Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Facts:: Case 47
Facts:: Case 47
CASE 48
CASE 49
CASE 50
CASE 51
GR 148372
Facts:
Herein is a petition for certiorari on the decision of the NLRC which affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter in
holding herein petitioner Clarion Printing House guilty of illegal dismissal against complainant Miclat. Petitioner
alongside with its sister company EYCO Group of companies filed for receivership and liquidation of the company due to
financial constraints and other problems. Herein complainant Michelle Miclat was employed as a probationary marketing
assistant by Clarion. Due to said problems, a retrenchment occurred and Miclat was one of those who were terminated in
relation thereof.
Miclat contended that she did not receive any notice of said termination and accorded due process apart from a
phone call from the manager which is likewise without reason of termination and also to find out that the effectivity of
which is the day after the call. Petitioners averred that they could not be faulted for the retrenchment of some employees
for they are under receivership and notice thereof was given to all rank-and-file employees via memorandum. The labor
arbiter found in favor of complainant duly affirmed by the NLRC in which the CA sustained the resolutions of the NLRC
hence this petition.
Issue:
Whether or notthe dismissal of herein complainant Miclat was illegal considering the fact that she is presumed to
have acquired the status of a regular employee since at the time she was terminated it was also the end of her
probationary contract and without compliance to the rules governing probationary employment, after the
expiration of which, said employee is deemed a regular employee hence termination requires a just cause to be
legal.
Ruling:
No, the Courtheld that the termination of Miclat is legal since at the time she was hired she was not informed of
the standards that would qualify her to be a regular employee. The Court stated that the law requires the employer to
make known to the probationary the standards under their policy to entitle the employee regularization. The petitioner
however failed to duly notify Miclat of the retrenchment which requires at least 1 month notice thereof. Miclat then is
entitled to separation pay, 13th month pay and nominal damages for non-compliance of due process.
CASE 52
Marcopper Mining Corp. vs. NLRC,
GR L-51254
Facts:
Petitioner Marcopper Mining Corp entered into an agreement with its employees to grant mid-year
and year-end bonuses when the operation is profitable. In relation to this, petitioner contend that they
should be exempt from the payment of 13 th month pay in accordance to PD 851. The regional director
ruled in favor of the corporation but was reversed by the Deputy Minister of Labor on appeal holding now
that petitioner is obliged to pay both the agreed bonuses and the 13th month pay.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is exempt from paying the 13 th month pay pursuant to PD 851
considering the fact that it already undertook to pay mid-year and year-end bonuses to their
employees.
Ruling:
No, the Court held that petitioner is still obliged to pay the 13 th month pay aside from the bonuses
alleged. The Court rationalized that the bonuses is a contractual obligation and the 13 th month pay is that
of law. Moreover, in the agreement, the petitioner undertook to grant said bonuses to the employees
depending on the profitability of the operation hence the only question left to determine therefrom is the
amount of bonus to be given. If however there was no profit, then they are not obliged to pay said
bonuses. The 13th month pay is mandatory to those employees receiving salaries below P1000 and the
bonus are to those in the rank-and-file of the company. The Court further held that the law included a
proviso on non-diminution of existing benefits accorded the employees for if otherwise, it would defeat the
very intent of the law in providing for means of compensation and cope with the problems arising in the
economy.
CASE 53
Facts:
Herein is a petition for prohibition praying to annul the decision of the labor arbiter Ethelwoldo
Ovejera in declaring illegal the strike of the National Federation of Sugar Workers at the Central Azucarera
de la Carlota and to restrain the implementation thereof. NFSW, having based their action through the
Marcopper decision, renewed its demand of 13 th month pay from the CAC under PD 851 in addition to
Christmas, milling and amelioration bonuses being enjoyed by the employees. The CAC refused and the
labor arbiter declared the strike conducted by the NFSW illegal and did not pronounce any decision as to
their demands prompting the latter to file said petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the NFSW members are entitled to 13 th month pay in addition to Christmas, milling
and amelioration bonuses, the aggregate of which far exceeds the 13th month pay prayed for.
Ruling:
No, the Court held that the law aims to grant relief to workers who were not receiving such kind of
benefit from their employees. The said law did not intend to provide yet another burden or double the
burden unto the employers who are already paying their employees their due 13 th month pay. The fact
that there is actual payment of said bonus or benefit regardless of the source of its performance such as
pure generosity, compliance to law or the agreement between the parties, it is sufficient in the purview of
the law.
CASE 54
Kamaya Point Hotel vs. NLRC,
GR 75289
August 31, 1989
Facts:
Kamaya Point Hotel suffered losses and had to close its operations sometime in 1984. The hotel
wasnt able to recuperate from the undertaking it went into when it ceased operations in order to
transform its premises into a training center for Libyan scholars which they terminated occupation therein
few months after. The employees of the Hotel, due to the retrenchment and subsequent closing of the
establishment, filed a complaint for illegal suspension, violation of the CBA and non-payment of 14 th
month pay, a bonus given by the hotel depending on the profitability of the business before the Libyans
occupied their premises. The labor arbiter granted the complaint and ordered herein petitioner to pay the
claims and on appeal, the NLRC set aside the other money claims but sustained the 14 th month pay. The
petitioner now comes to this court for redress.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent employees are entitled to 14 th month pay from the employer
considering that they were once given such benefit.
Ruling:
No, the Court held that there is no law mandating employers to provide for such benefit. The Court
further classified said 14th month pay as a gratuitous act on the part of the employer which as established
is dependent on the profitability of the hotel at that time. And since it is gratuitous in nature, the recipient
may not compel his giver to give the same and likewise, the law is not prepared to compel an employer,
who by its generosity gave their employees added bonus and compensation, to pay said bonus without
any law or agreement as basis thereof.
CASE 55
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company Employees Union vs. NLRC,
GR 102636
September 10, 1993
Facts:
Herein is a petition for certiorari on the decision of the NLRC which reversed the decision of the
Labor Arbiter ordering the petitioner bank to restore the wage difference of P900 enjoyed by herein
respondents over non-regular employees. The dispute arose from the implementation of petitioner bank
of the wage increase pursuant to RA 6727 mandating an increase of P25 per day for certain employees in
the private sector which as respondents alleged created a distortion that would subsequently require an
adjustment under the law in the wages of the private sectors various groups of employees.
The bank, in complying with the said law, provided for a P25 per day increase, or P750 a month, to
its probationary employees and to those who had been promoted to regular employees but are receiving
less than P100. The bank however did not increase the regular employees who are receiving more than
P100 a day and the recipients of the P900 CBA increase.
Issue:
Whether or not the implementation by the bank of the wage increase pursuant to RA 6727 created
a wage distortion among its employees.
Ruling:
Yes, the Court held that as observed by the members of the NLRC there is a wage distortion
created although the extent of the distortion is questioned as to warrant the adoption of correction
measures required by law. The Court stated that the intention of the agreeing parties are to be taken into
consideration as well in consonance to the mandate of the law which is for the promotion of labor and that
all doubts as regards the same are to be resolved in favor of labor.