction# as a matter
of ,olicy# to resolve dis,utes exce,t as ot.erwise
,rovided in Articles /)+ and /16 of t.e La(or Code.
LCaltex ?ili,ino 8anagers and Su,ervisors
Association v. CQ!# 66 SC!A 340 ()*2/N
+#5ial Ju&ti5e a& 'uiding *rin5ile& in )ab#r
(2008)
8ay social :ustice as a guiding ,rinci,le in la(or law
(e so used (y t.e courts in sym,at.y wit. t.e
worDing man if it collides wit. t.e eEual ,rotection
clause of t.e ConstitutionK &x,lain. 4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies. <.e State is (ound under t.e Constitution to
afford full ,rotection to La(or- and w.en conflicting
interests collide and t.ey are to (e weig.ed on t.e
scales of social :ustice# t.e law s.ould accord more
sym,at.y and com,assion to t.e less ,rivileged
worDingman. (?uentes v. 'L!C. /11 SC!A /6 f
)**2) Fowever# it s.ould (e (orne in mind t.at
social :ustice ceases to (e an effective instrument
for t.e CeEualiGation of t.e social and economic
forcesC (y t.e State w.en it is used to s.ield
wrongdoing. (CoraGon Jamer v. 'L!C. /2+ SC!A
13/ ?) **2))
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# social :ustice as a guiding ,rinci,le in law may
not (e used (y t.e courts if it collides wit. t.e eEual
,rotection clause of t.e Constitution. Social :ustice is
not a magic wand a,,lica(le in all
circumstances. 'ot all la(or cases will (e
automatically decided in favor of t.e worDer.
8anagement .as also rig.ts w.ic. are entitled to
recognition and ,rotection- :ustice must (e dis,ensed
according to facts and law- and social :ustice is not
designed to destroy or o,,ress t.e em,loyer.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Social :ustice as a guiding ,rinci,le in La(or Law
can (e im,lemented side (y side wit. t.e eEual
,rotection clause of t.e Constitution.
In im,lementation of t.e ,rinci,le of social :ustice#
t.e Constitution commands t.at t.e State s.all
afford ,rotection to la(or. <.us La(or Law may (e
,ro-la(or in t.e sense t.at la(or is given certain
(enefits not given to management. $ut t.is is not
necessarily violative of t.e eEual ,rotection clause
of t.e Constitution (ecause said clause allows
reasona(le classification.
JU(I+.I%"I0N
%<A4 I9le9entati#n > Interretati#n (1995)
Fow are cases arising from t.e Inter,retation or
im,lementation of collective (argaining agreements
.andled and dis,osedK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.roug. t.e grievance mac.inery and if not resolved
(y t.e grievance mac.inery# t.roug. voluntary
ar(itration.
.a9age&4 Ab&en5e #$ E?E (elati#n&6i
(1995)
Pa(lo $agsaDin. a law graduate w.o got tired of
taDing t.e (ar examinations after several
unsuccessful attem,ts# :oined t.e Investigation
;ivision of @araD <rans,ort Com,any. ?rom t.e very
(eginning Pa(lo never liDed .is manager (ecause t.e
latter always made fun of t.e formerPs accident
re,orts. @.en Pa(loPs ,atience ran out .e walDed u,
to .is manager w.o was reviewing t.e investigatorPs
assignments and worDload and (oxed .im until t.e
latter colla,sed. <.e incident .a,,ened during office
.ours at t.e Investigation ;ivision in t.e ,resence of
.is co-em,loyees. Pa(lo was dismissed wit.out any
investigation and was no longer allowed to enter t.e
com,any ,remises.
<.e manager filed a com,laint for damages against
Pa(lo (efore t.e Pasig !egional <rial Court (!<C.
In turn# Pa(lo filed a case for illegal dismissal wit.
t.e La(or Ar(iter against t.e manager and t.e
trans,ort com,any. Pa(lo asDed for reinstatement
wit.out loss of seniority rig.ts wit. full (acD wages.
Pa(lo also filed (efore t.e Pasig !<C a motion to
dismiss t.e damage suit against .im alleging t.at t.e
La(or Ar(iter (efore
w.om t.e case for illegal dismissal was ,ending
.ad exclusive :urisdiction over (ot. cases. !esolve
t.e motion to dismiss. ;iscuss fully.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e motion to dismiss filed (y Pa(lo (efore t.e
Pasig !<C s.ould (e denied.
<.e damage suit filed (y t.e manager against Pa(lo
does not arise from em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,.
@.ile t.e case involves an em,loyer and .is
em,loyee. It is not t.e em,loyer- em,loyee
relations.i, (etween t.e two t.at gives rise to t.e
damage suit. Instead# it is (ased solely on an
alleged tort w.ic. could give rise to a damage suit
under t.e Civil Code. <.us# t.e La(or Ar(iter .as no
:urisdiction over t.e damage suit.
.a9age&4 N#t ari&ing $r#9 t6e E?E (elati#n&
(1999)
?AC<S5 8ariet ;emetrio was a clerD-ty,ist in t.e
9ffice of t.e President of a multi-national cor,oration.
9ne day s.e was (erated (y t.e President of t.e
com,any# t.e latter s.outing invectives at .er in t.e
,resence of em,loyees and visitors for a minor
infraction s.e committed. 8ariet was reduced to tears
out of s.ame and felt so (itter a(out t.e incident t.at
s.e filed a civil case for damages against t.e
com,any ,resident (efore t.e regular courts. Soon
t.ereafter# 8ariet received a memorandum
transferring .er to t.e 9ffice of t.e %eneral 8anager
wit.out demotion in ranD or diminution in ,ay. 8ariet
refused to transfer.
@it. res,ect to t.e civil suit for damages# t.e
com,any lawyer filed a 8otion to ;ismiss for lacD of
:urisdiction considering t.e existence of an
em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, and t.erefore# it is
claimed t.at t.e case s.ould .ave (een filed (efore
t.e La(or Ar(iter.
/. !ule on t.e 8otion to ;ismiss. S.ould it (e
granted or deniedK &x,lain (riefly (3M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e 8otion to ;ismiss s.ould (e denied. It is a
regular court and not a La(or Ar(iter t.at .as
:urisdiction on t.e suit for damages.
<.e damages are not arising from t.e em,loyer-
em,loyee relations w.ic. would .ave ,laced t.e suit
under t.e :urisdiction of a La(or Ar(iter. <.e suit
arises from t.e fact t.at t.e President of t.e
com,any s.outed invectives at 8arlet ;emetrio in
t.e ,resence of em,loyees and visitors. Fer
com,laint for damages is against an officer of t.e
Com,any (ased on slanderous language allegedly
made (y t.e latter. <.is falls under t.e Jurisdiction of
t.e ordinary courts. <.ere is .ere a sim,le action for
damages for tortious acts allegedly committed (y t.e
defendant. Suc. (eing t.e case# t.e governing
statute is t.e Civil Code and not t.e
La(or Code. (8edina v. Castro-$artolome# ))1
SC!A 4*2
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e 8otion to dismiss s.ould (e granted. According
to t.e La(or Code (in Article /)2 (a 6# t.e La(or
Ar(iter .as original and exclusive :urisdiction to .ear
and decide# among ot.ers# claims for actual# moral#
exem,lary and ot.er forms of damages arising from
t.e em,loyer-em,loyee relations. <.e claim for
damages in t.e case in Euestion arose from t.e fact
t.at t.e President of t.e Com,any s.outed
invectives at 8arlet ;emetrio in t.e ,resence of
em,loyees and visitors for a minor infraction s.e
committed. If t.e infraction .as somet.ing to do wit.
.er worD# t.en# t.e claim for damages could (e
considered as arising from em,loyer-em,loyee
relations. <.us# t.e claim is under t.e exclusive
:urisdiction of t.e La(or Ar(iter.
.i&9i&&al4 Int@l Agen5y (1994)
In )**0# Aic %arcia was .ired (y t.e International
La(or 9rganiGation (IL9 9ffice in 8anila as a
(ooDDee,er for five years. 9n January 4. )**6# .e
was advised t.at .is services were (eing terminated
for loss of confidence. %arcia Euestioned .is
dismissal (y IL9-8anila as ar(itrary and wit.out
(enefit of due ,rocess. ) If you were counsel for IL9#
w.at defense7s s.ould you ,ut u,K / If you were t.e
La(or Ar(iter# .ow would you decide t.e caseK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
) <.e defense t.at I will ,ut u, will (e to claim t.at
(eing an international agency# t.e IL9 en:oys
immunity# namely functional inde,endence and
freedom from control of t.e state in w.ose territory
its office is located and is t.us (eyond t.e
:urisdiction of t.e La(or Ar(iter. (Sout.east Asian
?is.eries ;evelo,ment Center - AEua Culture
;e,artment# et al vs. 'ational La(or !elations
Commission# et al %.! 'o# +1223# )6 ?e(ruary
)**/
/ If I were t.e La(or Ar(iter. I will grant t.e motion
to dismiss. <.e IL9 (eing an International agency#
t.e same is (eyond t.e :urisdiction of t.e La(or
Ar(iter and immune from t.e legal writs and
,rocesses of t.e administrative agencies of t.e
country# w.ere it is found# for t.e reason t.at t.e
su(:ection of suc. an organiGation to t.e aut.ority of
t.e local agencies would afford a convenient
medium t.roug. w.ic. t.e .ost government may
interfere in its o,erations or even influence or control
its ,olicies and decisions# and (esides# suc.
su(:ection to local :urisdiction would Im,air t.e
ca,acity of suc. (ody to im,artially disc.arge its
res,onsi(ilities.
Intra?5#r#rate ;atter&:0$$i5er& (1996)
;iego# &xecutive Aice-President of &vergreen
;evelo,ment Cor,oration (&;C was dismissed (y
t.e $oard of ;irectors for .is involvement in
irregularities ,re:udicial to &;CPs interests. Fe filed a
com,laint for illegal dismissal wit. t.e La(or Ar(iter#
,raying for reinstatement wit. (acD-wages# P4
million ,esos as moral damages# P) million ,esos as
exem,lary damages and attorneyPs fees. &;C
Euestioned t.e Jurisdiction of t.e La(or Ar(iter.
;iego# in turn contended t.at t.e La(or Ar(iter .as
:urisdiction over t.e case as it involves t.e
termination of an em,loyee and claims for
(acDwages# (enefits and damages. ;ecide.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e dismissal of an &xecutive Aice-,resident of a
Cor,oration# w.o is a cor,orate officer# (y t.e $oard
of ;irectors of t.e cor,oration is not a termination
dis,ute under t.e Jurisdiction of a La(or Ar(iter. It is
an intra-cor,orate dis,ute t.at is under t.e
:urisdiction of t.e Securities and &xc.ange
Commission.
Intra?5#r#rate ;atter&:0$$i5er& (199!)
8r. Jonat.an Pe# a registered stocD.older of 'ew
@ave $eauty S.o,# Inc. was elected Aice-President
of 'ew @age at a regular mont.ly meeting. At a
su(seEuent meeting of t.e $oard of ;irectors# it was
resolved to dismiss Jonat.an as Aice-,resident due
to loss of trust and confidence. Jonat.an Pe filed wit.
t.e 'ational La(or !elations Commission a
com,laint for illegal dismissal wit. damages against
'ew @age claiming t.at .e was dismissed wit.out
due ,rocess. 'ew @age filed a 8otion to ;ismiss
(ased on lacD of :urisdiction. !esolve t.e motion.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e 8otion to ;ismiss s.ould (e granted. <.e
election of Jonat.an Pe as Aice President of 'ew
@ave $eauty S.o,# Inc# made .im a cor,orate
officer.
Fis su(seEuent dismissal as suc. cor,orate officer is
considered an intra-cor,orate matter. <.us# t.e
dismissal of Pe is not a case of a termination dis,ute
w.ic. is under t.e Jurisdiction of a !egional $ranc.
of t.e 'L!C. Instead# it is under t.e Jurisdiction of
t.e Securities and &xc.ange Commission# it .aving
:urisdiction over intra-cor,orate matters.
)ab#r Arbiter (1995)
). %ive t.e original and exclusive :urisdiction of
La(or Ar(iters.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
La(or Ar(iters .ave original and exclusive :urisdiction
over5
1 unfair la(or ,ractices-
2 termination dis,utes-
3 cases accom,anied wit. a claim for
reinstatement# and involving wages# rates of
,ay# .ours of worD# and ot.er terms and
conditions of em,loyment-
4 claims for actual# moral# exem,lary and ot.er
forms of damages arising from em,loyer-
em,loyee relations5
5 cases arising from any violation of Article /16
of t.e La(or Code# including Euestions
involving t.e legality of striDes and locDout-
and
6 exce,t claims of &m,loyees Com,ensation#
Social Security. 8edicare and maternity
(enefits# all ot.er claims arising from
em,loyer-em,loyee relations including t.ose
,ersons in domestic or .ouse.old service#
Involving an amount exceeding five t.ousand
,esos (P4#000 00 regardless of w.et.er
accom,anied wit. a claim for reinstatement.
)ab#r Arbiter4 Aeal& (2001)
<.e affected mem(ers of t.e ranD and file elevated a
la(or ar(iterPs decision to t.e 'L!C via a ,etition for
review filed after t.e la,se of t.e ten-day
reglementary ,eriod for ,erfecting an a,,eal. S.ould
t.e 'L!C dismiss t.e ,etition outrig.t or may t.e
'L!C taDe cogniGance t.ereofK (4M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e 'L!C s.ould dismiss t.e a,,eal outrig.t
(ecause t.e same was filed (eyond t.e reglementary
,eriod of a,,eal. Article //3 of t.e La(or Code reads5
C;ecisions# awards# or orders of t.e La(or
Ar(iter are final and executory unless
a,,ealed to t.e Commission (y any or
(ot. ,arties wit.in ten ()0 calendar days
from# recei,t of suc. decisions# awards# or
orders." AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(: <.e
'L!C could dismiss outrig.t t.e a,,eal for (eing
filed out of time. $ut if t.ere are good reasons t.at
may :ustifia(ly ex,lain w.y t.ere was a delay in t.e
filing of t.e a,,eal# su(stantial :ustice may (e t.e
(asis for t.e 'L!C to taDe cogniGance of t.e
a,,eal.
)ab#r .i&ute ( 2001)
CAC was a(le to o(tain a Judgment against .is
former em,loyer# Com,any C$C# for P240#000.00. In
executing t.e :udgment in favor of A# t.e La(or
Ar(iter soug.t to levy on $Ps office eEui,ment. $
filed an action for damages and in:unction against
t.e La(or Ar(iter (efore t.e !egional <rial Court of
t.e ,rovince w.ere $Ps offices are located. Is $Ps
action tena(leK @.yK (4M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
$Ps action is not tena(le. In t.e case of ;elta
Aentures !esources vs. Fon. ?ernando P. La(ato#
%.!. 'o. ))+/)1# 8arc. *# /000# t.e Su,reme Court
ruled t.at t.e regular courts .ave no :urisdiction to
act on la(or cases or various
incidents arising t.erefrom# including t.e execution
of decisions# awards or orders.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# $Ps action (efore t.e !egional <rial Court is
tena(le if said action is limited to t.e filing of a
damage suit against t.e La(or Ar(iter (ecause t.ere
exists no em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, (etween
C$C and t.e La(or Ar(iter# and t.ere is no la(or
dis,ute (etween t.em. In Agricultural ;evelo,ment
Cor,oration vs. Court of A,,eals#
%.!. 'o. ))/)3*. January 3)# /000# t.e Su,reme
Court# ruled5 CIt is well settled in law and :uris,rudence
t.at w.ere '9 em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, exists
(etween t.e ,arties and no issue is involved w.ic.
may (e resolved (y reference to t.e La(or Code#
ot.er la(or statutes or any collective (argaining
agreement# it is t.e !egional <rial Court t.at .as
:urisdiction.C
;ed?arbiter (1996)
<.e national council of O Union# t.e exclusive
(argaining re,resentative of all daily ,aid worDers of
Q Cor,.# called a general meeting and ,assed a
resolution w.ic. ,rovides t.at eac. union mem(er
was to (e assessed P )#000 to (e deducted from t.e
lum, sum of P)0#000.00 w.ic. eac. em,loyee was
to receive under t.e C$A. Sergio# a Union mem(er#
,rotested and refused to sign t.e aut.oriGation sli,
for t.e deduction. O Union t.en ,assed a resolution
ex,elling Sergio from t.e union. Sergio filed a
com,laint (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter for illegal
deduction and ex,ulsion from t.e union. @ill t.e
com,laint ,ros,erK &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e com,laint will not ,ros,er (efore t.e La(or
Ar(iter (ecause t.ere is .ere an intra-union conflict
w.ic. is under t.e Jurisdiction of t.e 8ed-Ar(iter.
(See Art# //1 and !ule A of $ooD A of t.e !ules
and !egulations Im,lementing t.e La(or Code.
;#ney %lai9&4 (ein&tate9ent (1996)
Sara .as (een worDing as .ousemaid for t.e $o:ilov
s,ouses for t.ree (3 years. In t.e early morning of
July /+# t.e s,ouses and Sara were watc.ing t.e
live coverage of t.e finals of an 9lym,ic (oxing
matc. (etween a $ulgarian and a ?ili,ino w.ic. t.e
foreign fig.ter won on ,oints. Peeved (y SaraPs
angry remarDs t.at t.e scoring was unfair# t.e
$o:ilov s,ouses fired .er on t.e s,ot.
Sara t.ereafter filed a com,laint wit. t.e !egional
;irector of t.e ;9L& for un,aid salaries totalling
P4#400.00. <.e $o:ilov s,ouses moved to dismiss
t.e com,laint on t.e (elief t.at SaraPs claim falls
wit.in t.e Jurisdiction of t.e La(or Ar(iter. Sara#
.owever# claimed t.at t.e !egional ;irector can
decide on .er claim (y virtue of .is ,lenary
visitorial ,owers under Art. )/+ and of Art. )/* of t.e
La(or Code# as amended# w.ic. em,owers t.e
!egional ;irector to .ear and decide# among ot.ers#
matters involving recovery of wages.
1 @.ose ,osition will you sustainK &x,lain.
2 @ill your answer (e t.e same if SaraPs
claim is P6#400.00 wit. reinstatementK &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
) I will sustain t.e ,osition of t.e $o:ilov s,ouses.
Art. )/+ is not a,,lica(le (ecause t.e case did not
arise as a result of t.e exercise of visitorial and
enforcement ,owers (y t.e !egional ;irector# as
t.e duly aut.oriGed re,resentative of t.e Secretary
of La(or and &m,loyment. Instead# t.e case is a
sim,le money claim under Art. )/*# w.ic. could (e
under t.e :urisdiction of t.e !egional ;irector if t.e
claim does not exceed P4#000.
$ut t.e claim exceeds P4#000.00. <.us# it is t.e
La(or Ar(iter w.o .as :urisdiction under Art. /)2(a
of t.e La(or Code.
/ I will still .old t.at it is t.e La(or Ar(iter t.at .as
:urisdiction. It is true t.at t.e money claim no longer
exceeds P4#000. $ut t.ere is a claim for
reinstatement. <.us# t.is claim is under t.e
:urisdiction of a La(or Ar(iter# ,er Art. )/* of t.e
La(or Code.
Nat@l )ab#r (elati#n& %#99i&&i#n (1995)
3. @.at is t.e :urisdiction of t.e 'ational La(or
!elations CommissionK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Jurisdiction of t.e 'L!C5
1 exclusive a,,ellate :urisdiction over all cases
decided (y La(or Ar(iter-
2 exclusive a,,ellate :urisdiction over all cases
decided (y !egional ;irectors or .earing officers
involving t.e recovery of wages and ot.er monetary
claims and (enefits arising from em,loyer-em,loyee
relations w.ere t.e aggregate money claim of eac.
em,loyee or .ouse.el,er does not exceed five
t.ousand ,esos (P4#000.00-
3 original Jurisdiction to act as a com,ulsory
ar(itration (ody over la(or dis,utes certified to 'L!C
(y t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment- and
4 ,ower to issue a la(or in:unction.
Com,any CAC and Union C$C could not resolve
t.eir negotiations for a new C$A. After conciliation
,roceedings (efore t.e 'C8$ ,roved futile# $
went on striDe. Aiolence during t.e striDe
,rom,ted A to file c.arges against striDer-
mem(ers of $ for t.eir illegal acts. <.e Secretary
of La(or assumed Jurisdiction# referred t.e striDe
to t.e 'L!C and issued a return-to-worD order.
<.e 'L!C directed t.e ,arties to su(mit t.eir
res,ective ,osition
,a,ers and documentary evidence. At t.e Initial
.earing (efore t.e 'L!C# t.e ,arties agreed to
su(mit t.e case for resolution after t.e
su(mission of t.e ,osition ,a,ers and evidence.
Su(seEuently# t.e 'L!C issued an ar(itral award
resolving t.e dis,uted ,rovisions of t.e C$A and
ordered t.e dismissal of certain striDers for .aving
Dnowingly committed Illegal acts during t.e striDe.
<.e dismissed em,loyees elevated t.eir dismissal
to t.e Court of A,,eals claiming t.at t.ey were
de,rived of t.eir rig.t to due ,rocess and t.at t.e
affidavits su(mitted (y A were self-serving and of no
,ro(ative value. S.ould t.e a,,eal ,ros,erK State
t.e reason(s for your answer clearly. (4M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e a,,eal s.ould not ,ros,er. <.e Su,reme Court#
in many cases# .as ruled t.at decisions made (y t.e
'L!C may (e (ased on ,osition ,a,ers. In t.e
Euestion# it is stated t.at t.e ,arties agreed to
su(mit t.e case for resolution after t.e su(mission of
,osition ,a,ers and evidence. %iven t.is fact# t.e
striDer-mem(ers of $ cannot now com,lain t.at t.ey
were denied due ,rocess. <.ey are in esto,,el. After
voluntarily su(mitting a case and encountering an
adverse decision on t.e merits# it is too late for t.e
loser to Euestion t.e :urisdiction or ,ower of t.e
court. A ,arty cannot ado,t a ,osture of dou(le
dealing. (8arEueG vs. Secretary of La(or# )1 8arc.
)*+*.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# t.e a,,eal will not ,ros,er. In C8P ?ederal
Security Agency vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )/4/*+#
?e(ruary ))# )***# t.e Su,reme Court ruled5
C<.e standard of due ,rocess t.at must (e met
in administrative tri(unals allows a certain
degree of latitude as long as fairness is not
ignored. Fence# it is not legally o(:ectiona(le for
(eing violative of due ,rocess# for t.e la(or
ar(iter to resolve a case (ased solely on t.e
,osition ,a,ers# affidavits or documentary
evidence su(mitted (y t.e ,arties. <.e affidavits
of witnesses in suc. case may taDe t.e ,lace of
direct testimony.C
Some disgruntled mem(ers of $antay La(or# Union
filed wit. t.e !egional 9ffice of t.e ;9L& a written
com,laint against t.eir union officers for
mismanagement of union funds. <.e !egional
;irector did not rule in t.e com,lainantsP favor. 'ot
satisfied# t.e com,lainants elevated t.e !egional
;irectorPs decision to t.e 'L!C. <.e union officers
moved to dismiss on t.e ground of lacD of
Jurisdiction. Are t.e union officers correctK @.yK
(3M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# t.e union officers are correct in claiming t.at
t.e 'L!C .as no :urisdiction over t.e a,,ealed
ruling of t.e !egional ;irector. In $arles vs.
$itonio# %.!. 'o. )/0//0# June )1# )***# t.e
Su,reme Court ruled5 PA,,ellate aut.ority over
decisions of t.e !egional ;irector involving
examination of union accounts is ex,ressly conferred
on t.e $L! under t.e !ule of Procedure on
8ediation-Ar(itration.
xxx Section 6. Jurisdiction of t.e $ureau R ((
<.e $ureau s.all exercise a,,ellate :urisdiction
over all cases originating from t.e !egional
;irector involving .... Com,laints for examination
of union (ooDs of accounts.
<.e language of t.e law is categorical. Any
additional ex,lanation on t.e matter is su,erflous.C
Nat@l )ab#r (elati#n& %#99i&&i#n& (2001)
Com,any CAC# wit.in t.e reglementary ,eriod#
a,,ealed t.e decision of a La(or Ar(iter directing t.e
reinstatement of an em,loyee and awarding
(acDwages. Fowever# APs cas. (ond was filed
(eyond t.e ten day ,eriod. S.ould t.e 'L!C
entertain t.e a,,ealK @.yK (4M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# t.e 'L!C s.ould not entertain t.e a,,eal# as
t.e same was not ,erfected for failure to file a (ond.
Art. //3 of t.e La(or Code reads5
CIn case of a :udgment involving a monetary
award# an a,,eal (y t.e em,loyer may (e
,erfected only u,on t.e ,osting of cas. or surety
(ond... In t.e amount eEuivalent to t.e monetary
award in t.e :udgment a,,ealed from.C
In A$A vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )//1/2. July )+# )***#
t.e Su,reme Court ruled5 CAn a,,eal (ond is
necessary......t.e a,,eal may (e ,erfected only
u,on t.e ,osting of cas. or surety (ond issued (y a
re,uta(le (onding com,any duly accredited (y t.e
Commission in t.e amount eEuivalent to t.e
monetary award in t.e :udgment a,,ealed from.C
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e 'L!C may still entertain t.e a,,eal. It is true
t.at t.e La(or Code (in Art. //3 ,rovides t.at a,,eal
is ,erfected only u,on t.e ,osting of a cas. or surety
(ond. $ut if Com,any A filed a motion for t.e
reduction of t.e (ond# and said motion was only
acted u,on after t.e reglementary ,eriod# t.en# t.e
'L!C# in t.e interest of su(stantial :ustice# may still
taDe cogniGance of t.e a,,eal.
0,er&ea& E9l#y9ent4 %lai94 "#rt& (2004)
A. Under a seaman>s contract of em,loyment wit.
a local manning agent of a foreign s.i,,ing
com,any# Ca,t. <!9I em(arDed on an ocean-
going vessel in good .ealt.. 9ne stormy nig.t at
sea# .e was drenc.ed wit. rainwater. <.e
following morning# .e contracted fever w.ic.
lasted for days. Fe suffered loose (owel
movement# lost .is a,,etite# and eventually .e
died (efore a sc.eduled airlift to t.e nearest ,ort.
Su(seEuently# t.e widow of Ca,t. <!9I com,lained
against t.e local manning agent and its foreign
,rinci,al (efore t.e !egional Ar(itration $ranc. of
;9L&# for actual and exem,lary damages and
attorney>s fees. S.e invoDed t.e La(or Code
,rovision w.ic. reEuires t.e em,loyer to ,rovide all
necessary assistance to ensure t.e adeEuate and
necessary medical attendance and treatment of t.e
in:ured or sicD em,loyee in case of emergency.
!es,ondents moved to dismiss t.e com,laint on t.e
ground t.at t.e La(or Ar(iter .as no :urisdiction over
t.e com,laint for damages arising from illness and
deat. of Ca,t. <!9I a(road. !esolve t.e motion
wit. reasons. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
In <olosa v. 'L!C# (%.!. )6*42+# A,ril )0#/003# t.e
Su,reme Court .eld t.at w.at we .ave in t.is case is
a claim arising from tort or Euasi-delict. In suc. a
situation# t.e seaman w.o died on 'ovem(er )+#
)**/# cannot sue (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter. $ut t.is
will not a,,ly now# as under Sec. )0# !.A. +06/#
Leffective June 2# )**4N# w.at we .ave is a claim
Carising out of an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, or
(y virtue of any law or contract involving ?ili,ino
worDers for overseas de,loyment including claims for
actual# moral# exem,lary and ot.er forms of
damagesC# cogniGa(le (y t.e CLa(or Ar(iters of t.e
'ational La(or !elations CommissionC ('L!C w.o
.ave t.e original and exclusive :urisdiction t.ereon.
0,er&ea& E9l#y9ent4 ;andat#ry
(e9ittan5e4 A#reign EB56ange (2006)
Can an overseas worDer refuse to remit .is earnings
to .is de,endents and de,osit t.e same in t.e
country w.ere .e worDs to gain more interestsK
&x,lain. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'9. Art. // of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at it s.all
(e mandatory for all ?ili,ino worDers a(road to remit
a ,ortion of t.eir foreign exc.ange earnings to t.eir
families# de,endents# and7or (eneficiaries in
accordance wit. t.e rules and regulations ,rescri(ed
(y t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment.
&xecutive 9rder 'o. +42 ,rescri(es t.e ,ercentage
of foreign exc.ange remittance from 40M to +0M of
t.e (asic salary# de,ending on t.e worDerPs Dind of
:o(.
Fence# an overseas worDer cannot refuse to remit
.is earnings. 9t.erwise# .e s.all (e sus,ended or
excluded from t.e list of eligi(le worDers for
overseas em,loyment and in cases of su(seEuent
violations- .e s.all (e re,atriated at .is own
ex,ense or at t.e ex,ense of .is em,loyer as t.e
case may (e.
(e5#,ery #$ /age& (1994)
<ina AEuino# a domestic .el,er in t.e .ouse.old of
?idel Aldeguer# filed an action In t.e !egional 9ffice
of t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment (;9L&
for recovery of un,aid wages amounting to
P3#400.00 and P)#6**.00 as moral damages. AEuino
claimed t.at t.e amount of P3#400.00 is eEuivalent to
t.e P400.00 a mont. s.e failed to receive for t.e last
seven mont.s of .er em,loyment wit. Aldeguer#
(ased on t.eir agreed P/#400#00 mont.ly salary.
Aldeguer moved to .ave AEuinoPs com,laint
dismissed# alleging t.at as a domestic .el,er 8s.
AEuino s.ould .ave first (roug.t t.e matter to t.e
Lu,ong $arangay. If you were t.e !egional ;irector#
.ow would you resolve t.e matterK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
As !egional ;irector# I will assume Jurisdiction. <.e
,rovisions of P.;. 'o. )40+ reEuiring t.e su(mission
of dis,utes (efore t.e $arangay Lu,ong <aga,aya,a
,rior to t.eir filing wit. t.e court or ot.er government
offices are not a,,lica(le to la(or cases.
Article )/* of t.e La(or Code em,owers t.e
!egional ;irector to .ear and decide any matter
involving t.e recovery of wages and ot.er monetary
claims and (enefits owing to an em,loyee or ,erson
em,loyed in domestic or .ouse.old service# ,rovided
t.at t.e money claim does not exceed P4.999.99.
(8ontoya vs .&scayo# %.!. 'os# +//))-)/# 8arc. /).
)*+*
(e9edie&4 illegal di&9i&&al (1999)
<.e La(or Ar(iter dismissed t.e com,laint for illegal
dismissal filed (y %enevieve CruG against $ulag
9,tical Inc. ($9I w.ic. denied .er ,rayer for
reinstatement (ut awarded financial assistance in
.er favor. $9I a,,ealed t.e decision of t.e La(or
Ar(iter to t.e 'L!C wit.in t.e reglementary ,eriod.
%enevieve filed an o,,osition to t.e a,,eal. <.e
'L!C affirmed in toto t.e decision of t.e La(or
Ar(iter. $ot. t.e $9I and %enevieve are not satisfied
wit. t.e decision of t.e 'L!C#
). @.at is t.e remedy# if any# of $9I and (efore
w.at forumK &x,lain (riefly. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
$9I can file a 8otion for !econsideration wit. t.e
'L!C after ten ()0 calendar days from recei,t of
t.e decision.
If t.e 'L!C denies t.e 8otion for !econsideration#
$9I can file a ,etition for certiorari wit. t.e Court of
A,,eals under !ule 14 of t.e !ules of Court since
t.e decision of t.e 'L!C is final and executory.
/.
Can %enevieve CruG avail .erself of t.e same
remedy as t.at of $9IK @.yK (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
%enevieve CruG can avail .erself of t.e same
remedy as t.at of t.e $9I. <.e remedies descri(ed
for t.e $9I are also t.e same remedies availa(le to
%enevieve CruG as a ,arty to t.e case# ,ursuant to
t.e La(or Code (Article //3 and t.e !ules of Court
(!ule 14.
Panel5 $ut t.e facts of t.e case indicates t.at
%enevieve did not a,,eal. S.e t.erefore cannot
avail of t.e remedy.
+e5retary #$ )ab#r4 Aut6#rity (199-)
An airline w.ic. flies (ot. t.e international and
domestic routes reEuested t.e Secretary of La(or
and &m,loyment to a,,rove t.e ,olicy t.at all
female flig.t attendants u,on reac.ing age forty
(60 wit. at least fifteen ()4 years of service s.all
(e com,ulsorily retired- .owever# flig.t attendants
w.o .ave reac.ed age forty (60 (ut .ave not
worDed for fifteen ()4 years will (e allowed to
continue worDing in order to Eualify for retirement
(enefits# (ut in no case will t.e extension exceed
four (6 years. ;oes t.e Secretary of La(or and
&m,loyment .ave t.e aut.ority to a,,rove t.e
,olicyK L4MS
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment .as
t.e aut.ority to a,,rove a ,olicy dealing wit. t.e
retirement of flig.t attendants of airlines.
Article )3/ (d of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at t.e
Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment s.all esta(lis.
standards t.at will ensure t.e safety and .ealt. of
women em,loyees# including t.e aut.ority to determine
a,,ro,riate minimum age and ot.er standards for
retirement or termination in s,ecial occu,ations suc. as
t.ose of flig.t attendants and t.e liDe.
CAVEAT:
It could be argued that Article 132 (d)
may be unconstitutional because this
may constitute discrimination in
violation of the spirit of Section 14 of
Article XIII of the onstitution !hich
provides that the State shall protect
!or"ing !omen by providing safe and
healthful !or"ing conditions# ta"ing
into account their maternal functions#
and such facilities and opportunities
that !ill enhance their !elfare and
enable them to reali$e their full
potential in the service of the nation%
+e5retary #$ )ab#r4 .i&9i&&al #$ E9l#yee&
(199-)
<.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment# after
recei,t of a 'otice to <erminate &m,loyment of
one .undred ()00 worDers# en:oined t.e em,loyer
from im,lementing t.eir termination. Fas t.e
Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment t.e aut.ority
to en:oin t.e em,loyer from terminating t.e
em,loyment of t.e worDersK If so# on w.at
groundsK L4M)
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment .as t.e
aut.ority to en:oin an em,loyer from terminating t.e
em,loyment of worDers.
<.e La(or Code (in Article 322(( ,rovides t.at t.e
Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment may sus,end
t.e effectivity of t.e termination of worDers ,ending
t.e resolution of a la(or dis,ute in t.e event of a
,rima facie finding of an a,,ro,riate official of t.e
;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment (efore w.om
suc. dis,ute is ,ending t.at t.e termination may
cause a serious la(or dis,ute or is in im,lementation
of a mass lay off.
3#luntary Arbitrat#r (199!)
State t.e cases w.en a la(or dis,ute would fall
under t.e Jurisdiction of voluntary ar(itrators or
,anel of voluntary ar(itrators.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A la(or dis,ute falls under t.e :urisdiction of a
voluntary ar(itrator or a ,anel of voluntary ar(itrator if
a la(or dis,utes arises from an unresolved grievance
w.ic. in turn arises from t.e inter,retation or
im,lementation of a Collective $argaining Agreement
or of com,any ,ersonnel ,olicies. LArt. /1)
U,on agreement of ,arties# a voluntary ar(itrator or
,anel of voluntary ar(itrators may also .ear and
decide all ot.er la(or dis,utes including unfair la(or
,ractices and (argaining deadlocD. (Art. /1/
3#luntary Arbitrat#r (2008)
<.e em,loyer com,any# in a directive to t.e union
,resident# ordered t.e transfer of some of its
em,loyees# including a num(er of union officials# to
its ,lant offices. <.e order was o,,osed (y t.e
union. Ultimately# t.e union filed an unfair la(or
,ractice against t.e com,any alleging t.at t.e
,ur,orted transfer of its union officials was un:ust
and in violation of t.e Collective $argaining
Agreement (C$A# Pursuant to t.e terms of t.e C$A#
t.e dis,ute was referred to a voluntary ar(itrator w.o
later ruled on t.e issues raised (y t.e ,arties. Could
it later (e validly asserted t.at t.e CdecisionC of t.e
voluntary ar(itrator would .ave no Ccom,ulsoryC
effect on t.e ,artiesK &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. A voluntary ar(itrator c.osen under t.e %rievance
8ac.inery of a C$A can exercise :urisdiction not only
on dis,utes involving inter,retation7im,lementation of
a C$A and7or com,any rules# ,ersonnel ,olicies (Art.
/1)# La(or Code (ut also# u,on agreement of t.e
,arties# Call
ot.er la(or dis,utes including unfair la(or ,racticeP
(Art. /1/# La(or Code. As no o(:ection was raised
(y any of t.e ,arties w.en Pt.e dis,ute was referred
to a voluntary ar(itrator w.o later ruled on t.e issues
raised (y t.e ,artiesC# it follows t.at w.at we .ave is
voluntary ar(itration agreed u,on (y t.e ,arties. Fis
decision is (inding u,on t.e ,arties and may (e
enforced t.roug. any of t.e s.eriffs# including t.ose
of t.e 'L!C# .e may de,utiGe.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. <.e award of voluntary ar(itrators acting wit.in
t.e sco,e of t.eir aut.ority determines t.e rig.ts of
t.e ,arties# and t.eir decisions .ave t.e same legal
effects as a :udgment of t.e Court. Suc. decisions
on matters of fact or law are conclusive# and all
matters in t.e award are t.encefort. res judicata on
t.e t.eory t.at t.e matter .as (een ad:udged (y t.e
tri(unal w.ic. t.e ,arties .ave agreed to maDe final
as tri(unal of last resort. LAolDsc.el La(or Union v.
'L!C. *+ SC!A 3)6 ()*+0.
)A<0( (E)A"I0N+
%<A4 Ar#riate <argaining Unit (199-)
@.at is an a,,ro,riate (argaining unit for ,ur,oses
of collective (argainingK L4MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
An APP!9P!IA<& $A!%AI'I'% U'I< is a grou, of
em,loyees of a given em,loyer com,rised of all or
less t.an all of t.e entire (ody of em,loyees# w.ic.
t.e collective interest of all t.e em,loyees#
consistent wit. t.e interest of t.e em,loyer# indicate
to (e t.e (est suited to serve reci,rocal rig.ts and
duties of t.e ,arties under t.e collective (argaining
,rovisions of t.e law. (See# e.g.# University of t.e
P.ili,,ines v. ?errer-Calle:a# /)) SC!A 64) ()**/.
%<A4 Arbitral A2ard4 (etr#a5ti,e E$$e5t
(2001)
Com,any A and Union $ .ad a 3-year C$A t.at
ex,ired on June )/# )**0. 'egotiations ,roved futile
so t.e unresolved issues were referred to an Ar(iter
w.o rendered a decision on 8arc. )4# )**/
retroactive to ;ecem(er )6# )**0. Is t.e Ar(iterPs
decision ,roviding for retroactivity tena(le or notK
@.yK (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e referral of t.e unresolved issues of t.e collective
(argaining negotiations to an Ar(iter is not wit.in t.e
:urisdiction of t.e Ar(iter.
$ut assuming t.at t.e unresolved issues in t.e
collective (argaining negotiations were ,ro,erly
referred to t.e Ar(iter ,ursuant to t.e ,rovision of
t.e La(or Code (Art. /1/T t.at states t.at a
Aoluntary Ar(itrator may .ear and decide any la(or
dis,ute# including (argaining deadlocDs# t.e Ar(iterPs
decision ,roviding for retroactivity is tena(le.
&xercising .is com,ulsory ar(itration ,ower# t.e
Ar(iter could decide t.e issue of retroactivity in any
way w.ic. is not contrary to law# morals# good
customs# ,u(lic order or ,u(lic ,olicy. $ut in a case
(8anila &lectric Co vs. Secretary of La(or Leonardo
Juisum(ing# %.!. 'o. )/24*+# ?e(ruary //# /000#
t.e Su,reme Court said t.at an ar(itral award s.all
retroact to t.e first day after t.e six-mont. ,eriod
following t.e ex,iration of t.e last day of t.e C$A t.at
was (eing re-negotiated.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e retroactive 9rder of t.e La(or Ar(iter is void for
want of :urisdiction. Jurisdiction is conferred (y law.
'ow.ere in t.e La(or Code# more s,ecifically#
Article /)2# is t.e La(or Ar(iter given :urisdiction
over unresolved issues in collective (argaining#
including determining t.e ,eriod or duration of a
Collective $argaining Agreement.
%<A4 Arbitral A2ard&4 E$$e5ti,ity (1994)
Com,any O# a trans,ortation com,any# and Union I
were in t.e ,rocess of negotiating a new Collective
$argaining Agreement (C$A to re,lace t.e one w.ic.
ex,ired on 8arc. )4. )**0. <.e negotiations reac.ed
an im,asse on economic issues on June 30# )**0.
<.e Secretary of La(or assumed Jurisdiction over t.e
dis,ute and certified t.e same to t.e 'L!C for ,ro,er
dis,osition. Proceedings (efore t.e 'L!C ended on
'ovem(er 30. )**0 and a decision was rendered on
;ecem(er )4# )**0# <.e said decision made
retroactive to 8arc. )4# )**0 t.e new C$A containing
t.e issues resolved (y t.e 'L!C# as well as t.ose
concluded and agreed u,on (y t.e ,arties ,rior to
t.eir arriving at a deadlocD in t.eir negotiations.
Com,any O Euestioned t.e retroactivity of t.e C$A
alleging t.at t.e same contravenes Art. /43-A of t.e
La(or Code# w.ic. ,rovides for t.e automatic
retroactivity of t.e renewed C$A only if t.e same is
entered into wit.in six (1 mont.s from its ex,iry date#
and# if not# t.e ,arties must agree on t.e duration of
retroactivity. ) Is Com,any OPs ,osition correctK /
@ould your answer (e different if t.e assum,tion of
:urisdiction (y t.e Secretary of La(or was at t.e
reEuest or instance of Com,any OK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
) <.e Com,anyPs ,osition is not correct. In t.e
a(sence of a s,ecific ,rovision of law ,ro.i(iting
retroactivity of t.e effectivity of ar(itral awards issued
(y t.e Secretary of La(or# t.e same is deemed
vested wit. ,lenary and discretionary ,owers to
determine t.e effectivity t.ereof# (St LuDePs 8edical
Center# Inc. vs. Fon. !u(en 9.
/ 'o. !egardless of w.ic. ,arty soug.t t.e
assum,tion (y t.e La(or Secretary# t.e effect would
(e t.e same. An assum,tion case gives t.e La(or
Secretary t.e ,lenary ar(itration ,owers to rule on
t.e issues ,resented for resolution# including t.e
retroactivity of t.e new C$A.
%<A4 Aut#9ati5 (ene2al %lau&e (1999)
@.at is t.e Cautomatic renewal clauseC in a
collective (argaining agreementK (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e CAU<98A<IC !&'&@AL CLAUS&C in a C$A
refers to t.at ,rovision of t.e La(or Code (Article
/43 w.ic. states t.at CIt s.all (e t.e duty of (ot.
,arties (to a C$A to Dee, t.e status Euo and to
continue in full force and effect t.e terms and
conditions of t.e existing agreement during t.e 10-
day (freedom ,eriod and7or until a new agreement
is reac.ed (y t.e ,arties.C
%<A4 Aut#9ati5 (ene2al %lau&e (2001)
Com,any CAC and Union C$C negotiated t.e last two
years of t.eir five-year C$A on A,ril )# )**0 to ex,ire
on 8arc. 3)# )**/. Considering t.e amica(le
relations (etween t.e ,arties# neit.er one moved for
t.e extension or termination of t.e agreement.
Sometime in )**4. some disgruntled em,loyees
filed a com,laint demanding t.at t.ey (e ,aid t.e
annual salary increases and ot.er related annual
increases s,ecified in t.e C$A of A,ril )**0# citing
t.e ,rovision in Art. /43 of t.e La(or Code w.ic.
reEuires t.e ,arties to Cxxx Dee, t.e status Euo and
to continue in full force and effect t.e terms and
conditions of t.e existing agreement during t.e 10
day ,eriod and7or until a new agreement is reac.ed
(y t.e ,artiesC.
A# .owever# maintained t.at t.e annual salary
increases and related (enefits s,ecifically ,rovided
for in t.e C$A were# ,ursuant to contract and law#
effective only for t.e term s,ecified t.erein# namely#
until 8arc. 3)# )**/ only. @.o is correctK State t.e
reason(s for your answer. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e disgruntled em,loyees are correct in t.eir claim
t.at t.e ex,ired C$A remains in full force and effect
until a new C$A is signed in accordance wit. Article
/43 of t.e La(or Code.
<.e SC ruled in 'ew Pacific <im(er and Su,,ly Co#
Inc. us. 'L!C# %! 'o. )/6//6. 8arc. )2# /0005
CArticle /43 of t.e La(or Code ex,licitly
,rovided t.at until a new Collective $argaining
Agreement .as (een executed (y and (etween
t.e ,arties# t.ey are duly (ound to Dee, t.e
status Euo and to continue in full force and effect
t.e terms and conditions of t.e existing
agreement. <.e law does not ,rovide for any
exce,tion or Eualification as to w.ic. of t.e
economic ,rovisions of t.e existing agreement
are to retain force and effect# t.erefore# it must (e
understood as encom,assing all t.e terms and
conditions in t.e said agreement.C
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
@it. Art. /43 of t.e La(or Code as (asis# t.e
disgruntled em,loyees s.ould (e ,aid t.e annual
salary increases and ot.er related annual increases
,rovided in t.e )**0-)**/ C$A even after t.e
ex,iration of said C$A as long as said C$A did not
,rovide t.at said increases were to (e ,aid only for
certain s,ecific years.
%<A4 <argaining (ere&entati,e (2000)
<.e Ang Sara, Uainan @orDers Union a,,ointed
Juan Javier# a law student# as (argaining
re,resentative. 8r. Javier is neit.er an em,loyee of
Ang Sara, Uainan Com,any nor a mem(er of t.e
union. Is t.e a,,ointment of 8r. Javier as a
(argaining re,resentative in accord wit. lawK
&x,lain# (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# t.e law does not reEuire t.at t.e (argaining
re,resentative (e an em,loyee of t.e com,any nor
an officer or mem(er of t.e union. VArt /)/ (:# La(or
CodeT.
%<A4 %erti$i5ati#n Ele5ti#n (2005)
As Fuman !esources ;e,artment (F!; manager of
&Q Com,onents# an unorganiGed manufacturer of
electric and electronic com,onents for .ouse.old
a,,liances# you are suddenly confronted wit.
demands for recognition and collective (argaining
negotiations from two com,eting la(or unions. <.ey
(ot. claim to re,resent all t.e ranD-and-file
em,loyees. Union A is led (y a moderate faction#
w.ile Union $ is affiliated wit. a militant federation
identified wit. leftist ideology.
@.ic. of t.e following courses of action s.ould you
taDe to (est ,rotect t.e interests of your com,any
and em,loyeesK (a. !ecogniGe Union A as t.e
rig.tful (argaining
re,resentative (ecause it will (e more
reasona(le to deal wit.-
((. !ecogniGe Union $ (ecause you do not
want to antagoniGe its leftist connections and foment
inter-union conflicts-
(c. Ignore t.e demands of eit.er union since
you cannot (e com,elled legally to deal wit. t.em
at t.is stage- or
(d. Petition t.e $ureau of La(or !elations to
conduct a certification election to determine
w.ic. union really re,resents t.e ma:ority of
t.e em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit. ()0M
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
(d Petition t.e $ureau of La(or !elations to conduct
a certification election to determine w.ic. union really
re,resents t.e ma:ority of t.e em,loyees in t.e
(argaining unit. (Faw at $uDlod ng 8anggagaiva
LI$8N v. Calle:a# %.!. 'o. +61+4# ?e(ruary /3#)**0
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
(c Ignore t.e demands of eit.er union since you
cannot (e com,elled legally to deal wit. t.em at t.is
stage.
%<A4 %erti$i5ati#n Ele5ti#n4 CN#?Uni#nD /in
(2006)
Can a Cno-unionC win in a certification electionK
(/.4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
I&S. Sec. /0# !ule *# $ooD A ,rovides t.at w.ere
t.e votes cast results in Cno unionC o(taining t.e
ma:ority# t.e med ar(iter s.all declare suc. fact in
t.e order. Fence# t.e em,loyees may c.oose not to
(e re,resented (y anyone (!eyes-<ra:ano v.
<ra:ano# %.!. 'o +6633# June /# )**/.
%<A4 %erti$i5ati#n Ele5ti#n4 %#n&ent
Ele5ti#n4 (un?0$$ Ele5ti#n (2000)
;istinguis. (etween CCertification &lectionC# CConsent
&lection#C and C!un-off &lectionC# (1M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
C&!<I?ICA<I9' &L&C<I9' reEuires a ,etition for a
Certification &lection filed (y a union or em,loyer. A
8ed-Ar(iter grants t.e ,etition and an election officer
is designated (y t.e regional director to su,ervise
t.e election. (Art. /41# /42# /4+# La(or Code.
C9'S&'< &L&C<I9' is .eld (y agreement of t.e
unions wit. or wit.out ,artici,ation of t.e med-
ar(iter. L@arren 8anufacturing @orDers Union v.
$ureau of La(or !elations# )4* SC!A 3+2 ()*++N
!U'-9?? &L&C<I9' taDes ,lace (etween t.e
unions w.o received t.e two .ig.est num(er of
votes w.ere not one of t.e unions o(tained t.e
ma:ority of t.e valid votes cast# ,rovided t.at t.e
total union votes is at least 40M of t.e votes cast.
(Art. /41# La(or Code.
%<A4 %erti$i5ati#n Ele5ti#n4 Areed#9 *eri#d
(1999)
). In w.at instance may a ,etition for certification
election (e filed outside t.e freedom ,eriod of a
current collective (argaining agreementK (3M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
As a general rule# in an esta(lis.ment w.ere t.ere is
in force and effect a C$A# a ,etition for certification
election may (e filed only during t.e freedom ,eriod
of suc. C$A.
$ut to .ave t.e a(ove-mentioned effect# t.e C$A
s.ould .ave (een filed and registered wit. t.e
;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment (See Article
/3)# /43-A and /41
<.us# a C$A t.at .as not (een filed and registered
wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment
cannot (e a (ar to a certification election and suc.
election can (e .eld outside of t.e freedom ,eriod of
suc. C$A.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
A ,etition for certification election may (e filed
outside t.e freedom ,eriod of a current C$A if suc.
C$A is a new C$A t.at .as (een ,rematurely
entered into# meaning# it was entered into (efore t.e
ex,iry date of t.e old C$A. <.e filing of t.e ,etition
for certification election s.all (e wit.in t.e freedom
,eriod of t.e old C$A w.ic. is outside of t.e
freedom ,eriod of t.e new C$A t.at .ad (een
,rematurely entered into.
%<A4 %erti$i5ati#n Ele5ti#n4 *r#bati#nary
E9l#yee& (1999)
/. Are ,ro(ationary em,loyees entitled to vote in a
certification electionK @.yK (/M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
In a certification election# all ranD-and-file em,loyees
in t.e a,,ro,riate (argaining unit are entitled to vote.
<.is ,rinci,le is clearly stated in Article /44 of t.e
La(or Code w.ic. states t.at t.e Cla(or organiGation
designated or selected (y t.e ma:ority of t.e
em,loyees in suc. unit s.all (e t.e exclusive
re,resentative of t.e em,loyees in suc. unit for t.e
,ur,ose of collective (argaining.C
Collective (argaining covers all as,ects of t.e
em,loyment relation and t.e resultant C$A
negotiated (y t.e certified union (inds all em,loyees
in t.e (argaining unit. Fence# all ranDand-file
em,loyees# ,ro(ationary or ,ermanent# .ave a
su(stantial interest in t.e selection of t.e (argaining
re,resentative. <.e Code maDes no distinction as to
t.eir em,loyment status as (asis for eligi(ility to vote
in t.e ,etition for certification election. <.e law refers
to CallC t.e em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit. All t.ey
need to (e eligi(le to vote is to (elong to t.e
C(argaining unit#C (Airtime S,ecialists# Inc. v. ?errer-
Calle:a# IS9 SC!A 26*
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
P!9$A<I9'A!I &8PL9I&&S may not (e entitled
to vote in a certification election w.ere only regular
em,loyees (elong to a (argaining unit and
,ro(ationary em,loyees do not (elong to suc.
(argaining unit. It is t.e (elonging to a (argaining
unit t.at entitles an em,loyee to vote in a certification
election.
AN0"1E( A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
I&S. Any em,loyee# w.et.er em,loyed for a definite
,eriod or not# s.all# (eginning on .is first day of
service# (e considered an em,loyee for ,ur,oses of
mem(ers.i, in any la(or union (Art. /22(c.
%<A4 %l#&ed +6# *r#,i&i#n4 /6en n#t
ali5able (1999)
?AC<S5 In a certification election conducted (y t.e
;e,artment of La(or# Associated @orDers
9rganiGation in Laguna (A@9L .eaded (y Cesar
8ontanyo# won over PangDat ng mga 8anggagawa sa
Laguna (P8L# .eaded (y &ddie %raciaa. Fence#
A@9L was certified as t.e exclusive (argaining agent
of t.e ranD-and-file em,loyees of t.e Laguna
<rans,ortation Com,any (L<C.
S.ortly# t.ereafter# a Collective $argaining Agreement
was concluded (y L<C and A@9L w.ic. ,rovided for
a closed s.o,. ConseEuently# A@9L# demanded t.at
&ddie %raciaa and all t.e P8L mem(ers (e reEuired
to (ecome mem(ers of A@9L as a condition for t.eir
continued em,loyment5 ot.erwise# t.ey s.all (e
dismissed ,ursuant to t.e closed s.o, ,rovision of
t.e C$A.
<.e union security clause of t.e C$A also ,rovided
for t.e dismissal of em,loyees w.o .ave not
maintained t.eir mem(ers.i, in t.e union. ?or one
reason or anot.er# ?rancis 8agallona# a mem(er of
A@9L# was ex,elled from t.e union mem(ers.i, for
acts inimical to t.e interest of t.e union. U,on recei,t
of t.e notice t.at ?rancis 8agallona failed to maintain
.is mem(ers.i, in good standing wit. A@9L# L<C
summarily dismissed .im from em,loyment.
). Can &ddie %raciaa and all t.e P8L
mem(ers (e reEuired to (ecome mem(ers of t.e
A@9L ,ursuant to t.e closed s.o, ,rovision of t.e
C$AK @.yK (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
&ddie %racla and all t.e P8L mem(ers can not (e
reEuired to (ecome mem(ers of A@9L ,ursuant to
t.e closed s.o, ,rovision of t.e C$A. According to
t.e La(or Code (Article /6+(e# a closed s.o,
,rovision cannot (e a,,lied to t.ose em,loyees w.o
are already mem(ers of anot.er union at t.e time of
t.e signing of t.e C$A.
/. Is t.e termination from em,loyment of
?rancis 8agallona (y L<C lawfulK @.yK (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Pursuant to t.e closed s.o, ,rovision of t.e C$A
entered into (y A@9L wit. L<C# mem(ers.i, in
A@9L .as (ecome a condition of em,loyment in
L<C. As long as t.e ex,ulsion of ?rancis 8agallona
from A@9L was done in accordance wit. a,,lica(le
,rovisions of law and wit. t.e
Constitution and $y-laws of t.e A@9L# t.en it was
lawful for L<C to terminate 8agallona.
Panel: The termination is unlawful (Ferrer v. NLRC.
%<A4 %l#&ed +6# ,&7 Agen5y +6# (199!)
(a ;escri(e a Cclosed s.o, agreement# does it
differ from an Cagency s.o, agreement.C (( Are t.e a(ove agreements
legalK +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
(a A CCL9S&; SF9P A%!&&8&'<C is t.at
agreement em(odied in a collective (argaining
agreement (C$A w.ere(y t.e em,loyer (inds itself
not to .ire any ,erson unless .e is first a union
mem(er of t.e collective (argaining re,resentative.
An CA%&'CI SF9P A%!&&8&'<C is different from
a closed s.o, agreement in t.at under t.e former#
t.e em,loyer does not (ind itself not to .ire a ,erson
unless .e is first a union mem(er of t.e collective
(argaining re,resentative. Instead# t.e em,loyer
(inds itself to c.ecD off from t.ose w.o are not union
mem(ers of t.e collective (argaining re,resentative
a reasona(le fee eEuivalent to t.e dues and ot.er
fees ,aid (y union mem(ers if t.e non-union
mem(ers acce,t t.e (enefits of t.e C$A.
(( <.e a(ove agreements are legal or t.ey are
ex,ressly allowed (y t.e La(or Code.
%<A4 %#ntra5t <ar (ule ,&7 .eadl#5E <ar
(ule (1999)
;istinguis. (etween Ccontract (ar ruleC and
CdeadlocD (ar ruleC. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Under t.e CC9'<!AC< $A! !UL&#C a certification
election cannot (e .eld if t.ere is in force and in
effect a collective (argaining agreement t.at .as
(een duly registered wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or
and &m,loyment exce,t during t.e freedom ,eriod
of suc. C$A w.ic. is t.e 10-day ,eriod ,rior to t.e
ex,iry date of said C$A. (See Articles /3)# /43-A
and /41
Under t.e C;&A;L9CU $A! !UL&C a certification
election can not (e .eld if a (argaining deadlocD to
w.ic. an incum(ent or certified (argaining agent is a
,arty .ad (een su(mitted to conciliation or
mediation or .ad (ecome t.e su(:ect of a valid
notice of striDe or locDout. (See Section 3# !ule OI#
$ooD A of t.e Im,lementing !ules and !egulations
of t.e La(or Code
%<A4 %#,erage4 N#n?Uni#n ;e9ber&4
(eligi#u& +e5t (2005)
A grou, of em,loyees in OIQ ?actory (elonging
to a religious sect# in conformity wit. t.e
teac.ings and dictates of t.eir religion# refused to
:oin t.e la(or union in t.e factory. <.e la(or union
was
a(le to negotiate a su(stantial wage increase in its
collective (argaining agreement wit.
management. A ,rovision t.erein stated t.at t.e
wage increase would (e ,aid to t.e mem(ers of
t.e union only in view of a Cclosed s.o,C union
security clause in t.e new agreement. <.e
mem(ers of t.e sect ,rotested and demanded t.at
t.e wage increase (e extended to t.em. <.e
officers of t.e union countered (y demanding t.eir
termination from t.e com,any ,ursuant to t.e
Cclosed s.o,C ,rovision in t.e :ust-concluded C$A.
(1M
(a) Is the CBA provision valid?
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# t.e C$A ,rovision is not valid. <.e (enefits of a
C$A are extendi(le to all em,loyees regardless of
t.eir mem(ers.i, in t.e union (ecause to wit..old
t.e same from non-union mem(ers would (e to
discriminate against t.em. ('ational $rewery =
Allied Industries La(or Union of t.e P.ili,,ines v.
San 8iguel $rewery# Inc.# %.!. 'o. L-)+)20# August
3)#)*13
(b) Should the company comply with the
union's demand of terminating the members of
the religious sect?
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. <.e rig.t to :oin includes t.e rig.t not to :oin (y
reason of religious (eliefs. 8em(ers of said religious
sect cannot (e com,elled or coerced to :oin t.e la(or
union even w.en t.e union .as a closed s.o,
agreement wit. t.e em,loyer- t.at in s,ite of any
closed s.o, agreement# mem(ers of said religious
sect cannot (e refused em,loyment or dismissed
from t.eir :o(s on t.e sole ground t.at t.ey are not
mem(ers of t.e collective (argaining union.
(Aictoriano v. &liGalde !o,e @orDersP Union# %.!.
'o. L-/4/61# Se,tem(er )/#)*26
%<A4 interretati#n (2004)
$. <.e C$A (etween t.e Com,any and t.e ranD
and-file Union contained t.e following ,rovision5
BSection 3. 8&AL ALL9@A'C&. <.e Com,any
agrees to grant a 8&AL ALL9@A'C& of <&' P&S9S
(P)0.00 to all em,loyees w.o render at least <@9 (/
.ours or more of actual overtime worD on a worDday#
and ?!&& 8&ALS# as ,resently ,racticed# not
exceeding <@&'<I ?IA& P&S9S (P/4.00 after
<F!&& (3 .ours of actual overtime worD.H
;is,ute in t.e inter,retation of t.e a(ove ,rovision
arose as t.e Com,any asserts t.at t.e ,.rase Bafter
t.ree (3 .ours of actual overtime worDH does not
mean after exactly t.ree (3 .ours of actual overtime
worD- it means after more t.an t.ree (3 .ours of
actual overtime worD. <.e Union# on t.e ot.er .and#
maintained t.at Bafter t.ree (3 .ours of actual
overtime worDH sim,ly means after
rendering exactly# or no less t.an# t.ree (3 .ours of
actual overtime worD. @.ic. inter,retation do you
t.inD s.ould ,revailK @.yK (4M
%<A4 Juri&di5ti#nal *re?%#nditi#n& (1996)
/ @.at :urisdictional ,re-conditions must (e ,resent
to set in motion t.e mec.anics of a collective
(argainingK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<o set in motion t.e mec.anics of collective
(argaining# t.ese :urisdictional ,re-conditions must
(e ,resent# namely5
1 <.e em,loyees in a (argaining unit s.ould
form a la(or organiGation-
2 <.e la(or organiGation s.ould (e a legitimate
la(or organiGation-
3 As suc. legitimate la(or organiGation# it
s.ould (e recogniGed or certified as t.e collective
(argaining re,resentative of t.e em,loyees of t.e
(argaining unit- and
4 <.e la(or organiGation as t.e collective
(argaining re,resentative s.ould reEuest t.e
em,loyer to (argain collectively. (See Arts. /63# /36#
/44 and /40 of t.e La(or Code
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e mec.anics of collective (argaining are set in
motion only w.en t.e following Jurisdictional ,re-
conditions are met5
() ,ossession of t.e status of ma:ority
re,resentation of t.e em,loyeesP re,resentative in
accordance wit. any of t.e means of selection or
designation ,rovided for (y t.e La(or Code-
(/ ,roof of ma:ority of re,resentation-
and (3 a demand to (argain under Art. /4)(g# of
t.e La(or Code. (UioD Loy v. 'L!C. )6) SC!A )2*
L)*+1N
%<A4 )#5E?#ut ,&7 %l#&ed +6# (2004)
;istinguis. clearly (ut (riefly (etween LocD-out and
Closed S.o,.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(+:
L9CU9U< refers to t.e tem,orary refusal of an
em,loyer to furnis. worD as a result of a la(or or
industrial dis,ute. CL9S&; SF9P# on t.e ot.er
.and# refers to a union security clause in a collective
(argaining agreement w.ere(y t.e em,loyer agrees
not to em,loy any ,erson w.o is not a mem(er of t.e
exclusive collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e
em,loyees in a (argaining unit.
%<A4 ;andat#ry +ub=e5t& #$ <argaining
(1996)
) @.at matters are considered mandatory su(:ects
of collective (argainingK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
@ages# .ours of worD and all ot.er terms and
conditions of em,loyment including ,ro,osals for
ad:usting any grievances or Euestions arising from t.e
collective (argaining agreement are considered
mandatory su(:ects of collective (argaining. (See Art.
/4/ of t.e La(or Code
%<A4 (egi&trati#n (eFuire9ent4 %#ntra5t
<ar?(ule (2000)
A Collective $argaining Agreement was signed
(etween t.e Ang Sara, Uainan Com,any and t.e
Ang Sara, Uainan @orDers Union. S.ould t.e
Collective $argaining Agreement (e registered wit.
t.e $ureau of La(or !elationsK If so# w.yK (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
So t.at t.e contract-(ar rule may a,,ly t.e C$A
s.ould (e registered# assuming it .as (een validly
ratified and contains t.e mandatory ,rovisions. (Art.
/3/# La(or Code.
%<A4 (un?0$$ Ele5ti#n (2006)
@.en does a Crun-offP election occurK (/.4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A run-off election occurs w.en t.e following
elements occur5
1 $etween t.ree (3 or more c.oices# and no c.oice
receiving a ma:ority of t.e valid votes cast-
2 <.e total num(er of votes for all contending
unions is at least 40M of t.e num(er of vote cast- and
3 $etween t.e la(or unions receiving t.e two
.ig.est num(er of votes (Article /41# La(or Code.
%<A4 +ale #$ E&tabli&69ent4 E$$e5t (1994)
Coronet !ecords P.il. (C!P manufactures
audio7video record ,layers# com,act discs# video
discs# cassettes and t.e liDe. C!Ps s.are.oldings is
60M foreign and 10M domestic. C!P signed a
Collective $argaining Agreement (C$A wit. its ranD-
and-file worDers for t.ree years starting from January
)# )**0 and ending on ;ecem(er 3)# )**3.
$efore t.e ex,iration of t.e C$A# C!P decided to
sell all its assets to Lyra 8usic Cor,oration effective
Se,tem(er 30# )**3. In t.is regard# notice was sent
on August 30# )**3 to eac. em,loyee advising t.em
of t.e sale of t.e Com,anyPs assets to Lyra 8usic
Cor,oration and t.e closure of t.e com,anyPs
o,erations effective Se,tem(er 30# )**3. C!P#
liDewise# reEuested t.at eac. em,loyee receive .is
se,aration ,ay eEuivalent to one-and-one-.alf () =
)7/ mont.Ps ,ay ,er year of service# exclusive of all
unused leaves w.ic. were also converted to cas.#
and .is )3t.-mont. ,ay for )**3.
<.e em,loyees received t.eir res,ective se,aration
,ay under ,rotest and t.ereafter filed an action
against C!P and Lyra 8usic Cor,oration for unfair
la(or ,ractice (ULP. <.e Ar(iter ruled in favor of t.e
worDers and ordered Lyra 8usic Cor,oration to
a(sor( t.e former worDers of C!P. @as t.e La(or
Ar(iter correct in .is decisionK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. <.e La(or Ar(iter is not correct. As .eld in t.e
case of San ?eli,e 'eri Sc.ool of 8andaluyong vs.
'L!C# w.en t.ere is a legitimate sale of a
com,anyPs assets# t.e (uyer in good fait. cannot (e
legally com,elled to a(sor( t.e em,loyees of t.e
seller in good fait.. In t.e case at (ar# t.e em,loyees
of t.e C!P were validly terminated (ased on Article
/+6# e.g. closure of o,erations and se,aration ,ay
was ,aid at a rate muc. .ig.er t.an t.e law.
?urt.ermore# t.e case filed (y t.e em,loyees was
U'?AI! LA$9! P!AC<IC&. It is .ig.ly irregular to
order a(sor,tion of em,loyees in a ULP case.
%<A4 +#5ial +e5urity ,&7 Uni#n +e5urity
(2004)
;istinguis. clearly (ut (riefly (etween Social security
and union security
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(+:
S9CIAL S&CU!I<I is t.e ,rotection given (y social
insurance ,rograms suc. as t.e ,rograms of t.e
SSS# %SIS and PFIC undertaDen ,ursuant to t.eir
res,ective c.arters# including t.e em,loyees
com,ensation ,rogram ,rovided for in t.e La(or
Code. <.e aforesaid ,rograms ,rovide income
(enefits and7or medical care w.en contingencies
liDe sicDness# (also maternity in t.e case of SSS
disa(ility# deat.# or retirement# including in t.e case
of t.e %SIS# se,aration and unem,loyment (enefits.
9n t.e ot.er .and# U'I9' S&CU!I<I refers to a
clause in a collective (argaining agreement w.ere(y
t.e em,loyer agrees to em,loy or continue in
em,loyment only worDers w.o are mem(ers of t.e
em,loyees of said em,loyer in a (argaining unit.
%<A4 +ub&tituti#nary .#5trine (2000)
a <.e Sama.an ng 8ga 8anggagawa sa Pids
and Co. Inc. lost its ma:ority status in t.e
(argaining unit one year after t.e signing of t.e
Collective $argaining Agreement. $icDerings
among all t.e t.ree ot.er unions in t.e (argaining
unit were a daily occurrence# wit. eac. union
asserting ma:ority status. <o resolve t.is ,estering
,ro(lem# t.e Com,any and t.e t.ree ot.er unions
agreed to .old a consent election under t.e
su,ervision of t.e $ureau of La(or !elations. In t.e
consent election# Pids and Co# @orDerPs Union
won# and was accordingly recogniGed (y t.e
Com,any as t.e exclusive (argaining re,resentative
in t.e (argaining unit. Is t.e Pids and Co. @orDers
Union (ound (y t.e Collective $argaining
Agreement signed (etween t.e Com,any and t.e
Sama.an ng 8ga 8anggagawa Sa Pids and Co.
Inc.K &x,lain. (3M
( S.ortly after t.e consent election# Pids and Co.
Inc. sold t.e %roceries ;ivision to 8etro 8anila
%rocery Inc. <.e em,loyees of t.e sold division
formed ,art of t.e (argaining unit descri(ed in t.e
Collective $argaining Agreement# and all were
a(sor(ed (y 8etro 8anila %rocery Inc. Is 8etro
8anila %rocery Inc.# as t.e new em,loyer# (ound (y
t.e Collective $argaining Agreement existing at t.e
time of t.e saleK &x,lain. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
a Ies# (ecause t.e Collective $argaining Agreement
is not invalidated (y t.e c.ange of t.e (argaining
agent w.ile t.e C$A is still effective. <.e
Csu(stitutionary doctrinePP a,,lies. ($enguet
Consolidated Inc. v. $CI &m,loyees# /3 SC!A 614
()*1+
( 'o. <.ere are no indications t.at t.e sale is
simulated or intended to defeat t.e em,loyeesP rig.t
to organiGe. A (ona fide sale terminates t.e
em,loyment relations.i, (etween t.e selling
com,any and its em,loyees. <.e C$A does not (ind
t.e ,urc.aser in good fait. (ecause t.e C$A is a
,ersonam contract# unless t.e (uyer agrees to (e
(ound. LSundowner ;ev. Cor,. v. ;rilon# )+0 SC!A
)6 ()*+*- Associated La(or Union v. 'L!C# /06
SC!A *)3 ()**3N.
%<A4 Uni#n +e5urity %lau&e (2004)
A. 8PF La(or Union is t.e duly certified (argaining
re,resentative of t.e ranD-and-file em,loyees of 88
ParD Fotel since t.e )*20>s. <.e collective
(argaining agreement contained union s.o, security
,rovisions. After t.e signing of t.e /000W /004 C$A#
t.e Union demanded t.e dismissal of 3 em,loyees#
OO# II and QQ# ,ursuant to t.e union security clause
in t.e C$A.
<.e Fotel 8anagement re,lied t.at it was legally
im,ossi(le to com,ly wit. t.e demand of t.e Union.
It mig.t even (e construed as unfair la(or ,ractice.
?or it a,,eared t.at OO# II and QQ .ad (een
recently ,romoted as su,ervisors and resigned from
t.e Union. $ut according to t.e Union# t.e t.ree
su(mitted t.eir resignations outside t.e freedom
,eriod after t.e )**1W/000 C$A ex,ired on June 30#
/000. <.e Union argued t.at t.e Fotel 8anagement
could not sDirt its o(ligation to res,ect and im,lement
t.e union security clause (y ,romoting t.e t.ree
em,loyees. <.at could (e viewed as rewarding
em,loyees for t.eir disloyalty to t.e union# said t.e
union officers.
;oes t.e union security clause sufficiently :ustify t.e
demand for dismissal of t.e t.ree em,loyees or
notK 8ay t.e Fotel 8anagement validly refuse t.e
Union>s demandK (4M
%<A4 Uni#n +e5urity %lau&e4 %l#&ed +6#
*r#,i&i#n (1995)
!econcile t.e com,ulsory nature of t.e closed s.o,
,rovision in a Collective $argaining Agreement wit.
t.e constitutional guarantee of freedom of
association. ;iscuss fully.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Among t.e ,olicies of t.e State in t.e field of la(or
relations is to ,romote trade unionism and to foster
t.e organiGation of a strong and united la(or
movement. U'I9' S&CU!I<I CLAUS&S# liDe a
closed s.o, agreement# is one way of im,lementing
t.e aforementioned la(or relations ,olicy.
Im,lementing to some extent t.e conce,t of freedom
of association# an em,loyee w.o is already a mem(er
of a union could not (e com,elled to (ecome a
mem(er of a (argaining union# even if t.ere is a
closed s.o, agreement.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
It could (e argued t.at a closed s.o, ,rovision in a
Collective $argaining Agreement# (ecause it reEuires
t.at a ,erson s.ould first (e a mem(er of t.e
(argaining union (efore .e is em,loyed# is violative
of t.e rig.t to freedom of association# (ecause said
rig.t su(sumes not only a rig.t to :oin# (ut also a rig.t
not to :oin a union.
9n t.e ot.er .and# it could (e argued t.at t.e
exercise of t.e freedom of association means t.at
worDers s.ould :oin unions. A closed s.o,
agreement# as a union security clause# encourages
t.e :oining of unions.
%<A4 Uni#n4 (ere&entati#n I&&ue (1999)
?AC<S5 Jenson = Jenson (J = J is a domestic
cor,oration engaged in t.e manufacturing of
consumer ,roducts. Its ranD-and-file worDers
organiGed t.e Jenson &m,loyees Union (J&U# a duty
registered local union affiliated wit. PA?LU# a national
union. After .aving (een certified as t.e exclusive
(argaining agent of t.e a,,ro,riate (argaining unit#
J&U-PA?LU su(mitted its ,ro,osals for a Collective
$argaining Agreement wit. t.e com,any.
In t.e meantime# a ,ower struggle occurred wit.in t.e
national union PA?LU (etween its 'ational President#
8anny PaDyao# and its 'ational Secretary %eneral#
%a(riel 8iro. <.e re,resentation issue wit.in PA?LU is
,ending resolution (efore t.e 9ffice of t.e Secretary of
La(or.
$y reason of t.is intra-union dis,ute wit.in PA?LU# J
= J o(stinately and consistently refused to offer any
counter,ro,osal and to (argain collectively wit. J&U-
PA?LU until t.e re,resentation issue wit.in PA?LU
s.all .ave (een resolved wit. finality. J&U-PA?LU
filed a 'otice of StriDe. <.e Secretary of La(or
su(seEuently assumed :urisdiction over t.e la(or
dis,ute.
1. @ill t.e re,resentation issue t.at .as arisen involving
t.e national union PA?LU# to w.ic. t.e duty registered
local union J&U is affiliated# (ar collective (argaining
negotiation wit. J = JK &x,lain (riefly. (3M
2. Can t.e Secretary of La(or decide t.e la(or dis,ute
(y awarding t.e J&U C$A Pro,osals as t.e Collective
$argaining Agreement of t.e ,artiesK &x,lain (riefly.
(/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
). <.e re,resentation issue t.at .as arisen involving
t.e national union PA?LU s.ould not (ar collective
(argaining negotiation wit. J and J. It is t.e local
union J&U t.at .as t.e rig.t to (argain wit. t.e
em,loyer J and J# and not t.e national union PA?LU.
It is immaterial w.et.er t.e re,resentation issue
wit.in PA?LU .as (een resolved wit. finality or not.
Said sEua((le could not ,ossi(ly serve as a (ar to
any collective (argaining since PA?LU is not t.e real
,arty-in-interest to t.e talDs- rat.er# t.e negotiations
are confined to t.e cor,oration and t.e local union
J&U. 9nly t.e collective (argaining agent# t.e local
union J&U# ,ossesses t.e legal standing to negotiate
wit. t.e cor,oration. A duly registered local union
affiliated wit. a national union or federation does not
lose its legal ,ersonality or Inde,endence (Adamson
and Adamson# Inc. v. <.e Court of Industrial
!elations and Adamson and Adamson Su,ervising
Union (??@# )/2 SC!A /1+ L)*+6N.
/. Ies. It is wit.in assum,tion ,ower.
%<A4 /age In5rea&e %#,erage4 N#n?Uni#n
E9l#yee& (2005)
(( 8ay a ranD-and-file em,loyee# w.o is not a
mem(er of t.e union re,resenting .is (argaining
unit# avail of t.e wage increases w.ic. t.e union
negotiated for its mem(ersK (6M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# (ecause t.e (argaining re,resentative (union
does not act for its mem(ers alone. It re,resents all
t.e em,loyees covered (y t.e (argaining unit.
(8actan @orDers Union v. A(oitiG#
%.!. 'o. L-30/6)# June 30# )*2/ Fowever# non-
mem(ers w.o avail of C$A (enefits are reEuired
under t.e law to ,ay agency fees.
%<U4 %#9any Uni#n ,&7 Uni#n +6# (2004)
;istinguis. clearly (ut (riefly (etween Com,any
union and union s.o,.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(+:
A C98PA'I U'I9' is a union of em,loyees
dominated or under t.e control of t.e em,loyer of
said em,loyees. A U'I9' SF9P# on t.e ot.er .and#
refers to a union security clause in a collective
(argaining agreement w.ere(y t.e em,loyer agrees
to terminate t.e em,loyment of an em,loyee w.o
.as not (ecome a mem(er of t.e union w.ic. is t.e
em,loyees in a (argaining unit wit.in a certain ,eriod
after t.e em,loyment of said em,loyee or .as
ceased to (ecome a union mem(er.
%<U4 %#n$idential E9l#yee& (1994)
1 Can an em,loyer legally o,,ose t.e inclusion
of confidential em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit of
ranD-and-file em,loyeesK
2 @ould your answer (e different if t.e
confidential em,loyees are soug.t to (e included in
t.e su,ervisory unionK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
) Ies# an em,loyer can legally o,,ose t.e inclusion
of confidential em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit of
t.e ranD-and-file. <.is issue .as (een settled in t.e
case of %olden ?arms vs. Calle:a# and reiterated in
t.e case of P.ili,s Industrial ;ev. Inc. vs. 'L!C.
a Ies# an em,loyer can legally o,,ose t.e inclusion
of t.e confidential em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit
of ranD-and-file em,loyees (ecause confidential
em,loyees are ineligi(le to form# assist or :oin a
la(or union. $y t.e nature of t.eir functions# t.ey
assist and act in a confidential ca,acity to# or .ave
access to confidential matters of# ,ersons w.o
exercise managerial functions in t.e field of la(or
relations# and t.e union mig.t not (e assured of t.eir
loyalty in view of evident conflict of interest.
( An em,loyer can legally o,,ose t.e inclusion of
confidential em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit of ranD
-and-file em,loyees (ecause confidential em,loyees
are considered ,art of management. (P.iltranco vs.
$L!# )26 SC!A 3++.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
/ <.e answer would (e t.e same if confidential
em,loyees are soug.t to (e included in t.e
su,ervisory union (ecause confidential em,loyees#
(eing a ,art of management would not Eualify to :oin#
muc. less form a la(or union. (P.iltranco vs. $L!#
)26 SC!A 3++#
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
8y answer would remain t.e same# even if t.e
confidential em,loyees were soug.t to (e included
in t.e su,ervisory union. Confidential em,loyees
would .ave t.e same adverse im,act on t.e
(argaining unit of su,ervisors5 Confidential
em,loyeesP access to .ig.ly sensitive information
may (ecome t.e source of undue advantage (y t.e
union over t.e em,loyer. (P.ili,s Industrial
;evelo,ment Inc.# vs. 'ational La(or !elations
Commission# et. al# %.! 'o. ++*42# /4 June )**/
%<U4 %#n&ent Ele5ti#n ,&7 %erti$i5ati#n
Ele5ti#n (2004)
;istinguis. clearly (ut (riefly (etween Consent
election and certification election.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(+:
A certification election and a consent election are (ot.
elections .eld to determine t.roug. secret (allot t.e
sole and exclusive re,resentative of t.e em,loyees in
an a,,ro,riate (argaining unit for t.e ,ur,ose of
collective (argaining or negotiations. <.ere is t.is
difference# .owever# a C&!<I?ICA<I9' &L&C<I9' is
ordered (y t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment
w.ile a C9'S&'< &L&C<I9' is voluntarily agreed
u,on (y t.e ,arties# wit. or wit.out t.e intervention of
t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment.
%<U4 ;anagerial E9l#yee&4 +uer,i&#ry
E9l#yee& (1995)
A su,ervisorPs union filed a ,etition for certification
election to determine t.e exclusive (argaining
re,resentative of t.e su,ervisory em,loyees of
?armers $anD. Included in t.e list of su,ervisory
em,loyees attac.ed to t.e ,etition are t.e ;e,artment
8anagers# $ranc. 8anagers# Cas.iers and
Com,trollers. ?armers $anD Euestioned t.is list
arguing t.at ;e,artment 8anagers# $ranc. 8anagers#
Cas.iers and Com,trollers in.erently ,ossess t.e
,owers enumerated in Art. /)/# ,ar. (m# of t.e La(or
Code# i.e.# t.e ,ower and ,rerogative to lay down and
execute management ,olicies and7or to .ire# transfer#
sus,end# lay-off# recall# disc.arge# assign or disci,line
em,loyees.
). Is t.e contention of ?armers $anD correctK
;iscuss fully.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e contention of t.e ?armers $anD is not correct# if#
on examination of t.e actual ,owers exercised (y t.e
;e,artment 8anagers# $anD 8anagers# Cas.iers
and Com,trollers# t.ey are not vested wit. ,owers or
,rerogatives to lay down and execute management
,olicies or to .ire# transfer# sus,end# lay-off# recall#
disc.arge# assign or disci,line em,loyees. If t.eir
,owers are to carry out t.eir duties and
res,onsi(ilities in accordance wit. t.e ,olicies
,romulgated (y t.e $oard of ;irectors of t.e $anD# or
(y external aut.orities# liDe t.e Central $anD# t.en#
t.ey are not managerial (ut may (e su,ervisory
,ersonnel.
$ut t.is may (e noted5 <.e $anD officials mentioned
in t.e case# .ave control# custody and7or access to
confidential matters. <.us# t.ey are confidential
em,loyees and in accordance wit. earlier Su,reme
Court decisions# as confidential em,loyees# t.e
$ranc. 8anager# Cas.ier# Controller are disEualified
from :oining or assisting t.e su,ervisorPs union of t.e
$anD.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e contention of t.e ?anners $anD is ,artially
correct. <.e ;e,artment managers and $ranc.
managers# if t.ey in fact .ave t.e ,owers im,lied (y
t.eir titles# are managerial ,ersonnel. In accordance
wit. t.e La(or Code# managerial ,ersonnel are not
eligi(le to :oin and form la(or unions.
9n t.e ot.er .and# cas.iers w.o are in c.arge of
money received or ex,ended# and com,trollers w.o
examine and su,ervise ex,enditures# are not
managerial ,ersonnel# and if t.ey su,ervise
,ersonnel# t.ey could (e su,ervisors# and are
t.erefore to (e included in t.e (argaining unit of
su,ervisors.
/. Is t.ere any statutory (asis for t.e ,etition of t.e
unionK &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.ere is statutory (asis for t.e ,etition of t.e
su,ervisorsP union. Under t.e La(or Code#
su,ervisors .ave t.e rig.t to form and :oin unions#
(ut only unions of su,ervisory em,loyees.
%<U4 ;anagerial E9l#yee&4 +uer,i&#ry
E9l#yee& (1999)
?AC<S5 Sama.an ng mga 8anggagawa sa
Com,anya ng <a(aco (S8C< filed a Petition for
Certification &lection among t.e su,ervisory
em,loyees of t.e <a(aco 8anufacturing Com,any
(<a(aco (efore t.e 'C! !egional 9ffice of t.e
;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment. It alleged#
among ot.er t.ings# t.at it is a legitimate la(or
organiGation# a duly c.artered local of 'A?LU- t.at
<a(aco is an organiGed esta(lis.ment- and t.at no
certification election .as (een conducted wit.in one
year ,rior to t.e filing of its ,etition for certification
election.
<.e Petition filed (y S8C< s.owed t.at out of its 40
mem(ers# )4 were ranD-and-filers and two (/ were
managers.
<a(aco filed a 8otion to ;ismiss on t.e ground t.at
S8C< union is com,osed of su,ervisory and ranD-
and-file em,loyees and# t.erefore# cannot act as
(argaining agent for t.e ,ro,osed unit.
S8C< filed an o,,osition to t.e said 8otion alleging
t.at t.e infirmity# if any# in t.e mem(ers.i, of t.e
union can (e remedied in t.e ,re-election
conference t.ru t.e exclusion-inclusion ,roceedings
w.erein t.ose em,loyees w.o are occu,ying ranD-and-
file ,ositions will (e excluded from t.e list of eligi(le
voters.
). S.ould t.e 8otion to ;ismiss filed (y t.e <a(aco
(e granted or deniedK &x,lain. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e 8otion to ;ismiss filed (y <a(aco s.ould (e
granted. According to t.e La(or Code (in Article
/64# su,ervisory em,loyees s.all not (e eligi(le for
mem(ers.i, in a la(or organiGation of ranDand-file
em,loyees (ut may :oin or form se,arate la(or
organiGations of t.eir own.
$ecause of t.e a(ove-mentioned ,rovision of t.e
La(or Code# a la(or organiGation com,osed of (ot.
ranD-and-file and su,ervisory em,loyees is no la(or
organiGation at all. It cannot# for any guise or
,ur,ose# (e a legitimate la(or organiGation. 'ot
(eing a legitimate la(or organiGation# it cannot
,ossess t.e reEuisite ,ersonality to file a ,etition for
certification election. (See <oyota 8otor P.ili,,ines
Cor,. vs. <oyota 8otor P.ili,,ines Cor,. La(or
Union# /1+ SC!A 423
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e 8otion to ;ismiss s.ould (e denied. In t.e first
,lace# t.e general rule is t.at in a certification
election t.e em,loyer is a mere (ystander. An
em,loyer .as no legal standing to Euestion a
certification election as it is t.e sole concern of t.e
worDers. <.e exce,tions to t.e general rule of w.ic.
are ) w.en t.e existence of an em,loyer-em,loyee
relations.i, is denied- and / w.en t.e em,loyer
Euestions t.e legal ,ersonality of t.e union (ecause
of irregularities in its registration are not ,resent in
t.is case.
/. Can t.e two (/ 8anagers (e ,art of t.e
(argaining unitK @.yK (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# t.e two (/ 8anagers cannot (e ,art of t.e
(argaining unit com,osed of su,ervisory em,loyees.
A (argaining unit must effect a grou,ing of em,loyees
w.o .ave su(stantial# mutual interests in wages#
.ours# worDing conditions and ot.er su(:ects of
collective (argaining. (San 8iguel Cor,. Su,ervisors
and &xem,t &m,loyees Union v. Laguesma# //2
SC!A 329
<.e La(or Code (in Article /64 ,rovides t.at
managerial em,loyees are not eligi(le to :oin# assist
or form any la(or organiGation.
<.e a(ove ,rovision s.ows t.at managerial
em,loyees do not .ave t.e same interests as t.e
su,ervisory em,loyees w.ic. com,ose t.e
(argaining unit w.ere S8C< wis.es to (e t.e
exclusive collective (argaining re,resentative.
%<U4 ;#de&4 .eter9inati#n #$ EB5lu&i,e
<argaining Agree9ent (2006)
<.e modes of determining an exclusive (argaining
agreement are5
1 voluntary recognition
2 certification election
3 consent election &x,lain (riefly .ow t.ey
differ from one anot.er. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
(a. 30)UN"A(G (E%0'NI"I0N R is t.e
voluntary recognition (y t.e em,loyer of t.e status of
t.e union as t.e (argaining re,resentative of t.e
em,loyees LSection l((((# !ule I# $ooD A# !ules to
Im,lement t.e La(or Code# as amended (y
;e,artment 9rder 'o. 60-03# Series of /003 ()2
?e(ruary /003N.
((. %E("IAI%A"I0N E)E%"I0N is t.e ,rocess
of determining t.e sole and exclusive (argaining
agent of t.e em,loyees in an a,,ro,riate (argaining
unit LSection l(.# !ule I# $ooD A# !ules to Im,lement
t.e La(or Code# as amended (y ;e,artment 9rder
'o. 60-03# Series of /003 ()2 ?e(ruary /003N.
(c. %0N+EN" E)E%"I0N is an agreed
election# conducted wit. or wit.out t.e intervention of
t.e ;9L& to determine t.e issue of ma:ority
re,resentation of all t.e worDers in t.e a,,ro,riate
(argaining unit (Algire v. ;e 8esa# %.!. 'o. *21//#
9cto(er )*# )**6.
.ue *r#5e&&4 .i&5ilinary %a&e& (1995)
). %ary# a salesman of Astro C.emical Com,any
(AS<!9# was re,orted to .ave committed some
serious anomalies in .is sale and distri(ution of
com,any ,roducts. AS<!9 designated its C.ief
Legal 9fficer to investigate %ary. Instead of
su(mitting to t.e investigation# %ary filed a ,etition to
en:oin t.e investigation on t.e ground t.at AS<!9
would a,,ear to (e .is accuser# ,rosecutor and :udge
at t.e same time. @ill t.e ,etition to en:oin t.e
investigation ,ros,erK ;iscuss fully.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e ,etition to en:oin t.e investigation will not
,ros,er. It is inevita(le t.at in disci,linary cases# t.e
em,loyer would a,,ear to (e accuser# ,rosecutor#
and :udge at t.e same time since it is t.e em,loyer
w.o c.arges an em,loyee for t.e commission of an
offense- .e is also t.e ,erson w.o directs t.e
investigation to determine w.et.er t.e c.arge
against t.e em,loyee is true or not and .e is t.e one
w.o will :udge if t.e em,loyee is to (e ,enaliGed or
not. $ut if t.e em,loyee is given am,le o,,ortunity to
defend .imself# .e could not
validly claim t.at .e was de,rived of .is rig.t to due
,rocess of law.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
'o. <.e em,loyer is merely com,lying wit. t.e legal
mandate to afford t.e em,loyee due ,rocess (y
giving .im t.e rig.t to (e .eard and t.e c.ance to
answer t.e c.arges against .im and accordingly to
defend .imself (efore dismissal is effected.
E9l#yee&4 gr#u& #$ e9l#yee& (1996)
) @.o are t.e managerial# su,ervisory and ranD-
and-file em,loyeesK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
C8A'A%&!IAL &8PL9I&&C is one w.o is vested
wit. ,owers or ,rerogatives to lay down and execute
management ,olicies or to .ire# transfer# sus,end#
layoff# recall# disc.arge# assign or disci,line
em,loyees.
SUP&!AIS9!I &8PL9I&&S are t.ose w.o# in t.e
interest of t.e em,loyer# effectively recommend
suc. managerial actions if t.e exercise of suc.
aut.ority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature
(ut reEuires t.e use of inde,endent :udgment.
All em,loyees w.o are neit.er managerial or
su,ervisory em,loyees are considered !A'UA';-
?IL& &8PL9I&&S. (Art. /)/(m of t.e La(or Code
E9l#yee&4 ;anagerial E9l#yee ,&7
;anagerial +ta$$ (1994)
;istinguis. t.e rig.ts of managerial em,loyees from
mem(ers of a managerial staff.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
8A'A%&!IAL &8PL9I&&S .ave no collective
(argaining rig.ts (ecause# t.ey cannot :oin or form
any ot.er la(or organiGation w.ile officers of a
managerial staff are not ,ro.i(ited from :oining#
assisting or forming or arresting a su,ervisorPs
union- .ence# t.ey can (argain collectively. (Art.
/64# La(or Code- 'ational Sugar !efineries Cor,.
vs. 'L!C# //0 SC!A 64/. A)"E(NA"I3E
AN+/E(5 8A'A%&!IAL &8PL9I&&S# under
Article /)/(m of t.e La(or Code are vested wit. t.e
,rerogatives to lay down and execute management
,olicies and7or to .ire# fire# transfer# ,romote# lay-off
and disci,line em,loyees. <.ey are not eligi(le for
t.e rig.t to self-organiGation for ,ur,oses of
collective (argaining.
U,on t.e ot.er .and# mem(ers of 8A'A%&!IAL
S<A??# under Article +/ of t.e La(or Code# are not
vested wit. t.e a(ove-cited ,rerogatives. <.ey are
not entitled to overtime ,ay and ot.er (enefits under
$ooD III# <itle ) of t.e Code.
E9l#yee&4 9anagerial e9l#yee& ,&7
&uer,i&#ry e9l#yee& (2002)
;istinguis. managerial em,loyees from su,ervisory
em,loyees# (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A 8A'A%&!IAL &8PL9I&& is one w.o is vested
wit. ,owers or ,rerogatives to lay down and execute
management ,olicies and7or to .ire# transfer# sus,end#
lay-off# recall# disc.arge# assign or disci,line
em,loyees. SUP&!AIS9!I &8PL9I&&S# on t.e
ot.er .and# are t.ose w.o in t.e interest of t.e
em,loyer# effectively recommend suc. managerial
actions# if t.e exercise of suc. aut.ority is not merely
routinary or clerical in nature (ut reEuires t.e use of
inde,endent :udgment LArt. /)/ (m# La(or CodeN
In a case# t.e Su,reme Court said5 CIn t.e ,etition
(efore us# a t.oroug. dissection of t.e :o(
descri,tion of t.e concerned su,ervisory em,loyees
and section .eads indis,uta(ly s.ow t.at t.ey are
not actually managerial (ut only su,ervisory
em,loyees since t.ey do not lay down com,any
,olicies. PIC9PPs contention t.at t.e su(:ect section
.eads and unit managers exercise t.e aut.ority to
.ire and fire is am(iguous and Euite misleading for
t.e reason t.at any aut.ority t.ey exercise is not
su,reme (ut merely advisory in c.aracter. <.eirs is
not a final determination of t.e com,any ,olicies
Inasmuc. as any action taDen (y t.em on matters
relative to .iring# ,romotion# transfer# sus,ension and
termination of em,loyees is still su(:ect to
confirmation and a,,roval (y t.eir res,ective
su,erior. LSee Atlas Lit.ogra,.ic Services# Inc. v.
Laguesma# /04 SC!A )/# )2 ()**/N <.us# w.ere
suc. ,ower# w.ic. is in effect recommendatory in
c.aracter# is su(:ect to evaluation# review and final
action (y t.e de,artment .eads and .ig.er
executives of t.e com,any# t.e same# alt.oug.
,resent# is not effective and not an exercise of
inde,endent :udgment as reEuired (y law. LP.ili,,ine
A,,liance Cor,. v. Laguesma# //* SC!A 230# 232
()**3 citing ?ranDlin $aDer Com,any of t.e
P.ili,,ines v. <ra:ano# )42 SC!A 6)1# 6//-633
()*++N.C (Pa,er Industries Cor,. of t.e P.ili,,ines v.
$ienvenido &. Laguesma 330 SC!A /*4# (/000N
E9l#yee&4 ;anagerial ,&7 +uer,i&#ry ,&7
(anE?and?Aile E9l#yee& (2008)
disting
uis.in
g
featu
res
o
f
eac
.
ty,
e
o
f
em,lo
yment.
+U''E+"E
.
<.e La(or Code treats differently in various as,ects
t.e em,loyment of (i managerial em,loyees# (ii
su,ervisory em,loyees# and (iii ranD-and-file
em,loyees. State t.e (asic
MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE refers to one whose
primr! d"t! #onsists of the mn$ement of
the est%&ishment in whi#h he is emp&o!ed or
of deprtment or s"%di'ision thereof( nd to
other Page '( of 108
officers or mem(ers of t.e managerial staff. A
su,ervisor and a ranD and file em,loyee can (e
considered as mem(ers of t.e managerial staff# and
t.erefore# a managerial em,loyee if t.eir ,rimary duty
consists of worD directly related to management
,olicies- if t.ey customarily and regularly exercise
discretion and inde,endent :udgment- regularly and
directly assist a ,ro,rietor or a managerial em,loyee
w.ose ,rimary duty consists of t.e management of
t.e esta(lis.ment in w.ic. t.ey are em,loyed or a
su(division t.ereof- or execute under general
su,ervision worD along s,ecialiGed or tec.nical lines
reEuiring s,ecial training# ex,erience# or Dnowledge-
or execute under general su,ervision s,ecial
assignments and tasDs- and w.o do not devote more
t.an /0 ,ercent of t.eir .ours worDed in a worD-weeD
to activities w.ic. are not directly and closely related
to t.e ,erformance of t.e worD descri(ed a(ove. All
ot.ers are ranD and file em,loyees under said $ooD
(Art. +/# La(or Code# Sec. / (c# !ule I# $D. III#
9mni(us !ules Im,lementing t.e La(or Code.
Under $ooD ?ive of t.e La(or Code# C8A'A%&!IAL
&8PL9I&&C is one w.o is vested wit. ,owers or
,rerogatives to lay down# and execute management
,olicies and7or to .ire# transfer# sus,end# lay-off# recall#
disc.arge# assign or disci,line em,loyees. A
SUP&!AIS9!I &8PL9I&& is one w.o# in t.e interest
of t.e em,loyer# effectively recommends suc.
managerial actions if t.e exercise of suc. aut.ority is
not merely routinary or clerical in nature (ut reEuires
t.e use of inde,endent :udgment. All em,loyees not
falling wit.in any of t.e a(ove definitions are
considered ranD-and-file em,loyees for ,ur,oses of t.is
$ooD (Art. /)/ (8# La(or Code.
9n t.e matter of rig.t to self-organiGation# a
managerial em,loyee cannot exercise suc. rig.t-
w.ile a su,ervisor and a ranD and file em,loyee can
(Arts. /64# /63# La(or Code.
(ig6t t# +triEe: +y9at6y ,&7 'eneral +triEe
(2004)
;istinguis. clearly (ut (riefly (etween5 Sym,at.y
striDe and general striDe.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(+:
In (ot. a sym,at.y striDe and in a general striDe#
t.ere is a sto,,age of worD (y t.e concerted action
of em,loyees. In (ot. Dinds of striDe# t.e striDe is
not t.e result of a la(or or industrial dis,ute.
As t.e name im,lies# worDers go on a SI8PA<FI
S<!IU& to s.ow t.eir sym,at.y for certain worDers
w.o are on striDe. 9n t.e ot.er .and# in a %&'&!AL
S<!IU&# worDers in t.e country or in a region#
,rovince# or city or munici,ality go on a
striDe to ,u(licly ,rotest a certain ,olicy or action
taDen (y t.e government. <.us# for instance# a
general striDe may (e declared (y worDers to
,u(licly ,rotest t.e stand of President Arroyo t.at
s.e is against an increase of t.e minimum wage at
t.is time.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 A&&u9ti#n *#2er
?AC<S5 Jenson = Jenson (J = J is a domestic
consumer ,roducts. Its ranD-and-flle worDers
organiGed t.e Jenson &m,loyees Union (J&U# a duty
registered local union affiliated wit. PA?LU# a national
union. After .aving (een certified as t.e exclusive
(argaining agent of t.e a,,ro,riate (argaining unit#
J&U-PA?LU su(mitted its ,ro,osals for a Collective
$argaining Agreement wit. t.e com,any.
In t.e meantime# a ,ower struggle occurred wit.in t.e
national union PA?LU (etween its 'ational President#
8anny PaDyao# and its 'ational Secretary %eneral#
%a(riel 8iro. <.e re,resentation issue wit.in PA?LU is
,ending resolution (efore t.e 9ffice of t.e Secretary of
La(or.
$y reason of t.is intra-union dis,ute wit.in PA?LU# J
= J o(stinately and consistently refused to offer any
counter,ro,osal and to (argain collectively wit. J&U-
PA?LU until t.e re,resentation issue wit.in PA?LU
s.all .ave (een resolved wit. finality. J&U-PA?LU
filed a 'otice of StriDe. <.e Secretary of La(or
su(seEuently assumed :urisdiction over t.e la(or
dis,ute. ) @ill t.e re,resentation issue t.at .as
arisen
involving t.e national union PA?LU# to w.ic.
t.e duty registered local union J&U is affiliated#
(ar collective (argaining negotiation wit. J =
JK &x,lain (riefly. (3M / Can t.e Secretary of
La(or decide t.e la(or
dis,ute (y awarding t.e J&U C$A Pro,osals
as t.e Collective $argaining Agreement of t.e
,artiesK &x,lain (riefly. (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
1 !e,resentation issue in t.is case is not a (ar...
2 Ies. <.e Secretary of La(or can decide t.e
la(or dis,ute (y awarding t.e J&U C$A
,ro,osals as t.e Collective $argaining
Agreement of t.e ,arties (ecause w.en t.e
Secretary of La(or (under Article /13LgN
assumes :urisdiction over a la(or dis,ute
causing or liDely to cause a striDe or locDout in
an industry indis,ensa(le to t.e national
interest# t.e Secretary of La(or exercises t.e
,ower of com,ulsory ar(itration over t.e la(or
dis,ute# meaning# t.at as an exce,tion to t.e
general rule# t.e Secretary of La(or now .as t.e
,ower to set or fix wages# rates of ,ay# .ours of
worD or terms and conditions of em,loyment (y
determining w.at s.ould (e t.e C$A of t.e ,arties.
(See ;ivine @ord University vs. Secretary of La(or#
/)3 SC!A 24*
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
@.at is involved in t.e case in t.e Euestion is a
consumer ,roducts. If t.e consumer ,roducts t.at
are (eing manufactured are not suc. t.at a striDe
against t.e com,any cannot (e considered a striDe
in an Industry indis,ensa(le for t.e national interest#
t.en t.e assum,tion of Jurisdiction (y t.e Secretary
of La(or is not ,ro,er. <.erefore# .e cannot legally
exercise t.e ,owers of com,ulsory ar(itration in t.e
la(or dis,ute.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 %#9ul&#ry Arbitrati#n4
%erti$i5ati#n t# N)(% (1995)
@.at are t.e o(:ectives of t.e Secretary of La(or
and &m,loyment in certifying a la(or dis,ute to t.e
'L!C for com,ulsory ar(itrationK &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e o(:ectives of t.e Secretary of La(or and
&m,loyment in certifying a la(or dis,ute to t.e
'L!C for com,ulsory ar(itration is to ,revent a worD
sto,,age t.at may adversely affect t.e national
interest and to see to it t.at a la(or dis,ute is
ex,editiously settled.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 E$$e5t&4 1ired (ela5e9ent&
(2006)
If due to t.e ,rolonged striDe# !9S& Cor,oration
.ired re,lacements# can it refuse to admit t.e
re,laced striDersK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. @.ile ,resent law recogniGes t.e rig.t of t.e
em,loyer to continue .is (usiness in t.e course of
an economic striDe# it assures t.e rig.t of t.e striDers
to return to t.eir former ,ositions at t.e ex,ense of
t.e re,lacements. Art. /16(a of t.e La(or Code
,rovides t.at mere ,artici,ation of a worDer in a
lawful striDe s.all not constitute sufficient ground for
termination of .is em,loyment# even if a re,lacement
.ad (een .ired (y t.e em,loyer during suc. lawful
striDe (P<=< v. 'L!C#
%.!. 'o. )0*/+)# ;ecem(er 2# )**4- ;iwa ng
PagDaDaisa v. ?iltex International Cor,oration# 'os.
L-/3*10 = L-/3*1)# ?e(ruary /1# )*1+.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 E$$e5t&4 illegal &triEe (1995)
Are t.e striDers in an illegal striDe entitled to
reinstatement under t.e La(or CodeK &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'9. Union officers and mem(ers w.o commit illegal
acts lose t.eir em,loyment status. Any union officer
w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ates in an illegal striDe# and
any worDer or union officer w.o Dnowingly
,artici,ates in t.e commission of illegal acts during a
striDe may (e declared to .ave lost .is em,loyment
status. Partici,ants (not a union
officer and did not commit any illegal act may (e
entitled to reinstatement.
If t.e striDe is declared illegal# will t.e striDers (e
entitled to t.eir wages for t.e duration for t.e striDeK
&x,lain# +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:5 '9. <.e
a,,lica(le doctrine will (e5 'o worD# no ,ay# unless
t.ere is an agreement to ,ay striDe duration ,ay.
A division manager of a com,any taunted a union
officer two days after t.e union su(mitted to t.e
;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment (;9L& t.e
result of t.e striDe vote. <.e division manager said5
<.e union t.reat of an unfair la(or ,ractice striDe is
,.ony or a (luff. 'ot even ten ,ercent ()0M of your
mem(ers will :oin t.e striDe.C <o ,rove union mem(er
su,,ort for t.e striDe# t.e union officer immediately
instructed its mem(ers to cease worDing and walD
out. <wo .ours after t.e walDout# t.e worDers
voluntarily returned to worD.
A. @as t.e walDout a striDeK And if so# was it a
valid activityK (3M
$. Can t.e union officer w.o led t.e s.ort walD-
out# (ut w.o liDewise voluntarily led t.e worDers (acD
to worD# (e disci,lined (y t.e em,loyerK (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(+:
a Ies# it was a striDe (ecause t.ere was a worD
sto,,age (y concerted action and t.ere is an
existing la(or dis,ute. It was not a valid activity
(ecause t.e reEuisites for a valid striDe were not
o(served# (Art. /)/# (o# (l La(or Code.
( Ies# t.e em,loyer may disci,line t.e union
officer. An illegal striDe is a cause for t.e union
officer to (e declared to .ave lost .is em,loyment
status. LArt /13 (c# (d#(e# (f- Art /16 (a# La(or
CodeN.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 E$$e5t&4 +triEer&@ illegal A5t&
(2006)
Assuming t.e com,any admits all t.e striDers# can it
later on dismiss t.ose em,loyees w.o committed
illegal actsK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# w.en t.e com,any admits all t.e striDers# it is
deemed to .ave waived t.e issue and condoned t.e
striDers w.o committed illegal acts (CitiGenPs La(or
Union v. Standard Aacuum 9il Co.# %.!. 'o. L-
262+# 8ay 1#)*44- <ASLI-ALU v. CA# %.!. 'o.
)646/+# July 2# /006.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 illegal di&9i&&al (2008)
8agdalo# a la(or union in 9aDwood# a furniture
manufacturing firm# after failing in its negotiations
wit. 9aDwood. filed wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or
and &m,loyment (;9L& a notice of striDe. <.e
;9L& summoned 8agdalo and 9aDwood for
conciliation .earings to resolve t.e deadlocD.
Una(le to agree des,ite efforts of t.e ;9L&#
8agdalo called a striDe ,artici,ated in (y its
officers and union mem(ers including Cesar
<rinio# a ranD-and-file em,loyee# w.o led t.e CwalD
out.C 9aDwood filed a ,etition to declare illegal t.e
striDe w.ic. 8agdalo staged wit.out o(serving t.e
seven-day (an under t.e La(or Code. 9aDwood
claimed t.at t.e striDe (eing illegal# all t.ose w.o
,artici,ated t.erein# including Cesar <rinio# could
(e dismissed as# in fact# t.ey were so dismissed
(y 9aDwood. ;ecide t.e case.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
@.en 9aDwood dismissed all t.e officers and
mem(ers of t.e union w.o ,artici,ated in t.e striDe
w.ic. was declared illegal (ecause it was staged
wit.out o(serving t.e seven-day (an under t.e
La(or Code.
9aDwood illegally dismissed t.e union mem(ers#
including Cesar <rinio. <.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at
a union officer w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ates in an
illegal striDe loses .is em,loyment status. <.us# t.e
union officers were legally dismissed. $ut for a union
mem(er to lose .is em,loyment status# .e s.ould
.ave committed illegal acts during t.e striDe# liDe acts
of violence# coercion or intimidation or o(struction of
ingress to or egress from t.e em,loyerPs ,remises for
lawful ,ur,oses or o(struction of ,u(lic
t.oroug.fares. <.e union mem(ers# including Cesar
<rino# did not commit any of t.ese acts. <.us# it
would (e illegal to dismiss t.em.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 illegal l#5E#ut (1995)
?ifty ,ercent (40M of t.e em,loyees of %randeur
Com,any went on striDe after negotiations for a
collective (argaining agreement ended in a deadlocD.
%randeur Com,any# (eing a ,u(lic utility#
immediately ,etitioned t.e Secretary of La(or and
&m,loyment to assume :urisdiction and certify t.e
case to t.e 'L!C. 9n t.e fourt. day of t.e striDe and
(efore t.e ;9L& Secretary could assume :urisdiction
or certify t.e case to t.e 'L!C# t.e striDers
communicated in writing t.eir offer to return to worD.
%randeur Com,any refused to acce,t t.e offer of t.e
striDers (ecause it realiGed t.at t.ey were not at all
ca,a(le of ,aralyGing t.e o,erations of t.e com,any.
<.e striDers accused %randeur Com,any of illegal
locDout.
Fas %randeur Com,any committed t.e act c.arged
(y refusing to acce,t t.e offer of t.e striDers to return
to worDK ;iscuss fully.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.ere is no law t.at ,ro.i(its striDers to decide not
to continue wit. a striDe t.at t.ey .ave started.
<.us# t.e com,any committed an illegal locDout in
refusing to acce,t t.e offer of t.e striDers to return to
worD. Under t.e set of facts in t.e Euestion# t.e
Com,any did not give t.e reEuired notice to locDout#
muc. less did it o(serve t.e necessary waiting
,eriod# nor did it taDe a needed vote on t.e locDout.
<.us# t.e locDout is illegal.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 illegal &triEe4 )#&& #$
E9l#y9ent (1994)
Union A filed a 'otice of StriDe wit. t.e 'ational
Conciliation and 8ediation $oard ('C8$ of t.e
;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment. U,on a
motion to dismiss (y t.e Com,any on t.e ground t.at
t.e acts com,lained of in t.e notice of striDe are non-
striDea(le. <.e 'C8$ dismissed t.e 'otice of StriDe
(ut continued to mediate t.e issues contained t.erein
to ,revent t.e escalation of t.e dis,ute (etween t.e
,arties. @.ile t.e 'C8$ was conducting mediation
,roceedings# t.e Union ,roceeded to conduct a striDe
vote as ,rovided for under t.e La(or Code. After
o(servance of t.e ,rocedural ,rocesses reEuired
under t.e Code# t.e Union declared a striDe.
1 Is t.e striDe legalK
2 Can t.e em,loyer unilaterally declare t.ose
w.o ,artici,ated in t.e striDe as .aving lost t.eir
em,loyment statusK
3 @.at recourse do t.ese em,loyees
(declared (y t.e em,loyer to .ave lost t.eir
em,loyment status .ave# if anyK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
) '9. <.e striDe is not legal. <.e La(or Code
,rovides t.at no la(or organiGation s.all declare a
striDe wit.out first .aving (argained collectively in
accordance wit. its <itle AII of $ooD A# w.ic. in turn
,rovides t.at during conciliation ,roceedings at t.e
'C8$# t.e ,arties are ,ro.i(ited from doing any act
t.at may disru,t or im,ede t.e early settlement of
t.e dis,ute. (Arts. /16(a# also /40(d- La(or Code
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
a <.e striDe is not legal# considering t.at it was
declared after t.e 'C8$ dismissed t.e 'otice of
StriDe. Fence# it is as if# no notice of striDe was filed.
A striDe declared wit.out a notice of striDe is illegal#
(%9P-CCP vs. CI!# *3 SC!A ))+.
( 'o. <.e striDe is illegal. It is already settled in t.e
case of PAL vs. Secretary of La(or (;rilon t.at t.e
,endency of a mediation ,roceedings is a (ar to t.e
staging of a striDe even if all t.e ,rocedural
reEuirements were com,lied wit..
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
/ <.e em,loyer may unilaterally declare t.ose w.o
,artici,ated in t.e striDe as .aving lost t.eir
em,loyment status (ut suc. unilateral declaration
does not necessarily mean t.at t.ere(y t.e striDers
are legally dismissed. <.e striDers could still file a
case of illegal dismissal and ,rove# if t.ey can# t.at
t.ere was no :ust cause for t.eir dismissal.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
a <.e em,loyer cannot unilaterally declare t.ose
w.o ,artici,ated in t.e Illegal striDe as .aving lost
t.eir em,loyment status. 9nly t.e union officers w.o
Dnowingly ,artici,ated In t.e striDe and worDers w.o
Dnowingly ,artici,ated in t.e commission of illegal
acts. If any# may (e declared to .ave lost t.eir
em,loyment status. (Art. /16.
( <.e em,loyer .as two o,tions5
1 It may declare t.e striDers as .aving lost t.eir
em,loyment status ,ursuant to Art. /16 of t.e La(or
Code# or
2 It may file a case (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter#
under Art# /)2# to .ave t.e striDe declared illegal and
after t.at ,roceed to terminate t.e striDers.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
3 <.ey could file a case of illegal dismissal. <.e
striDers w.o are union officers may contend t.at t.e
striDe is not illegal. <.e striDers w.o are mere union
mem(ers may contend t.at t.ey did not commit any
Illegal acts during t.e striDe. (Art# /16# La(or Code
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
a <.e em,loyees w.o were declared to .ave lost
t.eir em,loyment status can file a com,laint for
illegal dismissal wit. t.e 'L!C# or seeD t.e
assistance of t.e 'C8$ for conciliation7 mediation.
( <.e recourse of t.e worDers w.ose em,loyment
status are declared to .ave (een lost is to file a case
of illegal dismissal under Art. /)2 of t.e Code# and
to ,ray for t.e sus,ension of t.e effects of
termination under Article /22(( of t.e said Code
(ecause t.is involves a mass lay-off.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 Indu&trie& 3ital t# Nati#nal
Intere&t (2004)
@.ic. of t.e following may (e considered among
industries most vital to national interest as to (e t.e
su(:ect of immediate assum,tion of :urisdiction (y
t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment or
certification for com,ulsory ar(itration in case of
striDe or worD sto,,age arising from a la(or dis,uteK
() $ulletin daily news,a,er ,u(lis.ing
com,any.
(/ Local franc.ise of Jolli(ee and Star(ucDs.
(3 S.i,,ing and ,ort services in Ce(u and
8anila.
(6 &nc.anted Uingdom# &le,.ant Island and
$oracay !esort.
(4 L$C# ;FL and ?ed&x centers.
Justify your answer or c.oice. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Certification of la(or dis,ute for immediate
assum,tion of :urisdiction (y t.e Secretary of t.e
;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment# as
indis,ensa(le to national interest. (Art. /13 LgN# La(or
Code.
). $ulletin ;aily 'ews,a,er. Access to information#
e.g.# local# foreign# or ot.erwise are reEuirements
for an informed citiGenry.
/. S.i,,ing and ,ort services in Ce(u and 8anila.
<.e country needs domestic sea trans,ort due to our
to,ogra,.y and for t.e smoot. flow of (usiness and
government o,erations.
3. L$C# ;FL# ?&;&x Centers. Couriers are essential
to foreign and domestic (usiness and government
o,erations.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 Indu&trie& 3ital t# Nati#nal
Intere&t4 (eturn t# /#rE 0rder (1996)
A deadlocD in t.e negotiations for t.e collective
(argaining agreement (etween O College and t.e
Union ,rom,ted t.e latter# after duly notifying t.e
;9L&# to declare a striDe on 'ovem(er 4 w.ic.
totally ,aralyGed t.e o,erations of t.e sc.ool.
<.e La(or Secretary immediately assumed
Jurisdiction over t.e dis,ute and issued on t.e same
day ('ovem(er 4 a return to worD order. U,on
recei,t of t.e order# t.e striDing union officers and
mem(ers on 'ovem(er 2# filed a motion for
reconsideration t.ereof Euestioning t.e La(or
SecretaryPs assum,tion of :urisdiction# and continued
wit. t.e striDe during t.e ,endency of t.eir motion.
9n 'ovem(er 30# t.e La(or Secretary denied
reconsideration of .is return to worD order and
furt.er noting t.e striDerPs failure to immediately
return to worD terminated t.eir em,loyment.
In assailing t.e La(or SecretaryPs decision# t.e
Union contends t.at5
1 t.e La(or Secretary erroneously assumed
:urisdiction over t.e dis,ute since O College could not
(e considered an industry indis,ensa(le to national
interest-
2 t.e striDers were under no o(ligation to
immediately com,ly wit. t.e 'ovem(er 4 return to
worD order (ecause of t.eir t.en ,ending motion for
reconsideration of suc. order5 and
3 t.e striDe (eing legal# t.e em,loyment of t.e
striDing Union officers and mem(ers cannot (e
terminated. !ule on t.ese contention. &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(+:
)T <.e Su,reme Court .as already ruled t.at
educational institutions are in an industry
indis,ensa(le to t.e national interest# considering
/ <.e striDing worDers must immediately com,ly
wit. a
eturn to !or" #rder
even ,ending t.eir motion for reconsideration.
Com,liance is a duty im,osed (y law# and a !eturn
to @orD 9rder is immediately executory in
c.aracter.
<.e nature of a !eturn to @orD 9rder# was
c.aracteriGed (y t.e Su,reme Court in Sarmiento
v. Juico# )1/ SC!A 121 ()*++ as5 It is also
im,ortant to em,.asiGe t.at t.e return to worD order
not so muc. confers a rig.t as it im,oses a duty. It
must (e disc.arged as a duty even against t.e
worDersP will. !eturning to worD in t.is situation is not
a matter of o,tions or voluntariness (ut of o(ligation.
In $aguio Colleges ?oundation v. 'L!C# ///
SC!A 106 ()**3 t.e Court ruled5
Assum,tion and certification orders are
executory in c.aracter and are to (e strictly
com,lied wit. (y t.e ,arties even during t.e
,endency of any ,etition Euestioning t.eir
validity.
3 <.e continuing striDe is illegal (ecause it is in
defiance of a return to worD order of t.e Secretary of
La(or and &m,loyment# .ence# termination of
em,loyment of all t.ose w.o ,artici,ated w.et.er
officer or mem(er# is legal.
In Sta. Sc.olasticaPs College v. <orres. /)0 SC!A
414 ()**/# t.e Court ruled5
Any worDer or union officer w.o Dnowingly
,artici,ates in a striDe defying a return to worD
order may# conseEuently# (e declared to .ave
lost .is em,loyment status in accordance wit.
Art. /61 of t.e La(or Code.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 )a2$ul +triEe4 E$$e5t #n
*arti5iant& (199!)
A striDe was staged in 8ella Cor,oration (ecause of
a deadlocD in C$A negotiations over certain
economic ,rovisions. ;uring t.e striDe# 8ella
Cor,oration .ired re,lacements for t.e worDers w.o
went on striDe. <.ereafter# t.e striDers decided to
resume t.eir em,loyment. Can 8ella Cor,oration (e
o(liged to reinstate t.e returning worDers to t.eir
,revious ,ositionsK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
I&S. 8ella Cor,oration can (e o(ligated to reinstate
t.e returning worDers to t.eir ,revious ,ositions.
@orDers w.o go on striDe do not lose t.eir
em,loyment status exce,t w.en# w.ile on striDe# t.ey
Dnowingly ,artici,ated in t.e commission of illegal
acts. <.e La(or Code ex,ressly ,rovides5 8ere
,artici,ation of a worDer in a lawful striDe s.ould not
constitute sufficient
ground for termination of .is em,loyment# even if a
re,lacement .ad (een .ired (y t.e em,loyer during
suc. lawful striDe.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 )a2$ul4 (ig6t t# (ein?
&tate9ent (2006)
As a result of (argaining deadlocD (etween !9S&
Cor,oration and !9S& &m,loyees Union# its
mem(ers staged a striDe. ;uring t.e striDe# several
em,loyees committed illegal acts. <.e com,any
refused to give in to t.e unionPs demands.
&ventually# its mem(ers informed t.e com,any of
t.eir intention to return to worD. ()0M
). Can !9S& Cor,oration refuse to admit all t.e
striDersK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
!ose Cor,oration cannot refuse to admit all t.e
striDers. Partici,ants in a lawful striDe generally .ave
t.e rig.t to reinstatement to t.eir ,ositions u,on t.e
termination of t.e striDe (Insular Life Assurance Co.
&m,loyees Assn. v. Insular Life Assurance Co.# %.!.
'o. L-/4/*)# January 30# )*2*- Consolidated La(or
Assn. of t.e P.il. v. 8arsman = Co.# Inc.# %.!. 'o. L-
)203+# July 3)# )*16. Fowever# t.e La(or Code
,rovides t.at any worDer or union officer w.o
Dnowingly ,artici,ates in t.e commission of illegal
acts during a striDe may (e deemed to .ave lost .is
em,loyment status ($ascon v. CA# %.!. 'o. )66+**#
?e(ruary 4# /006- ?irst City InterlinD <rans. Co.# Inv.
v. Confessor# %.!. 'o. )013)1# 8ay 4#)**2-
La,anday @orDersP Union v. 'L!C# %.!. 'os.
*46*6-*2# Se,tem(er 2# )**4- Art. /16# La(or Code.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 )i9itati#n& (2000)
A. @.at is t.e rationale for t.e State regulation
of striDe activity and w.at are t.e interests involved
t.at t.e State must (alance and reconcileK (3M
$. Cite two (/ exam,les on .ow t.e law
regulates t.e use of t.e striDe as a form of concerted
activity. (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
a <.e first rationale is t.e constitutional ,rovision
t.at t.e rig.t to striDe is to (e exercised Cin
accordance wit. lawC. Anot.er rationale is t.e Civil
Code ,rovision t.at t.e relations (etween em,loyer
and em,loyee are im(ued wit. ,u(lic interest and are
su(:ect to t.e ,rovisions of s,ecial law. A t.ird
rationale is t.e ,olice ,ower of t.e state.
<.e interests to (e (alanced are t.e rig.ts of t.e
worDers# as ,rimary socio-economic force# to
,rotection of t.e law# to security of tenure# to
concerted activities# etc. <.ese s.ould (e (alanced
wit. t.e rig.t of t.e em,loyer to reasona(le return on
investment and to ex,ansion and growt.. %eneral
welfare or t.e general ,eace
and ,rogress of society s.ould also (e considered.
<.is is w.y assum,tion of Jurisdiction and
certification to 'L!C are allowed in Cnational
interestC cases.
V
Art. /13# La(or Code- !aw at $uDlod ng
8anggagawa v. 'L!C# )*+ SC!A 4+1 ()**)-
La,anday @orDers Union v. 'L!C# /6+ SC!A *1
()**4
T

EHA;*)E+: () ,rocedural reEuirements s.ould (e
o(served# namely# filing of notice of striDe#
o(servance of cooling-off ,eriod# taDing of striDe note#
and re,ort of t.e striDe vote- (/ use of violence#
intimidation or coercion and (locDade of ingress-
egress are not allowed. (Art /13 (((c(f(g# La(or
Code.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 Nati#nal Intere&t4 .0)E +e57
inter,enti#n (2004)
&m,loyees of A$C declared a striDe after filing a
'otice of StriDe wit. t.e ;9L&. <.ey (arricaded
com,any gates and damaged ve.icles entering
com,any ,remises. 9n t.e second day of t.e striDe#
A$C filed a ,etition wit. t.e ;9L& Secretary to
intervene t.roug. t.e issuance of an assum,tion of
:urisdiction order t.at t.e Secretary may issue w.en
a striDe or locD-out will adversely affect national
interest. A$C furnis.ed t.e Secretary wit. evidence
to s.ow t.at com,any ve.icles .ad (een damaged-
t.at electric ,ower .ad (een cut off- and eEui,ment
and materials were damaged (ecause electric ,ower
was not immediately restored. A$C forecast t.at t.e
country>s su,,ly of c.lorine for water treatment
(w.ic. t.e com,any ,roduces would (e affected
adversely if A$C>s o,erations were closed down (y
t.e striDers.
Could t.e ;9L& Secretary intervene# assume
:urisdiction and issue a <!9 (<em,orary !estraining
9rderK $riefly :ustify your answer. (4M
(ig6t t# +triEe4 *i5Eeting A5ti,ity (2000)
<.e worDers engaged in ,icDeting activity in t.e
course of a striDe. a @ill ,icDeting (e legal if non-
em,loyees of t.e striDe-(ound em,loyer ,artici,ate
in t.e activityK (3M ( Can ,icDeting activity (e
curtailed w.en illegal acts are committed (y t.e
,icDeting worDers in t.e course of t.e activityK (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# t.e ,icDeting is legal even t.oug. non-
em,loyees :oin it. PicDeting is a form of t.e exercise
of freedom of s,eec.. PicDeting# ,rovided it is .eld
,eacefully# is a constitutional rig.t. <.e dis,utants in
a legal dis,ute need not (e em,loyer-em,loyee of
eac. ot.er. L;e Leon v. 'ational
La(or Union# )00 P.il 2+* ()*425 CruG v. Cinema
Stage# etc.# )0) P.il )/4* ()*42TN
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
'o# t.e ,icDeting activity itself cannot (e curtailed.
@.at can (e curtailed are t.e Illegal acts (eing done
in t.e course of t.e ,icDet. Fowever# if t.is is a
Cnational InterestC case under Art /13(g# t.e striDe or
worD sto,,age may (e sto,,ed (y t.e ,ower of
assum,tion of Jurisdiction or certification of t.e case
to t.e 'ational La(or !elations Commission.
V'agDaDaisang 8angagawa sa Cuison Fotel v.
Li(ron# )/6 SC!A 66+ ()*+3- ?ree <ele,.one
@orDers Union v. PL;<# ))3 SC!A 11/ ()*+/N.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 *i5Eeting A5ti,ity4 illegal
di&9i&&al (2004)
$. President ?O# .ead of a newly formed la(or union
com,osed of )73 of t.e total num(er of ranDand-file
em,loyees in Su,er Stores# Inc.# agitated .is fellow
em,loyees to demand from management ,ay
increases and overtime ,ay. Fis su,ervisor
summoned .im to ex,lain .is tardiness and refusal to
o(ey regulations. ?eeling t.reatened# .e gat.ered /0
of .is mem(ers and staged a /-day ,icDet in front of
t.e s.o,,ing mall. Security staff arrived and
dismantled t.e ,lacards and (arricades (locDing t.e
em,loyees> entry to t.e mall. In retaliation# ?O t.rew
stones at t.e guards# (ut t.e ot.er striDing worDers
:ust stood (y watc.ing .im. Seven days after t.e
,icDet# ?O w.o .ad gone a(sent wit.out leave
returned to t.e mall and announced t.at .e .ad filed
a com,laint for illegal dismissal and unfair la(or
,ractice against SSI.
SSI learned t.at ?O>s grou, was not registered. 'o
striDe vote and striDe notice were filed ,rior to t.e
,icDet. <.e guards were told not to allow ?O entry
to t.e com,any ,remises as management
considered .im effectively terminated. 9t.er union
mem(ers were acce,ted (acD to worD (y SSI. @as
t.e dismissal of ?O for a valid causeK @as due
,rocess o(servedK (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.ere is a valid cause for t.e dismissal of ?O# (ut
due ,rocess was not o(served.
Peaceful ,icDeting is ,art of t.e constitutional
freedom of s,eec.. <.e rig.t to free s,eec.#
.owever# .as its limits# and ,icDeting as a concerted
activity is su(:ect to t.e same limitations as a striDe#
,articularly as to lawful ,ur,ose and lawful means.
$ut it does not .ave to com,ly wit. t.e ,rocedural
reEuirements for a lawful striDe# liDe t.e notice of
striDe or t.e striDe vote.
Fowever# in t.e ,ro(lem given# ,icDeting (ecame
illegal (ecause of unlawful means# as (arricades
(locDed t.e em,loyeesP entry to t.e mall# and
violence# ensued w.en ?O t.rew stones at t.e
guards. <.ere was t.us# valid cause for t.e
dismissal of ?O# .owever# due ,rocess was not
o(served (ecause SSI did not com,ly wit. t.e twin
reEuirements of notice and .earing.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 (eturn t# /#rE 0rder (1994)
<.e Secretary of La(or assumed :urisdiction over a
striDe under Art. /13(g of t.e La(or Code and
issued a return-to-worD order. <.e Union defied t.e
return-to-worD order and continued t.e striDe. <.e
Com,any ,roceeded to declare all t.ose w.o
,artici,ated in t.e striDe as .aving lost t.eir
em,loyment status. ) @as t.e Com,anyPs action
validK / @as t.e Com,any still duty (ound to
o(serve t.e reEuirements of due ,rocess (efore
declaring t.ose w.o ,artici,ated in t.e striDe as
.aving lost t.eir em,loyment statusK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
) <.e Com,anyPs action is valid. Any declaration of
a striDe after t.e Secretary of La(or .as assumed
:urisdiction over a la(or dis,ute is considered an
illegal act# and any worDer or union officer w.o
Dnowingly ,artici,ates in a striDe defying a return-to-
worD order may conseEuently (e declared to .ave
lost .is em,loyment status and forfeited .is rig.t to
(e readmitted# .aving a(andoned .is ,osition# and
so could (e validly re,laced.
?or t.e moment a worDer defies a return-to-worD
order# .e is deemed to .ave a(andoned .is :o(# as it
is already in itself Dnowingly ,artici,ating in an illegal
act# ot.erwise t.e worDer will sim,ly refuse to return
to .is worD and cause a standstill in com,any
o,erations w.ile returning t.e ,osition .e refuses to
disc.arge or allow management to fill. (St.
Sc.olasticaPs College vs. Fon. !u(en <orres#
Secretary of La(or# etal.# %.!. 'o. )00)4+. /* June
)**/.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
/ Considering t.at t.e worDers w.o defied t.e return-
to-worD order are deemed to .ave a(andoned t.eir
em,loyment# t.e only o(ligation reEuired of an
em,loyer is to serve notices declaring t.em to .ave
lost t.eir em,loyment status at t.e worDerPs last
Dnown address. (Sec. / !ule OIA# $ooD A# !ules
Im,lementing t.e La(or Code
(ig6t t# +triEe4 (eturn t# /#rE 0rder (199!)
<.e Secretary of La(or assumed Jurisdiction over
a striDe in 8anila Airlines and eventually issued a
return-to-worD. <.e 8anila Airlines &m,loyees
Union defied t.e return-to-worD order and
continued wit. t.eir striDe. <.e management of
8anila Airlines t.en declared all t.e em,loyees
w.o ,artici,ated in t.e striDe dismissed from
em,loyment.
(a @as t.e act of 8anila AirlinesP management in
dismissing t.e ,artici,ants in t.e striDe validK
(( @.at are t.e effects of an assum,tion of
:urisdiction (y t.e Secretary of La(or u,on t.e
striDing em,loyees and 8anila AirlinesK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
(a Ies. <.e act of 8anila AirlinesP management in
dismissing t.e ,artici,ants in t.e striDe is valid# in a
num(er of Su,reme Court decisions# it .as ruled
t.at t.e defiance (y worDers of a return to worD
order of t.e Secretary of La(or issued w.en .e
assumes :urisdiction over a la(or dis,ute is an illegal
act and could (e t.e (asis of a legal dismissal. <.e
return to worD order im,oses a duty- it must (e
disc.arged as a duty even against t.e worDersP will.
(( @.en t.e Secretary of La(or assumes
:urisdiction over a striDe# all striDing em,loyees s.all
immediately return to worD and t.e em,loyer s.all
immediately resume o,erations and readmit all
worDers under t.e same terms and conditions
,revailing (efore t.e striDe. LArt. /13(EN.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 (eturn t# /#rE 0rder (199-)
<.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment# after
assum,tion of :urisdiction over a la(or dis,ute in an
airline issued a !eturn to @orD 9rder. <.e airline
filed a 8otion for !econsideration of t.e 9rder and
,ending resolution of t.e motion# deferred t.e
im,lementation of t.e 9rder. Can t.e airline defer
t.e im,lementation of t.e !eturn to @orD 9rder
,ending resolution of t.e motion for reconsiderationK
L4MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e airline cannot defer t.e im,lementation of t.e
!eturn to @orD 9rder on t.e (asis of t.ere (eing a
,ending 8otion for !econsideration re5 t.e
assum,tion of :urisdiction (y t.e Secretary of La(or
and &m,loyment of a la(or dis,ute. According to t.e
Su,reme Court# t.e !eturn to @orD 9rder issued (y
t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment u,on .is
assum,tion of :urisdiction over a la(or dis,ute in an
industry indis,ensa(le for t.e national interest is
immediately executory.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# t.e airline cannot defer t.e im,lementation of a
return to worD order ,ending resolution of a 8otion
for !econsideration. <.e La(or Code reads W Art.
/13. StriDes# ,icDeting# and locDouts. - xxx
(g @.en# in .is o,inion# t.ere exists a la(or
dis,ute causing or liDely to cause a striDe or
locDout in an industry indis,ensa(le to t.e
national interest# t.e Secretary of La(or and
&m,loyment may assume :urisdiction over t.e
dis,ute and decide it or certify t.e same to t.e
Commission for com,ulsory ar(itration. Suc.
assum,tion or certification s.all .ave t.e effect of
automatically en:oining t.e intended or im,ending
striDe... as s,ecified in t.e assum,tion or
certification order. If one .as already taDen ,lace
at t.e time of assum,tion or certification# all
striDing em,loyees ...s.all immediately return to
worD# (underscoring su,,lied
<.e Su,reme Court# in $aguio Colleges ?oundation A
'L!C. /// SC!A 106 ()**4# ruled -
xxx assum,tion and certification orders are
executory in c.aracter and are to (e strictly
com,lied wit. (y t.e ,arties even during t.e
,endency of any ,etition Euestioning t.eir
validity.
$eing executory in c.aracter# t.ere was not.ing
for t.e ,arties to do (ut im,lement t.e same#
(underscoring su,,lied
(ig6t t# +triEe4 (eturn t# /#rE 0rder4
A&&u9ti#n 0rder (2008)
In a la(or dis,ute# t.e Secretary of La(or issued an
CAssum,tion 9rderC. %ive t.e legal im,lications of
suc. an order.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Under Art. /13(g of t.e La(or Code# suc.
assum,tion s.all .ave t.e effect of automatically
en:oining t.e intended or im,ending striDe or locDout
as s,ecified in t.e assum,tion order. If one .ad
already taDen ,lace at t.e time of assum,tion# all
striDing or locDout em,loyees s.all immediately
return to worD and t.e em,loyer s.all immediately
resume o,erations and re-admit all worDers under
t.e same terms and conditions ,revailing (efore t.e
striDe or locDout.
<.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment may seeD
t.e assistance of law enforcement agencies to
ensure com,liance wit. t.is ,rovision as well as wit.
suc. orders as .e may issue to enforce t.e same.
<.e mere issuance of an assum,tion order (y t.e
Secretary of La(or automatically carries wit. it a
return-to-worD order# even if t.e directive to return to
worD is not ex,ressly stated in t.e assum,tion order.
<.ose w.o violate t.e foregoing s.all (e su(:ect to
disci,linary action or even criminal ,rosecution.
Under Art. /16 of t.e La(or Code# no striDe or
locDout s.all (e declared after t.e assum,tion of
:urisdiction (y t.e Secretary.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 +tatut#ry (eFui&ite&4
*r#5edural (eFuire9ent& (2004)
&numerate and discuss (riefly5
). @.at are t.e statutory reEuisites for a valid
striDe (y t.e worDersK S.ould t.ese reEuisites (e
com,lied wit. su(stantially or strictlyK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(+:
<.e S<A<U<9!I !&JUISI<&S for a valid striDe
are t.e following5
1 A striDe may (e declared only in cases of
(argaining deadlocDs or unfair la(or ,ractices.
Aiolations of Collective (argaining agreements#
exce,t flagrant and7or malicious refusal to com,ly
wit. its economic ,rovisions# s.all not (e considered
unfair la(or ,ractice and s.all not (e striDea(le. 'o
striDe or locDout may (e declared on grounds
involving inter-union and intra-union dis,utes.
2 'o striDe may (e declared wit.out first
.aving filed a notice of striDe or wit.out t.e
necessary striDe vote .aving (een o(tained and
re,orted to t.e 'ational Conciliation and 8ediation
$oard. A striDe may actually taDe ,lace only after a
30-day waiting ,eriod after notice was filed for a
striDe arising from a (argaining deadlocD or after =
)4-day waiting ,eriod for an unfair la(or ,ractice
striDe. 'otice a(out a striDe vote s.ould (e given
seven days (efore t.e intended striDe.
3 'o striDe can (e declared after assum,tion
of :urisdiction (y t.e Secretary of La(or and
&m,loyment or after certification or su(mission of
t.e dis,ute to com,ulsory or voluntary ar(itration or
during t.e ,endency of cases involving t.e same
grounds for t.e striDe or locDout.
<.e a(ove reEuisites are to (e com,lied wit. strictly.
<.us# t.e Su,reme Court .as ruled t.at non-
com,liance of t.e reEuirements of notice or a striDe
vote or of t.e waiting ,eriods maDes a striDe an
illegal striDe.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
S<A<U<9!I !&JUI!&8&'<S for a Aalid StriDe
A. S<A<US 9? S<!IUI'% U'I9' - ?or a ULP
striDe or (argaining deadlocD striDe# only a duly-
certified or -recogniGed (argaining re,resentative
may declare suc. striDe.
$. P!9C&;U!AL !&JUI!&8&'<S -
() 'otice of Intent. ?iling of 'otice of
Intent to StriDe wit. t.e 'C8$.
(/ Cooling-off Period.- 9(servance of Cooling-
off Period.
(a ULP - )4 days (efore intended date
of striDe
(( $argaining ;eadlocD - 30 days (efore
intended date of striDe.
(3 StriDe Aote and ?iling of t.e same wit. t.e
'C8$ and t.e o(servance of t.e seven
(2 days striDe (an. LArt. /13 (c-f# La(or
CodeN.
C.
CAUS& - <.e cause of a striDe must (e a la(or or
industrial dis,ute. LArt. /)/fo. La(or Code.
Com,liance wit. all legal reEuirements are meant to
(e and s.ould (e mandatory. ('ational ?ederation of
Sugar @orDers v. 9va:era# ))6 SC!A 346 L)*+/N.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 "e9#rary +t#age (2002)
&aglestar Com,any reEuired a /6-.our o,eration and
em(odied t.is reEuirement in t.e em,loyment
contracts of its em,loyees. <.e em,loyees agreed to
worD on Sundays and Folidays if t.eir worD sc.edule
reEuired t.em to do so for w.ic. t.ey would (e ,aid
additional com,ensation as ,rovided (y law. Last
8arc. /000# t.e union filed a notice of striDe. U,on
&aglestarPs ,etition# t.e Secretary of La(or certified
t.e la(or dis,ute to t.e 'L!C for com,ulsory
ar(itration. 9n A,ril /0# /000 (8aundy <.ursday#
w.ile conciliation meetings were ,ending# t.e union
officers and mem(ers w.o were su,,osed to (e on
duty did not re,ort for worD. 'eit.er did t.ey re,ort
for worD on A,ril /) (%ood ?riday and on A,ril //
($lacD Saturday# disru,ting t.e factoryPs o,erations
and causing it .uge losses. <.e union denied it .ad
gone on a striDe (ecause t.e days w.en its officers
and mem(ers were a(sent from worD were legal
.olidays. Is t.e contention of t.e union correctK
&x,lain (riefly. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e contention of t.e union is '9< correct. In t.e
case# it is clear t.at t.e em,loyees agreed to worD on
Sundays and Folidays if t.eir worD sc.edule reEuired
t.em to do so for w.ic. t.ey would (e ,aid additional
com,ensation as ,rovided (y law. <.e a(ove-
mentioned agreement t.at t.e em,loyees voluntarily
entered into is valid. It is not contrary to law. It is
,rovided in t.e agreement t.at if t.ey will worD
Sundays or Folidays t.at t.ey will (e ,aid additional
com,ensation as ,rovided (y law. 'eit.er is t.e
agreement contrary to morals# good customs# ,u(lic
order or ,u(lic ,olicy.
<.us# w.en t.e worDers did not re,ort for worD
w.en (y agreement t.ey were su,,osed to (e on
duty# t.ere was a tem,orary sto,,age of worD (y t.e
concerted action of t.e em,loyees as a result of an
Industrial or la(or dis,ute (ecause t.ey were on
striDe. LSee Inter,.il La(oratories &m,loyees Union-
??@ v. Inter,.il La(oratories Inc.# %! 'o. )6/+/6#
;ecem(er )*# /00)T
(ig6t t# +triEe4 /ild5at +triEe (199!)
<.e Uilusang Ua(isig# a newly-formed la(or union
claiming to re,resent a ma:ority of t.e worDers in
t.e 8icroc.i, Cor,oration# ,roceeded to ,resent a
list of demands to t.e management for ,ur,oses of
collective (argaining. <.e 8icroc.i,s Cor,oration#
a multinational cor,oration engaged in t.e
,roduction of com,uter c.i,s for ex,ort# declined
to talD wit. t.e union leaders# alleging t.at t.ey
.ad not as yet ,resented any ,roof of ma:ority
status.
<.e Uilusang Ua(isig t.en c.ained 8icroc.i,
Cor,oration wit. unfair la(or ,ractice# and declared a
CwildcatC striDe w.erein means of ingress and egress
were (locDed and remote and isolated acts of
destruction and violence were committed. a @as t.e
striDe legalK ( @as t.e com,any guilty of an unfair
la(or
,ractice w.en it refused to negotiate wit. t.e
Uilusang Ua(isigK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(+:
(a $ecause w.at was declared is a CwildcatC striDe#
t.e striDe is illegal. A CwildcatC striDe is one t.at is one
declared (y a grou, of worDers wit.out formal union
a,,roval. <.us# it is illegal (ecause t.e La(or Code
reEuires t.at for a striDe to (e legal# among ot.ers#
t.e decision to declare a striDe must (e a,,roved (y
a ma:ority of t.e total union mem(ers.i, in t.e
(argaining unit concerned# o(tained (y a secret (allot
in meetings or referenda called for t.at ,ur,ose.
a.l <.e striDe is illegal. <.e La(or Code recogniGes
only one of two (/ grounds for a striDe to (e legal5
(argaining deadlocD or unfair la(or ,ractice. A striDe
to com,el an em,loyer to recogniGe a union is not
allowed (y law.
/ <.e striDe is not illegal. ?or t.e striDe to (e illegal
(ecause of violence# it s.ould (e c.aracteriGed (y
,ervasive violence. Fere# t.ere were only remote and
violated acts of destruction and violence. $ut even if
t.e striDe is not illegal# t.ose striDers w.o committed
illegal acts# namely# t.ose w.o (locDed t.e means of
ingress and egress and w.o committed acts of
destruction and violence# t.ese striDers can (e legally
dismissed.
(ig6t t# +triEe4 /#rE +l#2d#2n (199-)
<.e day following t.e worDersP voluntary return to
worD# t.e Com,any Production 8anager discovered
an unusual and s.ar, dro, in worDersP out,ut. It was
evidently clear t.at t.e worDers are engaged in a worD
slowdown activity. Is t.e worD slowdown a valid form
of striDe activityK L4MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A @9!U SL9@;9@' is not a valid form of striDe
activity. If worDers are to striDe# t.ere s.ould (e
tem,orary sto,,age of worD (y t.e concerted action
of em,loyees as a result of an industrial or la(or
dis,ute (See Article /l/(o of t.e La(or Code
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# a slowdown is not a valid form of striDe activity.
<.e Su,reme Court in Ilaw at $uDlod ng
8anggagawa v. 'L!C )*+ SC!A 4+1 ()**) ruled
- <.e Court is in su(stantial agreement wit. t.e
,etitionerPs conce,t of a slowdown as a CstriDe on t.e
installment ,lanC# as a willful reduction in t.e rate of
worD (y conceited action of worDers for t.e ,ur,ose
of restricting t.e out,ut of t.e em,loyer# in relation to
a la(or dis,ute# as an activity (y w.ic. worDers#
wit.out a com,lete sto,,age of worD retard
,roduction or t.eir ,erformance of t.eir duties... <.e
Court also agrees t.at suc. slowdown is generally
condemned as in.erently illicit and un:ustifia(le#
(ecause w.ile t.e em,loyees Ccontinue to worD and
remain at t.eir ,ositions# and acce,t wages ,aid to
t.emC# t.ey at t.e same time select w.at ,art of t.eir
alloted tasDs t.ey care to ,erform of t.eir own volition
or refuse o,enly# or secretly# to t.e em,loyers
damage# to do ot.er worD- in ot.er words# t.ey worD
on t.eir own terms.
LiDewise# a slowdown is not a valid form of
concerted activity# a(sent a la(or dis,ute (etween
t.e ,arties. <.e La(or Code reads - Art. /)/. . W xxx
Co CStriDeC means any tem,orary sto,,age of worD
(y t.e concerted action of em,loyees as a result of
an industrial or la(or dis,ute.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. It is a ,ro.i(ited activity. It can (e said to (e a
violation of t.e duty to (argain collectively. <.e union
is guilty of (ad fait.. <.e worDers s.ould resume
o,erations under t.e same terms and conditions
,revailing ,rior to t.e striDe.
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 A5Fui&iti#n #$ )egal
*er&#nality (2008)
At w.at ,articular ,oint does a la(or organiGation
acEuire a legal ,ersonalityK a 9n t.e date t.e
agreement to organiGe t.e
union is signed (y t.e ma:ority of all its
mem(ers- or ( 9n t.e date t.e a,,lication for
registration is
duly filed wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or or c 9n t.e
date a,,earing on t.e Certificate of
!egistration- or d 9n t.e date t.e Certificate of
!egistration is
actually issued- or e 'one of t.e a(ove# C.oose t.e
correct
answer. +U''E+"E. AN+/E(: d. 9n t.e date
t.e Certificate of !egistration is actually issued.
Any a,,licant la(or organiGation# association or
grou, of unions or worDers s.all acEuire legal
,ersonality and s.all (e entitled to t.e rig.ts and
,rivileges granted (y law to legitimate la(or
organiGations u,on issuance of t.e certificate of
registration.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
(c C9n t.e date a,,earing on t.e Certificate of
!egistration.C
@.en t.e law ,rovides t.at a Cla(or organiGation xxx
s.all acEuire legal ,ersonality xxx u,on issuance of
t.e certificate of registrationC# t.e date a,,earing
t.erein is legally ,resumed - under t.e rule on
,resum,tion of regularity - to (e its date of issuance.
Actual issuance is a contentious evidentiary issue
t.at can .ardly (e resolved# not to mention t.at t.e
law does not s,eaD of CactualC issuance.
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 Ar#riate <argaining
Unit4 %#n$idential E9l#yee& (2002)
8alou is t.e &xecutive Secretary of t.e Senior Aice-
,resident of a (anD w.ile Ana is t.e Legal Secretary
of t.e (anDPs lawyer. <.ey and ot.er executive
secretaries would liDe to :oin t.e union of ranD and
file em,loyees of t.e (anD. Are t.ey eligi(le to :oin
t.e unionK @.yK &x,lain (riefly. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e following rules will govern t.e rig.t of self-
organiGation of 8alou# Ana# and t.e ot.er &xecutive
Secretaries-
). 'o !ig.t to Self-9rganiGation R Confidential
em,loyees w.o act in a confidential ca,acity to
,ersons w.o formulate# determine# and effectuate
management ,olicies in t.e field of la(or-
management relation. <.e two criteria are cumulative
and (ot. must (e met LSan 8iguel Cor,oration Union
v. Laguesma# /22 SC!A 320 ()**2N
/. @it. !ig.t to Self-9rganiGation R @.en t.e
em,loyee does not .ave access to confidential la(or
relations information# t.ere is no legal ,ro.i(ition
against confidential em,loyees from forming#
assisting# or :oining a la(or organiGation. LSug(uanon
!ural $anD# Inc. v. Laguesma# 3/6 SC!A 6/4
(/000N
3. 'o rig.t of self-organiGation for Legal Secretaries
R Legal Secretaries fall under t.e category of
confidential em,loyees wit. no rig.t to serf-
organiGation. LPier = Arrastre Stevedoring Services#
Inc. v# Confesser# /6) SC!A /*6 ()**4N
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 <)( %erti$i5ati#n4
%erti$i5ati#n Ele5ti#n (199-)
Can t.e $ureau of La(or !elations certify a union as
t.e exclusive (argaining re,resentative after
s.owing ,roof of ma:ority re,resentation t.ru union
mem(ers.i, cards wit.out conducting an electionK
L4MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e $ureau of La(or !elations CA''9< certify a
union as t.e exclusive collective (argaining
re,resentative after s.owing of ,roof of ma:ority
re,resentation t.ru union mem(ers.i, cards wit.out
conducting a certification election.
<.e La(or Code (In Arts. /41# /42 and /4+
T
,rovides only for a certification election as t.e mode
for determining t.e exclusive collective (argaining
re,resentative if t.ere is a Euestion of re,resentation
in an a,,ro,riate (argaining unit.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# t.e $ureau of La(or !elations cannot certify a
union as t.e exclusive (argaining re,resentative
wit.out conducting a certification election. <.e
Su,reme Court# in Colgate Palmolive P.ili,,ines Inc.
v. 9,le. )13 SC!A 3/3 ()*++# ruled -
<.e ,rocedure for a re,resentation case is
outlined Lin t.eN La(or Code ... t.e main ,ur,ose
of w.ic. is to aid in ascertaining ma:ority
re,resentation. <.e reEuirements under t.e law ...
are all calculated to ensure t.at t.e certified
(argaining re,resentative is t.e true c.oice of t.e
em,loyees against all contenders. xxx @.en
an ... official (y-,asses t.e law on t.e ,retext of
retaining a lauda(le o(:ective# t.e intendment or
,ur,ose of t.e law will lose its meaning as t.e law
itself is disregarded. @.en t.e L$ureau of La(or
!elationsN directly LcertifiesN a union# .e in fact
disregarded t.is ,rocedure and its legal
reEuirements. <.ere was t.erefore failure to
determine wit. legal certainty w.et.er t.e union
indeed en:oyed ma:ority re,resentation.
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 %erti$i5ati#n Ele5ti#n
(2001)
U'I;A;# a la(or organiGation claiming to re,resent
t.e ma:ority of t.e ranD and file worDers of $A%SAU
<oyo 8anufacturing Cor,. ($8<C# filed a ,etition for
certification election during t.e freedom ,eriod
o(taining in said cor,oration. ;es,ite t.e o,,osition
t.ereto (y SI%A@ ?ederation on t.e ground t.at
U'I;A; was not ,ossessed wit. all t.e attri(utes of
a duly registered union# t.e 8ed-Ar(iter issued an
9rder calling for a certification election on July /4#
/00).
<.is 9rder was ,romulgated and served on t.e
,arties on July )/# /00). 9n July )6# /00)# U'I;A;
su(mitted and served t.e reEuired documents for its
registration as an inde,endent union# w.ic.
documents were a,,roved (y t.e ;9L& on July )4#
/00).
;uring t.e elections# U'I;A; won over SI%A@.
SI%A@ Euestioned U'I;A;Ps victory on t.e ground
t.at U'I;A; was not a duly registered union w.en it
filed t.e ,etition for a certification election. S.all
SI%A@s case ,ros,er or notK @.yK (4M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# SI%A@Ps case will not ,ros,er. <.e a,,lication
of tec.nicalities of ,rocedural reEuirements in
certification election dis,utes will serve no lawful
o(:ective or ,ur,ose. It is a statutory ,olicy t.at no
o(stacles s.ould (e ,laced on t.e .olding of a
certification election# (Sama.ang ng 8anggagawa
sa Pacific Plastic vs. Laguesma /12 SC!A /03#
()**2 and t.at t.e law is indis,uta(ly ,artial to t.e
.olding of a certification election. (@estern Agusan
vs. <ra:ano# )*1 SC!A 1// ()**).
At any rate# U'I;A; com,leted all t.e reEuirements
for union registration on July )6# /00)# and legitimate
union status was accorded on July )4# /000# or at
least ten ()0 days (efore t.e sc.eduled date for
.olding t.e Certification &lection.
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 %erti$i5ati#n Ele5ti#n4
<y&tander (ule (1996)
P< = < Su,ervisory &m,loyees Union filed a ,etition
for t.e .olding of a certification election among t.e
su,ervisory em,loyees of t.e P< = < Com,any. <.e
com,any moved to dismiss t.e ,etition on t.e
ground t.at Union mem(ers were ,erforming
managerial functions and were not merely
su,ervisory em,loyees. <.e com,any also alleged
t.at a certified (argaining unit existed among its ranD
and file em,loyees w.ic. (arred t.e filing of t.e
,etition.
1 ;oes t.e com,any .ave t.e standing to file
t.e motion to dismissK &x,lain.
2 If you were t.e 8ed-Ar(iter# .ow would you
resolve t.e ,etition.
3 @.at is t.e ,ro,er remedy of an em,loyer
to ensure t.at t.e em,loyees are Eualified to .old a
certification electionK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
) 'o# t.e com,any .as no standing to file t.e
8otion to ;ismiss as t.e em,loyer .as no rig.t to
interfere in a ,urely union matter or concern.
(P.ili,,ine ?ruits and Aegeta(le Industries# Inc.. vs
<orres# /)) SC!A *4 ()**/
<.e Court would wis. to stress once more t.e rule
w.ic. It .as consistently ,ronounced in many earlier
cases t.at a certification election is t.e sole concern
of t.e worDers and t.e em,loyer is regarded as
not.ing more t.an a (ystander wit. no rig.t to
interfere at all in t.e election.
/ As t.e 8&; A!$I<&! I will5
a ;eny# for lacD of merit# t.e em,loyerPs
8otion to dismiss t.e UnionPs Petition for
Certification &lection.
( Proceed to .ear t.e merits of t.e ,etition#
es,ecially5
1 t.e a,,ro,riation of t.e claimed
(argaining unit-
2 inclusion and exclusion of voters# or
t.e ,ro,osed voter list- and
3 if t.e ,etition is in order# to set t.e
date# time and ,lace of t.e election.
3 <.e em,loyer .as no remedy. <.e ,etition for
certification election was initiated (y t.e Union-
.ence# t.e em,loyer is a total stranger or a
(ystander in t.e election ,rocess. (P.ili,,ine ?ruits
and Aegeta(le Industries# Inc. v. <orres# /)) SC!A
*4 L)**/N. <o allow an em,loyer to assert a remedy
is an act of interference in a matter w.ic. is ,urely a
concern of t.e Union.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(5 ) <.e com,any does
not .ave t.e standing to file a motion to dismiss t.e
,etition for certification election# (ut it could move
for t.e exclusion of t.e em,loyees it alleged to (e
managerial em,loyees from t.e (argaining unit for
w.ic. a ,etition for certification election .as (een
filed.
As a general rule# an em,loyer .as no standing in a
,etition for certification election (ecause t.e ,ur,ose
of a certification election is to determine w.o s.ould
(e t.e collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e
em,loyees. <.us# a certification election is t.e
concern of t.e em,loyees and not of t.e em,loyer.
$ut in t.e case at (ar# t.e em,loyer may .ave a
standing (ecause t.e ,etition for certification election
involves ,ersonnel w.ic. t.e em,loyer alleges to (e
managerial em,loyees. And managerial em,loyees
under t.e La(or Code are not eligi(le to form# assist
or Join la(or organiGations# im,lying t.at t.ey cannot
(e ,art of t.e (argaining unit for w.ic. a ,etition for
certification election .as (een filed.
/ As t.e 8&;-A!$I<&!# I will order t.e .olding of
t.e certification election. <.e fact t.at t.ere is already
a certified collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e
ranD and file em,loyees of t.e Com,any is not a (ar to
t.e .olding of a certification election for t.e
determination of t.e collective (argaining
re,resentative of t.e su,ervisory em,loyees. $ut I will
exclude t.ose em,loyees found to (e managerial from
,artici,ating in t.e certification election.
3 <.e ,ro,er remedy of an em,loyer to ensure t.at
only t.e em,loyees are Eualified to .old a
certification election is to move for t.e exclusion of
t.ose w.om .e alleges to (e managerial ,ersonnel.
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 %erti$i5ati#n Ele5ti#n4
Un#rganiIed E&tabli&69ent (2008)
<.ere are instances w.en a certification election is
mandatory. @.at is t.e rationale for suc. a legal
mandateK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
According to t.e La(or Code# in any esta(lis.ment
w.ere t.ere is no certified (argaining agent# a
certification election s.all automatically (e conducted
(y t.e 8ed-Ar(iter u,on t.e filing of a ,etition (y a
legitimate la(or organiGation.
In t.e a(ove-descri(ed situation# a certification
election is made mandatory (ecause if t.ere is no
certified (argaining agent as determined (y a
certification election# t.ere could (e no collective
(argaining in t.e said unorganiGed esta(lis.ment
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 E?E (elati#n&6i4
%erti$i5ati#n Ele5ti#n (199-)
Is it reEuired t.at an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,
exists (etween an em,loyer and t.e em,loyees in t.e
a,,ro,riate (argaining unit (efore a certification
election can (e orderedK If so. w.yK L4MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies. it is reEuired t.at an em,loyer-em,loyee
relations.i, is existing (etween t.e em,loyer and t.e
em,loyees in t.e a,,ro,riate (argaining unit (efore
a certification election can (e ordered for t.e sim,le
reason t.at a certification election is .eld for t.e
,ur,ose of determining w.ic. la(or organiGation
s.all (e t.e exclusive collective (argaining
re,resentative of t.e em,loyees in an a,,ro,riate
(argaining unit. <.ere could (e no collective
(argaining (etween ,ersons w.o do not .ave any
em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies. t.e Su,reme Court .as ruled t.at t.e existence
of an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, is reEuired
(efore a certification election can (e .eld. <.e
Su,reme Court in Allied ?orce @aters Union
v. Cam,ania 8aritime )* SC!A /1+ ()*12. ruled -
xxx <.ere (eing no em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,
(etween t.e ,arties dis,utants# t.ere is neit.er Ca duty
to (argain collectivelyC to s,eaD of. And t.ere (eing no
suc. duty# to .old certification elections would (e
,ointless. <.ere is no reason to select a
re,resentative to negotiate w.en t.ere can (e no
negotiations in t.e first ,lace. @.ere t.ere is no duty
to (argain collectively# it is not ,ro,er to .old
certification elections in connection t.erewit..
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 '#,@t E9l#yee& (2004)
$. $ecause of alleged Bunfair la(or ,racticesH (y t.e
management of %?I System# a government-owned
and controlled financial cor,oration# its em,loyees
walDed out from t.eir :o(s and refused to return to
worD until t.e management would grant t.eir union
official recognition and start negotiations wit. t.em.
<.e leaders of t.e walD-out were dismissed# and t.e
ot.er ,artici,ants were sus,ended for sixty days. In
arguing t.eir case (efore t.e Civil Service
Commission# t.ey cited t.e ,rinci,le of social :ustice
for worDers and t.e rig.t to self-organiGation
and collective action# including t.e rig.t to striDe. <.ey
claimed t.at t.e Constitution s.ielded t.em from any
,enalty (ecause t.eir walD-out was a concerted
action ,ursuant to t.eir rig.ts guaranteed (y t.e (asic
law.
Is t.e ,osition taDen (y t.e walD-out leaders and
,artici,ants legally correctK !eason (riefly. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e ,osition taDen (y t.e walD-out leaders and
,artici,ants is not legally correct. <.ey are
government em,loyees# and as suc.# t.ey do not
.ave t.e rig.t to striDe. According to t.e actual
wording of Section 3 of Article OIII of t.e Constitution#
t.e State Cs.all guarantee t.e rig.ts of all worDers to
self-organiGation# collective (argaining and
negotiations# and ,eaceful concerted activities
including t.e rig.t to striDe in accordance wit. law.C
<.us# t.e last clause of t.e a(ove-Euoted ,rovision
of t.e Constitution maDes it very clear5 t.e rig.t to
striDe is not constitutional# it is statutory (ecause t.e
rig.t s.ould (e Cin accordance wit. lawC. And t.ere is
as yet no law giving government em,loyees t.e rig.t
to striDe.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'9. @.at Art. OIA# Sec. 3 of t.e )*+2 Constitution
guarantees is Ct.e rig.t to striDe in accordance wit.
law.C Assuming t.at w.at we .ave is a c.artered
government-owned and controlled cor,oration# t.ey
cannot# under &9 )+0 and related :uris,rudence#
stage suc. walD-out w.ic. is (asically a case of
striDe.
&ven if %?I was organiGed under t.e cor,oration
law# still no suc. walD-out is allowed wit.out t.e
em,loyeesP com,lying wit. t.e reEuirements of a
valid striDe# among w.ic. is t.at said striDe or walD-
out s.ould (e validly grounded on a (a deadlocD in
collective (argaining# or (( unfair la(or ,ractice#
eit.er of w.ic. is not ,resent .ere.
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 I9#rtan5e (1996)
) @.at is t.e im,ortance of la(or organiGationsK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A la(or organiGation exists in w.ole or in ,art for t.e
,ur,ose of collective (argaining or of dealing wit.
em,loyers concerning terms and conditions of
em,loyment. &m,loyees may form la(or organiGations
for t.eir mutual aid and ,rotection. (See Arts. /)/(a
and /63 of t.e La(or Code
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e im,ortance of la(or unions are5
a <.e en.ancement of democracy and t.e
,romotion of social :ustice and develo,ment. ( As
instrumentalities t.roug. w.ic. worDer
welfare may (e ,romoted and fostered#
(8actan @orDers Union v. A(oitiG# 64 SC!A 422
()*2/S
c It is t.e instrumentality t.roug. w.ic. an
individual la(orer w.o is .el,less as against a
,owerful em,loyer may# t.roug. concerted effort and
activity# ac.ieve t.e goal of economic well-(eing.
(%ullarno v. CI!# 3/ SC!A 302 L)**3N.
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 ;e9ber&6i *#li5y (199-)
A la(or union lawyer o,ined A. t.at a la(or
organiGation is a ,rivate and voluntary organiGation-
.ence# a union can deny mem(ers.i, to any and all
a,,licants. Is t.e o,inion of counsel in accord wit.
lawK L4MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'9# t.e o,inion of counsel is not in accord wit. law.
<.e La(or Code (in Article /6* (a and ( ,rovides
t.at a la(or organiGation .as t.e rig.t to ,rescri(e its
own rules for t.e acEuisition or retention of
mem(ers.i,# (ut it is an unfair la(or ,ractice act for a
la(or organiGation to restrain or coerce em,loyees in
t.e exercise of t.eir rig.t to self-organiGation. <.us# a
la(or organiGation cannot discriminate against any
em,loyee (y denying suc. em,loyee mem(ers.i, in
t.e la(or organiGation on any ground ot.er t.an t.e
usual terms and conditions under w.ic. mem(ers.i,
or continuation of union mem(ers.i, is made
availa(le to ot.er mem(ers.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# t.e legal o,inion of counsel# on t.e nature of a
la(or union and its admission ,olicy is in accord
wit. law# (ut must (e Eualified. <.e Su,reme Court
ruled in Salunga v. CI!# /) SC!A /)1 ()*12 as
follows5
%enerally# a state may not com,el ordinary
voluntary association to admit t.ereto any given
individual# (ecause mem(ers.i, t.erein may(e
accorded or wit..eld as a matter of ,rivilege.
<.e same case furt.er ruled t.at t.e law can com,el
a la(or union to admit an a,,licant for mem(ers.i,
w.en t.e union is -
<.e rule is Eualified in res,ect of la(or unions
.olding a mono,oly in t.e su,,ly of la(or# eit.er in
a given locality or as regards a ,articular
em,loyer wit. w.ic. it .as a closed-s.o,
agreement. <.e reason is t.at Lunion security
,rovisionsN cause t.e admission reEuirements of
trade unions to (e affected wit. ,u(lic interest.
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 (ig6t t# .i&a$$iliate $r#9
t6e )#5al Uni#n4 illegal di&9i&&al (1994)
In t.e Collective $argaining Agreement (C$A
(etween !oyal ?ilms and its ranD-and-file Union
(w.ic. is directly affiliated wit. 8??# a national
federation# a ,rovision on t.e maintenance of
mem(ers.i, ex,ressly ,rovides t.at t.e Union
can demand t.e dismissal of any mem(er
em,loyee
w.o commits acts of disloyalty to t.e Union as
,rovided for In its Constitution and $y-Laws. <.e
same ,rovision contains an undertaDing (y t.e
Union (8?? to .old !oyal ?ilms free from any
and all claims of any em,loyee dismissed.
;uring t.e term of t.e C$A# 8?? discovered t.at
certain em,loyee mem(ers were initiating a move to
disaffiliate from 8?? and :oin a rival federation#
?A8AS. ?ort.wit.# 8?? soug.t t.e dismissal of its
em,loyee mem(ers initiating t.e disafiliation
movement from 8?? to ?A8AS. !oyal ?ilms# relying
on t.e ,rovision of t.e aforementioned C$A#
com,lied wit. 8??s reEuest and dismissed t.e
em,loyees Identified (y 8?? as disloyal to it.
() @ill an action for Illegal dismissal against
!oyal ?ilms and 8?? ,ros,er or notK
(/ @.at are t.e lia(ilities of !oyal and 8?? to t.e
dismissed em,loyees# if anyK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
) <.e action for illegal dismissal will ,ros,er. <.e
rig.t of a local union to disaffiliate from its mot.er
federation is well-settled. A local union# (eing a
se,arate and voluntary association# is free to serve
t.e interest of all its mem(ers including t.e freedom
to disaffiliate w.en circumstances warrant t.is rig.t
is consistent wit. t.e constitutional guarantee of
freedom of association. <.us# t.e Act of initiating
move to disaffiliate is not an act of disloyalty.
(<ro,ical Fut. &m,loyeePs Union-C%@# et al. vs.
<ro,ical Fut ?ood 8arDet# Inc.# etal# %.!. 'os. L-
X36*4-**# January /0. )**0
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e action for illegal dismissal will ,ros,er.
;isaffiliation cannot (e considered an act of
disloyalty. <.e very essence of self-organiGation is
for t.e worDers to form a grou, for t.e effective
en.ancement and ,rotection of common interest.
(PIC&@9 v. Peo,le Industrial = Commercial Cor,.#
))/ SC!A 660
/ 8?? can (e .eld lia(le to ,ay t.e (acDwages of
t.e dismissed em,loyees. !oyal can (e .eld :ointly
and severally lia(le for (acDwages if it acted wit.
undue .aste in dismissing t.e em,loyees (8anila
Cordage Co. v. CI!# 2+ SC!A 3*+. In addition#
!oyal can (e ordered to reinstate t.e dismissed
em,loyees.
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 (ig6t t# +el$?0rganiIati#n
#$ %## E9l#yee& (2002)
;o em,loyees of a coo,erative .ave a rig.t to form
a unionK &x,lain (riefly. (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
&m,loyees w.o are mem(ers of a coo,erative
cannot form a union (ecause# as mem(ers# t.ey are
owners and owners cannot (argain wit. t.emselves.
Fowever# em,loyees w.o are not mem(ers of t.e
coo,erative can form a union.
LSan Jose &lectric Service Coo,erative v. 8inistry
of La(or# )23 SC!A 1*2 ()*+*N
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 Uni#n .ue&4 A&&e&&9ent
(2002)
<.e union deducted P/0.00 from !ogelioPs wages
for January. U,on inEuiry .e learned t.at it was for
deat. aid (enefits and t.at t.e deduction was made
,ursuant to a (oard resolution of t.e directors of t.e
union. Can !ogelio o(:ect to t.e deductionK &x,lain
(riefly. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies. In order t.at t.e s,ecial assessment (deat. aid
(enefit may (e u,.eld as valid# t.e following
reEuisites must (e com,iled wit.5 () Aut.oriGation (y
a written resolution of t.e ma:ority of all t.e mem(ers
at t.e general mem(ers.i, meeting duly called for
t.e ,ur,ose- (/ SecretaryPs record of t.e meeting-
and (3 Individual written aut.oriGation for t.e c.ecD-
off duly signed (y t.e em,loyee concerned. LA$S-
C$' Su,ervisors &m,loyees Union 8em(ers v.
A$S-C$' $roadcasting Cor,# and Union 9fficers#
306 SC!A 6+* ()***N
In t.e ,ro(lem given# none of t.e a(ove reEuisites
were com,lied wit. (y t.e union. Fence# !ogelio
can o(:ect to t.e deduction made (y t.e union for
(eing Invalid.
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 Uni#n .ue&4 A&&e&&9ent&
(199!)
Arty. ?acundo Aeloso was retained (y @elga La(or
Union to re,resent it in t.e collective (argaining
negotiations. It was agreed t.at Atty. Aeloso would
(e ,aid in t.e sum of P/0#000.00 as attorneyPs fees
for .is assistance in t.e C$A negotiations.
After t.e conclusion of t.e negotiations. @elga
La(or Union collected from its individual mem(ers
t.e sum of P)00.00 eac. to ,ay for Atty. AelosoPs
fees and anot.er sum of Pl00 eac. for services
rendered (y t.e union officers. Several mem(ers of
t.e @elga La(or Union a,,roac.ed you to seeD
advice on t.e following matters. a @.et.er or not
t.e collection of t.e amount
assessed on t.e individual mem(ers to answer
for t.e AttorneyPs fees was valid. ( @.et.er or not
t.e assessment of Pl00 from
t.e individual mem(ers of t.e @elga La(or
Union for services rendered (y t.e union
officers in t.e C$A negotiations was valid.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
(a <.e assessment of P)00.00 from eac. union
mem(er as attorneyPs fees - for union negotiation#
is not valid. Art. ///(( of t.e La(or Code# reads5
C'o attorneys fees# negotiation fees or similar
c.arges of any Dind arising from any collective
(argaining negotiations or conclusion of t.e
collective agreement s.all (e im,osed on any
individual mem(er of t.e contracting union-
Provided# .owever# t.at attorneys fees may (e
c.arged against union funds in an amount to (e
agreed u,on (y t.e ,arties. Any contract#
agreement or arrangement of any sort to (e
contrary s.all (e null and void.C
(( <.e assessment of P )00.00 as negotiation
fees c.arged to eac. individual union mem(er and
,aya(le to union officers is also not valid# for t.e
same reason as stated a(ove. <.e assessment is
an act violative of Art. ///((.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
(a <.e collection of t.e amount assessed on t.e
individual mem(ers to answer for t.e attorneyPs fees
would (e valid if it was aut.oriGed (y a written
resolution of a ma:ority of all t.e mem(ers in a
general mem(ers.i, meeting called for t.e ,ur,ose.
(( <.e assessment of P)00.00 from t.e Individual
mem(ers of t.e @elga La(or Union for services
rendered (y t.e union officers in t.e C$A
negotiations would (e valid if it was aut.oriGed (y a
written resolution of a ma:ority of all t.e mem(ers in
a general mem(ers.i, meeting duly called for t.e
,ur,ose. (Art. /6)('N.
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 Uni#n&4 A&&e&&9ent&
(2001)
(( @.at reEuisites must a Union com,ly wit. (efore
it can validly im,ose s,ecial assessments against its
mem(ers for incidental ex,enses# attorneyPs fees#
re,resentation ex,enses and t.e liDeK (3M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e La(or Code (in Art. /6)(n ,rovides t.at Cno
s,ecial assessments or ot.er extraordinary fees may
(e levied u,on t.e mem(ers of a la(or organiGation
unless aut.oriGed (y a written resolution of a ma:ority
of all t.e mem(ers at a general mem(ers.i, meeting
duly called for t.e ,ur,ose.C
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
In t.e case of A$S-C$' &m,loyees Su,ervisors
Union vs. A$S-C$' $oardcasting Cor,.# and Union
9fficers# %.!. 'o. )014)+# 8arc. ))#)***# t.e
Su,reme Court ruled t.at t.e following are t.e
reEuisites5
() Aut.oriGation (y a written resolution of t.e
ma:ority of all t.e mem(ers at t.e general
mem(ers.i, meeting duly called for t.e ,ur,ose-
(/ SecretaryPs record of t.e minutes of t.e
meeting- and
(3 Individual written aut.oriGation for c.ecD-off
duly signed (y t.e em,loyee concerned. (See also5
%a(riel vs. Secretary of La(or# %.!. 'o. ))4*6*#
8arc. )1Y /000.
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 Uni#n&4 Ainan5ial (e5#rd&
(1999)
?AC<S5 Polaris ;rug Com,any .ad an existing
Collective $argaining Agreement wit. Polaris
@orDers Union (P@U w.ic. was due to ex,ire on
8ay 3)# )***. P@U .ad a total mem(ers.i, of one
.undred L)00N ranD-and-file em,loyees of t.e
com,any. 8iDe $arela# a militant mem(er of t.e
union# sus,ected t.at t.e union officers were
misa,,ro,riating union funds as no financial re,ort
was given to t.e general mem(ers.i, during t.e
unionPs general assem(ly. Fence# 8iDe $arela
,re,ared a sworn written com,laint and filed t.e
same wit. t.e 9ffice of t.e Secretary of La(or on
8ay )0# )***# ,etitioning for an examination of t.e
financial records of P@U.
). Is t.e Secretary of La(or aut.oriGed (y law to
examine t.e financial records of t.e unionK If so#
w.at ,owerK If not# w.y notK (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e Secretary of La(or is ex,ressly aut.oriGed (y
t.e La(or Code (in Article /26T to examine t.e
financial records of t.e unions to determine
com,liance or non-com,liance wit. t.e ,ertinent
,rovisions of t.e La(or Code and to ,rosecute any
violation of t.e law and t.e union constitution-and(y-
laws. $ut t.is aut.ority may (e exercised only u,on
t.e filing of a com,laint under oat. and duly
su,,orted (y t.e written consent of at least twenty
,ercent (/0M of t.e total mem(ers.i, of t.e la(or
organiGation concerned.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
Among t.e rig.ts and conditions of mem(ers.i, in a
la(or organiGation is t.e rig.t im,lied (y t.e ,roviso
in t.e La(or Code (Article /6) (m stating t.at t.e
(ooDs of accounts and ot.er records of t.e financial
activities of any la(or organiGation s.all (e o,en to
ins,ection (y any officer or mem(er t.ereof during
office .ours.
As a union mem(er# 8iDe $arela could file an intra-
union case t.at may entail t.e act of t.e Secretary of
La(or examining t.e financial records of t.e union.
(See La <ondena @orDers Union v. Secretary of
La(or and &m,loyment# /3* SC!A ))2
/. Under t.e facts given a(ove# could an examination
or audit of t.e financial records of t.e union (e
orderedK @.yK (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Under t.e facts given in t.e Euestion# an examination
or audit of t.e financial records of t.e union can not
(e ordered (ecause for suc. examination or audit to
taDe ,lace# t.ere s.ould (e a com,laint under oat.
and duly su,,orted (y written consent of at least
twenty (/0M ,er cent of t.e total mem(ers.i, of t.e
la(or organiGation concerned. In t.is case# t.e
aforementioned reEuirement was not fulfilled. It was
only a sworn
Also# t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at an examination
of t.e (ooDs of a union s.all not (e conducted
during t.e sixty (10 day freedom ,eriod nor wit.in
t.irty (30 days immediately ,receding t.e date of
election of union officials.
In t.e case# t.e com,laint was filed on 8ay )0#
)*** w.ic. is wit.in t.e freedom ,eriod of t.e
current C$A w.ic. was to ex,ire on 8ay 3). )***.
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 Uni#n&4 Ainan5ial (e5#rd&
(2001)
(a Under w.at conditions may t.e Secretary of
La(or or .is duly aut.oriGed re,resentative inEuire
into t.e financial activities or legitimate la(or
organiGationsK (/M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e La(or Code (in Art. /26# t.e Secretary of La(or
and &m,loyment or .is duly aut.oriGed
re,resentative is em,owered to inEuire into t.e
financial activities of legitimate la(or organiGations
u,on t.e filing of a com,laint under oat. and duly
su,,orted (y t.e written consent of at least twenty
(/0M ,ercent of t.e total mem(ers.i, of t.e la(or
organiGation concerned and to examine t.eir (ooDs
of accounts and ot.er records.
+el$ 0rganiIati#n4 Uni#n&4 ;e9ber&6i4
.i&9i&&al in <ad Aait6 (2002)
A 9n w.at ground or grounds may a union mem(er
(e ex,elled from t.e organiGationK (3M
$. 8ay t.e general manager of a com,any (e .eld
:ointly and severally lia(le for (acDwages of an
illegally dismissed em,loyeeK (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A. Union mem(ers may (e ex,elled from t.e la(or
organiGation only on valid grounds ,rovided for in
t.e Union Constitution# $y-Laws# or conditions for
union mem(ers.i,.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
@.enever a,,ro,riate for any violation of t.e rig.ts
as5 a !efusal to ,ay union dues and s,ecial
assessments- ( ;isloyalty to t.e union- and c
Aiolation of t.e constitution and (y-laws of t.e
"nion.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
$. Ies. If it is s.own t.at .e acted in (ad fait.# or
wit.out or in excess of aut.ority# or was motivated (y
,ersonal ill-will in dismissing t.e em,loyee# t.e
general manager may (e .eld :ointly and severally
lia(le for t.e (acDwages of an illegally dismissed
em,loyee. LA!$ Construction C. v. Court of
A,,eals# 33/ SC!A 6/2# (/000# Lim v. 'L!C# 303
SC!A 63/# ()***N
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies. <.e %eneral 8anager may (e .eld :ointly and
severally lia(le for (acD wages of an illegally
dismissed em,loyee if .e or s.e actually aut.oriGed
or ratified t.e wrongful dismissal of t.e em,loyee
under t.e rule of respondeat superior. In case of
illegal dismissal# cor,orate directors and officers are
solidarity lia(le wit. t.e cor,oration w.ere
termination of em,loyment are done wit. malice or
(ad fait.. L$ogo-8edellin Sugar Planters Assoc.# Inc.
v. 'L!C# /*1 SC!A )0+# ()**+N
+el$?0rganiIati#n (2002)
8ang $ally# owner of a s.oe re,air s.o, wit. only
nine (* worDers in .is esta(lis.ment# received
,ro,osals for collective (argaining from t.e $ally
S.oe Union. 8ang $ally refused to (argain wit. t.e
worDers for several reasons. ?irst# .is s.oe (usiness
is :ust a service esta(lis.ment. Second# .is worDers
are ,aid on a ,ieceworD (asis (i.e.# ,er s.oe
re,aired and not on a time (asis. <.ird# .e .as less
t.an ten ()0 em,loyees in t.e esta(lis.ment. @.ic.
reason or reasons is7are tena(leK &x,lain (riefly.
(/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'9'&. ?irst# 8ang $allyPs s.oe (usiness is a
commercial enter,rise# al(eit a service esta(lis.ment.
Second# t.e mere fact t.at t.e worDers are ,aid on a
,iece-rate (asis does not negate t.eir status as
regular em,loyees. Payment (y ,iece is :ust a met.od
of com,ensation and does not define t.e essence of
t.e relation. LLam(o v. 'L!C# 3)2 SC!A 6/0 ()***N.
<.ird# t.e em,loyeesP rig.t to self organiGation is not
delimited (y t.eir num(er.
<.e rig.t to self-organiGation covers all ,ersons
em,loyed in commercial# industrial and agricultural
enter,rises and in religious# c.arita(le# medical# or
educational Institutions w.et.er o,erating for ,rofit
or not VArt. /63# La(or CodeT
+el$?0rganiIati#n4 .i&9i&&al due t# Uni#n
A5ti,itie& (2004)
A# $# C and ; (treasurer# accountant# elementary
de,artment Princi,al# and secretary of t.e ;irector#
res,ectively# regular em,loyees of a ,rivate
educational institution# were administratively c.arged
for t.eir ,artici,ation in a ,icDet .eld in front of t.e
cam,us after office .ours. Several faculty mem(ers#
non-academic staff and students :oined t.e ,eaceful
,rayer rally organiGed (y disgruntled em,loyees to
,rotest certain alleged a(uses of t.e incum(ent
Sc.ool ;irector. Su(seEuently# t.e ranD-and-file
em,loyees succeeded in forming t.e first and only
union of t.e Sc.ool.
;uring t.e investigation# t.e administration
discovered t.at two (/ days ,rior to t.e rally# A# $# C
and ; attended t.e meeting of t.e Sc.ool
>
s em,loyees
>
association w.ic. ,lanned t.e ,rotest activity. <wo
well-Dnown organiGers7leaders of a national la(or
federation were also ,resent.
A# $# C and ; were dismissed (y t.e Sc.ool on t.e
ground of violating t.e La(or Code w.ic. ,ro.i(its
managerial em,loyees to B:oin# assist or form any
la(or organiGationH.
Is t.e contention of t.e Sc.ool tena(leK Is t.e
dismissal of A# $# C and ; validK &x,lain. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e dismissal of A# $# C and ; on t.e ground t.at
t.ey violated t.e La(or Code ,rovision w.ic. states
t.at managerial em,loyees Care not eligi(le to :oin#
assist or form any la(or organiGationC is not valid.
<.e La(or Code does not ,rovide for any sanction
for t.e aforesaid acts. <.ese acts could not (e
considered as :ust cause for t.e termination of
em,loyment# eit.er.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e dismissal of t.e managerial em,loyees is invalid.
<.e dismissal of t.e management em,loyees
(ecause of union activities# no matter .ow erroneous
or tenous may (e t.e (asis of t.e exercise# is a
violation of t.e constitutional and statutory
guaranteed rig.ts of self-organiGation# and an act of
unfair la(or ,ractice. (Sec. 3# Art. OIII# Constitution-
Art. /63# La(or Code. See also Art. /6+ (a# La(or
Code.
+el$?0rganiIati#n4 '#,@t ,&7 *ri,ate
E9l#yee& (1996)
/ Fow does t.e government em,loyees> rig.t to
self-organiGation differ from t.at of t.e em,loyees in
t.e ,rivate sectorK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.ere is no su(stantial difference of t.e rig.t of self-
organiGation (etween worDers in t.e ,rivate sector
and t.ose in t.e ,u(lic sector. In t.e ,u(lic sector#
&xecutive 9rder 'o. )+0# t.e ,ur,ose of self-
organiGation is stated as Cfor t.e furt.erance and
,rotection of t.eir interest.C In t.e ,rivate sector# Art.
/63 of t.e La(or Code states Cfor t.e ,ur,ose of
collective (argainingC# and Cfor t.e ,ur,ose of
en.ancing and defending t.eir Interests and for t.eir
mutual aid and ,rotection.C
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
In government# managerial em,loyees s.all not (e
eligi(le to :oin t.e organiGation of ranD-and-file
em,loyees ,er &xecutive 9rder 'o. )+0 (ut said law
does not ,rovide t.at t.ey are not eligi(le to :oin#
assist or form any la(or organiGation# meaning# t.ey
could :oin# assist or form any la(or organiGation of
t.eir own. In t.e ,rivate sector# managerial
em,loyees are not eligi(le to :oin# assist or form any
la(or organiGation. (See Art. /63
of t.e La(or Code and Sec. 3 of &xecutive 9rder
'o. )+0
+el$?0rganiIati#n4 (ig6t t# J#in (2000)
() ;o worDers .ave a rig.t not to :oin a la(or
organiGationK (3M
(/ ;o t.e following worDers .ave t.e rig.t to self-
organiGationK !easons7(asis (/M
1. &m,loyees of non-stocD# non-,rofit
organiGationsK
2. Alien em,loyeesK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# worDers decide w.et.er t.ey will or will not
(ecome mem(ers of a la(or organiGation. <.atPs
w.y a unionPs constitution and (y-laws need t.e
mem(ersP ado,tion and ratification. 8oreover# if t.ey
are mem(ers of a religious grou, w.ose doctrine
for(ids union mem(ers.i,# t.eir rig.t not to (e
com,elled to (ecome union mem(ers .as (een
u,.eld. Fowever# if t.e worDer is not a Creligious
o(:ectorC and t.ere is a union security clause# .e
may (e reEuired to :oin t.e union if .e (elongs to t.e
(argaining unit. L!eyes v. <ra:ano# /0* SC!A 6+6
()**/N.
((i &ven em,loyees of non-stocD non-,rofit
organiGations .ave t.e rig.t to self-organiGation. <.is
is ex,licitly ,rovided for in Art. /63 of t.e La(or Code.
A ,ossi(le exce,tion# .owever# are em,loyee-
mem(ers of non-stocD non-,rofit coo,eratives.
(ii ALI&' &8PL9I&&S wit. valid worD ,ermits in
!P may exercise t.e rig.t to self-organiGation on
t.e (asis of ,arity or reci,rocity# t.at is# if ?ili,ino
worDers in t.e aliensP country are given t.e same
rig.t. (Art. /1*# La(or Code.
U)*4 A2ard& #$ .a9age& (2001)
(( CAC# an em,loyee# sued com,any C$C for unfair
la(or ,ractice# Illegal dismissal and damages as a
conseEuence t.ereof. <.e Ar(iter granted APs ,rayer
for reinstatement# (acDwages# and included an
award for attorneyPs fees. 9n a,,eal to t.e 'L!C#
t.e Commission affirmed t.e Ar(iterPs decision (ut
deleted t.e award for attorneyPs fees since fees were
not claimed in APs com,laint. @.o was correct# t.e
Ar(iter or t.e 'L!CK @.yK (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e 'L!C was correct in deleting t.e award for
attorneyPs fees if an em,loyee did not include
attorneyPs fees among .is claims and# t.erefore# did
not give any evidence to su,,ort t.e ,ayment of
attorneyPs fees.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e decision of t.e La(or Ar(iter to award attorneyPs
fees even if t.e same is not claimed is correct. Article
//0+ of t.e 'ew Civil Code allows t.e award of
attorneyPs fees w.en t.e defendantPs act or omission
.as com,elled t.e ,laintiff to
litigate or incur ex,enses to ,rotect .is interest.
AttorneyPs fees may (e considered as a ,art of an
eEuita(le relief awarded in t.e conce,t of damages.
(c @ould your answer (e different if t.e attorneyPs
fees awarded (y t.e Ar(iter was over fifteen ,ercent
of t.e total awardK @.yK ()M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(4
An award of attorneyPs fees w.ic. is over fifteen
,ercent of t.e total award is not in conformity wit.
t.e ,rovision of t.e La(or Code (Art. )))(a t.at in
cases of unlawful wit..olding of wages# t.e cul,a(le
,arty may (e assessed attorneyPs fees eEuivalent to
ten ,ercent of t.e amount of wages recovered.
U)*4 %#ntra5ting 0ut )ab#r (2001)
(a Com,any CAC contracts out its clerical and
:anitorial services. In t.e negotiations of its C$A# t.e
union insisted t.at# .encefort.# t.e com,any may no
longer engage in contracting out t.ese ty,es of
services# w.ic. services t.e union claims to (e
necessary in t.e com,anyPs (usiness# wit.out ,rior
consultation. Is t.e unionPs stand valid or notK ?or
w.at reason(sK (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e unionPs stand is not valid. It is ,art of
management ,rerogative to contract out any worD#
tasD# :o( or ,ro:ect exce,t t.at it is an unfair la(or
,ractice to contract out services or functions
,erformed (y union mem(ers w.en suc. will
interfere wit.# restrain or coerce em,loyees in t.e
exercise of t.eir rig.ts to self-organiGation. (Art.
/6+(c of t.e La(or Code
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e unionPs stand t.at t.ere must (e a ,rior
consultation (y t.e em,loyer wit. t.e union (efore
contracting out can (e effected is valid. Article OIII#
Section 3 of t.e Constitution# and Article /44 of t.e
La(or Code guarantee t.e rig.t of worDers to
,artici,ate in ,olicy and decision maDing ,rocesses
w.ic. affect t.eir rig.ts and (enefits. Jo( contracting
will undou(tedly and directly affect t.eir rig.ts#
(enefits and welfare. P.ili,,ine Airlines vs. 'L!C#
/44 SC!A 30) ()**3# and 8anila &lectric Com,any
us. Juisum(ing# 30/ SC!A )23 ()***.
U)*4 .e$initi#n > EBa9le& #$ U)* (1996)
) ;efine unfair la(or ,ractice# Answer-
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
U'?AI! LA$9! P!AC<IC& means any unfair la(or
,ractice as ex,ressly defined (y t.e La(or Code
(Arts. /6+ and /6* of t.e La(or Code. &ssentially#
an unfair la(or ,ractice is any act committed (y an
em,loyer or (y a la(or organiGation# its officers#
agents or re,resentatives w.ic. .as t.e effect of
,reventing t.e full exercise (y em,loyees of t.eir
rig.ts to self-organiGation
and collective (argaining. (See Arts /6+ and /6* of
t.e La(or Code.
/ %ive t.ree (3 exam,les of unfair la(or ,ractices
on t.e ,art of t.e em,loyer and t.ree (3 exam,les
of unfair la(or ,ractices on t.e ,art of t.e la(or
union. A'S@&!- Any t.ree (3 from t.e following
enumeration in t.e La(or Code5 A!<. /6+. Unfair
la(or ,ractices of em,loyers. It s.all (e unlawful for
an em,loyer to commit any of t.e following unfair
la(or ,ractice5
1 <o interfere wit.# restrain or coerce em,loyees
in t.e exercise of t.eir rig.t to self-organiGation-
2 <o reEuire as a condition of em,loyment t.at a
,erson or an em,loyee s.all not :oin a la(or
organiGation or s.all wit.draw from one to w.ic. .e
(elongs-
3 <o contract out services or functions (eing
,erformed (y union mem(ers w.en suc. will interfere
wit.# restrain or coerce em,loyees in t.e exercise of
t.eir rig.ts to self-organiGation-
4 <o initiate# dominate# assist or ot.erwise
interfere wit. t.e formation or administration of any
la(or organiGation# including# t.e giving of financial or
ot.er su,,ort to it# or its organiGations# or su,,orters-
5 <o discriminate in regard to wages# .ours of
worD# and ot.er terms and conditions of em,loyment
in order to encourage or discourage mem(ers.i, in
any la(or organiGation. 'ot.ing in t.is Code or in any
ot.er law s.all sto, t.e ,arties from reEuiring
mem(ers.i, in a recogniGed collective (argaining
agent as a condition for em,loyment# exce,t t.ose
em,loyees w.o are already mem(ers of anot.er
union at t.e time of t.e signing of t.e collective
(argaining agreement. Provided# t.at t.e individual
aut.oriGation reEuired under Article /6)# ,aragra,. (o
of t.is Code s.all not a,,ly to t.e non-mem(ers of t.e
recogniGed collective (argaining agent-
6 <o dismiss# disc.arge# or ot.erwise ,re:udice
or discriminate against an em,loyee for .aving given
or (eing a(out to give testimony under t.is Code-
7 <o violate t.e duty to (argain collectively as
,rescri(ed (y t.is Code-
8 <o ,ay negotiation or attorneyPs fees to t.e
union or its officers or agents as ,art of t.e settlement
of any issue in collective (argaining or any ot.er
dis,ute- or
9 <o violate a collective (argaining agreement.
U)*4 Juri&di5ti#n4 )ab#r Arbiter (199!)
9n 0) August )**/# Pro-Unit# a cor,oration
engaged in t.e manufacture of textile garments#
entered into a collective (argaining agreement
wit. t.e Uamao Union in re,resentation of t.e
ranD and file em,loyees of t.e cor,oration.
<.e C$A was effective u, to /0 June )**4. <.e
contract .ad an automatic renewal clause w.ic.
would allow t.e agreement after its ex,iry date to
still a,,ly until (ot. ,arties would .ave (een a(le to
execute a new agreement.
9n )0 8ay )**4 Uamao Union su(mitted to Pro-
UnitPs management t.eir ,ro,osals for t.e
renegotiation of a new C$A. <.e next day# Pro-Unit
sus,ended negotiations w.ile Uamao Union since
Pro-Unit .ad entered into a merger wit. &agle
%arments# a cor,oration also engaged in t.e
manufacture of textile garments. &agle %arments
assumed all t.e assets and lia(ilities of Pro-Unit.
Uamao filed a com,laint wit. t.e !egional <rial
Court for s,ecific ,erformance and damages wit. a
,rayer for ,reliminary in:unction against Pro-Unit
and &agle %arments.
Pro-Unit and &agle %arments filed a 8otion to
;ismiss (ased on lacD of Jurisdiction. Fow would
you rule on t.e 8otion to ;ismissK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
I will grant t.e 8otion to ;ismiss. <.e act of Pro-Dnit
sus,ending negotiations wit. Uamao Union could (e
an unfair la(or ,ractice. It could (e a violation of t.e
duty to (argain collectively. As suc.# t.e case is
under t.e :urisdiction of a La(or Ar(iter and not of a
regular Court
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
I will deny t.e UnionPs 8otion to ;ismiss. <.ere is no
la(or dis,ute (etween t.e ,arties- .ence# t.e
!egional <rial Court .as Jurisdiction over t.e
com,laint. Art. /)/ of t.e La(or Code# reads -
La(or dis,ute Includes any controversy or
matter concerning terms or conditions of
em,loyment or t.e association or re,resentation
of ,ersons in negotiating# fixing# maintaining#
c.anging or arranging t.e terms and conditions
of em,loyment regardless of w.et.er t.e
dis,utants stand in t.e ,roximate relations of
em,loyer and em,loyee.
In addition# t.e Com,any can claim t.at la(or
contracts are contracts in ,ersonam and do not
generally (ind successors in interest exce,t under
s,ecial circumstances. In Sundowner ;evelo,ment
Cor,oration v ;rilon# )+0 SC!A )6# t.e Court said5
<.e rule is t.at unless ex,ressly assumed# la(or
contracts suc. as xxx collective (argaining
agreements are not enforcea(le against a transferee
of an enter,rise# la(or contracts (eing in ,ersonam#
t.us (inding only (etween t.e ,arties.
U)*4 (e$u&al t# Neg#tiate (199!)
<.e Uilusang Ua(isig# a newly-formed la(or union
claiming to re,resent a ma:ority of t.e worDers in t.e
8icroc.i, Cor,oration# ,roceeded to ,resent a list of
demands to t.e management for ,ur,oses of
collective (argaining. <.e 8icroc.i,s Cor,oration# a
multinational cor,oration engaged in t.e ,roduction
of com,uter c.i,s for ex,ort# declined to talD wit. t.e
union leaders# alleging t.at t.ey .ad not as yet
,resented any ,roof of ma:ority status.
<.e Uilusang Ua(isig t.en c.ained 8icroc.i,
Cor,oration wit. unfair la(or ,ractice# and declared a
CwildcatC striDe w.erein means of ingress and egress
were (locDed and remote and isolated acts of
destruction and violence were committed.
) @as t.e com,any guilty of an unfair la(or ,ractice
w.en it refused to negotiate wit. t.e Uilusang
Ua(isigK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(+:
'9. It is not an unfair la(or ,ractice (ULP not to
(argain wit. a union w.ic. .as not ,resented any
,roof of its ma:ority status. <.e La(or Code im,oses
on an em,loyer t.e duty to (argain collectively only
wit. a legitimate la(or organiGation designated or
selected (y t.e ma:ority of t.e em,loyees in an
a,,ro,riate collective (argaining unit. It is not a ULP
for an em,loyer to asD a union reEuesting to (argain
collectively t.at suc. union first s.ow ,roof of its
(eing a ma:ority union.
U)*4 (ig6t& > 0bligati#n&4 /#rEer&@
A&&#5iati#n (2004)
A. Around )00 worDers of a mill in a coconut
,lantation organiGed t.emselves for t.e ,ur,ose of
,romoting t.eir common interest and welfare. <.e
worDers> association ,re,ared a ,etition for
increasing t.e daily ,ay of its mem(ers in com,liance
wit. minimum wage rates for t.eir sector in t.e
region# and for granting (enefits to w.ic. t.ey are
entitled under t.e law.
Fowever# t.e worDers (ecame restless and anxious
after t.e owner-manager t.reatened t.em wit. mass
lay-off if t.e association would ,ress for t.eir
demands. 8ost of its mem(ers .ave worDed in t.e
mill for )0 to )4 years wit. no im,rovement in
worDing conditions and monetary (enefits.
<.e leaders of t.e worDers> association a,,roac.ed
you and asDed5 w.at legal ste,s could t.ey taDe to
,rotect t.eir security of tenureK @.at advice could
you give t.emK (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
I would advise t.em to register t.e worDersP
association wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or and
&m,loyment. <.en# .ave t.e worDersP association
file a ULP case against t.e em,loyer.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e worDers are entitled to t.e constitutional (Art.
OIII# Sec. 3# )*+2 Constitution and statutory (Art.
/2*# La(or Code guarantees of security of tenure.
@.en t.is rig.t to security of tenure is violated# an
action for illegal dismissal is an availa(le remedy.
If t.ey are dismissed (ecause of union activities# an
action for unfair la(or ,ractice can (e filed (Sec. 3#
Art. OIII# Constitution- Art. /63# La(or Code. If
successful# t.e worDers will (e entitled to full
(acDwages# including money value of (enefits# and
reinstatement wit.out loss of seniority (Art. /2*#
La(or Code.
U)*4 +ub=e5t t# %ri9inal *r#&e5uti#n (2005)
Is t.e commission of an unfair la(or ,ractice (y an
em,loyer su(:ect to criminal ,rosecutionK Please
ex,lain your answer (riefly. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# (ecause unfair la(or ,ractices are not only
violations of t.e civil rig.ts of (ot. la(or and
management (ut are also criminal offenses against
t.e State w.ic. s.all (e su(:ect to ,rosecution and
,unis.ment. (Article /62# La(or Code- See also
$.P. $ig. 3+1 as amended (y !.A. 'o. 12)4.
Fowever# t.e criminal as,ect can only (e filed w.en
t.e decision of t.e la(or tri(unals# finding t.e
existence of unfair la(or ,ractice# s.all .ave (ecome
final and executory.
)A<0( +"AN.A(.+
E?E (elati#n&6i4 %#r#rati#n (1999)
?AC<S5 <eofilo Lacson was one of more t.an one
.undred ()00 em,loyees w.o were terminated from
em,loyment due to t.e closure of L$8 Construction
Cor,oration (L$8.
L$8 was a sister com,any of Lastimoso
Construction# Inc. and !L !ealty = ;evelo,ment
Cor,oration. All t.ree (3 entities formed w.at came
to (e Dnown as t.e Lastimoso %rou, of Com,anies.
<.e t.ree (3 cor,orations were owned and
controlled (y mem(ers of t.e Lastimoso ?amily- t.eir
incor,orators and directors all (elonged to t.e
Lastimoso family. <.e t.ree (3 cor,orations were
engaged in t.e same line of (usiness# under one
management# and used t.e same eEui,ment
including man,ower services.
<eofilo Lacson and .is co-em,loyees filed a
com,laint wit. t.e La(or Ar(iter against L$8# !L
!ealty and Lastimoso Construction to .old t.em
:ointly and severally lia(le for (acDwages and
se,aration ,ay.
Lastimoso Construction# Inc. and !L !ealty =
;evelo,ment Cor,oration inter,osed a 8otion to
;ismiss contending t.at t.ey are Juridical entitles
wit. distinct and se,arate ,ersonalities from L$8
Construction Cor,oration and t.erefore# t.ey cannot
(e .eld :ointly and severally lia(le for t.e money
claims of worDers w.o are not t.eir em,loyees. !ule
on t.e 8otion to ;ismiss. S.ould it (e granted or
deniedK @.yK (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
It is very clear t.at even if L$8 Construction
com,any# Lastimoso Construction Com,any# Inc. and
!L !ealty = ;evelo,ment Cor,oration all (elong to
t.e Lastimoso family and are engaged in t.e same
line of (usiness under one management and used t.e
same eEui,ment including man,ower services# t.ese
cor,orations were se,arate :uridical entities.
<.us# only t.e L$8 Construction Cor,oration is t.e
em,loyer of <eofllo Lacson. <.e ot.er cor,oration
do not .ave any em,loyer-em,loyee relations wit.
Lacson.
<.e case in Euestion does not include any fact t.at
would :ustify ,iercing t.e veil of cor,orate fiction of
t.e ot.er cor,orations in order to ,rotect t.e rig.ts
of worDers.
In a case (Conce,t $uilders# Inc. v. 'L!C. /42
SC!A )6*# t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at it is a
fundamental ,rinci,le of cor,oration law t.at a
cor,oration is an entity se,arate and distinct from its
stocD.olders and from ot.er cor,orations to w.ic. it
may (e connected. $ut t.is se,arate and distinct
,ersonality of a cor,oration is merely a fiction
created (y law for convenience and to ,romote
:ustice. So# w.en t.e notion of se,arate :uridical
,ersonality is used to defeat ,u(lic convenience#
:ustify wrong# ,rotect fraud or defend crime# or is
used as a device to defeat t.e la(or laws# t.is
se,arate ,ersonality of t.e cor,oration may(e
disregarded or t.e veil of cor,orate fiction ,ierced.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
8otion to ;ismiss s.ould (e denied. In t.e case at
(ar# t.e La(or Ar(iter would (e :ustified in ,iercing
t.e cor,orate veil and considering t.e t.ree (3
cor,orations as one and t.e same entity as t.e
em,loyer of <eofilo Lacson (ecause (ased on t.e
facts Ct.e t.ree cor,orations were owned and
controlled (y mem(ers of t.e Lstimoso family- t.eir
incor,orators and directors all (elonged to t.e
Lastimoso family. <.e t.ree (3 cor,orations were
engaged in t.e same line of (usiness# under one
management and used t.e same eEui,ment
including man,ower services.C <.e facts s.ow t.at
Ct.e notion of legal entity is used to defeat ,u(lic
convenience# :ustify wrong# ,rotect fraud# or defend
crime# t.e law will regard t.e cor,oration as an
association of ,ersons# or in t.e case of two
cor,orations# will merge t.em into one
E?E (elati#n&6i4 .eter9ined by Aa5t& >
)a2& (2000)
$anco de 8anila and t.e Ang Fusay Janitorial and
Pest Control Agency entered into an Inde,endent
Contractor Agreement wit. t.e usual sti,ulations5
s,ecifically# t.e a(sence of em,loyer-em,loyee
relations.i,# and t.e relief from lia(ility clauses. Can
t.e $anD# as a client# and t.e Agency# as an
inde,endent contractor# sti,ulate t.at no em,loyer-
em,loyee relations.i, exists (etween t.e $anD and
t.e em,loyees of t.e Agency w.o may (e assigned
to worD in t.e $anDK !eason. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.ey can so sti,ulate if t.e relations.i, is indeed Jo(
contracting. Iet t.e sti,ulation cannot ,revail over t.e
facts and t.e laws. <.e existence of em,loyer-
em,loyee relations.i, is determined (y facts and law
and not (y sti,ulation of t.e ,arties. (Insular Life
Assurance Co.. Ltd. v. 'L!C. /+2 SC!A 621 ()**+-
<a(as v. California 8anufacturing Co. Inc.# )1* SC!A
6*2 ()*+*N.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
Ies# t.ey can sti,ulate ,rovided t.at t.e contract of
Inde,endent contractor is valid in accordance wit.
Art )01 of t.e La(or Code.
E?E (elati#n&6i4 Ele9ent& (1996)
) @.en does an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,
existK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e Su,reme Court# in a long line of decisions .as
consistently ruled t.at t.e following are t.e elements
of an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,5
A. Selection and engagement of t.e em,loyee-
$. Payment of wages-
C. Power of disci,line and dismissal- and
;. Power to control t.e em,loyeePs conduct as
regards .is em,loyment.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(4
An em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, exists w.en a
,erson (an em,loyer w.o carries on a (usiness#
trade# Industry# undertaDing# or activity of any Dind
uses t.e services of anot.er ,erson (an em,loyee
w.o# receiving com,ensation# is under t.e em,loyerPs
orders as regards t.e em,loyment.
E?E (elati#n&6i4 '(0@& > Nig6t %lub&
(1999)
?AC<S5 Solar Plexus $ar and 'ig.t Clu( allowed
(y tolerance fifty (40 %uest !elations 9fficers
(%!9 to worD wit.out com,ensation in its
esta(lis.ment under t.e direct su,ervision of its
8anager from +500 ,.m. to 6500 a.m. everyday#
including Sundays and .olidays. <.e %!9s#
.owever# are free to ,ly t.eir trade elsew.ere at
anytime (ut once t.ey enter t.e ,remises of t.e
nig.t clu(# t.ey are reEuired to stay u, to closing
time. <.e %!9s earned t.eir Dee, exclusively
from commissions for food and drinDs# and ti,s
from
generous customers. In time# t.e %!9s formed
t.e Solar Ugnayan ng mga Ua(a(ai.ang Inaa,i
(SUUI- a la(or union duly registered wit. ;9L&.
Su(seEuently# SUUI filed a ,etition for certification
election in order to (e recogniGed as t.e exclusive
(argaining agent of its mem(ers. Solar Plexus
o,,osed t.e ,etition for certification election on
t.e singular ground of a(sence of em,loyer-
em,loyee relations.i, (etween t.e %!9s on one
.and and t.e nig.t clu( on t.e ot.er .and.
8ay t.e %!9s form SUUI as a la(or organiGation for
,ur,oses of collective (argainingK &x,lain (riefly.
(4M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e %!9s may form SUUI as a la(or organiGation for
,ur,oses of collective (argaining. <.ere is an
em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, (etween t.e %!9s
and t.e nig.t clu(.
<.e La(or Code (in Article )3+ ,rovides t.at any
woman w.o is ,ermitted or suffered to worD# wit. or
wit.out com,ensation# in any nig.tclu(# cocD tail
lounge# massage clinic# (ar or similar esta(lis.ment#
under t.e effective control or su,ervision of t.e
em,loyer for a su(stantial ,eriod of time as
determined (y t.e Secretary of La(or# s.all (e
considered as an em,loyee of suc. esta(lis.ment for
,ur,oses of la(or and social legislation.
In t.e case at (ar# it is clearly stated t.at t.e women
once t.ey enter t.e ,remises of t.e nig.t clu( would
(e under t.e direct su,ervision of t.e manager from
+500 ,.m. to 6500 a.m. everyday including Sundays
and .olidays. Suc. is indicative of an em,loyer-
em,loyee relations.i, since t.e manager would (e
exercising t.e rig.t of control.
E?E (elati#n&6i4 +e5urity 'uard&4 Al#ating
+tatu& (1999)
?AC<S5 Asia Security = Investigation Agency (ASIA
executed a one-year contract wit. t.e $aron Fotel
($A!9' for t.e former to ,rovide t.e latter wit.
twenty (/0 security guards to safeguard t.e ,ersons
and (elongings of .otel guests# among ot.ers. <.e
security guards filled u, $aron a,,lication form and
su(mitted t.e executed forms directly to t.e Security
;e,artment of $aron. <.e ,ay sli,s of t.e security
guards (ore $aronPs logo and s.owed t.at $aron
deducted t.erefrom t.e amounts for SSS ,remiums#
medicare contri(utions and wit..olding taxes.
Assignments of security guards# w.o s.ould (e on
duty or on call# ,romotions# sus,ensions# dismissals
and award citations for meritorious services were all
done u,on a,,roval (y $aronPs c.ief Security officer.
After t.e ex,iration of t.e contract wit. Asia# $aron
did not renew t.e same and instead executed
anot.er contract for security services wit. anot.er
agency. Asia ,laced t.e affected security guards on
Cfloating statusC on Cno worD no ,ayC (asis. Faving
(een dis,laced from worD# t.e Asia security guards
filed a case against t.e $aron Fotel for illegal
dismissal# overtime ,ay# minimum wage differentials#
vacation leave and sicD leave (enefits# and )3t.
mont. ,ay.
$aron Fotel denied lia(ility alleging t.at Asia is t.e
em,loyer of t.e security guards and t.erefore# t.eir
com,laint for illegal dismissal and ,ayment of
money claims s.ould (e directed against Asia.
'evert.eless# $aron filed a <.ird Party Com,laint
against Asia.
). Is t.ere an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,
(etween t.e $aron Fotel# on one .and# and t.e Asia
security guards# on t.e ot.er .andK &x,lain (riefly#
(3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
As a general rule# t.e security guards of a ,rivate
security guard agency are t.e em,loyees of t.e
latter and not of t.e esta(lis.ment t.at .as entered
into a contract wit. t.e ,rivate security guard agency
for security services.
$ut under t.e facts in t.e Euestion# $aron Fotel
a,,ear to .ave .ired t.e security guards# to .ave
,aid t.eir wages# to .ave t.e ,ower to ,romote#
sus,end or dismiss t.e security guards and t.e
,ower of control over t.em# namely# t.e security
guards were under orders of $aron Fotel as regard
t.eir em,loyment.
$ecause of t.e a(ove-mentioned circumstances#
$aron Fotel is t.e em,loyer of t.e security guards.
/. Assuming t.at ASIA is t.e em,loyer# is t.e act of
ASIA in ,lacing t.e security guards on Cfloating
statusC lawfulK @.yK (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
It is lawful for a ,rivate security guard agency to
,lace its security guard on a Cfloating statusC if it .as
no assignment to give to said security guards.
$ut if t.e security guards are ,laced on a Cfloating
statusC for more t.an six (1 mont.s# t.e security
guards may consider t.emselves as .aving (een
dismissed.
E?E (elati#n&6i4 +el$?E9l#yed (2008)
Pa(lo was a farm-.and in a ,lantation owned (y
A$C = Co.# worDing a,,roximately 1 days a weeD
for a good )4 years. U,on Pa(loPs deat.# .is widow
filed a claim for (urial grant and ,ension (enefits
wit. t.e Social Security System (SSS. <.e claim
was denied on t.e ground t.at Pa(lo .ad not (een a
registered mem(er-em,loyee.
Pa(loPs widow filed a ,etition (efore t.e SSS asDing
t.at A$C = Co. (e directed to ,ay t.e ,remium
contri(utions of Pa(lo and t.at .is name (e re,orted
for SSS coverage. A$C = Co. countered t.at Pa(lo
was .ired to ,low# .arrow and (urrow# using .is own
cara(ao and ot.er im,lements and following .is own
sc.edule of worD .ours# wit.out any su,ervision from
t.e com,any. If ,roven# would t.is factual setting
advanced (y A$C = Co. (e a valid defense against
t.e ,etitionK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A$C = Co. .as a valid defense. Pa(lo s.ould (e an
em,loyee of A$C = Co. to (e under t.e com,ulsory
coverage of t.e SSS. <o (e an em,loyee# Pa(lo
s.ould (e under t.e control of A$C = Co. as regards
.is em,loyment. $ut t.e facts s.ow t.at .e was not
under t.e control of A$C = Co. as regards .is
em,loyment. Among ot.ers# .e .ad .is own
sc.edule of worD .ours# wit.out any su,ervision
from t.e com,any. <.us# .e is an inde,endent
contractor and not an em,loyee. An inde,endent
contractor is not under t.e com,ulsory coverage of
t.e SSS. Fe may(e covered as a self-em,loyed
,erson. $ut t.en as suc.# A$C = Co. .as no legal
o(ligation to re,ort Pa(lo for coverage under t.e
SSS (ecause A$C = Co. is not Pa(loPs em,loyer.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
It is not a valid defense# for Pa(lo could (e
considered an em,loyee of A$C = Co. <.e elements
of .iring# ,ayment of wages# ,ower to dismiss and
,ower to control are ,resumed from t.e fact t.at
Pa(lo is worDing 1 days a weeD# for )4 years now.
Pa(loPs use of .is ,low# .arrow# (urrow# cara(ao and
ot.er im,lements and .is .aving .is own sc.edule of
worD .ours wit.out any su,ervision from t.e
com,any do not erase t.e element of control on t.e
,art of A$C = Co. (ecause under t.e Ccontrol testC# it
is enoug. t.at t.e em,loyerPs rig.t to control exists.
It is not necessary t.at t.e same (e exercised (y t.e
em,loyer# it is enoug. t.at suc. rig.t to control
exists. (!eligious of t.e Airgin 8ary v. 'L!C. 3)1
SC!A 1)6# 1/* ()***
E?E (elati#n&6i4 /#rEer& aid by (e&ult&
(2004)
$. <!O# a local s.i,,ing firm# maintains a fleet of
motoriGed (oats ,lying t.e island (arangays of AP# a
coastal town. At day>s end t.e (oat o,erators7crew
mem(ers turn over to t.e (oat owner t.eir cas.
collections from cargo fees and ,assenger fares# less
t.e ex,enses for diesel fuel# food# landing fees and
s,are ,arts.
?ifty ,ercent (40M of t.e mont.ly income or
earnings derived from t.e o,erations of t.e (oats are
given to t.e (oatmen (y way of com,ensation.
;educted from t.e individual s.ares of t.e
Are t.ese (oatmen entitled to overtime ,ay# .oliday
,ay# and )3t. mont. ,ayK (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
If t.e (oatmen are considered em,loyees# liDe
:ee,ney drivers ,aid on a (oundary system# t.e
(oatmen are not entitled to overtime and .oliday ,ay
(ecause t.ey are worDers w.o are ,aid (y results.
Said worDers# under t.e La(or Code are not entitled#
among ot.ers# to overtime ,ay and .oliday ,ay.
In accordance wit. t.e !ules and !egulations
im,lementing t.e )3t. mont. ,ay law# .owever# t.e
(oatmen are entitled to t.e )3t. mont. ,ay. @orDers
w.o are ,aid (y results are to (e ,aid t.eir )3t.
mont. ,ay.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. <.e arrangement (etween t.e (oat owner and
t.e (oat o,erators7crew mem(ers ,artooD of t.e
nature of a :oint venture. <.e (oatmen did not receive
fixed com,ensation as t.ey s.ared only in t.e cas.
collections from cargo fees and ,assenger fares# less
ex,enses for fuel# food# landing fees and s,are ,arts.
It a,,ears t.at t.ere was neit.er rig.t of control nor
actual exercise of suc. rig.t on t.e ,art of t.e (oat
owner over t.e (oatmen. It is clear t.at t.ere was no
em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, (etween t.e (oat
owner and t.e (oatmen. As suc.# t.ese (oatmen are
not entitled to overtime ,ay# .oliday ,ay and )3t.
mont. ,ay.
E?E (elati#n&6i4 /#rEing +tudent > +56##l
(199!)
!u(en Padilla entered into a written agreement win
%om(urGa College to worD for t.e latter in exc.ange
for t.e ,rivilege of studying in said institution.
!u(enPs worD was confined to Dee,ing clean t.e
lavatory facilities of t.e sc.ool. 9ne sc.ool day#
!u(en got into a fist fig.t wit. a classmate# Aictor
8onteverde# as a result of w.ic. t.e latter sustained
a fractured arm.
Aictor 8onteverde filed a civil case for damages
against !u(en Padilla# im,leading %om(urGa
College due to t.e latterPs alleged lia(ility as an
em,loyer of !u(en Padilla.
Under t.e circumstances# could %om(urGa College
(e .eld lia(le (y Aictor 8onteverde as an em,loyer
of !u(en PadillaK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
%om(urGa College is not lia(le for t.e acts of !u(en
Padilla (ecause t.ere is no em,loyer-em,loyee
relations.i, (etween t.em. As ,rovided in t.e !ules
and !egulations Im,lementing t.e La(or Code
Ct.ere is no em,loyer-em,loyee
relations.i, (etween students on one .and# and
sc.ools# colleges# or universities on t.e ot.er# w.ere
students worD wit. t.e latter in exc.ange for t.e
,rivilege to study free of c.arge# ,rovided t.e students
are given real o,,ortunity# including suc. facilities as
may (e reasona(le and necessary to finis. t.eir
c.osen courses under suc. arrangement.C
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(- %om(urGa College can (e
.eld lia(le (y Aictor 8onteverde as an em,loyer of
!u(en Padilla. A,,lying t.e control test# t.e College is
t.e em,loyer of Padilla (ecause in t.e latterPs worD of
Dee,ing clean t.e lavatory facilities of t.e sc.ool# .e is
under t.e control of t.e College as regards .is
em,loyment.
Fowever# !u(en Padilla was not acting wit.in .is
assigned tasDs. Art. /)+0. 'ew Civil Code ,rovides5
<.e o(ligation im,osed (y Art. /)21 (Juasi-delicts
is demanda(le xxx (also from em,loyers (w.o s.all
(e lia(le for t.e damages caused (y t.eir em,loyees
xxx acting wit.in t.e sco,e of t.eir assigned tasDs#
even t.oug. t.e former are not engaged in any
(usiness or industry.C It could (e argued t.at !u(en
Padilla was not acting wit.in t.e sco,e of .is
assigned tasDs- t.us# .is em,loyer# %om(urGa
College is not lia(le.
E9l#y9ent4 Alien&4 (eFui&ite& (1995)
/. P.il-'orDsgard Com,any# Inc.# a domestic
cor,oration engaged in t.e o,tics (usiness# im,orted
from Sweden .ig.ly so,.isticated and sensitive
instruments for its la(oratory. <o install t.e
instruments and o,erate t.em# t.e com,any intends
to em,loy $or:a Anders# a Swedis. tec.nician
so:ourning as a tourist in t.e P.ili,,ines.
As lawyer of t.e com,any# w.at measures will you
taDe to ensure t.e legitimate em,loyment of $or:a
Anders and at t.e same time ,rotect P.ili,,ine
la(or. ;iscuss fully.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<o ensure t.e legitimate em,loyment of $or:a
Anders# a non-resident alien# I will a,,ly at t.e
;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment for t.e
Issuance of an em,loyment ,ermit claiming t.at
t.ere is no one in t.e P.ili,,ines w.o can do t.e
worD t.at Anders is (eing asDed to do.
At t.e same time# to ,rotect P.ili,,ine la(or# I will
see to it t.at Anders will .ave an understudy w.o
will learn# (y worDing wit. Anders# .ow to install and
o,erate t.e .ig.ly so,.isticated and sensitive
instruments from Sweden.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(4
<o ,rotect P.ili,,ine La(or# t.e La(or Code ,rovides
t.at t.e alien em,loyee s.all not transfer
E9l#y9ent4 %6ildren4 <el#2 15 yr& #ld
(2004)
A s,inster sc.ool teac.er tooD ,ity on one of .er
,u,ils# a ro(ust and ,recocious )/-year old (oy
w.ose ,oor family could (arely afford t.e cost of .is
sc.ooling. S.e lives alone at .er .ouse near t.e
sc.ool after .er .ousemaid left. In t.e afternoon#
s.e lets t.e (oy do various c.ores as cleaning#
fetc.ing water and all Dinds of errands after sc.ool
.ours. S.e gives .im rice and P30.00 (efore t.e
(oy goes .ome at 2500 every nig.t. <.e sc.ool
,rinci,al learned a(out it and c.arged .er wit.
violating t.e law w.ic. ,ro.i(its t.e em,loyment of
c.ildren (elow )4 years of age. In .er defense# t.e
teac.er stated t.at t.e worD ,erformed (y .er ,u,il
is not .aGardous# and s.e invoDed t.e exce,tion
,rovided in t.e ;e,artment 9rder of ;9L& for t.e
engagement of ,ersons in domestic and .ouse.old
service.
Is .er defense tena(leK !eason. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# .er defense is not tena(le. Under Article )3* of
t.e La(or Code on Cminimum em,loya(le ageC# no
c.ild (elow )4 years of age s.all (e em,loyed
exce,t w.en .e worDs directly under t.e sole
res,onsi(ility of .is ,arents or guardian# t.e
,rovisions of t.e alleged ;e,artment 9rder of ;9L&
to t.e contrary notwit.standing. A mere ;e,artment
9rder cannot ,revail over t.e ex,ress ,ro.i(itory
,rovisions of t.e La(or Code.
&'ote( Sec. 3, RA 9231 allo!s a child belo!
1) years of age to !or" for not more than 2*
hours a !ee"+ provided# that the !or" shall
not be more than four (4) hours at any given
day+ provided# further# that he does not !or"
bet!een , o-cloc" in the evening and .
o-cloc" in the morning of the follo!ing day+
and provided# /nally# that the !or" is not
ha$ardous or deleterious to his health or
morals% 01IS IS A 233'0 4A5 A6627839
7'4: 7' ;<4: 2,# 2**3# !hich is beyond
the cut=o> period of the ?ar 3@amsA
E9l#y9ent4 .ri,er a& 1#u&e6eler > in a
%#99er5ial E&tabli&69ent (199-)
<.e weeDly worD sc.edule of a driver is as follows5
8onday# @ednesday# ?riday - ;rive t.e family car
to (ring and fetc. t.e c.ildren to and from sc.ool.
<uesday# <.ursday. Saturday - ;rive t.e family van
to fetc. merc.andise from su,,liers and deliver t.e
same to a (outiEue in a mall owned (y t.e family. Is
t.e driver a .ouse.el,erK L3MN
<.e same driver claims t.at for worD ,erformed on
<uesday# <.ursday and Saturday# .e s.ould (e ,aid
t.e minimum daily wage of a driver of a
commercial esta(lis.ment. Is t.e claim of t.e driver
validK L/MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e driver is a .ouse.el,er. A ,erson is a
.ouse.el,er or is engaged in domestic or .ouse.old
service if .e7s.e renders services in t.e em,loyerPs
.ome w.ic. are usually necessary or desira(le for
t.e maintenance and en:oyment t.ereof and includes
ministering to t.e ,ersonal comfort and convenience
of t.e mem(ers of t.e em,loyerPs .ouse.old
including t.e services of family drivers.
A family driver w.o drives t.e family van to fetc.
merc.andise from su,,liers and delivers t.e same
to a (outiEue in a mall owned (y t.e family for
w.om .e worDs s.ould (e ,aid t.e minimum daily
wage of a driver in a commercial esta(lis.ment.
<.e La(or Code (in Article )63 ,rovides t.at no
.ouse.el,er s.all (e assigned to worD in a
commercial# industrial or agricultural enter,rise at a
wage or salary rate lower t.an t.at ,rovided (y law
for agricultural or non-agricultural worDers.
E9l#y9ent4 1andi5aed E9l#yee (199-)
A lady worDer was (orn wit. a ,.ysical deformity#
s,ecifically# .ard of .earing# s,eec. im,aired# and
color (lind. Fowever# t.ese deficiencies do not
im,air .er worDing a(ility.
Can t.e em,loyer classify t.e lady worDer as a
.andica,,ed worDer so t.at .er daily wage will only
(e seventy-five ,ercent (24M of t.e a,,lica(le daily
minimum wageK L4MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# t.e em,loyer cannot classify t.e lady worDer as
a .andica,,ed worDer (ecause according to t.e
facts in t.e Euestion# .er deficiencies do not im,air
.er worDing a(ility. If .er earning ca,acity is
t.erefore not also im,aired# t.en s.e cannot (e
considered a .andica,,ed worDer.
$ecause of t.e a(ove fact# t.e em,loyer s.all not
,ay .er less t.an t.e a,,lica(le daily minimum
wage. (See Article 2+ of t.e La(or Code
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# t.e em,loyer can classify t.e lady worDer as a
.andica,,ed worDer (ecause .er earning ca,acity
may (e im,aired (y .er ,.ysical deficiencies As suc.
.andica,,ed worDer# t.e em,loyer may enter into an
em,loyment agreement wit. .er w.ere(y t.e rate to
(e ,aid to .er may (e less t.an t.e a,,lica(le legal
minimum wage (ut not less t.an 24M of suc. wage.
E9l#y9ent4 1andi5aed E9l#yee (2000)
Ana CruG .as a low IJ. S.e .as to (e told at
least t.ree times (efore s.e understands .er
daily worD assignment. Fowever# .er worD out,ut
is at least
eEual to t.e out,ut of t.e least efficient worDer in
.er worD section. Is 8s# CruG a .andica,,ed
worDerK &x,lain. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# low IJ or low efficiency does not maDe t.e
worDer C.andica,,edC in t.e contem,lation of law.
Fandica, means suc. ,.ysical or mental infirmity
t.at im,airs ca,acity to worD. <.e deficiency may
also (e due to age or in:ury. (Art 2+. La(or Code.
E9l#y9ent4 1andi5aed /#rEer&4
%#ntra5tual E9l#yee& (2006)
?or .umanitarian reasons# a (anD .ired several
.andica,,ed worDers to count and sort out
currencies. <.eir em,loyment contract was for six
(1 mont.s. <.e (anD terminated t.eir em,loyment
on t.e ground t.at t.eir contract .as ex,ired
,rom,ting t.em to file wit. t.e La(or Ar(iter a
com,laint for illegal dismissal. @ill t.eir action
,ros,erK (4M
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.eir action will not ,ros,er (ecause t.ey are
covered (y t.e fixed term em,loyment contract
w.ic. automatically la,sed at t.e end of t.e 1mont.
,eriod ($rent Sc.ool v. Qamora# %.!. 'o. 6+6*6#
?e(ruary 4# )**0- Art. /+0# La(or Code. A contract
of em,loyment for a definite ,eriod terminates on its
own term at t.e end of its ,eriod. It does not
necessarily follow t.at t.e ,arties are for(idden from
agreeing on a fixed ,eriod of time for t.e
,erformance of activities usually necessary and
desira(le in t.e usual (usiness of t.e em,loyer
(Pangilinan v. %en. 8illing# %.!. 'o. )6*3/*# July
)/# /006.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
Ies. Undenia(ly# .andica,,ed worDers are never on
eEual terms wit. t.e (anD as em,loyer. In P.ili,,ine
'ational 9il Com,any-&nergy ;evelo,ment
Cor,oration v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. *2262# 8arc. 3)# )**3#
t.e Su,reme Court set down two criteria under w.ic.
fixed contracts of em,loyment do not circumvent
security of tenure# to wit5
1 <.e fixed ,eriod of em,loyment was Dnowingly
and voluntarily agreed u,on (y t.e ,arties# wit.out any
force# duress or im,ro,er ,ressure (eing (roug.t to (ear
u,on t.e em,loyee and a(out any ot.er circumstances
vitiating .is consent- or
2 It satisfactorily a,,ears t.at t.e em,loyer and t.e
em,loyee dealt wit. eac. ot.er on more or less eEual
terms wit. no moral dominance w.atever (eing exercised
(y t.e former on t.e latter.
&ven granting t.at t.e .andica,,ed worDers and t.e
(anD agreed to term em,loyment# it could not (e said
t.at t.ey Cdealt wit. eac. ot.er on more or less eEual
terms wit. no moral dominance
w.atever (eing exercised (y t.e former over t.e
latter.C
E9l#y9ent4 1#9e2#rEer& (2000)
( 8rs. Josie Juan is t.e confidential secretary of
t.e C.airman of t.e $oard of t.e (anD. S.e is
,resently on maternity leave. In an arrangement
w.ere t.e C.airman of t.e $oard can still .ave
access to .er services# t.e (anD allows .er to worD
in .er residence during .er leave. ?or t.is ,ur,ose#
t.e (anD installed a fax mac.ine in .er residence#
and gave .er a cell,.one and a (ee,er. Is 8rs.
Juan a .omeworDer under t.e lawK &x,lain. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# s.e is actually an office worDer. S.e is not an
industrial .omeworDer w.o acce,ts worD to (e
fa(ricated or ,rocessed at .ome for a contractor#
w.ic. worD# w.en finis.ed# will (e returned to or
re,urc.ased (y said contractor. (Art. )44# La(or
Code.
E9l#y9ent4 1#u&e6eler& (2000)
a 'ova $anDing Cor,oration .as a rest.ouse and
recreational facility in t.e .ig.lands of <agaytay City
for t.e use of its to, executives and cor,orate
clients. <.e rest.ouse staff includes a caretaDer# two
cooDs and a laundrywoman. All of t.em are re,orted
to t.e Social Security System as domestic or
.ouse.old em,loyees of t.e rest.ouse and
recreational facility and not of t.e (anD. Can t.e
(anD legally consider t.e caretaDer# cooDs and
laundrywoman as domestic em,loyees of t.e
rest.ouse and not of t.e (anDK (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# t.ey are not domestic em,loyees. <.ey are (anD
em,loyees (ecause t.e rest.ouse and recreational
facility are (usiness facilities as t.ey are for use of
t.e to, executives and clients of t.e (anD. LArt. )6)#
La(or Code- A,ex 8ining Co.# Inc.
v. 'L!C# )*1 SC!A /4) ()**)- <raders !oyal
$anD v. 'L!C. %.!. 'o. )/2+16# ;ecem(er //.
)***N
E9l#y9ent4 ;in#r& (2006)
;etermine w.et.er t.e following minors s.ould (e
,ro.i(ited from (eing .ired and from ,erforming
t.eir res,ective duties indicated .ereunder5 (4M
). A )2-year old (oy worDing as miner at t.e
@alwadi 8ining Cor,oration.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
It is a(solutely Pro.i(ited for any ,erson (elow )+
years of age to (e em,loyed in .aGardous worD#
.armful to .ealt. and safety (Sec. 3# !ule )/# $ooD
3# ties Im,lementing t.e La(or Code# including
construction worD# logging# firefig.ting# mining#
Euarrying# stevedoring# docD worD# dee, sea fis.ing
and mec.aniGed fis.ing (Sec. +L/N# !ule )# $ooD 6#
!ules Im,lementing t.e La(or Code.
/
.
An ))-year old (oy w.o is an accom,lis.ed singer
and ,erformer in different ,arts of t.e country.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Under !A. 21)0# Section )/# as amended (y !A.
'o. */3) states t.at5 &m,loyment of c.ildren R
c.ildren (elow )4 years of age s.all not (e
em,loyed (Art. )3*# La(or Code exce,t w.en t.e
following conditions are met5
(a @.en t.e c.ildPs ,artici,ation in ,u(lic
entertainment is essential-
(( <.ere is a written contract a,,roved (y t.e
;9L& and signed (y t.e c.ildPs ,arents or legal
guardians# wit. t.e ex,ress consent of t.e c.ild-
and
(c t.e em,loyer w.o em,loys t.e c.ild must
secure a worD ,ermit from t.e ;9L&.
3. A )4-year old girl worDing as a li(rary
assistant in a girlsP .ig. sc.ool.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
S.e may worD as a li(rary assistant ,rovided5
() <.e em,loyment does not endanger .er life#
safety# morals and normal develo,ment-
(/ S.e is given t.e o,,ortunity for ,rimary or
secondary education- and
(3 <.e em,loyment does not exceed + .ours a day
and 60 .ours a weeD (Sees. )/ = )6# !A. 21)0# as
amended (y !A. */3).
6. A )1-year old girl worDing as model
,romoting alco.olic (everages.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Section )6# Article +# !A. 21)0# as amended (y
Section 4# !A. */3) states t.at a c.ild s.all (e
,ro.i(ited to act as a model in any advertisement
directly or indirectly ,romoting alco.olic (everages#
intoxicating drinDs# to(acco and its (y,roducts#
gam(ling or any form of violence or ,ornogra,.y.
4. A )2-year old (oy worDing as a dealer in a
casino.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Section )6# Article +# !A. 21)0# as amended (y
Section 4# !A. */3) ,ro.i(its t.e (oy from worDing as
a dealer in a casino as t.is ,romotes gam(ling.
8oreover# ;9L& ;e,t. 9rder 'o. 06# series of )***#
ex,ressly ,ro.i(its em,loyment of CteenagersC in
gam(ling .alls.
E9l#y9ent4 ;in#r&4 1aIard#u& /#rE (2002)
$. Iou were asDed (y a ,aint manufacturing
com,any regarding t.e ,ossi(le em,loyment as a
mixer of a ,erson# aged seventeen ()2# w.o s.all
(e directly under t.e care of t.e section su,ervisor.
@.at advice would you giveK &x,lain (riefly. (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
$. I will advise t.e ,aint manufacturing com,any
t.at ft cannot .ire a ,erson w.o is aged seventeen
()2. Art )3* (c of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at a
,erson (elow eig.teen ()+ years of age s.all not (e
allowed to worD in an undertaDing w.ic. is
.aGardous or deleterious in nature as determined (y
t.e Secretary of La(or. Paint manufacturing .as
(een classified (y t.e Secretary of La(or as a
.aGardous worD.
E9l#y9ent4 (adi#?"3 +6#2 1#&t4
EBirati#n #$ "er9 (2005)
() 8alyn Aartan is a well-Dnown radio-<A s.ow .ost.
S.e signed a contract wit. OIQ &ntertainment
'etworD to .ost a one-.our daily talD s.ow w.ere s.e
interviews various cele(rities on to,ical su(:ects t.at
s.e .erself selects. S.e was ,aid a mont.ly
remuneration of P300#000.00. <.e ,rogram .ad (een
airing for almost two years w.en s,onsorsP advertising
revenues dwindled# constraining t.e networD to cancel
t.e s.ow u,on t.e ex,iration of its latest contract wit.
8s. Aartan. <.e talD-s.ow .ost ,rotested t.e
discontinuance of .er mont.ly talent fee# claiming t.at
it was tantamount to .er illegal dismissal from t.e
networD since s.e .as already attained t.e status of a
regular em,loyee. (1M
(a) As the networ"'s legal counsel$ how would
you %ustify its decision to cancel &s' (artan's
program which in effect terminated her services
in the process?
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
As t.e networDPs legal counsel# I will argue t.at 8s.
Aartan is under contract on a fixed term em,loyment
(asis. <.e networD cancelled t.e s.ow Cu,on t.e
ex,iration of its latest contract wit. 8s. Aartan.C
Fence# t.is does not involve dismissal (ut an
ex,iration of term. (?elix v. $uenaseda#
%.!. 'o. )0*206# January )2#)**4- St. <.eresaPs
Sc.ool of 'ovalic.es ?oundation v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o.
)//*44# A,ril )4# )**+
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
As t.e networDPs counsel# t.ere was no termination
of .er services# only t.e ex,iration of .er contract#
(eing an inde,endent contractor. (SonGa v. A$S-
C$'# %.!. 'o. )3+04)# June )0# /006
(b) As counsel for the tal")show host$ how
would you argue your case?
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(7
As a radio-<A talD s.ow .ost# 8s. Aartan is
,erforming an activity w.ic. is necessary and
desira(le in t.e usual trade or (usiness of OIQ
&ntertainment 'etworD. Fence# 8s. Aartan is a
regular em,loyee and cannot (e terminated exce,t
for cause and only after due ,rocess. <.e
cancellation of t.e ,rogram is tantamount to closure
(ut OIQ &ntertainment 'etworD did not com,ly wit.
t.e ,rocedural reEuirements of law#
i.e.# 30 days notice to 8s. Aartan and to ;9L& ,rior
to t.e intended date of termination.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
As counsel for t.e talD s.ow .ost# I will argue t.at
s.e is a regular em,loyee. ?irst# s.e ,erforms :o(
t.at is necessary and desira(le to t.e nature of t.e
(usiness of t.e em,loyer- Second# s.e serves for at
least one () year w.ic. is an indication of regular
em,loyment.
E9l#y9ent4 /#9en4 Anti?+eBual
1ara&&9ent A5t (2000)
A Personnel 8anager# w.ile interviewing an
attractive female a,,licant for em,loyment# stared
directly at .er for ,rolonged ,eriods# al(eit in a
friendly manner. After t.e interview# t.e manager
accom,anied t.e a,,licant to t.e door# s.ooD .er
.and and ,atted .er on t.e s.oulder. Fe also asDed
t.e a,,licant if .e could invite .er for dinner and
dancing at some future time. ;id t.e Personnel
8anager# (y t.e a(ove acts# commit sexual
.arassmentK !eason. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# (ecause t.e Personnel 8anager# a man# is in
a ,osition to grant or not to grant a favor (a :o( to
t.e a,,licant. Under t.e circumstances# inviting t.e
a,,licant for dinner or dancing creates a situation
.ostile or unfriendly to t.e a,,licantPs c.ances for a
:o( if s.e turns down t.e invitation. LSec. 3(a(3#
!.A. 'o. 2+22# Anti-Sexual Farassment ActN.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.ere is no sexual .arassment (ecause t.ere was
no solicitation of sexual favor in exc.ange of
em,loyment. 'eit.er was t.ere any intimidating#
.ostile or offensive environment for t.e a,,licant.
1ara&&9ent A5t (2000)
( In t.e course of an interview# anot.er female
a,,licant inEuired from t.e same Personnel 8anager
if s.e .ad t.e ,.ysical attri(utes reEuired for t.e
,osition s.e a,,lied for. <.e Personnel 8anager
re,lied5 CIou will (e more attractive if you will wear
micro-mini dresses wit.out t.e undergarments t.at
ladies normally wear.C ;id t.e Personnel 8anager# (y
t.e a(ove re,ly# commit an act of sexual .arassmentK
!eason. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# t.e Personnel 8anagerPs re,ly to t.e a,,licantPs
Euestion w.et.er s.e Eualifies for t.e ,osition s.e is
a,,lying for does not constitute sexual .arassment.
<.e Personnel 8anager did not asD for or insinuate a
reEuest for a sexual favor in return for a favora(le
action on .er a,,lication for a :o(. $ut t.e 8anagerPs
statement may (e offensive if attire or ,.ysical looD is
not a criterion for t.e :o( (eing a,,lied for.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
Ies. <.e remarDs would result in an offensive or
.ostile environment for t.e em,loyee. 8oreover#
t.e remarDs did not give due regard to t.e
a,,licantsP feelings and it is a c.auvinistic disdain of
.er .onor# :ustifying t.e finding of sexual .arassment
LAillarama v. 'L!C# /31 SC!A /+0 ()**6N
1ara&&9ent A5t (2004)
A. Pedrito 8asculado# a college graduate from
t.e ,rovince# tried .is lucD in t.e city and landed a :o(
as utility7maintenance man at t.e ware.ouse of a (ig
s.o,,ing mall. After worDing as a casual em,loyee
for six mont.s# .e signed a contract for ,ro(ationary
em,loyment for six mont.s. $eing well-(uilt and
,.ysically attractive# .is su,ervisor# 8r. Fercules
$araD# tooD s,ecial interest to (efriend .im. @.en
.is ,ro(ationary ,eriod was a(out to ex,ire# .e was
sur,rised w.en one afternoon after worDing .ours#
8r. $araD followed .im to t.e men>s comfort room.
After seeing t.at no one else was around# 8r. $araD
,laced .is arm over Pedrito>s s.oulder and softly
said5 BIou .ave great ,otential to (ecome regular
em,loyee and I t.inD I can give you a favora(le
recommendation. Can you come over to my condo
unit on Saturday evening so we can .ave a little
drinDK I>m alone# and I>m sure you want to stay
longer wit. t.e com,any.H
Is 8r. $araD lia(le for sexual .arassment committed
in a worD-related or em,loyment environmentK (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# t.e elements of sexual .arassment are all
,resent. <.e act of 8r. $araD was committed in a
worD,lace. 8r. $araD# as su,ervisor of Pedrito
8asculado# .as aut.ority# influence and moral
ascendancy over 8asculado.
$. %iven t.e s,ecific circumstances mentioned
in t.e Euestion liDe 8r. $araD following 8asculado to
t.e comfort room# etc. 8r. $araD was reEuesting a
sexual favor from 8asculado for a favora(le
recommendation regarding t.e latterPs em,loyment.
It is not im,ossi(le for a male# w.o is a .omosexual#
to asD for a sexual favor from anot.er male.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
I do not see any sexual favor (eing solicited. Faving
a Clittle drinDC in 8r. $araDPs Condo Unit# as condition
for a Cfavora(le recommendation is not one of t.e
,ro.i(ited acts enumerated in Sec. 3 (a of !.A.
2+22# ot.erwise Dnown as t.e Anti-Sexual
Farassment Act of )**4.
1ara&&9ent ,&7 .i&5ri9inati#n again&t
/#9en (2008)
Can an individual# t.e sole ,ro,rietor of a (usiness
enter,rise# (e said to .ave violated t.e Anti-Sexual
Farassment Act of )**4 if .e clearly discriminates
against women in t.e ado,tion of ,olicy standards
for em,loyment and ,romotions in t.e enter,riseK
&x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
@.en an em,loyer discriminates against women in
t.e ado,tion of ,olicy standards for em,loyment
and ,romotion in .is enter,rise# .e is not guilty of
sexual .arassment. Instead# t.e em,loyer is guilty
of discrimination against women em,loyees w.ic. is
declared to (e unlawful (y t.e La(or Code.
?or an em,loyer to commit sexual .arassment# .e
-as a ,erson of aut.ority# influence or moral
ascendancy -s.ould .ave demanded# reEuested or
ot.erwise reEuired a sexual favor from .is em,loyee
w.et.er t.e demand# reEuest or reEuirement for
su(mission is acce,ted (y t.e o(:ect of said act.
E9l#y9ent4 /#9en4 .i&5ri9inati#n by
rea&#n #$ Age (199-)
At any given time# a,,roximately ninety ,ercent
(*0M of t.e ,roduction worDforce of a semi-
conductor com,any are females. Seventy-five
,ercent (24M of t.e female worDers are married and
of c.ild-(earing years. It is im,erative t.at t.e
Com,any must o,erate wit. a minimum num(er of
a(sences to meet strict delivery sc.edules. In view
of t.e very .ig. num(er of lost worDing .ours due to
a(sences for family reasons and maternity leaves#
t.e Com,any ado,ted a ,olicy t.at it will em,loy
married women as ,roduction worDers only if t.ey
are at least t.irty-five (34 years of age. Is t.e ,olicy
violative of any lawK L4MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# it is violative of Article )60 of t.e La(or Code
w.ic. ,rovides t.at no em,loyer s.all discriminate
against any ,erson in res,ect to terms and
conditions of em,loyment on account of .is age.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e ,olicy of t.e com,any to em,loy married women
as ,roduction worDers only if t.ey are at least t.irty-
five (34 years of age is valid. <.ere is no ,ro.i(ition
in t.e La(or Code for suc. an em,loyer to exercise
t.is management function. <.ere is a :ustifia(le (asis
for t.e com,any ,olicy. i.e.# t.e need for continuity of
,roduction wit. minimum a(sences (ecause of t.e
,eculiar (usiness conditions and needs of t.e
com,any# i.e.# very tig.t delivery sc.edules. <.e
com,any res,ects t.e institution of marriage as
s.own (y t.e fact t.at it em,loys married women.
<.ere is no violation of t.e sti,ulation against
marriage (Art.
)31# and ,ro.i(ited acts (Art. )32T of t.e La(or
Code.
+"I)) AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
It may (e noted t.at t.e ,olicy is directed only to
married women. <.is may violate t.e s,irit of Article
)31 of t.e La(or Code w.ic. ,rovides t.at it s.all (e
unlawful for an em,loyer to reEuire as a condition of
em,loyment or continuation of em,loyment t.at a
woman s.all not get married.
E9l#y9ent4 /#9en4 .i&5ri9inati#n by
rea&#n #$ ;arriage (1995)
?il-Aire Aviation Com,any (?IL-AI!& is a new airline
com,any recruiting flig.t attendants for its domestic
flig.ts. It reEuires t.at t.e a,,licant (e single# not
more t.an /6 years old# attractive# and familiar wit.
t.ree (3 ma:or Aisayan dialects# viG5 Ilongo#
Ce(uano and @aray. Lourdes# /3 years old# was
acce,ted as s.e ,ossessed all t.e Eualifications.
After ,assing t.e ,ro(ationary ,eriod# Lourdes
disclosed t.at s.e got married w.en s.e was )+
years old (ut t.e marriage was already in t.e
,rocess of (eing annulled on t.e ground t.at .er
.us(and was afflicted wit. a sexually transmissi(le
disease at t.e time of t.e cele(ration of t.eir
marriage. As a result of t.is revelation# Lourdes was
not .ired as a regular flig.t attendant. ConseEuently#
s.e filed a com,laint against ?IL-AI!& alleging t.at
t.e ,re-em,loyment Eualifications violate relevant
,rovisions of t.e La(or Code and are against ,u(lic
,olicy. Is t.e contention of Lourdes tena(leK ;iscuss
fully.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e contention of Lourdes is tena(le. @.en s.e
was not .ired as a regular flig.t attendant (y ?IL-
AI!& (ecause s.e disclosed t.at s.e got married
w.en s.e was )+ years old. <.e airline com,any
violated t.e ,rovision of t.e La(or Code w.ic.
states5
CIt s.all (e unlawful for an em,loyer to reEuire
as a condition of em,loyment or continuation of
em,loyment t.at a woman em,loyee s.all not
get married# or to sti,ulate ex,ressly or tacitly
t.at u,on getting married a woman em,loyee
s.all (e deemed resigned or se,arated# or to
actually dismiss# disc.arge# discriminate or
ot.erwise ,re:udice a woman em,loyee merely
(y reason of .er marriage.C
E9l#y9ent4 /#9en4 di&5ri9inati#n4 illegal
di&9i&&al (199!)
;inna Ignacio was .ired (y Stag UaraoDe Clu( as a
guest relations officer. ;inna was also reEuired to
sing and dance wit. guests of t.e clu(. In ;inna
IgnacioPs em,loyment contract# w.ic. s.e signed#
t.e following sti,ulations a,,eared5
) Com,ensation5 <i,s and commissions coming
from guests s.all (e su(:ected to )4M deduction.
1 Fours of worD5 4 P.8. u, to / A.8. dairy including
Sundays and Folidays
2 9t.er conditions5 8ust maintain a (ody weig.t of
*4 I(s.# remain single. 8arriage or ,regnancy will (e
considered as a valid ground for a termination of
em,loyment.
A year later# ;inna Ignaclo reEuested to go on leave
(ecause s.e would (e getting married to one of t.e
clu(Ps regular guests. <.e management of t.e clu(
dismissed .er.
;inna filed a com,laint for illegal dismissal# nig.t s.ift
differential ,ay# (acDwages# overtime ,ay and .oliday
,ay. ;iscuss t.e merits of ;innaPs com,laint.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e first issue to (e resolved is5 Is ;inna Ignacio an
em,loyee of t.e Star UaraoDe Clu(K Ies# s.e is an
em,loyee ,er t.e ,rovision of t.e La(or Code t.at
states5 CAny woman w.o is ,ermitted or suffered to
worD# wit. or wit.out com,ensation# in any nig.t
clu(# cocDtail lounge# massage clinic# (ar or similar
esta(lis.ment# under t.e effective control or
su,ervision of t.e em,loyer for a su(stantial ,eriod
s.all (e considered an em,loyee of suc.
esta(lis.ment for ,ur,oses of la(or and social
legislationC(Art. )3+. In ;innaPs conditions of
em,loyment .ave all t.e aforesaid c.aracteristics.
S.e .as (een illegally dismissed. <.e La(or Code
ex,ressly ,rovides# t.at CIt s.all (e unlawful for an
em,loyer to reEuire as a condition of em,loyment or
continuation of em,loyment t.at a woman em,loyee
s.all not get married# or to sti,ulate ex,ressly or
tacitly t.at u,on getting married a woman em,loyee
s.all (e deemed resigned or se,arated# or to actually
dismiss# disc.arge# discriminate or ot.erwise
,re:udice a woman em,loyee merely (y reason of
.er marriage.C (Art. )31
$ecause of .er illegal dismissal# s.e is entitled to
(acDwages from t.e time .er com,ensation was
wit..eld from .er to t.e time of .er actual
reinstatement.
;inna is not entitled to nig.t differential ,ay# overtime
,ay and .oliday ,ay (ecause s.e (elongs to one of
t.ose classes of em,loyees w.o are not covered (y
t.e ,rovision of t.e La(or Code ,roviding for t.ese
(enefits. S.e is a worDer ,aid (y results# since .er
com,ensation is determined (y t.e ti,s and
commission t.at s.e receives from .er guests.
E9l#y9ent4 /#9en4 +eBual 1ara&&9ent
A5t (2005)
Carissa# a comely (anD teller# was due for .er
,erformance evaluation w.ic. is conducted every
six mont.s. A rating of CoutstandingC is rewarded
wit. a merit increase. S.e was given a C(elow
averageC rating in t.e last two ,eriods. According
to t.e (anDPs ,ersonnel ,olicy# a t.ird rating of
C(elow averageC will result in termination. 8r.
Perry @inDle called Carissa into .is office a few
days (efore su(mitting .er ,erformance ratings.
Fe invited .er to s,end t.e nig.t wit. .im in .is
rest .ouse. S.e ,olitely declined. Undaunted# 8r.
@inDle renewed .is invitation# and Carissa again
declined. Fe t.en warned .er to Cwatc. outC
(ecause s.e mig.t regret it later on. A few days
later# Carissa found t.at .er t.ird and last rating
was again C(elow average.C
Carissa t.en filed a com,laint for sexual .arassment
against 8r. @inDle wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or and
&m,loyment. In .is counter-affidavit# .e claimed t.at
.e was enamored wit. Carissa. Fe denied .aving
demanded# muc. less received any sexual favors
from .er in consideration of giving .er an
CoutstandingC rating. Fe also alleged t.at t.e
com,laint was ,remature (ecause Carissa failed to
refer t.e matter to t.e Committee on ;ecorum and
;isci,line for investigation and resolution (efore t.e
case against .im was filed. In .er re,ly affidavit#
Carissa claimed t.at t.ere was no need for a ,rior
referral to t.e Committee on ;ecorum and ;isci,line
of .er com,laint. !esolve t.e case wit. reasons. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
I will .old 8r. Perry @inDle guilty of sexual
.arassment. <.is resolution is ,redicated mainly
u,on t.e following considerations5
() 8r. Perry @inDle exercises aut.ority# influence
or moral ascendancy over Carissa-
(/ 8r. @inDlePs insistence in inviting Carissa Cto
s,end t.e nig.t wit. .im in .is rest .ouseC im,lies a
reEuest or demand for a sexual favor-
(3 8r. @inDlePs warning clearly manifests t.at t.e
refusal of t.e sexual favor would :eo,ardiGe
CarissaPs continued em,loyment- and
(6 8r. @inDlePs invitation for a sexual favor will
result in an intimidating# .ostile# or ot.erwise
offensive worDing environment for Carissa.
Carissa is correct in stating t.at t.ere was no need
for ,rior referral to t.e Committee on ;ecorum and
;isci,line of .er com,laint (ecause not.ing in t.e
law ,recludes t.e victim of sexual .arassment from
instituting a se,arate and inde,endent action for
damages and ot.er affirmative relief. (Sec. 1# !.A.
'o. 2+22
E9l#y9ent4 /#9en4 +eBual 1ara&&9ent
A5t (2006)
As a condition for .er em,loyment# Jose,.ine
signed an agreement wit. .er em,loyer t.at s.e
Jose,.ine got married. S.e asDed 9wen# t.e
,ersonnel manager# if t.e com,any can
reconsider t.e agreement. Fe told Jose,.ine .e
can do somet.ing a(out it# insinuating some
sexual favors. S.e com,lained to .ig.er
aut.orities (ut to no avail. S.e .ires you as .er
counsel. @.at action or actions will you taDeK
&x,lain. (4M
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
I will file a criminal case against 9wen for violation
of !A. 'o. 2+22# ot.erwise Dnown as t.e CAnti-
Sexual Farassment Act of )**4.C
I will also file a se,arate and inde,endent action for
damages against 9wen. $y reason of t.e fact t.at
t.e Com,any did not taDe immediate action t.ereon#
I will include t.e Com,any in t.e civil suit for
damages and maDe it :ointly and severally lia(le
wit. 9wen.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
Aside from filing a criminal case against 9wen for
violation of t.e Sexual Farassment Law (!.A. 2+22
and a se,arate action for damages# im,leading t.e
com,any# I will also file an action for constructive
dismissal against t.e Com,any since t.e em,loyee
was ,laced in a :o( atmos,.ere im,osing o,,ressive
worD conditions contrary to ,u(lic ,olicy and morals.
Indeendent %#ntra5t#r (2001)
(a COC is a (ona fide service contractor ,roviding
man,ower services to various com,anies# ,ossessing
t.e necessary ca,ital and eEui,ment needed to
effectively carry out its commitments. CIC is an
em,loyee of COC and assigned to worD as a :anitor in
Com,any CQC. In t.e course of IPs assignment# QPs
su,ervisors and em,loyees would give ver(al
instructions to I as to .ow and w.ere to ,erform .is
worD. O ,ays I salary. Su(seEuently# IPs services
were terminated (y O. I sued Q for Illegal dismissal.
8ay IPs case against Q ,ros,erK @.yK (/M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
IPs case against Q will not ,ros,er# (ecause Q is not
t.e em,loyer of I. <.e em,loyer of CIC is COC. CIP
would (e an em,loyee of CQC if COC .ere is a la(or-
only contractor (ut O is not a la(or-only contractor.
Fe ,ossesses t.e necessary ca,ital and eEui,ment
needed to effectively carry out its commitment as a
service contractor.
A,,lying t.e control test# t.e fact t.at CQPsC
su,ervisors and em,loyees give ver(al instructions
to I as to .ow and w.ere to ,erform .is worD does
not necessarily mean t.at t.ere(y .e is under t.e
control of Q as regards .is em,loyment as long as O#
as service contractor# actually directs t.e worD
of I. It s.ould also (e noted t.at O ,ays t.e salary
of I as t.e em,loyee of t.e former.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(4
Ies# IPs case against Com,any CQC will ,ros,er.
Com,any CQC will (e deemed t.e direct em,loyer
(ecause t.e Com,any directly and s,ecifically
controlled t.e manner (y w.ic. t.e worD s.ould (e
done and# and (y doing so also t.e result. (See
<raders !oyal $anD vs. 'L!C# ;ecem(er /. )***.
<.e ,resence of t.e element or factor of control# w.ic.
is t.e most im,ortant factor in determining t.e
existence of an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, is
,resent. In !eligious of t.e Airgin 8ary vs. 'L!C#
%.!. 'o. )03101# 9cto(er )3# )***# t.e Su,reme
Court# ruled5
As this Co"rt hs #onsistent&! r"&ed( the power
of control is t.e
most decisive
determining t.e
existence of
em,loyee
relations.i,.
fact
or
em
,lo
yer-
i
n
Indeendent
%#ntra5t#r
Pndo!( n e&e#troni#s te#hni#in( wor*ed within
t.e ,remises of Perfect <riangle# an auto accessory
s.o,. Fe filed a com,laint for illegal dismissal#
overtime ,ay and ot.er (enefits against Perfect
<riangle# w.ic. refused to ,ay .is claims on t.e
ground t.at Pandoy was not its em,loyee (ut was an
inde,endent contractor. It was common ,ractice for
s.o,s liDe Perfect <riangle to collect t.e service fees
from customers and ,ay t.e same to t.e inde,endent
contractors at t.e end of eac. weeD. <.e auto s.o,
ex,lained t.at Pandoy was liDe a ,artner w.o worDed
wit.in its ,remises# using ,arts ,rovided (y t.e s.o,#
(ut ot.erwise Pandoy was free to render service in
t.e ot.er auto s.o,s. 9n t.e ot.er .and# Pandoy
insisted t.at .e still was entitled to t.e (enefits
(ecause .e was loyal to Perfect <riangle# it (eing a
fact t.at .e did not ,erform worD for anyone else. Is
Pandoy correctK &x,lain (riefly. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Pandoy is not correct. Fe is not an em,loyee
(ecause .e does not meet t.e fourfold test for .im
to (e an em,loyee of Perfect <riangle. All t.at .e
could claim is5 .e worDed wit.in t.e ,remises of
Perfect <riangle. Pandoy was '9< engaged as an
em,loyee (y Perfect <riangle. Fe was '9< ,aid
wages (y Perfect <riangle. Perfect <riangle does
'9< .ave t.e ,ower to dismiss .im alt.oug. Perfect
<riangle may not continue to allow .im to worD wit.in
its ,remises. And most im,ortant of all# Pandoy was
'9< under t.e control of Perfect <riangle as regards
t.e worD .e ,erforms for customers.
<.e Su,reme Court .as ruled5 CIn starD contrast to
t.e Com,anyPs regular em,loyees# t.ere are
inde,endent# free lance o,erators w.o are
,ermitted (y t.e Com,any to ,osition t.emselves
,roximate to t.e Com,any ,remises. <.ese
inde,endent o,erators are allowed (y t.e Com,any
to wait on Com,any customers w.o would (e
reEuiring t.eir services. In exc.ange for t.e ,rivileges
of favora(le recommendation (y t.e Com,any and
immediate access to t.e customers in need of t.eir
services# t.ese inde,endent o,erators allow t.e
Com,any to collect t.eir service fee from t.e
customer and t.is fee is given (acD to t.e
Inde,endent o,erator at t.e end of t.e weeD. In
effect# t.ey do not earn fixed wages from t.e
Com,any as t.eir varia(le fees are earned (y t.em
from t.e customers of t.e Com,any. <.e Com,any
.as no control over and does not restrict t.e
met.odology or t.e means and manner (y w.ic.
t.ese o,erators ,erform t.eir worD. <.ese o,erators
are not su,ervised (y any em,loyee of t.e Com,any
since t.e results of t.eir worD is controlled (y t.e
customers w.o .ire t.em. LiDewise# t.e Com,any
.as no control as an em,loyer over t.ese o,erators.
<.ey are not su(:ect to t.e regular .ours and days of
worD and may come and go as t.ey wis.. <.ey are
not su(:ect to any disci,linary measures from t.e
Com,any# save merely for t.e in.erent rules of
general (e.avior and good conductC
V
Us.io 8arDeting v. 'L!C# /*6 SC!A 123()**+N
Indeendent %#ntra5t#r ,&7 )ab#r?0nly
%#ntra5ting4 A#ur?A#ld "e&t (2000)
8etro %rocery Inc. arranged wit. 8r. Juan ;ado# a
$arangay C.airman# to ,rovide t.e grocery wit.
worDers w.o will worD as cas.iers# (ag (oys# s.elf
counter .el,ers and sanitation worDers. <.e grocery
will ,ay 8r. ;ado an amount eEuivalent to t.e direct
and .idden costs of t.e wages of eac. worDer
assigned# ,lus ten ,ercent ()0M to cover t.e
administrative costs related to t.eir arrangement. 8r.
;ado# in turn# will ,ay directly t.e worDers t.eir
wages. As far as t.e worDers are concerned# 8r. ;ado
is t.eir em,loyer. A grou, of concerned worDers
consulted you if 8r# ;ado is really under t.e law t.eir
em,loyer.
A. Fow will you analyGe t.e ,ro(lem in order
to formulate your answerK (3M
$. @.at is t.e legal significance# if any# of t.e
Euestion of t.e concerned worDers as to w.o is t.eir
em,loyerK (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
a I will analyGe t.e ,ro(lem (y a,,lying t.e fourfold
test of em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,. I will examine if
8r. ;ado exercises ,ower of control or su,ervision over
t.e worDersP manner and met.od of doing t.eir worD.
Control is t.e most im,ortant factor in examining
em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,. <.e ot.er factors are
.iring# ,ayment of wages# and ,ower to dismiss# I will
also examine w.et.er t.ere was :o( contracting or
la(or-only contracting.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
a 8y analytical frameworD will (e an analysis of t.e
law on Inde,endent contractor and la(or only
contracting.
If t.ere is a valid I';&P&';&'< C9'<!AC<9!
situation# 8r. ;ado will (e t.e direct em,loyer# and
t.e 8etro %rocery will (e t.e indirect em,loyer.
If t.ere is a LA$9!-C9'<!AC<9! only relations.i,#
t.e 8etro %rocery will (e t.e em,loyer as it directly
.ired t.e em,loyees.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
( <.e legal significance is t.e determination of
em,loyee-em,loyer relations.i,# w.ic. gives rise to
certain rig.ts and o(ligation of (ot. em,loyer and
em,loyee# suc. as SSS mem(ers.i,# union
mem(ers.i,# security of tenure# etc.
Indeendent %#ntra5t#r4 )iabilitie& (2004)
A. Clean 8an,ower Inc. (C8I .ad ,rovided :anitorial
services to t.e 'ational &conomic ;evelo,ment
Aut.ority ('&;A since A,ril )*++. Its service
contract was renewed every t.ree mont.s. Fowever#
in t.e (idding .eld on July )**/# C8I was
disEualified and excluded. In )**3# six :anitors of
C8I formerly assigned at '&;A filed a com,laint for
under,ayment of wages. $ot. C8I and '&;A were
im,leaded as res,ondents for failure to com,ly wit.
'C! @age 9rders 'os. 0) and 0/# w.ic. tooD effect
on 'ovem(er )# )**0 and January /# )**/#
res,ectively.
S.ould '&;A# a government agency su(:ect to
(udgetary constraints# (e .eld lia(le solidarily wit.
C8I for t.e ,ayment of salary differentials due t.e
com,lainantsK Cite t.e legal (asis of your answer.
(4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'&;A s.all (e .eld solidarily lia(le wit. C8I for t.e
,ayment of salary differentials due to t.e
com,lainants# (ecause '&;A is t.e indirect em,loyer
of said com,lainants. <.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at
xxx (A ,erson# ,artners.i,# association or
cor,oration w.ic.# not (eing an em,loyer# contracts
wit. an inde,endent contractor for t.e ,erformance of
any worD# tasD# :o( or ,ro:ectC xxx Cs.all (e :ointly and
severally lia(le wit. .is contractor or su(contractor to
suc. em,loyees (of t.e contractor or su(contractor
to t.e extent of worD ,erformed under t.e contract
xxx.C (Arts. )01 and )02# La(or Code
)ab#r?0nly %#ntra5t ,&7 J#b %#ntra5ting
(199!)
;istinguis. (etween C:o( contractingC and Cla(or-
only contracting.C
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
@.en a ,erson# not (eing an em,loyer# contracts wit.
an inde,endent contractor for t.e ,erformance of any
worD# tasD# :o( or ,ro:ect# t.ere is CJ9$
C9'<!AC<I'%.C @.en t.e inde,endent contractor
does t.e worD t.at is contracted out# .e is not under
t.e control of t.e ,erson w.o contracted out t.e worD
to (e done.
In CLA$9!-9'LI C9'<!AC<I'%C# a ,erson
su,,lies worDers to an em,loyer. Said ,erson does
not .ave su(stantial ca,ital or investments in t.e
form of tools# eEui,ment# mac.ineries# worD
,remises# among ot.ers# and t.e worDers recruited
and ,laced (y suc. ,erson are ,erforming activities
related to t.e ,rinci,al (usiness of t.e em,loyer to
w.om t.e worDers are su,,lied.
)ab#r?0nly %#ntra5t#r (2002)
Sta. 8onica Plywood Cor,oration entered into a
contract wit. Arnold for t.e milling of lum(er as well
as t.e .auling of waste wood ,roducts. <.e com,any
,rovided t.e eEui,ment and tools (ecause Arnold
.ad neit.er tools and eEui,ment nor ca,ital for t.e
:o(. Arnold# on t.e ot.er .and# .ired .is friends#
relatives and neig.(ors for t.e :o(. <.eir wages were
,aid (y Sta. 8onica Plywood Cor,. to Arnold# (ased
on t.eir ,roduction or t.e num(er of worDers and t.e
time used in certain areas of worD. All worD activities
and sc.edules were fixed (y t.e com,any.
A. Is Arnold a :o( contractorK &x,lain (riefly. (/M
$. @.o is lia(le for t.e claims of t.e worDers
.ired (y ArnoldK &x,lain (riefly. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A. 'o. In two cases decided (y t.e Su,reme Court# it
was .eld t.at t.ere is C:o( contractingC w.ere () t.e
contractor carries on an inde,endent (usiness and
undertaDes t.e contract worD in .is own account#
under .is own res,onsi(ility according to .is own
manner and met.od# free from t.e control and
direction of .is em,loyer or ,rinci,al in all matters
connected wit. t.e ,erformance of t.e worD exce,t
as to t.e results t.ereof- and (/ t.e contractor .as
su(stantial ca,ital or investment in t.e form of tools#
eEui,ment# mac.ineries# worD ,remises and ot.er
materials w.ic. are necessary in t.e conduct of .is
(usiness. LLim v. 'L!C# 303 SC!A 63/ ()***-
$aguio v. 'L!C# /0/ SC!A 614()**)N
In t.e ,ro(lem given# Arnold did not .ave sufficient
ca,ital or in vestment for one. ?or anot.er Arnold
was not free from t.e control and direction of Sta.
8onica Plywood Cor,. (ecause all worD activities
and sc.edules were fixed (y t.e com,any.
<.erefore# Arnold is not a :o( contractor. Fe is
engaged in la(or-only contracting.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
$. Sta. 8onica Plywood Cor,. is lia(le for t.e claims
of t.e worDers .ired (y Arnold. A finding t.at Arnold
is a la(or only contractor is eEuivalent to declaring
t.at t.ere exist an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,
(etween Sta. 8onica Plywood Cor,. and worDers
.ired (y Arnold. <.is is so (ecause Arnold is
considered a mere agent of Sta. 8onica Plywood
Cor,. LLim v. 'L!C# 303 SC!A 63/# ()***- $aguio
et al# v. 'L!C# /0/ SC!A 614 ()**)N
)ab#r?0nly %#ntra5t#r ,&7 Indeendent
%#ntra5t#r (1994)
) @.at is a Cla(or-onlyC contractK / ;istinguis. t.e
lia(ilities of an em,loyer w.o engages t.e services
of a (onafide Cinde,endent contractorC from one
w.o engages a Cla(or-onlyC contractorK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
) CLA$9!-9'LIC C9'<!AC< is a contract
(etween an em,loyer and a ,erson w.o su,,lies
worDers to suc. em,loyer w.ere t.e ,erson
su,,lying worDers does not .ave su(stantial ca,ital
or investment in t.e form of tools# eEui,ment#
mac.ineries# worD ,remises# among ot.ers# and t.e
worDers recruited and ,laced (y suc. ,erson are
,erforming activities w.ic. are directly related to t.e
,rinci,al (usiness of suc. em,loyer. (Art. )01# La(or
Code
/ A ,erson w.o engages t.e services of a (ona fide
CI';&P&';&'< C9'<!AC<9!C for t.e
,erformance of any worD# tasD# :o( or ,ro:ect is t.e
indirect em,loyer of t.e em,loyees w.o .ave (een
.ired (y t.e inde,endent contractor to ,erform said
worD# tasD# :o( or ,ro:ect.
In t.e event t.at t.e inde,endent contractor fails to
,ay t.e wages of .is em,loyees# an indirect
em,loyer# in t.e same manner and extent t.at .e is
lia(le to em,loyees directly em,loyed (y .im# is
J9I'<LI and S&A&!ALLI LIA$L& wit. t.e
Inde,endent contractor to t.e em,loyees of t.e latter
to t.e extent of t.e worD ,erformed under t.e
contract.
As for t.e ,erson w.o engages t.e services of a
Cla(or onlyC contractor# t.e latter is considered
merely as an agent of t.e former w.o s.all (e
res,onsi(le to t.e worDers .ired (y t.e Cla(or onlyC
contractor in t.e same manner and extent as if .e
directly em,loyed suc. worDers.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(+4
a An em,loyer w.o engages t.e services of a
(ona fide Cinde,endent contractorC is S9LI;A!ILI
LIA$L& wit. .is contractor or su(-contractor only for
non-,ayment or under,ayment of wages and ot.er
la(or standards ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code#
w.ereas an
em,loyer w.o engages a Cla(or-onlyC contractor
is lia(le for all (enefits# terms and conditions of
em,loyment t.at it normally grants to its regular or
direct em,loyees.
( An em,loyer w.o deals wit. a (ona-fide
inde,endent contractor s.all (e lia(le only
su(sidiarily# if t.e contractor or su(-contractor fails to
,ay t.e wages to t.e worDers in accordance wit. t.e
La(or Code.
U,on t.e ot.er .and# an em,loyer w.o deals
wit. a Cla(or-onlyC contractor s.all (e ,rimarily
res,onsi(le to t.e worDers in t.e same manner
and extent as if t.e latter were directly em,loyed
(y .im. (Arts )01-)02# La(or Code
(e5ruit9ent > *la5e9ent4 %an5ellati#n4
%erti$i5ate #$ (egi&trati#n4 "ra,el <an (2004)
Concerned ?ili,ino contract worDers in t.e 8iddle
&ast re,orted to t.e ;e,artment of ?oreign Affairs
(;?A t.at OIQ# a ,rivate recruitment and ,lacement
agency# is covertly trans,orting extremists to terrorist
training cam,s a(road. Intelligence agencies of t.e
government allegedly confirmed t.e re,ort.
U,on (eing alerted (y t.e ;?A# t.e ;e,artment of
La(or and &m,loyment issued orders cancelling t.e
licenses of OIQ# and im,osing an immediate travel
(an on its recruits for t.e 8iddle &ast. OIQ
a,,ealed to t.e 9ffice of t.e President to reverse
and set aside t.e ;9L& orders# citing damages from
loss of em,loyment of its recruits# and violations of
due ,rocess including lacD of notice and .earing (y
;9L&. <.e ;9L& in its answer claimed t.e
existence of an emergency in t.e 8iddle &ast w.ic.
reEuired ,rom,t measures to ,rotect t.e life and lim(
of 9?@s from a clear and ,resent danger ,osed (y
t.e ongoing war against terrorism.
S.ould t.e ;9L& orders (e u,.eld or set asideK
(4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
1 <.e ;9L& order cancelling t.e licenses of OIQ is
void (ecause a re,ort t.at an agency is covertly
trans,orting extremists is not a valid ground for
cancellation of a Certificate of !egistration (Art. /3*#
La(or Code and t.ere is failure of due ,rocess as no
.earing was conducted ,rior to t.e cancellation (Art.
/3+# La(or Code.
2 <.e ;9L& order im,osing t.e travel (an is valid
(ecause it is a valid exercise of ,olice ,ower to
,rotect t.e national interest (Sec. 3# Art. OIII#
Constitution on full ,rotection to la(or safety of
worDers and on t.e rule maDing aut.ority of t.e
Secretary of La(or (Art. 4# La(or Code- P.il. Assn.
of Service &x,orters v. ;rilon# )13 SC!A 3+1
))*++N.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e ;9L& orders s.ould (e set aside. It is true t.at
t.e 8igrant @orDers and 9verseas ?ili,inos Act#
,articularly its Section 4# could (e t.e (asis of t.e
,ower of ;9L& to effect a (an on t.e de,loyment of
9?@s (y OIQ. If t.e (an# .owever# is for t.e
,ur,ose of ,reventing OIQ from trans,orting
extremists to terrorist training cam,s a(road# t.is is a
,olice and national security ,ro(lem (etter dealt wit.
(y t.e ,olice or t.e 9ffice of t.e 'ational Security
Adviser.
8ore im,ortantly# t.e cancellation of t.e license of
OIQ reEuires notice and .earing. A(sent suc. notice
and .earing# t.e order of cancellation of t.e
Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment is null and void
(ecause of t.e denial of due ,rocess.
(e5ruit9ent > *la5e9ent4 illegal re5ruit9ent
t# e5#n#9i5 &ab#tage (2005)
() ;uring t.e o,en forum following your lecture to a
grou, of managers and F!; ,ersonnel# you were
asDed t.e following Euestions5
(a @.at Eualifying circumstances will convert Cillegal
recruitmentC to Ceconomic sa(otage#C t.us su(:ecting
its ,er,etrator or ,er,etrators to a ,enalty of life
im,risonment and a fine of at least P400#000.00K
Please ex,lain your answer (riefly. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(7
Under Article 3+(( of t.e La(or Code# as amended
(y P.;. 'o. /0)+# it ,rovides t.at illegal recruitment
s.all (e considered an offense involving economic
sa(otage if any of t.e following Eualifying
circumstances exists5
() @.en illegal recruitment is committed (y a
SI';ICA<&# reEuiring t.ree or more ,ersons w.o
cons,ire or confederate wit. one anot.er in carrying
out any unlawful or illegal transaction# enter,rise or
sc.eme-
@.en illegal recruitment is committed in a LA!%&
SCAL&# as w.en it is committed against t.ree or
more ,ersons individually or as a grou,. (Peo,le v.
'avarra# %.!. 'o. ))*31)# ?e(ruary )*# /00)- See
also Sec. 1 of !.A. 'o. +06/
(e5ruit9ent > *la5e9ent4 illegal
re5ruit9ent4 E5#n#9i5 +ab#tage (2002)
@.en is illegal recruitment considered a crime of
economic sa(otageK &x,lain (riefly. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
According to Art. /+ of t.e La(or Code# illegal
recruitment is considered a crime of economic
sa(otage w.en committed (y a syndicate or in large
scale.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed (y a
syndicate if carried out (y a grou, of t.ree (3 or
more ,ersons cons,iring and7or confederating wit.
one anot.er in carrying out any unlawful or illegal
transaction# enter,rise or sc.eme w.ic. is an act of
illegal recruitment.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large
scale if committed against t.ree (3 or more ,ersons
individually or as a grou,.
(e5ruit9ent > *la5e9ent4 )arge +5ale Illegal
(e5ruit9ent (2005)
8aryrose %andaPs a,,lication for t.e renewal ot.er
license to recruit worDers for overseas em,loyment
was still ,ending wit. t.e P.ili,,ine 9verseas
&m,loyment Administration (P9&A. 'evert.eless#
s.e recruited Alma and .er t.ree sisters# Ana# Joan#
and 8avic# for em,loyment as .ousemates in Saudi
Ara(ia. 8aryrose re,resented to t.e sisters t.at s.e
.ad a license to recruit worDers for overseas
em,loyment. 8aryrose also demanded and received
P30#000.00 from eac. of t.em for .er services.
Fowever# 8aryrosePs a,,lication for t.e renewal of
.er license was denied# and conseEuently failed to
em,loy t.e four sisters in Saudi Ara(ia. <.e sisters
c.arged 8aryrose wit. large scale illegal recruitment.
<estifying in .er defense# 8aryrose declared t.at s.e
acted in good fait. (ecause s.e (elieved t.at .er
a,,lication for t.e renewal of .er license would (e
a,,roved. 8aryrose adduced in evidence t.e
Affidavits of ;esistance w.ic. t.e four ,rivate
com,lainants .ad executed after t.e ,rosecution
rested its case. In t.e said affidavits# t.ey
acDnowledge recei,t of t.e refund (y 8aryrose of t.e
total amount of P)/0#000.00 and indicated t.at t.ey
were no longer interested to ,ursue t.e case against
8aryrose. !esolve t.e case wit. reasons. (4M
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
Illegal recruitment is defined (y law as any
recruitment activities undertaDen (y non-licenses or
non-.olders of aut.ority. (Peo,le v. Senoron#
%.!. 'o. ))*)10# January 30#)**2 And it is large
scale illegal recruitment w.en t.e offense is
committed against 3 or more ,ersons# individually or
as a grou,. (Article 3+L(N# La(or Code
In view of t.e a(ove# 8aryrose is guilty of large
scale illegal recruitment. Fer defense of good fait.
and t.e Affidavit of ;esistance as well as t.e refund
given will not save .er (ecause !.A. 'o. +06/ is a
s,ecial law# and illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum. (Peo,le v. Saulo# %.!. 'o. )/4*03#
'ovem(er )4# /000
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
@it. t.e execution of t.e affidavit of desistance (y
t.e com,lainants and t.e refund made (y 8aryrose#
t.e case against .er for large scale illegal
recruitment will surely fail.
(e5ruit9ent > *la5e9ent4 N#n?
"ran&$erability #$ )i5en&e (199-)
A !ecruitment and Placement Agency declared
voluntary (anDru,tcy. Among its assets is its license
to engage in (usiness. Is t.e license of t.e (anDru,t
agency an asset w.ic. can (e sold in ,u(lic auction
(y t.e liEuidatorK L4MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# (ecause of t.e non-transfera(ility of t.e license
to engage in recruitment and ,lacement.
<.e La(or Code (in Article /* ,rovides t.at no
license to engage in recruitment and ,lacement s.all
(e used directly or indirectly (y any ,erson ot.er
t.an t.e one in w.ose favor it was issued nor may
suc. license (e transferred# conveyed or assigned
to any ot.er ,erson or entity.
It may (e noted t.at t.e grant of a license is a
governmental act (y t.e ;e,artment of La(or and
&m,loyment (ased on ,ersonal Eualifications# and
citiGens.i, and ca,italiGation reEuirements. (Arts.
/2-/+# La(or Code
(e5ruit9ent > *la5e9ent4 (e5ruit9ent
Agen5ie& (2002)
Is a cor,oration# seventy ,ercent (20M of t.e
aut.oriGed and voting ca,ital of w.ic. is owned and
controlled (y ?ili,ino citiGens# allowed to engage in
t.e recruitment and ,lacement of worDers# locally or
overseasK &x,lain (riefly. (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. A cor,oration# seventy ,ercent (20M of t.e
aut.oriGed and voting ca,ital stocD of w.ic. is
owned and controlled (y ?ili,ino citiGens cannot (e
,ermitted to ,artici,ate in t.e recruitment and
,lacement of worDers# locally or overseas# (ecause
Art /2 of t.e La(or Code reEuires at least seventy-
five ,ercent (24M.
(e5ruit9ent > *la5e9ent4 "ra,el Agen5y4
*r#6ibiti#n (2006)
@onder <ravel and <ours Agency (@<<A is a well-
Dnown travel agency and an aut.oriGed sales agent
of t.e P.ili,,ine Air Lines. Since ma:ority of its
,assengers are overseas worDers# @<<A a,,lied for
a license for recruitment and ,lacement activities. It
stated in its a,,lication t.at its ,ur,ose is not for
,rofit (ut to .el, ?ili,inos find em,loyment a(road.
S.ould t.e a,,lication (e a,,rovedK (4M
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e a,,lication s.ould (e disa,,roved# as it is
,ro.i(ited (y Article /1 of t.e La(or Code# to wit5
CArticle /1. <ravel agencies and sales agencies of
airline com,anies are ,ro.i(ited from engaging in
t.e (usiness of recruitment and ,lacement of
worDers for overseas em,loyment w.et.er for ,rofit
or not.C
Page "" of 108
!ule I# Part IIP9&A !ules and !egulations
%overning t.e !ecruitment and &m,loyment of
Land-$ased @orDers (/00/ disEualifies any entity
.aving common director or owner of travel agencies
and sales agencies of airlines# including any
(usiness entity from t.e recruitment and ,lacement
of ?ili,ino worDers overseas# w.et.er t.ey derive
,rofit or not.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
'o. Section 1 of !A 'o. +06/ considers t.e following
act as illegal recruitment5 C(: ?or an officer or agent of
a recruitment agency to (ecome an officer or mem(er
of t.e $oard of any cor,oration engaged in travel
agency or to engage directly or indirectly in t.e
management of a travel agency.C <.e law considers
t.e o,eration of travel agencies and recruitment
agencies as incom,ati(le activities.
/age .i&t#rti#n (2002)
A. Fow s.ould a wage distortion (e resolved () in
case t.ere is a collective (argaining agreement and
(/ in case t.ere is noneK &x,lain (riefly. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A. According to Art. )/6 of t.e La(or Code# in case
t.ere is a collective (argaining agreement# a dis,ute
arising from wage distortions s.all (e resolved
t.roug. t.e grievance mac.inery ,rovided in t.e
C$A# and if remains unresolved# t.roug. voluntary
ar(itration. In case t.ere is no collective (argaining
agreement# t.e em,loyers and worDers s.all
endeavor to correct suc. distortions. Any dis,ute
arising t.erefrom s.all (e settled t.roug. t.e 'ational
Conciliation and 8ediation $oard and if it remains
unresolved after ten ()0 calendar days of
conciliations# t.en t.e dis,ute is referred to t.e
a,,ro,riate (ranc. of t.e 'ational La(or !elations
Commission.
/age4 (edu5ti#n #$ ;ini9u9 *ay > /age&
(2006)
Can an em,loyer and an em,loyee enter into an
agreement reducing or increasing t.e minimum
,ercentage ,rovided for nig.t differential ,ay#
overtime ,ay# and ,remium ,ayK (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Article )00 of t.e La(or Code ,ro.i(its t.e
elimination and t.e diminution of (enefits (eing
en:oyed (y em,loyees at t.e time t.e law was
,assed. <.e em,loyer and em,loyee cannot enter
into an agreement to reduce t.e minimum
,ercentage ,rovided (y law for nig.t differential ,ay#
overtime ,ay and ,remium ,ay as t.at would (e
against ,u(lic ,olicy. 9n t.e ot.er .and# an
agreement increasing t.e ,ercentage of (enefits
would (e valid for (eing (eneficial to t.e em,loyee.
Fowever# Art. //2 of t.e La(or Code aut.oriGes
diminution or reduction of (enefits in case of an
im,elling# reasona(le :ustification
arising out of an emergency# exigency or (usiness
losses.
/age4 /age .i&t#rti#n4 .e$initi#n >
Ele9ent& (2006)
@.en is t.ere a wage distortionK
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
A @A%& ;IS<9!<I9' arises w.en an increase in
,rescri(ed wage rates results in t.e elimination or
severe contraction of intentional Euantitative
differences in wage or salary rates (etween and
among em,loyee grou,s in an esta(lis.ment as to
effectively o(literate t.e distinctions em(odied in
suc. wage structure (ased on sDills# lengt. of
service# or ot.er logical (ases of differentiation
(Article )/6# La(or Code of t.e P.ili,,ines.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.ere is wage distortion w.en t.e following four
elements concur5
1 An existing .ierarc.y of ,ositions wit.
corres,onding salary rates-
2 A significant c.ange in t.e salary rate of a
lower ,ay class wit.out a concomitant increase in t.e
salary rate of a .ig.er one-
3 <.e elimination of t.e distinction (etween t.e
two levels- and
4 <.e existence of t.e distortion in t.e same
region of t.e country.
/age4 /age .i&t#rti#n4 ;ean& #$ +#l,ing
(2006)
Fow s.ould a wage distortion (e settledK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
In organiGed esta(lis.ments# t.e wage distortion s.all
(e resolved t.roug. t.e %!I&AA'C& P!9C&;U!&
under t.eir collective (argaining agreement# and if it
remains unresolved# t.roug. A9LU'<A!I
A!$I<!A<I9'. 9n t.e ot.er .and# in esta(lis.ments
w.ere t.ere are no collective (argaining agreements
or recogniGed la(or unions# t.e em,loyers and
worDers s.all endeavor to correct suc. distortion. Any
dis,ute arising t.erefrom s.all (e settled t.roug. t.e
'ational Conciliation and 8ediation $oard# and if it
remains unresolved after ten ()0 calendar days of
conciliation# s.all (e referred to t.e a,,ro,riate
(ranc. of t.e 'ational La(or !elations Commission
for C98PULS9!I A!$I<!A<I9' (Article )/6# La(or
Code of t.e P.ili,,ines.
/age4 /age .i&t#rti#n4 N#t a gr#und $#r
+triEe:)#5E#ut (2006)
Can t.e issue of wage distortion (e raised in a
notice of striDeK &x,lain. ()0M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'9. Section )1# C.a,ter I of !ules Im,lementing
!A 12/2 ,rovides t.at CAny dis,ute involving wage
distortions s.all not (e a ground for striDe7locDout.C
Article )/6 of t.e La(or Code# as amended (y
!e,u(lic Act 12/2 ,rescri(es a ,rocedure for t.e
Page "# of 108
correction of a wage distortion# im,licitly excluding
striDes or locDouts or ot.er concerted activities as
modes of settlement of t.e issue. <.e legislative
intent t.at wage distortion s.all (e solved (y
voluntary negotiation or ar(itration is made clear in
t.e rules (Ilaiv at $uDlod ng 8anggagawa v. 'L!C#
%.!. 'o. *)*+0# June /2# )**).
/age&4 18t6 9#nt6 ay (1994)
Conce,cion <extile Co. included t.e overtime ,ay#
nig.t-s.ift differential ,ay# and t.e liDe in t.e
com,utation of its em,loyeesP )3t.-mont. ,ay.
Su(seEuently# wit. t.e ,romulgation of t.e decision
of t.e Su,reme Court in t.e case of San 8iguel
Cor,oration vs. Inciong ()03 SC!A )3* .olding t.at
t.ese ot.er monetary claims s.ould not (e included
in t.e com,utation of t.e )3t.mont. ,ay# Conce,cion
<extile Co. soug.t to recover under t.e principle of
solutio indebiti its over,ayment of its em,loyeesP
)3t.-mont. ,ay# (y de(iting against future )3t.-
mont. ,ayments w.atever excess amounts it .ad
,reviously made.
() Is t.e Com,anyPs action tena(leK
(/ @it. res,ect to t.e ,ayment of t.e )3t.-mont.
,ay after t.e San 8iguel Cor,oration# ruling# w.at
arrangement# if any# must t.e Com,any maDe in
order to exclude from t.e )3t.-mont. ,ay all
earnings and remunerations ot.er t.an t.e (asic
,ay.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
) <.e Com,anyPs action is not tena(le. <.e
,rinci,le of salutio inde(iti w.ic. is a civil law
conce,t is not a,,lica(le in la(or law. <.us# solutio
inde(iti is not a,,lica(le to t.e instant case# (;avao
?ruits Cor,orations vs. 'ational La(or !elations
Commission# et at. //4 SC!A 41/
a <.e Com,anyPs action would (e tena(le if
,ayment was done (y mistaDe# In w.ic. case
recovery can (e done under t.e ,rinci,le of solutio
inde(iti. $ut if t.ere was no mistaDe# t.e Com,anyPs
action would (e untena(le (ecause it would violate
Article )00 of t.e La(or Code w.ic. ,ro.i(its
elimination or diminution of (enefits.
( 'o. <.e Com,anyPs action is not tena(le. <.e
grant (y Conce,cion <extile Co. of a (etter formula#
more favora(le to t.e em,loyee# constituted a valid
offer (y t.e com,any as t.e offerer and t.e
em,loyees as t.e offeree. <.ere .aving (een a
meeting of t.e minds of t.e ,arties# t.e rig.ts and
o(ligations arising t.erefrom were valid. <.us# any
amount received (y virtue t.ereof could not (e
recovered# muc. less taDen away unilaterally. <.e
,rinci,le does not a,,ly to t.e case at (ar.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
/T After t.e )*+) San 8iguel ruling# t.e Fig. Court
decided t.e case of P.ili,,ine ;u,licators Inc. vs.
'L!C# on )) 'ovem(er )**3# Accordingly#
management may undertaDe to exclude sicD leave#
vacation leave# maternity leave# ,remium ,ay for
regular .oliday# nig.t differential ,ay and cost of
living allowance. Sales commissions# .owever#
s.ould (e included (ased on t.e settled rule as
earlier enunciated in Songco vs. 'L!C# )+3 SC!A
1)0.
/age&4 18t6 9#nt6 ay (199-)
@.at would (e your advice to your client# a
manufacturing com,any# w.o asDs for your legal
o,inion on w.et.er or not t.e )3t. 8ont. Pay Law
(Presidential ;ecree 'o. +4) covers a casual
em,loyee w.o is ,aid a dally wageK (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
I will advise t.e manufacturing com,any to ,ay t.e
casual em,loyee )3t. 8ont. Pay if suc. casual
em,loyee .as worDed for at least one () mont.
during a calendar year. <.e law on t.e )3t. 8ont.
Pay ,rovides t.at em,loyees are entitled to t.e
(enefit of said law regardless of t.eir designation or
em,loyment status.
<.e Su,reme Court ruled in JacDson $uilding-
Condominium Cor,oration v. 'L!C# /61 SC!A 3/*#
()**4 inter,reting P.;. 'o. +4)# as follows5
xxx em,loyees are entitled to t.e t.irteent.-
mont. ,ay (enefits regardless of t.eir
designation and irres,ective of t.e met.od (y
w.ic. t.eir wages are ,aid.
/age&4 <#nu& (2002)
$. <.e ,ro:ected (onus for t.e em,loyees of Suerte
Co. was 40M of t.eir mont.ly com,ensation.
Unfortunately# due to t.e slum, in t.e (usiness# t.e
,resident reduced t.e (onus to 4M of t.eir
com,ensation. Can t.e com,any unilaterally reduce
t.e amount of (onusK &x,lain (riefly. (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies. <.e granting of a (onus is a management
,rerogative# somet.ing given in addition to w.at is
ordinarily received (y or strictly due t.e reci,ient.
An em,loyer# liDe Suerte Co.# cannot (e forced to
distri(ute (onuses w.en it can no longer afford to
,ay. <o .old ot.erwise would (e to ,enaliGe t.e
em,loyer for .is ,ast generosity. LProducers $anD of
t.e P.il. v 'L!C# 344 SC!A 6+*# (/00)N
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
It de,ends. If t.ere is a legal o(ligation on t.e ,art of
Suerte Co. to ,ay a (onus of its em,loyees
eEuivalent to 40M of t.eir mont.ly com,ensation#
(ecause said o(ligation is included in a collective
(argaining agreement# t.en Suerte Co. cannot
reduce t.e (onus to 4M of t.eir mont.ly
com,ensation. $ut if t.e ,ayment of t.e (onus is not
a legal o(ligation (ut only a voluntary act on t.e ,art
of t.e em,loyer# said em,loyer#
unilaterally# can only reduce t.e (onus from 40M to
4M of t.e mont.ly com,ensation of its em,loyees-
t.e em,loyer can# in fact# not give any (onus at all.
/age&4 <#nu& (2008)
OIQ &m,loyees Association filed a com,laint against
A$C $anD for wrongful diminution of (enefits. It
alleged t.at t.e (anD .ad (een ,roviding for a mid-
year (onus eEuivalents one-mont. (asic ,ay and a
C.ristmas (onus eEuivalent to one-mont. (asic ,ay
since )*2). U,on t.e effectivity of Presidential
;ecree (P.;. 'o. +4) in )*24 w.ic. granted t.e
)3t. mont. ,ay# t.e (anD started giving its
em,loyees a one-mont. (asic ,ay as mid-year
(onus# one-mont. (asic ,ay as C.ristmas (onus#
and one-mont. (asic ,ay as )3t. mont. ,ay. In
)*+0# t.e (anD was ,laced under conservators.i,
and (y virtue of a monetary (oard resolution of t.e
Central $anD# t.e (anD only gave one mont. (asic
,ay mandated (y P.;. +4)# and it no longer gave its
em,loyees t.e traditional mid-year and C.ristmas
(onuses. Could A$C $anD (e com,elled# given t.e
circumstances# to continue ,aying its em,loyees t.e
traditional midyear and C.ristmas (onuses in
addition to t.e )3t. mont. ,ayK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. <.e grant of a (onus is a ,rerogative# not an
o(ligation# of t.e em,loyer. (<raders !oyal $anD v.
'L!C. )+* SC!A /26 ()**0. <.e matter of giving
a (onus over and a(ove t.at w.ic. is reEuired (y
law is entirely de,endent on t.e financial ca,a(ility
of t.e em,loyer to give it. ($usinessday v. 'L!C.
//) SC!A * ()**3.
Fence# given t.e circumstances# A$C $anD cannot
(e com,elled to continue ,aying its em,loyees t.e
traditional mid-year and C.ristmas (onuses in
addition to t.e )3t. mont. ,ay.
/age&4 <#nu&4 Nature (1995)
@.at is a (onusK @.en is it demanda(le as a
matter of rig.tK &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A (onus is money given in addition to an em,loyeePs
usual com,ensation. It may (e given as a gratuity# as
an act of li(erality. $ut a (onus is demanda(le as a
matter of rig.t if it is made a legal o(ligation (y law
or in a collective (argaining agreement or in a
contract of em,loyment or (y its .aving (een given
for suc. a long time suc. t.at t.e recei,t of a (onus
.as ri,ened into a rig.t.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
A (onus is an amount granted and ,aid to an
em,loyee for .is industry and loyalty w.ic.
contri(uted to t.e em,loyerPs success and realiGation
of ,rofit.
() %rant of (onus is a ,rerogative# not an
o(ligation of t.e em,loyer5 and
(/ It is entirely de,endent on t.e em,loyerPs
ca,acity to ,ay.
'ormally discretionary# it (ecomes ,art of t.e regular
com,ensation (y reason of long and regular
concession or w.en t.e (onus is Included as among
t.e (enefits granted in a C$A.
/age&4 %#9utati#n #$ <a&i5 +alary (199!)
!o(ert SuareG is a salesman for Star
P.armaceuticals# Star P.armaceuticals .as a,,lied
wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment for
clearance to terminate ((y way of retrenc.ment t.e
services of SuareG due to financial losses. !o(ert
SuareG# aside from .is mont.ly salary# receives
commissions on t.e sales .e maDes. Fe also receives
allowances. <.e existing C$A (etween Star
P.armaceuticals and t.e union# of w.ic. !o(ert
SuareG is a mem(er# states t.at any em,loyee
se,arated from em,loyment for causes not due to t.e
fault of t.e em,loyee s.all receive from t.e com,any
a retirement gratuity in an amount eEuivalent to one
mont.Ps salary ,er year of service.
!o(ert SuareG contends t.at in com,uting .is
se,aration ,ay# .is sales commission and .is
allowances s.ould (e included in t.e mont.ly salary.
;o you agreeK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
I agree# wit. some conditions. In com,uting
se,aration ,ay# t.e mont.ly salary s.ould include
commissions (ecause commissions received (y a
salesman is ,art of .is salary.
$ut for allowances to (e included as ,art of salary#
t.ey s.ould (e for services rendered or to (e
rendered# liDe a cost of living allowance. $ut
trans,ortation and re,resentation allowances are not
considered as ,art of salary (ecause t.ey are to meet
ex,enses for trans,ortation and re,resentation. <.us#
cost of living allowances# (ut not trans,ortation or
re,resentation allowances# s.all (e included as ,art
of salary in t.e com,utation of se,aration ,ay.
'ote( 2e( allo!ances as part of salary#
in Santos vs% '42 1)4 S2A 1..#
the Supreme ourt said( Bin the
computation of bac"!ages and
separation pay# account must be ta"en
not only of basic salary but also her
transportation and emergency living
allo!ances%B
/age&4 %#9utati#n4 1#liday *ay (2002)
9n orders of .is su,erior# &fren# a .ig.-s,eed
sewing mac.ine tec.nician# worDed on 8ay )# La(or
;ay. If .e worDed eig.t (1 .ours on t.at day# .ow
muc. s.ould .e receive if .is daily rate is P600.00K
(/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
&fren s.ould receive P+00.00. Art */ of t.e La(or
Code ,rovides t.at t.e em,loyer may reEuire an
em,loyee to worD on any regular .oliday (ut suc.
em,loyee s.all (e ,aid a com,ensation eEuivalent
to twice .is regular rate.
/age&4 %#9utati#n4 1#liday *ay4 0,erti9e
*ay (2002)
<.is year# 'ational Feroes ;ay (August /4 falls on
a Sunday. Sunday is t.e rest day of $onifacio
w.ose daily rate is P400.00.
A. If $onifacio is reEuired (y .is em,loyer to worD
on t.at day for eig.t (+ .ours# .ow muc. s.ould .e
(e ,aid for .is worDK &x,lain. (3M
$. If .e worDs for ten ()0 .ours on t.at day# .ow
muc. s.ould .e receive for .is worDK &x,lain. (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A. ?or worDing on .is sc.eduled rest day# according
to Art *3(a# $onifacio s.ould (e ,aid P400.00 (.is
daily rate ,lus P)40.00 (30M of .is daily rate Z
P140.00. <.is amount of P140.00 s.ould (e
multi,lied (y / Z P) #300.00. <.is is t.e amount t.at
$onifacio as em,loyee worDing on .is sc.eduled rest
day w.ic. is also a regular .oliday# s.ould receive.
Art. *6(c of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at an
em,loyee s.all (e ,aid a com,ensation eEuivalent to
twice .is regular rate for worD on any regular .oliday.
<.e Cregular rateC of $onifacio on 8ay )# /00/ is wit.
an additional t.irty ,ercent (ecause t.e day is also
.is sc.eduled rest day.
$. P)#300.00 w.ic. is t.e amount t.at $onifacio is
to receive for worDing on 8ay )# /00/ s.ould (e
divided (y + to determine .is .ourly rate of P)1/.40.
<.is .ourly rate s.ould (e multi,lied (y / (t.e
num(er of .ours .e worDed overtime. <.us# t.e
amount t.at $onifacio is entitled to receive for .is
overtime worD on 8ay )# /00/ is P3/4.00.
/age&4 1#liday *ay (2005)
;uring t.e o,en forum following your lecture (efore
mem(ers of various unions affiliated wit. a la(or
federation# you were asDed t.e following Euestions
(State your answers and your reasons t.erefor5
(a Araw ng Uagitingan and %ood ?riday are among
t.e )0 ,aid regular .olidays under Article *6 of t.e
La(or Code. Fow muc. will an em,loyee receive
w.en (ot. .olidays fall on t.e same dayK (6M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
If unworDed# t.e covered em,loyees are entitled to at
least /00M of t.eir (asic wage# (ecause to do
ot.erwise would reduce t.e num(er of .olidays
under &9 'o. /03. If worDed# t.e covered em,loyees
are entitled to com,ensation eEuivalent to at least
300M of t.eir (asic wage (ecause t.ey are entitled
to t.e ,ayment not only of t.e two
regular .olidays# (ut also of t.eir regular wage# ,lus
t.e ,remium t.ereof. (;9L& &x,lanatory $ulletin on
@orDersP &ntitlement to Foliday Pay on * A,ril )**3#
Araw ng Uagitingan and %ood ?riday
/age&4 ;#ney %lai9& (199-)
An ex,losion in a mine site resulted in t.e deat. of
fifty (40 miners. At t.e time of t.e accident
() <.e 8ining Com,any .as not yet ,aid t.e
wages# overtime# .oliday and rest day com,ensation
of t.e deceased miners-
(/ All t.e deceased miners owed t.e 8iners
Coo,erative Union sums of money-
(3 <.e 8ining Com,any was served (y a s.eriff
@rits of %arnis.ment of @ages of some of t.e
deceased miners (y virtue of final Judgments in
several collection suits.
After t.e accident# t.e wives# ,aramours# (rot.ers#
sisters and ,arents of t.e deceased miners filed
t.eir claims for un,aid wages# overtime# .oliday and
rest day com,ensation. <.e Com,any .as
acDnowledged its o(ligations. Fowever# it is in a
Euandary as to .ow to ad:udicate t.e conflicting
claims- and w.et.er it can deduct from t.e monies
due t.e miners t.eir un,aid de(ts wit. t.e credit
union.
Fow will you advise t.e mining com,any on t.e
following5 ) Can t.e 8ining Com,any defer
,ayment of
t.e money claims until an a,,ro,riate court .as
ruled on t.e conflicting claimsK L3MN
/ Can t.e 8ining Com,any deduct from t.e
amount due to eac. miner an amount eEuivalent to
t.eir de(t and remit t.e same to t.e Credit
UnionKP(/MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
1. I will advise t.e 8ining Com,any to ,ay to t.e
res,ective .eirs of t.e deceased miners
w.atever were t.e un,aid wages# overtime#
.oliday and rest day com,ensation of said
deceased miners wit.out t.e necessity of
intestate ,roceedings. <.e claimants# if t.ey are
all of age s.all execute an affidavit attesting to
t.eir relations.i, to t.e deceased and t.e fact
t.at t.ey are .is .eirs# to t.e exclusion of all
ot.er ,ersons. If any of t.e .eirs is a minor# t.e
affidavit s.all (e executed on .is (e.alf (y .is
natural guardian or next of Din. <.e affidavit s.all
(e ,resented to t.e em,loyer w.o s.all maDe
,ayment t.roug. t.e Secretary of La(or or .is
re,resentative. <.e re,resentative of t.e
Secretary of La(or s.all act as referee in dividing
t.e amount ,aid among t.e .eirs. VSee Art. )04
(( of t.e La(or Code
2. I will advise t.e 8ining Com,any not to deduct
from t.e amount due to eac. miner t.e amount
eEuivalent to .is de(t to t.e Credit Union. <.e
de(ts of a deceased worDer to t.e Credit Union is
not one of t.e allowa(le deductions under t.e La(or
Code# or any rules and regulations of t.e
;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment. (See Art. ))3
of t.e La(or Code
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# if ,ursuant to C$A ,rovision or aut.oriGed (y
worDer in writing- ot.erwise. 'o.
/age&4 ;#ney %lai9&4 Att#rney@& Aee&4
.a9age& (2001)
(a &duardo Santiago# a ,ro:ect worDer# was (eing
assigned (y .is em,loyer# $agsaD $uilders# to Laoag#
Ilocos 'orte. Santiago refused to com,ly wit. t.e
transfer claiming t.at it# in effect# constituted a
constructive dismissal (ecause it would taDe .im
away from .is family and .is usual worD assignments
in 8etro 8anila. <.e La(or Ar(iter found t.at t.ere
was no constructive dismissal (ut ordered t.e
,ayment of se,aration ,ay due to strained relations
(etween Santiago and $agsaD $uilders ,lus
attorneyPs fees eEuivalent to ten ,ercent ()0M of t.e
value of SantiagoPs se,aration ,ay. Is t.e award of
attorneyPs fees validK State t.e reasons for your
answer. (/M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# t.e award of attorneyPs fees is not valid.
According to t.e La(or Code (Art. ))) (a# attorneyPs
fees may (e assessed in cases of unlawful
wit..olding of wages w.ic. does not exist in t.e
case. <.e worDer refused to com,ly wit. a lawful
transfer order# and .ence# a refusal to worD. %iven
t.is fact# t.ere can (e no (asis for t.e ,ayment of
attorneyPs fees.
(( Could t.e la(or ar(iter .ave validly awarded
moral and exem,lary damages to Santiago instead
of attorneyPs feesK @.yK (3M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(4
'o# moral and exem,lary damages can (e awarded
only if t.e worDer was illegally terminated in an
ar(itrary or ca,ricious manner. ('ueva &ci:a &lectric
Coo,erative Inc.# &m,loyees Assn.# us. 'L!C# %.!.
'o. ))1011# January /6# /000- CruG us. 'L!C# %.!.
'o. ))13+6# ?e(ruary 2# /000- P.il. Aeolus etc.# vs.
'L!C# %.!. 'o. )/61)2# A,ril /+# /000#
/age&4 *aid by (e&ult&4 1#liday *ay (2002)
'emia earns P2.00 for every manicure s.e does in
t.e (ar(er s.o, of a friend w.ic. .as nineteen ()*
em,loyees. At times s.e taDes .ome P)24.00 a day
and at ot.er times s.e earns not.ing. S.e now
claims .oliday ,ay. Is 'emia entitled to t.is (enefitK
&x,lain (riefly (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# 'emia is not entitled to .oliday ,ay. Art. +/ of
t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at worDers w.o are ,aid
(y results are# among ot.ers# not entitled to .oliday
,ay. 'emia is a worDer w.o is ,aid (y results. S.e
earns P2.00 for every manicure s.e does.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies. 'emia is entitled to .oliday ,ay. <.e Su,reme
Court .as ruled5 CAs to t.e ot.er (enefits# namely#
.oliday ,ay# ,remium ,ay# )3t. mont. ,ay# and
service incentive leave w.ic. t.e la(or ar(iter failed
to rule on (ut w.ic. t.e ,etitioners ,rayed for in t.eir
com,laint# we .old t.at ,etitioners are so entitled to
t.ese (enefits. <.ree
(3 factors lead us to conclude t.at ,etitioners#
alt.oug. ,iece rate worDers# were regular em,loyees
of ,rivate res,ondents.
?I!S< as to t.e nature of t.e ,etitionerPs tasDs#
t.eir :o( of re,acDing snacD food was necessary
or desira(le in t.e usual (usiness of ,rivate
res,ondents# w.o were engaged in t.e
manufacture and selling of suc. food ,roducts-
S&C9';# ,etitioners worDed for ,rivate
res,ondents t.roug.out t.e year# t.eir
em,loyment not .aving (een de,endent on a
s,ecific ,ro:ect or season- and <FI!;# t.e lengt.
of time t.at ,etitioners worDed for ,rivate
res,ondents. <.us# w.ile ,etitionerPs mode of
com,ensation was on a C,er ,iece (asisC t.e
status and nature of t.eir em,loyment was t.at of
regular em,loyees.C LLa(or Congress of t.e
P.ili,,ines v. 'L!C# /*0 SC!A 40* ()**+
/age&4 "ea56er&4 E%0)A (199!)
Lita CruG# a full time ,rofessor in San Ildefonso
University# is ,aid on a regular mont.ly (asis. CruG
teac.es for a ,eriod of ten mont.s in a sc.oolyear#
excluding t.e two mont.Ps summer (reaD.
;uring t.e semestral (reaD# t.e University did not
,ay Lita CruG .er emergency Cost of Living
allowance (&C9LA alt.oug. s.e received .er
regular salary since t.e semestral (reaD was
allegedly not an integral ,art of t.e sc.ool year and
no teac.ing service were actually rendered (y .er. In
s.ort# t.e University invoDed t.e ,rinci,le of Cno
worD# no ,ayC.
Lita CruG seeDs your advice on w.et.er or not s.e
is entitled to receive .er &C9LA during semestral
(reaDs. Fow would you res,ond to t.e EueryK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.ere is no longer any law maDing it t.e legal
o(ligation of an em,loyer to grant an &mergency
Cost of Living Allowance (&C9LA. &ffective )*+)#
t.e mandatory living allowances ,rovided for in
earlier Presidential ;ecrees were integrated into t.e
(asic ,ay of all covered em,loyees.
<.us# w.et.er t.e &C9LA will (e ,aid or not during
t.e semestral (reaD now de,ends on t.e ,rovisions
of t.e a,,lica(le wage order or contract w.ic. may
(e a C$A# t.at many grant said &C9LA.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(4
<.e Cno worD# no ,ayC ,rinci,le does not a,,ly. <.e
teac.ers receive t.eir regular salaries during t.e
semestral (reaD. <.e law granting emergency cost of
living allowances was designed to augment t.e
income of t.e em,loyees to ena(le t.em to co,e wit.
t.e rising cost of living and inflation. It was enacted
,ursuant to t.e StatePs duty to ,rotect la(or and to
alleviate t.e ,lig.t of t.e worDers. <o u,.old t.e
sc.oolPs inter,retation of t.e law would run counter to
t.e intent of t.e law and constitution (University of
Pangasinan ?aculty Union v. University of
Pangasinan# )/2 SC!A 1*).
/age&4 Unaid /age&4 *re$eren5e #$ %redit
in $a,#r #$ E9l#yee& (1995)
). Under t.e La(or Code# is t.e rig.t of first
,reference a lien on t.e ,ro,erty of t.e insolvent
de(tor in favor of t.e worDersK &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e rig.t of first ,reference in favor of worDers is not
a lien on t.e ,ro,erty of t.e insolvent de(tor. <.e
,reference could (e exercised only in t.e event of
(anDru,tcy or liEuidation of an em,loyerPs (usiness.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
A ,reference does not attac. to s,ecific ,ro,erties.
A lien creates c.arges on a ,articular ,ro,erty. <.e
rig.t of first ,reference as regards un,aid wages
recogniGed (y t.e La(or Code does not constitute a
lien on t.e ,ro,erty of t.e insolvent de(tor in favor
of t.e worDers. It is (ut a ,reference of credit in t.eir
favor# a ,reference in a,,lication.
<.e La(or Code does not ,ur,ort to create a lien in
favor of worDers or em,loyees for un,aid wages
eit.er u,on all of t.e ,ro,erties or u,on any
,articular ,ro,erty owned (y t.eir em,loyer.
in $a,#r #$ E9l#yee& (2008)
Premiere $anD# a (anDing cor,oration# (eing t.e
creditor-mortgagee of OIQ = Co.# a garment firm#
foreclosed t.e .y,ot.ecated assets of t.e latter.
;es,ite t.e foreclosure# OIQ = Co. continued its
(usiness o,erations. A year later# t.e (anD tooD
,ossession of t.e foreclosed ,ro,erty. <.e garment
firmPs (usiness o,erations ceased wit.out a
declaration of (anDru,tcy. Jose Cas,ar# an em,loyee
of OIQ = Co.# was dismissed from em,loyment due
to t.e cessation of (usiness of t.e firm. Fe filed a
com,laint against OIQ = Co. and t.e (anD. <.e
La(or Ar(iter# after .earing# so found t.e com,any
lia(le# as claimed (y Jose Cas,ar# for se,aration ,ay.
Premiere $anD was additionally found su(sidiarily
lia(le u,on t.e t.esis t.at t.e satisfaction of la(or
(enefits due to t.e em,loyee is su,erior to t.e rig.t
of a mortgagee of ,ro,erty. @as t.e La(or Ar(iter
correct in .is decisionK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. <.e ,reference of credits esta(lis.ed in Art. ))0 of
t.e La(or Code cannot (e invoDed in t.e a(sence of
any insolvency ,roceedings# declaration of
(anDru,tcy# or :udicial liEuidation. (;$P v. Santos. )2)
SC!A )3+ ()*+*.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. @.at Art. ))0 of t.e La(or Code esta(lis.es is
not a lien (ut a ,reference of credit in favor of
em,loyees. UnliDe a lien# a ,reference of credit does
not create a c.arge u,on any ,articular ,ro,erty of
t.e de(tor. (;evelo,ment $anD of t.e P.ili,,ines v.
Secretary of La(or. )2* SC!A 130 ()*+*.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e ;ecision of t.e La(or Ar(iter .olding Premiere
$anD (as foreclosing mortgagee-creditor su(sidiarily
lia(le for a money o(ligation of OIQ = Co# (as
mortgagor to Cas,ar# its em,loyee# .as no legal (asis.
). <.ere is no ,rivity of relations.i, (etween t.e
$anD and Cas,ar. <.e relations.i,# u,on w.ic. t.e
o(ligation to ,ay a sum of money is (ased# is
(etween OIQ (t.e mortgagor and Cas,ar as its
em,loyee arising from t.e La(or Code ,rovision
reEuiring an em,loyer to ,ay se,aration ,ay# re5
ot.er causes of em,loyment.
/. At (ot. times - La(or Ar(iter ;ecision to ,ay
se,aration ,ay and foreclosure - OIQ = Co. was an
existing (usiness entity and neit.er (anDru,t or in
liEuidation# alt.oug. its (usiness o,erations after t.e
foreclosure ceased.
3. <.e decision of t.e La(or Ar(iter for OIQ = Co.
to ,ay a sum of money to Cas,ar was (ased on an
action in ,ersonam# not in rem. enforcea(le against
any ,arty. (Sundowner Cor,oration vs. drilon. )+0
SC!A )6 ()*+*
6. <.e reference in t.e ;ecision to Cla(or (enefits
due to an em,loyee is su,erior to t.e rig.t of a
mortgagee of ,ro,ertyC is mis,laced. <.e
,referential claim rule .as no (asis and runs
contrary to law and :uris,rudence.
in $a,#r #$ E9l#yee& (1995)
;istinguis. t.e mortgage created under t.e Civil
Code from t.e rig.t of first ,reference created (y
t.e La(or Code as regards t.e un,aid wages of
worDers. &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A 89!<%A%& directly su(:ects t.e ,ro,erty u,on
w.ic. it is im,osed# w.oever t.e ,ossessor may (e#
to t.e fulfillment of t.e o(ligation for w.ic. it was
constituted. It creates a real rig.t w.ic. is
enforcea(le against t.e w.ole world. It is t.erefore a
lien on an identified real ,ro,erty.
89!<%A%& C!&;I< is a s,ecial ,referred credit
under t.e Civil Code in t.e classification of credits.
<.e ,reference given (y t.e La(or Code w.en not
attac.ed to any s,ecific ,ro,erty# is an ordinary
,referred credit.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
If t.e asset of an em,loyer w.ic. .as (ecome
(anDru,t or .as (een liEuidated .as (een
mortgaged# t.e ,roceeds of t.e sale of said
mortgaged asset is first su(:ect to t.e lien of t.e
,erson to w.om t.e ,ro,erty is mortgaged. Said lien
is su,erior to t.e first ,reference en:oyed (y t.e
worDers ,ursuant to t.e La(or Code.
in $a,#r #$ E9l#yee& (1999)
?AC<S5 Lowland Cement = ?actory Com,any
(LC?C (orrowed P4008 from t.e ;evelo,ment
$anD of t.e P.ili,,ines and mortgaged t.e entire
com,any# inclusive of its land# (uildings and
eEui,ment# to guarantee t.e ,ayment of t.e loan.
Fowever# (ecause of t.e economic conditions#
LC?C incurred .eavy losses and eventually failed to
,ay ;$P t.e reEuired mont.ly amortiGations over a
,eriod of more t.an one () year. In due time# ;$P
foreclosed t.e mortgaged assets of LC<C resulting
in t.e closure of t.e com,any and t.e dis,lacement
of all its em,loyees for want of worD.
<.e LC?C La(or Union LUnionN filed in (e.alf of t.e
dis,laced worDers a la(or case against ;$P as t.e
new owner of t.e defunct cement factory for wage
differentials# retirement ,ay and ot.er money
claims. <.e La(or Ar(iter decided in t.e favor of t.e
Union. ;$P a,,ealed to t.e 'L!C.
;$P contended in its a,,eal t.at its acEuisition of t.e
mortgage assets of LC?C t.roug. foreclosure sale
did not maDe it t.e owner of t.e defunct Lowland
Cement# and t.at t.e doctrine of successor-em,loyer
is not a,,lica(le in t.is case# since ;$P did not
continue t.e (usiness o,eration of LC?C.
<.e 'L!C w.ile finding merit in ;$PPs contention#
nonet.eless .eld ;$P lia(le to t.e extent of t.e
,roceeds of t.e foreclosure sale since t.e UnionPs
claims in (e.alf of t.e worDers constitute a first
,reference wit. res,ect t.ereto ,ursuant to article
))0 of t.e La(or Code.
Is t.e 'L!C correct in .olding ;$P lia(le to t.e
extent of t.e ,roceeds of t.e foreclosure saleK
&x,lain (riefly (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. ;$P is not lia(le. ;$P .as a lien over t.e
,ro,erties of LC?C w.ic. were mortgaged to ;$P
and said lien is su,erior to t.e ,reference t.at t.e
worDers .ave under t.e La(or Code (in Article ))0
wit. res,ect to t.eir claims as worDers against
LC?C.
6anel( All claims must be /led in
insolvency proceedings# !hich are
outside the Curisdiction of the '42
(2epublic v% 6eralta)
/age&4 /age .i&t#rti#n (199!)
(a ;efine @age ;istortion.
(( 8ay a wage distortion# alleged (y t.e em,loyees
(ut re:ected (y t.e em,loyer to (e suc.# (e a valid
ground for staging a striDeK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
(a A @A%& ;IS<9!<I9' is t.at (roug.t a(out
w.ere an increase in t.e ,rescri(ed wage rates
results in t.e elimination or severe contraction of
intentional Euantitative differences in wage or salary
rates (etween and among em,loyee grou,s in an
esta(lis.ment as to effectively o(literate t.e
distinctions em(odied in suc. wage rates (ased on
sDills# lengt. of service and ot.er logical (ases of
differentiation.
(( 'o# t.e existence of wage distortion is not a valid
ground for a striDe (ecause Art. )/6 of t.e La(or
Code ,rovides for a s,ecific met.od of ,rocedure for
correcting wage distortion. Ilaw at $uDlod ng
8anggagawa vs. 'L!C# )*+ SC!A 4+1# t.e Court
said5-
It goes wit.out saying t.at t.ese :oint or
coordinated activities may (e for(idden or
restricted (y law or contract. ?or t.e ,articular
instance of Cdistortions of t.e wage structure
wit.in an esta(lis.mentC resulting from t.e
a,,lication of any ,rescri(ed wage increase (y
virtue of a law or wage order. Section 3 of
!e,u(lic Act 'o. 12/2 ,rescri(es a s,ecific#
detailed and com,re.ensive ,rocedure for t.e
correction t.ereof# t.ere(y im,licitly excluding
striDes or locDouts or ot.er concerted activities as
modes of settlement of t.e issue.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
(( A wage distortion# alleged (y t.e em,loyees (ut
re:ected (y t.e em,loyer can (e a valid ground for
staging a striDe if it .a,,ens t.at in re:ecting t.e
allegation of wage distortion# t.e em,loyer refuses to
consider t.e issue under t.e grievance ,rocedure
,rovided for in t.e a,,lica(le C$A# and later on
t.roug. Aoluntary Ar(itration. <.ese acts of t.e
em,loyer could (e considered as a violation of its
duty to (argain collectively w.ic. is unfair la(or
,ractice (ULP. A ULP striDe is legal.
/age&4 /age& ,&7 +alary4 +ub=e5t t#
Atta569ent (1994)
) ;istinguis. CsalaryC from Cwages.C / Are t.ese
su(:ect to attac.ment and executionK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
) <.e term C@A%&SC a,,lies to com,ensation for
manual la(or# sDilled or unsDilled# w.ile salary
denotes a com,ensation for a .ig.er degree of
em,loyment. (%aa vs. Court of A,,eals# )60 SC!A
306#
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
C@A%&SC are t.ose ,aid to any em,loyee as .is
remuneration or earnings ,aya(le (y an em,loyer
for worD done or to (e done# or for services rendered
or to (e rendered.
9n t.e ot.er .and# CSALA!IC is used in t.e law t.at
,rovides for a )3t.-mont. ,ay. In t.is law# (asic
salary includes all remuneration or earnings ,aid (y
an em,loyer to .is em,loyees for services rendered#
(ut does not include allowances or monetary
(enefits w.ic. are not considered or integrated as
,art of t.e regular or (asic salary. (Art. *2(f# La(or
Code- Sec# /((# P.;. 'o. +4)
/ Under Article )20+ of t.e Civil Code# only CwagesC
are exem,t from attac.ment or execution. Salaries
are not exem,t from attac.ment or execution. (%aa
vs. Court of A,,eals# )60 SC!A 306.
/age&4 /ai,er #$ %#9en&ati#n (1996)
/ Jose a,,lied wit. 8ercure ;rug Com,any for t.e
,osition of Sales ClerD. 8ercure ;rug Com,any
maintains a c.ain of drug stores t.at are o,en
everyday till late at nig.t. Jose was informed t.at .e
.ad to worD on Sundays and .olidays at nig.t as ,art
of t.e regular course of em,loyment. Fe was
,resented wit. a contract of em,loyment setting fort.
.is com,ensation on an annual (asis wit. an ex,ress
waiver of extra com,ensation for worD on Sundays
and .olidays# w.ic. Jose signed. Is suc. a waiver
(inding on JoseK &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
As long as t.e annual com,ensation is an amount
t.at is not less t.an w.at Jose s.ould receive for all
t.e days t.at .e worDs# ,lus t.e extra com,ensation
t.at .e s.ould receive for worD on .is weeDly rest
days and on s,ecial and regular .olidays and for
nig.t differential ,ay for late nig.t worD# considering
t.e laws and wage orders ,roviding for minimum
wages# and t.e ,ertinent ,rovisions of t.e La(or
Code# t.en t.e waiver t.at Jose signed is (inding on
.im for .e is not really waiving any rig.t under La(or
Law. It is not contrary to law# morals# good customs#
,u(lic order or ,u(lic ,olicy for an em,loyer and
em,loyee to enter into a contract w.ere t.e
em,loyeesP com,ensation t.at is agreed u,on
already includes all t.e amounts .e is to receive for
overtime worD and for worD on weeDly rest days and
.olidays and for nig.t differential ,ay for late nig.t
worD. AL<&!'A<IA& A'S@&!5 <.e waiver of
(enefits ,rovided for (y law is void. Art. 1 of t.e 'ew
Civil Code ,rovides5
C!ig.ts may (e waived# unless t.e waiver is
contrary to law# ,u(lic order# ,u(lic ,olicy#
morals or good customs.C
/#rEing 1#ur&4 %6aritable In&tituti#n4
0,erti9e *ay (2002)
Socorro is a clerD-ty,ist in t.e Fos,icio de San Jose#
a c.arita(le institution de,endent for its existence on
contri(utions and donations from well wis.ers. S.e
renders worD eleven ()) .ours a day (ut .as not
(een given overtime ,ay since .er ,lace of worD is a
c.arita(le institution. Is Socorro entitled to overtime
,ayK &x,lain (riefly. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies. Socorro is entitled to overtime com,ensation.
S.e does not fall under any of t.e exce,tions to t.e
coverage of Art. +/# under t.e ,rovisions of Fours of
@orD. <.e La(or Code is eEually a,,lica(le to non-
,rofit institutions. A covered em,loyee w.o worDs
(eyond eig.t (+ .ours is entitled to overtime
com,ensation.
/#rEing 1#ur&4 %6aritable In&tituti#n4
/eeEly (e&t *eri#d4 (199-)
A Ladies ;ormitory run or managed (y a c.arita(le
non-,rofit organiGation claims t.at it is exem,t from
t.e coverage of t.e @eeDly !est Period ,rovision of
t.e La(or Code. Is t.e claim validK L4MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. <.e claim is not valid. <.e ,rovisions on weeDly
rest ,eriods in t.e La(or Code cover every
em,loyer# w.et.er o,erating for ,rofit or not. (See
Article *) of t.e La(or Code
/#rEing 1#ur&4 %#9re&&ed /#rE /eeE
(2005)
(d Under w.at conditions may a Ccom,ressed worD
weeDC sc.edule (e legally aut.oriGed as an
exce,tion to t.e Ceig.t-.our a dayC reEuirement
under t.e La(or CodeK (6M
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e conditions for an allowa(le Ccom,ressed worD
weeDC are t.e following5 t.e worDers agree to t.e
tem,orary c.ange of worD sc.edule and t.ey do not
suffer any loss of overtime ,ay# fringe (enefits or
t.eir weeDly or mont.ly taDe-.ome ,ay. (;9L&
&x,lanatory $ulletin on t.e !eduction of @orDdays
on @ages issued on July /3# )*+4
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
CCom,ressed worD weeDC is resorted to (y t.e
em,loyer to ,revent serious losses due to causes
(eyond .is control# suc. as w.en t.ere is a
su(stantial slum, in t.e demand for .is goods or
services or w.en t.ere is lacD of raw materials.
(&x,lanatory $ulletin on t.e !eduction of @orDdays
on @ages Issued (y ;9L&# July /3#)*+4
/#rEing 1#ur&4 Nig6t +6i$t .i$$erential (2002)
Page # of 108
As a tireman in a gasoline station# o,en twenty four
(/6 .ours a day wit. only five (4 em,loyees# %oma
worDed from )0500 P.8. until 2500 A.8. of t.e
following day. Fe claims .e is entitled to nig.t s.ift
differential. Is .e correctK &x,lain (riefly. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies. Under Art +1 of t.e La(or Code# nig.t s.ift
differential s.all (e ,aid to every em,loyee for worD
,erformed (etween )0500 oPclocD in t.e evening to
six oPclocD in t.e morning.
<.erefore# %oma is entitled to nig.ts.ift differential
for worD ,erformed from )0500 ,m until 1500 am of
t.e day following# (ut not from 1500 am to 2500 am
of t.e same day.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e 9mni(us !ules Im,lementing t.e La(or Code (In
$ooD III# !ule II dealing wit. nig.t s.ift differential
,rovides t.at its ,rovisions on nig.t s.ift differential
s.all '9< a,,ly to em,loyees of Cretail and service
esta(lis.ments regularly em,loying not more t.an
five (4 worDersC. $ecause of t.is ,rovision# %oma is
not entitled to nig.t s.ift differential (ecause t.e
gasoline station w.ere .e worDs .as only five
em,loyees.
/#rEing 1#ur&4 +aturday /#rE (2008)
A case against an em,loyer com,any was filed
c.arging it wit. .aving violated t.e ,ro.i(ition against
offsetting undertime for overtime worD on anot.er day.
<.e com,lainants were a(le to s.ow t.at# ,ursuant to
t.e Collective $argaining Agreement (C$A#
em,loyees of t.e union .ad (een reEuired to worD
CovertimeC on Saturday (ut were ,aid only at regular
rates of ,ay on t.e t.esis t.at t.ey were not reEuired
to com,lete# and t.ey did not in fact com,lete# t.e
eig.t-.our worD ,eriod daily from 8onday t.roug.
?riday. %iven t.e circumstances# t.e em,loyer
contended t.at t.e em,loyees were not entitled to
overtime com,ensation# i.e.# wit. ,remium rates of
,ay. ;ecide t.e controversy.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e em,loyer is correct. @.ile Art. ++ of t.e La(or
Code clearly ,rovides t.at undertime worD on any
ot.er ,articular day s.all not (e offset (y overtime
worD on any ot.er day# t.is rule is ina,,lica(le in t.is
case ,ertaining to Saturday worD w.ic. in reality
does not constitute overtime worD as Saturday is still
a worDing day under t.e law and t.ere is no C$A
sti,ulation against it.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Art# ++ of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at undertime
worD on any ,articular day s.all not (e offset (y
overtime worD on any ot.er day. <.e C$A (eing t.e
law (etween t.e ,arties and t.e Union .aving
s.own t.at t.e em,loyees rendered overtime worD
on Saturday# t.e contention of t.e em,loyer is not
tena(le. <.e em,loyer cannot use t.e undertime of
8onday t.roug. ?riday to offset t.e overtime on
Saturday. Fence# t.e em,loyees are entitled to
overtime com,ensation# i.e. ,remium rates of ,ay
on Saturday.
/#rEing 1#ur&4 +i5E )ea,e4 0,erti9e *ay
(199!)
;anilo ?lores a,,lied for t.e ,osition of driver in t.e
motor-,ool of %old Com,any# a multinational
cor,oration. ;anilo was informed t.at .e would
freEuently (e worDing overtime as .e would .ave to
drive for t.e com,anyPs executives even (eyond t.e
ordinary eig.t-.our worD day. Fe was ,rovided wit.
a contract of em,loyment w.erein .e would (e ,aid
a mont.ly rate eEuivalent to 34 times .is daily wage#
regular sicD and vacation leaves# 4 day-leave wit.
,ay every mont. and time off wit. ,ay w.en t.e
com,anyPs executives using t.e cars do not need
;aniloPs service for more t.an eig.t .ours a day# in
lieu of overtime.
Are t.e a(ove ,rovisions of t.e contract of
em,loyment in conformity wit.# or violative of# t.e
lawK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
&xce,t for t.e ,rovision t.at ;anilo s.all .ave time
off wit. ,ay w.en t.e com,anyPs executives using
t.e cars do not need ;aniloPs service for more t.an
eig.t .ours a day# in lieu of overtime# t.e ,rovisions
of t.e contract of em,loyment of ;anilo are not
violative of any la(or law (ecause t.ey instead
im,rove u,on t.e ,resent ,rovisions of ,ertinent
la(or laws.
<.us# t.e mont.ly rate eEuivalent to 34 times t.e
daily wage may (e sufficient to include overtime
,ay. <.ere is no la(or law reEuiring t.e ,ayment of
sicD and vacation leaves exce,t t.e ,rovision for a
five-day service incentive leave in t.e La(or Code.
<.e 4-day-leave wit. ,ay every mont. .as no
counter,art in La(or Law and is very generous.
As for t.e ,rovision in ;aniloPs contract of
em,loyment t.at .e s.all receive time off wit. ,ay in
lieu of overtime# t.is violates t.e ,rovision of t.e
La(or Code w.ic. states t.at undertime worD on any
,articular day s.all not (e offset (y overtime worD on
any ot.er day. Permission given to t.e em,loyer to
go on leave on some ot.er day of t.e weeD s.all not
exem,t t.e em,loyer from ,aying t.e additional
com,ensation reEuired (y t.e La(or Code.
/#rEing 1#ur&4 /6en %#9en&able4 C/6ile
#n %allJ (2004)
%il $ates# a com,uter analyst and ,rogrammer of
Fard ;rive Com,any# worDs eig.t .ours a day for
five days a weeD at t.e main office ,roviding
customers information tec.nology assistance.
9n Saturdays# .owever# t.e com,any reEuires .im
to Dee, .is cellular ,.one o,en from +500 A.8. to
4500 P.8. so t.at t.e 8anagement could contact .im
in case of .eavy worD load or emergency ,ro(lems
needing .is ex,ertise.
8ay said .ours on Saturdays (e considered
com,ensa(le worDing .ours Bw.ile on callHK If so#
s.ould said com,ensation (e re,orted to t.e Social
Security SystemK (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Said .ours on Saturdays s.ould (e considered as
com,ensa(le worDing .ours Cw.ile on callC. In
accordance wit. t.e !ules and !egulations
Im,lementing t.e La(or Code# an em,loyee w.o is
not reEuired to leave word at .is .ome or wit.
com,any officials as to w.ere .e may (e reac.ed is
not worDing w.ile on call. $ut in t.e Euestion# %il
$ates was reEuired to Dee, .is cell ,.one o,en from
+500 A.8. to 4500 P.8. <.erefore# $ates s.ould (e
considered as worDing w.ile on call# if .e cannot use
effectively and gainfully for .is own ,ur,ose t.e time
from +500 A.8. to 4500 P.8. on Saturdays w.en .e is
reEuired to Dee, .is cell,.one o,en.
<.e com,ensation actually received (y $ates for
worDing w.ile on call on Saturdays s.ould (e
re,orted to t.e Social Security System (ecause
under t.e Social Security Law# com,ensation means
Call actual remuneration for em,loyment.C
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
If %il $ates can effectively utiliGe t.e Saturdays in .is
own interest even Cw.ile on callC# said .ours on
Saturdays are not com,ensa(le. Fowever# if during
said .ours on Saturdays# $ates is actually reEuired
to attend to urgent worD to t.e extent of leaving w.at
.e is doing# t.en t.e same are com,ensa(le worDing
.ours to t.e extent of t.e actual .ours of worD
rendered (y .im.
<.e com,ensation ,aid (y t.e com,any to $ates for
said .ours worDed on Saturdays s.ould (e re,orted
to t.e SSS. <.is is so (ecause t.e (asis of
com,uting t.e SSS contri(ution includes all actual
remuneration# including allowances and cas. value
of any com,ensation ,aid in any medium ot.er t.an
cas..
/#rEing 1#ur&4 /6en %#9en&able4 C/6ile
#n %allJ4 /aiting "i9e (199!)
Lito UulangDulang and $ong Urongsulong are
em,loyed as trucD drivers of Line 8overs# Inc.
Usually. Lito is reEuired (y t.e ,ersonnel manager
to :ust stay at t.e .ead office after office .ours
(ecause .e could (e called to drive t.e trucDs.
@.ile at t.e .ead office. Lito merely waits in t.e
managerPs rece,tion room. 9n t.e ot.er .and.
$ong is allowed to go .ome after office .ours (ut
is
reEuired to Dee, .is cellular ,.one on so t.at .e
could (e contacted w.enever .is services as
driver (ecomes necessary.
@ould t.e .ours t.at Lito and $ong are on call (e
considered com,ensa(le worDing .oursK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e .ours of Lito and $ong w.ile on call can (e
considered com,ensa(le .ours. <.e a,,lica(le rule
is5 CAn em,loyee w.o is reEuired to remain on call in
t.e em,loyerPs ,remises or so close t.ereto t.at .e
cannot use t.e time effectively and gainfully for .is
own ,ur,ose s.all (e considered as worDing w.ile
on can. An em,loyee w.o is not reEuired to leave
word at .is .ome or wit. com,any officials w.ere (e
may (e reac.ed is not worDing w.ile on call.C Fere#
$ong is reEuired to stay at t.e office after office
.ours so .e could (e called to drive t.e trucDs of t.e
Com,any. As for $ong# .e is reEuired to Dee, .is
cellular ,.one so t.at .e could (e contacted
w.enever .is services as driver as needed. <.us#
t.e waiting time of Lito and $ong s.ould (e
considered are com,ensa(le .ours.
'ote( It could be argued that in the
case of ?ong !ho is not reDuired to
stay in the o>ice but is allo!ed to go
home# if he is not actually as"ed by
cellular phone to report to the o>ice
to drive a car# he can use his time
e>ectively and gainfully to his o!n
purpose# thus# the time that he is at
home may mean that there are not
compensable hours% "E(;INA"I0N 0A E;*)0G;EN"
<a5E2age& (2002)
A. An em,loyee was ordered reinstated wit.
(acDwages. Is .e entitled to t.e (enefits and
increases granted during t.e ,eriod of .is lay-offK
&x,lain (riefly. (3M
$. Aside from t.e :ust causes enumerated in Article
/+/ of t.e La(or Code for t.e termination of
em,loyment# state t.ree V3T lawful or aut.oriGed
causes for t.e dismissal of an em,loyee. (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A. Ies. An em,loyee w.o is ordered reinstated wit.
(acDwages is entitled to t.e (enefits and increases
granted during t.e ,eriod of .is lay-off. <.e
Su,reme Court .as ruled5 C$acDwages are granted
for earnings a worDer lost due to .is illegal dismissal
and an em,loyer is o(liged to ,ay an illegally
dismissed em,loyee t.e w.ole amount of salaries
,lus all ot.er (enefits and (onuses and general
increases to w.ic. t.e latter s.ould .ave (een
normally entitled .ad .e not (een dismissed.C
LSigma Personnel Services v. 'L!C# //6 SC!A )+)
()**3N
<a5E2age& ,&7 Unaid /age& (1994)
Page #" of 108
;istinguis. (etween an award for (acD wages and
an award for un,aid wages.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
An award for $ACU@A%&S is to com,ensate an
em,loyee w.o .as (een illegally dismissed# for t.e
wages# allowances and ot.er (enefits or t.eir
monetary eEuivalent# w.ic. said em,loyee did not
receive from t.e time .e was illegally dismissed u,
to t.e time of .is actual reinstatement.
9n t.e ot.er .and# an award for U'PAI; @A%&S is
for an em,loyee w.o .as actually worDed (ut .as
not (een ,aid t.e wages .e is entitled to receive for
suc. worD done. (Arts. /2* and *2()# La(or Code
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
An award of $ACU@A%&S is given to an em,loyee
w.o is un:ustly dismissed. <.e cause of action .ere
is t.e un:ust dismissal. 9n t.e ot.er .and# an award
of U'PAI; @A%&S is given to an em,loyee w.o .as
not (een ,aid .is salaries or wages for services
actually rendered. <.e cause of action .ere is non-
,ayment of wages or salaries. (%eneral $a,tist $i(le
College vs. 'L!C /)* SC!A 46*.
<a5E2age&4 <a&i& (2001)
@.at economic com,onents constitute (acDwages
for a ranD and file em,loyeeK Are t.ese com,onents
eEually a,,lica(le to a managerial em,loyeeK (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e La(or Code (Art. /2* ,rovides t.at an em,loyee
w.o is un:ustly dismissed from worD is entitled to
reinstatement and also to .is full (acDwages#
inclusive of allowances# and to .is ot.er (enefits or
t.eir monetary eEuivalent com,uted from t.e time .is
com,ensation was wit..eld from .im u, to .is actual
reinstatement.
An em,loyee is entitled to all t.e a(ove (enefit
regardless of w.et.er .e is a ranD-and-file em,loyee
or a managerial em,loyee.
Fowever# (acDwages may also include t.e )3t.
mont. ,ay w.ic. are ,aid to ranD-and-file em,loyees#
as well as (enefits arising from a C$A given only to
em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit. 8anagerial
em,loyees cannot (e given t.e same since t.ey are
ineligi(le to :oin a la(or organiGation.
<a5E2age&4 <a&i& (2001)
CAC was .ired (y com,any C$C in January )*+0 until
A was illegally dismissed on A,ril 30# )**0 as
found (y a La(or Ar(iter w.o ordered
reinstatement and full (acDwages from A,ril 30#
)**0 until As reinstatement. <.e Ar(iterPs decision
was ,romulgated on A,ril /*# )**4. $ a,,ealed
claiming# among ot.ers# t.at t.e award for
(acDwages was excessive in t.at it went (eyond
t.ree-year rule set fort. in 8ercury ;rug v. CI!
(41 SC!A 1*1. Is $Ps contention tena(leK @.yK
(4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# t.e contention of C$C is not tena(le. !e,. Act 'o.
12)4# w.ic. was enacted in )*+*# in effect set aside
t.e t.ree-year rule set fort. in 8ercury ;rug vs. CI!
(41 SC!A 1*1 w.en it ,rovided t.at t.e full
(acDwages t.at an un:ustly dismissed em,loyee s.all
receive s.all (e com,uted from t.e time .is
com,ensation was wit..eld from .im u, to t.e time of
.is actual reinstatement.
<.e word CactualC was inserted in t.e law (y !e,.
Act 'o. 12)4. <.us# in accordance wit. t.e aforesaid
law# an un:ustly dismissed em,loyee s.all receive
.is full (acDwages com,uted from t.e time .is
com,ensation was wit..eld from .im u, to t.e time
of .is actual reinstatement even if t.is ,eriod is more
t.an t.ree years.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# t.e contention of C$C is not tena(le. <.e
Su,reme Court (In ?errer vs. 'L!C# July 4# )**3
a(andoned t.e 8ercury ;rug !ule and in )**1
$ustamante vs. 'L!C# /14 SC!A 1) t.e Su,reme
Court said5
LJuoting Article /2* of t.e La(or CodeN Under t.e
a(ove Euoted ,rovision# it (ecame mandatory to
award (acDwages to illegally dismissed regular
em,loyees. <.e law s,ecifically declared t.at t.e
award of (acDwages was to (e com,uted from t.e
time com,ensation was wit..eld from t.e
em,loyee u, to t.e time of .is reinstatement.
xxx <.e clear legislative intent of t.e amendment
in !A 'o. 12)4 is to give more (enefits to t.e
worDers t.an was ,reviously given t.em under
t.e 8ercury ;rug rule. In ot.er words# t.e
,rovision calling for Cfull (acDwagesC to illegally
dismissed em,loyees is clear# ,lain and free from
am(iguity# and# t.erefore# must (e a,,lied wit.out
attem,ted or strained inter,retation.
<a5E2age&4 <a&i& (2001)
(a CAC# an em,loyee of Com,any C$C# was found to
.ave (een illegally dismissed and was ordered to (e
reinstated and ,aid (acDwages from t.e time of
dismissal until actual reinstatement. <.e case was
elevated all t.e way to t.e Su,reme Court. $y t.e
time t.e Su,reme CourtPs decision (ecame final and
executory# $ .ad closed down and was in t.e
,rocess of winding u,. 'onet.eless# $ ,aid A .is
(acDwages and se,aration ,ay. A com,lained t.at
$>s com,utation was erroneous in t.at APs
allowances was not included. Is A correct in .is
claimK ?or w.at reason(sK (/M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A is correct. After its amendment (y !e,. Act 'o.
12)4# t.e (acDwages t.at an em,loyee w.o .as
(een un:ustly dismissed is entitled to receive is not
limited to .is full (acDwages (ut also includes .is
allowances and t.e ot.er (enefits or t.eir monetary
eEuivalent.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
In t.e case of Consolidated .!ural $anD us. 'L!C#
%.!. 'o. )/3+)0# January /0#)***# t.e Su,reme
Court ruled t.at allowances of t.e em,loyee s.ould
(e included in t.e com,utation of (acDwages.
.i&9i&&al4 Aut6#riIed %au&e& (2002)
$. According to Art /+3 of t.e La(or Code# t.e
lawful or aut.oriGed causes for t.e termination of an
em,loyee are5
). installation of la(or saving devices
/. redundancy
3. retrenc.ment to ,revent losses or-
6. closing or cessation of o,eration of t.e
esta(lis.ment or undertaDing# unless t.e closing is
for t.e ,ur,ose of circumventing t.e ,rovisions of t.e
La(or Code. Art /+6 also ,rovides t.at an em,loyer
may terminate t.e services of an em,loyee w.o .as
(een found to (e suffering from any disease and
w.ose continued em,loyment is ,ro.i(ited (y law or
is ,re:udicial to .is .ealt. as well as to t.e .ealt. of
.is co-em,loyees.
.i&9i&&al4 Aut6#riIed %au&e& ,&7 Ju&t
%au&e (2004)
@.at are t.e aut.oriGed causes for a valid dismissal
(y t.e em,loyer of an em,loyeeK @.y are t.ey
distinct from t.e :ust causesK (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(+:
<.e AU<F9!IQ&; CAUS&S for a valid dismissal
are t.e following5
1 installation of la(or-saving devices
2 redundancy
3 retrenc.ment to ,revent losses
4 t.e closing or cessation of o,eration of t.e
esta(lis.ment or undertaDing
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(+:
<.e aut.oriGed causes for a valid dismissal are
distinct from :ust causes (ecause w.ere t.e
dismissal of an em,loyee is (ased on :ust causes#
t.ese :ust causes are acts committed (y t.e
em,loyee w.ic. ,rovide t.e (asis for .is dismissal.
9n t.e ot.er .and# w.ere t.e dismissal is (ased on
aut.oriGed causes# t.ese aut.oriGed causes are t.e
results of t.e ,ro,er exercise (y t.e em,loyer of .is
management ,rerogatives.
If a valid dismissal is (ased on :ust causes# t.ere is
no lia(ility on t.e ,art of t.e em,loyer# alt.oug.
sometimes# financial assistance to (e given to t.e
dismissed em,loyee is asDed of t.e em,loyer. If a
valid dismissal is (ased on aut.oriGed causes# t.e
em,loyer .as to ,ay se,aration ,ay exce,t in case
of closure or cessation of o,eration due to serious
(usiness losses or financial reverses.
.i&9i&&al4 Aut6#riIed %au&e&4 %l#&ure >
%e&&ati#n (2001)
Com,any CAC was engaged in t.e manufacture of
goods using t.e (y-,roducts of coconut trees and
em,loyed some fifty worDers w.o lived in t.e coconut
,lantation in JueGon Province. <.e land u,on w.ic.
A conducted its o,eration was su(:ected to land
reform under !.A. 1142 for distri(ution to t.e tenants
and residents of t.e land. ConseEuently# A .ad to
close its o,erations and dismiss its worDers. <.e
union re,resenting t.e em,loyees demanded t.at A
,ay t.e dismissed worDers se,aration ,ay under Art.
/+3 of t.e La(or Code t.at reEuires# among ot.ers#
t.e ,ayment of se,aration ,ay to em,loyees in cases
of Cclosing or cessation of o,erations of t.e
esta(lis.ment or undertaDingC. Is t.e unionPs claim
correct or notK @.yK (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e unionPs claim is not correct. In t.e case of
'ational ?ederation of La(or vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o.
)/22)+# 8arc. /. /000# t.e Su,reme Court ruled
t.at t.ere is no o(ligation to ,ay se,aration ,ay if
t.e closure is not a unilateral and voluntary act of
t.e em,loyer.
In t.e Euestion# t.e closure was (roug.t a(out not (y
a unilateral and voluntary act of t.e em,loyer (ut due
to t.e act of government in t.e im,lementation of t.e
Com,re.ensive Agrarian !eform Law.
%e&&ati#n #$ <u&ine&&4 0ld Age (2006)
If t.e reason for t.e closure is due to old age of t.e
(rot.ers and sisters5
). Is t.e closure allowed (y lawK (/.4M
/. Are t.e em,loyees entitled to se,aration
(enefitsK (/.4 M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
If closure is due to old age R
). I&S# it is allowed (y law. <.e em,loyer may go
out of (usiness (y closing t.e same regardless of .is
reasons# if done in good fait. and due to causes
(eyond .is control. (LA' Pictures &m,loyees and
@orDers Association v. LA' Pictures# 'o. L-/36*4#
Se,tem(er 30#)*20-J.A#<. %eneral Services v. 'L!C#
'o. L-/163/# Se,tem(er 30# )*20- Ala(ang Country
Clu(# Inc. v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )421))# August *# /004
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
/. I&S. 9ne mont. ,ay# or one-.alf mont. ,ay for
every year of service# a fraction of at least 1 mont.s
or more eEuivalent to one year# w.ic.ever is .ig.er.
(Catatista v. 'L!C# %!. 'o. )0/6//# August
3#)**4.
%e&&ati#n #$ <u&ine&&4 +earati#n *ay
(2006)
A$C <omato Cor,oration# owned and managed (y
t.ree (3 elderly (rot.ers and two (/ sisters# .as
(een in (usiness for 60 years. ;ue to serious
(usiness losses and financial reverses during t.e
last five (4 years# t.ey decided to close t.e
(usiness.
). As counsel for t.e cor,oration# w.at ste,s will
you taDe ,rior to its closureK (/.4M
/. Are t.e em,loyees entitled to se,aration ,ayK
(/.4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
). Ste,s to taDe ,rior to closure5
a @ritten 'otice to ;9L& 30 days ,rior to
t.e intended date of termination# s.owing a
(ona fide reason for closure-
( @ritten 'otice to em,loyees 30 days
,rior to t.e intended date of termination
(Catatista v. 'L!C# %!. 'o. )0/6//# Aug. 3
)**4.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
/. '9# Art. /+3 of t.e La(or Code does not o(ligate
an em,loyer to ,ay se,aration (enefits w.en t.e
closure is due to serious (usiness losses or financial
reverses ('ort. ;avao 8ining and ;evelo,ment
Cor,. v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. ))/461# 8arc. )3#)**1#
exce,t if t.e C$A ,rovides ot.erwise (JAUA ?oods v.
Pacot# %.!. 'o. )4)32+# 8ar. /+# /004.
.i&9i&&al4 Aut6#riIed %au&e&4 .#2n&iIing
E9l#yee& (2001)
Soon after t.e Asian meltdown (egan in 9cto(er
)**2# A$C !ealty and 8anagement Cor,oration
undertooD a downsiGing ,rogram and terminated
nearly a t.ird of its regular worDforce. <.e affected
em,loyees Euestioned t.eir termination arguing t.at
t.e action was ,reci,itate in t.at A$C .ad not
,roved t.at it sustained any losses. Is t.e claim of
t.e em,loyees correctK &x,lain your answer# (3M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e claim of t.e em,loyees may or may not (e
correct. @.en t.e Cor,oration undertooD its
CdownsiGingC ,rogram# it may .ave terminated its
em,loyees on eit.er one of two grounds# namely#
redundancy or retrenc.ment.
?or !&;U';A'CI# t.ere is no reEuirement of
losses# w.ereas in retrenc.ment# su(stantial losses#
actual or antici,ated# is a reEuirement. (Article /+3#
La(or Code. In Atlantic %ulf and Pacific Com,any
vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )/24)1. 8ay /+# )***# t.e
Su,reme Court ruled5
C... it is necessary to distinguis. redundancy
from retrenc.ment... !edundancy exists w.en
t.e services of an em,loyee are in excess of
w.at is reEuired (y an enter,rise.
!&<!&'CF8&'< on t.e ot.er .and# ... is
resorted to ,rimarily to avoid or minimiGe (usiness
losses.C
In &scareal vs. 'L!C# /)3 SC!A 62/ ()**/# t.e
Su,reme Court ruled t.at t.e law does not reEuire
financial loss as a (asis for redundancy.
.i&9i&&al4 Aut6#riIed %au&e&4 (edundan5y
(1999)
?AC<S5 Farvester Inde,endent Aentures (FIA
ado,ted a redundancy ,rogram to streamline
o,erations. Positions w.ic. overla,,ed eac. ot.er# or
w.ic. are in excess of t.e reEuirements of t.e
service# were declared redundant. <.is ,rogram
resulted in t.e reduction of man,ower com,lement
and conseEuent termination of fifteen ()4
em,loyees# w.ic. included t.e secretary of t.e local
union and t.e com,anyPs Pollution control 9fficer.
Ilaw at $uDlod ng 8anggagawa (I$8# Euestioned
t.e termination of t.e )4 em,loyees# contending t.at
t.e same constituted union (usting and t.erefore#
illegal# if t.e same is undertaDen wit.out ,rior union
a,,roval.
). Is I$8 correct in its contention t.at redundancy
can (e im,lemented (y FIA only u,on ,rior union
a,,rovalK @.yK (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e La(or Code (in Article /+3 very clearly gives
t.e em,loyer t.e rig.t to terminate any of its
em,loyees for redundancy.
/. Can t.e ,osition of Pollution Control 9fficer (e
declared redundantK @.yK (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
If t.ere is a law reEuiring com,anies to .ave a
Pollution 9fficer# t.en FIA cannot declare suc.
office redundant.
If t.ere is no suc. law# t.en t.e Pollution 9fficer
could (e considered redundant.
6anel( onsider case of 3scareal% A
position created by la! cannot be
declared redundant%
.i&9i&&al4 Aut6#riIed %au&e&4 (edundan5y
(2000)
a Can redundancy exist w.ere t.e same is due to
t.e com,anyPs failure to ,ro,erly forecast its
man,ower reEuirementsK (3M ( Can redundancy
exist w.ere t.e worD ,erformed (y twelve ()/
worDers can (e ,erformed as efficiently (y ten ()0
worDers (y increasing t.e s,eed of a mac.ine
wit.out detriment to t.e .ealt. and safety of t.e
worDersK (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
a Ies# !&;U';A'CI exists w.en a ,osition .as
(ecome an excess or su,erfluous w.ic.# in turn#
may (e caused (y reorganiGation# closure of
a section or de,artment# or ado,tion of la(or
saving arrangements. Poor forecasting does not
invalidate redundancy. ?orecasting after all is not
fail-free. L@ilts.ire ?ile Co..Inc. v. 'L!C. )*3 SC!A
114 ()**)N.
( Ies# redundancy can exist w.ere worD efficiency
.as (een im,roved mec.anically t.us resulting in
excessive or su,erfluous man,ower. L@ilts.ire ?ile
Co.# Inc. v. 'L!C# )*3 SC!A 114()**)N.
.i&9i&&al4 Aut6#riIed %au&e&4
(etren569ent > (edundan5y (2001)
(a @.at conditions must ,revail and w.at
reEuirements# if any# must an em,loyer com,ly wit.
to :ustify7effect a valid retrenc.ment ,rogramK (/M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(4
In t.e case of Asian Alco.ol Cor,. vs. 'L!C# %.!.
'o. )3))0+# 8arc. /4#)***# t.e Su,reme Court
stated t.at t.e reEuirements for a valid retrenc.ment
must (e ,roved (y clear and convincing evidence5
() t.at t.e retrenc.ment is reasona(ly necessary
and liDely to ,revent (usiness losses w.ic.# if
already incurred# are not merely de minimis# (ut
SU$S<A'<IAL# S&!I9US# AC<UAL and !&AL or if
only ex,ected# are reasona(ly imminent as
,erceived o(:ectively and in good fait. (y t.e
em,loyer-
(/ t.at t.e em,loyer served @!I<<&' '9<IC&
(ot. to t.e em,loyees and to t.e ;e,artment of
La(or and &m,loyment at least one mont. ,rior to
t.e intended date of retrenc.ment-
(3 t.at t.e em,loyer ,ays t.e retrenc.ed em,loyees
S&PA!A<I9' PAI eEuivalent to one mont. ,ay or at
least one mont. ,ay for every year of service#
w.ic.ever is .ig.er-
(6 t.at t.e em,loyer exercises its ,rerogative to
retrenc. em,loyees in %99; ?AI<F for t.e
advancement of its interest and not to defeat or
circumvent t.e em,loyeesP rig.t to security of
tenure- and
(4 t.at t.e em,loyer used ?AI! and !&AS9'A$L&
C!I<&!IA in ascertaining w.o would (e dismissed
and w.o would (e retained among t.e em,loyees#
suc. as status (i.e.# w.et.er t.ey are tem,orary#
casual# regular or managerial em,loyees# efficiency#
seniority# ,.ysical fitness# age# and financial .ards.i,
for certain worDers.
(( @.at conditions must ,revail and w.at
reEuirements# if any# must an em,loyer com,ly wit.
to :ustify7effect a valid redundancy ,rogramK (/M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
In t.e case of Asian Alco.ol Cor,. (su,ra# t.e
Su,reme Court stated t.at !&;U';A'CI exists
w.en t.e service ca,a(ility of t.e worD is in excess
of w.at is reasona(ly needed to meet t.e demands
on t.e enter,rise. A !&;U';A'< P9SI<I9' is one
rendered su,erfluous (y any num(er of factors# suc.
as over.iring of worDers# decreased volume of
(usiness dro,,ing of a ,articular line ,reviously
manufactured (y t.e com,any or ,.asing out of a
service activity ,reviously undertaDen (y t.e
(usiness. Under t.ese conditions# t.e em,loyer .as
no legal o(ligation to Dee, in its ,ayroll more
em,loyees t.an are necessary for t.e o,eration of its
(usiness.
?or t.e im,lementation of a redundancy ,rogram to
(e valid# t.e em,loyer must com,ly wit. t.e
following !&JUISI<&S5
() written notice served on (ot. t.e em,loyees and
t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment at least
one mont. ,rior to t.e intended date of
retrenc.ment-
(/ ,ayment of se,aration ,ay eEuivalent to at least
one mont. ,ay or at least one mont. ,ay for every
year of service w.ic.ever is .ig.er-
(3 good fait. in a(olis.ing t.e redundant ,ositions-
and
(6 fair and reasona(le criteria in ascertaining w.at
,ositions are to (e declared redundant and
accordingly a(olis.ed.
.i&9i&&al4 Aut6#riIed %au&e&4
(etren569ent (199-)
<.e Com,any Legal Counsel advised t.e $oard of
;irectors as follows5 CA com,any cannot retrenc. to
,revent losses until actual losses occur. <.e
Com,any must wait until t.e end of t.e $usiness
Iear w.en its $ooDs of Accounts# Profit and Loss
Statement s.owing t.e actual loss and $alance
S.eet .ave (een audited (y an Inde,endent auditing
firm.C Is t.e legal advice of counsel correctKL4MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e legal advice is not correct. <.e La(or Code (in
Article /+3 ,rovides t.at retrenc.ment may (e
resorted to C<9 P!&A&'< L9SS&SC <.us# t.ere
could (e legal (asis for retrenc.ment even (efore
actual losses as long as t.e losses are imminent
and serious.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e advise of t.e Com,any Legal Counsel t.at an
em,loyer cannot retrenc. to ,revent losses until
actual losses occur is not correct. <.e La(or Code
,rovides5
Art. /+3. Closure of esta(lis.ment and reduction
of ,ersonnel. -<.e em,loyer may also
terminate t.e em,loyment of any em,loyee xxx
retrenc.ment to ,revent losses.
<.e law does not reEuire t.at retrenc.ment can (e
undertaDen (y an em,loyer only after an actual
(usiness loss occurs. <.e Su,reme Court in Lo,eG
Sugar Cor,oration v# ?ederation of ?ree @orDers#
)+* SC!A )2* ()**0. said5
In its ordinr! #onnottion( the phrse "to
pre'ent &osses" mens tht the
retren#hment or termintion of some
emp&o!ees is "thori+ed to %e "ndert*en
%! the emp&o!er sometime %efore the &osses
nti#ipted re #t"&&! s"stined or
re&i+ed. It is not( in other words( the
intention of the &wm*er to #ompe& the
emp&o!er to st! his hnd nd *eep && his
emp&o!ees "nti& sometime fter &osses sh&&
h'e in f#t mteri&i+ed, if s"#h n intent
were e-press&! written into &w( the &w m!
we&& %e
vulnera(le to
constitutional
attacD ,ro,erty
from one man to
(underscoring
su,,liedN
a
s
a

taD
ing
not
.er
#
.i&9i&&al4
Aut6#riIed
%au&e&4
Dis!.s Deprtment /tore hired Leo s #he#*er
to a,,re.end s.o,lifters. Leo later (ecame C.ief of
t.e C.ecDers Section and acEuired t.e status of a
regular em,loyee. $y way of a cost-cutting measure#
;aisyPs decided to a(olis. t.e entire C.ecDers
Section. <.e services of Leo# along wit. t.ose of .is
co-em,loyees worDing in t.e same section# were
terminated on t.e same day. A mont. after t.e
dismissal of Leo# ;aisyPs engaged t.e services of
anot.er ,erson as an ordinary c.ecDer and wit. a
salary muc. lower t.an t.at w.ic. Leo used to
receive. %iven t.e a(ove factual settings (not.ing
more .aving (een esta(lis.ed# could t.e dismissal
of Leo (e successfully assailed (y .imK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies. %iven t.e factual setting in t.e ,ro(lem# and
since Cnot.ing more (.ave (een esta(lis.edC# t.e
dismissal of Leo can (e successfully assailed (y .im.
<.is is so (ecause t.e (urden of ,roof is u,on t.e
em,loyer to s.ow com,liance wit. t.e following
reEuisites for reduction of ,ersonnel5
). Losses or ex,ected losses s.ould (e su(stantial
and not merely de minimis-
/. <.e ex,ected losses must (e reasona(ly
imminent# and suc. imminence can (e ,erceived
o(:ectively and in good fait. (y t.e em,loyer.
3. It must (e necessary and liDely to ,revent t.e
ex,ected losses. <.e em,loyer must .ave taDen
ot.er measures to cut costs ot.er t.an la(or costs-
and
6. Losses if already realiGed# or t.e ex,ected
losses must (e ,roved (y sufficient and convincing
evidence. (Lo,eG Sugar Cor,. v. ?ederation of
Sugar @orDers. )+* SC!A )2*()**0.
8oreover# t.e notice reEuirements to (e given (y
;aisyPs ;e,artment Store to ;9L& and t.e
em,loyees concerned 30 days ,rior to t.e intended
date of termination# as well as t.e reEuisite
se,aration ,ay# were not com,lied wit..
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies. <.e aut.oriGed cause to dismiss due to
redundancy or retrenc.ment under Art. /+3 of t.e
La(or Code .as (een dis,roved (y ;aisyPs engaging
t.e services of a su(stitute c.ecDer at a salary muc.
lower t.an t.at w.ic. Leo used to receive. Also# it
a,,ears t.at t.e one () mont. notice rule reEuired
in said law was not com,lied wit.. Suc. (eing t.e
case# t.e twin reEuirements for a valid dismissal
under Arts. /22 (( and /+3 of t.e Code .ave clearly
not (een com,lied wit.. <.at no se,aration ,ay was
,aid Leo# in violation of Art. /+3 of t.e Code# .is
dismissal can all t.e more (e successfully assailed.
.i&9i&&al4 Aut6#riIed %au&e&4 +eni#rity
(ule (2001)
(c Is t.e S&'I9!I<I !UL& or Clast in first outC
,olicy to (e strictly followed in effecting a
retrenc.ment or redundancy ,rogramK ()M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Again# in Asian Alco.ol Cor,.# t.e Su,reme Court
stated t.at wit. regard t.e ,olicy of Cfirst in# last outC
in c.oosing w.ic. ,ositions to declare as redundant
or w.om to retrenc. to ,revent furt.er (usiness
losses# t.ere is no law t.at mandates suc. a ,olicy.
<.e reason is sim,le enoug.. A .ost of relevant
factors come into ,lay in determining cost efficient
measures and in c.oosing t.e em,loyees w.o will (e
retained or se,arated to save t.e com,any from
closing s.o,. In determining t.ese issues#
management ,lays a ,re-eminent role. <.e
c.aracteriGation of ,ositions as redundant is an
exercise of (usiness :udgment on t.e ,art of t.e
em,loyer. It will (e u,.eld as long as it ,asses t.e
test of ar(itrariness.
.i&9i&&al4 Aut6#riIed %au&e&4 +i5Ene&&
(2004)
A. %a(riela Liwanag .as (een worDing as
(ooDDee,er at %reat ?oods# Inc.# w.ic. o,erates a
c.ain of .ig.-end restaurants t.roug.out t.e country#
since )*20 w.en it was still a small eatery at
$inondo. In t.e early ,art of t.e year /003#
%a(riela# w.o was already 40 years old# re,orted for
worD after a weeD-long vacation in .er ,rovince. It
was t.e .eig.t of t.e SA!S (Severe Acute
!es,iratory Syndrome scare# and management
learned t.at t.e first confirmed SA!S deat. case in
t.e P.ili,,ines# a B(aliD(ayanH nurse from Canada# is
a townmate of %a(riela. Immediately# a
memorandum was issued (y management
terminating t.e services of %a(riela on t.e ground
t.at s.e is a ,ro(a(le carrier of SA!S virus and t.at
.er continued em,loyment is ,re:udicial to t.e .ealt.
of .er co-em,loyees.
Is t.e action taDen (y t.e em,loyer :ustifiedK (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e em,loyerPs act of terminating t.e em,loyment of
%a(riela is not :ustified. <.ere is no s.owing t.at
said em,loyee is sicD wit. SA!S# or t.at s.e
associated or .ad contact wit. t.e deceased nurse.
<.ey are merely townmates. ?urt.ermore# t.ere is
no certification (y a com,etent ,u(lic .ealt.
aut.ority t.at t.e disease is of suc. a nature or suc.
a stage t.at it cannot (e cured wit.in a ,eriod of six
(1 mont.s even wit. ,ro,er medical treatment.
(Im,lementing !ules# $ooD AI# !ule )# Sec. +# La(or
Code.
.i&9i&&al4 %#n&tru5ti,e .i&9i&&al4 Al#ating
+tatu& (2004)
!S# a security guard# filed a com,laint for illegal
dismissal against Star Security Agency. Fe alleged
.e was constructively dismissed after ten years of
service to t.e Agency. Faving (een ,laced on Boff-
detailH and Bfloating statusH for 1 mont.s already# .e
claimed t.e Agency :ust really wanted to get rid of .im
(ecause it reEuired .im to taDe a neuro-,syc.iatric
evaluation test (y 8a.usay 8edical Center. !S said
.e already su(mitted t.e result of .is evaluation test
(y $rent 8edical Clinic as ,recondition to a new
assignment# (ut t.e re,ort was re:ected (y t.e
Agency. !S added t.at 8a.usay 8edical Center .ad
close ties wit. Star>s ,resident. It could mani,ulate
tests to favor only t.ose guards w.om t.e Agency
wanted to retain. Star defended its ,olicy of reliance
on 8a.usay 8edical Center (ecause it .as (een duly
accredited (y t.e P.ili,,ine 'ational Police. It is not
one of t.ose du(ious testing centers issuing ready-
made re,orts. Star cited its sad ex,erience last year
w.en a guard ran amucD and s.ot an em,loyee of a
client-(anD. Star claimed management ,rerogative in
assigning its guards# and ,rayed t.at !S> com,laint
(e dismissed.
@.at are t.e issuesK Identify and resolve t.em.
(4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e facts in t.e Euestion raise t.ese issues5
1 @.en !S was ,laced on Coff-detailC or Cfloating
statusC for more t.an six mont.s# can !S claim t.at .e
was terminatedK
2 Is t.ere a valid reason for t.e termination of !SK
9n t.e first issue# (ased on ,revailing :uris,rudence#
!S can (e considered as terminated (ecause .e .as
(een ,laced on Coff detailC or Cfloating statusC for a
,eriod w.ic. is more t.an six (1 mont.s.
9n t.e second issue# it is true t.at disease is a
ground for termination. $ut t.e neuro-,syc.iatric
evaluation test (y t.e 8a.usay 8edical Center is
not t.e certification reEuired for disease to (e a
ground for termination. <.e !ules and !egulations
im,lementing t.e La(or Code reEuire a certification
(y a ,u(lic .ealt. aut.ority t.at t.e disease is of
suc. nature or at suc. a stage t.at it cannot (e
cured wit.in a ,eriod of six (1 mont.s even wit.
,ro,er medical treatment.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e issues involved are as follows5
). Is t.ere constructive dismissalK
/. Is t.ere a valid exercise of management
,rerogativeK 9n t.e first issue# t.ere is constructive
dismissal. !S cannot (e ,laced on Coff-detailC and
Cfloating statusC indefinitely. If it lasts for more t.an
six (1 mont.s# !S s.all (e deemed to .ave (een
constructively dismissed t.us entitling .im to
se,aration (enefits. (Su,erstar Security Agency v.
'L!C# )+6 SC!A 26# L)**0N.
9n t.e second issue# t.ere is no valid exercise of
management ,rerogative. StarPs claim of management
,rerogative in assigning its guards cannot (e
exercised to defeat or circumvent !SP rig.t to security
of tenure.
.i&9i&&al4 %#n&tru5ti,e .i&9i&&al4 "ran&$er
(1996)
8ansueto was .ired (y t.e P.ili,,ine PacDing
Com,any (PPC sometime in )*10 as an .ourly ,aid
researc. field worDer at its ,inea,,le ,lantation in
$uDidnon. In )*20# .e was transferred to t.e general
cro,s ,lantation in 8isamis 9riental. 8ansueto was
,romoted to t.e ,osition of a mont.ly ,aid regular
su,ervisor four years after.
Su(seEuently# researc. activity in 8isamis 9riental
was ,.ased out to 8arc. of )*+/ for .aving (ecome
unnecessary. 8ansueto t.ereafter received a written
memorandum from t.e PPC# reassigning .im to t.e
$uDidnon ,lantation effective A,ril )# )*+/# wit.
assurance t.at .is ,osition of su,ervisor was still t.ere
for .im to .old. 8ansueto tried to ,ersuade t.e PPC
management to reconsider .is transfer and if t.is was
not ,ossi(le# to at least consider .is ,osition as
redundant so t.at .e could (e entitled to severance
,ay. PPC did not acce,t 8ansuetoPs ,ro,osal.
@.en 8ansueto continuously failed to re,ort for
worD at t.e $uDidnon ,lantation# PPC terminated .is
em,loyment (y reason of .is refusal to acce,t .is
new assignment.
8ansueto claims t.at .is reassignment is tantamount
to an Illegal constructive dismissal. ;o you agree wit.
8ansuetoK &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.ere is no constructive dismissal (y t.e mere act of
transferring an em,loyee. <.e em,loyeePs contention
cannot (e sustained sim,ly (ecause a transfer
causes inconvenience. <.ere is no constructive
dismissal w.ere# as in P.ili,,ine Ja,an Active
Car(on Cor,.# vs. 'L!C# )2) SC!A )16 ()*+*# t.e
Court ruled t.at constructive dismissal means5
A Euitting (ecause continued em,loyment is
rendered im,ossi(le# unreasona(le or unliDea(le- as
an offer involving a demotion in ranD and a
diminution in ,ay.
<.e transfer will not su(stantially alter t.e terms and
conditions of em,loyment of t.e Su,ervisor. <.e
rig.t to transfer an em,loyee is ,art of t.e
em,loyerPs managerial function.
?urt.ermore# t.e Court ruled t.at an em,loyee .as
no vested rig.t to a ,osition# and in :ustifia(le cases
em,loyment may (e terminated.
An em,loyerPs rig.t to security of tenure does not
give .im suc. a vested rig.t to .is ,osition as would
de,rive t.e Com,any of its ,rerogative to c.ange .is
assignment or transfer .im w.ere .e will (e most
useful. @.en .is transfer is not unreasona(le# not
inconvenient# nor ,re:udicial to .im# and it does not
involve a demotion in ranD or a diminution of .is
salaries# (enefits# and ot.er ,rivileges# t.e em,loyee
may not com,lain t.at it amounts to a constructive
dismissal.
.i&9i&&al4 .a9age& (e5#,erable (2001)
@.at damages can an illegally dismissed em,loyee
collect from .is em,loyerK (/M.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
An illegally dismissed em,loyee may collect from .is
em,loyer AC<UAL or C98P&'SA<9!I damages#
89!AL damages and &O&8PLA!I damages# as
well as attorneyPs fees as damages.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
8oral and exem,lary damages are only ,ro,er
w.ere t.e em,loyee .as (een .arassed and
ar(itrarily terminated (y t.e em,loyer# 'ueva &ci:a
vs. &lectric Coo,erative &m,loyees Association
(%.!. 'o. ))1011# January /6# /000- CruG vs. 'L!C#
%.!. 'o. )13+6. ?e(ruary 2# /000- P.ili,,ine Aeolus
etc.# vs. C.ua (%.!. 'o. )/61)2# A,ril /+# /000- and
Lucas vs. !oyo# %.!. 'o. )31)+4# 9cto(er 30#
/000.
(b) ;ay t6e )ab#r Arbiter, N)(% #r %#urt #$
Aeal& ,alidly a2ard att#rneyK& $ee& in $a,#r #$
a 5#9lainant e,en i$ n#t 5lai9ed #r r#,en in
t6e r#5eeding&L /6yL (8M). +U''E+"E.
AN+/E(:
A La(or Ar(iter# 'L!C and Court of A,,eals may
validly award attorneyPs fees in favor of a
com,lainant only if t.e claimant claimed and ,roved
t.at .e is entitled to attorneyPs fees.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Article //0+ of t.e 'ew Civil Code allows t.e award
of attorneyPs fees w.en t.e defendantPs act or
omission .as com,elled t.e ,laintiff to litigate or
incur ex,enses to ,rotect .is interest. AttorneyPs
fees may (e considered as a ,art of an eEuita(le
relief awarded in t.e conce,t of damages.
.i&9i&&al4 .ue *r#5e&&4 (eFuire9ent&
(1994)
) ;istinguis. (etween t.e su(stantive and t.e
,rocedural reEuirements for t.e dismissal of an
em,loyee.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
) <.is is t.e SU$S<A'<IA& !&JUI!&8&'< for
t.e valid dismissal of an em,loyee5 <.ere s.ould (e
a :ust cause for t.e termination of an em,loyee or
t.at t.e termination is aut.oriGed (y law.
<.is is t.e P!9C&;U!AL !&JUI!&8&'<5 <.e
em,loyer s.ould furnis. t.e em,loyee w.ose
em,loyment is soug.t to (e terminated a written
notice containing a statement of t.e causes for
termination and t.e em,loyer s.ould afford t.e
em,loyee to (e terminated am,le o,,ortunity to (e
.eard and to defend .imself wit. t.e assistance of
.is re,resentative if .e so desires. (Arts. /2* and
/22 ((# La(or Code
.i&9i&&al4 .ue *r#5e&&4 (eFuire9ent&
(2006)
Inday was em,loyed (y Ferrera Fome Im,rovements#
Inc. (Ferrera Fome as interior decorator. ;uring t.e
first year of .er em,loyment# s.e did not re,ort for
worD for one mont.. Fence# .er em,loyer dismissed
.er from t.e service. S.e filed wit. t.e La(or Ar(iter a
com,laint for illegal dismissal alleging s.e did not
a(andon .er worD and t.at in terminating .er
em,loyment# Ferrera Fome de,rived .er of .er rig.t
to due ,rocess. S.e t.us ,rayed t.at s.e (e
reinstated to .er ,osition.
Inday .ired you as .er counsel. In ,re,aring t.e
,osition ,a,er to (e su(mitted to t.e La(or Ar(iter#
ex,lain t.e standards of due ,rocess w.ic. s.ould
.ave (een o(served (y Ferrera Fome in terminating
your clientPs em,loyment. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e La(or Code ,rovides t.e following ,rocedure to
(e o(served in terminating t.e services of an
em,loyee (ased on :ust causes as defined in Art.
/+3 of t.e Code5
a. A written notice must (e served on t.e
em,loyee s,ecifying grounds for termination and
giving .im o,,ortunity to answer-
<.e em,loyee s.all (e given am,le o,,ortunity to
defend .imself# wit. or wit.out t.e assistance of
counsel- and c A written notice of termination
indicating t.e grounds to :ustify .is termination
(Aga(on v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )4+1*3# )2 'ovem(er
/006.
.i&9i&&al4 Ju&t %au&e4 I99#ral %#ndu5t
(1996)
8arimar is a teac.er in Santi(aneG Fig. Sc.ool#
S.e is t.e class adviser of t.e senior (atc. w.ere
Sergio is enrolled. Since it is t.e ,olicy of t.e sc.ool
to extend remedial instructions to its students#
Sergio is im,arted suc. instructions in sc.ool (y
8arimar after regular class .ours. In t.e course
t.ereof# 8arimar and Sergio fell in love wit. eac.
ot.er and s.ortly after got married. 8arimar is 3)
years old w.ile Sergio is only )1.
Santi(aneG Fig. Sc.ool t.ereafter seeDs to
terminate t.e em,loyment of 8arimar for a(usive
and unet.ical conduct un(ecoming of a dignified
sc.ool teac.er and t.at .er continued em,loyment is
inimical to t.e (est interest and would downgrade t.e
.ig. moral values of t.e sc.ool. 8arimar# according
to t.e sc.ool# recDlessly tooD advantage of .er
,osition as a teac.er (y luring a graduating student
under .er advisory section and )4 years .er :unior
into an amorous relations.i,# in violation of t.e Code
of &t.ics for teac.ers w.ic. states# among ot.ers#
t.at a Csc.ool official or teac.er s.ould never taDe
advantage of .is7.er ,osition to court a ,u,il or
student.C @.ile no one directly saw 8arimar and
Sergio doing any intimate acts inside t.e classroom#
t.e sc.ool nonet.eless maintains t.at t.e marriage
(etween t.e two is t.e (est ,roof w.ic. confirms t.e
sus,icion t.at 8arimar and Sergio indulged in
amorous relations inside t.e classroom after class
.ours.
8arimar# on t.e ot.er .and# contends t.at t.ere is
not.ing wrong wit. a teac.er falling in love wit. .er
,u,il and conseEuently# contracting marriage wit.
.im. Fow would you decide t.e case. &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e fact t.at 8arimar and Sergio got married is not
(y itself sufficient ,roof t.at 8arimar as a 3) year
old teac.er# tooD advantage of .er ,osition to court
Sergio# a )1-year old student# w.om s.e was
tutoring after regular class .ours. <.us# 8arimar
could not (e considered as violating t.e sc.oolPs
Code of &t.ics w.ic. could .ave (een a valid cause
for .er termination. 8arimarPs falling in love wit. .er
student cannot (e considered serious misconduct
w.ic. is a Just cause for termination of em,loyment.
9f course# if it is ,roven t.at 8arimar and Sergio
indulged in amorous relations inside t.e classroom
after class .ours# t.is would constitute serious
misconduct on t.e ,art of 8arimar as a teac.er
and could (e :ust cause for t.e termination of .er
em,loyment.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e case s.ould (e decided in favor of 8arimar# t.e
sc.ool teac.er. <.e sc.ool failed to adduce evidence
in su,,ort of its claim of immoral conduct on t.e ,art
of 8arimar- .ence# its claim Ct.at t.e marriage
(etween t.e two (teac.er and student is (est ,roof
w.ic. confirm t.e sus,icion t.at 8arimar and Sergio
indulged in amorous relations inside t.e classroom
after office .oursC is a gratuitous statement.
?urt.ermore# marriage (etween two ,arties of
dis,arate ages# even as (etween an older teac.er
and a younger student is not an immoral act.
In C.ua Jua v Clave# )+* SC!A ))2 ()**0 a case
w.ic. is exactly similar to t.e ,ro(lem# t.e Su,reme
Court ruled5
@.ere t.ere is no su(stantial evidence of t.e
im,uted immoral acts# it follows t.at t.e alleged
violation of t.e Code of &t.ics would .ave no
(asis. If t.e two eventually fell in love# des,ite
t.e dis,arity on t.eir ages and academic levels#
t.is only lends su(stance# to t.e truism t.at t.e
.eart .as reasons of its own w.ic. reason does
not Dnow. $ut# definitely# yielding to t.is gentle
and universal emotion is not to (e casually
eEuated wit. immorality. <.e deviation of t.e
circumstances of t.eir marriage from t.e usual
societal ,attern cannot (e considered as a
defiance of contem,orary social norms.
.i&9i&&al4 Ju&t %au&e4 Indeendent
%#ntra5t#r (2005)
Antonio AntuEuin# a security guard# was caug.t
slee,ing on t.e :o( w.ile on duty at t.e Iosi
Cigarette ?actory. As a result# .e was dismissed from
em,loyment (y t.e @agan Security Agency# an
inde,endent contractor. At t.e time of .is dismissal#
Antonio .ad (een serving as a watc.man in t.e
factory for many years# often at stretc.es of u, to )/
.ours# even on Sundays and .olidays# wit.out
overtime# nig.ttime and rest day (enefits. Fe
t.ereafter filed a com,laint for illegal dismissal and
non-,ayment of (enefits against Iosi Cigarette
?actory# w.ic. .e claimed was .is actual and direct
em,loyer. As t.e La(or Ar(iter assigned to .ear t.e
case# .ow would you correctly resolve t.e following5
(1M
(a) Antonio's charge of illegal dismissal*
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.is is a case involving ,ermissi(le :o( contracting.
AntonioPs c.arge of illegal dismissal against Iosi
Cigarette ?actory will not ,ros,er. @agan Security
Agency# an inde,endent contractor# is AntonioPs
direct em,loyer. Iosi is only AntonioPs indirect
em,loyer. $y force of law# t.ere is in reality no
em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, (etween Iosi and
Antonio. ($aguio v. 'L!C# %.!. 'os. 2*006-0+#
9cto(er 6# )**)
(b) Antonio's claim for overtime and other
benefits'
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
I will dismiss AntonioPs claim for overtime and ot.er
(enefits for lacD of merit as against Iosi. In legitimate
:o( contracting# t.e ,rinci,al em,loyer (Iosi
(ecomes :ointly and severally lia(le wit. t.e :o(
contractor (@agan only for t.e ,ayment of t.e
em,loyeePs (Antonio wages w.enever t.e contractor
fails to ,ay t.e same. 9t.er t.an t.at# t.e ,rinci,al
em,loyer (Iosi is not res,onsi(le for any ot.er claim
made (y t.e em,loyee (Antonio. (San 8iguel Cor,.
v. 8A&!C Integrated Services# Inc.# %.!. 'o.
)6612/# July )0# /003
.i&9i&&al4 Ju&t %au&e4 ;i&5#ndu5t (1996)
Sergio# an em,loyee of &ncantado P.ili,,ines# Inc.
(&PI# was at t.e com,any canteen w.en CoraGon# a
canteen .el,er# Euestioned .im for .is use of
some(ody elsePs identification card (I;. Sergio
flared u, and s.outed at CoraGon C@ala Dang
,aDialam[ Uung gusto mo# ita,on Do itong mga
,agDain ninyo[C. @.en Sergio noticed t.at some
,eo,le w.ere staring at .im rat.er menacingly# .e
left t.e canteen (ut returned a few minutes later to
remarD c.allengingly CSino (a ang nagagalitC Sergio
t.en (egan smas.ing some food items t.at were on
dis,lay for sale in t.e canteen# after w.ic. .e
sla,,ed CoraGon w.ic. caused .er to fall and suffer
contusions. <.e incident ,rom,ted CoraGon to file a
written com,laint wit. %ustavo# t.e ,ersonnel
manager of &PI# against Sergio.
%ustavo reEuired Sergio to ex,lain in writing w.y no
disci,linary action s.ould (e taDen against .im. In
.is written ex,lanation. Sergio admitted .is
misconduct (ut tried to ex,lain it away (y saying t.at
.e was under t.e influence of liEuor at t.e time of
t.e incident. %ustavo t.ereafter issued a letter of
termination from t.e em,loyment of Sergio for
serious misconduct.
Sergio now flies a com,laint for illegal dismissal#
arguing t.at .is acts did not constitute serious
misconduct t.at would :ustify .is dismissal. ;ecide.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e acts of Sergio constituted serious misconduct.
<.us# t.ere was :ust cause for .is termination. <.e
fact t.at .e was under t.e influence of liEuor at t.e
time t.at .e did w.at .e did does not mitigate#
instead it aggravates# .is misconduct. $eing under
t.e influence of liEuor w.ile at worD is (y itself
serious misconduct.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e dismissal is not :ustified (ecause t.e serious
misconduct committed (y t.e em,loyee is not in
connection wit. .is worD. Art. /+/(g of t.e La(or
Code was inter,reted (y t.e Su,reme Court in Aris
P.ili,,ines# Inc. v. 'L!C# as follows5
CIt is not dis,uted t.at ,rivate res,ondent .as
done# indeed .e admitted to .ave committed# a
serious misconduct. In order to constitute a C:ust
causeC for dismissal# .owever# t.e act
com,lained of must (e related to t.e
,erformance of t.e duties of t.e em,loyee suc.
as would s.ow .im to (e t.ere(y unfit to
continue worDing for t.e em,loyer.C
.i&9i&&al4 Ju&t %au&e4 *r#bati#nary
E9l#yee&4 (ig6t& (2006)
;uring t.eir ,ro(ationary em,loyment# eig.t (+
em,loyees were (erated and insulted (y t.eir
su,ervisor. In ,rotest# t.ey walDed out. <.e
su,ervisor s.outed at t.em to go .ome and never to
re,ort (acD to worD. Later# t.e ,ersonnel manager
reEuired t.em to ex,lain w.y t.ey s.ould not (e
dismissed from em,loyment for a(andonment and
failure to Eualify for t.e ,ositions a,,lied for. <.ey
filed a com,laint for illegal dismissal against t.eir
em,loyer. As a La(or Ar(iter# .ow will you resolve
t.e caseK ()0M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
As a La(or Ar(iter I will resolve t.e case in favor of
t.e eig.t (+ ,ro(ationary em,loyees due to t.e
following considerations5
1 Pro(ationary em,loyees also en:oy security of
tenure ($i(oso v. Aictoria 8illing# %.!. 'o. L66310#
8arc. 3)# )*22.
2 In all cases involving em,loyees on
,ro(ationary status# t.e em,loyer s.all maDe Dnown
to t.e em,loyee at t.e time .e is .ired# t.e standards
(y w.ic. .e will Eualify for t.e ,ositions a,,lied for.
3 <.e filing of t.e com,laint for illegal dismissal
effectively negates t.e em,loyerPs t.eory of
a(andonment (!iGada v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. *1*+/#
Se,tem(er /)# )***.
4 <.e order to go .ome and not to return to
worD constitutes dismissal from em,loyment.
5 <.e eig.t (+ ,ro(ationary em,loyees were
terminated wit.out :ust cause and wit.out due
,rocess
In view of t.e foregoing# I will order reinstatement to
t.eir former ,ositions wit.out loss of seniority rig.ts
wit. full (acDwages# ,lus damages and attorney
fees.
.i&9i&&al4 Ju&t %au&e4 (eFuire9ent& (1999)
?AC<S5 Jose,. Aitriolo (JA# a cas.ier of Seaside
Suns.ine Su,ermart (SSS# was found after an
audit# to .ave cas. s.ortages on .is monetary
accounta(ility covering a ,eriod of a(out five
mont.s in t.e total amount of P6+#000.00. SSS
served u,on JA t.e written c.arge against .im via
a memorandum order of ,reventive sus,ension#
giving JA /6 .ours to su(mit .is ex,lanation. As
soon as JA su(mitted .is written ex,lanation wit.in
t.e given ,eriod# t.e same was deemed
unsatisfactory (y t.e com,any and JA was
,erem,torily dismissed wit.out any .earing.
<.e day following .is termination from em,loyment.
JA filed a case of illegal dismissal against SSS. ;uring
t.e .earing (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter. SSS ,roved (y
su(stantial evidence JAPs misa,,ro,riation of
com,any funds and various infractions detrimental to
t.e (usiness of t.e com,any. JA# .owever# contended
t.at .is dismissal was illegal (ecause t.e com,any
did not com,ly wit. t.e reEuirements of due ,rocess.
I. ;id SSS com,ly wit. t.e reEuirements of
,rocedural due ,rocess in t.e dismissal from
em,loyment of JAK &x,lain (riefly (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
In connection wit. t.e rig.t to due ,rocess in t.e
termination of an em,loyee# t.e La(or Code (in
Article /22L(N reEuires t.at t.e em,loyer furnis. t.e
worDer w.ose em,loyment is soug.t to (e
terminated a written notice containing a statement of
t.e causes for termination and s.all afford am,le
o,,ortunity to (e .eard and to defend .imself wit.
t.e assistance of .is re,resentative if .e so desires.
SSS did not com,ly wit. t.e a(ove descri(ed
reEuirements for due ,rocess. <.e memorandum
order was for t.e ,reventive sus,ension of JA# not a
notice for .is termination and t.e causes of .is
termination.
/. If you were t.e La(or Ar(iter# .ow would you
decide t.e caseK &x,lain (riefly (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
I will decide t.at t.e termination of JA was legal. It
was for :ust cause. JAPs misa,,ro,riation of com,any
funds and various infractions detrimental to t.e
(usiness of t.e com,any duly ,roven (y su(stantial
evidence constitute a willful (reac. (y JA of t.e trust
re,osed in .im (y .is em,loyer w.ic. is a :ust cause
for termination. (See Article /+/
$ut I will award .im indemnity of# say Pl#000# for t.e
failure of t.e em,loyer to give .im due ,rocess.
.i&9i&&al4 Ju&t %au&e4 +earati#n *ay
(1996)
) ;aisy# t.e (ranc. manager of <ro,ical ?ootwear
Inc.. was dismissed for serious misconduct. S.e filed
a com,laint for illegal dismissal and damages. <.e
La(or Ar(iter sustained ;aisyPs dismissal (ut
awarded .er se,aration ,ay (ased on social :ustice
and as an act of com,assion considering .er )0-
year service wit. t.e com,any.
@as t.e award of t.e se,aration ,ay ,ro,erK
&x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# t.e award of se,aration ,ay is not ,ro,er
(ecause t.e em,loyee was terminated for serious
misconduct and ,ayment of se,aration ,ay will (e to
reward an em,loyee for a wrong doing. In P.ili,,ine
Long ;istance <ele,.one Co.# vs 'L!C# )16 SC!A
12) ()*++.
@e .old t.at .encefort. se,aration ,ay s.all (e
allowed as a measure of social :ustice only in t.ose
instances w.ere t.e em,loyee is validly dismissed
for causes ot.er t.an serious misconduct or t.ose
reflecting .is moral c.aracter.
<.e ,olicy of social :ustice is not intended to
countenance wrongdoing. Com,assion for t.e ,oor
is an im,erative of every .uman society (ut only
w.en t.e reci,ient is not a rascal claiming an
undeserve ,rivilege. <.ose w.o invoDe social :ustice
may do so only if t.eir .ands are clean and t.eir
motives (lameless.
A contrary rule would .ave t.e effect of rewarding
rat.er t.an ,unis.ing t.e erring em,loyee for .is
offense.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(4
<.e award of t.e se,aration ,ay was not ,ro,er.
According to t.e La(or Code# S&PA!A<I9' PAI is
to (e ,aid to an em,loyee w.ose em,loyment is
terminated due to t.e installation of la(or saving
devices# redundancy# retrenc.ment to ,revent losses
or t.e closing or cessation of o,eration of t.e
esta(lis.ment or undertaDing. @.en an em,loyer
terminates t.e services of an em,loyee w.o .as
(een found to (e suffering from any disease# t.e
em,loyee is also to (e ,aid se,aration ,ay.
$ut on t.e (asis of eEuity# t.e Su,reme Court .as
ruled t.at an em,loyee w.ose em,loyment .as (een
terminated for :ust cause may nevert.eless# for
.umanitarian reasons# (e granted financial
assistance in t.e form of se,aration ,ay. $ut also
according to t.e Su,reme Court# a terminated
em,loyee is not deserving of said financial
assistance if .er termination is due to serious
misconduct.
In t.e case# ;aisy was dismissed (ecause of
serious misconduct. <.us# s.e s.ould not (e ,aid
se,aration ,ay.
.i&9i&&al4 Ju&t %au&e& (2001)
CAC worDed for com,any C$C as a ranD and file
em,loyee until A,ril )**0 w.en APs services were
terminated due to loss of confidence in A.
Fowever# (efore effecting APs dismissal# $
accorded A due ,rocess including full o,,ortunity
to answer t.e c.arges against .im in t.e course
of t.e investigation. @as $ :ustified in dismissing
A after t.e investigationK @.yK (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
In t.e case of PL;< vs. 'L!C (%.!. 'o. )01*62#
?e(ruary ))# )***# t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at
t.e (asic reEuisite for dismissal on t.e ground of
loss of confidence is t.at t.e em,loyee concerned
must (e one .olding a ,osition of trust and
confidence.
!anD-and-file em,loyees may only (e dismissed for
loss of confidence if t.e same is (ecause of a willful
(reac. of trust (y a ranD and file em,loyee of t.e
trust re,osed in .im (y .is em,loyer or duly
aut.oriGed re,resentative (Art. /+/(c# La(or Code.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
C$C is :ustified in dismissing CAC for loss of confidence
after according .im t.e rig.t to ,rocedural due
,rocess. Fowever# t.e following guidelines must (e
o(served# as ruled in 'oDom vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o.
)60036. July )+# /0005
1 loss of confidence s.ould not (e simulated-
2 it s.ould not (e used as su(terfuge for causes
w.ic. are im,ro,er# illegal or un:ustified-
3 it may not (e ar(itrarily asserted in t.e face of
overw.elming evidence to t.e contrary- and
4 it must (e genuine# not a mere after t.oug.t to
:ustify t.eir action
.i&9i&&al4 Ju&t %au&e& ,&7 Aut6#riIed
%au&e& (2000)
;istinguis. (etween dismissal of an em,loyee for
:ust cause and termination of em,loyment for
aut.oriGed cause. &numerate exam,les of :ust
cause and aut.oriGed cause. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
;ismissal for a JUS< CAUS& is founded on faults or
misdeeds of t.e em,loyee. Se,aration ,ay# as a rule#
will not (e ,aid. &xam,les5 serious misconduct# willful
diso(edience# commission of crime# gross and
.a(itual neglect# fraud and ot.er causes analogous to
t.e foregoing. (Art /+/# La(or Code.
<ermination for AU<F9!IQ&; CAUS&S are (ased
on (usiness exigencies or measures ado,ted (y t.e
em,loyer# not constituting faults of t.e em,loyee.
Payment of se,aration ,ay at varying amounts is
reEuired. &xam,les5 redundancy# closure#
retrenc.ment# installation of la(or saving device and
aut.oriGed cause. (Art. /+3-/+6# La(or Code.
.i&9i&&al4 Ju&t %au&e&4 .i&#bedien5e (1995)
!oman .ad (een a driver of ;ou(le-<en
Cor,oration for ten ()0 years. As early as .is fift.
year in t.e service .e was already commended as
a 8odel &m,loyee and given a salary increase.
9n
.is sevent. year# .e (ecame a steward of .is
la(or union. Since t.en .e (ecame dis,utatious
and o(stinate and .is ,erformance fell (elow ,ar.
9ne day .is manager told .im to ,icD u, some
documents from a certain (anD w.ic. were
needed to close a (usiness transaction. !oman
did not o(ey. Fe said .e .ad an im,ortant
,ersonal engagement. 8oreover# .e did not want
to drive a ve.icle t.at was not air-conditioned.
@.en .is immediate su,ervisor asDed .im in t.e
afternoon to drive an air-conditioned car# !oman
again refused. Fe said .e did not want to drive as
.e wanted to leave t.e office early.
!oman was asDed to ex,lain. After .earing .is
ex,lanation# !oman was dismissed for willful
diso(edience. !oman filed a case for illegal
dismissal against t.e ;ou(le-<en Cor,oration wit.
,rayer for reinstatement and full (acD wages wit.out
loss of seniority rig.ts# ,lus moral and exem,lary
damages and attorneyPs fees. !oman contended t.at
since t.ere was no emergency situation and t.ere
were ot.er drivers availa(le# .is refusal to drive for
t.e manager# and later for .is su,ervisor# was not
serious enoug. to warrant .is dismissal. 9n t.e
ot.er .and# .e claimed t.at .e was (eing ,unis.ed
(ecause of .is activities as a steward of .is union. If
you were t.e La(or Ar(iter# would you sustain
!omanK ;iscuss fully.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
If I were t.e La(or Ar(iter# I will not sustain !oman.
It is true t.at it would (e an unfair la(or ,ractice for
an em,loyer to discriminate against .is em,loyee
for t.e latterPs union activities.
$ut in t.e case# t.e Cor,oration is not discriminating
against !oman (ecause .e is a union official. @.en
t.e 8anager of !oman told .im to ,icD u, some
documents from a certain (anD# t.is was a lawful
order and w.en !oman did not o(ey t.e order# .e
was diso(edient- and w.en .e diso(eyed a similar
reEuest made later in t.e afternoon of same day# .e
was guilty of willful diso(edience to do w.at
management asDed .im to do. <.is is :ust cause for
.is termination.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
a 'o. <.e existence of an emergency situation is
irrelevant to t.e c.arge of willful diso(edience- an
o,,osite ,rinci,le would allow a worDer to s.ield
.imself under .is self-designed conce,t of Cnon-
emergency situationC to deli(erately defy t.e
directive of t.e em,loyer.
!oman was given adeEuate o,,ortunity under t.e
circumstances to answer t.e c.arge. Fis ex,lanation
was taDen into consideration in arriving at t.e
decision to dismiss .im.
( If it can (e esta(lis.ed t.at t.e true and (asic
motive for t.e em,loyerPs act is derived from t.e
em,loyeePs union affiliation or activities# t.e
allegation (y t.e em,loyer of anot.er reason
w.atever its su(stance of validity# is unavailing. <.us#
t.e dismissal could (e considered illegal.
.i&9i&&al4 Ju&t %au&e&4 .i&#bedien5e (2008)
9scar Pimentel was an agent su,ervisor# rising from
t.e ranDs# in a cor,oration engaged in real estate. In
order to ,romote t.e (usiness# t.e com,any issued a
memorandum to all agent su,ervisors reEuiring t.em
to su(mit a feasi(ility study wit.in t.eir res,ective
areas of o,eration. All agent su,ervisors com,lied
exce,t 9scar. !eminded (y t.e com,any to com,ly
wit. t.e memorandum# 9scar ex,lained t.at (eing a
dro,out in sc.ool and uneducated# .e would (e
una(le to su(mit t.e reEuired study. <.e com,any
found t.e ex,lanation unacce,ta(le and terminated
.is em,loyment. Aggrieved# 9scar filed a com,laint
for illegal dismissal against t.e com,any. ;ecide t.e
case.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
?or failure to com,ly wit. t.e memorandum to su(mit
a feasi(ility study on .is area of o,eration# 9scar can
not (e terminated (,resuma(ly for insu(ordination or
willful diso(edience (ecause t.e same envisages
t.e concurrence of at least two reEuisites5 () t.e
em,loyeePs assailed conduct must .ave (een willful
or intentional# t.e willfulness (eing c.aracteriGed (y a
wrongful and ,erverse attitude- and (/ t.e order
violated must .ave (een reasona(le# or lawful# made
Dnown to t.e em,loyee and must ,ertain to t.e
duties w.ic. .e .ad (een engaged to disc.arge.
In t.e case at (ar# at least two reEuisites are a(sent#
namely5 () 9scar did not willfully diso(ey t.e
memorandum wit. a ,erverse attitude- and (/ t.e
directive to maDe a feasi(ility study did not ,ertain to
.is duties. Fence# t.e termination from em,loyment
of 9scar Pimentel is not lawful.
.i&9i&&al4 Ju&t %au&e&4 In&ub#rdinati#n
(1999)
?AC<S5 8ariet ;emetrio was a clerD-ty,ist in t.e
9ffice of t.e President of a multi-national cor,oration.
9ne day s.e was (erated (y t.e President of t.e
com,any# t.e latter s.outing invectives at .er in t.e
,resence of em,loyees and visitors for a minor
infraction s.e committed. 8ariet was reduced to tears
out of s.ame and felt so (itter a(out t.e incident t.at
s.e filed a civil case for damages against t.e
com,any ,resident (efore t.e regular courts. Soon
t.ereafter# 8ariet received a memorandum
transferring .er to t.e 9ffice of t.e %eneral 8anager
wit.out demotion in ranD or diminution in ,ay. 8ariet
refused to transfer.
@it. res,ect to t.e civil suit for damages# t.e
com,any lawyer filed a 8otion to ;ismiss for lacD
of :urisdiction considering t.e existence of an
em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, and t.erefore# it is
claimed t.at t.e case s.ould .ave (een filed (efore
t.e La(or Ar(iter.
). @ill 8ariet ;emetrioPs refusal to transfer constitute
t.e offense of insu(ordinationK &x,lain (riefly. (/MT
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
8ariet ;emetrioPs transfer constitutes t.e offense of
insu(ordination. <.e transfer is a lawful order of t.e
em,loyer.
It is t.e em,loyerPs ,rerogative# (ased on its
assessment and ,erce,tion of its em,loyeesP
Eualifications# a,titudes# and com,etence# to move
its em,loyees around in t.e various areas of its
(usiness o,erations in order to ascertain w.ere t.ey
will function wit. maximum (enefit to t.e com,any.
An em,loyeePs rig.t to security of tenure does not
give .im suc. a vested rig.t in .is ,osition as would
de,rive t.e com,any of its ,rerogative to c.ange .is
assignment or transfer .im w.ere .e will (e most
useful. @.en .is transfer is not unreasona(le# nor
inconvenient# nor ,re:udicial to .im# and it does not
involve a demotion in ranD or a diminution of .is
salaries# (enefits# and ot.er ,rivileges# t.e em,loyee
may not refuse to o(ey t.e order of transfer.
(P.ili,,ine Ja,an Active Car(on Cor,. A. 'L!C# )2)
SC!A )16
.i&9i&&al4 Ju&t %au&e&4 ;i&5#ndu5t (1995)
Universal 8illing Com,any (U'IA&!SAL and 8araPs
Canteen (8A!APS executed an agreement t.at
U'IA&!SAL em,loyees ,atroniGing 8A!APS could (uy
food on credit and en:oy a /4M discount ,rovided t.at
t.ey ,resent t.eir Identification Card (I; and wear
t.eir com,any uniform. 'iDDo# an em,loyee of
U'IA&!SAL# used t.e I; of %alo# a co-em,loyee in
(uying food at 8A!APS. An alert em,loyee of 8A!APS
discovered t.e misre,resentation of 'iDDo (ut not
wit.out engaging .im in a .eated argument. 'iDDo
(oxed 8A!APS em,loyee resulting in serious ,.ysical
in:uries to t.e latter. U'IA&!SAL dismissed 'iDDo from
t.e com,any. 'iDDo sued U'IA&!SAL for illegal
dismissal.
As La(or Ar(iter# .ow would you decide t.e caseK
;iscuss fully.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.ere is ground for disci,lining 'iDDo. In ,resenting
t.e I; of a co-em,loyee to (uy food at 8araPs at a
discount and engaging in a fist fig.t# t.ese acts of
'iDDo constitute misconduct. $ut it is not t.e Dind of
serious misconduct t.at could (e t.e (asis of
dismissal. It will (e noted t.at t.e fig.t did not taDe
,lace at t.e worD,lace.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e facts are not clear w.et.er t.e canteen is wit.in
t.e com,any ,remises. If it is# t.en t.e act of 'iDDo in
(oxing 8araPs em,loyee may (e considered as a
valid ground for disci,linary action. Fowever# in t.is
case# t.e ,enalty of dismissal is not commensurate
to t.e misconduct allegedly committed.
.i&9i&&al4 Ju&t %au&e&4 Nuit5lai9& (1999)
Can a final and executory :udgment (e com,romised
under a C!elease and JuitclaimC for a lesser amountK
(3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# as long as t.e C!elease and JuitclaimC is
signed (y t.e very same ,erson entitled to receive
w.atever is to (e ,aid under t.e final and executory
:udgment t.at was t.e su(:ect of t.e com,romise
agreement and t.at t.e C!elease and JuitclaimC was
signed voluntarily.
In Al(a Patio de 8aDati v. 'L!C5 A final and
executory :udgment can no longer (e altered# even if
t.e modification is meant to correct w.at is
,erceived to (e an erroneous conclusion of fact or
law# and regardless of w.et.er t.e modification is
attem,ted to (e made (y t.e court rendering it or (y
t.e .ig.est court of t.e land. 8oreover# a final and
e+ecutory %udgment cannot be negotiated#
.ence# any act to su(vert it is contem,tuous.
It was incum(ent u,on t.e counsel for t.e
com,lainant to .ave seen to it t.at t.e interest of all
com,lainants was ,rotected. <.e Euitclaim and t.e
release in t.e ,re,aration of w.ic. .e assisted
clearly worDed to t.e grave disadvantage of t.e
com,lainants. <o render t.e decision of t.is Court
meaningless (y ,aying t.e (acD-wages of t.e
affected em,loyees in a muc. lesser amount clearly
manifested a willful disres,ect of t.e aut.ority of t.is
Court as t.e final ar(iter of cases (roug.t to it.
A final and e+ecutory %udgment cannot be
compromised under a ,elease and -uitclaimC if
said C!elease and Juitclaim is clearly to t.e grave
disadvantage of t.e affected em,loyees (y ,aying
t.em muc. lesser amounts t.an w.at t.ey were
entitled to receive under t.e :udgment. (See Al(a
Patio de 8aDati vs. 'L!C# /0) SC!A 344.
27 ;ay an #rdinary ranE?and?$ile e9l#yee be
ter9inated $#r l#&& #$ tru&t and 5#n$iden5eL I$
&#, 26at r##$ i& reFuiredL I$ n#t, 26y n#tL
(/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
An ordinary ranD and file em,loyee may (e
terminated for loss of trust and confidence as long as
loss of trust and confidence is (roug.t a(out
o(:ectively due to a willful (reac. (y t.e em,loyee of
t.e trust re,osed in .im (y .is em,loyer or duly
aut.oriGed re,resentative# and said willful (reac. is
,roven (y su(stantial evidence.
@.en adeEuately ,roven# t.e dual grounds of (reac.
of trust and loss of confidence constitute valid and
am,le (ases to warrant termination of an errant
em,loyee. As a general rule# .owever# em,loyers are
allowed a wider altitude of discretion in terminating
t.e em,loyment of managerial ,ersonnel or t.ose of
similar ranD ,erforming functions w.ic. (y t.eir
nature reEuires t.e em,loyerPs full trust and
confidence# t.an in t.e case of an ordinary ranD-and-
file em,loyee# w.ose termination on t.e (asis of
t.ese same grounds reEuires ,roof of involvement in
t.e events in Euestion- mere uncorro(orated
assertions and accusations (y t.e em,loyer will not
suffice. (8anila 8idtown Commercial Cor,oration v.
'uw.rain. )4* SC!A /)/.
.i&9i&&al4 )iability4 %#r#rate 0$$i5er&
(199!)
Are t.e ,rinci,al officers of a cor,oration lia(le in
t.eir ,ersonal ca,acity for non-,ayment of un,aid
wages and ot.er monetary (enefits due its
em,loyeesK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
As a general rule# t.e o(ligations incurred (y t.e
,rinci,al officers and em,loyees of a cor,oration
are not t.eirs (ut t.e direct accounta(ilities of t.e
cor,oration t.ey re,resent.
Fowever# S9LI;A!I LIA$ILI<I&S may at times (e
incurred (ut only w.en exce,tional circumstances
warrant suc. as# generally# in t.e following cases5
w.en directors and trustees or# in a,,ro,riate cases#
t.e officers of a cor,oration5
() vote for or assent to ,atently unlawful acts of t.e
cor,oration-
(/ act in (ad fait. or wit. gross negligence in
directing t.e cor,orate affairs-
(3 are guilty of conflict of Interest to t.e ,re:udice of
t.e cor,oration# its stocD.olders or mem(ers# and
ot.er ,ersons.
In la(or cases# t.e Su,reme Court .as .eld
cor,orate directors and officers solidarity lia(le wit.
t.e cor,oration for t.e termination of em,loyment of
em,loyees done wit. malice or (ad fait.. (Sunio
v. 'L!C. )/2 SC!A 3*0- %eneral $anD and <rust
Co. v. Court of A,,eals# )34 SC!A 14*.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
'o. Unless t.ey are guilty of malice or (ad fait. in
connection wit. t.e non-,ayment of un,aid wages
and ot.er monetary (enefits due to em,loyees.
.i&9i&&al4 *ayr#ll (ein&tate9ent (2005)
(c @.at is meant (y C,ayroll reinstatementC and
w.en does it a,,lyK (6M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
C
*AG(0)) (EIN+"A"E;EN"
C is one w.ere an em,loyee is ,aid .is mont.ly
salary wit.out maDing .im ,erform actual worD. It
a,,lies in termination cases w.ere t.e la(or court
declares t.e dismissal illegal and orders
reinstatement of t.e em,loyee# (ut t.e em,loyer
does not want to actually or ,.ysically reinstate .im
and instead# at t.e em,loyerPs o,tion# merely
reinstates t.e em,loyee in t.e ,ayroll ,ending
a,,eal.
.i&9i&&al4 *ayr#ll (ein&tate9ent4
(ein&tate9ent 0rder (1999)
?AC<S5 In t.e illegal dismissal case filed (y S.aron
Cometa against U, = ;own Com,any# t.e la(or Ar(iter
rendered a decision directing .er immediate
reinstatement and ,ayment of full (acDwages. <.e
Com,any a,,ealed to t.e 'L!C. ?ollowing .er lawyerPs
advise t.at t.e reinstatement as,ect of t.e decision is
immediately executory# S.aron went to t.e F!; 9ffice
of t.e Com,any and demanded immediate
reinstatement. @.en t.e Com,any refused# .er lawyer#
Atty. 8aximiano Anunciacion# filed a motion to cite t.e
em,loyer in contem,t. Acting on t.e motion# t.e 'L!C
ordered t.e ,ayroll reinstatement of S.aron Cometa.
17 %an t6e 5#9any #r any #$ it& #$$i5ial& be
5ited $#r 5#nte9t $#r re$u&ing t# rein&tate
+6ar#n %#9etaL /6yL (8M) +U''E+"E.
AN+/E(:
Ies. <.e com,any or any of its officials can (e cited
for contem,t. It is noted t.at in .is decision# t.e La(or
Ar(iter s,ecifically directed t.e immediate
reinstatement of S.aron Cometa. <.is directive under
t.e La(or Code (Article //3 is immediately
executory# even ,ending a,,eal. (Pioneer <exturiGing
Cor,oration v. 'L!C# /+0 SC!A +01
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
Ies. Under Art. //3 of t.e La(or Code# an em,loyer
.as two o,tions in order for .im to com,ly wit. an
order of reinstatement# w.ic. is immediately
executory# even ,ending a,,eal.
?I!S<LI# .e can admit t.e dismissed em,loyee
(acD to worD under t.e same terms and conditions
,revailing ,rior to .is dismissal or se,aration or to
a su(stantially eEuivalent ,osition if t.e former
,osition is already filled u,. S&C9';LI# t.e
em,loyer can (e reinstated in t.e ,ayroll. ?ailing
to exercise any of t.e a(ove o,tions# t.e em,loyer
can (e com,elled under PAI' 9? C9'<&8P<# to
,ay instead t.e salary of t.e em,loyee effective
from t.e date t.e em,loyer failed to reinstate
des,ite an executory writ of execution served
u,on .im. Under Art. /)+ of t.e La(or Code# t.e
'L!C .as t.e ,ower to cite ,ersons for direct and
indirect contem,t.
AN0"1E( A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
In a case (8aranaw Fotel Cor,. v. 'L!C# /3+ SC!A
)*)# t.e Su,reme Court said t.at alt.oug. t.e
reinstatement as,ect of a La(or Ar(iterPs decision
was immediately executory# it does not follow t.at it
is self-executory. <.ere must still (e a writ of
execution issued motu ,ro,rio or u,on motion of t.e
interested ,arty. (See Article //6
27 ;ay t6e N)(% #rder t6e ayr#ll rein&tate9ent
#$ +6ar#n %#9etaL /6yL (2M) +U''E+"E.
AN+/E(4
<.e 'L!C may '9< order t.e ,ayroll reinstatement
of S.aron Cometa. <.e La(or Code (Article //3
,rovides t.at in t.e immediate reinstatement of a
dismissed em,loyee# t.e em,loyee s.all (e admitted
(acD to worD under t.e same terms and conditions
,revailing ,rior to t.e em,loyeePs dismissal or# at t.e
o,tion of t.e em,loyer# merely reinstated in t.e
,ayroll. <.us# t.e reinstatement of t.e em,loyee in
t.e ,ayroll is at t.e o,tion of t.e em,loyer and not of
t.e 'L!C or t.e La(or Ar(iter w.o .ave t.e ,ower
only to direct reinstatement.
.i&9i&&al4 (ein&tate9ent (1994)
8ay a court order t.e reinstatement of a dismissed
em,loyee even if t.e ,rayer of t.e com,laint did not
include suc. reliefK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
So long as t.ere is a finding t.at t.e em,loyee was
illegally dismissed# t.e court can order t.e
reinstatement of an em,loyee even if t.e com,laint
does not include a ,rayer for reinstatement# unless#
of course# t.e em,loyee .as waived .is rig.t to
reinstatement. $y law an em,loyee w.o is un:ustly
dismissed is entitled to reinstatement# among ot.ers.
<.e mere fact t.at t.e com,laint did not ,ray for
reinstatement will not ,re:udice t.e em,loyee#
(ecause tec.nicalities of law and ,rocedure are
frowned u,on in la(or ,roceedings. (%eneral $a,tist
$i(le College vs. 'L!C. /)* SC!A 46*.
.i&9i&&al4 (ein&tate9ent (1995)
%ive at least five (4 instances w.en an illegally
dismissed em,loyee may not (e reinstated.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
?ive L4N instances w.en an illegally dismissed
em,loyee may not (e reinstated5
() @.en t.e ,osition .eld (y t.e illegally
dismissed em,loyee .as (een a(olis.ed and t.ere is
no su(stantially eEuivalent ,osition for said
em,loyee- (/ @.en t.e em,loyer .as ceased to o,erate-
(3 @.en t.e em,loyee no longer wis.es to (e
reinstated-
(6 @.en strained relations (etween t.e em,loyer
and t.e em,loyee .ave develo,ed and
(4 @.en t.e em,loyer .as lost .is trust and
confidence in t.e em,loyee w.o is .olding a ,osition
of trust and confidence.
In addition to t.e a(ove# an illegally dismissed
em,loyee may not (e reinstated5
() @.en .e is already entitled to retire at t.e time
.e is to (e reinstated-
(/ @.en .e is already dead-
(3 @.en reinstatement will not serve t.e interest of
t.e ,arties- and
(6 @.en .e .as o(tained regular and
su(stantially eEuivalent em,loyment elsew.ere.
.i&9i&&al4 (eFuire9ent& (199-)
Assuming t.e existence of valid grounds for
dismissal# w.at are t.e reEuirements (efore an
em,loyer can terminate t.e services of an
em,loyeeK L4MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e em,loyee (eing terminated s.ould (e given
;U& P!9C&SS (y t.e em,loyer.
?or termination of em,loyment (ased on any of t.e
JU+" %AU+E+ for termination# t.e reEuirements of
due ,rocess t.at t.e em,loyer must com,ly wit.
are5
1 A @!I<<&' '9<IC& s.ould (e served on t.e
em,loyee s,ecifying t.e ground or grounds for termination
and giving to said em,loyee reasona(le o,,ortunity wit.in
w.ic. to ex,lain .is side.
2 A F&A!I'% or C9'?&!&'C& s.ould (e .eld
during w.ic. t.e em,loyee concerned# wit. t.e assistance
of counsel if t.e em,loyee so desires# is given t.e
o,,ortunity to res,ond to t.e c.arge# ,resent .is evidence
and ,resent t.e evidence ,resented against .im.
3 A @!I<<&' '9<IC& 9? <&!8I'A<I9'# if
termination is t.e decision of t.e em,loyer# s.ould (e
served on t.e em,loyee indicating t.at u,on due
consideration of all t.e circumstances# grounds .ave (een
esta(lis.ed to :ustify .is termination.
?or termination of em,loyment (ased on
AU"10(IOE. %AU+E+# t.e reEuirements of due
,rocess s.all (e deemed com,lied wit. u,on service
of a @!I<<&' '9<IC& to t.e em,loyee and t.e
a,,ro,riate !egional 9ffice of t.e ;e,artment of
La(or = &m,loyment at least t.irty
(30 days (efore t.e effectivity of t.e termination
s,ecifying t.e ground or grounds for termination.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Assuming t.at t.ere is a valid ground to terminate
em,loyment# t.e em,loyer must com,ly wit. t.e
reEuirement of P!9C&;U!AL ;U& P!9C&SS -
written notice of intent to terminate stating t.e
cause for termination- Fearing- and 'otice of
<ermination.
<.e La(or Code reads5 A. 'otice and Fearing
Art# /22. 8iscellaneous ,rovisions. - xxx
(( xxx <.e em,loyer s.all furnis. t.e worDer w.ose
em,loyment is soug.t to (e terminated a written
notice containing a statement of t.e causes for
termination and s.all afford t.e latter am,le
o,,ortunity to (e .eard and to defend .imself wit.
t.e assistance of .is re,resentative if .e so
desires ... <.e Su,reme Court ruled in Salaw v#
'L!C# /0/ SC!A 2 ()**)
xxx 'ot only must t.e dismissal (e for a valid or
unaut.oriGed cause as ,rovided (y law xxx (ut
t.e rudimentary reEuirements of due ,rocess
-notice and .earing - most also (e o(served
(efore an em,loyee must (e dismissed.
$. "2# (2) N#ti5e (eFuire9ent& -<.e Su,reme
Court in <anala v. 'L!C /4/ SC!A 3)6 ()**1#
and in a long line of earlier cases# ruled5
xxx <.is Court .as re,eatedly .eld t.at to meet
t.e reEuirements of due ,rocess# t.e law reEuires
t.at an em,loyer must furnis. t.e worDers soug.t
to (e dismissed wit. two written notices (efore
termination of em,loyment can (e legally
effected# t.at is# () a notice w.ic. a,,rises t.e
em,loyee of t.e ,articular acts or omissions for
w.ic. .is dismissal is soug.t- and
(/ su(seEuent notice# after due .earing# w.ic.
informs t.e em,loyee of t.e em,loyers decision
to dismiss .im.
.i&9i&&al4 (eFuire9ent& (1999)
?AC<S5 9n Se,tem(er 3# )**+# t.e 'ational $ureau
of Investigation ('$I extracted from JoDo ;iaG R
wit.out t.e assistance of counsel R a sworn
statement w.ic. made it a,,ear t.at JoDo# in
ca.oots wit. anot.er em,loyee# !eu(en Padilla#
sold ten ()0 cas. registers w.ic. .ad (een
foreclosed (y 'ort.-Sout. $anD for P40#000.00 and
divided t.e ,roceeds t.erefrom in eEual s.ares
(etween t.e two of t.em.
9n Se,tem(er )0# )**+. JoDo was reEuested (y
!olando $ato# t.e (anD manager# to a,,ear (efore
t.e ;isci,linary $oard for an investigation in t.e
following tenor5 CIou are reEuested to come on
<.ursday. Se,tem(er )6# )**+# at ))500 a.m. t.e
$oard !oom# wit.out counsel or re,resentative# in
connection wit. t.e investigation of t.e foreclosed
cas. registers w.ic. you sold wit.out aut.ority.C
8r. $ato .imself conducted t.e investigation# and
two (/ days t.ereafter# .e dismissed JoDo. <.e
(anD ,remised its action in dismissing JoDo solely
on t.e latterPs admission of t.e offense im,uted to
.im (y t.e '$I in its interrogation on Se,tem(er 3#
)**+. Aside from t.is sworn statement# no ot.er
evidence was ,resented (y t.e (anD to esta(lis.
t.e cul,a(ility of JoDo in t.e fraudulent sale of t.e
(anDPs foreclosed ,ro,erties.
). Is t.e dismissal of JoDo ;iaG (y 'ort.-Sout.
$anD legally :ustifiedK &x,lain (riefly. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e dismissal of JoDo ;iaG (y 'ort.-Sout. $anD is
not legally :ustified# ;iaG was not given t.e reEuired
due ,rocess (y t.e $anD. Fe s.ould .ave (een
given a written notice t.at .e was (eing terminated
and a statement of t.e causes for .is termination.
Fe was instead given a :ust notice a(out an
investigation relative to an incident.
It was also contrary to law for t.e $anD to tell ;iaG
t.at .e s.ould attend t.e investigation Cwit.out
counsel or re,resentative.C Instead# .e s.ould .ave
(een afforded as ,rovided in t.e La(or Code (in
Article /22 L(N am,le o,,ortunity to (e .eard and to
defend .imself wit. t.e assistance of .is
re,resentative if .e so desires.
If t.e evidence t.at was t.e (asis for t.e termination
of JoDo ;iaG was only .is own statement CextractedC
from .im (y t.e '$I w.en JoDo was wit.out t.e
assistance of counsel# t.en t.e statement cannot (e
su(stantial evidence for JoDoPs termination.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
'o. Under Sec. )/ of Art. in of t.e )*+2 Constitution
any Cconfession or admission o(tained in violation of
Sec. )/ and )2 s.all (e inadmissi(le in evidence
against .imC. Since t.e sole (asis for .is dismissal
was t.e confession ,rocured (y t.e '$I in violation of
.is rig.t to counsel w.ic. is inadmissi(le for any
,ur,ose and any ,roceeding including an
administrative case# .is dismissal is illegal. ;iaGPs
termination is liDewise- illegal (ecause .e was
de,rived of .is rig.t to due ,rocess since during t.e
investigation .e was reEuired to attend wit.out
counsel or re,resentative.
/. Can !eu(en PadillaPs ,artici,ation in t.e
fraudulent sale of t.e (anDPs foreclosed ,ro,erties (e
made to rest solely on t.e unilateral declaration of
JoDo ;iaGK @.yK (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. <.e unilateral declaration of JoDo# w.ere JoDo
.as not (een su(:ected to cross-examinations
cannot (e considered as su(stantial evidence- it is
:ust .earsay.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
'o. <.e unilateral declaration of JoDo is not enoug..
Suc. declaration must (e corro(orated (y ot.er
com,etent and convincing evidence. At t.e
very least# w.at t.e $anD s.ould do s.ould (e to
confront !eu(en Padilla wit. t.e declaration of JoDo
(Century <extile 8ills# Inc. vs. 'L!C# )1)
SC!A1/+.
.i&9i&&al4 (eFuire9ent&4 +u&en&i#n #$
"er9inati#n (1994)
Atty. 9liGa .eads t.e legal de,artment of Com,any
O wit. t.e ranD and title of Aice-President. ;uring .is
leave of a(sence# .is assistant tooD over as acting
.ead of t.e legal de,artment. U,on .is return# Atty.
9liGa was informed in writing t.at .is services were
no longer needed# it a,,earing t.at t.e Com,any
.ad lost so many cases (y default due to .is
incom,etence. Atty. 9liGa filed a case for illegal
dismissal. ) @ill .is case ,ros,erK / Pending
.earing# may Atty. 9liGa asD t.e Secretary of La(or
to sus,end t.e effects of t.e termination of t.e
services of an em,loyee and to order .is tem,orary
reinstatementK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
) Fis case will ,ros,er. Fe was not given
,rocedural due ,rocess. Fe was not given t.e
reEuired notice# namely# a written notice containing a
statement of t.e causes for termination# and .e was
not afforded am,le o,,ortunity to (e .eard and to
defend .imself.
$ut if# (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter# in a .earing of t.e
case of illegal dismissal t.at Atty. 9liGa may .ave
filed# .e is found to (e grossly incom,etent# t.is is
:ust cause for .is dismissal. (Art. /22((# La(or
Code
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
Ies. <.e examinee su(mits t.at Atty. 9liGaPs case will
,ros,er. @ell-settled is t.e rule t.at even managerial
em,loyees are entitled to t.e constitutional guarantee
of security of tenure. In t.e case at (ar# t.ere was a
clear de,rivation of Atty. 9liGaPs rig.t to due ,rocess.
<.e (lanDet accusation of Cincom,etenceC .ardly
Eualifies as com,liance wit. t.e su(stantive
reEuirements for an em,loyeePs dismissal. <.e written
notice t.at .is services were no longer needed also
fall s.ort of t.e ,rocedural reEuirements of notice and
o,,ortunity to (e .eard# t.e twin ingredients of due
,rocess.
/ <.e La(or Code gives t.e Secretary of La(or and
&m,loyment t.e ,ower to sus,end t.e effects of a
termination made (y an em,loyer ,ending resolution
of a la(or dis,ute in t.e event of a ,rima facie finding
(y t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment (efore
w.om suc. dis,ute is ,ending t.at t.e termination
may cause serious la(or dis,ute or is in
im,lementation of a mass lay-off.
<.e termination of Atty. 9liGa does not cause a
serious la(or dis,ute considering t.at .e is a
managerial em,loyee. It is not in im,lementation of a
mass lay-off. <.us# ,ending .earing# t.e Secretary of
La(or and &m,loyment may not sus,end t.e effects
of t.e termination and order .is tem,orary
reinstatement. (Art. /22L(N
.i&9i&&al4 (eFui&ite&4 (ein&tate9ent
Juan ;uD.a# a (ill collector of Ladies %arments
Com,any# was dismissed (ecause .e did not remit
.is collections. Fe filed a case against .is com,any
for illegal dismissal. ;uring t.e .earing# t.e
President of t.e Com,any admitted t.at Juan was
never formally investigated for .is dis.onesty- neit.er
was .e informed of t.e nature of t.e c.arge against
.im. Fe was sim,ly (arred from entering com,any
,remises (y t.e security guards u,on instruction of
management.
Juan ;uD.a asDs for immediate reinstatement wit.
full (acD wages and wit.out loss of seniority rig.ts.
@ill t.e com,laint of Juan ;uD.a for illegal dismissal
,ros,erK &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# t.ere may (e :ust cause for terminating Juan
;uD.a. $ut .e was not accorded t.e reEuired due
,rocess of law.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e com,laint of Juan ;uD.a for illegal dismissal will
,ros,er in t.e sense t.at t.e com,laint will (e .eard
(y a La(or Ar(iter. Fis (eing (arred from entering
com,any ,remises is tantamount to dismissal. In t.e
.earings# t.e em,loyer will .ave t.e (urden of
,roving t.at t.ere is :ust cause for terminating Juan#
,ossi(ly on t.e (asis of willful (reac. of trust. 9n t.e
ot.er .and# Juan will (e given t.e o,,ortunity to
,rove t.at .is failure to remit .is collection is not
(ecause of dis.onesty#
/. Assuming t.at .e cannot (e reinstated# w.at rig.t
can .e immediately assert against .is em,loyerK
&x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Assuming t.at Juan cannot (e reinstated (ecause
t.ere is :ust cause for .is dismissal# .e would
nevert.eless (e entitled to an indemnity from .is
em,loyer# (ecause .e was denied due ,rocess of
law (y said em,loyer.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
Juan can ,ursue t.e case of illegal dismissal (efore
a La(or Ar(iter w.ere .e will assert t.e rig.t to
defend .imself# ie.# to ex,lain .is failure to remit .is
collections.
3. Su,,ose Juan ;uD.a ,roved during t.e .earing
t.at .e was ro((ed of .is collections and#
conseEuently# t.e La(or Ar(iter decided in .is favor.
In t.e meantime# t.e Ladies %arments Com,any
a,,ealed to t.e 'ational La(or !elations
Commission ('L!C.
Pending a,,eal# w.at rig.ts are availa(le to Juan
relative to t.e favora(le decision of t.e La(or
Ar(iterK &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Juan can asD for immediate reinstatement ,ending
resolution of t.e a,,eal filed (y t.e com,any wit.
t.e 'L!C. At t.e o,tion of .is em,loyer# .e may (e
admitted (acD to worD or merely reinstated in t.e
,ayroll.
.i&9i&&al4 +earati#n *ay4 <a5E2age&
(2002)
Lyric <.eater Cor,. issued a memorandum ,ro.i(iting
all ticDet sellers from encas.ing any c.ecD from t.eir
cas. collections and reEuiring t.em instead to turn
over all cas. collections to t.e management at t.e
end of t.e day. In violation of t.is memorandum#
8elody# a ticDet seller# encas.ed five (4 c.ecDs from
.er cas. collection. Su(seEuently t.e c.ecDs were
dis.onored w.en de,osited in t.e account of Lyric
<.eater. ?or t.is action# 8elody was ,laced under a
/0-day sus,ension and directed to ex,lain w.y s.e
s.ould not (e dismissed for violation of t.e com,anyPs
memorandum. In .er ex,lanation# s.e admitted
.aving encas.ed t.e c.ecDs wit.out t.e com,anyPs
,ermission. @.ile t.e investigation was ,ending#
8elody filed a com,laint against Lyric <.eater for
(acDwages and se,aration ,ay. <.e La(or Ar(iter
ordered Lyric <.eater to ,ay 8elody P))4#6/0.2*
re,resenting se,aration ,ay and (acDwages. <.e
'L!C affirmed t.e ruling of t.e La(or Ar(iter. Is t.e
ruling of t.e 'L!C correctK &x,lain (riefly. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e ruling of t.e 'L!C affirming t.e La(or Ar(iterPs
decision ordering Lyric <.eater to ,ay P))4#6/0.2*
re,resenting se,aration ,ay and (acDwages is
wrong.
<.e La(or Ar(iterPs decision is wrong (ecause5
a It is ,remature. <.ere was still no termination.
All t.at was done (y t.e em,loyer (Lyric <.eater was
to ,lace t.e em,loyee (8elody under a /0-day
sus,ension# meanw.ile directing .er to ex,lain w.y
s.e s.ould not (e dismissed for violation of com,anyPs
memoranda.
( <.e order for Lyric <.eater to ,ay se,aration
,ay .as no factual (asis. Se,aration ,ay is to (e
,aid to an em,loyee w.o is terminated due to t.e
Installation of la(or saving devices# redundancy#
retrenc.ment to ,revent losses or t.e closing or
cessation of o,eration of t.e esta(lis.ment
undertaDing. 'one of t.ese events .as taDen ,lace.
'eit.er is se,aration ,ay .ere in lieu of
reinstatement. 8elody is not entitled to
reinstatement (ecause t.ere Is a :ust cause for .er
termination.
c

<.e order for Lyric <.eater to ,ay (acDwages .as no
factual (asis. If after investigation# Lyric <.eater
dismisses 8elody# t.ere is :ust cause for suc.
termination. <.ere is willful diso(edience (y t.e
em,loyee of t.e lawful orders of .er em,loyer in
connection wit. .er worD. S.e did not :ust violate t.e
lawful order of t.e em,loyer. S.e violated it five times.
8elody did not give any :ustifia(le reason for violating
t.e com,anyPs memorandum ,ro.i(iting t.e
encas.ment of c.ecDs. LJo Cinema Cor,. v. Avellana#
%! 'o. )3/+32# June /+# /00)N
E9l#yee4 %#ntra5tual E9l#yee&4
+ea$arer& (2002)
<omas and CruG .ave (een em,loyed for t.e last //
years in various ca,acities on (oard t.e s.i,s of
$A!U9 S.i,,ing Com,any. <.eir em,loyment was
made t.roug. a local manning com,any. <.ey .ave
signed several ten ()0 mont. em,loyment contracts
wit. $A!U9 S.i,,ing. <.e 'L!C ruled t.at t.ey
were contractual em,loyees and t.at t.eir
em,loyment was terminated eac. time t.eir
contracts ex,ired is t.e ruling of t.e 'L!C correctK
&x,lain your answer fully. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies. A contract of em,loyment for a definite ,eriod
terminates (y its own terms at t.e end of suc.
,eriod. Since <omas and CruG signed ten ()0mont.
contracts# t.eir em,loyment terminates (y its own
terms at t.e end of eac. ten ()0-mont. ,eriod.
<.e decisive determinant in term em,loyment s.ould
not (e t.e activities t.at t.e em,loyee is called u,on
to ,erform (ut t.e day certain agreed u,on (y t.e
,arties for t.e commencement and termination of
t.eir em,loyment relation (not t.e c.aracter of .is
duties as (eing Cusually necessary or desira(le in t.e
usual (usiness of t.e em,loyerC.
Sti,ulation in t.e em,loyment contracts ,roviding for
Cterm em,loymentC or Cfixed ,eriod em,loymentC are
valid w.en t.e ,eriod are agreed u,on Dnowingly and
voluntarily (y t.e ,arties wit.out force# duress or
im,ro,er ,ressure exerted on t.e em,loyee- and
w.en suc. sti,ulations were not designed to
circumvent t.e laws on security of tenure. L$rent
Sc.ool v. Qamora# )+) SC!A 20/ ()**0N
8oreover# in $rent Sc.ool v. Qamora# su,ra# t.e
Su,reme Court stated t.at Art. /+0 of t.e La(or
Code does not a,,ly to overseas em,loyment.
In Pa(lo Coyoca v. 'L!C# /63 SC!A )*0# ()**4#
t.e Su,reme Court also .eld t.at a seafarer is not a
regular em,loyee and ?ili,ino seamen are
governed (y t.e rules and regulations governing
overseas em,loyment and t.e said rules do not
,rovide for se,aration or termination ,ay.
?rom t.e foregoing cases# it is clear t.at seafarers
are considered contractual em,loyees. <.ey cannot
(e considered as regular em,loyees under Art /+0 of
t.e La(or Code. <.eir em,loyment is governed (y
t.e contracts t.ey sign every time t.ey are re.ired
and t.eir em,loyment is terminated w.en t.e
contract ex,ires. <.eir em,loyment is contractually
fixed for a certain ,eriod of time. <.ey fall under t.e
exce,tion of Art /+0 w.ose em,loyment .as (een
fixed for a s,ecific ,ro:ect or undertaDing t.e
com,letion or termination of w.ic. .as (een
determined at t.e time of engagement of t.e
em,loyee or w.ere t.e worD or services to (e
,erformed is seasonal in nature and t.e em,loyment
is for t.e duration of t.e season. @e need not de,art
from t.e rulings of t.is court in t.e two
aforementioned cases w.ic. indeed constitute stare
decisis wit. res,ect to t.e em,loyment status of
seafarers. L;ouglas 8illares
v. 'L!C# et. al. 3/+ SC!A 2*# (/000N <.erefore#
<omas and CruG are contractual em,loyees. <.e
ruling of t.e 'L!C is correct.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. <.e ruling of t.e 'L!C is not correct. Suc.
re,eated re-.iring# w.ic. continued for twenty years
cannot (ut (e a,,reciated as sufficient evidence of
t.e necessity and indis,ensa(ility of ,etitionerPs
service to t.e Lem,loyerPsN trade. Aerily# as
,etitioners .ad rendered /0 years of service#
,erforming activities t.at were necessary and
desira(le in t.e trade (of t.e em,loyer# t.ey are# (y
ex,ress ,rovision of Art. /+0 of t.e La(or Code#
considered regular em,loyees. L8illares v. 'L!C#
3/+ SC!A 2* (/000N
E9l#yee4 %#ntra5tual /#rEer ,&7 %a&ual
/#rEer (2005)
Fow is t.e ,ro:ect worDer different from a casual or
contractual worDerK $riefly ex,lain your answers.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
A CC9'<!AC<UAL @9!U&!C is a generic term
used to designate any worDer covered (y a written
contract to ,erform a s,ecific undertaDing for a fixed
,eriod. 9n t.e ot.er .and# a CP!9J&C< @9!U&!C
is used to designate worDers in t.e construction
industry# .ired to ,erform a s,ecific undertaDing for a
fixed ,eriod# co-terminus wit. a ,ro:ect or ,.ase
t.ereof determined at t.e time of t.e engagement of
t.e em,loyee. (Policy Instruction 'o. )*# ;9L& In
addition# to (e considered a true ,ro:ect worDer# it is
reEuired t.at a termination re,ort (e su(mitted to t.e
nearest ,u(lic em,loyment office u,on t.e
com,letion of t.e construction ,ro:ect. (Aurora Land
Pro:ects Cor,. v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. ))6233# January /#
)**2
In contrast# t.ere is no suc. reEuirement for an
ordinary contractual worDer.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
A P!9J&C< @9!U&! ,erforms :o( t.at is
necessary and desira(le to t.e nature of t.e
(usiness of t.e em,loyer. 9n t.e ot.er .and# a
CASUAL @9!U&! ,erforms :o( t.at is not
necessary or desira(le to t.e nature of t.e (usiness
of t.e em,loyer. (Art. /+0# La(or Code
A ,ro:ect worDer (ecomes a regular em,loyee if t.e
em,loyer fails to su(mit as many re,orts to t.e
;9L& on terminations as t.ere were ,ro:ects
actually finis.ed. (Audion &lectric Co. v. 'L!C#
%.!. 'o. )0116+# June )2# )*** 9n t.e ot.er .and#
a casual worDer (ecomes a regular em,loyee if .e
.as rendered service for at least one () year
w.et.er t.e same is continuous or (roDen. (Art. /+0#
La(or Code
E9l#yee4 *r#bati#nary E9l#yee& (199-)
<.e services of an em,loyee were terminated u,on
t.e com,letion of t.e ,ro(ationary ,eriod of
em,loyment for failure to Eualify# for t.e ,osition.
<.e em,loyee filed a com,laint for Illegal ;ismissal
on t.e ground t.at t.e em,loyer failed to inform .im
in writing t.e reasona(le standards for regular
em,loyment. @ill t.e com,laint for Illegal ;ismissal
,ros,erK L4MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# t.e Com,laint for Illegal ;ismissal will
,ros,er. <.e La(or Code ,rovides5 Art. /+).
P!9$A<I9'A!I &8PL9I8&'<# xxr <.e services of
an em,loyee w.o .as (een engaged on a
,ro(ationary (asis may (e terminated xxx w.en .e
fails to Eualify as a regular em,loyee in accordance
wit. reasona(le standards made Dnown to t.e
em,loyee at t.e time of .is engagement.
<.e Su,reme Court in A.8. 9reta and Co.# Inc. v.
'L!C# )21 SC!A /)+ ()*+*# ruled5 <.e law is
clear to t.e effect t.at in all cases involving
em,loyees engaged on ,ro(ationary (asis# t.e
em,loyer s.all maDe Dnown to t.e em,loyee at t.e
time .e is .ired# t.e standards (y w.ic. .e will
Eualify as a regular em,loyee.
<.e failure of t.e em,loyer to inform t.e em,loyee
of t.e Eualification for regulariGation is fatal. <.e
failure violates t.e rules of fair ,lay w.ic. is a
c.eris.ed conce,t in la(or law.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e com,laint for illegal dismissal will ,ros,er. <.e
La(or Code (in Article /+) ,rovides t.at a
,ro(ationary em,loyee may (e terminated w.en .e
fails to Eualify as a regular em,loyee in accordance
wit. reasona(le standards made Dnown (y t.e
em,loyer to t.e em,loyee at t.e time
of t.e latterPs engagement. In t.e Euestion# t.e
,ro(ationary em,loyee was not informed of suc.
reasona(le standards at t.e time .e was em,loyed.
<.us# if .e is to (e legally terminated# it s.ould (e
(ecause of gross and .a(itual neglect of duties.
E9l#yee4 *r#bati#nary E9l#yee& (2001)
@.at limitations# if any# do t.e law and :uris,rudence
im,ose on an em,loyerPs rig.t to terminate t.e
services of a ,ro(ationary em,loyeeK (/M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e La(or Code Lin Art. /+) ,rovides t.at t.e
services of an em,loyee w.o .as (een engaged on a
,ro(ationary (asis may (e terminated for a :ust cause
or w.en .e fails to Eualify as a regular em,loyee in
accordance wit. reasona(le standards made Dnown
(y t.e em,loyer to t.e em,loyee at t.e time of .is
engagement. If t.e ,ro(ationary em,loyee is (eing
terminated for :ust cause# .e must# of course# (e given
due ,rocess (efore .is termination#
E9l#yee4 *r#=e5t E9l#yee ,&7 (egular
E9l#yee (1996)
;istinguis. t.e ,ro:ect em,loyees from regular
em,loyees.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A !&%ULA! &8PL9I&& is one engaged to ,erform
activities w.ic. are usually necessary or desira(le in
t.e usual (usiness or trade of t.e em,loyer. 9n t.e
ot.er .and# a P!9J&C< &8PL9I&& is one w.ose
em,loyment is fixed for a s,ecific ,ro:ect or
undertaDing- t.e com,letion or termination of w.ic.
.as (een determined at t.e time of t.e engagement
of t.e em,loyee. (See Art. /+0 of t.e La(or Code
E9l#yee4 *r#=e5t E9l#yee& ,&7 %a&ual
E9l#yee& (2005)
8ariano 8artillo was a mason em,loyed (y t.e A$C
Construction Com,any. &very time t.at A$C .ad a
,ro:ect# it would enter into an em,loyment contract
wit. 8artillo for a fixed ,eriod t.at coincided wit. t.e
need for .is services# usually for a duration of t.ree
to six mont.s.
Since t.e last ,ro:ect involved t.e construction of a
60-storey (uilding# 8artillo was contracted for )6
mont.s. ;uring t.is ,eriod# A$C granted wage
increases to its regular em,loyees# com,osed
mostly of engineers and ranD-and-file construction
worDers as a result of t.e :ust concluded C$A
negotiations# feeling aggrieved and discriminated
against# 8artillo and ot.er similarly-situated ,ro:ect
worDers demanded t.at increases (e extended to
t.em# inasmuc. as t.ey s.ould now (e considered
regular em,loyees and mem(ers of t.e (argaining
unit. $riefly ex,lain your answers. (1M
(a
If you were A$CPs legal counsel# .ow would you
res,ond to t.is demandK
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e demand is wit.out legal (asis. <.e sim,le fact
t.at t.e em,loyment of ,etitioners as ,ro:ect
em,loyees .ad gone (eyond one () year does not
detract from# or legally dissolve# t.eir status as
,ro:ect em,loyees. <.e second ,aragra,. of Article
/+0 of t.e La(or Code# ,roviding t.at an em,loyee
w.o .as served for at least one () year s.all (e
considered a regular em,loyee# relates to casual
em,loyees# not to ,ro:ect em,loyees. (ALU<UCP v.
'L!C# %.!. 'o. )0**0/# August /# )**6
In t.e case of 8ercado# Sr. v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o.
2*+1*# Se,tem(er 4# )**)# t.e Su,reme Court ruled
t.at t.e ,roviso in t.e second ,aragra,. of Article
/+0 of t.e La(or Code relates only to casual
em,loyees and is not a,,lica(le to t.ose w.o fall
wit.in t.e definition of said ArticlePs first ,aragra,.#
i.e.# ,ro:ect em,loyees. <.e familiar rule is t.at a
,roviso is to (e construed wit. reference to t.e
immediately ,receding ,art of t.e ,rovision to w.ic.
it is attac.ed# unless t.ere is clear legislative intent
to t.e contrary. 'o suc. intent is o(serva(le in
Article /+0 of t.e La(or Code.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
If I were A$CPs legal counsel# I will argue t.at t.e
,ro:ect worDers are not regular em,loyees (ut fixed-
term em,loyees. Sti,ulation in em,loyment contracts
,roviding for term em,loyment or fixed ,eriod were
agreed u,on Dnowingly and voluntarily (y t.e ,arties
wit.out force# duress or im,ro,er ,ressure# (eing
(roug.t to (ear u,on t.e em,loyee and a(sent any
ot.er circumstances vitiating .is consent# or w.ere it
satisfactorily a,,ears t.at t.e em,loyer and
em,loyee dealt wit. eac. ot.er on more or less
eEual terms wit. no moral dominance w.atever (eing
exercised (y t.e former over t.e latter. (Pangilinan v.
%eneral 8illing Cor,.# %.!. 'o. )6*3/*# July )/#
/006
E9l#yee4 (egular E9l#yee4 %#n&tru5ti,e
.i&9i&&al (2005)
Uitc.ie <em,o was one of a,,roximately 400
,roduction o,erators at FI<&C Semiconductors# Inc.#
and ex,ort-oriented enter,rise w.ose (usiness
de,ended on orders for com,uter c.i,s from
overseas. S.e was .ired as a contractual em,loyee
four years ago. Fer contracts would (e for a duration
of five (4 mont.s at a time# usually after a one-mont.
interval. Fer re-.iring was contingent on .er
,erformance for t.e immediately ,receding contract.
Six mont.s after t.e ex,iration of .er last contract#
Uitc.ie went to FI<&CPs ,ersonnel de,artment to
inEuire w.y s.e was not yet (eing recalled for
anot.er tem,orary contract. S.e was told t.at .er
,erformance during .er last stint was C(elow
average.C
Since t.ere was no union to re,resent .er# Uitc.ie
seeDs your advice as a la(or lawyer a(out .er
c.ances of getting .er :o( (acD. @.at will your
advice (eK (4M
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e re,eated re.iring and t.e continuing need of
Uitc.iePs services for 6 years are sufficient evidence
of t.e necessity and indis,ensa(ility of .er services
to FI<&CPs (usiness or trade. (8agsalin v. 'ational
9rganiGation for @orDing 8en# et al.# %.!. 'o.
)6+6*/# 8ay *# /003 @.ere a ,erson t.us engaged
.as (een ,erforming t.e :o( for at least one year#
even if t.e ,erformance is not continuous or is
merely intermittent# t.e law deems t.e em,loyment
as regular wit. res,ect to suc. activity and w.ile
suc. activity exists. (Paguio
v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )62+)1# 8ay *# /003
Fence# !itc.ie is considered a regular em,loyee of
FI<&C and as suc.# s.e cannot (e terminated
exce,t for cause and only after due ,rocess.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
I will advice Uitc.ie to file a case of constructive
dismissal wit. t.e !egional Ar(itration (ranc. of t.e
'L!C .aving territorial :urisdiction over t.e
worD,lace of t.e com,lainant (ecause t.e constant
re-.iring of Uitc.ie maDes .er a regular em,loyee.
E9l#yee4 (egular E9l#yee& (1994)
Aldric. Qamora# a welder# was .ired on ?e(ruary
)*2/ (y Asian Contractors Cor,oration (ACC for a
,ro:ect. Fe was made to sign a contract sti,ulating
t.at .is services were (eing .ired for t.e com,letion
of t.e ,ro:ect# (ut not later t.an ;ecem(er 30# )*2/#
w.ic.ever comes first.
After ;ecem(er )*2/# Qamora# (eing a man of many
talents# was .ired for different ,ro:ects of ACC in
various ca,acities# suc. as car,enter# electrician and
,lum(er. In all of t.ese engagements# Qamora signed
a contract similar to .is first contract exce,t for t.e
estimated com,letion dates of t.e ,ro:ect for w.ic. .e
was .ired.
@.at is QamoraPs status wit. ACCK Is .e a contract
worDer# a ,ro:ect em,loyee# a tem,orary or a regular
em,loyeeK State your reason.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Qamora could (e a ,ro:ect em,loyee if .is worD is
coterminous wit. t.e ,ro:ect for w.ic. .e was .ired.
$ut in t.e case# Qamora was re.ired after t.e
com,letion of every ,ro:ect t.roug.out t.e ,eriod of
.is em,loyment wit. t.e com,any w.ic. ranged
for Euite a long time. <.us# .e s.ould (e considered a
regular em,loyee# (P.ili,,ine 'ational Construction
Cor,oration vs. 'ational La(or !elations
Commission# et al# %.! 'o. *4+)1# /2 9cto(er )*2/.
J. %rino-AEuino
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
a Qamora is a regular em,loyee (ecause .e was
engaged to worD in various ,ro:ects of ACC for a
considera(le lengt. of time# on an activity t.at is
usually necessary desira(le in t.e usual (usiness or
trade of ACC. (8e.ita(el ?urniture vs. 'L!C# //0
SC!A 10/
( Qamora is a regular em,loyee. Article /+0 of t.e
La(or Code declares wit. unmistaDa(le clarity5 <F&
P!9AISI9'S 9? @!I<<&' A%!&&8&'< <9 <F&
C9'<!A!I '9<@I<FS<A';I'%# xxx an
em,loyment s.all (e deemed to (e regular w.ere
t.e em,loyee .as (een engaged to ,erform
activities w.ic. are usually necessary or desira(le in
t.e usual (usiness or trade of t.e em,loyer.C
Fe is not a C9'<!AC< or <&8P9!A!I @9!U&!
(ecause even t.e ,rovisions of t.e simulated
contracts were not followed w.en .is :o( was used
continuously. Fe is not a ,ro:ect em,loyee# as t.e
term is understood in Art. /+0 or under Policy
Instruction 'o. /0.
E9l#yee4 (egular E9l#yee& (1995)
IL&C9 is an electric coo,erative w.ic. acce,ted
fres. graduates from a vocational sc.ool as lineman
trainees for six (1 mont.s after w.ic. t.ey were
.ired as ,ro(ationary em,loyees for anot.er ten ()0
mont.s. <.ereafter# t.ey were made regular
em,loyees. <.ese em,loyees t.en soug.t
entitlement to salary increases under t.e existing
Collective $argaining Agreement (C$A w.ic. were
given at t.e time w.en t.ey were not yet regular
em,loyees# .ence# not yet mem(ers of t.e
em,loyeesP union. IL&C9 denied t.eir claims
(ecause t.ey were not yet regular mem(ers w.en
t.e C$A tooD effect and t.erefore not entitled to
wage ad:ustments t.ereunder.
!esolve t.e Issue. ;iscuss fully.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
In im,lementing a C$A t.at ,rovides for salary
increases to regular em,loyees# it is (ut logical t.at
said salary increases s.ould (e given to em,loyees
only from t.e time t.ey are regular em,loyees.
%iven t.e facts mentioned in t.e Euestion# t.e
lineman trainees t.at IL&C9 .ired (ecame regular
em,loyees six (1 mont.s after t.ey were .ired. <.e
La(or Code ,rovides t.at ,ro(ationary em,loyment
s.all not exceed six (1 mont.s from t.e date t.e
em,loyee started worDing. ;ou(le ,ro(ation# w.ic.
.a,,ened in t.e case in Euestion
w.en t.e line man trainees were given an additional
,ro(ationary ,eriod of anot.er ten ()0 mont.s# may
(e considered as a circumvention of t.e rule on
,ro(ationary em,loyment.
<.us# (ecause t.ey were already regular em,loyees
after t.e first six (1 mont. ,eriod# from said date#
t.ey are entitled to t.e C$A increases ,rovided for
regular em,loyee.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.ey are not entitled to t.e wage ad:ustments under
t.e C$A t.at were given w.en t.ey were not yet
regular em,loyees.
$ut if (y virtue of t.eir (ecoming regular em,loyees#
t.ey are now ,art of t.e a,,ro,riate collective
(argaining unit defined (y t.e C$A# t.eir not (eing
union mem(ers is not a (ar to t.eir recei,t of any
wage ad:ustments given under t.e C$A# after t.ey
(ecome regular em,loyees.
E9l#yee4 (egular E9l#yee& ,&7 *r#=e5t
E9l#yee (199-)
A Construction %rou, .ired &ngineer CAC as a
Pro:ect &ngineer in )*+2. Fe was assigned to five
(4 successive se,arate ,ro:ects. All five (4
Contracts of &m,loyment .e signed# s,ecified t.e
name of t.e ,ro:ect# its duration# and t.e tem,orary-
,ro:ect nature of t.e engagement of .is services.
U,on com,letion of t.e fift. L4t. ,ro:ect in August
)**+# .is services were terminated. Fe worDed for a
total of ten ()0 years ()*+2-)**+ in t.e five (4
se,arate ,ro:ects. Six mont.s after .is se,aration#
t.e %rou, won a (id for a large construction ,ro:ect.
<.e %rou, did not engage t.e services of &ngineer
CAC as a Pro:ect &ngineer for t.is new ,ro:ect-
instead# it engaged t.e services of &ngineer C$C.
&ngineer CAC claims t.at (y virtue of t.e nature of .is
functions# i.e.# &ngineer in a Construction %rou,#
and .is long years of service .e .ad rendered to t.e
%rou,# .e is a regular em,loyee and not a ,ro:ect
engineer at t.e time .e was first .ired. ?urt.ermore#
t.e .iring of &ngineer C$C s.owed t.at t.ere is a
continuing need for .is services. Is t.e claim of
&ngineer CAC correctK L4MN
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e claim of &ngineer CAC t.at .e is a regular
em,loyee and not a ,rotect em,loyee is not correct.
<.e La(or Code ,rovides5
Art. /+0. (egular and %a&ual E9l#y9ent. -
An em,loyment s.all (e deemed to (e regular
w.ere t.e em,loyee .as (een engaged to
,erform activities w.ic. are usually necessary
or desira(le in t.e usual (usiness or trade of t.e
em,loyer# exce,t# w.ere t.e em,loyment .as
(een fixed for a s,ecific ,ro:ect or undertaDing
t.e com,letion of w.ic. .as (een determined at
In all t.e five (4 successive contracts of em,loyment
of &ngineer CAC t.e name of t.e ,ro:ect# its duration#
and t.e tem,orary ,ro:ect nature of t.e engagement
of .is services are clearly stated5 .ence# &ngineer
CAC falls wit.in t.e exem,tion of Art. /+0. <.e
Su,reme Court .as ruled as follows5 8anansag v.
'L!C# /)+ SC!A 2// ()**3
<.e fact t.at t.e ,etitioners worDed for several
,ro:ects of ,rivate res,ondent com,any is no
(asis to consider t.em as regular em,loyees. $y
t.e very nature of t.eir em,loyerPs (usiness# t.ey
will always remain ,ro:ect em,loyees regardless
of t.e num(er of ,ro:ects in w.ic. t.ey .ave
worDed.
;e 9cam,o v 'L!C# )+1 SC!A 31) ()**0N LPro:ect
em,loyeesN are not considered regular em,loyees#
t.eir services# (eing needed only w.en t.ere are
,ro:ects to (e undertaDen. <.e rationale for t.is rule#
is t.at if a ,ro:ect .as already (een com,leted# it
would (e un:ust to reEuire t.e em,loyer to maintain
t.em in t.e ,ayroll w.ile t.ey are doing a(solutely
not.ing exce,t waiting for anot.er ,ro:ect.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e claim of &ngineer CAC is not correct. <.e fact
t.at .e .as (een worDing for Construction %rou, for
a total of ten ()9 years does not maDe .im a
regular em,loyee w.en it is very clear from t.e
Contracts of &m,loyment .e signed t.at .e was
always (eing engaged as a ,ro:ect em,loyee.
<.e tenure of a ,ro:ect em,loyee is co-terminous wit.
t.e ,ro:ect in connection wit. w.ic. .is services were
engaged. <.us# after t.e end of t.e ,ro:ect# t.e
em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, ceases to exist. Suc.
,ro:ect em,loyee .as no legal rig.t to insist t.at .e
s.ould (e em,loyed (y t.e Construction %rou, for a
su(seEuent ,ro:ect of said %rou,.
E9l#yee4 (egular ,&7 *r#=e5t E9l#yee&
(2002)
;esign Consultants# Inc. was engaged (y t.e P'CC
to su,ervise t.e construction of t.e Sout.
&x,ressway &xtension. ;esign Consultants# Inc.
.ired 9mar as a driver for two (/ years. After .is
two-year contract ex,ired# .e was extended anot.er
contract for nine (* mont.s. <.ese contracts were
entered into during t.e various stages and (efore t.e
com,letion of t.e extension ,ro:ect. 9mar claims t.at
(ecause of t.ese re,eated contracts# .e is now a
regular em,loyee of ;esign Consultants. Inc. Is .e
correctK &x,lain (riefly. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies. <.e ,rinci,al test for determining w.et.er a
,articular em,loyee is a C,ro:ect em,loyeeC as
distinguis.ed from a Cregular em,loyeeC is w.et.er
or not t.e CP!9J&C< &8PL9I&&C was assigned to
carry out a Cs,ecific ,ro:ect or undertaDing#C t.e
duration and sco,e of w.ic. were s,ecified at t.e
time t.e em,loyee was engaged for t.e ,ro:ects.
In t.e ,ro(lem given# t.ere is no s.owing t.at 9mar
was informed t.at .e was to (e assigned to a
Cs,ecific ,ro:ect or undertaDing.C 'eit.er .as it (een
esta(lis.ed t.at .e was informed of t.e duration and
sco,e of suc. ,ro:ect or undertaDing at t.e time of
.is engagement. LP.ilex 8ining Cor,.
v. 'L!C# 3)/ SC!A ))* ()***N
8oreover# t.e re-.iring of 9mar is sufficient evidence
of t.e necessity or t.e indis,ensa(ility of .is services
to t.e com,anyPs (usiness. LAurora Land Pro:ects
Cor, v. 'L!C# /11 SC!A 6+()**2TN Fence# 9mar is
correct in claiming t.at .e is a regular em,loyee of
;esign Consultants# Inc.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
9mar is not correct 9mar is a ,ro:ect em,loyee as
defined (y Art. /+0 of La(or Code. Fe was .ired for a
s,ecific ,ro:ect wit. fixed ,eriods of em,loyment#
s,ecifically5 two (/ years for t.e first contract# and
nine (* mont.s for t.e second contract. A ,ro:ect
em,loyee w.o is .ired for a s,ecific ,ro:ect only is
not a regular em,loyee notwit.standing an extension
of t.e ,ro:ect ,rovided t.at t.e contract of ,ro:ect
em,loyment clearly s,ecifies t.e ,ro:ect and t.e
duration t.ereof. LPalomares v. 'L!C# /22 SC!A
63* ()**2TN
*re&5riti,e eri#d4 illegal di&9i&&al (1994)
9n 9cto(er 30# )*+0# A# an em,loyee# was served
notice of dismissal allegedly for gross dis.onesty.
?ort.wit.# t.e Union to w.ic. A was a mem(er raised
APs dismissal wit. t.e grievance mac.inery as
,rovided for in its Collective $argaining Agreement
(C$A. At t.at ,oint# negotiations for a new C$A was
in ,rogress. Fence# (ot. t.e Union and t.e Com,any
.ad very little time to address APs grievance. In fact#
said grievance# as it were# sle,t t.e slee, of t.e
dead# (eing resolved only wit. finality on 'ovem(er
/3# )*+3 w.en t.e %eneral 8anager of t.e Com,any
affirmed APs dismissal on t.e fift. and t.e last ste, of
t.e grievance mac.inery.
A filed an action for illegal dismissal wit. t.e
Ar(itration $ranc. of t.e 'L!C on 'ovem(er /4#
)*+3. <.e Com,any immediately filed a 8otion to
;ismiss on t.e ground of ,rescri,tion# invoDing
Article /*0 of t.e La(or Code.
If you were t.e La(or Ar(iter# .ow would you resolve
t.e Com,anyPs 8otion to ;ismissK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
As t.e La(or Ar(iter# I will deny t.e 8otion to
;ismiss. @.ere an em,loyee was dismissed and t.e
matter of .is dismissal was t.en referred to t.e
grievance mac.inery ,ursuant to t.e ,rovision in t.e
existing collective (argaining agreement# and t.e
grievance mac.inery .ad a final meeting after Euite a
long w.ile t.ereafter# t.e com,laint for Illegal
dismissal was t.en filed# t.e action was not (arred
(y lac.es# as t.e ,endency of t.e matter (efore t.e
grievance mac.inery affected t.e ri,eness of t.e
cause of action for illegal dismissal. (!adio
Communications of t.e P.ili,,ines# Inc. (!CPI# vs.
'ational La(or !elations Commission# et al %.! 'o.
)0/*4+# /4 June )**3# J. ;avide# Jr. //3 SC!A 141.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
If I were t.e La(or Ar(iter# I will deny t.e motion to
dismiss (ecause t.e action for Illegal dismissal .as
not yet ,rescri(ed. <.e ,rescri,tive ,eriod for an
action for illegal dismissal is four V6T years. (Callanta
vs. Carnation #)64 SC!A /1+
*re&5riti,e eri#d4 illegal di&9i&&al (2002)
A. State your agreement or disagreement wit. t.e
following statement and ex,lain your answer (riefly5
! criminal case filed a"ainst an emplo#ee does not
have the effect of suspendin" or interruptin" the
runnin" of the prescriptive period for the filin" of an
action for ille"al dismissal (/M
$. State your agreement or disagreement wit. t.e
following statement and ex,lain your answer (riefly5
<.e ,eriod of ,rescri,tion in Article /*) of t.e La(or
Code a,,lies only to money claims so t.at t.e
,eriod of ,rescri,tion for ot.er cases of in:ury to t.e
rig.ts of em,loyees is governed (y t.e Civil Code.
<.us# an action for reinstatement for in:ury to an
em,loyeePs rig.ts ,rescri(es in four (6 years as
,rovided in Article ))61 of t.e Civil Code. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A. I agree. <.e two (/ cases# namely5 t.e criminal
case w.ere t.e em,loyee is t.e accused- and t.e
case for illegal dismissal# w.ere t.e em,loyee would
(e t.e com,lainant# are two (/ se,arate and
inde,endent actions governed (y different rules#
venues# and ,rocedures. <.e criminal case is wit.in
t.e :urisdiction of t.e regular courts of law and
governed (y t.e rules of ,rocedure in criminal
cases. <.e action for t.e administrative as,ect of
illegal dismissal would (e filed wit. t.e 'L!C and
governed (y t.e ,rocedural rules of t.e La(or Code.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
I agree. An action for illegal dismissal is an
administrative case w.ic. is entirely se,arate and
distinct from a criminal action. &ac. may ,roceed
inde,endently of eac. ot.er.
<.e rig.t to file an action for illegal dismissal is not
de,endent u,on t.e outcome of t.e criminal case.
%uilt or innocence in t.e criminal case is not
determinative of t.e existence of a :ust or aut.oriGed
cause for a dismissal. LPe,si-Cola $ottling Co. v.
%uanGon )2/ SC!A 42)()*+*T
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
$. I agree wit. t.e statement. A case of illegal
dismissal filed (y an em,loyee w.o .as (een
terminated wit.out a :ust or aut.oriGed cause is not a
money claim covered (y Art. /*) of t.e La(or Code.
An em,loyee w.o is un:ustly dismissed from worD is
entitled to reinstatement and to .is (acDwages. A
case of illegal dismissal is (ased u,on an in:ury to
t.e rig.t to security of tenure of an em,loyee. <.us#
in accordance wit. Art ))61# it must (e instituted
wit.in four years. LCallanta v. Carnation P.il. )64
SC!A /1+()*+1- $aliwag <ransit v. 9,le )2) SC!A
/40()*+*- International Farvester 8acleod# Inc. v.
'L!C# /00 SC!A +)2()**)N
*re&5riti,e eri#d4 illegal di&9i&&al (199!)
<.e general manager of JunD ?ood 8anufacturing
Cor,oration dismissed Andrew <an# a ranD-and-file
em,loyee# on t.e ground of insu(ordination. <.e
general manager served on Andrew <an t.e letter of
termination effective u,on recei,t w.ic. was on 0+
8arc. )**/. S.ocDed (y .is unex,ected dismissal#
Andrew <an confronted t.e general manager and .it
t.e latter on t.e .ead wit. a lea, ,i,e.
JunD ?ood 8anufacturing filed a com,laint in court
against Andrew <an for less serious ,.ysical in:uries.
Some.ow# Andrew <an was acEuitted (y t.e court
assigned to .ear t.e criminal case. A few days
following .is acEuittal# or on 0) 8arc. )**1# Andrew
<an filed com,laint against t.e com,any for illegal
dismissal# reinstatement and t.e ,ayment of
(acDwages and damages. a @as t.e com,laint filed
(y Andrew <an for
illegal dismissal wit.in t.e reglementary ,eriod
granted (y lawK ( @.at reliefs may Andrew <an (e
entitled to if
t.e La(or Ar(iter finds :ust cause for
termination (ut t.at t.e reEuirements of notice
and .earing are not com,lied wit.K
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
(a Ies. <.e com,laint was filed wit.in four (6 years
from t.e date Andrew <an was dismissed (y .is
em,loyer. Illegal dismissal# as a cause of action#
,rescri(es after four (6 years from t.e time t.e
cause of action# namely# illegal dismissal tooD ,lace.
<.is is ,ursuant to t.e Civil Code w.ic. ,rovides
t.at actions u,on an in:ury to t.e rig.ts of
a ,erson s.ould (e initiated wit.in four years from
t.e time t.e rig.t of t.e action accrues. (Art. ))61 of
t.e Civil Code
(( Andrew <an would (e entitled to an indemnity of
P)#000 to P)0#000 from .is em,loyer for t.e latterPs
non-com,liance of t.e reEuirements of notice and
.earing in cases of termination of em,loyment.
(@en,.il P.ili,,ines v. 'L!C# )21 SC!A 11
(e&ignati#n4 3#luntary4 Nuit5lai9 (1994)
'onoy Santos was em,loyed as a middle
management em,loyee in Com,any A. In t.e course
of .is em,loyment .e was told (y .is su,eriors of t.e
,ossi(le merger (etween Com,any A and Com,any
$. ?earing t.at .e mig.t lose .is Jo( u,on t.e
merger of t.e two com,anies# .e looDed for and
found anot.er :o(. U,on resignation .e was given
se,aration ,ay eEuivalent to one mont.Ps ,ay ,er
year of service# alt.oug. tec.nically s,eaDing# .e is
not entitled t.ereto (eing a resigned em,loyee. 8r.
Santos executed a Euitclaim and @aiver u,on recei,t
of .is se,aration ,ay (enefits.
<.e merger (etween t.e two com,anies turned out to (e a
(uy-out (y t.e latter of t.e former. At t.is ,oint# Com,any
APs em,loyees# save for a .andful# were dismissed u,on
,ayment of se,aration ,ays eEuivalent to t.ree (3 mont.s
for every year of service (ecause of t.e UnionPs efforts on
t.e worDersP (e.alf. ?eeling aggrieved# Santos
su(seEuently c.arged Com,any A wit. discrimination#
constructive dismissal# under,ayment# resignation#
se,aration (enefits and reinstatement.
<.e La(or Ar(iter and 'L!C sustained Com,any APs
,osition t.at SantosP Euitclaim is valid# and t.at as a
manager .e Dnew t.e im,ort of w.at .e was signing
and# t.erefore# esto,,ed from claiming ot.erwise.
Are t.e La(or Ar(iter and t.e 'L!C correctK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e La(or Ar(iter and t.e 'L!C are correct. Santos
was not coerced into resigning. Fe voluntarily
resigned. <.en# u,on recei,t of t.e se,aration ,ay
t.at tec.nically .e was not entitled to receive# .e
voluntarily executed a Euitclaim and waiver. <.ese
facts s.ow (eyond dou(t t.at .e is esto,,ed from
claiming .e was a victim of discrimination. (&nieda
8onttUa vs. 'ational La(or !elations Commission#
et al# %.! 'o# 2)406# )2 ;ecern(er )**3# J. 'ocon#
//+ SC!A 43+
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(4
$ot. t.e La(or Ar(iter and 'L!C are not correct.
Santos resigned (ecause of t.e uncertainty as to
t.e future of Com,any A# .e was made to (elieve
t.at t.e deal (etween Com,any A and Com,any $
was merely a merger# (ut it really was a ,ro:ected
(uy-out. @.ile dire necessity as a reason for signing
a Euitclaim is not acce,ta(le reason to set aside a
Euitclaim in t.e a(sence of s.owing t.at t.e
em,loyee .as (een forced to execute it# suc.
reason gains im,ortance if t.e consideration is
unconsciona(le# low and t.e em,loyee .as (een
tricDed Into acce,ting it. (@yet.-Suaco v. 'L!C# /)*
SC!A 341
(e&ignati#n4 3#luntary4 Nuit5lai9& (1999)
?AC<S5 International 8otors Cor,oration (I8C
undertooD a reorganiGation of t.e com,any and
rig.t-siGing of its ,ersonnel com,lement due to t.e
current financial crisis. <.e affected em,loyees were
given t.e o,tion to resign wit. corres,onding
generous (enefits attending suc. o,tion. <.e said
em,loyees o,ted to resignation on account of t.ese
negotiated (enefits- and after recei,t of w.ic.# t.ey
executed Euitclaims in favor of I8C. Immediately
t.ereafter# t.e em,loyees voluntarily resigned for
valua(le consideration and t.at# in any case# t.ey
.ave executed Euitclaims in favor of t.e com,any.
<.e em,loyees# .owever# claimed t.at t.ey were
forced to resign# and t.at t.ey executed t.e
Euitclaims only (ecause of dire necessity. Is t.e
com,any guilty of Illegal dismissalK @.yK (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'9. <.e com,any is not guilty of illegal dismissal
since t.e facts clearly indicate t.at t.e Cem,loyees
were given t.e o,tion to resign wit. corres,onding
generous (enefits attending suc. o,tionC and t.at
t.ese em,loyees Co,ted for resignation on account
of t.ese negotiated (enefitsC. 'ot.ing in t.e facts
indicate t.at t.eir consent to t.e waiver of (enefits
under t.e La(or Code was vitiated (y fraud#
violence# undue influence or any ot.er vice or defect.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e com,any is not guilty of Illegal dismissal.
According to t.e facts of t.e case# t.e em,loyees
o,ted to resign voluntarily# considering t.e generous
(enefits given to t.em in connection wit. suc.
resignation. A9LU'<A!I !&SI%'A<I9' cannot (e
considered as illegal dismissal. (SamanIego v. 'L!C#
)*+ SC!A )))
%an t6e Fuit5lai9 be annulled #n t6e gr#und #$
Ddire ne5e&&ityDL /6yL P2MQ
SU%%&S<&; A'S@&!5 A Euitclaim case can (e
annulled on t.e ground of its (eing entered into
involuntarily (y em,loyees (ecause of Cdire
necessityC. <.us# if it was dire necessity t.at forced a
worDer to sign a Euitclaim even if t.e amount of
money given to .im (y t.e em,loyer was very muc.
less t.an w.at t.e worDers was entitled to receive#
t.en t.e Euitclaim was not voluntary# and t.us# t.e
said Euitclaim is
null and void. In a case (Aeloso v. ;9L&# /00 SC!A
/0) t.e Su,reme Court .eld t.at Cdire necessityC is
not an acce,ta(le ground for annulling t.e releases#
es,ecially since it .as not (een s.own t.at t.e
em,loyees .ad (een forced to execute t.em. It .as not
(een ,roven t.at t.e considerations for t.e Euitclaims
were unconsciona(ly low and t.at t.e ,etitioners .ad
(een tricDed into acce,ting t.em.
(etire9ent4 0ti#nal (etire9ent (2005)
() !icDy 8arvin .ad worDed for more t.an ten
()0 years in I%$ Cor,oration. Under t.e terms of t.e
,ersonnel ,olicy on retirement# any em,loyee w.o
.ad reac.ed t.e age of 14 and com,leted at least ten
()0 years of service would (e com,ulsorily retired
and ,aid 30 daysP ,ay for every year of service.
!icDy 8arvin# w.ose immigrant visa to t.e USA .ad
:ust (een a,,roved# cele(rated .is 10t. (irt.day
recently. Fe decided to retire and move to California
w.ere t.e son w.o ,etitioned .im .ad settled. <.e
com,any refused to grant .im any retirement (enefits
on t.e ground t.at .e .ad not yet attained t.e
com,ulsory retirement age of 14 years as reEuired (y
its ,ersonnel ,olicy- moreover# it did not .ave a ,olicy
on o,tional or early retirement.
<aDing u, t.e cudgels for !icDy 8arvin# t.e union
raised t.e issue in t.e grievance mac.inery as
sti,ulated in t.e C$A. 'o settlement was arrived at#
and t.e matter was referred to voluntary ar(itration.
If you were t.e Aoluntary Ar(itrator# .ow would you
decideK $riefly ex,lain t.e reasons for your award.
(4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
I will decide t.e case in accordance wit. t.e
!etirement Law. (!.A. 'o. 216) Under t.e law#
!icDy 8arvin is entitled to 9,tional !etirement at
age 10 since .e .as served t.e Com,any for at least
4 years# in fact )0 years already. Fe will also receive
//.4 days for every year of service. (Ca,itol @ireless
v. Confesor# %.!. 'o. ))2)26# 'ovem(er )3# )**1
(etire9ent4 (etire9ent <ene$it& (1994)
A Collective $argaining Agreement (C$A (etween
Com,any A and its em,loyees ,rovides for o,timal
retirement (enefits for em,loyees w.o .ave
served t.e com,any for over /4 years regardless
of age# eEuivalent to one-and-one-.alf mont.s ,ay
,er year of service (ased on t.e em,loyeePs last
,ay. <.e C$A furt.er ,rovides t.at Cem,loyees
w.ose services are terminated# exce,t for cause#
s.all receive said retirement (enefits regardless of
age or service record wit. t.e com,any or to t.e
a,,lica(le se,aration ,ay ,rovided (y law#
w.ic.ever is .ig.er.C <.e Com,any# due to ,oor
(usiness conditions# decided to cease o,erations
and gave its em,loyees t.e reEuired one mont.Ps
advance notice as well as notice to ;9L&# wit.
t.e furt.er advice t.at eac. em,loyee may claim
.is corres,onding se,aration or retirement
(enefits w.ic.ever is .ig.er after executing t.e
reEuired waiver and Euitclaim.
;ino !amos and .is co-em,loyees w.o .ave all
rendered more t.an /4 years of service# received
t.eir retirement (enefits. Soon after# !amos and
ot.ers similarly situated demanded for t.eir
se,aration ,ay. <.e Com,any refused# claiming t.at
under t.e C$A t.ey cannot receive (ot. (enefits.
@.o is correct# t.e em,loyees or t.e Com,anyK
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e em,loyees are correct. In t.e a(sence of a
categorical ,rovision in t.e !etirement Plan and t.e
C$A t.at an em,loyee w.o receives se,aration ,ay
is no longer entitled to retirement (enefits# t.e
em,loyee is entitled to t.e ,ayment of (ot. (enefits
,ursuant to t.e social :ustice ,olicy. (Conrado 8.
AEuino# et al v. 'ational La(or !elations
Commission# et al# %.! 'o. +2143# )) ?e(ruary
)**/
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
a <.e Com,any is correct. <.e C$A clearly
,rovides t.at em,loyees w.o are terminated are
entitled to retirement (enefits or se,aration ,ay#
w.ic.ever is .ig.er. <.e C$A# t.erefore# does not
give t.e em,loyees a rig.t to (ot. retirement ,ay
and se,aration ,ay. Fence# t.ey cannot (e entitled
to (ot.. <.e exclusion of one (y t.e ot.er is
deducti(le not only from t.e term CorC (ut also (y t.e
Eualifying ,.rase Cw.ic.ever is .ig.erC. <.is ,.rase
would (e immaterial if t.e em,loyees were entitled
to (ot..
( ;ino and .is co-em,loyees were correct. In t.e
case of University of t.e &ast vs. 'L!C# it was
clarified t.at t.e retirement (enefits arising from t.e
C$A is an 9(ligation &x Contractu w.ile se,aration
,ay under Art. /+6 is an 9(ligation &x-Lege.
<.us# t.e Com,any s.ould grant (ot. (enefits to
t.ose w.o were se,arated due to CL9SU!& and at
t.e same time were Eualified to retire. (Ci,riano
v. San 8iguel# /6 SC!A 203
(etire9ent4 (etire9ent *ay (2001)
$. UDol was com,ulsorily retired (y .is em,loyer#
Uurot $ottling Cor,oration# u,on t.e formerPs
reac.ing 14 years of age# .aving rendered 30
years of service. Since t.ere was no C$A# $. UDol
was ,aid .is retirement (enefits com,uted )4
daysP ,ay for every year of service# (ased on $.
UDolPs .ig.est salary during eac. year of .is
em,loyment. 'ot satisfied# $. UDol filed action wit.
t.e Ar(itration $ranc. of t.e 'L!C claiming t.at
.is retirement (enefits were not com,uted
,ro,erly. Is $. UDolPs claim meritoriousK @.at are
t.e com,onents of .is retirement (enefitsK (/M#
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
UDolPs claim is meritorious. Fis retirement (enefit is
to (e com,uted in accordance wit. Article /+2#
w.ic. reads5 CIn t.e a(sence of a retirement ,lan or
agreement ,roviding for retirement (enefits of
em,loyees in t.e esta(lis.ment# an em,loyee may
retire ... and s.all (e entitled to retirement ,ay
eEuivalent to at least one-.alf ()7/ mont. salary for
every year of service# a fraction of at least six
mont.s (eing considered as one w.ole year. <.e
same Article t.en ex,lains t.at t.e term one-.alf
()7/ mont. salary means fifteen days ,lus one-
twelft. ()7)/ of t.e )3t. mont. ,ay and t.e cas.
eEuivalent of not more t.an five (4 days of service
incentive leaves. <.e com,onents of retirement ,ay
are5
() )4 days ,ay
(/ )7)/ of t.e )3t. mont. ,ay. and
(3 cas. eEuivalent of not more t.an five (4
days of service incentive leave.
(b) /6at eB5eti#n(&) d#(e&) t6e la2 #n
retire9ent bene$it& r#,ide(&) i$ anyL (8M)7
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
!etail# service and agricultural esta(lis.ments or
o,erations em,loying not more t.an ten ()0
em,loyees or worDers are exem,ted from t.e
coverage of t.e ,rovision on retirement (enefits in
t.e La(or Code.
Also# w.ere t.ere is a retirement ,lan of t.e
em,loyer t.at grants more t.an w.at t.e La(or
Code grants.
+0%IA) )E'I+)A"I0N+
E9l#yee& %#9en&ati#n A5t4 /#rE?
%#nne5ted .i&ability (1996)
&frenia !eyes was a classroom teac.er assigned (y
t.e ;e,artment of &ducation# Culture and S,orts
(;&CS in Panitan# Ca,iG. S.e .as (een in t.e
government service since )*4) u, to 'ovem(er#
)*+4 w.en s.e retired at 44 due to ,oor .ealt..
In 8arc.# )*+/# w.ile s.e was teac.ing .er %rade )
,u,ils t.e ,ro,er way of scru((ing and swee,ing
t.e floor# s.e accidentally sli,,ed. Fer (acD .it t.e
edge of a desD. S.e later com,lained of weaD lower
extremities and difficulty in walDing. After an O-ray
examination# s.e was found to (e suffering from
PottPs disease and was advised to undergo an
o,eration. In )*+4# s.e filed wit. t.e %SIS a claim
for disa(ility (enefits under Presidential ;ecree
'o. 1/1# as amended. <.e %SIS granted t.e claim
and awarded &frenia ,ermanent ,artial disa(ility
(enefits.
After s.e underwent a surgical o,eration on .er
s,ine in 'ovem(er# )*+4# .er condition worsened.
In )**0# &frenia filed wit. t.e %SIS a ,etition for
conversion of .er disa(ility status to ,ermanent total
disa(ilities wit. corres,onding ad:ustment of
(enefits. %SIS denied t.e claim stating t.at after
&freniaPs retirement# any ,rogression of .er ailment
is no longer com,ensa(le.
Is t.e %SIS correct in denying t.e claim. &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Considering t.at t.e disa(ility of !eyes is worD
connected# t.e ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code dealing
wit. em,loyees com,ensation s.ould determine .er
rig.t to (enefits.
According to said ,rovisions# if any em,loyee under
,ermanent ,artial disa(ility suffers anot.er in:ury
w.ic. results in a com,ensa(le disa(ility greater t.an
t.e ,revious in:ury# t.e State Insurance ?und s.all (e
lia(le for t.e income (enefit of t.e new disa(ility even
after .er retirement.
@as !eyes still an Cem,loyeeC for t.e ,ur,ose of
a,,lying t.e a(ove ,rovision of t.e La(or CodeK
Li(erally construing said ,rovision. !eyes may (e
considered still as an em,loyee so t.at s.e could
receive additional (enefits for t.e ,rogression of .er
ailment.
a 'o. @.en an em,loyee is constrained to retire at
an early age due to .is illness and t.e illness
,ersists even after retirement# resulting in .is
continued unem,loyment# suc. condition amounts to
total disa(ility w.ic. s.ould entitle .im to t.e
maximum (enefits allowed (y law. Fer disa(ility
w.ic. s.ould entitle .er to t.e maximum falls wit.in
t.e definition of ,ermanent total disa(ility.
( 'o# t.e %SIS erred in denying t.e claim. 'ote# t.at
t.e original claim and grant of (enefits was (ased on
Presidential ;ecree 'o# 1/1# or $ooD IA# <itle II of t.e
La(or Code5 &m,loyees Com,ensation and State
Insurance ?und. <.e same law does not ,rovide for
se,aration fee from em,loyment as a (asis for denial
of (enefits.
<.e worsening of t.e sc.ool teac.erPs condition is a
direct result# or a continuing result of t.e first in:ury
w.ic. was deemed worD-connected (y t.e %SIS
and .ence com,ensa(le.
In ;io,enes vs. %SIS# /04 SC!A 33) ()**/# t.e
Su,reme Court cautioned against a too strict
inter,retation of t.e law w.ic. may (e detrimental to
claimants and advised t.e %SIS of t.e constitutional
mandate on ,rotection to la(or and t.e ,romotion of
social Justice. Said t.e Court5
<.e %SIS and t.e &CC s.ould (e commended for
t.eir vigilance against un:ustified claims t.at will
only de,lete t.e funds intended to (e dis(ursed for
t.e (enefit only of deserving disa(led em,loyees.
'evert.eless# we s.ould caution against a too strict
inter,retation of t.e rules t.at will result in t.e
wit..olding of full assistance from t.ose w.ose
ca,a(ilities .ave (een diminis.ed if not com,letely
im,aired as a com,ensation of t.eir service in t.e
government. A .umanitarian im,ulse dictated (y no
less t.an t.e Constitution itself under t.e social
:ustice ,olicy# calls for a li(eral and sym,.at.etic
a,,roac. to t.e legitimate a,,eals of disa(led
,u(lic servants. Com,assion for t.em is not a dole
(ut a rig.t.
'+I+4 <ene$it& (2004)
$. Atty. CL8# a dedicated and efficient ,u(lic official#
was t.e to, executive of a government owned and
controlled cor,oration (%9CC. @.ile ins,ecting an
ongoing ,ro:ect in a remote village in 8indanao# s.e
suffered a stroDe and since t.en .ad (een confined
to a w.eelc.air. At t.e time s.e sto,,ed worDing
(ecause of .er illness in line of duty# Atty. CL8 was
only sixty years old (ut s.e .ad (een an active
mem(er of t.e %SIS for t.irty years wit.out any
(reaD in .er service record.
@.at (enefits could s.e claim from t.e %SISK Cite
at least five (enefits. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e (enefits Atty. CL8 could claim from t.e %SIS
are5
() &m,loyees com,ensation w.ic. s.all include
(ot. income and medical and related (enefits#
including re.a(ilitation-
(/ <em,orary total disa(ility (enefit-
(3 Permanent total disa(ility (enefit-
(6 Se,aration (enefit- and
(4 !etirement (enefit.
'+I+4 .eat6 <ene$it (1999)
?AC<S5 Pitoy 8ondero was em,loyed as a ,u(lic
sc.ool teac.er at t.e 8arinduEue Fig. Sc.ool from
July )# )*+3 until .is untimely demise on 8ay /2#
)**2.
9n A,ril /2# )**2# a memorandum was issued (y t.e
sc.ool ,rinci,al# w.ic. reads5 CIou are .ere(y
designated to ,re,are t.e 89;&L ;A8 ,ro:ect#
w.ic. will (e t.e official entry of or sc.ool t.e
fort.coming ;ivision Searc. for 9utstanding
Im,rovised Secondary Science &Eui,ment for
<eac.ers to (e .eld in 8anila on June 6# )**2. Iou
are .ere(y instructed to com,lete t.is 89;&L
;A8 on or (efore t.e sc.eduled date of t.e
contest.C
8ordero com,lied wit. .is su,eriorPs instruction and
constructed an im,rovised electric microdam# w.ic.
.e tooD .ome to ena(le .im to finis. it (efore t.e
deadline. 9n 8ay /2# )**2# w.ile worDing on t.e
89;&L ;A8 Pro:ect in .is .ouse# .e came to
contact wit. a live wire and was electrocuted. Fe
was immediately (roug.t to a clinic for emergency
treatment (ut was ,ronounced dead on arrival. <.e
deat. certificate s.owed t.at .e died of cardiac
arrest due to accidental electrocution.
Pe,ay Palay,ay (Pitoy 8onderoPs common-law wife
for more t.an twenty years and a Pitoy 8ordero Jr.
(.is only son filed a claim for deat. (enefits wit. t.e
%overnment Service Insurance System (%SIS#
w.ic. was denied on t.e ground t.at Pitoy
8ordenoPs deat. did not arise out of and in t.e
course of em,loyment and t.erefore not
com,ensa(le (ecause t.e accident occurred in .is
.ouse and not in t.e sc.ool ,remises.
I& *eay *alayay entitled t# $ile a 5lai9 $#r
deat6 bene$it& 2it6 t6e '+I+L /6yL (2M)
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e (eneficiaries of a mem(er of t.e %SIS are
entitled to t.e (enefits arising from t.e deat. of said
mem(er. ;eat. (enefits are called survivors.i,
(enefits under t.e %SIS Law.
'ot (eing a (eneficiary# Pe,ay Palay,ay to not
entitled to receive survivors.i, (enefits. S.e is not a
(eneficiary (ecause s.e to a common-law wife and
not a legal de,endent s,ouse.
I& t6e 5au&e #$ deat6 #$ *it#y ;#rden# (5ardia5
arre&t due t# a55idental ele5tr#5uti#n in 6i&
6#u&e) 5#9en&ableL /6yL (8M)7
SU%%&S<&; A'S@&!5 Ies. <o (e com,ensa(le
under t.e %SIS Law# t.e deat. need not (e worD
connected.
'+I+4 .eat6 <ene$it&4 .eendent4 24?6#ur
.uty (ule (2005)
9decD# a ,oliceman# was on leave for a mont..
@.ile resting in t.eir .ouse# .e .eard two of .is
neig.(ors fig.ting wit. eac. ot.er. 9decD rus.ed to
t.e scene intending to ,acify t.e ,rotagonists.
Fowever# .e was s.ot to deat. (y one of t.e
,rotagonists. Q.o,# a .ousemaid# was 9decDPs
surviving s,ouse w.om .e .ad a(andoned for
anot.er woman years (acD. @.en s.e learned of
9decDPs deat.# Q.o, filed a claim wit. t.e %SIS for
deat. (enefits. Fowever# .er claim was denied
(ecause5 (a w.en 9decD was Dilled# .e was on
leave- and (( s.e was not t.e de,endent s,ouse of
9decD w.en .e died.
!esolve wit. reasons w.et.er %SIS is correct in
denying t.e claim. (4M
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
Ies# (ecause under t.e law# a de,endent is one w.o
is a legitimate s,ouse living wit. t.e em,loyee.
(Article )12LiN# La(or Code In t.e ,ro(lem given#
Q.o, .ad (een a(andoned (y 9decD w.o was t.en
living already wit. anot.er woman at t.e time of .is
deat..
8oreover# 9decD was on leave w.en .e was Dilled.
<.e /6-.our duty rule does not a,,ly w.en t.e
,oliceman is on vacation leave. (&m,loyeesP
Com,ensation Commission v. Court of A,,eals#
%.!. 'o. )/)464# 'ovem(er )6# )**1 <aDing
toget.er :uris,rudence and t.e ,ertinent guidelines
of t.e &CC wit. res,ect to claims for deat. (enefits#
namely5
(a t.at t.e em,loyee must (e at t.e ,lace w.ere
.is worD reEuires .im to (e-
(( t.at t.e em,loyee must .ave (een ,erforming
.is official functions- and
(c t.at if t.e in:ury is sustained elsew.ere# t.e
em,loyee must .ave (een executing an order for t.e
em,loyer# it is not difficult to understand t.en w.y
Q.o,Ps claim was denied (y t.e %SIS. (<ancinco v.
%overnment Service Insurance System# %.!. 'o.
)3/*)1# 'ovem(er )1# /00)
In t.e ,resent case# 9decD was resting at .is .ouse
w.en t.e incident .a,,ened- t.us# .e was not at t.e
,lace w.ere .is worD reEuired .im to (e. Alt.oug. at
t.e time of .is deat. 9decD was ,erforming a ,olice
function# it cannot (e said t.at .is deat. occurred
elsew.ere ot.er t.an t.e ,lace w.ere .e was
su,,osed to (e (ecause .e was executing an order
for .is em,loyer.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
%SIS is correct in denying t.e claim not on t.e
grounds ,rovided in t.e ,ro(lem (ut for t.e reason
t.at uniformed mem(ers of t.e P'P are not covered
(y !.A. 'o. +/*) or t.e %SIS Law of )**2.
;aternity <ene$it& (2000)
8s. Sara 8ira is an unwed mot.er wit. t.ree
c.ildren from t.ree different fat.ers. In )***# s.e
(ecame a mem(er of t.e Social Security System. In
August /000# s.e suffered a miscarriage# also out of
wedlocD# and again (y a different fat.er. Can 8s.
8ira claim maternity (enefits under t.e Social
Security Act of )**2K !eason. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Ies# s.e can claim maternity (enefit. &ntitlement
t.ereto is not de,endent on t.e claimantPs (eing
legally married. (Sec. )6-A# Social Security Act of
)**2.
*aternity )ea,e (2002)
Fow many times may a male em,loyee go on
Paternity LeaveK Can .e avail .imself of t.is (enefit
for exam,le# 40 days after t.e first delivery (y .is
wifeK (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
A male em,loyee may go on Paternity Leave u, to
four (6 c.ildren. (Sec. /# !A +)+2 9n t.e Euestion
of w.et.er or not .e can avail .imself of t.is (enefit
40 days after t.e delivery of .is wife# t.e answer is5
Ies# .e can (ecause t.e !ules Im,lementing
Paternity Leave Act says t.at t.e availment s.ould
not (e later t.an 10 days after t.e date of delivery.
*aternity )ea,e4 ;aternity )ea,e (2005)
8ans @eto .ad (een an em,loyee of 'o,olt
Assurance Com,any for t.e last ten ()0 years. Fis
wife of six (1 years died last year. <.ey .ad four
(6 c.ildren. Fe t.en fell in love wit. Jovy# .is co-
em,loyee# and t.ey got married.
In 9cto(er t.is year# @etoPs new wife is ex,ected to
give (irt. to .er first c.ild. Fe .as accordingly filed
.is a,,lication for ,aternity leave# conforma(ly wit.
t.e ,rovisions of t.e Paternity Leave Law w.ic. tooD
effect in )**1. <.e F!; manager of t.e assurance
firm denied .is a,,lication# on t.e ground t.at @eto
.ad already used u, .is entitlement under t.e law.
@eto argued t.at .e .as a new wife w.o will (e
giving (irt. for t.e first time# t.erefore# .is
entitlement to ,aternity leave (enefits would (egin to
run anew. (1M
(a) !hose contention is correct$ !eto or the
./ manager?
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
<.e contention of @eto is correct. <.e law ,rovides
t.at every married male is entitled to a ,aternity
leave of seven (2 days for t.e first four
(6 deliveries of t.e legitimate s,ouse wit. w.om .e
is co.a(iting. Jovy is @etoPs legitimate s,ouse wit.
w.om .e is co.a(iting. <.e fact t.at Jovy is .is
second wife and t.at @eto .ad 6 c.ildren wit. .is
first wife is (eside t.e ,oint. <.e im,ortant fact is
t.at t.is is t.e first c.ild of Jovy wit. @eto. <.e law
did not distinguis. and we s.ould t.erefore not
distinguis..
<.e ,aternity leave was intended to ena(le t.e
.us(and to effectively lend su,,ort to .is wife in .er
,eriod of recovery and7or in t.e nursing of t.e newly
(orn c.ild. (Sec. 3# !A. 'o. +)+2 <o deny @eto t.is
(enefit would (e to defeat t.e rationale for t.e law.
8oreover# t.e case of @eto is a gray area and t.e
dou(t s.ould (e resolved in .is favor.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
@etoPs contention is correct. !.A. 'o. +)+2 ,rovides
t.at ,aternity leave of (2 days wit. full ,ay s.all (e
granted to all married em,loyees in t.e ,rivate and
,u(lic sectors for t.e first four (6 deliveries of t.e
legitimate s,ouse wit. w.om .e is
co.a(iting. @it. t.e deat. of @etoPs first wife# t.e
first (6 deliveries ,rovided (y law# s.all a,,ly to t.e
new legitimate s,ouse of @eto wit. w.om .e is
co.a(iting.
A)"E(NA"I3E AN+/E(:
Since !.A. 'o. +/+/ is silent on t.e matter# t.e
dou(t s.ould (e resolved in favor of t.e second
wife.
(b) Is 0ovy entitled to maternity leave benefits?
Ies# JovyPs maternity (enefit is ,ersonal to .er and
s.e is entitled under t.e law to avail .erself of t.e
same for t.e first four times of .er deliver. (!.A. 'o.
+/+/
+++4 %#9ul&#ry %#,erage (1995)
$ig ?oot Com,any of Paete# Laguna# .as (een in t.e
(usiness of manufacturing wooden sandals for ex,ort
since 4 'ovem(er )*+0. 9n 4 January )**6 it
em,loyed an additional la(or com,lement of t.irty
worDers# two su,ervisors and two de,artment
managers. 9n 4 ?e(ruary )**6 it .ired five
car,enters to fix t.e roof and walls of its factory w.ic.
were destroyed (y ty,.oon CFuaning.C
@.o among t.e aforementioned ,ersons are
com,ulsorily covered (y t.e Social Security Law and
w.en s.ould t.ey (e considered effectively coveredK
;iscuss fully.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Assuming t.at all of t.em were not yet over sixty
years of age# t.e additional la(or com,lement of
t.irty worDers# two su,ervisors and two de,artment
managers were com,ulsorily covered (y t.e Social
Security Law on 4 January )**6# w.en t.ey were
em,loyed. According to said law# worDers are
covered on t.e day of t.eir em,loyment.
$ut t.e five car,enters w.ic. t.e com,any .ired to fix
t.e roof and walls of its factory were not under t.e
com,ulsory coverage of t.e Social Security Law
(ecause said car,enters are casual em,loyees. <.e
Social Security Law ,rovides t.at em,loyment ,urely
casual and not for t.e ,ur,ose of occu,ation or t.e
(usiness of t.e em,loyer are not under its
com,ulsory coverage.
+++4 %#9ul&#ry %#,erage (1999)
8arvin Patrimonio is a caddy rendering caddying
services for t.e mem(ers and guests of t.e $arili
%olf = Country Clu(. As suc. caddy# .e is su(:ect
to $arili golfs rules and regulations governing
Caddies regarding conduct# dress# language# etc.
Fowever# .e does not .ave to o(serve any
worDing .ours# .e is free to leave anytime .e
,leases- and .e can stay away for as long as .e
liDes. 'onet.eless# if .e is found remiss in t.e
o(servance of clu( rules# .e can (e disci,lined
(y (eing (arred from t.e ,remises of $arili %olf.
Is 8arvin wit.in t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e
Social Security SystemK @.yK (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
$ecause .e is not an em,loyee of t.e $arili %olf =
Country Clu(# 8arvin is not wit.in t.e com,ulsory
coverage of t.e Social Security System. 8arvin is
not an em,loyee of t.e clu( (ecause under t.e
s,ecific circumstances of .is relations wit. t.e clu(#
.e is not under t.e orders of t.e clu( as regards
em,loyment w.ic. would .ave made .im an
em,loyee of t.e clu(. (See 8anila %olf = Country
Clu(# Inc. v. IAC# /32 SC!A /02
$ut 8arvin is wit.in t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e
SSS as a self-em,loyed ,erson. (See Section *-A#
Social Security Law of )*42
+++4 %#9ul&#ry %#,erage (2000)
<.e Collective $argaining Agreement of t.e %olden
Cor,oration Inc. and t.e %olden Cor,oration @orDers
Union ,rovides a ,acDage of welfare (enefits far
su,erior in com,arison wit. t.ose ,rovided for in t.e
Social Security Act of )**2. <.e welfare ,lan of t.e
com,any is funded solely (y t.e em,loyer wit. no
contri(utions from t.e em,loyees. Admittedly# it is t.e
(est welfare ,lan in t.e P.ili,,ines. <.e com,any and
t.e union :ointly filed a ,etition wit. t.e Social
Security System for exem,tion from coverage. @ill
t.e ,etition for exem,tion from coverage ,ros,erK
!eason. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o# (ecause coverage under t.e SSS is com,ulsory
w.ere em,loyer-em,loyee relations exist. Fowever# if
t.e ,rivate ,lan is su,erior to t.at of t.e SSS# t.e
,lan may (e integrated wit. t.e SSS ,lan. Still# it is
integration and not exem,tion from SSS law.
(P.ili,,ine $looming 8ills Co.# Inc.
v. Social Security System# )2 SC!A )02()*11- !A.
'o. ))1) as amended (y !A 'o. +/+/T.
+++4 %#9ul&#ry %#,erage (2002)
<.e owners of ?ALC9' ?actory# a com,any engaged
in t.e assem(ling of automotive com,onents# decided
to .ave t.eir (uilding renovated. ?ifty (40 ,ersons#
com,osed of engineers# arc.itects and ot.er
construction worDers# were .ired (y t.e com,any for
t.is ,ur,ose. <.e worD was estimated to (e
com,leted in t.ree (3 years. <.e em,loyees
contended t.at since t.e worD would (e com,leted
after more t.an one () year# t.ey s.ould (e su(:ect
to com,ulsory coverage under t.e Social Security
Law. ;o you agree wit. t.eir contentionK &x,lain your
answer fully. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. Under Section + (: of !A ))1)# as amended#
em,loyment of ,urely casual and not for t.e ,ur,ose
of t.e occu,ation or (usiness of t.e em,loyer are
exce,ted from com,ulsory coverage. An em,loyment
is ,urely casual if it is not for t.e ,ur,ose of
occu,ation or (usiness of t.e em,loyer.
In t.e ,ro(lem given# ?alcon ?actory is a com,any
engaged in t.e assem(ling of automotive
com,onents.
<.e fifty (40 ,ersons (engineers# arc.itects and
construction worDers were .ired (y ?alcon ?actory
to renovate its (uilding. <.e worD to (e ,erformed (y
t.ese fifty (10 ,eo,le is not in connection wit. t.e
,ur,ose of t.e (usiness of t.e factory. Fence# t.e
em,loy of t.ese fifty (40 ,ersons is ,urely casual.
<.ey are# t.erefore# exce,ted from t.e com,ulsory
coverage of t.e SSS law.
AN0"1E( +U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
I agree wit. t.e contention t.at t.e em,loyees .ired
(y t.e owners of ?ALC9' factory as construction
worDers in t.e renovation of its (uilding s.ould (e
under t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e Social
Security Law.
It is true t.at in connection wit. ?ALC9' ?actory#
w.ic. is engaged in t.e assem(ling of automotive
com,onents# t.e construction worDers may (e
considered casual em,loyees (ecause t.eir
em,loyment is not for t.e ,ur,ose of occu,ation of
(usiness of ?ALC9' ?actory. As suc.# in accordance
wit. Section +V: of t.e Social Security Law# t.ey are
exce,ted form t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e Social
Security System.
$ut t.ey could also (e considered ,ro:ect em,loyees
of ?ALC9' ?actory and as suc. could (e under t.e
com,ulsory coverage of t.e SSS# a,,lying Art 6 of
t.e La(or Code t.at ,rovides t.at all dou(ts in t.e
Im,lementation and inter,retation of t.e ,rovisions of
La(or Law s.all (e resolved in favor of la(or. <.e
em,loyees .ere t.erefore# s.ould (e considered as
under t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e SSS.
+++4 '+I+4 <ene$i5iality4 *#rtability
*r#,i&i#n& #$ (A !699 (2005)
Fow are t.e C,orta(ilityC ,rovisions of !e,u(lic Act
'o. 21** (eneficial or advantageous to SSS and
%SIS mem(ers in terms of t.eir credita(le
em,loyment services in t.e ,rivate sector or t.e
government# as t.e case may (e# for ,ur,oses of
deat.# disa(ility or retirementK Please ex,lain your
answer (riefly. (3M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Porta(ility ,rovisions of !.A. 'o. 21** s.all (enefit a
covered worDer w.o transfers em,loyment from one
sector to anot.er or is em,loyed in (ot.
sectors# w.ose credita(le services or contri(utions in
(ot. systems credited to .is service or contri(ution
record in eac. of t.e system and s.all (e totaliGed
for ,ur,oses of old-age# disa(ility# survivors.i, and
ot.er (enefits. (Sec. 3# !.A. 'o. 21**
<.e C,orta(ilityC ,rovisions of !.A. 'o. 21** allow
t.e transfer of funds for t.e account and (enefit of
t.e worDer w.o transfers from one system to
anot.er.
<.is is advantageous to t.e SSS and %SIS
mem(ers for ,ur,oses of deat.# disa(ility or
retirement (enefits. In t.e event t.e em,loyees
transfer from t.e ,rivate sector to t.e ,u(lic sector#
or vice-versa# t.eir credita(le em,loyment services
and contri(utions are carried over and transferred as
well.
+++4 '+I+4 Juri&di5ti#n4 <ene$it %lai9&
(1995)
Is it necessary for an em,loyee to litigate in order to
esta(lis. and enforce .is rig.t to com,ensationK
&x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
'o. All t.at an em,loyee does to claim em,loyeePs
com,ensation is to file a claim for said (enefits wit.
t.e SSS (for t.ose in t.e ,rivate sector or %SIS (for
t.ose in t.e ,u(lic sector.
In t.e event t.at t.e claim is denied on t.e
SSS7%SIS level# claimant may a,,eal to t.e
&m,loyees Com,ensation Commission w.ere .e
may ,rove t.e causal connection (etween in:ury and
nature of worD.
+++4 *re&5riti,e *eri#d4 <ene$it %lai9&
(2001)
(( In )*10# Juan .ired Pa(lo to drive for t.e formerPs
lum(er com,any. In )*20# Pa(lo got sicD and was
tem,orarily laid-off. In )*2/# Pa(lo recovered and
resumed worDing for t.e same lum(er com,any# now
run (y JuanPs wife since Juan .ad already ,assed
away. In )**1# Pa(lo retired. @.en Pa(lo a,,lied for
retirement (enefits wit. t.e SSS t.at same year# .e
discovered t.at t.e lum(er com,any never enrolled
.im as an em,loyee# muc. less remitted .is
contri(utions t.at were deducted from .is salary. <.e
lum(er com,any agreed to ,ay for Pa(loPs
contri(utions ,lus ,enalties (ut maintained t.at most
of Pa(loPs claims .ad already ,rescri(ed under Art#
))40 of t.e Civil Code. (Art. ))40 ,rovides C<.e time
for ,rescri,tion of all Dinds of actions# w.en t.ere is
no s,ecial ,rovision w.ic. ordains ot.erwise# s.all
(e counted from t.e day t.ey may (e (roug.t.C. Is
t.e Lum(er com,anyPs contention correctK @.yK
(3M#
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e lum(er com,anyPs contention is not correct. <.e
Social Security Law (in Sec. //(( ,rovides t.at t.e
rig.t to institute t.e necessary action against an
em,loyer may (e commenced wit.in twenty (/0
years from t.e time t.e delinEuency is Dnown or t.e
assessment is made (y t.e SSS# or from t.e time
t.e (enefit accrues# as t.e case may (e.
+++4'+I+4 E9l#yee& %#9en&ati#n A5t
(199!)
State t.e res,ective coverages of VaT t.e Social
Security Law5 (( t.e !evised government Service
Insurance Act and (c t.e &m,loyees Com,ensation
Act.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
(a %#,erage #$ +++ (Sec. *. !A +/+/ s.all (e
com,ulsory u,on all em,loyees not over sixty years
of age and t.eir em,loyers.
1 ?ili,inos recruited in t.e P.ili,,ines (y foreign-
(ased em,loyers for em,loyment a(road may (e covered
(y t.e SSS on a voluntary (asis.
2 Coverage in t.e SSS s.all also (e com,ulsory
u,on all self-em,loyed ,ersons earning P)#+00 or more
,er annum.
(( ;e9ber&6i in t6e '#,ern9ent +er,i5e
In&uran5e +y&te9 (Art. 3# !A+/*) s.all (e
com,ulsory for all ,ermanent em,loyees (elow 10
years of age u,on a,,ointment to ,ermanent status#
and for all elective officials for t.e duration of t.eir
tenure.
) Any ,erson# w.et.er elected or a,,ointed# in t.e
service of an em,loyer is a covered em,loyee if .e
receives com,ensation for suc. service.
(c %#,erage in t6e +tate In&uran5e Aund (Art#
)1+# La(or Code s.all (e com,ulsory u,on all
em,loyers and t.eir em,loyees not over sixty (10
years of age- Provided# t.at an em,loyee w.o is
over (10 years of age and ,aying contri(utions to
Eualify for t.e retirement or life insurance (enefit
administered (y t.e System s.all (e su(:ect to
com,ulsory coverage.
<.e &m,loyees Com,ensation Commission s.all
ensure adeEuate coverage of ?ili,ino em,loyees
em,loyed a(road# su(:ect to regulations as it may
,rescri(e. (Art# )20T
Any ,erson com,ulsorily covered (y t.e %SIS
including t.e mem(ers of t.e Armed ?orces of t.e
P.ili,,ines# and any ,erson em,loyed as casual#
emergency# tem,orary# su(stitute or contractual#
or any ,erson com,ulsorily covered (y t.e SSS
are covered (y t.e &m,loyees Com,ensation
Program.
+tate In&uran5e Aund (1994)
Samson Security Agency LSA8S9' undertooD to
,rovide /6 .ours security service to Jarillo !ealty
(JA!ILL9 in t.e latterPs construction o,erations. <.e
contract (etween SA8S9' and JA!ILL9 ex,ressly
sti,ulated t.at SamsonPs security guards are its
em,loyees and not t.at of JA!ILL9. SA8S9'
undertooD to .old JA!ILL9 free from any lia(ility
w.atsoever resulting from in:uries w.ic. its
(SA8S9'Ps guards may suffer or (e ex,osed to
suffer as guards of JA!ILL9Ps construction
o,erations.
<o facilitate ,ayment. JA!ILL9 undertooD to ,ay
directly to t.e guards t.e agreed wages# w.ic. are
su(seEuently deducted from t.e mont.ly ,ayments
to SA8S9' under its contract wit. JA!ILL9.
JA!ILL9# in turn# c.arges SA8S9' for t.e
eEui,ment su,,lied to t.e guards suc. as uniforms#
,istols and ammunition and cost of training of guards
JA!ILL9 wants re,laced.
;uring a storm# several scaffoldings of JA!ILL9 fell
and Dilled two (/ guards w.ose families later sued
JA!ILL9. JA!ILL9# in turn# im,leaded SA8S9' as
t.ird-,arty defendant (efore t.e Ar(iter. ;ecide w.o
s.ould (e .eld lia(le.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
Lia(ility lies against t.e State Insurance ?und
administered (y t.e SSS. <.is is a case of deat. in
connection wit. t.e em,loyeesP worD.
Jarillo is deemed to (e t.e em,loyer of t.e guards in
view of t.e direct ,ayment of wages to t.e guards.
<.us# if t.ere are (enefits arising from em,loyer-
em,loyee relations.i,# Jarillo s.ould (e .eld
answera(le.
'703( 0he la! involved# namely the
la! on employees compensation and
State Insurance Eund !as e@pressly
e@cluded from this years bar
e@amination in 4abor and Social
4egislation% +tate In&uran5e Aund (1995)
@.at is t.e extent of an em,loyerPs intervention in
t.e com,ensation ,rocess and t.e ,ayment of
(enefits to em,loyees under t.e State Insurance
?undK &x,lain.
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(:
<.e new law esta(lis.es a State Insurance ?und
(uilt u, (y t.e contri(utions of em,loyers (ased on
t.e salaries of t.eir em,loyees. <.e em,loyer does
not intervene in t.e com,ensation ,rocess and it
.as no control over t.e ,ayment of (enefits.
UnliDe under t.e @orDmenPs Com,ensation Act#
em,loyers are no longer directly lia(le for t.e
income and medical and related (enefits t.at are to
(e ,aid to covered em,loyees if t.ey s.ould suffer
from worD connected in:ury or sicDness or deat..
<.e ,ayment of em,loyees com,ensation is
now from t.e State Insurance ?und w.ic. is
constituted from t.e contri(utions collected from
em,loyers.
+tray Nue&ti#n&
+tray *r#ble94 *#liti5al )a24 *#2er #$ t6e
*re&ident4 A"AA (2006)
Armstrong Cor,oration# a foreign cor,oration#
intends to engage in t.e ex,loration of P.ili,,ine
natural resources. 8r. Antonio !eyes offered t.e
forest land .e owns to t.e ,resident of t.e
cor,oration. 8ay Armstrong Cor,oration enter into
a financial and tec.nical assistance agreement
(?<AA wit. 8r. !eyes to ex,lore# develo,# and
utiliGe t.e landK &x,lain. (4M
+U''E+"E. AN+/E(: N0. 9nly t.e President
may enter into financial and tec.nical assistance
agreements for large-scale ex,loration develo,ment
and utiliGation of natural resources (Art. OII# Sec. /#
)*+2 Constitution. 8oreover# forest lands are
inaliena(le lands of t.e state (La $ugal R $Plaran
<ri(al Association# Inc. v. !amos# %.!. 'o. )/2++/#
;ecem(er )# /006.
'%?% 0his appears to be a proper Duestion
for 6olitical 4a!%

2.labor Suggested Answers (1994-2006), Word

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2.labor Suggested Answers (1994-2006), Word

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

2.labor Suggested Answers (1994-2006), Word

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANSWERS TO BAR

You might also like