LABOR CASE DOCTRINES
ATTY. MERCADER
ARTICLE XIII, SEC 3, 1987 CONSTITUTION
MERALCO V QUISUMBING
 Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.
 Under this constitutional mandate, every legal power of the
Secretary of Labor under the Labor Code, or, for that matter,
any act of the Executive, that is attended by grave abuse of
discretion is subject to review by this Court in an appropriate
proceeding.
 To be sure, the existence of an executive power alone—
whether granted by statute or by the Constitution—cannot
exempt the executive action from judicial oversight,
interference or reversal when grave abuse of discretion is, or
is alleged to be, present.
 This is particularly true when constitutional norms are cited
as the applicable yardsticks since this Court is the final
interpreter of the meaning and intent of the Constitution.
DUE PROCESS
ABBOT LABORATORIES V ALCARAZ
 A different procedure is applied when terminating a
probationary employee: the usual two-notice rule does not
govern.
 Section 2, Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the
Labor Code states that:
o if the termination is brought about by the x x x failure of
an employee to meet the standards of the employer in
case of probationary employment, it shall be sufficient
that a written notice is served the employee, within a
reasonable time from the effective date of
termination;
 As the records show, Alcaraz’s dismissal was effected
through a letter dated May 19, 2005 which she received on
May 23, 2005 and again on May 27, 2005. Stated therein
were the reasons for her termination, i.e., that after proper
evaluation, Abbott determined that she failed to meet the
reasonable standards for her regularization considering her
lack of time and people management and decision-making
skills, which are necessary in the performance of her
functions as Regulatory Affairs Manager
JAKA FOOD PROCESSING CORPORATION V. PACOT, ET AL.
 The dismissal is legal, but employer should pay nominal
damages for non-compliance with the notice requirement.
 The difference between Agabon and the instant case is that
in the former, the dismissal was based on a just cause under
Article 282 of the Labor Code while in the present case,
respondents were dismissed due to retrenchment, which is
one of the authorized causes under Article 283 of the same
Code.
o A dismissal for just cause under Article 282 implies that
the employee concerned has committed, or is guilty of,
some violation against the employer. Thus, it can be said
that the employee himself initiated the dismissal
process.
o A dismissal for an authorized cause under Article 283
does not necessarily imply delinquency or culpability on
the part of the employee. Instead, the dismissal process
is initiated by the employer’s exercise of his
management prerogative.
 Accordingly, it is wise to hold that:
o (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article
282 but the employer failed to comply with the notice
requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon him
should be tempered because the dismissal process was,
in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee;
and
o (2) if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under
Article 283 but the employer failed to comply with the
notice requirement, the sanction should
be stiffer because the dismissal process was initiated
by the employer’s exercise of his management
prerogative.
 The clear-cut distinction between a dismissal for just cause
under Article 282 and a dismissal for authorized cause under
Article 283 is further reinforced by the fact that in:
o For just cause, payment of separation pay, as a rule,
is not required,
o For authorized cause, the law requires payment of
separation pay.
ALTEZA, ERYN KATE M.
2H
 “The rule, therefore, is that in all cases of business closure or
cessation of operation or undertaking of the employer, the
affected employee is entitled to separation pay. This is
consistent with the state policy of treating labor as a primary
social economic force, affording full protection to its rights as
well as its welfare. The exception is when the closure of
business or cessation of operations is due to serious business
losses or financial reverses; duly proved, in which case, the
right of affected employees to separation pay is lost for
obvious reasons. xxx”
EQUAL PROTECTION
DUNCAN ASSOCIATION V GLAXO WELLCOME
 It is a settled principle that the commands of the equal
protection clause are addressed only to the state or
those acting under color of its authority.
 Corollarily, it has been held in a long array of U.S.
Supreme Court decisions that the equal protection
clause erects no shield against merely private conduct,
however, discriminatory or wrongful.
 In any event, from the wordings of the contractual
provision and the policy in its employee handbook, it is
clear that Glaxo does not impose an absolute
prohibition against relationships between its employees
and those of competitor companies.
 Its employees are free to cultivate relationships with
and marry persons of their own choosing. What the
company merely seeks to avoid is a conflict of interest
between the employee and the company that may
arise out of such relationships.
YRASEGUI V PAL
 Petitioner invokes the equal protection clause guaranty
of the Constitution. However, in the absence of
governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by
the Constitution cannot be invoked.
 Put differently, the Bill of Rights is not meant to be
invoked against acts of private individuals. Indeed, the
United States Supreme Court, in interpreting the
Fourteenth Amendment, which is the source of our
equal protection guarantee, is consistent in saying that
the equal protection erects no shield against private
conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful. Private
actions, no matter how egregious, cannot violate the
equal protection guarantee.
 The weigh standards of PAL show its effort to comply
with the exacting obligations imposed upon it by law by
virtue of being a common carrier.
 The primary objective of PAL in the imposition of the
weight stands for cabin crew is flight safety. The cabin
attendants must have necessary strength to open
emergency doors, the agility to attend to passengers in
cramped working conditions and the stamina to
withstand grueling flight schedules.
 An overweight cabin attendant occupies more space
than a slim one, there is a possibility that they may
impede passengers from evacuating the aircraft and
being overweight impedes mobility.
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
MANUEL V NC CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY