UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE RECOLETOS

SCHOOL OF LAW
LABOR STANDARDS LAW



Reference: Cesario Azucena, Jr, Labor Code. Vol. 1

PRELIMINARY PERIOD

I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Introduction
o Sources of Labor Law
The four main sources of labor laws are:
Codes and Statutes
Judicial decisions
Rules and regulations issued by administrative agencies
International laws and conventions
Code and Statutes
In the Philippines, the primary source of labor laws is Presidential Decree No. 442, otherwise known as the
Labor Code of the Philippines.
The Labor Code was enacted on May 1, 1974, Labor Day, by Ferdinand Marcos exercising legislative power.
It took effect six months later on November 1, 1974. Since its enactment, the Labor Code has undergone
several amendments. The most notable amendment was brought about by Republic Act No. 6715, also
known as the Herrera-Veloso Law, which took effect on March 21, 1989.
The Labor Code is divided into six books, covering aspects of employment from the pre-hiring to
termination, conditions of employment, security of tenure, provisions governing labor relations, such as
those involving the constitutional right of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and peaceful
concerted activities, as well as provisions dealing with social welfare benefits.
The six books composing the Labor Code are as follows:
Book I Pre-Employment
Book II Human Resources Development
Book III Conditions of Employment
Book IV Health, Safety, and Social Welfare Benefits
Book V Labor Relations
Book VI Post-Employment
Aside from the Labor Code of the Philippines, there are many other statutes and laws that affects labor, such
as:
1. 13th Month Pay Law
2. Retirement Pay Law (Republic Act No. 7641)
3. Paternity Leave Act of 1996 (Republic Act No. 8187)
4. Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (Republic Act. No. 7277)
5. Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (Republic Act. No. 7877)



Judicial decisions
Judicial decisions interpreting labor laws are also, in that sense, sources of labor laws. In accordance with
Article 8, Civil Code: Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part
of the legal system of the Philippines.
This is not to say, though, that courts can promulgate laws. Courts cannot promulgate laws, they simply
interpret or construe the law.
Jurisprudence, in our system of government, cannot be considered as an independent source of law; it
cannot create law. While it is true that judicial decisions which apply or interpret the Constitution or the laws
are part of the legal system of the Philippines, still they are not laws. Judicial decisions, though not laws, are
nonetheless evidence of what the laws mean, and it is for this reason that they are part of the legal system
of the Philippines. Judicial decisions of the Supreme Court assume the same authority as the statute itself.
[1]

Rules and regulations issued by administrative agencies
Rules and regulations issued by administrative agencies are also deemed sources of labor laws insofar as
they supplement provisions of the law or provide means for carrying them out or give information relating
thereto.
When an administrative agency promulgates rules and regulations, it makes a new law with the force and
effect of a valid law. Rules and regulations when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority
conferred upon the administrative agency by law, partake of the nature of a statute. This is so because
statutes are usually couched in general terms, after expressing the policy, purposes, objectives, remedies
and sanctions intended by the legislature. The details and the manner of carrying out the law are often
times left to the administrative agency entrusted with its enforcement. In this sense, it has been said that
rules and regulations are the product of a delegated power to create new or additional legal provisions that
have the effect of law.
[2]

The leading agency charged with implementation and enforcement of labor laws in the Philippines is the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
Other agencies are:
1. Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA)
2. Philippine Overseas Employment Agencies (POEA)
3. National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB)
4. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
5. National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC)
6. Employees Compensation Commission (ECC)
7. Technical Educations and Skills Related Authority (TESDA)
International laws and conventions
International laws and conventions are also considered sources of laws in the Philippines under the doctrine
of incorporation. This is pursuant to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution which provides that the
Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.
One of the international agencies that is actively involved in crafting and adoption of international
conventions and recommendations dealing with labor issues is the International Labor Organization (ILO).


ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations. Its headquarters are in Geneva, Switzerland.
[3]

Footnotes
1. Columbia Pictures, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 110318, August 28, 1996.
2. Victorias Milling Co., Inc. vs. Social Security Commission, 114 Phil. 555 (1962), as cited in Freedom
from Debt Coalition v. Energy Regulatory Commission, G.R. No. 161113, 15 June 2004.

o Basis of enactment of Labor Law

POLICE POWER:
police poweris the power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make,
ordain, establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws for the good and welfare of the
State and its people. (ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 1967)
The basic purposes of police power are:
a. to promote the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the people;(ASSOCIATION
OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SECRETARY, 175 SCRA 343; US VS. TORIBIO, 15 Phil. 85
b. to promote and preserve public health; (VILLANUEVA VS. CASTANEDA, September 21,
1987; DECS VS. SAN DIEGO, 180 SCRA 533 [NMAT]; LORENZO VS. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, 50 Phil.
595apprehend and confine lepers in a leprosarium)
c. to promote and protect public safety; (AGUSTIN VS. EDU, 88 SCRA 195; TAXICAB
OPERATORS VS. JUINIO, 119 SCRA 897 )
d. to maintain and safeguard peace and order; (GUAZON VS. DE VILLA)
e. to protect public morals; (DE LA CRUZ VS. PARAS, 123 SCRA 569; ERMITA MALATE
HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 1967; JMM PROMOTIONS VS. CA, 260 SCRA 319; VELASCO VS.
VILLEGAS, February 13, 1983)
f. to promote the economic security of the people. (ichong vs. hernandez, 101 Phil.
11155)

o Limitations in the enactment of Labor Law


Fundamental Principles and Policies
o Constitutional Provisions
Art. II Secs. 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20.
Art. III Secs. 1, 4, 8.
Art. XIII, Secs. 1, 2, 3, 14
o New Civil Code
Article 1700
o Labor Code
Article 3
Article 211
Article 212
Article 255



CASES:
o Constitutional Mandates
Gandara Mill Supply vs. NLRC 300 SCRA 702
Marcoper Mining Corp. vs. NLRC G.R. No. 103525 March 29,
1996
NFSW vs. Ovejera GR L-59743 May 31, 1982
Sarocam vs. Interrorient Maritime Ent., G.R. No. 167813
June 27, 2006
NS Transport Employees Association (NSTEA) vs. NS
Transport Service, Inc. G.R. No. 164049 October 30, 2006
o Cases: Constitutional Provisions:
o Due Process:
CHAPTER II DUE PROCESS
Section 1NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.
Kinds of Due Process:
a. substantive due processrequires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the
rights of the person to life, liberty or property. In short, it is to determine whether it has a valid
governmental objective like for the interest of the public as against mere particular class.
b. Procedural due processone which hears before it condemns as pointed out by Daniel
Webster.
Due process is a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial (Per Daniel Webster in the DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE)
1. Requisites of judicial due process.
a. BANCO ESPANOL VS. PALANCA, 37 Phil. 921
Requisites:
1. There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and
decide the matter before it;
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the
property subject of the proceedings;
3. The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard;
4. Judgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing.
Requisites:
a. the right to a hearing which includes the right to present evidence;
b. the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
c. the decision must have something to support itself;
d. the evidence must be substantial;
e. the decision must be based on the evidence presented during the hearing;
f. the tribunal or body must act on its own independent consideration of the law or
facts;
g. the board or body shall in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a
manner that the parties to the proceedings can know the various issues involved.
Requisites of Due Process before the NLRC
1. Notice; and
2. Hearing
a. MGG Marine Services vs. NLRC, 259 SCRA 664
b. Philippine Savings Bank vs. NLRC, 261 SCRA 409
c. RAYCOR AIR CONTROL VS. NLRC, 261 SCRA 589
d. WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES VS. NLRC, 263 SCRA 174
e. SAMILLANO VS. NLRC, 265 SCRA 788
f. STOLT-NIELSEN VS. NLRC, 264 SCRA 307
g. GARCIA VS. NLRC, 264 SCRA 261
4. Effect of a Motion for Reconsideration to violation of the right to due process
a. CASUELA VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, 276 SCRA 635
b. CORDENILLO VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, 276 SCRA 652

Serrano vs. NLRC ( G.R. No. 117040, January 27, 2000
Agabon vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004
o Equal Protection:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CHAPTER III THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Requisites for a valid classification-
a. There must be real and substantial distinctions;
b. It must be germane tot he purposes of the law;
c. It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
d. It must apply equally to all members of the same class.
Right to Equal Protection of the Laws (Sec. 1, Art. III)
Equal Protection of the laws signifies that all persons subject to legislation should be treated alike, under
like circumstances and conditions, both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.

The guarantee does not require that persons or things different in fact be treated in law as though they were
the same. What it prohibits is class legislation which discriminates against some and favors others when
both are similarly situated or circumstanced.

Where there are reasonable grounds for so doing, persons or their properties may be grouped into classes to
each of which special legal rights o liabilities may be attached.

Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO vs. Glaxo
Welcome Philippines, Inc. (G.R. No. 162994, September 17,
2004)
o Right to counsel:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; RIGHT TO COUNSEL. - The 1987 Constitution was
crafted and ordained at a historic time when our nation was reeling from ghastly
memories of atrocities, excesses and outright violations of our people's rights to
life, liberty and property. Hence, our bill of rights was worded to emphasize the
sanctity of human liberty and specifically to protect persons undergoing custodial
investigation from ignorant, overzealous and/or incompetent peace officers. The
Constitution so dearly values freedom and voluntariness that, inter alia, it
unequivocally guarantees a person undergoing investigation for the commission
of an offense not only the services of counsel, but a lawyer who is not merely (a)
"competent" but also (b) "independent" and (c) "preferably of his own choice" as
well. In the case before us, the main evidence relied upon for the conviction of
appellants was their own extrajudicial confessions which admittedly were
extracted and signed in the presence and with the assistance of a lawyer who
was applying for work in the NBI. Such counsel cannot in any wise be considered
"independent" because he cannot be expected to work against the interest of a
police agency he was hoping to join, as a few months later he in fact was
admitted into its work force. For this violation of their constitutional right to
independent counsel, appellants deserve acquittal. After the exclusion of their
tainted confessions, no sufficient and credible evidence remains in the Court's
records to overturn another constitutional right: the right to be presumed
innocent of any crime until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(People of the Philippines versus Rene Januario y Roldan, et al., G.R. No. 98252,
February 7, 1997.)


IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TH
E RIGHT TO COUNSEL
DURING THE CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIO
N AND THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING
TRIAL?
>Yes. During the trial, the right to counsel means the right to effective counsel. During trial,
the purpose of the counsel is not so much to protect the accused from being forced to confess, but
rather is to defend the accused.
> On the other hand, a custodial investigation has stricter requirements. A custodial
investigation requires the presence of a
competent and independent counsel, who is preferably the
accuseds own choice. Furthermore, the right to counsel could only be waived in writing and in
the presence of counsel.
> A custodial investigation take note is not done in public, hence the
danger that confessions will be extracted against the will of the defendant during the custodial
investigation. This danger doesn't
really exist during trial since the latter is done in public.

WHY IS THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL
AFFORDED DURING TRIAL?
> The right to counsel afforded during trial because this right is embraced in ones right to be
heard

WHEN SHOULD THE RIGHT TO
COUNSEL BE INVOKED?
> The right to counsel can be invoked at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal
> However, it can also be waived
> The accused is deemed to have waived his right to counsel when he voluntarily submits himself to
the jurisdiction of the Court and and proceeds with his defense
> But in two cases, the Court held that the defendant cannot raise for the first time on appeal his right
to have an attorney. If the question is not raised in the trial court, the prosecution may go to
trial. The question will not be considered in the appellate court for the first time when the accused fails
to raise it in the lower court.

IS IT THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO
APPOINT COUNSEL DE OFFICIO
MANDATORY AT ALL TIMES?
> No, the duty to appoint counsel de officio is mandatory only up to the time of arraignment

DOES THE MISTAKE OF COUNSEL
BIND THE CLIENT?
> As a rule, the mistake of counsel binds the client
> Therefore, the client cannot question a decision on the ground that his counsel was an idiot
> However, an exception to this if counsel misrepresents himself as a lawyer, and he turns out to be a
fake lawyer. In this case, the accused is entitled to new trial because his right to be represented
by a member of the bar was violated. He was thus denied of his right to counsel and due process.

IS THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL
ABSOLUTE?
> No since the right of choice must be exercised in a reasonable manner within reasonable
time.
> The accused cannot insist on counsel that he cannot afford, one who is not a member of the
bar, or one who declines for a valid
reason.
> Also the right of the accused to choose counsel is subject to the right of the state to due process
and adequate justice.

WHEN CAN THE ACCUSED DEFEND
HIMSELF IN PERSON?
> The accused can defend himself in person only if the court is convinced that he can properly
protect his rights even without the assistance of counsel.
Manuel vs. N.C. Construction Supply (G.R. No. 127553,
November 28, 1997)
Punzal vs. ETSI Technologies Inc. (G.R. Nos. 170384-85,
March 9, 2007)

Name of Decree:
o Date of Effectivity.
PASEI VS. TORRES, ET AL G.R. No. 101279 August 6,
1992
Arco Metal Products vs. Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa
Arco Metal NAFLU 554 SCRA 111 (2008)
Declaration of Basic Policy
o Magallanes vs. Sun Yat Sen Elementary School 542 SCRA 79
(2008)
INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION
o ART. 4, LC. Construction in favor of labor
o Art. 1700. The relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They
are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good.
Therefore, such contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective
bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor
and similar subjects.
o Art. 1701. Neither capital nor labor shall act oppressively against the other, or impair
the interest or convenience of the public.
o Art. 1702. In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be
construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.
o CASES:
Acuna vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 159832, May 5, 2006
G and M Philippines, Inc. vs. Cuambot, G.R. No. 162308,
November 22, 2006
Navarro vs. Coca-cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. G.R. No.
162583, June 8, 2007
De Castro vs. Liberty Broadcasting Network Inc. G.R. No.
165153 September 23, 2008
Arco Metal Products Co., vs. Samahan ng mga Manggagaw
sa Acro Metal-NAFLU G.R. No. 170734, March 14, 2008
Applicability of Labor Code
LRTA vs. Venus G.R. No. 163782, March 24, 2006
Juco vs. NLRC 277 SCRA 528
Caberra vs. NLREC 198 SCRA 573
o Before 1987 Constitution:
NASECO vs. NLRC November 29, 1988
Paloma vs. PAL July 14, 2008

Management Rights
o Bisig Manggawa sa Tryco vs. NLRC October 15, 2008
o Aguanza vs. Asian Terminal Inc. G.R. No. 163505, August 14,
2009
o Endico vs. Quantum Foods Distribution Center G.R. No. 161615,
January 30, 2009
o Toyota Motors Phil. Corporation vs. NLRC October 19, 2007
o PT&T vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152057, September 29, 2003
o Dosch vs. NLRC, 123 SCRA 296 [1983]
o Mendoza vs. Rural Bank of Lucban, G.R. No. 155421, July 7, 2004
o Norkis Trading Co., vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 168159, August 19, 2005
o PLDT vs. Paquio, G.R. No. 152689, October 12, 2005
o Star Paper Corp., vs. Simbol, G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006
o Rivera vs. Solidbank, G.R. No. 163269, April 19, 2006
o Duldulao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164893, March 1, 2007



Book One
(Pre-Employment)

I. Recruitment and Placement of Workers:

Republic Act 8092 as amended by REPUBLIC ACT No. 10022
o Santiago vs. CF Sharp, G.R. No. 162419, July 10, 2007
o Jebsens Maritime Inc. vs. Undag, 622 SCRA 670

Illegal Recruitment
o RA. 8042
o Migrants Workers Law: Flourish Maritime Shipping vs. Almanzor
548 SCRA 712 (2008)
o People vs. Nogra, G.R. No. 170834, August 29, 2008
o People vs. Ganigan, G.R. No. 178304, August 20, 2008
o People vs. Jamilos G.R. No. 169076, January 23, 2007
o People vs. Zenchiro, G.R. No. 176733, August 11, 2008
o People vs. Comilla G.R. No. 171448 February 28, 2007
Placement of Workers
o Money claims: Pre-termination
o Old Ruling:
Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, August 25, 1999
(G.R. No. 127195)
o New Ruling:
Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. G.R. No. 167614,
March 24, 2009
o Interpretation under RA 10022
PERT/CPM Manpower Exponent vs. Armando A. Vinuy et.al,
September 5, 2012
Regulations of Recruitment and Placement Activities
(Article 25 to Art. 35)

II. Employment of Nonresident Aliens

Book Two
Human Resources Development

I. National Policies and Administrative Machinery for their Implementation
TESDA Law
II. Employment of Special Workers
Apprentices
o Century Canning Corporation vs. CA August 17, 2007
Learners
Handicapped Workers
o Bernardo vs. NLRC G.R. No. 122917, July 12 1999
o RA 7277 or the Magna Carta of Disabbled Persons

Book Three Conditions of
Employment (Art. 82- Art.
155)

I. Conditions of Employment: Coverage and Exclusion
Elements of employment relationship/ General Principles
Four-fold test:
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004
Encyclopedia Britanica vs. NLRC, 264 SCRA 4 [96]
Singer Sewing Machine vs. NLRC, 193 SCRA 271
Abante vs. Lamadrid Bearing & Parts, G.R. No. 159890, May 28,
2004
Phil. Global Communication vs. De Vera, 459 SCRA 260 [05]
Manila Golf Club vs. IAC, 237 SCRA 207
Consulta vs. CA, G.R. No. 145443, March 18, 2005
Insular Life vs. Basiao, 179 SCRA 459
Ramos vs. CA, 380 SCRA 467
Carungcong vs. Sunlife, 283 SCRA 319
Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., vs. Dr. Climaco, G.R. No. 146881,
February 15, 2007
Francisco vs. NLRC, 500 SCRA 690 [06]
ABS-CBN vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. 164156, Sept. 26, 2006
Big AA Manufacturer vs. Antonio, 484 SCRA 33 [2006]
Dumpit-Murillo vs. CA G.R. No. 164652 June 8, 2007
Traveno vs. Bobomgon Banawa Growers Multi. G.R. No. 164205
September 3, 2009
MERALCO vs. Benamira G.R. No. 145271, July 14, 2005
TAPE et.al vs. Servana G.R. No. 167648, January 28, 2008
Orozco vs. CA G.R. No. 155207, August 13, 2008
Gabriel vs. Bilon G.R. No. 146989, February 7, 2007
Calamba Medical Center Inc. vs. NLRC G.R. No. 176484,
November 25, 2005
Managerial Employee
oPenaranda vs. Banganga Plywood Corp. G.R. No. 159577 May 3,
2006
Confidential Employee
oStandard Chartered Bank Employees Union vs. Standard Bank,
et.al G.R. No. 161933, April 22, 2008
Field Personnel
oAuto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. vs. Bautista G.R. No. 156367,
May 16, 2005
oFar East Agricultural Supply Inc. vs. Lebatique et.al G.R. No.
162813, February 12, 2007