1. The issues in the case of Lagatic vs.

NLRC:
a) Whether or not NLRC gravely abused its discretion in affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter in dismissing
Lagatic's complaint on illegal dismissal
b) Whether or not Lagatic is entitled to amounts illegally deducted from his commissions, unpaid overtime, rest
day and holiday premiums, to moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees and cost.
Rulings of the Supreme Court:
a) No. Lagatic was legally dismissed. To constitute a valid dismissal , there are two requisites, 1) the employee must
be afforded due process, and 2) the dismissal must be for a valid cause. With regards to due process, Lagatic was
notified with the charges against him wherein he replied with admission then he was informed by the employer's
decision to dismiss him and lastly, he was given notice of his termination. He contends that he has not been given
the benefit of an effective hearing but the Supreme Court accorded that ample opportunity to be heard does not
necessarily need an actual hearing to be conducted. In Bernardo vs NLRC, there is no necessity for a formal hearing
where an employee admits responsibility for an alleged misconduct. In the case at bar, his admission was in his
submitted letter-reply to the charge. An employer may make reasonable rules and regulations for the government
of their employees and when employees, with knowledge of an established rule, enter service, the rule becomes a
part of the contract. He was found guilty of willful disobedience wherein an employee's assailed conduct must
have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and the
order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties
which have been engaged to discharge. The company policy of Cityland requiring cold calls and the concomitant
reports therein is clearly reasonable and lawful, sufficiently known to Lagatic and in connection with the duties he
had been engaged to discharge, of which he did not comply with, thus, a valid cause for dismissal. 
b)No. There is no law which requires employers to pay commissions and when they do so as stated in the letter of
the Department of Labor and Employment,the determination of the amount is the result of collective bargaining
negotiations, individual employment contracts or established employer practice. The allegation that the benefits
received by Lagatic diminishes whenever there is wage increase has no merits, in fact, commissions are not meant
to be a fixed amount. With his claims for overtime pay, rest day pay and holiday premiums, Cityland maintains that
Saturday and Sunday call-ins were voluntary activities for those who wanted to realize more sales and earn more
commissions. His practice of offsetting rest day or holiday with work equivalent time to regular workdays is a
misapplication of Department order 21, series of 1990 which involves the shortening of the workweek from six
days to five days but with prolonged hours on those five days. Non-payment of overtime premiums was allowed in
exchange for longer weekends of employees but his workweek was never compressed. Moreover, Lagatic also lack
sufficient evidence to the number of days and hours rendered overtime and rest day work, which must be
established by proof. And with the finding that the dismissal was for a just and valid cause, his claims for moral and
exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, must fail.
 
2. In the case of Lagatic vs NLRC, Lagatic filed a complaint against Cityland for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction,
underpayment, overtime and rest day pay, damages and attorney's fees to the Labor Arbiter who dismissed it for
lack of merit. He then filed an appeal to NLRC but affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Lastly, he filed
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Supreme Court for the reversal of NLRC's decision.
 
3. In the case of Borromeo vs. CBC, the facts that supported the Labor Arbiter's decision were; a) respondent
committed a serious infraction when he violated the bank's standard operating procedures and policies, as an
officer of the bank, when he approved the DAUD/BP accommodations in favor of Maniwan without authorization
by senior management b) he admitted his breach in the letters he wrote to the senior officers of the petitioner
bank and that he is ready to face the consequences c)respondent offered to assign or convey a property that he
owned to the petitioner bank and proposed the withholding of his benefits d)Borromeo resigned from the
petitioner bank  e)CBC's Code of ethics provides that restitution /forfeiture of benefits imposed on employees  who
violated standard operating procedures
 
4. In the case of Borromeo vs. CBC, the Labor Arbiter opted for the submission of the parties of position papers and
adduce thereto evidence and additional supporting documents which will be evaluated to determine whether or
not a clarificatory hearing shall be conducted. The labor Arbiter issued another order submitting the case for
resolution upon finding that he could judiciously pass on the merits without the necessity of further hearing and
then promulgated the decision of dismissing the complaint.
 
5.  In the case of Borromeo vs. CBC, Borromeo filed with NLRC, Regional Arbitration Branch 10 in Cagayan de Oro
City, the complaint for payment of separation pay, mid-year bonus, profit share and damages against CBC. The
Labor Arbiter acted upon the complaint by dismissing it. He then appealed to the NLRC but ruled in favor of the
Labor Arbiter. He moved for a reconsideration in NLRC which was also denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari
with the Court of Appeals alleging that NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter.
The CA set aside the decision of the NLRC and ordered the case to be remanded to the Labor Arbiter for further
hearings. CBC then filed for a motion for reconsideration to the CA but the same was denied. CBC now filed before
the Supreme Court the petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the decision of CA.