Serapio abug was charged with illegal recruitment. His defense was that he was only recruiting one person. The Court upheld for the validity of the reduction of working hours.
Serapio abug was charged with illegal recruitment. His defense was that he was only recruiting one person. The Court upheld for the validity of the reduction of working hours.
Serapio abug was charged with illegal recruitment. His defense was that he was only recruiting one person. The Court upheld for the validity of the reduction of working hours.
Serapio abug was charged with illegal recruitment. His defense was that he was only recruiting one person. The Court upheld for the validity of the reduction of working hours.
FAST FACTS: SerapioAbug was charged with illegal recruitment. His defense was that the informationsfiled against him did not constitute an offense because in each of the four informations filed againsthim, each denote that he was only recruiting one person whereas the statute requires two or morepersons
ISSUE: Determination of the proper interpretationof Art 13(b) of PD 442/ Labor Code:
b) Recruitment and placement' refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,transporting, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
HELD: The specification of two or more persons is not to create a condition prior to filing but rather itstates a presumption that the individual is engaged in recruitment in consideration of a fee, however thenumber of persons is not an essential ingredient to the act of recruitment or placement, and it will stillqualify even if only one person has been involved.
Linton Commercial vs. Hellera et. al [G.R. No. 163147. Oct. 10, 2007]
Facts: Claiming financial losses, Linton implemented a compressed workweek by reducing from six to three the number of working days with the employees working on a rotation basis.
Issue: Was there an illegal reduction of work hours?
Held: In Philippine Graphic Arts, Inc. v. NLRC, the Court upheld for the validity of the reduction of working hours, taking into consideration the following: the arrangement was temporary, it was a more humane solution instead of a retrenchment of personnel, there was notice and consultations with the workers and supervisors, a consensus were reached on how to deal with deteriorating economic conditions and it was sufficiently proven that the company was suffering from losses.
The Bureau of Working Conditions of the DOLE released a bulletin which states that a reduction of the number of regular working days is valid where the arrangement is resorted to by the employer to prevent serious losses due to causes beyond his control, such as when there is a substantial slump in the demand for his goods or services or when there is lack of raw materials.
Although the bulletin stands more as a set of directory guidelines than a binding set of implementing rules, it has one main consideration, consistent with the ruling in Philippine Graphic Arts Inc., in determining the validity of reduction of working hours that the company was suffering from losses. A close examination of petitioners financial reports showed that while Linton suffered from losses for that year, there remained enough earnings to sufficiently sustain its operations.
Financial losses must be shown before a company can validly opt to reduce the work hours of its employees. However, to date, no definite guidelines have yet been set to determine whether the alleged losses are sufficient to justify the reduction of work hours.
If the standards set in determining the justifiability of financial losses in retrenchment (Art 283) or suspension of work (Art 286) were to be considered, Arco would fail to meet the standards. On the one hand, Article 286 applies only when there is a bona fide suspension of the employers operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months; but in this case, Linton continued its business operations during the effectivity of the compressed workweek, which was more than 6 months.
On the other hand, for retrenchment to be justified, any claim of actual or potential business losses must satisfy the following standards: (1) the losses incurred are substantial and not de minimis; (2) the losses are actual or reasonably imminent; (3) retrenchment is reasonably necessary and is likely tobe effective in preventing expected losses; and (4) the alleged losses, if already incurred, or the expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled, are proven by sufficient and convincing evidence. Linton failed to comply with these standards.
Life is the sum of experiences that we encounter as we go through life. Day to day struggles and triumphs are experienced by all of the world's creatures. As human beings, when we encounter a challenge, we have freedom to choose how to react. Every decision that we make leads us down a different road. We will never come to exactly the same crossroads. Every decision the we make has significance. The tiniest choice that we make reverberates throughout the entire universe.