4B 2020-2021
Case Doctrines for Lab Rev
I. TITLE OF TOPIC
A. Conditions of Employment
1. INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA
EMPLOYEES' UNION (IBAAEU), petitioner, vs.
HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, Deputy Minister,
Ministry of Labor and INSULAR BANK OF
ASIA AND AMERICA, respondents.
● Doctrine 1. “Pursuant to Articles 82 and 94
of the Labor Code, it is clear that monthly
paid employees are not excluded from the
benefits of holiday pay.”
2. THE CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION v. HON. BLAS F. OPLE, in his
capacity as the Incumbent Secretary of
Labor, and THE CHARTERED BANK
Doctrine 1. When the law provides benefits for
"employees in all establishments and
undertakings, whether for profit or not" and lists
specifically the employees not entitled to those
benefits, the administrative agency
implementing that law cannot exclude certain
employees from its coverage simply because
they are paid by the month or because they are
already highly paid. The remedy lies in a clear
redrafting of the collective bargaining
agreement with a statement that monthly pay
already includes holiday pay or an amendment
of the law to that effect but not an
administrative rule or a policy instruction.
3. UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES
(UFE), petitioner,
vs.
BENIGNO VIVAR, JR., NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION and NESTLÉ
PHILIPPINES, INC. (formerly FILIPRO,
INC.), respondents.
Doctrine 1. “The law requires that the actual
hours of work in the field be reasonably
ascertained. The company has no way of
determining whether or not these sales
personnel, even if they report to the office
before 8:00 a.m. prior to field work and come
back at 4:30 p.m, really spend the hours in
between in actual field work.”
Doctrine 2. “The divisor to be used in
computing holiday pay shall be 251 days. The
holiday pay as above directed shall be computed
from October 23, 1984.”
4. BOIE-TAKEDA CHEMICALS, INC. v. HON.
DIONISIO DE LA SERNA
● Doctrine 1. Sales commissions are not
included in the computation of 13th month
pay.
5. PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS, INC. v. NLRC
and PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS EMPLOYEES
UNION-TUPAS
Doctrine 1. The salesmen's commissions,
comprising a pre-determined percent of the
selling price of the goods sold by each salesman,
were properly included in the term "basic

salary" for purposes of computing their 13th
month pay. A bonus is an amount granted and
paid ex gratia to the employee; its payment
constitutes an act of enlightened generosity and
self-interest on the part of the employer, rather
than as a demandable or enforceable
obligation.
Doctrine 2. A bonus is not a demandable and
enforceable obligation. It is so when it is made
part of the wage or salary or compensation. In
such a case the latter would be a fixed amount
and the former would be a contingent one
dependent upon the realization of profits.
Doctrine 3. Where the earnings and
remuneration are closely akin to fringe benefits,
overtime pay or profit-sharing payments, they
are properly excluded in computing the 13th
month pay.
6. SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC. v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (2ND
DIVISION) and SIME DARBY SALARIED
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (ALU-TUCP)
Doctrine 1. “ The right to fix the work
schedules of the employees rests principally on
their employer. In the instant case petitioner, as
the employer, cites as reason for the adjustment
the efficient conduct of its business operations
and its improved production. It rationalizes that
while the old work schedule included a 30-
minute paid lunch break, the employees could
be called upon to do jobs during that period as
they were on call. Even if denominated as lunch
break, this period could very well be considered
as working time because the factory employees
were required to work if necessary and were
paid accordingly for working. With the new
work schedule, the employees are now given a
one-hour lunch break without any interruption
from their employer. For a full one-hour
4B 2020-2021
Case Doctrines for Lab Rev
undisturbed lunch break, the employees can
freely and effectively use this hour not only for
eating but also for their rest and comfort which
are conducive to more efficiency and better
performance in their work. Since the employees
are no longer required to work during this one-
hour lunch break, there is no more need for
them to be compensated for this period. We
agree with the Labor Arbiter that the new work
schedule fully complies with the daily work
period of eight (8) hours without violating the
Labor Code. Besides, the new schedule applies
to all employees in the factory similarly situated
whether they are union members or not.”
7. INTERPHIL LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES
UNION-FFW, ENRICO GONZALES and MA.
THERESA
MONTEJO, Petitioners, v. INTERPHIL
LABORATORIES, INC., AND HONORABLE
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING, SECRETARY OF
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, Respondents.
Doctrine 1. It was established that the
employees adhered to the said work schedule
since 1988. The employees are deemed to have
waived the eight-hour schedule since they
followed, without any question or complaint,
the two-shift schedule while their CBA was still
in force and even prior thereto. The two-shift
schedule effectively changed the working hours
stipulated in the CBA.
.
8. Odango vs. NLRC and ANTECO
● Doctrine 1. “The basic rule in this
jurisdiction is no work, no pay. The right to
be paid for un-worked days is generally
limited to the ten legal holidays in a year.”

9. DONALD KWOK vs.
PHILIPPINE CARPET
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
Doctrine 1. “Those who belong to the upper
corporate echelons would have more privileges.
However, the Court cannot presume the
existence of such privileges or benefits. The
petitioner was burdened to prove not only the
existence of such benefits but also that he is
entitled to the same, especially considering that
such privileges are not inherent to the positions
occupied by the petitioner in the respondent
corporation.”
10. AUTOBUS TRANSPORT v. Bautista
Doctrine 1. "Employees engaged on task or
contract basis or paid on purely commission
basis are not automatically exempted from the
grant of service incentive leave, unless, they fall
under the classification of field personnel."
11. HONDA PHILS., INC., v. SAMAHAN NG
MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA HONDA
Doctrine 1. “For employees receiving regular
wage, we have interpreted "basic salary" to
mean, not the amount actually received by an
employee, but 1/12 of their standard monthly
wage multiplied by their length of service within
a given calendar year.”
4B 2020-2021
Case Doctrines for Lab Rev
12. CHARLITO PEÑARANDA v.BAGANGA
PLYWOOD CORPORATION and HUDSON
CHUA
Doctrine 1. Managerial employees and
members of the managerial staff are exempted
from the provisions of the Labor Code on labor
standards. Since petitioner belongs to this class
of employees, he is not entitled to overtime pay
and premium pay for working on rest days.
13. BISIG NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRYCO V.
NLRC
Doctrine 1. “The MOA on compressed
workweek scheme is enforceable and binding
against the petitioners. Where it is shown that
the person making the waiver did so voluntarily,
with full understanding of what he was doing,
and the consideration for the quitclaim is
credible and reasonable, the transaction must
be recognized as a valid and binding
undertaking. MOA clearly states that the
employee waives the payment of overtime pay
in exchange of a five-day workweek.”

14. Development Bank of the Philippines vs.
NLRC
Doctrine 1. “It is quite clear from the provisions
that a declaration of bankcruptcy or a judicial
liquidation must be present before the worker’s
preference may be enforced. Thus, Article 110 of
the Labor Code and its implementing rule
cannot be invoked by the respondents in this
case absent a formal declaration of bankruptcy
or a liquidation order.”
A preference applies only to claims which do not
attach to specific properties. A lien creates a
charge on a particular property. The right of first
preference as regards unpaid wages recognized
by Article 110 does not constitute a lien on the
property of the insolvent debtor in favor of
workers. It is but a preference of credit in their
favor, a preference in application. It is a method
adopted to determine and specify the order in
which credits should be paid in the final
distribution of the proceeds of the insolvent's
assets. It is a right to a first preference in the
discharge of the funds of the judgment debtor.
.
15. APEX MINING COMPANY, INC.,
petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and SINCLITICA CANDIDO,
respondents.
Doctrine 1. 'Househelper' is synonymous to the
term ‘Domestic servant' and shall refer to any
person, whether male or female, who renders
services in and about the employer's home and
which services are usually necessary or desirable
for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof,
and ministers exclusively to the personal
comfort and enjoyment of the employer's
family.
4B 2020-2021
Case Doctrines for Lab Rev
16. PAL EMPLOYEES SAVINGS AND LOAN
ASSOCIATION (PESALA) , petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
respondents.
Doctrine 1. While it is true that the
complainant received a salary rate which is
higher that the minimum provided by law, it
does not however follow that any additional
compensation due the complainant can be
offset by his salary in excess of the minimum,
especially in the absence of an express
agreement to that effect. To consider otherwise
would be in disregard of the rule of
nondiminution of benefits which are above the
minimum being extended to the employees.
Furthermore, such arrangement is likewise in
disregard of the manner required by the law on
how overtime compensation must be
determined
.
17. ROMEO LAGATIC vs NLRC
Doctrine 1. “Syllabus of the case or important
doctrine held by the SC.”
18. MERCIDAR FISHING CORPORATION v.
NLRC
Doctrine 1. “In the case of Union of Filipro
Employees (UFE) v. Vicar, this Court explained
the meaning of the phrase "whose actual hours
of work in the field cannot be determined with
reasonable certainty" in Art. 82 of the Labor
Code, as follows: Moreover, the requirement

that "actual hours of work in the field cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty" must be
read in conjunction with Rule IV, Book III of the
Implementing Rules which provides: Rule IV
Holidays with Pay Section 1. Coverage — This
rule shall apply to all employees except: . . .(e)
Field personnel and other employees whose
time and performance is unsupervised by the
employer . . . Contrary to the contention of the
petitioner, the Court finds that the
aforementioned rule did not add another
element to the Labor Code definition of field
personnel. The clause "whose time and
performance is unsupervised by the employer"
did not amplify but merely interpreted and
expounded the clause "whose actual hours of
work in the field cannot be determined with
reasonable certainty." The former clause is still
within the scope and purview of Article 82 which
defines field personnel. Hence, in deciding
whether or not an employee's actual working
hours in the field can be determined with
reasonable certainty, query must be made as to
whether or not such employee's time and
performance is constantly supervised by the
employer”
. 2244 of the Civil Code, the claim has no
19. INTERPHIL LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES
UNION- FFW, ENRICO GONZALES and MA.
THERESA MONTEJO, petitioners, vs.
INTERPHIL LABORATORIES, INC., and
HONORABLE LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING,
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT,
respondents.
Doctrine 1. Where the employees assented by
practice to an arrangement of a continuous 24-
hour, two-shift work daily schedule in spite of
the eight-hour schedule provided for in their
CBA, they cannot now be heard to claim that the
overtime boycott is justified because they were
not obliged to work beyond eight hours.
4B 2020-2021
Case Doctrines for Lab Rev
Doctrine 2. An “overtime boycott” or “work
slowdown” by the employees constitutes a
violation of the CBA which prohibits the union or
employee, during the existence of the CBA, to
stage a strike or engage in slowdown or
interruption of work.
20. ABUNDIO BARAYOGA and BISUDECO-
PHILSUCOR CORFARM WORKERS UNION
(PACIWU CHAP-TPC), v. ASSET
PRIVATIZATION TRUST
Doctrine 1. The liabilities of the previous owner
to its employees are not enforceable against the
buyer or transferee, unless (1) the latter
unequivocally assumes them; or (2) the sale or
transfer was made in bad faith.
Doctrine 2. The worker’s preference under
Article 110 of the Labor Code is an ordinary
preferred credit. While this provision raises the
worker’s money claim to first priority in the
order of preference established under Article
preference over special preferred credits.
.
21. ARCO METAL PRODUCTS, CO., INC., and
MRS. SALVADOR UY v. SAMAHAN NG MGA
MANGGAGAWA SA ARCO METAL-NAFLU
(SAMARM-NAFLU)
● Doctrine 1. “The principle of non-
diminution of benefits is founded on the
Constitutional mandate to “protect the
rights of workers and promote their
welfare,” and “to afford labor full
protection.” Said mandate in turn is the
basis of Article 4 of the Labor Code which
states that “all doubts in the

implementation and interpretation of this
Code, including its implementing rules and
regulations shall be rendered in favor of
labor.”
22. SHS PERFORATED MATERIALS, INC.,
WINFRIED HARTMANNSHENN, and HINRICH
JOHANN SCHUMACHER v. MANUEL F. DIAZ
Doctrine 1. “Absent a showing that the
withholding of complainant’s wages falls under
the exceptions provided in Article 113, the
withholding is thus unlawful.”
Doctrine 2. “Even granting that the
withholding of respondent’s salary, would not
constitute an unlawful act, the continued refusal
to release his salary after the payroll period was
clearly unlawful. The petitioners claim that they
prepared the check ready for pick-up cannot
undo the unlawful withholding.”
. from the exceptions specifically provided under
23. Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca-Cola
Bottlers Philippines, Inc., Cebu Plant
Doctrine 1. Management Prerogative
24. PHILIPPINE SPRING WATER RESOURCES
INC. /DANILO Y. LUA , Petitioners, v. COURT
OF APPEALS AND JUVENSTEIN B. MAHILUM,
Respondent.
Doctrine 1. ‘’Probationary employment shall
not exceed six (6) months from the date the
employee started working, unless it is covered
4B 2020-2021
Case Doctrines for Lab Rev
by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a
longer period. The services of an employee who
has been engaged on a probationary basis may
be terminated for a just cause or when he fails
to qualify as a regular employee in accordance
with reasonable standards made known by the
employer to the employee at the time of his
engagement. An employee who is allowed to
work after a probationary period shall be
considered a regular employee.’’
.
25. ARIEL L. DAVID, doing business under
the name and style "YIELS HOG DEALER,"
Petitioner, vs. JOHN G. MACASIO,
Respondent.
Doctrine 1. “In determining whether workers
engaged on "pakyaw" or task basis" is entitled
to holiday and SIL pay, the presence (or
absence) of employer supervision as regards the
worker’s time and performance is the key: if the
worker is simply engaged on pakyaw or task
basis, then the general rule is that he is entitled
to a holiday pay and SIL pay unless exempted
Article 94 (holiday pay) and Article95 (SIL pay)
of the Labor Code. However, if the worker
engaged on pakyaw or task basis also falls
within the meaning of "field personnel" under
the law, then he is not entitled to these
monetary benefits.”