Professional Documents
Culture Documents
311 Labor Standards Case Digest
311 Labor Standards Case Digest
ISSUE:
FACTS: Whether or not the respondents have shown a
Respondent-spouses Oscar and Evangeline clear legal right to enjoin the foreclosure and
Martinez obtained loans from petitioner public auction of the third-party mortgagors
Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. in the aggregate amount property while the case for annulment of REM
of P 4,048,800.00. As security for the said on said property is being tried.
amount, a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) was HELD:
executed over a condominium unit in San
Miguel Court, Valle Verde 5, Pasig City, Metro NO. The Supreme Court held that the
Manila where the spouses are residing. respondent spouses have not shown a clear
legal right to enjoin the foreclosure. According
Respondent-spouses defaulted in the payment to the SC:
of their outstanding loan obligation, they offered
to settle their indebtedness with the assignment 1. It is not sufficient for the respondents to
to the Bank of a commercial lot of simply harp on the serious damage they
corresponding value and also requested for stand to suffer if the foreclosure sale is
not stayed. They must establish such
recomputation at a lower interest rate and
clear and unmistakable right to the
condonation of penalties. The respondents injunction. Injunction is not a remedy to
failed to submit the required documents such as protect or enforce contingent, abstract,
certificates of title and tax declarations so that or future rights; it will not issue to
the bank can evaluate his proposal to pay the protect a right not in esse and which
mortgage debt via dacion en pago. The may never arise, or to restrain an action
petitioner initiated the extrajudicial foreclosure which did not give rise to a cause of
of the real estate mortgage.
action. There must be an existence of to sign the documents and demanded to be paid
an actual right. their benefits and separation pay. Labor Arbiter
2. Respondents failed to show that they ruled in favour of Petitioner. NLRC affirmed. CA
have a right to be protected and that ruled in favour of Solid Mills.
the acts against which the writ is to be
directed are violative of the said right. ISSUE:
On the face of their clear admission that
WON Solid Mills Inc, can withhold the
they were unable to settle their
payment of vacation and sick leave benefits, 13
obligations which were secured by the
month pay and separation pay.
mortgage, petitioner has a clear right to
foreclose the mortgage. Foreclosure is HELD:
but a necessary consequence of non-
payment of a mortgage indebtedness. Our law supports the employers’
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. institution of clearance procedures before the
The Decision dated October 29, 2004 of release of wages. As an exception to the general
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. rule that wages may not be withheld and
77703 is hereby REVERSED and SET benefits may not be diminished, the Labor Code
ASIDE. Respondents application for a writ provides:
of preliminary injunction is DENIED.
Art. 113. Wage deduction. No employer, in his
own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall
EMER MILAN, RANDY MASANGKAY, WILFREDO make any deduction from the wages of his
JAVIER, RONALDO DAVID, BONIFACIO employees, except.
MATUNDAN, NORA MENDOZA, ET AL., 1. In cases where the worker is insured with his
Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS consent by the employer, and the deduction is
COMMISSION, SOLID MILLS, INC., AND/OR PHILIP to recompense the employer for the amount
ANG, Respondents. paid by him as premium on the insurance
2. For union dues, in cases where the right of
FACTS: the worker or his union to check-off has been
recognized by the employer or authorized in
Petitioners are employees of Solid Mills,
writing by the individual worker concerned; and
Inc. Petitioners were allowed by Solid Mills, Inc.
3. In cases where the employer is authorized by
to occupy a property owned by the latter known
law or regulations issued by the Secretary of
as the SMI Village. This was granted by the
Labor and Employment. (Emphasis supplied)
respondents to the petitioners out of liberality
and for convenience of the latter. Solid Mills
The Civil Code provides that the employer is
experience a serious financial losses to which
authorized to withhold wages for debts due:
had force its operation to ceased. The
petitioners then were required to sign a Article 1706. Withholding of the wages, except
memorandum of agreement with release and for a debt due, shall not be made by the
quitclaim before their vacation and sick leave employer.d
benefits, 13th month pay, and separation pay
would be released. Employees who signed the “Debt” in this case refers to any obligation due
memorandum of agreement were considered to from the employee to the employer. It includes
have agreed to vacate SMI Village, and to the any accountability that the employee may have
demolition of the constructed houses inside as to the employer. There is no reason to limit its
condition for the release of their termination scope to uniforms and equipment, as petitioners
benefits and separation pay. Petitioners refused would argue. Petitioners do not categorically
deny respondent Solid Mills’ ownership of the ruled that respondents were not illegally
property, and they do not claim superior right to dismissed.
it. What can be gathered from the findings of
the Labor Arbiter, National Labor Relations The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter, finding
Commission, and the Court of Appeals is that that respondents’ separation from Zytron was
respondent Solid Mills allowed the use of its brought about by the execution of the contract
property for the benefit of petitioners as its between Fonterra and A.C. Sicat where the
employees. Petitioners were merely allowed to parties agreed to absorb Zytron’s personnel,
possess and use it out of respondent Solid Mills’ including respondents.
liberality. The employer may, therefore,
demand the property at will. The NLRC decision was assailed in a petition
under Rule 65 before the CA.
G.R. No. 205300, March 18, 2015
CA held that respondents were illegally
FONTERRA BRANDS PHILS., dismissed since Fonterra itself failed to prove
1
INC., Petitioner, v. LEONARDO LARGADO AND that their dismissal is lawful. However, the illegal
TEOTIMO ESTRELLADO, Respondents. dismissal should be reckoned from the
termination of their supposed employment with
Facts: Zytron on June 6, 2006. Furthermore,
respondents’ transfer to A.C. Sicat is tantamount
Petitioner Fonterra Brands Phils., Inc. (Fonterra) to a completely new engagement by another
contracted the services of Zytron Marketing and employer. Lastly, the termination of their
Promotions Corp. (Zytron) for the marketing and contract with A.C. Sicat arose from the
promotion of its milk and dairy products. expiration of their respective contracts with the
Pursuant to the contract, Zytron provided latter. The CA, thus, ruled that Fonterra is liable
Fonterra with trade merchandising to respondents and ordered the reinstatement
representatives (TMRs), including respondents of respondents without loss of seniority rights,
Leonardo Largado (Largado) and with full backwages, and other benefits from the
TeotimoEstrellado (Estrellado). time of their illegal dismissal up to the time of
their actual reinstatement.
Fonterra sent Zytron a letter terminating its
promotions contract. Fonterra then entered into Zytron and Fonterra moved for reconsideration,
an agreement for manpower supply with A.C. but to no avail. Hence, this petition.
Sicat Marketing and Promotional Services (A.C.
Sicat). Desirous of continuing their work as Issue:whether or not respondents were illegally
TMRs, respondents submitted their job dismissed. (By zytron and A.C. Sicat)
applications with A.C. Sicat, which hired them
for a term of five (5) months. Held: No.
When respondents’ 5-month contracts with A.C. We do not agree with the CA that respondents’
Sicat were about to expire, they allegedly sought employment with Zytron was illegally
renewal thereof, but were allegedly refused. terminated.
This prompted respondents to file complaints
for illegal dismissal against petitioner, Zytron,
As correctly held by the Labor Arbiter and the
and A.C. Sicat.
NLRC, the termination of respondents’
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and employment with Zytron was brought about by
the cessation of their contracts with the latter.
We give credence to the Labor Arbiter’s latter, applying with A.C. Sicat, and working as
conclusion that respondents were the ones who the latter’s employees, thereby abandoning
refused to renew their contracts with Zytron, their previous employment with Zytron. Too, it is
and the NLRC’s finding that they themselves well to mention that for obvious reasons,
acquiesced to their transfer to A.C. Sicat. resignation is inconsistent with illegal dismissal.
This being the case, Zytron cannot be said to
By refusing to renew their contracts with Zytron, have illegally dismissed respondents, contrary to
respondents effectively resigned from the latter. the findings of the CA.
Resignation is the voluntary act of employees
who are compelled by personal reasons to whether the termination of respondents’
dissociate themselves from their employment, employment with A.C. Sicat is valid?
done with the intention of relinquishing an We agree with the findings of the CA that the
office, accompanied by the act of abandonment. termination of respondents’ employment with
the latter was simply brought about by the
Here, it is obvious that respondents were no expiration of their employment contracts.
longer interested in continuing their
employment with Zytron. Their voluntary refusal Foremost, respondents were fixed-term
to renew their contracts was brought about by employees. As previously held by this Court,
their desire to continue their assignment in fixed-term employment contracts are not
Fonterra which could not happen in view of the limited, as they are under the present Labor
conclusion of Zytron’s contract with Fonterra. Code, to those by nature seasonal or for specific
Hence, to be able to continue with their projects with predetermined dates of
assignment, they applied for work with A.C. Sicat completion; they also include those to which the
with the hope that they will be able to continue parties by free choice have assigned a specific
rendering services as TMRs at Fonterra since date of termination.11 The determining factor of
A.C. Sicat is Fonterra’s new manpower supplier. such contracts is not the duty of the employee
This fact is even acknowledged by the CA in the but the day certain agreed upon by the parties
assailed Decision where it recognized the reason for the commencement and termination of the
why respondents applied for work at A.C. Sicat. employment relationship.
The CA stated that “[t]o continuously work as
merchandisers of Fonterra products, In the case at bar, it is clear that respondents
[respondents] submitted their job applications were employed by A.C. Sicat as project
to A.C. Sicat xxx.” This is further bolstered by the employees. In their employment contract with
fact that respondents voluntarily complied with the latter, it is clearly stated that “[A.C. Sicat is]
the requirements for them to claim their temporarily employing [respondents] as TMR[s]
corresponding monetary benefits in relation to effective June 6[, 2006] under the following
the cessation of their employment contract with terms and conditions: The need for your service
Zytron. being only for a specific project, your temporary
employment will be for the duration only of said
In short, respondents voluntarily terminated project of our client, namely to promote
their employment with Zytron by refusing to FONTERRA BRANDS products xxx which is
renew their employment contracts with the
expected to be finished on or before Nov. 06, was justified. The LA finds Quiñanola was
2006.” illegally dismissed and orders Philippine Japan
Active Carbon Corporation and/or Tokuichi
Satofuka to reinstate her with backwages and
Respondents, by accepting the conditions of the
damages.
contract with A.C. Sicat, were well aware of and
even acceded to the condition that their Upon appeal to the NLRC, the
Commission approved the Labor Arbiter's
employment thereat will end on said pre-
decision.
determined date of termination. They cannot
now argue that they were illegally dismissed by
the latter when it refused to renew their ISSUE
contracts after its expiration. This is so since the Was there a constructive dismissal?
non-renewal of their contracts by A.C. Sicat is a
management prerogative, and failure of
respondents to prove that such was done in bad HELD
faith militates against their contention that they The Supreme Court rules that there was
were illegally dismissed. The expiration of their NO constructive dismissal.
contract with A.C. Sicat simply caused the A constructive discharge is defined as: "A
natural cessation of their fixed-term quitting because continued employment is
employment there at. rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely;
as, an offer involving a demotion in rank and a
diminution in pay." (Alia vs. Salani Una
PHIL. JAPAN ACTIVE CARBON CORP. and Transportation Co., January 29, 1971)
SATOFUKA v. NLRC and QUIÑANOLA In this case, Quiñanola's assignment as
G.R. No. 83239, 08 March 1989, FIRST DIVISION Production Secretary of the Production
(Griño-Aquino, J.) Department was not unreasonable as it did not
involve a demotion in rank (her rank was still
that of a department secretary) nor a change in
FACTS her place of work (the office is in the same
building), nor a diminution in pay, benefits, and
Olga S. Quiñanola employed as Assistant
privileges. It did not constitute a constructive
Secretary/Export Coordinator, was promoted to
dismissal.
the position of Executive Secretary to the
Executive Vice President and General Manager. It is the employer's prerogative, based
For no apparent reason at all and without prior on its assessment and perception of its
notice to her, she was transferred to the employees' qualifications, aptitudes, and
Production Department as Production Secretary. competence, to move them around in the
Although the transfer did not amount to a various areas of its business operations in order
demotion because her salary and workload to "ascertain where they will function with
remained the same, she believed otherwise so maximum benefit to the company." When an
she rejected the assignment and filed a employee's transfer is not unreasonable, nor
complaint for illegal dismissal. inconvenient, nor prejudicial to him, and it does
not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution
The Labor Arbiter found that the
of his salaries, benefits, and other privileges, the
transfer would amount to constructive dismissal
employee may not complain that it amounts to a
("she was dismissed for unjustified causes")
constructive dismissal.
hence, her refusal to obey the transfer order
NLRC's decision is affirmed insofar as it Minterbro's inaction on what they allege
orders herein petitioners to reinstate Quiñanola, to be the unexplained abandonment by Del
but she shall be reinstated to her position as Monte of its obligations under the Contract for
Production Secretary of the Production the Use of Pier coupled with petitioners’ belated
Department without loss of seniority rights and action on the damaged condition of the pier
other privileges. caused the absence of available work for the
union members. As Minterbro was responsible
for the lack of work at the pier and,
MINTERBRO, INC. and/or DE CASTRO v. consequently, the layoff of the union members,
NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA MINTERBRO– it is liable for the separation from employment
SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES FEDERATION OF LABOR of the union members on a ground similar to
and/or ABELLANA, et al. retrenchment. This Court has ruled:
G.R. No. 174300, 05 December 2012, FIRST "A lay-off, used interchangeably with
DIVISION (Leonardo-De Castro, J.) "retrenchment," is a recognized
prerogative of management. It is an act
FACTS of the employer of dismissing
Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage employees because of losses in
Service, Inc. (Minterbro) is a domestic operation of a business, lack of work,
corporation managed by De Castro and engaged and considerable reduction on the
in the business of providing arrastre and volume of his business, a right
stevedoring services to its clientele at Port Area, consistently recognized and affirmed by
Sasa, Davao City. Del Monte is their exclusive this Court. The requisites of a valid
client. retrenchment are covered by Article 283
of the Labor Code."
Davao Pilots' Association, Inc. (DPAI)
informed Minterbro of its intention to refrain When a lay-off is temporary, the
from docking vessels at Minterbro’s pier for employment status of the employee is not
security and safety reasons until its docks are deemed terminated, but merely suspended.
repaired or rehabilitated. Minterbro decided to Article 286 of the Labor Code provides, in part,
rehabilitate the pier and on the same day, sent a that the bona fide suspension of the operation
letter to the Department of Labor and of the business or undertaking for a period not
Employment (DOLE) to inform DOLE of exceeding six months does not terminate
Minterbro’s intention to temporarily suspend employment.
arrastre and stevedoring operations. When Minterbro failed to make work
The Union composed of respondents available to the union members for a period of
Manuel Abellana, et al., employees of more than six months by failing to call the
Minterbro, filed a complaint for payment of attention of Del Monte on the latter’s
separation pay against Minterbro and De Castro. obligations under the Contract of Use of Pier
and to undertake a timely rehabilitation of the
ISSUE pier, they are deemed to have constructively
Whether or not the union members/employees dismissed the union members.
were deprived of gainful employment making
Minterbro liable for separation pay
HELD Begino et. al. Vs ABS-CBN Corporation and Amala
Villafuerte
The Supreme Court finds Minterbro
liable to its employees. FACTS:
Respondent ABS-CBN Corporation (ABS- to some degree of control, the same was
CBN) employed respondent Villafuerte as allegedly limited to the imposition of general
Manager. Thru Villafuerte, ABS-CBN engaged the guidelines on conduct and performance, simply
services of petitioners Begino and Del Valle as for the purpose of upholding the standards of
Cameramen/Editors for TV Broadcasting, the company and the strictures of the industry.
Petitioners Sumayao and Llorin were likewise
similarly engaged as reporters. Petitioners were ISSUE: Whether or not there exist an employer-
tasked with coverage of news items for employee relationship.
subsequent daily airings in respondents’ TV RULING:
Patrol Bicol Program.
Yes, there exist an employer-employee
Claiming that they were regular relationship.
employees of ABS-CBN, petitioners filed a
complaint against before the NLRC. In support of “ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment.—
their claims for regularization, underpayment of The provisions of written agreement to the
overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the
service incentive leave pay, damages and oral agreement of the parties, an employment
attorney's fees, petitioners alleged that they shall be deemed to be regular where the
performed functions necessary and desirable in employee has been engaged to perform
ABS-CBN's business. They averred that they activities which are usually necessary or
were repeatedly hired by respondents for desirable in the usual business or trade of the
ostensible fixed periods and this situation had employer, except where the employment has
hone on for years since TV Patrol Bicol has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking
continuously aired from 1996 onwards. the completion or termination of which has
been determined at the time of the engagement
Respondents argued that, although it of the employee or where the work or service to
occasionally engages in production and be performed is seasonal in nature and the
generates programs thru various means, the employment is for the duration of the season.”
company had allegedly resorted to engaging
independent contractors who offered their An employment shall be deemed to be
services in relation to a particular program, such casual if it is not covered by the preceding
independent contractors were required to paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who
accomplish Talent Information Forms to has rendered at least one year of service,
facilitate their engagement for and appearance whether such service is continuous or broken,
on designated project days. Respondents argued shall be considered a regular employee with
that the company cannot afford to provide respect to the activity in which he is employed
regular work for talents given the and his employment shall continue while such
unpredictability of viewer. actually exists.
NOTES:
Star Paper Corporation, Josephine Ongsitco &
• 4 kinds of employees contemplated in Sebastian Chua, Petitioners vs. Ronaldo D.
Art. 280 of the Labor Code: Simbol, Wilfreda N. Comia & Lorna A. Estrella,
Respondents
1. Regular employees or those who have
been engaged to perform activities which are Facts: Petitioner Corporation has a company
policy promulgated in 1995, viz.
usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer; 1. New applicants will not be allowed to be hired
if in case he/she has [a] relative, up to [the] 3rd
2. Project employees or those whose degree of relationship, already employed by the
employment has been fixed for a specific project company.
or undertaking, the completion or termination
2. In case of two of our employees (both singles
of which has been determined at the time of the
[sic], one male and another female) developed a
engagement of the employee; friendly relationship during the course of their
employment and then decided to get married,
3. Seasonal employees or those who work
one of them should resign to preserve the policy
or perform services which are seasonal in stated above.
nature, and the employment is for the duration
of the season; and Respondents herein were all regular employees
of the company. Simbol was employed by the
company. He met Alma Dayrit, also an employee
of the company, whom he married. On the other it creates a disproportionate effect and under
hand, Comia also married a co-employee, while the disparate impact theory, the only way it
Estrella had an affair with her co- employee. could pass judicial scrutiny is a showing that it is
reasonable despite the discriminatory, albeit
Respondents were all dismissed. disproportionate, effect.
Issue: Whether the policy of the employer Thus, for failure of petitioners to present
banning spouses from working in the same undisputed proof of a reasonable business
company violates the rights of the employee necessity, we rule that the questioned policy is
under the Constitution and the Labor Code or is an invalid exercise of management prerogative.
a valid exercise of management prerogative.