CASE NO.

114

Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc, v. Sangilo-Itogon Workers’ Union in behalf of Bartolome Mayo, Bernardo
Aquino, et. al.,
G.R. No. 24189
August 30, 1968
Sanchez, J.

FACTS:

Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. had been dismissing from its employ members of respondent
Sañgilo-Itogon Workers' Union. 54 members of Sañgilo were already fired when Department of
Labor conciliators conferred with petitioner's representative to explore the possibility of their
reinstatement. Petitioner refused reinstatement, alleged that dismissal of the 54 was for cause.

Sensing that its members were being eased out of employment one by one, Sañgilo called a
strike, accompanied by picketing carried out at or near petitioner’s mine premises in Itogon. Work
was paralyzed. The strike lasted for 5 days.

Petitioner filed an injunction against some strikers in the Court of First Instance of Baguio.
Petitioner's officials conferred with the officers of the other labor union in the company, the Itogon
Labor Union. They hammered out an agreement whereby all strikers were given fifteen (15) days
from said date to return to work. Thru a public address system, strikers were then urged to go back
to their jobs.

CIR ruled that petitioner was guilty of unfair labor practice in dismissing its employees and
thus ordered reinstatement and with full back wages.

ISSUE:
Whether the court should nullify individual respondents’ has the right to reinstatement and
backpay upon the ground that they are guilty of laches.

HELD:

For the doctrine of stale demand to apply, four essential requisites must be present, viz: "(1)
conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of
which complaint is made and for which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the
complainant's rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct
and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the
part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and (4)
injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is
not held barred.

It is true that CIR declared Sañgilo and its members who did not come to court and testify
guilty of laches. But as to the 15 individual respondents, the question of laches was passed by — sub
silentio. Clearly implicit in this is that CIR is of the opinion that laches is not a bar to reinstatement
and recovery of back wages for these 15 individual respondents who actually testified in court.
Indeed, these fifteen respondents showed sufficient interest in their case. They went to court and
supported their cause by their own testimony. Delay in the filing of suit should not hamper their suit.
CASE NO. 115

Mercury Drug Co., Inc. and Mariano Que v. Court of Industrial Relations and Nardo Dayao
G.R. No. L-23357
April 30, 1974
Makasiar, J.

FACTS:
Private respondent Nardo Dayao was employed by the petitioners originally as driver, later
assigned as delivery man, then as checker and was last promted to the position of assistant chief
checker in the checking department with the salary of P225.00 a month until his separation on April
10, 1961.

Days before April 10, 1961, Dayao in vain urged herein petitioners to pay them overtime pay,
criticized their employees' association for failing to protect the welfare of the employees by not
securing such additional compensation for overtime, and campaigned among his co-employees to
organize another labor union. Hearing of Dayao's union activities, petitioner Mariano Que called for
Dayao on April 10, 1961, told him to resign and persuaded him to accept the amount of P562.50 as
termination pay and to sign a clearance stating to the effect that he has no claims whatsoever of any
kind and nature against herein petitioners.

On April 25, 1963, exactly two years and fifteen days from his separation on April 10, 1961,
Dayao filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against herein petitioners for dismissing him
because of his having campaigned among his co-employees to become members of a new labor
union that he was then organizing.

ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondent Dayao is entitled to payment of back wages.

HELD:

It should be noted that private respondent Dayao filed his ULP charge with reinstatement
and back wages about two years and fifteen days after his separation on April 10, 1961. As
aforestated, the shortest prescriptive period for the filing of all other actions for which the statute of
limitations does not fix a period, is four years. The period of delay in instituting this ULP charge with
claim for reinstatement and back wages, although within the prescriptive period, should be
deducted from the liability of the employer to him for back wages. In order that the employee
however should be relieved from proving his income during the period he was out of the service and
the employer from submitting counter-proofs, which may delay the execution of the decision, the
employer in the case at bar should be directed to pay private respondent Dayao back wages
equivalent to one year, eleven months, and fifteen days without further disqualifications.

In fairness to the employer, he should not be compelled to reinstate an employee who is no longer
physically fit for the job from which he was illegally ousted.
CASE NO. 116

Pine City Educational Center and Eugenio Baltao v. The National Labor Relations Commission
(Third Division) et., al.
G.R. No. 96779
November 10, 1993
Nocon, J.

FACTS:
Private respondents were all employed as teachers on probationary basis by petitioner Pines
City educational Center, represented in this proceedings by its President, Eugenio Baltao. With the
exception of Jane Bentrez who was hired as a grade school teacher, the remaining private
respondents were hired as college instructors. All the private respondents, except Picart and Chan,
signed contracts of employment with petitioner for a fixed duration. On march 31, 1989, due to te
expiration of private respondents’ contracts and their poor performance as teachers, they were
notified of petitioners’ decision not to renew their contracts anymore.

Private respondents filed a complaint before the Labor Artiber, alleging th8at their
dismissals were without cause and in violation of due process. LA rendered in favor of private
respondents. NLRC affirmed the decision of Labor Arbiter. Hence, the appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondents Picart and Chan, who were illegally dismissed, were
entitled to payment of backwages.

HELD:
Yes. Private respondents Picart and Chan were entitled to payment of backwages. However,
in the computation of the backwages, the total amount derived from employment elsewhere by the
employee from the date of dismissal up to the date of reinstatement, if any, should be deducted
therefrom.

The order for their reinstatement and payment of full backwages and other benefits and
privileges from the time they were dismissed up to their actual reinstatement was proper,
conformably with Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 34 of Republic Act No. 6715,
14 which took effect on March 21, 1989. It should be noted that private respondents Roland Picart
and Lucia Chan were dismissed illegally on March 31, 1989, or after the effectivity of said
amendatory law.
CASE NO. 117

Osmalik S. Bustamante, Paulino A. Bantayan, Fernando Bustamante, Mario Sumonod, and Sabu
Lamaran v. National Labor Relations Commission, Fifth Division, and Evergreen Farms, Inc.
G.R. No. 111651
November 28, 1996
Padilla, J.

FACTS:
Petitioners were hired for the same job on various periods – broken employment or services
were not continuous – but the services rendered when added together comprise over a year of
service in total. Respondent company and petitioner signed a 6-month contract but petitioners were
fired earlier than what was stipulated in the contract on the grounds of poor performance due to old
age.

Petitioner filed a complaint before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) in Davao City.

NLRC ruled in favor of petitioner.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners are entitled to backwages after a finding by the NLRC itself that
they had become regular employees after serving for more than one (1) year of broken or non-
continuous service as probationary employees.

HELD:
Yes. Article 280 of the Labor Code which draws a line between regular and casual
employment states that: “The regular employees consist of the following: 1) those engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer; and 2) those who have rendered at least one year of service whether such service is
continuous or broken.”

In the case at bar, petitioners were employed at various periods from 1985 to 1989 for the
same kind of work they were hired to perform in September 1989. Some of the petitioners were
hired as far back as 1985, although the hiring was not continuous. They were hired and re-hired in a
span of from two to four years to do the same type of work which conclusively shows the necessity
of petitioners' service to the respondent company's business.

There is no valid cause for dismissal. The employees (petitioners) have not performed any
act to warrant termination of their employment. Consequently, petitioners are entitled to their full
backwages and other benefits from the time their compensation was withheld from them up to the
time of their actual reinstatement.
CASE NO. 118

Session Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. The Hon. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division), Hon.
National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division) and Adonis Armenio Flora
G.R. No. 172149
February 8, 2010
Brion, J.

FACTS:
Private respondent Adonis Flora filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Session
Delights, which was ruled favourably by the Labor Arbiter. The decision ordered Session Delights to
pay Flora back wages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, indemnity and attorney’s fees. Upon
appeal, NLRC also ruled in favour of complainant. CA decision affirmed but deleted the proportional
13th month pay and the award of indemnity for failure to observe due process. In the course of the
execution of the judgment, the Finance Analyst submitted an updated computation of the award
which included the proportionate amount of 13 th month pay. This was objected by Session, claiming
that this was not consistent with the decision but the same was denied by NLRC. The CA, however,
partially granted the petition by deleting the awarded proportionate 13 th month pay.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the updated computation was proper.

HELD:
Yes. Under the terms of the decision under execution, no essential change is made by a re-
computation as this step is a necessary consequence that flows from the nature of the illegality of
dismissal declared in that decision. A re-computation (or an original computation, if no previous
computation has been made) is a part of the law – specifically, Article 279 of the Labor Code and the
established jurisprudence on this provision – that is read into the decision. By the nature of an illegal
dismissal case, the reliefs continue to add on until full satisfaction, as expressed under Article 279 of
the Labor Code. The re-computation of the consequences of illegal dismissal upon execution of the
decision does not constitute an alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented.
The illegal dismissal ruling stands; only the computation of monetary consequences of this dismissal
is affected and this is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments.
CASE NO. 119

Dario Nacar v. Gallery Frames and / or Felipe Bordey, Jr.

G.R. NO. 189871
August 13, 2013
Peralta, J.

FACTS:
Dario Nacar filed a labor case against Gallery Frames and its owner Felipe Bordey, Jr. Nacar
alleged that he was dismissed without cause by Gallery Frames on January 24, 1997. On October 15,
1998, the Labor Arbiter (LA) found Gallery Frames guilty of illegal dismissal hence the Arbiter
awarded Nacar P158,919.92 in damages consisting of backwages and separation pay.
Gallery Frames appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (SC). The Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the Labor Arbiter and the decision became final on May 27, 2002. After the finality of the
SC decision, Nacar filed a motion before the LA for recomputation as he alleged that his backwages
should be computed from the time of his illegal dismissal (January 24, 1997) until the finality of the
SC decision (May 27, 2002) with interest. The LA denied the motion as he ruled that the reckoning
point of the computation should only be from the time Nacar was illegally dismissed (January 24,
1997) until the decision of the LA (October 15, 1998). The LA reasoned that the said date should be
the reckoning point because Nacar did not appeal hence as to him, that decision became final and
executory

ISSUE:
Whether or not a re-computation in the course of execution of the labor arbiter's original
computation of the awards made is legally proper.

HELD:
Yes. Supreme Court believes that the amount of 471,320.31 as damages is correct.
According to Article 279 of the Labor Code, reliefs in case of illegal dismissal continue to add up until
its full satisfaction. The original computation clearly includes damages only up to the finality of the
Labor Arbiter’s decision. Therefore, the Supreme Court approves the decision confirming that a re-
computation is necessary. The LA re-computed the award to include the separation pay and the back
wages due up to the finality of the decision that fully terminated the case on the merits.